ITB - what a bunch of crap

[lateapex911]

Quick history lesson-

1- '84 - 97 (?) or so....CRB set IT weights.

2- '96 -98 (?) (About) Ad hoc committees are created to help CRB research, CRB still sets weights.

3- Ad hoc committees get names, and added responsibility. CRB now guides them, they do the heavy lifting.

4- ITAC creates the "process" and part formula, part subjective adder method of determining weights in an effort to equalize years of inconsistency. In the past, if a version of a car was in B, the new version would go to A. I was told that, in the early days, all car that were untested went to the top class to "see how she'll do" before being put where they belonged. I'm unsure about the veracity of that, but it gives you an idea of where we were.

5- "Process and Great Realignment" proposal goes to the BoD via the CRB. This is a MAJOR philisophical shift, and the BoD was NOT keen to permit it. All the higher ups were of teh belief that the IT category was a "Set and forget" category, where no weight adjustment was allowed, and moving cars was the solution, rarely to be exercised. The fact that it went through was earth shaking, and it did so on the foundation that weights would "Rarely" be adjusted. THAT"S why the Great Realignement list" was limited to the cars that were on it....because NOTHING would have happened if the scope of the concept was greater.

6- Today-

Many cars that are in the ITCS have been run through the process. new listings have too. many cars though, have not. (See above list of old Saabs, etc for an idea). Last count has over 300 cars in the ITCS, I think. many are oddball cars, with sketchy information available.

Current ITAC standards are:
Requests for cars to be adjusted come in, and the math is done. If the process number varies by 100 or more, the car gets relisted at process weight. If not, it is left as is.

End of history lesson.


First and foremost, those of you who want the world to be perfect, well, life sucks, and it's going to take a while to get there. The FIRST thing that needs to happen is that you guys write in and convince the ITAC that the 100 pound "window" is unacceptable. (The 100 pound window results in nearly 200 pounds of potential delta) THAT is a major reason that you see the oddities that you see. Yea, we know the Bassackwards V3 is the same car as the Assender 2000, but the old listings are within 100 pounds so they stay as is.

The second issue is one of time and resources. Information on lots of the obscure cars in the ITCS is very hard to come by, comes from dubious sources, or is inconsistant. And then there's the inconsistancies of the numbers themselves to be concerned with, as DIN, SAE, etc aren't the same from year to year, and the type of rating is often unlisted. So sources can be tricky. It takes time to sort thru it all. And there are a LOT of cases like that. And many of the cars that we're talking about have never been seen by anyone in recent years, so the question becomes, why waste all the time and resources for, essentially, nothing.

In a perfect world, every car would be researched, the truths about that car would be gleaned, and the numbers would be run, and it would all make sense.

But, in reality, that might not be the best use of our limited resources.


I suggest that the best approach is the market driven approach.

1- We do away with the silly window of adjustment. We get a request, we do the numbers, it gets published. Simple, no rejection because it's "close enough".

2- We let the public tell us where the problems are. If there's a guy racing a Saab 3 cylinder who thinks he's getting the shaft, them he writes and we look at the car. Or vice versa. If theres a guy getting his ass whipped by a Saab 3 cylinder, because the ITAC (or the CRB in '85, actually) failed to account for certain factors, HE writes in and we look at it.

But, no matter what, right now, there isn't a large enough majority on the ITAC that thinks the 100 pound window is unaccptabe. The ITAC members who defend it do so thinking that's what right for the members. It's up to you, as members, to convince them otherwise.

Write in, ask that it be removed, or tell us to institute a "1 percent window", or something, and tell us to trust the process and list the cars at the numbers the process spits out.

Until that happens, it's a logjam.

[shwah]

My letter(s) have been sent. I don't see much value in beating the horse from one member, but the rest of you reading this should think about where you stand, and let the ITAC know whether you want status quo and 100# tolerance (200# window) of an already imperfect process, or eliminate this extra noise and limit the potential miss to the accuracy of the process, and class them where the process drops them.

[Greg Amy]

First and foremost, those of you who want the world to be perfect, well, life sucks, and it's going to take a while to get there.

I know you're kidding, Jake, but just to be clear: no one is asking for perfection. The VAST majority of the dissenters are asking for best-faith effort to make all vehicles (certainly at least the ones currently in use!) classified as close to their formulated nominal weight as possible.

It's a real simple request.

...But, no matter what, right now, there isn't a large enough majority on the ITAC that thinks the 100 pound window is [unacceptable]...

And THAT is not a best-faith effort. Why would something like this even be up for debate?? It's inconceivable to me - and, no doubt, the vast majority of the people reading this right now - that someone, anyone, could outright believe that "within 100 pounds" is "acceptable"!!!

Why? Give me a good reason. Hell, give me a BAD reason...!!!

I can think of only three reasons why someone would not want to adjust a vehicle within 5 pounds:

1) They don't believe in the process, and for whatever reason they believe they, themselves, know what's better for the category than everyone else (The Marie-Antoinette syndrome);

2) Laziness. They don't want to take the time or be "bothered" with such trivial activity;

3) They recognize that they may have a significant advantage in their own competition, and re-adjusting cars may remove that.


If none of these, then what?

This is not rocket science, dudes!! And, frankly, if you're not willing to do this, then I do not have enough faith in you to be a member of a committee that directly affects my discretionary income, as well as that of my racing peers.

Apologies for being blunt, but "get it done, or get outta there".

I suggest that the best approach is the market driven approach.

Agreed. It's reasonable, it's "do-able", and it makes sense.

OK, so here's the funny part: so we write a letter to the CRB. First thing the CRB's gonna do is toss it to the ITAC. Who's going to meet on it. Then vote it down (as in, if you ain't got the votes now, you're screwed).

Here's how to "fix" this, and I'm willing to bet a dollar to a donut it ain't gonna happen: "out" the members of the ITAC that are against this ideal. Sending letters to the ITAC isn't gonna get the ITAC to change its mind, but consistent, logical pressure on the resistors, in person, at the track, will.

Or, if that makes you nervous, tell us here (like we can't infer it from the posts in this topic ) if you're "for" it, so we can guess who's against it.

C'mon, do it: tell us who you are.

The rebellion grows...

[Ed Funk]

^ what he said!! Shit or get off the pot! Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way!

This is a CLUB not a effin dictatorship! Be a man and come out of the damn dark and tell us how you vote.

The above is directed at the ITAC

[ekim952522000]

I agree with Greg

On a related note how about a website that list all the cars in IT with their current weights and the math of how they got to them in the process, or it can say if they have not been ran thru it yet?

That way members would have a place to see how the weight was came to, and would have the ability to check and make sure it was fair compared to other cars? I would be willing to do this if the information would be provided to me?

[Ed Funk]

Josh Sirota, CA
Kirk Knestis, WV
Marshall Lytle, VA
Andy Bettencourt, MA
George Roffe, TX
Jake Gulick, CT
Lee Graser, TN
Les Chaney, NC
Bob Clark, WI

there are the names of the ITAC, how about each of you guys weigh in, soon, tells us how you vote and why. If you can't "man-up" to your beliefs, then maybe you should step down.

See sig!

[Ed Funk]

OK, there's a vote by Josh to "process" the whole bunch.

Josh Sirota, CA votes for
Kirk Knestis, WV
Marshall Lytle, VA
Andy Bettencourt, MA
George Roffe, TX
Jake Gulick, CT
Lee Graser, TN
Les Chaney, NC
Bob Clark, WI

[1stGenBoy]

Josh Sirota, CA
Kirk Knestis, WV
Marshall Lytle, VA
Andy Bettencourt, MA
George Roffe, TX
Jake Gulick, CT
Lee Graser, TN
Les Chaney, NC
Bob Clark, WI

there are the names of the ITAC, how about each of you guys weigh in, soon, tells us how you vote and why. If you can't "man-up" to your beliefs, then maybe you should step down.

See sig!

I'm against it at this point but IF someone supplies all the "VTS" sheets and factory shop manuals that the GCR requires for all the cars that there are none for I, will change my thinking and we can run the process for all those cars and see where they line up. As was pointed out earlier there are way to many cars that we have limited information on. Many of these were classed long before any of us were involved.
I'm quite comfortable with the 100lb issue as are others on the ITAC.
Just remember we ADVISE and do not make the rules. That is the CRB's job. Yes, they take our imput and usally go along with our line of thinking. One example of when they did not was the BMW restrictor. The ITAC was against it but the CRB went ahead with it.
As was pointed out before we, are volunteers with day jobs and race also. Not everyone can be and expert on every make and model car. The ITAC has a very good mix of people that each know a lot about certain car makes and have a good general knowledge also. The committee is very evenly balanced out in this respect.
Another point to think about is that I have personally asked several people that post here if they would be interested in taking over for me when I step down. Not one has said they would. Just my 2 cents worth and I'm sure I'll regret even posting this. I gave up on posting awhile ago after getting flamed way too many times... Will see what happens here......

Bob Clark
SCCA IT Advisorary Committee

[seckerich]

I'm against it at this point but IF someone supplies all the "VTS" sheets and factory shop manuals that the GCR requires for all the cars that there are none for I, will change my thinking and we can run the process for all those cars and see where they line up. As was pointed out earlier there are way to many cars that we have limited information on. Many of these were classed long before any of us were involved.
I'm quite comfortable with the 100lb issue as are others on the ITAC.
Just remember we ADVISE and do not make the rules. That is the CRB's job. Yes, they take our imput and usally go along with our line of thinking. One example of when they did not was the BMW restrictor. The ITAC was against it but the CRB went ahead with it.
As was pointed out before we, are volunteers with day jobs and race also. Not everyone can be and expert on every make and model car. The ITAC has a very good mix of people that each know a lot about certain car makes and have a good general knowledge also. The committee is very evenly balanced out in this respect.
Another point to think about is that I have personally asked several people that post here if they would be interested in taking over for me when I step down. Not one has said they would. Just my 2 cents worth and I'm sure I'll regret even posting this. I gave up on posting awhile ago after getting flamed way too many times... Will see what happens here......

Bob Clark
SCCA IT Advisorary Committee

I have found the same reality you have Bob with a thankless job in SCCA as Asst. RE and race chair. I got over the personal part and realized it makes no difference who is in the position, it comes with the terretory. I was one of the loudest and most vocal about the RX8 and the E36 in ITS. I can not argue that IT is better now than I can remember for the past 10 years. We forget how far we have come from the old attitude of "shut up and race, you should be glad we let you on track" to actually having a group working to make our racing fair.

That said it is reasonable to ask that we run the cars currently raced at the very least through the process. You have the adders and subs, as well as percent gain to use common sense to deal with the oddballs. Skip the #100 pound is close enough deal. If you wasted the time to run the car through the process than fix it. Round to the nearest 5 and be done with it. If the ITAC is confident of a 35% gain then so be it. If 10% or 15% was used great. If the CRB is the problem then we can go to the source and put pressure on them to allow it to happen.

Thanks for doing a thankless job to all on the ITAC.

[Catch22]

It would seem to me that certain ITAC members are urging us to write many many letters because certain other ITAC members are hiding behind the "The membership doesn't WANT us to change this." tree.

Honestly, there are likely a few people in the club that hold that position, but I'm guessing its a very small number and those folks currently enjoy an advantage under the current format (loose usage of that term).

So write letters requesting that All IT cars should be speced with a goal of getting within 5lbs of their process weight.

Simple.
Will it work?
I dunno. But some people are giving us a really big hint, so lets take it.

Write your letters. Get your friends to write their letters and have them tell their friends to write them. I'd suggest copy/pasting what I wrote in bold above and sharing it with everyone so things don't get convoluted to the usual "His car whips my ass because its too light" level. That won't accomplish a damned thing.

My letter is in.

[ekim952522000]

........All IT cars should be speced with a goal of getting within 5lbs of their process weight. ......

Sending mine now. Someone should start a thread over at the SandBox telling everyone to do the same.

[Z3_GoCar]

It would seem to me that certain ITAC members are urging us to write many many letters because certain other ITAC members are hiding behind the "The membership doesn't WANT us to change this." tree.

Honestly, there are likely a few people in the club that hold that position, but I'm guessing its a very small number and those folks currently enjoy an advantage under the current format (loose usage of that term).

So write letters requesting that All IT cars should be speced with a goal of getting within 5lbs of their process weight.

Simple.
Will it work?
I dunno. But some people are giving us a really big hint, so lets take it.

Write your letters. Get your friends to write their letters and have them tell their friends to write them. I'd suggest copy/pasting what I wrote in bold above and sharing it with everyone so things don't get convoluted to the usual "His car whips my ass because its too light" level. That won't accomplish a damned thing.

My letter is in.

Simple it's not, because no one knows how all the different motors now classified respond to a top notch build and if there might be a way to make more. Right now the hp gain on an IT build is a swag, there's no way to get weight assigned to a 5lb window when the output isn't accuratly predictable. I think the classic example is the Chevrolet Monza with a 3.8l Buick V6, stock hp 136. This is an ancestor to the ITR Camero motor that makes 190hp. But no one know what the Monza will do with a good build because no one's running one, so needless to say it's not been touched.

[JoshS]

Why? Give me a good reason. Hell, give me a BAD reason...!!!

I'm on record as an ITAC member who feels that **IF** the goal is ultimate consistency between listings, then we need to redo all of the cars in the ITCS in one big effort, and not do them onesy-twosy like we do now.

But here are some reasons not to do it:

1) It's a TON of work. We all have day jobs.
2) Members/Racers will inevitably bitch if their car gets heavier. I know that there are many IT racers here on these boards who have the integrity of the process at heart, but there are MANY MORE out there who will just see their weight get higher and won't be very good with that.
3) There will be adjustments to many, many listings. The population out there (including all of the people on this forum) are going to micro-analyze them, compare one car to another, even more than they do now. It's going to cause a firestorm of controversy and nit-picking the likes of which we have never seen. It's likely that as many cars would get heavier as would get lighter. It just moves things around a little, but doesn't really change the big picture. Is it worth it to do that when most people agree that things are really pretty good right now, even if there are a few inconsistencies?

[Catch22]

I'm on record as an ITAC member who feels that **IF** the goal is ultimate consistency between listings, then we need to redo all of the cars in the ITCS in one big effort, and not do them onesy-twosy like we do now.

But here are some reasons not to do it:

1) It's a TON of work. We all have day jobs.
2) Members/Racers will inevitably bitch if their car gets heavier. I know that there are many IT racers here on these boards who have the integrity of the process at heart, but there are MANY MORE out there who will just see their weight get higher and won't be very good with that.
3) There will be adjustments to many, many listings. The population out there (including all of the people on this forum) are going to micro-analyze them, compare one car to another, even more than they do now. It's going to cause a firestorm of controversy and nit-picking the likes of which we have never seen. It's likely that as many cars would get heavier as would get lighter. It just moves things around a little, but doesn't really change the big picture. Is it worth it to do that when most people agree that things are really pretty good right now, even if there are a few inconsistencies?

Those are excuses Josh.

1. You'll get all the help you need on the math and the research. Just ask and promise that you'll USE the data collected.
2. Tough. If the same process is applied evenly and fairly to everyone, there is no legitimate bitch. There will surely be bitching, but you can't use that as an excuse to maintain the status quo when the status quo is clearly incorrect.
3. No. If you make the process clear and transparent, and apply it fairly and equally to everyone. Then bitching and nitpicking is just that. Bitching and nitpicking.

Right now the bitching and nitpicking is valid, and as an ITAC member its your job to invalidate it.

Its research and math with a little subjective opinion to figure out the HP multiplier (what percentage to use). But if you can SHOW you made a good faith effort to get it as close to right as can be reasonably expected... Job well done.

Right nowits just a mess that makes sense for some and is nonsensical for others. You MUST fix that.

[ekim952522000]

....
2. Tough. If the same process is applied evenly and fairly to everyone, there is no legitimate bitch..............

This is the reason I think a place (website) we could all go to to review the math and the process for each car would be great.

Does anyone else think this would be a good idea?

[Ed Funk]

Sub-committees: might be a good idea if the ITR sub-committee has no ITR drivers, and the ITC sub-committee has no ITC drivers, just to try to eliminate the temptations.

That is assuming that anyone with power thinks that sub-committees are a good thing to spread the work around.

Yeah, Josh right now it is "pretty good", which is in my opinion another term for adequate. Adequate doesn't cut it in my job, does it in yours?

[JeffYoung]

Adequate cuts it a lot better than all farked up.

Guys, this is a noble idea. But what it is going to do is set off a crapstorm of debates over:

1. Whether the Civic EX gets a 10% IT gain or a 15% one.

2. Whether MY ITB car has worse aero and should get a 50 lb subjective deduct.

3. Your ITA car has a "really good suspension." 100 lb adder!

I do agree that how we got to where we are now was not perfect. Basically, the process was applied to (a) popular cars and (b) problematic cars to set a basic balance for the class, and either via plan or just blind luck it worked. It was certainly more likely to work on a smaller universe of cars, than the multitude that populate the ITCS.

Does anyone really see an overdog in any one particular class? I sure don't.

This thing is a great idea, but it's going to go off the track quick and some of you guys who are all united in it are going to be at each other's throats over 10 lbs here or there before it is over.

Me, my low revving, high torque is going to lose a bunch of weight since the process doesn't deal with its ilk very well, so I'm checking out.

[Catch22]

Jeff, to say that the current situation is acceptable is saying that a 198lb weight disparity in ITC is OK and acceptable.

Is that acceptable?

I don't think it is. I think its a deal killer.

I'll say it one more time... Just because we are better off than we were 5 years ago does NOT mean we are "fixed." We are in fact a loooong way from fixed.

So when you are already broken, its worth the risk to try to fix it when the only downside is breaking it (breaking it more?) The payoff is potentially "fixing" it.
Wow... Imagine that.

Again, perfection is not attainable. Ain't gonna happen.
But the reasoning behind why every car is speced where it is should be explainable, reasonable and defendable. Currently that is very much NOT the case.

Example:
"Why is car A speced at xxx weight?"
"Well, it has a stock hp rating of xxx, we gave it a 25% IT prep HP adder, added xxxlbs for double wishbone suspension and subtracted xxlbs for lack of tq." "That resulted in the spec weight of xxxxlbs."

Currently, you can try to give an answer like that, except sometimes when you are done you still have 90, 100, 120lbs you can't explain. Sometimes you can't explain it even when you do maximum adders for everything.

That simply has got to go. Its still the old voodoo weight specing of the old days if you can't use math and a fair process to explain the whys and hows.

[shwah]

Jeff - how is that different from every single new car classification from now on?

What is different about cars that were on the books before and inside the 200# wide window?

I'll keep prepping my car and myself to be competitive against the cars that benefit from the status quo, but there are anomolies out there, succeeding at the highest levels with stock, untouched short blocks because of it.

Don't worry people will complain no matter what happens. It's the one thing we can count on. One more reason to offer thanks to every one of the ITAC and CRB members when you can for doing what they do, and getting a crap sandwich in thanks most of the time.

[lateapex911]

Well, you guys know where I stand, and if you don't well, you're thick, LOL (Or you aren't willing to read the reams I write. )

I'm not going to "out" my fellow ITACers for several reasons.

1- I didn't write down the votes. (Sorry, towing back from testing, in the fog, entering 20 digit access numbers every time service dropped over the 3 hours between Watkins Glen and Monroe Ct was dangerous enough,) but..I was pissed, that's for sure! (So much so I made a few calls the next day to see if my comments were out of line)

2- They have their reasons. Perhaps I don't know them. Or they couldn't explain them in a way I could understand. So, they need to speak for themselves.

But, it's likely you all won't get each one to discuss it, because many have jobs, families, etc, and don't spend the hours internetting.

HOWEVER..I will say that each IS concerned with the membership, and THAT's why I keep saying, "Write in". They'll get the idea. I promise.

I also categorically reject the idea that anyone is voting purely out of self interests. Heck the one guy that votes no on things that might affect him in a bad way, votes "No" on everything, LOL. (and he's actually not in a position currently for anything to affect him directly anyway) I really have to think hard to the time he voted yes on something. And it's good to have dissenting opinions on things, as it helps you see other points of view. Others have initially voted "no" on things like my ECU initiative, then come back, after doing their own research, and voted "yes". Theres a reason we have guys on the ITAC from varied geographical areas, classes, and economic involvement, and that is that it represents the club at large.

There ARE good reasons not to do every car. You may think it's easy to come up with all the numbers, and do the work, but it's not. And that alone isn't a good reason, but when you're doing that work for cars that don't run, it can get silly, and with limited resources, we need to hit the big issues. Like attending to other requests and issues. Just coming up with the Great Realignment list needed multiple con calls that went from 8PM until 2 Am.

Also, a car that gets it's weight upped by 10 pounds, is a rather oddball car, owned by an oddball driver ends up being tossed by tech when he's 8 pounds underwieght next year, because he missed the announcement. (I know, it's hard to imagine, to us, that everyone isn't getting ITAC updates on their i Phone 3G, but... ) (and yes, everyone is responsible for keeping up...)

There are cost associated with all changes. Dr K can come up with a few as well, I bet...