ITB - what a bunch of crap

[AjG]

Hey that reminds me… How do we get the Bobcat weight changed to match the Pinto (2340#)? We run two Pinto’s and a Bobcat. The Bobcat's weight hasn’t been a problem at impound but I suppose it could be.

[Catch22]

On this issue, the ITAC spins it's wheels - and by default, the 3rd group gets it way...because no movement on the topic is indeed a position.

Unacceptable.
You simply are NOT serving the club membership when you look at something that doesn't make sense and make the choice to do nothing about it.

Nobody reasonably expects perfect, but there is a reasonable expectation that the committee members are there to push the category forward and repair things that are obviously broken. If thats not happening, its time for change.

Are ITAC members appointed for life?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Unacceptable.
You simply are NOT serving the club membership when you look at something that doesn't make sense and make the choice to do nothing about it.

Nobody reasonably expects perfect, but there is a reasonable expectation that the committee members are there to push the category forward and repair things that are obviously broken. If thats not happening, its time for change.

Are ITAC members appointed for life?

Well, lets be a little less harsh than that. Those that are against another 're-org' are not saying nothing, they are saying that it is as good as it can get and any more tinkering is too much like Prod. I disagree, but want to make sure it's not an abstenance thing, it's a conscious vote to keep things as is.

You probably knew that already but I wanted to defend a little - even though I disagree with the position.

[Knestis]

I'm right there with you too, Scott but even I've got to recognize that the ITAC members who think we need to leave things alone are equally convinced that they are doing the right thing. Or doing what the membership wants. It should NOT be possible for a minority of ad hoc committee members to drive an agenda so the status quo is "leave it alone."

There's no real geographic (or any other) system of "representation" on the ad hoc committees, but it can NOT hurt to let all of the members know what you (the collective "you," not just Scott) think is important.

K

EDIT to add ITAC member names

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

[Catch22]

I understand how it works. I also understand that sometimes good enough is simply good enough.

BUT...

When you have such ample evidence in front of you that says you are in fact NOT "good enough"... Then the "As-Is" position is not only wrong, its dangerous.

And I agree with Kirk (if I'm reading him correctly) that a minority of a committee should not have the ability to monkeywrench things. Thats another process issue that needs to be addressed.

Look, SCCA is no longer the only game in town, and we are losing the fight for younger racers because of issues just like this. While I'm not a proponent of quick fixes and dictator style rule making, we have to realize that at some point our process has GOT to get better than it is.

Classing and specs NEED to make sense and be fair.
And when they don't, we need to be able to make corrections in a timely manner.

There is no excuse for having classifications that are just completely wrong. There is even less excuse for a refusal to correct them once they are identified.
Its just completely unacceptable, and its NASA's best friend.

[ekim952522000]

Just to throw in my 2 cents I would really like to see ALL of the cars ran thru the process and put within 5lbs of the result it just makes the most sense, I have not heard any good argument for not doing this by not changing a car that is within 50lbs you are just adding to whatever error there already is and making it harder to dial in the "process".

[Andy Bettencourt]

Write your letters. Write a lot.

[Ed Funk]

How much time does it take to run a car through the "process"?
Does the whole committee need to be in on the math?
Can't the whole list be divided up and spread around to trusted committee members?
EVERY car listed should be "processed"!
Hell, run the Opel through, 74 stock horsepower and ~2200 lbs in ITB makes NO sence! And, there are obvioulsy others, why are just the "new" cars "processed" and the early cars left at their original weight which was based on stock curb weight? ...and why are there black helicopters making daily passes over our house?

[924Guy]

LOL... write the letter, Ed. Worked for me (and Jake's memory is correct - the 924 weight was adjusted from 2600 to 2495# right near the beginning of this season).

It has been clearly stated before in at least a few of the many threads on implementation of the "process" - not all cars are to be run through automatically. New cars will of course be subject to it when classed, and any existing cars may be reviewed at request of a member. This is consistent with club practice for other classes and requests - member-driven action.

Personally, I'm beginning to think maybe a 50# threshold for adjustment might be more appropriate, given the potential spread of performance (200# vs. 100# weight difference, as noted previously).

Scott - I disagree that the "as-is" position is dangerous. Yes, it can be, but it isn't by default. It's far easier to F things up than it is to improve them! Given IT's popularity compared to all other SCCA classes, it's a reasonable conclusion that things are generally in quite good shape, relatively speaking. Not saying there's no room for improvement, but there's far more room for failure!

If you don't think rules stability, which this perspective supports, is so important, well, I'm seeing plenty of signs in other classes that they could use more.

And if you want to talk about NASA - OK - but seems like they're fighting even worse stability problems, and not just for class rules. GTS Challenge is the one I pay the most attention to, and things are looking really sketchy, to say the least. If NASA keeps going the route they seem to have chosen - well, then whole SCCA/NASA debate could be resolved sooner than one might expect!!

I'm looking to build my next car... but I want to be sure there's going to be a class to run it in 5 years from now! Just not worth the effort to invest in a car that I can only use for 2 years, then has to find a new home...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hell, run the Opel through, 74 stock horsepower and ~2200 lbs in ITB makes NO sence! And, there are obvioulsy others, why are just the "new" cars "processed" and the early cars left at their original weight which was based on stock curb weight? ...and why are there black helicopters making daily passes over our house?

Ed, excellent car to discuss. As you know, we have one in NE that is VERY fast. We have all seen it run. Not using on-track as a deal breaker - and knowing there is no guarantee of legality...this car is (like many others) a HUGE red flag.

74 stock HP puts this car at 1745lbs in ITC. Yes, ITC. But due to it's age, hp ratings of the day, hp-killing smog equipment, etc...somehow it makes MUCH more than 75whp/93 crank hp as a 25% power multiplier would estimate.

YOU TELL ME...with this car, and many like it - when real data is not known, what are you supposed to do? Keeping in mind that fairness to ALL the competitors if paramount - as well as trying to be true to the process.

Sometimes you just know something isn't going to be right, yet you find that you don't have a preponderance of data to support your issues.

Please - don't just not answer. I would like to hear from someone who doesn't post much here what your solution is - given that you have a problem with the situation.

[Dave Zaslow]

Kinda going back to the original post here.

Certainly ITB is strong along the east coast, with a great divsersity of cars and good competitve fields. Looking at the results from races further west I am puzzled by the much smaller fields. If there are less than eight ITB cars starting a race here, it is shocking. Take a walk through the results at http://www.sccabb.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=82 and tell me your impression of why IT in general, and ITB in particular, has so much less support west of Ohio.

DZ

OK, just wanted to get your attention.

I had resisted the assertion that ITB was the 'new ITA' - but heck, this class is really redifining itself into something special. Accords, Civic's, CRX's, Volvo's, Golfs, 924's, BMW's, Audi's, Preludes, a freakin' gorgeous Alfa...

Awesome guys. Awesome. Add in Scott, The Canadians, the Blethens, Beren, Boo-hee - and oh-snap is that a showdown.

ITS seems to be the class that is static now...only 12 starters at the ARRC? Diverse yes (top 6 were all different models), but is it quality over quantity? Thoughts?

[Ed Funk]

Andy, that car that you are talking about is an Opel Gt, different animal, better aero, less frontal area, higher compression ( 9.0 compared to 7.6 in the Ascon and Manta). that car is fast! ?too fast?, maybe. Driver is good!

Back in the day our Manta could run at the pointy end of the field at LRP, but mid-pack at NHIS, truly a momentum car!

I guess my big question of the day is why not run everything on the list through the "process"?

2nd question, and one to really piss some people off is why can't we have some transparency here? Exactly what is the "process"? I have asked this question before and been more or less blown off with "it's out there" responces, I can't find it! I've PM'd a committee member, so far no responce.

Further transparency: Who are the committee members that don't want to :"process" everything? What do they race? Those answers would allow the members to decide if we were being represented or if there is some self serving going on.

Told you it would piss some people off!!

[Ed Funk]

OK, I'd like to request that all cars listed in the GCR IT section be run through the process. To whom do I address the letter?

[Greg Amy]

I guess my big question of the day is why not run everything on the list through the "process"?

+eleventybillion. I've yet to hear/read a reasonable defense if why this isn't being done.

And +2 for all of Ed's other questions.

A rebellion is brewing, boys...

[Ed Funk]

Andy,

Other differences in the Opel's: The GT had 102 hp, solid lifters as opposed to the 74 hp and hydraulic lifters in the Ascona/ Manta.

Seriously, I will write a letter to the ITAC in which I claim to be considering building every car in the book and request that they be "processed", what are you going to do then?

Come on committee, shit or get off the pot!

[Catch22]

Scott - I disagree that the "as-is" position is dangerous. Yes, it can be, but it isn't by default. It's far easier to F things up than it is to improve them! Given IT's popularity compared to all other SCCA classes, it's a reasonable conclusion that things are generally in quite good shape, relatively speaking. Not saying there's no room for improvement, but there's far more room for failure!

And if you want to talk about NASA - OK - but seems like they're fighting even worse stability problems, and not just for class rules. GTS Challenge is the one I pay the most attention to, and things are looking really sketchy, to say the least. If NASA keeps going the route they seem to have chosen - well, then whole SCCA/NASA debate could be resolved sooner than one might expect!!

Apples and oranges...

I am NOT a proponent of constant screwing with weights and specs and classing as we see elsewhere. Thats a problem, and its obviously one that turns people off if car counts can be used as an indicator.

What I DO think MUST happen is this...
If you apply the same process to 2 cars within the same class, the results need to at least be close. If its not, FIX IT.
This is not a situation where "as-is" is the correct approach. You can't screw up something thats already screwed up. You can either fix it or screw it up differently. One outcome is an improvement, the other is status quo... There is no risk.

We currently DO actually have multiple cars classed in IT, some that have already been through the "process" once, that have weight specs that can NOT be reasonably explained with process math. And I'm not talking about 20lbs off, I'm talking about 120lbs off.
So... If you can't make the process math work on a car thats (supposedly) been through the process... What does that tell you?
I know what it tells me. And the answer sets the category right back to where the whole mess started.

As far as NASA is concerned... You are correct. At least once a year they have a SERIOUS issue somewhere, piss membership off, and damage or completely kill off a once popular race series.
All SCCA needs to do is get rid of some of the silly, unexplainable stuff that we do and NASA will eventually take care of itself. But right now our club pushes people towards NASA. Honestly. We do.

The problem is rooted in when young racer X asks why his car has to carry xxxlbs of ballast in ITx and we can't give a valid and reasonable answer. He goes over to NASA's "a la carte" race classing and it looks a helluva lot more appealing.
This happens more than many of you guys realize. Honestly.
And NASA is very VERY good at using it to promote themselves and steal racers from SCCA.
Its not the only factor, but its a big one.

So... Write your letters.
I'll do the same... Again.

[jjjanos]

I guess we need baby steps.
Its frustrating, but I suppose it is what it is.

I'd suggest correcting the cars that currently fall outside the 100lb target first (low hanging fruit thats WAY off). Then address the issue of "how close to we want to be?"

Dead nuts, sitting on top of the exact process weight, period. I'll even leave some wiggle room - rounded up to the next 5lb interval.

There is absolutly no reason that cars with identical process inputs should have anything other than the identical weights. When a car was classified should not have any impact on its minimum weight. As it now stands, they could be 100lbs different.

If we have a model that classifies cars, then all cars need to be consistent with that model. If the model is revised, then all cars need to be rerun through the model and weights reset without some ridiculous and arbitrary "it's close enough" factor. Cars with identical inputs need identical minimum weights.

[Catch22]

OK, I'd like to request that all cars listed in the GCR IT section be run through the process.

That doesn't guarantee you anything.
Trust me.

Before you reach that point, there has to be agreement that there won't be any fooling around with process results for purposes of political appeasement.

We currently have cars that HAVE been through the process and are still way off the mark.

And I'm still so disappointed in this that the option of just quitting this whole business and walking away is still on the table for me.

[gran racing]

There are some that just want to do that as requests come in to review. There are some that want to leave it as is.

Dear ITAC, I request that all ITB cars be run through the process. Would that work? I do recognize the amount of work that would be involved but truly do think that if we're going to use "the process", we need to use it. I'll also preface this by saying the ITAC has done an amazing job with IT and sincerely appreciate the efforts and work they've put into this!! --On Edit: Ya beat me to pusing the post button Ed--

Personally, I'm beginning to think maybe a 50# threshold for adjustment might be more appropriate, given the potential spread of performance (200# vs. 100# weight difference, as noted previously).

How would the ITAC determine if a car were within the 50# threshold? Would they have to run it through the process or it is matter of “we don’t think the process would put it more than 25 – 75 lbs off so we won’t actually put it through the process.” Please tell me cars aren’t put through the process and simply not changed because it’s within the threshold whatever that may be.

Someone previously asked if I thought 50 lbs or would really matter in a race. Yeah, it matters. How often do we out qualify or get out qualified by someone going just a few hundreths of a second faster? Suprisingly to me, it happens quite often. Would a 50 lb difference in cars have impacted that differently? I know we're talking about a "little" advantage but over the course of a race, I sure as heck wouldn't mind having the advantage on my side. For those who truly think that 50 - 100 lbs doesn't matter, you better also say that you don't concern yourself with getting your car near minimum weight cause that's the same exact thing. We talk about how much time, effort and money we spend working on gaining a few extra HP, ensuring that there's as little rolling resistance as possible, and so on yet we should ignore this?

Maybe I simply don't understand when weight begins to make an impact. (I do understand the rationale of using 100 lbs initially, but it now needs to continue. Yes, I'll write in a letter to the ITAC.) Why does 105 lbs matter but 95 doesn't? There's only a 10 lb difference and if 95 lbs doesn't matter enough, why would an addtional 10 lbs matter? I hope we'd all agree that 75 lbs impacts a 90 HP ITC car more than an 180 HP ITS car. Since that's teh case, as a bare minimum shouldn't the amount we choose to ignore be different among the higher HP classes compared to the lower HP classes?

Andy, you asked me for some numbers about the Golf III. A while back I put together a document that listed several ITB cars comparing it to the Golf but decided this whole thing was just a lost cause and added it to recycle bin. Just comparing it to the older Accord / Prelude since that what I know off hand. When the Golf III is compared to many other ITB cars, it simply does not make sense.

Golf III
115 HP, 122 lbs torque, brake 226 mm, min weight 2350 lbs, p/w 20.43.

Accord (older gen) / Prelude
110 HP, 114 lbs torque, brake 207, min weight 2450 lbs, p/w 22.27.

I understand that the golf gets a subtractor for the rear beam, but it also benefits from higher HP and torque out of the box. I fail to see how it still weighs 100 lbs less.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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!