ITB - what a bunch of crap

[Knestis]

(NOTE - make sure you read critically so you understand what is my understanding of how things are, vs. what I PERSONALLY think.)

Next - and it makes some people's heads hurt when I do things like this - I'd like to propose that we get clearer on a couple of terms. (And this is in response to those of you who asked me to PM/email you the "process.")

The PROCESS is the actual math and accompanying steps that determine from a limited set of factors, what the race weight of a car should be.

I'd propose the addition of a distinct term - call it the PROCEDURE - that is the sum of the practices around how the process is applied.

* * *

The process is pretty simple: Take the quoted stock horsepower, apply an "IT power multiplier," and multiply it by a class-specific adder, to get the "base weight."

To that are added or subtracted a very limited number of incremental amounts for specific mechanical attributes - FWD gets a minus weight (50 or 100), brakes a plus or minus (50, but that's been applied pretty rarely), suspension (+50 for A-arms, the base presumes struts; -50 for "bad designs"), gear ratios (I don't think I've seen that in my time on the ITAC yet), and "other" - which as far as I know is mid-engine layout or good/lousy torque).

The engine power multiplier is typically 1.25. We have a tendency to make adjustments to that based on "type" (e.g., "smogged up '70s POS"). There ARE other multipliers that have been applied for special cases. I PERSONALLY think that some of them are not particularly well grounded in evidence but all were determined by people who were very confident in their numbers. Further (personally), I'd prefer that we (a) document and codify these "types," and add them only grudgingly; and (b) require a really huge standard of evidence to do anything "special."

The class multipliers have been shared here before - 11.25, 12.9, 14.5, 17.0, 18.84, for R to C.

NOW, we have this clause that says, "Review the resulting classification weight and determine if the results are acceptable. Some adjustments may need to be made, but in general, the final result should be VERY close to what the recommended specification weight should be." My PERSONAL opinion is that this has been used too liberally in the past, but it tends NOT to be currently.

* * *

The procedure is a different thing, and frankly this is where many of the issues seem to be hiding. The obvious example is the "how close is close enough" question. It's NOT entirely silly to accept the notion that ANY change has costs. I personally think that the costs are small where changing a spec weight are concerned. Equally though, I think the cost IS great enough to not make it worth doing if nobody cares enough to make a request. (It's a close thing because the magnitudes are tiny.)

Another "procedure" question is, "What triggers review?" 2nd Great Realignment? Something else? One issue that I don't *think* has been mentioned is that when the first great realignment happened, it was granted by the board based on a promise that it would only be done once. (Remember this was in the day when there was NO way to address the problem of a maladjusted IT car, other than moving it to another class.)

I'm NOT going to get in the business here of making the case for why +/-100 pounds is the right answer, because I frankly don't believe that it's a good answer.

* * *

In short, I think it would be a VERY good idea if we could separate the issues of process from those of procedure. One problem we have with complex policies like this is that people say "no" to one little piece of the puzzle because they hate just that, while other people say "no" to a different piece. If they tried to figure out what aspects of the policy they agreed on, they might move forward and could work out the differences later.

K

[Catch22]

First a short answer: My preference would be to re-process cars only by member request, and to leave the output at the nearest 5 pounds. I'd further document the assumptions with which the process was applied (e.g., engine power multiplier) and make those figures available to the membership.

Sold!

I'm OK with that. Id even be OK with being a research assistant to the ITAC to help compile the data for the letters that get written.
If nothing else it lightens the load and helps focus the work on cars that people are actually driving.

Guys, while I agree we are better off than we were a few years ago due to lots of hard work, we still have some cars that are very wrong. Coming up with reasons to NOT fix this is just completely unacceptable to me.

I could make a list of bad classifications from just ITB alone, but there is no need for that. 1 car that is wrong is 1 too many, and if members request that it be fixed... Fix it.
Again, I completely fail to see why this can't be done, and while I've worked with Bob on things in the past and respect his opinion... I simply can not manage to justify his position on this one.

I simply can't look at our classifications and say "I'm OK with this car being 99lbs too light and its competitor being 99lbs too heavy."
Thats just... Just... Wrong. I can't find a defendable justifiable position for that.

The TQ question can be answered like we answer everything else. We just need to use our brains and come up with reasonable adders.
Maybe something as simple as 100lbs for large displacement 4s (over 2 liters?), 150 for big sixes and 200 for 8s???
Dunno. But I just whipped that out of my butt in 2 minutes and I'd betcha it aint completely off target.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's not about the work. Plenty of us are willing to put in the time. It's that right now, there is no majority inside the committee to take the plunge.

[Catch22]

The process is pretty simple: Take the quoted stock horsepower, apply an "IT power multiplier," and multiply it by a class-specific adder, to get the "base weight."

To that are added or subtracted a very limited number of incremental amounts for specific mechanical attributes - FWD gets a minus weight (50 or 100), brakes a plus or minus (50, but that's been applied pretty rarely), suspension (+50 for A-arms, the base presumes struts; -50 for "bad designs"), gear ratios (I don't think I've seen that in my time on the ITAC yet), and "other" - which as far as I know is mid-engine layout or good/lousy torque).

The engine power multiplier is typically 1.25. We have a tendency to make adjustments to that based on "type" (e.g., "smogged up '70s POS"). There ARE other multipliers that have been applied for special cases. I PERSONALLY think that some of them are not particularly well grounded in evidence but all were determined by people who were very confident in their numbers. Further (personally), I'd prefer that we (a) document and codify these "types," and add them only grudgingly; and (b) require a really huge standard of evidence to do anything "special."

The class multipliers have been shared here before - 11.25, 12.9, 14.5, 17.0, 18.84, for R to C.

Here is a homework exercise for anyone that thinks the current situation is not busted.

Take the information Kirk provided above (this is what is supposed to be used to fairly and consistently class ALL cars) and apply it to the starting ITB grid at the '08 ITSpectacular at Mid Ohio.

It will take some work and effort. I know because I've already done it.

But its worth the effort, because after you do it you'll see how many cars that are being currently raced actually FIT their current specs via the process/procedure Kirk listed above.

I'll even save you a step and give you the list (from memory, so its not perfect)...
VW A3 GTI
VW A2 GTI
Porsche 924
Volvo 142
1st Gen Honda CRX Si
88-91 Honda Civic DX
Ford Mustang
Ford Pinto
BMW 2002

Go ahead and do some math. PLEASE do it if you are one of the folks in this thread that think we are currently close enough or don't want to risk screwing things up by making changes.

What you'll find is a range from nearly 100lbs too light to well over 100lbs too heavy. But don't take my word for it, DO THE MATH.

I can just about promise you that the results will change your mind. The range is HUGE, with some of the cars being closer to the ITC p/w target than the ITB target while other are UNDER the target of 17.

Just ain't right.

Scott, who looks at that diverse entry list and sees HUGE potential for the class... Maybe.

[Knestis]

That's a good exercise, Scott - primarily because it includes cars of different engine technologies, that form the basis of the "what multiplier?" point of subjectivity. Some of the comparisons are quite easy because they utilize the SAME technologies. Not surprisingly, this is where some of the first member inference-driven questions came up.

Y'all are not stoopid.

K

[Xian]

And then there are odd-ball weight decisions like the ITA CRX...

106 stock HP * 1.25=132.5
132.5*14.5=1921.25
-50 for FWD
+50 for A-Arms

Final weight of #1921

This seems kinda rediculous to me... I like the idea of the process but there are always going to be some cars that fall outside of this. What will the "process" be for cars that are under-rated or over-rated from the factory?

My math shows that the CRX gets something crazy like a 1.43 adjustment for power. This has it wind up where it's still competitve and I'm "ok" with this but WHO gets to make this call? Look at the RX8 in ITR... lead sled by many accounts but this one was justified by the argument of sticking to stock power figures in spite of other evidence that the cars didn't make stock figures.

If we run everything thru the process again how many "CRX" type situations will be created?

[Knestis]

Sorry...

...this might have been said but it can't be reiterated often enough: If you make a request that a car be re-processed, PLEASE provide the information we need:

** Stock quoted power and torque

** Stock curb weight (so we can guesstimate whether it can reach a given output weight or if it needs to be in a different class)

** Explanation of model differences, generation year breaks, different engines in the same model, trim levels, or anything else that might throw us a curve

** Confirmation of the ITCS spec line information

This stuff isn't strictly required but it SURE increases the chance that we won't get any of our bits in the ringer, or stall out because someone has to chase down information.

K

[JeffYoung]

A very valid exercise. Now let's start asking the hard questions:

1. We use the stock horsepower number right? No questions asked? Some of those cars are old enough (the 142, the 2002 and perhaps the Pinto) so that the stock number is a GROSS number, not a NET. They get screwed.

2. Power potential. All 25%? Any oddballs? That Volvo sure seems to wake up in IT trim. How do we "prove" up the percentage?

3. Suspension design. Do we give the Pinto a break for leaf springs?? Or does the fact that people have figured out how to make that thing work matter?

I'm in favor of using the process/procedure. I just think it needs to be done carefully.

Here is a homework exercise for anyone that thinks the current situation is not busted.

Take the information Kirk provided above (this is what is supposed to be used to fairly and consistently class ALL cars) and apply it to the starting ITB grid at the '08 ITSpectacular at Mid Ohio.

It will take some work and effort. I know because I've already done it.

But its worth the effort, because after you do it you'll see how many cars that are being currently raced actually FIT their current specs via the process/procedure Kirk listed above.

I'll even save you a step and give you the list (from memory, so its not perfect)...
VW A3 GTI
VW A2 GTI
Porsche 924
Volvo 142
1st Gen Honda CRX Si
88-91 Honda Civic DX
Ford Mustang
Ford Pinto
BMW 2002

Go ahead and do some math. PLEASE do it if you are one of the folks in this thread that think we are currently close enough or don't want to risk screwing things up by making changes.

What you'll find is a range from nearly 100lbs too light to well over 100lbs too heavy. But don't take my word for it, DO THE MATH.

I can just about promise you that the results will change your mind. The range is HUGE, with some of the cars being closer to the ITC p/w target than the ITB target while other are UNDER the target of 17.

Just ain't right.

Scott, who looks at that diverse entry list and sees HUGE potential for the class... Maybe.

[Knestis]

And then there are odd-ball weight decisions like the ITA CRX...

And therein lies the rub.

This is going to chaff a few backsides but even I think the we need a "nuclear" option if a real preponderance of evidence emerges over time that an engine package/type/whatever appears to deserve one of those "special" multipliers. These cases should be very few and very far between.

That's the CRX Rule - the basis for the "review the resulting weight" step. The potential for problems is in the fact that there aren't any real checks and balances on its use.

K

EDIT - and FINALLY, finally - you all better understand that when you ask for change, you get what you get. If one/any/all of the membership don't like the resulting weight on something after it's been through the process, as implemented by the people charged with doing it, no bitching. And if you think you own car's in its sweet spot but your competitor asks us to review it and you get weight? Tough titties, right? When I do evaluation work, I never cease to be amazed at how the degree to which someone agrees with our data correlates to the degree to which they profit by the findings. How the "fairness" of a call by the refs depends on whether it's on your team or the other guys...

[Ed Funk]

Thank you!! Josh, Kirk, Andy, Jake and Bob for taking the time to do the committee thing, but also for taking the time to explain the "process/procedure" and your positions.

Now, it's time to take some of us who have offered to help at our word and start forming sub-committees or work groups to start working through the list and getting all cars "procedured". Steph and I were talking and thought it might be a good idea to start eliminating cars that have had no activity in the past X years. Or do you think that the infamous Borgward 3000 will become popular if classed and weighted properly!?!?

[shwah]

OK at least half of you are going to hate me for this extreme tangent, but....

Of course the bigger rub is whether any of this discussion can make a difference unless the BoD agrees to 'allow' changes more than once a decade to IT. ITAC recomendations do not consitute rule or classification changes.

Seems to me that I recall the realignment to be a 'single bullet theory' event. Hit it once, fix it up and let it run on autopilot forever again. "after all it's not a national class" goes the BoD thought process.

At some point we need to convince the PTB that IT matters, and I am not convinced we have, despite the obvious health of the category. I think we get it, the ITAC gets it, the CRB partially gets it, but I have no confidence that it goes beyond that.

This is one of the benefits that I believe we would see as a national class (or as a class in a single tier system), to be important enough to 'deserve' effort be expended to assure close, fair, equitable classification. At some point, I suggest now, we need to demand to our divisional directors that IT be viewed with the same level of respect as the other cagegories, and be treated as a category where the cars classified should be competitive with each other. period. whatever that may take to achieve in process deveopment or evaluation.

Until then I don't have confidence that anything will really change, regardless of what whomever on the ITAC thinks what about the issue.

[Z3_GoCar]

A very valid exercise. Now let's start asking the hard questions:

1. We use the stock horsepower number right? No questions asked? Some of those cars are old enough (the 142, the 2002 and perhaps the Pinto) so that the stock number is a GROSS number, not a NET. They get screwed.

2. Power potential. All 25%? Any oddballs? That Volvo sure seems to wake up in IT trim. How do we "prove" up the percentage?

3. Suspension design. Do we give the Pinto a break for leaf springs?? Or does the fact that people have figured out how to make that thing work matter?

I'm in favor of using the process/procedure. I just think it needs to be done carefully.

The flip side to #2 ) Oddballs don't or can't make the 25% gain. That's why I advocate using simulation software to more precisely peg the potential in an IT rebuild. Otherwise we've got this big 25% gain swag right from the get-go.

Secondly, even thought I do appreciate Josh's efforts to get the Z3 classed, I'm not happy about the extra 60lbs I have to carry based on my car being classed having dual variable cams instead of the single variable cam system thats actually in all the 97-98 year cars. As it is I'm starting with a 4hp deficite on the dual cam motor and have to make up an extra hp gain based on this. It's 189hp not 193, why should I have to carry extra weight because the other motor is on the same spec line?

[Xian]

And therein lies the rub.

This is going to chaff a few backsides but even I think the we need a "nuclear" option if a real preponderance of evidence emerges over time that an engine package/type/whatever appears to deserve one of those "special" multipliers. These cases should be very few and very far between.

That's the CRX Rule - the basis for the "review the resulting weight" step. The potential for problems is in the fact that there aren't any real checks and balances on its use.

K

EDIT - and FINALLY, finally - you all better understand that when you ask for change, you get what you get. If one/any/all of the membership don't like the resulting weight on something after it's been through the process, as implemented by the people charged with doing it, no bitching. And if you think you own car's in its sweet spot but your competitor asks us to review it and you get weight? Tough titties, right? When I do evaluation work, I never cease to be amazed at how the degree to which someone agrees with our data correlates to the degree to which they profit by the findings. How the "fairness" of a call by the refs depends on whether it's on your team or the other guys...

Quoted for truth.

This is my concern. We ALL know that the CRX and it's extended family would be horrible overdogs if classed straight off the Process. How many other unknown cars are out there that may be turned into the new "CRX" via wholesale rewighting? What then? Reweight again but this time based on performance? Ugh. How does you catch these types of cars on the first run thru the process? If you make the adjustment at a later date, how do you keep from having this turn into performance based adjustments?

[jjjanos]

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.

Then there also is no way to get the weight assigned to a 100lb window. Either we believe the multipliers or they shouldn't be used. For engines where there is no clue for the multiplier, there's no way of knowing whether we are within 500lbs of the "proper' weight because we don't know if the factor is 25/50/75 or 100%.

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.

Already happening under the Great Torque Debate.

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

Excellent addition to the process. Provide an independent and reproducable metric for aero for all classified vehicles. We can debate whether this car should get 50lb reduction, but we cannot debate that its aero value is X. (See mid- vs front- adder. The amount of the adder is debatable. Whether a car is mid- or front-engined is not)

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

Already have an adder for this - see strut versus shock adders.

It was certainly more likely to work on a smaller universe of cars, than the multitude that populate the ITCS.

The cars that actually are raced versus those classified is much smaller.

Is it fair to have a class of cars that have not been spec'd by the same process? Is it fair that a member in good standing has to go thru the nut roll of writing letters in order to get his car properly weighted?

No. Yes. What isn't fair is that if they run your numbers and they are off by less than 100lbs, you are SOL.

Another "procedure" question is, "What triggers review?" 2nd Great Realignment? Something else? One issue that I don't *think* has been mentioned is that when the first great realignment happened, it was granted by the board based on a promise that it would only be done once. (Remember this was in the day when there was NO way to address the problem of a maladjusted IT car, other than moving it to another class.)

What triggers the review? The new ECU rule. The multipliers are no longer valid given the extra HP that FI cars can get versus Carb cars. Based on the idea that the process weight is the 100% developed weight, virtually all cars with an ECU are underweight. I've been told that if I wanted to spend gobs of money on the right ECU, my 91HP stock car with a 25% multiplier can pick up an extra 5% HP.

The board granted the realignment on a once only basis. It also created the category as a regional-only category and seemed to be more than willing to ignore that absolute.

[Catch22]

The multiplier is where subjectivity MUST occur. There simply is no way around it.
Thats what committees are for... Ideally the group pools resources to reach a valid conclusion. Unideally it gets stuck in the mud and accomplishes nothing.

The ITA CRX is an example of a car that was underrated from the factory. By the time the "realignment" came around we knew this pretty universally, and the multiplier was adjusted accordingly.
We won't always have that benefit, so the opportunity to "fix" mistakes is a must. It just is.

What we also can't do is then take what we know about (for example) the underrated ITA CRX and arbitrarily just start applying it to all Hondas. That invalidates the whole procedure and falls back into the whole classing via voodoo trap.
You know what you KNOW, and thats all you KNOW.

The reasonable target is 25%, but there should be no issues with using 15% or 35% or even 40+% (see the aforementioned factory underrated situation) IF THERE IS REASONABLE EVIDENCE THAT INDICATES THATS WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.

Again, subjectivity is unavoidable. But the goal should be to be able to use actual numbers to justify why a specific car is speced the way it is speced.

Another way to put this is if you have speced a car at a weight that will likely make it have to carry 100+ pounds of ballast, you need to be able to say why it has to carry that ballast.
Currently that can be done for a few cars and thats it. Most can't be justified, and many of the ITAC guys will honestly look at you and shrug because even they can't explain why.

[Knestis]

...Another way to put this is if you have speced a car at a weight that will likely make it have to carry 100+ pounds of ballast, you need to be able to say why it has to carry that ballast.
Currently that can be done for a few cars and thats it. Most can't be justified, and many of the ITAC guys will honestly look at you and shrug because even they can't explain why.

Sorry, Scott - I'm not tracking on this point.

There's always going to be examples out on the ends of the distribution among cars within a class, of the difference between their spec weight and "bare naked IT prep weight." To fit in a class "bucket" some will need ballast, or put differently, will need to not be lightened as much as others. This is particularly the case if we try to classify a make/model (that is, put it in a class; as opposed to specifying its weight) such that the target spec weight is below what can be achieved with IT preparation. The latter just isn't right.

Or maybe I'm still confused...?

K

[Knestis]

>> ...Seems to me that I recall the realignment to be a 'single bullet theory' event. Hit it once, fix it up and let it run on autopilot forever again. "after all it's not a national class" goes the BoD thought process.

Again, yup. The changes that have been made since, have been under (a rather liberal interpretation of) "errors and omissions." That's also why you don't have to wait until the new GCR comes out for these "fixes" to be implemented: They aren't actually "new rules."

K

[JoshS]

Thank you!! Josh, Kirk, Andy, Jake and Bob for taking the time to do the committee thing, but also for taking the time to explain the "process/procedure" and your positions.

Now, it's time to take some of us who have offered to help at our word and start forming sub-committees or work groups to start working through the list and getting all cars "procedured". Steph and I were talking and thought it might be a good idea to start eliminating cars that have had no activity in the past X years. Or do you think that the infamous Borgward 3000 will become popular if classed and weighted properly!?!?

Here's what you can do to start.

Fill out a VTS sheet for all of the cars in IT. You can download the blank form from the SCCA website.

What we really need is all of the stuff that we list in the ITCS spec lines, plus suspension type. Also please explain the differences between model years and trim levels. And make sure to highlight what might make each particular model special with respect to the other cars in the class (such as restrictive intake manifolds).

Most of this information is hard to come by and the SCCA does not have it on file.

[JoshS]

Secondly, even thought I do appreciate Josh's efforts to get the Z3 classed, I'm not happy about the extra 60lbs I have to carry based on my car being classed having dual variable cams instead of the single variable cam system thats actually in all the 97-98 year cars.

James -- I had absolutely nothing to do with it. All of that got done before my tenure, and before I wrote a single letter about IT.

[Catch22]

OK Guys.
Because some of you are baffled as to why I seem to be so torqued about this, let me do a quick and simple exercise...

ITB A3 Golf
115x1.25x17=2444
-50 (fwd)
+50 (torque)
Gives a spec weight of 2444 (2445lbs).
Current spec weight is 2350.
So based on some pretty basic and straightforward math the VW is 95lbs too light.

Now lets look at the 84-87 Honda CRX Si:
91x1.35x17=2088
-50lbs (FWD)
=2038 (2040lbs)
Current spec weight is 2130, or 90lbs too heavy.

These cars have very similar suspension designs, so that is a non-issue. Yet the VW basically gets a 185lb advantage when the current process is used.

Now, someone is saying "yeah, but that falls within that pesky 100lb thingy. Thats why its unaddressed."

So lets go further and look at an eeevil Honda A Arm car. The 88-91 Civic DX:
92x1.35x17=2111
-50 (FWD)
+50 (Double Wishbone A Arm)
=2111 (2110lbs)
Current spec weight is 2240lbs, or 130lbs overweight.

That gives the VW a 225lb advantage!!!

Some things of note...
-These are popular modern cars that are easier to spec than the aforementioned 70s cars and stranger selections and they are STILL WRONG.
-I used a 35% adder on the Hondas and only 25% on the VW and the VW still has the advantage.
-The 25% and 35% adders in this case do in fact correspond to actual dyno results on fully built efforts (at least its close enough to call it corresponding), so the process itself isn't too far off base at all.
-Its the consistent application of the process that is off base, not the process itself.

I can't look at these numbers and say things are good enough as they are and don't need to be changed. If you can do that, I'd honestly love to hear the justification.
It seems to me that if we are going to be THIS far off when we have a process to use, why are we even bothering using it?
Actually, these numbers would indicate we are in fact NOT using the process. We're just saying we are. Sorry if that offends anyone, but thats what the numbers seem to indicate.

I'm always willing to help, but if we as a group are collectively OK with this as the status quo, then I want no part of it.

PS - This is just 3 cars in one class. I'm sure this exercise could grow to get pretty ugly. But...