Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[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.

[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

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

You didn't answer my question. I understand you think the process fails here. What would YOU do - and why? Running the exersize through the keyboard helps you think it through and us to understand where we can improve.

[Charlie Broring]

Andy, I thought I did answer you question but I'll be more specific. I would ask questions and listen to the answers. The hypothetical Car A that you describe may be very challenging, but I bet all of his fellow competitors at the ARRC have observations. Such as " has a center of gravity below the ground and a real wide track. Nobody can go through a corner like him." or " I saw him filling the nitrous bottle between sessions." Or look at lap times are they all over the place or all the same and a second faster then everybody else.

Yea, it's more work and time. However, I was recently told by a ITAC member that he "actively avoids" looking beyond the numbers of the Process.

I think that in some cases correcting for shortcomings in the Process is relatively easy. In the example I sited, the 911 Porsche, a member of the ITAC who is also a ITS driver rep could look at the car, report back that the car is really nicely built, well driven, but has 200# of lead on the floor and runs mid pack ITA times. And if this information was deemed reliable, the ITAC may consider a weight adjustment.

So, may answer is when appropriate to seek information that is not considered by the Process, and more importantly if such information is available, act on it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, may answer is when appropriate to seek information that is not considered by the Process, and more importantly if such information is available, act on it.

I appreciate your response Charlie but what if you only had the information I gave you? The Process can only be so granular. Centers of Gravity? Track width? While they are just examples, how detailed do you expect us to be? And most importantly, how would you like to apply weight given one of these issues?

Car A just came across our plates. Really. Anyone else want to take a shot?

[Knestis]

...However, I was recently told by a ITAC member that he "actively avoids" looking beyond the numbers of the Process.

That was me. I'm not alone in that respect among ITAC members, I don't believe.

Tom - On the ITB CRX Si, your letter was considered along with a number of others (Gran, at least one Blethen, et al.) as part of the genesis of what got us to where we are right this very second. We did not act on your letter as a particular agenda item, because it didn't ask for a rule change or anything like that, but it did contribute to the conversation.

The primary issue that we started to address then was the "close enough" question. Recollection among ITAC members on that CRX is consistent with what you describe - it got a chunk of weight when it went to B, pre-process. THEN when the process WAS run on it, it was "within 100 pounds" so it got left alone.

That is most absolutely NOT how we are currently running the ITAC specification process - which appears to have something to do with why the 20 cars in question are waiting. (And no, the CRX isn't among them.)

I'd normally suggest that you specifically request that we revisit that car but at this point, we're on hold it appears.

For the spreadsheet that I keep, what's the stock HP of that car? Is it the same for all years of that generation? Is it the same as the Civic Si...?

K

[tom91ita]

........

For the spreadsheet that I keep, what's the stock HP of that car? Is it the same for all years of that generation? Is it the same as the Civic Si...?

K

as far as i know, and i am quite certain, all 85-87 honda crx si's and civic si's are 1488 cc, 91 HP and 12 valves and same basic suspension geometry (torsion bar and strut up front and beam axle in the back). they are "equivalent" except for the civic is sometimes seemed as more stable (longer wheelbase) and the crx is seen as better aero.

EDIT: and 93 ft-#'s of torque per this site:

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/Affor.../2004/January/


and i will rephrase my original request into two letters. one for to look at the weight of the car and another to support the process.

[Knestis]

...So, may answer is when appropriate to seek information that is not considered by the Process, and more importantly if such information is available, act on it.

In that kind of a protocol, how would Dave Kerr's 7-year-old VIR ITB lap record of a 2:22.6 figure into deliberations...?

K

[Z3_GoCar]

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.

There's not enough information in your example, some info you have that would help illuminate the example:

1) Motor data:

a) displacement ( and bore/stroke )
b) oe hp at what rpm
c) valve sizes and number per
d) does it have cheap cast oe manifold, is it a narrow v6 or have a dual length intake manifold
e) how many gear ratios, what are they?

2) Chassis data:

a) front or rear wheel drive?
b) Struts or A arm front
c) solid axle, trailing arm, or multi-link rear
d) Brake size
e) how aero is the body, is it a brick, or does it have a round tail end that sheds vortices (ala early TT/350Z)

This should mostly be avalible on the VTS sheet.

[Andy Bettencourt]

There's not enough information in your example, some info you have that would help illuminate the example:

1) Motor data:

a) displacement ( and bore/stroke )
b) oe hp at what rpm
c) valve sizes and number per
d) does it have cheap cast oe manifold, is it a narrow v6 or have a dual length intake manifold
e) how many gear ratios, what are they?

2) Chassis data:

a) front or rear wheel drive?
b) Struts or A arm front
c) solid axle, trailing arm, or multi-link rear
d) Brake size
e) how aero is the body, is it a brick, or does it have a round tail end that sheds vortices (ala early TT/350Z)

This should mostly be avalible on the VTS sheet.

Why do you need that data James? That data was used in the caluclation of the 'process weight of 2300lbs'. Assume that all the ganularity of the process has been utilized. If you are asking us to consider aero, the amount of gears, the construction of the intake manifold, the size of the valves...we don't.

[Z3_GoCar]

Why do you need that data James? That data was used in the caluclation of the 'process weight of 2300lbs'. Assume that all the ganularity of the process has been utilized. If you are asking us to consider aero, the amount of gears, the construction of the intake manifold, the size of the valves...we don't.

I'd be looking for a reason it'd have a larger gain than normal. Is there a chance that a cam swap was performed? How about intake manifold swaps? Is that another possibility? Gearing can really help too, see the discussion on the ITB Metro for sale thread, where at one time a factory aftermarket race ratio set was avalible. Maybe the owner felt the car was such an outsider, he took matters into his own hands to equalize it in his own less than kosher way. You need to find out if the single case was an outlier, or the norm.

[lateapex911]

I'd be looking for a reason it'd have a larger gain than normal. Is there a chance that a cam swap was performed?

chance? Sure, because the car wasn't torn down, the only thing we KNOW, is that we don't KNOW what was in the engine.

How about intake manifold swaps? Is that another possibility?

Sure, see above.

Gearing can really help too, see the discussion on the ITB Metro for sale thread, where at one time a factory aftermarket race ratio set was avalible. Maybe the owner felt the car was such an outsider, he took matters into his own hands to equalize it in his own less than kosher way. You need to find out if the single case was an outlier, or the norm.

James, you have a point. But, how are we supposed to do that? None of the racers can! Well, some of the racers are SURE the other guy is cheating, and some of the racers are SURE the cars just classed wrong....

Do you want us to:
1- Assume he's cheating, and ignore it?
2- Assume he's legal, look at the lap times and just add a hundred pounds.

I'm guessing most will choose "3".

So, how do you get the data, and how do you trust it? What can you apply consistently as a method for such data acceptance?

Simple answers are few and far between.........

[Z3_GoCar]

chance? Sure, because the car wasn't torn down, the only thing we KNOW, is that we don't KNOW what was in the engine.

Sure, see above.


James, you have a point. But, how are we supposed to do that? None of the racers can! Well, some of the racers are SURE the other guy is cheating, and some of the racers are SURE the cars just classed wrong....

Do you want us to:
1- Assume he's cheating, and ignore it?
2- Assume he's legal, look at the lap times and just add a hundred pounds.

I'm guessing most will choose "3".

So, how do you get the data, and how do you trust it? What can you apply consistently as a method for such data acceptance?

Simple answers are few and far between.........

Jake, I agree this isn't a simple problem with simple answers that can be typed in one post. That's why you, Andy, Josh, Kirk, et. al

But, I think we all agree the assumptions need to be minimized. Isn't that what the process v 2.0 is about?