ITB - what a bunch of crap

[nsuracer]

Being that I started this last subthread, I will offer to make a contribution. Give me the process and I will run the entire ITB class through it. I will then send the results to the ITAC for their perusal. They can then do with it as they please. (I will keep a copy). This process should not be a "I could tell ya but then I'd have to kill ya" kind of a deal.

Admittedly, a lot of the cars that I found problems with are not mainstream competitors in the class. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Are the weights wrong because nobody is racing them, or is no one racing them because the weights are wrong?

I will confess that my experience in IT is less than long. I built a Saab 99EMS from scratch in 92 but every time I brought it out it broke, so that experience is invalid. I currently have a A2 Golf and get to watch Chris Albin disappear into the distance at every race. Do I think that the A3 Golf is superior? Yes, with him driving it. I don't think that there is a big problem with the mainstream cars, but it sure discourages anyone wanting to bring out something weird.

Now, who wants to slip me the process?

[JeffYoung]

Doing this blindly (just running every car through the process) is going to screw up S and A. I agree it needs to be done, but if you do it without a better accounting for torque you are asking for trouble.

In A, the E30 325e is going to LOSE weight despite making extraordinary torque numbers, and it's already a front runner.

In S, my car presently makes 160 whp and 198 wtq. I am expecting that to go up with a full tilt fuel injection IT build with fuel computer (Haltech), perhaps significantly. If it is run through the process at 133 stock horsepower with even a 100 lb adder for torque, it is going to lose significant weight.

Before we run all cars through the process, we need to sort the torque issue first. This (torque) is a bigger problem in A and S because there are more cars with significant spreads between hp and torque.

And I do not believe a power number is the fix since it does not account for useable power band (see above). But some of the smart folks here I hope can come up to something that is a reasonable compromise.

[Greg Amy]

Doing this blindly (just running every car through the process) is going to screw up S and A.

With this statement, Jeff, you are effectively admitting to us that the process is already broken and doesn't work. So that means we're back to Ouija boards, "smoke-filled closed-door sessions" of guessing with a lot of people setting weights where they "think" they should be.

Which means, we're back to where we were 5 years ago. Just different names on the office door.

"Meet the new boss..."

[Catch22]

I don't think that there is a big problem with the mainstream cars

You aren't looking close enough.

I'll also volunteer to run every ITB car through the "process," and I already know how to do it (sometimes I wish I didn't).

I don't want an advantage. Far from it. What I want is to get as close as possible to nobody having an advantage. And fellas, we ain't even close to that.

Maybe its time for the ITAC to put together sub committees like we had for the initial creation of ITR. One for each class.

1. Tools - The process, its adders, and its p/w target range for that class.
2. Goal - Get every car in the ITAC within 5lbs of its goal for its class p/w.
3. Establish Timeline (1/1/09 is still reasonable right now)
4. PROFIT

Results not binding, but for use by the ITAC going forward.

Just a thought.

If the wheels are rolling within the ITAC right now I say leave it alone and let it roll. If its stuck in the mud, lets try something different.

[JeffYoung]

I understand your frustration and concern with the process, and Scott's (and the other posters). It is valid.

But, remember where we were, and where we are now, and how we got here. When the process was developed (and I was not a part of that), its goal was to fix a few glaring problems that were hurting S and A pretty badly (the 325 and the CRX). I don't remember anyone on the ITAC ever saying that all cars were going to be run through the process, although I think ultimately that should be the goal.

In using the process on the popular front runners, the ITAC has created tremendous parity and great racing. It provided that the process, or something like it, CAN WORK in IT.

When discussing expanding the process to all IT cars, something that needs to be done, we have hit on a problem. Torque. The process has issues in correctly dealing with torque. This has been something that has been brewing for a while.

We need to fix that, in my view, before we apply the process to all cars and potentially screw something up that is right now (perhaps as much by blind luck as anything else) working very well.

EDIT - I think Scott's idea has some merit. Maybe B and C DON'T have a torque problem, and their subcommittee can has that out. R, S and A do, and they can come up with their solution to it.

I volunteer for the S and R subcommittees (have an S car, building an R).

[ekim952522000]

I would volunteer to help out on a R subcommittee but I thought every car in ITR has already been ran threw the process since it was a class that was created after the process was?

[JeffYoung]

That is correct, BUT, R still has the "torque issue."

[gran racing]

Jeff, where we are now is a HUGE leap from where we were before (I was in ITA with my lude ) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to work on improving it. Sure sounds like torque is something that needs to be addressed and the process further improved upon.

I don't remember anyone on the ITAC ever saying that all cars were going to be run through the process

That concerns me. All cars should be classified and weights established using the same methods.

We recognize that running more cars through the process is a significant amount of work. Maybe the idea of creating subcommitties to at least do the initial legwork and the ITAC would provide the next level of ruling would work? I'd also volunteer to help Scott and others out with ITB.

[Ed Funk]

Well, we've an A car, a B car, and a C car, guess that means we will volunteer to be on any or all of these sub-committees!

Kinda slow in the cat spaying world right now anyway

[JeffYoung]

The Great Realignment GENERALLY:

1. Set all weights in R using the process.

2. In S, the RX7 was the "bogey." The 944 and all the non 240 Z cars lost weight. I believe, but am not sure, that the Integra did as well. The E36s got a restrictor instead of their process weight.

3. In A, the 240sx and the CRX I believe got weight. Not sure about the Integra. I think the Miatas were classed in A using the process weight.

B I know nothing about, C even less.

[tom91ita]

Dave,

Does your car have A-Arms in the front?

Again, you can't just compare random cars in the ITCS as some have been through and some not. I am a proponent of running them all through and setting them at the nearest 5lbs. Write your letters...please!

Andy,

which ITB cars have been through the process?

do we effectively address our letters to the ITAC?

tia, tom

[ekim952522000]

That is correct, BUT, R still has the "torque issue."

Would the ITAC be willing to release their math for all of the cars in ITR for members to look at (or at least to the subcommitee)? It would probally help when looking at the "torque issue" to know where the numbers came from.

[JeffYoung]

I am pretty sure they would -- they have posted the formula here many times.

[Ron Earp]

Maybe its time for the ITAC to put together sub committees like we had for the initial creation of ITR. One for each class.

Only if we agree that if a car fits the process, the numbers pan out, then it WILL be classed. No prejudices, hearsay, voodoo, or non-factual information to be used.

I'll be happy to work on R and S.

[shwah]

Hey it's groundhog day.

When we hashed this out the last two times my recollection is that all the active cars were run through the process. Cars that landed more than 100# outside process weight were changed, the others were not looked at any further.

Someone needs to find a link to those discussions.

[tom91ita]

just ran some quick calc's/ratios for the info Dave had and added my car:



HP Torque T/HP Brakes weight Drag Cd # / HP # / ft-# T # per brake mm
Golf 115 122 1.06 226 2350 0.34 20.4 19.3 10.4
Prelude 110 114 1.04 207 2450 ? 22.3 21.5 11.8
CRX Si 91 93 1.02 231 2130 0.32 23.4 22.9 9.2

one thing that struck me was that the ratio for the Torque ft-#'s to hp was not too different. So using hp instead of torque seems less.

i threw in the ratio of weight to brake diameter just for grins as well as the weight per torque.

the golf Cd was from the net and is just a guess. of course, i think i have less cross sectional area as well.

and the formula should be a sticky somewhere in the rules thread.

tom, btw, the numbers looked so good when i pasted them from an excel sheet. is there a better way to format them into a table?

[PSherm]

Dumb question here - Is wheelbase figured in the equation? Should it be?

[robits325is]

Are the update/backdate options considered when classing a car?

[JeffYoung]

Paul: No.

Rob: Yes.

[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.