ITAC News.

[timo944]

One of the crucial issues for me, and one that I'd like to hear thoughts on, is how bound the ITAC should be by what was done previously.

Right now, we are looking at the Process and how to apply it going forward. One of the key principles of the "old" ITAC -- and one I firmly agree with -- was that we wanted to create a mechanism that "future" ITACs would objectively use to class cars.

Do most of the folks here agree wth that? That the process should essentially be made "rule of law" that can't be changed? Or is it just a tool that "future" ITACs can use/discard/modify?

Note the value of consistency here. One of the big problems we have is reconciling the fact that many of the cars in the ITCS had their weights set via the old "curb weight" formula, and a smaller number via the Process. That creates inequities and inconsistencies that are pointed out to us on a REGULAR basis.

It would seem to me that continuing to modify or alter the weight classification formula is generally a bad idea, as it undercuts consistency, objectivity and repeatability.

Jeff - as an infrequent but interested passer by in this forum I agree with you, but there does need to be a methodology, when good reasons exist, for an "out." That is hard to put in writing. The weight issue was (IMHO) well handled. They took the time and made adjustments on a limited basis, based on good data, to level the playing field somewhat. This benefitted some, me included, making it more fun to race ITS. I don't get my doors blown off as bad as I used to.

As for the motor mounts issue I am really disappointed in the CRB. There is nothing lost in approving the change and it seems to me it is consistent with IT philosophy. It is also consistent with the theme of "affordable" (ROTFL) racing.

[GKR_17]

It would seem to me that continuing to modify or alter the weight classification formula is generally a bad idea, as it undercuts consistency, objectivity and repeatability.

I'd go even further to say that public support has grown over the years, reaching a high about a year and a couple months ago, and I felt V2 was able to meet the members toughest critics and their loftiest goals.

It took me a while to accept the process (the great realignment felt like a massive comp adjustment). But I soon saw the advantage of a relatively consistent approach, anyone could figure the weight of any potential car and match the ITAC to 50 pounds or so. It was a major mistake not to apply it all cars at one time.

V2 was a major problem though. The intent was good, but it just opened the door for regular 'upgrades'.

[JeffYoung]

That was my problem with v2 as well. It seemed too ambitious and you never felt like the additions of modifiers for this, or that were going to stop.

But we got sense and they did, once we got FWD and torque squared away.

[Knestis]

That was my problem with v2 as well. It seemed too ambitious and you never felt like the additions of modifiers for this, or that were going to stop.

But we got sense and they did, once we got FWD and torque squared away.

I'm invested so take this for what it's worth, but I don't think it's a fair characterization to describe v.2 that way. Can you think of ANY factor that was under consideration that subsequently didn't get applied? We talked about lots of different possible ways to address torque, for example, but we never piled on with new factors. And some fell off the "old" list very early in that evolution.

And once Jake got it recorded (RIP v.2, right before the blow up), it was done. We didn't have any outstanding questions to be resolved, did we?

K

EDIT - And I'm not entirely sure what "opened the door for more upgrades" means but one practice that we (I think) codified was limited review (e.g., putting a "born on" date in the ITCS when a spec was set to the process, so it wouldn't get done over, and over, and over).

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, no worries. Here were my (personal) concerns about where V2 was going. We had a discussion once about how we would both like NO subjective adders/subtractors, since that was the cleanest way to do this:

1. The "suspension" modifier got changed. I think at one point there was a deduct for struts, etc., and "beam axle" deduction for a beam on FWD cars was dropped.

2. We had a tranny modifier at one time, essentially for the 1:1 ratios in the BMWs.

3. We had a basically "I know it when I see it" brake adder/subtractor that spooked me.

4. The use of Lapsim to try to quantify the FWD deduct REALLY spooked me, and we ended up going from a straight 50/100/150 lb deduct to a percentage. Cars have been classed both ways.

5. We tried all sorts of formulations of torque, and I like how we ended up - only cars WAY outside the norm (like mine) get a modifier.

6. The default power multipliers. It at one time was way more complicated. 25% for most, 15% for Porsches, 35% for rotaries, 35% for inline sixes (that one always mystified me), 30% for 16v cars in ITB, etc.

But the biggest problem for me was that for a time I sensed no end to the tweaking of the process, and that (implicit) thought that we could come up with something that balanced all cars on the head of a pin. I'm glad we didn't go that far, and I too felt very comfortable with V2 as it was, essentially, finalized before the Great Exodus.

What concerns me though is we never (a) locked V2 down as a rule (and there was still ongoing debate over things like when we used the 25% default and when we didn't) and --- this one was critical to me -- (b) we published V2 to membership.

I still see the Process as being in jeopardy, and not yet "static," which I don't like. More change and instability to it will just cause (in my view) more issues.

[lateapex911]

Kirk, no worries. Here were my (personal) concerns about where V2 was going. We had a discussion once about how we would both like NO subjective adders/subtractors, since that was the cleanest way to do this:

1. The "suspension" modifier got changed. I think at one point there was a deduct for struts, etc., and "beam axle" deduction for a beam on FWD cars was dropped.

There always has been a deduct for struts. And the beam axle thing did get droped, but I don't think it was applied often ayway. I THINK there are few legacy cars with it, although there is one significnt one.

2. We had a tranny modifier at one time, essentially for the 1:1 ratios in the BMWs.


3. We had a basically "I know it when I see it" brake adder/subtractor that spooked me.

That's what I liked about V2, it put down in writing what subjective things like that were, and when they could be utilized. Before, we had teh infamous 'negotiation" of some Honda where one guy would debate the power and another would "give" 25 for brakes. Wrong, even if the weight that resulted was a good one, we could never reproduce the same result without resorting to notes and memory. Very bad.

4. The use of Lapsim to try to quantify the FWD deduct REALLY spooked me, and we ended up going from a straight 50/100/150 lb deduct to a percentage. Cars have been classed both ways.

Wait a minute...the lap sim thing was used to confirm out subjective feelings about the basic amounts each class gets for FWD. The percentage was based on a median car and that basic amount. So, a lighter car gets less off, and a heavier car gets more, but it's directly proportional to the mean car. That's a awesome refinement, with no drawbacks. yes older cars may have been slightly different, but the differences are in the 15 or 30 pound range, for most of the more significant cases. no biggie, just more consistent and proper. And for the median cars, : NO difference.

5. We tried all sorts of formulations of torque, and I like how we ended up - only cars WAY outside the norm (like mine) get a modifier.

Again, a much better guide was created to know WHEN it was to be used.

6. The default power multipliers. It at one time was way more complicated. 25% for most, 15% for Porsches, 35% for rotaries, 35% for inline sixes (that one always mystified me), 30% for 16v cars in ITB, etc.

Actually, V2 made things simpler, AND it freed up the ITAC to go outside the box when it needed to with the confidence vote on non standard multipliers. BUT, it couldn't go outside the box on a whim, or a negotiation. That's GOOD.

But the biggest problem for me was that for a time I sensed no end to the tweaking of the process, and that (implicit) thought that we could come up with something that balanced all cars on the head of a pin. I'm glad we didn't go that far, and I too felt very comfortable with V2 as it was, essentially, finalized before the Great Exodus.

My wish list for the V2 had little to do with balancing cars on the head of a pin, and everything to do with rational methods, repeatable methods and a protocol that I could explain to anybody. No having to answer why some guy added weight "because I KNOW it needs it, and I scream louder and talk over EVERYbody".

What concerns me though is we never (a) locked V2 down as a rule (and there was still ongoing debate over things like when we used the 25% default and when we didn't) and --- this one was critical to me -- (b) we published V2 to membership.

I still see the Process as being in jeopardy, and not yet "static," which I don't like. More change and instability to it will just cause (in my view) more issues.

Hey, we tried, but, well, you know, the PTB didn't like the goals, clearly.

[Andy Bettencourt]

There always has been a deduct for struts.

There has NEVER been a deduct for struts in the core IT classes. ONLY an adder for DW's. Why can't anyone remember this stuff but me?

My wish list for the V2 had little to do with balancing cars on the head of a pin, and everything to do with rational methods, repeatable methods and a protocol that I could explain to anybody. No having to answer why some guy added weight "because I KNOW it needs it, and I scream louder and talk over EVERYbody".



Hey, we tried, but, well, you know, the PTB didn't like the goals, clearly.

V.2 was simply the clarification of the Process so it could be written down on paper, defined and shown to anyone who wanted to see it (especially any new ITAC or CRB members). Charaterizing as a whole 'nother version is also a major disservice to it. We tweaked a couple things that made sense while were were writing it down.

[JeffYoung]

The above is 100% the reason why we need to write the process down, make it a rule and publish it.

We have 3 guys who were intimately involved in this from close to day one, and one (me) who caught the tail end, and we all have slightly different recollections of what happened.

I do agree that v1 and v2 at their core were/are the same. stock hp/expected IT gain/class multiplier. I agree saying v2 was a fundamental change is wrong, especially how it ended up.

But there was a period of time there where I (personally) was very concerned we were going way, way too far with the number and complexity of the modifiers.

and that Lapsim shit (gutcheck or otherwise) drove me crazy! The program had a box to check for "FWD" that no one could explain what it did....no offense Jake..lol

Others may disagree.

All in all, v2 (or really v1.1) was something we all pretty much agreed on, and in my view should be (broken record here) written down, made a rule and PUBLISHED so we can't dick with it anymore.

[tom91ita]

Absolutely, but it can't just apply to cars classed going forward. The same process (there can be differences among classes to the process itself) should be used for all cars.

It still ceases to amaze me that we as a club are okay with using a tool only for future cars and potentially new members but give the shaft to existing members / customers. Really, it's a stupid business decision at best.

agreed. if i am asking for my car to be re-evaluated with "the process" then i can't bitch when it is applied to others.

[lateapex911]

There has NEVER been a deduct for struts in the core IT classes. ONLY an adder for DW's. Why can't anyone remember this stuff but me?



V.2 was simply the clarification of the Process so it could be written down on paper, defined and shown to anyone who wanted to see it (especially any new ITAC or CRB members). Charaterizing as a whole 'nother version is also a major disservice to it. We tweaked a couple things that made sense while were were writing it down.

LOL, yup, right...see!? I should have checked my notes. WHICH is, as Jeff points out WHY it's SO important to write a manual and use it.

At least I got most of the other stuff.

[seckerich]

Just curious what is stopping those who are no longer on the ITAC from publishing it right here after they bounce it around and make sure it was what was agreed on and presented to the CRB. If it is no longer used why not??

[Knestis]

... What concerns me though is we never (a) locked V2 down as a rule (and there was still ongoing debate over things like when we used the 25% default and when we didn't) and --- this one was critical to me -- (b) we published V2 to membership.

I still see the Process as being in jeopardy, and not yet "static," which I don't like. More change and instability to it will just cause (in my view) more issues.

It's all ancient history now and nobody - save a half-dozen people on this site - give a crap, but remember that there was a set of procedures that we codified, that wrapped around the Process math. We KNEW what the system was, if someone believed that there was evidence that deserved consideration for a non-standard (other than 25%) power factor.

So far as I can tell, none of that has survived. Of couse, it's all super-secret now and frankly, to me the process is effectively in hospice care - if not already dead.

I'm convinced at this point that if Peter K decides a car should weigh 3000 pounds, it will weigh 3000 pounds.

K

[Knestis]

Just curious what is stopping those who are no longer on the ITAC from publishing it right here after they bounce it around and make sure it was what was agreed on and presented to the CRB. If it is no longer used why not??

I deleted my copy after suggesting I should share it, then being asked not to, shortly after my resignation.

K

[lateapex911]

I could have SWORN it made it out ...but maybe that was V1. I should have it in my files. It would be interesting to get the racers take on it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just curious what is stopping those who are no longer on the ITAC from publishing it right here

1. Because I am sure they still use it for new classifications
2. Respect for the ITAC and CRB

If they want it published, they can/will publish it.

[gran racing]

It would hold them too accountable for them to publish whatever process is being used.

[Knestis]

Dave's right on. They COULD publish it but the culture hasn't changed so there's exactly ZERO chance of that happening now. We've gone backward 5 years or more in fact, in terms of openness but again, pretty much nobody knows one way or the other. And of those to do know, most don't care.

K

[rsportvolvo]

I wanted to publicly thank Josh Sirota for taking the time to discuss my letters via email and phone calls. He and other ITAC members are working to uncuff themselves from some current regulations that will help clean up issues within IT. I hope this all works out in the coming months.

As for the Process, etc. it appears that only ITAC members, mostly former, have the full story on how the cars are run through the Process, whatever it is. I recommend instead of alluding to this or that adder just post V1, V2 or whatever version we're currently on just post the Process. As with any model there are fudge factors, er coefficients, so it will never be a supremely precise model.

Then again knowledge is power, so those folks lose some clout if all is aired. How about it insiders? Care to share?

[seckerich]

1. Because I am sure they still use it for new classifications
2. Respect for the ITAC and CRB

If they want it published, they can/will publish it.

Congratulations, you are now part of the problem you fought against. Good luck on the CRB if you get appointed.

[JeffYoung]

I am 100% in favor of publishing (and I think Kirk and I were in a minority on that point as late as summer of last year). I'll put in the agenda for the next call.

We are not yet to the point where weights are set by a single CRB member, but it is true that a lot of the procedural aspects of making weight decisions using the process seem to have been abandoned, which is not good in my view. Moreover, in my opinion, it is not clear to me that the existing ITAC believes an objective, repeatable, transparent process without wiggle room is the way to go. It will be discussed in July. Jake is correct we've gotten a lot of member input mostly in favor of the process, and if you continue to support its use, now's the time to write in on it (again).