ITB - what a bunch of crap

[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.

[pfcs]

"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." Jeff
The issue isn't really torque-it's more about the torque curve-how well the engine continues to develop torque accross the rev range-which creates higher horsepower numbers. Your 3.5L engine, with mild camshaft timing and restricted inlet, makes (expected) large torque at low rpm, but that torque falls off quickly as revs rise (Jeff-I know you know this). The E36 with its modern/well engineered head and manifolds, augmented by adjustable cam timing, is able to generate prodigous torque accross the board, especiially at higher engine speeds, producing high HP #s as well as lower speed grunt. I can't think of a way to formulate a "rule" to factor this issue. Perhaps we could have a birth of common sense? (I was always a dreamer!). Assign engines to one of 3-5 groups based on fuzzy math. 3 groups is easiest/least contentious. If the Rover V8 is 1, then the BMW is 3. The A2/A3 VW is a 2. The 142E Volvo-is that a 2? Well it has a better torque curve than a VW and makes more top end torque, useable horsepower to 6700+, maybe we should make 5 categories and make the 142E a 4.
Glad I don't make these rules.

[Catch22]

And I'm still bothered that we have cars that HAVE been through the process that still don't "fit" within it.

Guys, until we resolve this there is no point in doing anything else.
As Ron (I think it was Ron) mentioned earlier, if the ITAC uses the process, but changes the outcome due to some sort of voodoo or bias... Whats the point?

We have more than one problem, and I'm waiting on suggestions for how that gets resolved.
I haven't seen it yet.

[shwah]

You guys are missing the low hanging fruit here.

We have subtractors in the current process in the 50# range, yet we won't look at anything that is less than 100# off. If 198# doesn't make a difference, then why the heck are we pulling weight of in 50s for layout, suspension type, etc? The whole thing is absolutely inconsistent.

Also - the process IS more than a formula, as it sits right now. Whether any of us agree or not, there is an element of subjectivity. I am not sure how I feel about that, but regardless, all we are doing with the 'window' is making it possible for any car that was classed prior to the process to be even further off from whatever the ideal state would be, due to tolerance stackup. Say the process really is only accurate up to 100, well then a car really can be nearly 200 off of ideal simply because it was classed via oija board in 1992 off in the same direction that the imperfect process placed it. So now a car that would be 'perfect' at 2400 (and let me go on record that we will not ever, any time, any way be able to arrive at the theoretical perfect weight for a car with any method other than 'by accident'), came out of the process at 2495, was classed before at 2575, and will stay that much further from ideal forever.

Remove the obvious additional tolerance error. It is relatively easy to do, and does not preclude refining the process to account for more or different characteristics.

[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!

[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.

[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?