Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Knestis]

B

Kirk - do I understand this correctly that the "bogey" or baseline car is now being looked at and it doesn't fit the process weight? I really hope I'm wrong. If it is the baseline car it damn well better fit! What am I missing here?

I am well aware that there is room for subjective differences when gathering information about any car. I understand that it would create a shit storm of questions if you published every detail of every car. Although I think it should be published I've realized its in the "ain't never gonna happen" pile. But the collective "they" could publish what they used when classing a new car.

As clearly as I possibly can: The "bogey" cars were left alone - without being run through the math - because the ITAC at the time of the GR saw them running competitively on the track.

Their weights were not changed and a second group of cars was aligned with them, using the process as it was in place at the time. A third group of cars was not even looked at.

In addition to the three-tiered situation, during the time of the Great Realignment the "process" was infused with substantial opportunities for subjectivity. Subjectivity as in, "I think that Civic needs to be heavier than that. It's going to be a class killer if we let it race at that weight."

For these reasons, when cars are run through the current, more constrained and consistent process, they come out different. Just like members have seen - and questioned - cars with similar physical characteristics running at different race weights.

And in the current process, there is room in one place for subjectivity: The power multiplier. And at that, only a tiny handful of the 20 cars waiting for action used anything other than the standard assumption on that factor.

K

[Ron Earp]

Have to clean them up a bit but you asked and here they are.

IT should be about grassroots racing using race cars. Not street cars. Not dual purpose cars. But grassroots, trailer-your-car-to-the-track, amateur road racing using race cars. The IT rules set should reflect this simple philosophy.

• The ITAC should strive to maintain a long-lasting and stable rules set. The rules should be simplistic. Rules that are on the books that are not 100% clear to someone with an eigth grade education and rudimentary knowledge of cars should be clarified. Once the current rules set has been modernized then steps should be taken to minimize changes. A couple of examples of moderizing and streamlining the rules:
  
  
  • The IT rules set should eliminate any holdover vestiages of dual purpose cars: washer bottles having to be present, heater cores remaining in the car, original wiring harness must be used, and so forth. It costs nothing to remove such items and a racer might save money by not having to purchase other lightweight components in the quest for minimum weight. If nothing else these items are not needed in a race car and make the car simplier and easier to maintain.
  • To level the playing field between old and new engine management systems fuel injected cars should be allowed to use any ECU and sensors needed to function. The stock fuel/air metering devices must remain in the air stream though, i.e. – throttle body, vane meter, MAF – all must remain stock size/shape/dimension and engine air must pass through them.
  • (AWD/F induction)
    
  
  
  
• The IT classification process should be easily understood and should not use subjective modifers. The classification process should focus on power to weight ratios of the classed cars and it should be as simple as possible. Class resolution should be no less than 25 lbs to eliminate the use of “prod like” adjustments.

• The classification process should be published in its entirety. It should be possible for a racer to discover an unclassed car, run it through the classification process, and obtain the same race weight that the ITAC would calculate. The weight provided by the classification process should be used as projected.

• The classification of newer cars with hp ratings outside the envelope of the current classes should be classed without drama. Proposals and year-long dicussions should not be needed (a la ITR) to instate a higher performance IT class if/when needed. Consideration should not be given to look, feel, or apperances of classes nor should impact on other classes be considered. If a car fits into a class based on its attributes then it should be available to an IT racer.

• The ITAC should consider some form of self-policing with respect to term limits or maybe even election of members. I’m a bit fuzzy on what I’m trying to say or propose here but the basic concept would be that the ITAC gets new blood periodically (and I know this just happened recently). I do not think you’d want a 100% turnover every X period of time because we’d lose too much knowledge and continuity. But having new members added every X period of time with some change in the controlling entity of the group is a good thing to make sure the committee aligns with member wishes.

I’ll work on these concepts and others for a letter of some sort. Sorry for the disorganization of these ideas and poor writing.

[lateapex911]

Wow. interesting...ummm.. reactions. Lets think big picture.

Back in the day, as Kirk explains, we did the big reorg. (the Great Realignment) But, it was a HUGE deal to dink with IT cars, and the BoD was dead set against the idea going in. The CRB championed the cause, and changes were made. Now, we tread very lightly at the time, because of the internal resistance.

So, yea, some (a LOT) of cars never got touched. The idea, at the time, was that 90% of IT's problems were caused by 10% of the cars. Changing that much was a MAJOR deal, and really corrected the path.

Now, post GR, we've used the Process, but it's had, as Kirk points out, some susceptibility to tinkering. Adders can (could) be subjectively applied. That can result in things like "Give it a bit extra for brakes to counter the possibility of it being an overachiever in the engine" ...

The REFINEMENT of the SAME process, that we have been hammering out recently, seeks to avoid such subjectivity. IF we have DATA that the committee can document, and can vote individually with confidence on, we will alter the standard parameters. But without that, there's not any 'winging it' based on our knowledge/experience/eye witness accounts/suspicions/hunches and or, but not limited to, feelings.

Now, what Kirk is saying, is that the CRB is holding back our recent work on cars that have been requested to be reprocessed. Why? Well, they are not happy, one must conclude, with the refinement of the process.

To me, it's ironic, because I see the new 2.0 version as merely a sharper and more robust version of the 1.0 version that we've been humming along with for a few years now.

Andy will go on a con call tomorrow night, I think, to try and illustrate the similarities, and the differences so that they understand what we're doing.

You, the interested IT racer, can, no, should weigh in.

If you think the FIRST PRINCIPALS (in the classification procedure) should be consistency, transparency, repeatability, and that subjectivity should be used only with hard data as a back up, and that on track performance should be used as a trigger to go get hard data, well, tell them that.

If you prefer that we continue to use the process as before, but use our intuition when the numbers it spits out don't look right, tell them that.

To boil it down REALLY far down, if you like the basic direction the ITAC has tried to take, and think it's on the right path, say so. If you think we're driving the category off the cliff, speak up.

The CRB and especially the BoD are guys who have been in the game for a long time, and they are used to the ship running a certain way. That's normal. Doing it differently raises eyebrows and makes people very nervous. Tell them it's ok. Or not. But let them know you exist, you care, and you're a member who's watching and in the game.

If you are wanting to know how it all affects YOUR car before you do anything, well, that's rather missing the point.

[RSTPerformance]

Ron- I agree 100% with what you have said...


Jake- From the personal friendships and conversations I have (and reading posts on this site) I like what the ITAC has been doing. However I don't know how they feel with the several requests I have put in. While I am friends with some I never have and don't expect to get an officialin writting personal answer before the rest of SCCA. What I want is for the ITAC to officially publish all requests and recomendatios (to them from members and the ones fro
them to the CR. Untill then how can I agree with what they are doing??? Even if it is the fault of the CRB or BOD it's all just talk and no show simply because we (members not involved behind the sceens) are not seeing results.

Raymond "how do I support Version 2.0 when I don't know what it is?" Blethen

[Ron Earp]

You, the interested IT racer, can, no, should weigh in.

If you think the FIRST PRINCIPALS (in the classification procedure) should be consistency, transparency, repeatability, and that subjectivity should be used only with hard data as a back up, and that on track performance should be used as a trigger to go get hard data, well, tell them that.

If you prefer that we continue to use the process as before, but use our intuition when the numbers it spits out don't look right, tell them that.

Sorry. I thought you wanted to know what I, the racer, thought about IT and the rules set. It appears you want me to affirm, or not affirm, the direction the ITAC is going.

[lateapex911]

Sorry. I thought you wanted to know what I, the racer, thought about IT and the rules set. It appears you want me to affirm, or not affirm, the direction the ITAC is going.

Actually, Ron, your list is quite valid. My post was aimed more to folks up the line who seemed to be saying, "What's in it for me". Kirk made the point that the re classifications that you, the member at large, have requested, have been stalled, and that you the member should be aware of that. And that the reasoning appears to be that there is distrust with the methods used to create the results.

I found the "Well, it depends, if the new process adds weight to my car then I ain't in support of it" response to be missing the point.

[lateapex911]

Ron- I agree 100% with what you have said...


Jake- From the personal friendships and conversations I have (and reading posts on this site) I like what the ITAC has been doing. However I don't know how they feel with the several requests I have put in. While I am friends with some I never have and don't expect to get an officialin writting personal answer before the rest of SCCA. What I want is for the ITAC to officially publish all requests and recomendatios (to them from members and the ones fro
them to the CR. Untill then how can I agree with what they are doing??? Even if it is the fault of the CRB or BOD it's all just talk and no show simply because we (members not involved behind the sceens) are not seeing results.

Raymond, you're not seeing results because they are being held up by the CRB, to my understanding.

As to seeing every letter in it's full form, and the complete response, I doubt that the powers up the line from us are going to do that. Kennedy is being praised as a guy who got a lot done because he didn't demand that everything be perfect. Cmpromise is needed if progress is to be made. You might just have to accet some good, but not get everything you'd like. I have no problem posting it all. (you know me to be one of the more open members of the ITAC, (and I've been warned about flapping my gums too much))

Raymond "how do I support Version 2.0 when I don't know what it is?" Blethen

It's so ironic that YOU say that after my previous comments....but why I can't share.

But, anyway..I don't think we are in the position as individuals to publish the 2.0 as it hasn't been accepted or approved as such, so, you need to go on your gut, past history, and faith in the individuals that you have read and know who are in the system. Or not. Your call.

[StephenB]

Dear ITAC members. Could you please voice your opinions in support of or against the Classification processes that I presented last week.

Thanks,
Stephen

PS: I am guessing you know nothing or very little of what I presented but honestly this is the exact same thing you are asking of all of us to do.

[gran racing]

No, it's not the same thing at all. It's quite possible that some haven't read it here, but the process has evolved to further reduce subjectivity. The "process 2.0" is merely fine tuning what existed and was used in the previous alignment. It basically boils down to the following:

- Do you believe the previous great alignment and process used to accomplish this was a positive thing?

- If it were possible to further improve upon this process and reduce subjectivity, enable members to actually see how the results were arrived at and why, and ensure more consistent results are obtained now and in the future - would you support this?

- During the previous alignment, only a few number of cars were run through the process. One could easily say that while this was a fantastic step, additional cars needed to have the same opportunity to determine if there is a potential classification issue (too heavy, or to light). Basically, are you in support of additional cars run through the same classification process as used on others?

[BlueStreak]

Before I throw my .02 out there, I want to thank all of you that have worked so hard to get us to this point, especially the G.R. Then I have to remind you that no good deed goes unpunished

My .02
1) Have a rules season in the fall/winter. Keep the rules stable during the season
2) Publish the process in the GCR, have a downloadable .xls on the website
3) Refine the process during rules season every year.
4) Ten years from now the process should stabilize.

Allow AWD cars, but make them remove 50% of their halfshafts

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask everyone to be prepared to add or subtract 2% on their weight when the process gets revised each "rules season".

[StephenB]

No, it's not the same thing at all. It's quite possible that some haven't read it here, but the process has evolved to further reduce subjectivity. The "process 2.0" is merely fine tuning what existed and was used in the previous alignment. It basically boils down to the following:

- Do you believe the previous great alignment and process used to accomplish this was a positive thing? YES IMHO and one of the best things that has happend in SCCA! IMHO

- If it were possible to further improve upon this process and reduce subjectivity, enable members to actually see how the results were arrived at and why, and ensure more consistent results are obtained now and in the future - would you support this? Absolutly this would be AWESOME and exactly what I personally am looking forward to in the near future!

- During the previous alignment, only a few number of cars were run through the process. One could easily say that while this was a fantastic step, additional cars needed to have the same opportunity to determine if there is a potential classification issue (too heavy, or to light). Basically, are you in support of additional cars run through the same classification process as used on others? I would support this! I think this would make the best situation for all cars and members to be equally competitive!

Dave... these are actual questions that I can answer without knowing anything about v1.0 or v2.0 if this is what the rest of the ITAC members where asking they should hire you as a consultant! My answers are in Bold.

Well done!
Stephen

PS: I love everything the ITAC has done... it's just hard to say/vote with confidence on my part that they should do something if I know nothing about it. for all I know I may write to the CRB saying I support v 2.0 and in V 2.0 how do I know it doesn't say eliminate all cars that have not been driven in 1 yr? I don't know and that's why this is hard for members like me to support these "alignments/changes".

[lateapex911]

PS: I love everything the ITAC has done... it's just hard to say/vote with confidence on my part that they should do something if I know nothing about it. for all I know I may write to the CRB saying I support v 2.0 and in V 2.0 how do I know it doesn't say eliminate all cars that have not been driven in 1 yr? I don't know and that's why this is hard for members like me to support these "alignments/changes".

Thanks Dave. But Stephen, where did Dave get all that? By reading what has been written here. Same as you have.

[lateapex911]

Dear ITAC members. Could you please voice your opinions in support of or against the Classification processes that I presented last week.

Thanks,
Stephen

PS: I am guessing you know nothing or very little of what I presented but honestly this is the exact same thing you are asking of all of us to do.

??? Where should I find it?

[Charlie Broring]

I have concerns with the ITAC recognizing the “Big Picture” at present. First of all, I think the “Process” is a great tool for the ITAC. However I think they are rather carried away with the accuracy of the formula and they underestimate the negative impact on rules stability that it is causing. I don’t think it is the Holy Grail that some of the ITAC think it is.

The 10 pound weight reduction request for the ITB 2.0 Golf is a perfect example. First, looking at the big picture it’s clear that one of the fastest ITB cars didn’t need a weight reduction. Secondly a 10 pound change is insignificant. Lastly, the fact that they are concerned about such a small change illustrates how the ITAC grossly the overestimate the precision of the “Process”.

Like some of my ITB friends I feel that our older cars such as BMW’s, early VW’s, Volvo 142's are being left behind. My perception is that as a result of the new ECU rules, the ITA cars that the process moved to ITB, and a classification system that seems to favor newer cars, ITB is changing. And, the ITAC is so caught up in their numbers game that they wont even look to see if that’s happening. I personally don’t trust the “Process 2.0" to not perpetrate the instability I see in IT.

The desire for more equal competition, is the whole point of the “process”. However some checks and balances including review of on track performance need to be part of the plan. The Process just isn’t good enough to be used on its own.

On a completely different note, I think that the SCCA would benefit from a group of classes, just above IT in preparation level, with Runoffs eligibility. Production and Super Touring just are not filling that role very well. This would both give the IT racer a “next step” in club racing and take away some of the pressure to make IT fill a role it wasn’t designed to do. Of course developing such a new class is a formidable undertaking.

Charlie

[JoshS]

The 10 pound weight reduction request for the ITB 2.0 Golf is a perfect example. First, looking at the big picture it’s clear that one of the fastest ITB cars didn’t need a weight reduction. Secondly a 10 pound change is insignificant. Lastly, the fact that they are concerned about such a small change illustrates how the ITAC grossly the overestimate the precision of the “Process”.

Charlie, this is well-written and I think your view is shared by many people including some CRB members.

Let me just say simply that no one on the ITAC believes that 10 lbs is significant, nor does anyone on the ITAC think it "needed a weight reduction."

This is about consistency. If the 2.0 Golf was not currently classed but a request came in, it would be assigned a weight 10 lbs lighter than it is now. More significantly, if another car that's on paper IDENTICAL to that Golf, it too would be assigned a weight 10 lbs lighter. Then you would all be asking why this new listing was 10 lbs lighter than the Golf which was already there.

This has already happened, BTW, many times, only it's not usually about 10 lbs, it's usually about 100 lbs. Basically, we feel that we should adjust all of the cars such that their weights are 100% reliable and defensible, so that listings between very similar cars look similar, to reduce those sorts of questions and to lend more credibility to the weight-assignment process.

Like some of my ITB friends I feel that our older cars such as BMW’s, early VW’s, Volvo 142's are being left behind.

Now, I think you must be talking not about the weight-assignment process, but about the changes to modification allowances. Totally different deal, of course. I'm sure you recognize that a 1971 car is assigned a weight with exactly the same process as a 1999 car. As far as the newer rules changing appearing to favor newer cars, I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not the intent.

[Andy Bettencourt]

To clear things up...and it isn't coincidence that some of the misconceptions here are shared with the CRB....

First off, 'V.2.0' of the process is 95% clarification, 5% change. And by 'change' I mean things like moving from a fixed FWD subtractor to a percentage - something that makes way more sense and has been pointed out here numerous times. What we have done over the past 9 or so months is to set into practice a step-by-step way of setting a cars weight. It is not a formula but is as close as I really feel you can get. I would LOVE a formula but don't think it's possible. Each step has it's checks and balances and is documented. We had to hash out every possible nook and cranny - and define many things in order to get it down on paper. The result IMHO is really quite nice. Again, it's not so much change, as it is really a development excersize in definitions and policies so that we could go back and be guaranteed (barring no new information) that we would get the same answer for the same car year after year.

As for as the MK II VW is concerned...we ARE NOT telling anyone that a 10lb change is more accurate. What we are doing is running cars through the process - as documented - and setting the weight as spit out. That could be a 5lb change or a 200lb change...doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that all cars are 'set' using the same stick (however flawed that stick may be). I want to run every car through the process and set the weights however they fall, no matter the delta that is in the ITCS. Again, not saying that it's more accurate, just more consistant...and that is a HUGE goal of the ITAC...and by defination to some, STABLE. To me, the weights in the ITCS are a cluster-fark. Easily 3 ways of classing cars have resulted in weights that are in there. I can't think of one car that is a dominant run-away - that has been classed by the process. The cars that being 'left behind' are cars that we haven't had the 'luxury' of measuring with the same stick the current cars are being measured by.

The on-track performance issue is a grey area. I believe it is to be used as a 'trigger' to take a closer look. A look that is aimed at uncovering a 'mistake' or 'new information' that needs to be plugged into the process that would result in a different weight...most common would be a car exceeeding the standard 25% power multiplier. I do not believe in using it to reset weights based on finishing positions at singular races. The Process is still the way we class cars in IT. Not by trap speeds at the end of a straight at RA or whatever else you want to look at that we traditionally call 'Prod-style' adjustments.

Some still want to bring up the ECU issue (or rule changes like it) and rules stability. If you want to freeze the IT rules in time, then we could do that. But most agree that as times change, they rules will need to be updated. Wheel sizes, shock format, ABS...all being requested for change NOW by members just like yourselves. We resist such things for as long as we feel it makes sense. I can tell you for 100% certainty that the ITAC is a 'no' first, a 'yes' only after significant discussion and pain.

So, in summary, not much about the 'process' has changed, just defined. The CRB needs to recognize this too. They need to understand that a request to change a weight 10lbs isn't a proclamation that we think that is more accure - but that it is CONSISTANT and CONGRUENT with how everything that we have been classing over the past X years. To me, that is what will make IT desireable for years to come.

[Knestis]

I want to elaborate on my original post by reminding everyone that you can post here until the cows come home, and it means NOTHING to the powers-that-be. In fact, I've heard grumblings about "internet chatter" as seemingly unwelcome by some folks in the rules-making process.

Write to your representative on the Board. Email the CRB. Tell them - don't tell us.

Stephen - I'm personally trying hard to not make this a question about endorsing or not endorsing current ITAC practice. I suppose that IS the question to a significant degree but we need to focus on first principles, like Ron and Charlie elaborated. The differences between "v.1" and "v.2" are MINUSCULE compared to those considerations and unless/until there's some vision established for the category, we'll always be mired in the minutiae.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me post a question to those who have replied so far:

Car A is set at 2500lbs now in ITX. Never been run through the process. VERY FEW examples exist on the track as it is a rare car, one that not many people are familiar with and to some, not desirable for varying reasons...call it 4 in the whole country. One of these cars however starts on the front row of the ARRC amidst traditionally tough competition and is a threat to win most of it's Regional races, week after week.

Legal? Unknown. It doesn't finish the ARRC and does not go through the tech shed but it's performance potential seems apperent to some - without knowing everything about that specific car.

Owner of car X writes in and requests a re-run of his car via the process. The SAME process that was used to class the past few ARRC championship winning cars. Process weight is spit out. 2300lbs.

What do you do? (Edit - I originally gave a few options but don't want to lead anyone - PLEASE explain in detail WHY you would do what you did.

[Bob Roth]

1) I think the way that car weights are calculated leaves the Honda VTEC contingent and other cars with high stock Hp/liter cars out to lunch. If a car has 100hp/liter stock, 10.5/1 compresson, free breathing intake, decent exhaust etc, there isn't the legal development potential compared to cars like the non-vtec prelude that has 0.6 hp/liter. Say what you want, the most raceable honda's built are absent from signficant IT results and numbers.

2) As a racer, its hard to get the data needed to discuss competitive issues from SCCA. It would greatly enhance the discussion if there was a listing for each track of the top 3 for each class, the car, and best lap time so a discussion about what is competitive and what is not.

3) I think Improved Touring needs to have a "re-think" of trying to make an equivalancy formula for almost every sedan ever built..... People invest in race cars at the club racing level to have a good experience, at reasonable costs, and for at least half the racers having a modicum chance of being competitive. As it sits now, The hot car in a given class might be something plentiful and cheap to build like an integra, or it could be obscure such as a volvo or fiero..... Its crazy, does SCCA want cars that nobody and find, support, and frankly, nobody knows if are legal.

I don't doubt the original idea of a competitive class for every car was well intended but I believe a rethink is needed, The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class. My suggestion is that the IT classes be considered based on what cars SCCA believes would make good fields, focus on them as the competitive target for IT classes, and let less qualified cars also compete knowing that they probably won't win. Also I think at NASA has it right with Spec Honda, Porsche 944, BMW etc.

From my perspective, its time to recharge IT and make it real attractive for people to build late model cars. From my perspective, I am racing against pretty much the same cars I raced agaunst 10 to 15 years ago. Otherwise I think the trend is not promising, face it, without Spec Miata (which has probably peaked) IT and regionals would be in a bad situation.

[Charlie Broring]

What do you do? (Edit - I originally gave a few options but don't want to lead anyone - PLEASE explain in detail WHY you would do what you did.

This is when the Process is inadequate. The Process also fails when a capable builder/driver builds a dog (such as Chuck Allard's 911). This is where the ITAC needs to look beyond the limitations of the process, consider the multitude of other information that's available and apply some common sense. Certainly not as easy as sticking to the Process formula. However, I personally trust the ITAC to use good judgment in competition adjustments a lot more then I trust them to come up with a perfect "Process".

If "Car A" is really that good, there will be plenty more of them running soon enough. I sure hope Car A isn't racing in ITB!

Maybe I'm expecting too much.

It is easier for the ITAC to adjust the results of the Process if the details of the Process are not published.

Charlie