Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Knestis]

My guess is there is a beleif it makes more than 25% gains. When I ran that math for my car and found 2131 as a 'process weight'
1.25 x 105 x 17 - 50 strut/beam - 50 fwd
I wrote a letter.

It turns out there is a beleif that my car makes 30% - which processes out to 2220. It was recommended to be moved to 2270, and turned down. Not sure what else was used in the process to give the extra 50, but ces la vie.

The "strut/beam" suspension didn't get a subtractor. The A-arm cars get an adder. That same vestigial 50# accounts for a chunk of the difference between where the MkIII is and where it should be, too.

K

[Knestis]

jeff, the 25% rule of thumb yields the following results for two ITB hondas

86 crx si

1.25 x 91 x 17 #'s per hp -50 (FWD) - 50 (struts and beam axle) = 1834 # vs. 2130

89 accord LXi

1.25 x 120 x 17 - 50 (FWD) = 2500 vs. 2550

since these are both Hondas and pre OBD0, etc., one would expect similar gains, right?

i do think my car is overweight per any reasonable interpretation of "the process" but apparently it is "right" per the CRB's undisclosed methods.

That's not entirely fair. The CRB hasn't voted on any recommendation for the CRX because it hasn't actually been processed. That was all pending a decision about the idea of a total reset of ITB. That big idea was a victim of the CRB hold, whether formally or because we got distracted...

...but this is a GREAT case study. It should be self-evident in some comparisons, whether things are in line or not. And if they are not (e.g., using 1.3 as the power multiplier on the MkII), then that should be known to the membership.

AND if some weight gets added - or subtracted - beyond what the ITAC process says should be the case, THAT should be known by us as well.

Being on the outside - even for a few days - has made me even more acutely aware of the danger of the "you can't handle the truth!" way of thinking.

K

[Knestis]

OK. It should not be the case, but it IS the case... .

If the CRB OK'd a comprehensive do-over of B, and let the current process work - including the evidence/confidence-based use of alternate power factors - it would NOT be the case. It is only because the process as it is currently constituted, hasn't been allowed to do what it's designed to do.

Right before the doo-doo hit the fan - just after our August con call - the ITAC was in conversation with the CRB about doing just that, and were in fact looking at compilation spreadsheet of 80+ B cars that I've been working on for ages. They asked if that was a picture of what we'd recommend for the class. My answer was "NO!" because, while we had the basic information for each example, very few had been through the multi-step process of considering non-standard power factors - which might reasonably be triggered for any given make/model by perceptions of competitiveness...

Without that step, which critics seem to ignore when the process gets accused of being inflexible and overly formulaic, the "Process" - the REAL PROCESS - isn't done.

K

[shwah]

I get the italicised point. I just worry that if you get it wrong in one direction you will have some data to work with there, and in the other direction not. So even if triggered, the extra look will not be empowered to make the correction.

Well. That was my idea. If it sparks something positive, cool. If it just isn't the right answer, I hope we keep looking. I don't think I can add much to it without repeating myself.

[shwah]

The "strut/beam" suspension didn't get a subtractor. The A-arm cars get an adder. That same vestigial 50# accounts for a chunk of the difference between where the MkIII is and where it should be, too.

K

Ah. Then it all adds up. I have to say that feels good, even if I quibbled about the inputs.

[seckerich]

Ah. Then it all adds up. I have to say that feels good, even if I quibbled about the inputs.

And there is the point in all of this Chris. Once you know the facts and what is used to class your car you have more confidence in the system and that there is transparency. If all IT cars in the GCR included the process math in their spec line we would all be better off. This would assume that all active cars get run through the process, and the oddballs that never get run and are so ancient we do not even have specs get dropped. Then if there are cars that are wrong either way you can present evidence for a possible change.

[jjjanos]

I continue to be worried however about the first assumption though: That a weight SHOULD be changed (or left unchanged) based on perceptions. Your suggestion just decreases the damage potentially done based on those perceptions.

The Reader's Digest Version - correct where wrong -

1. The Audi is 200lbs over its process weight.
2. At the ARRC (and maybe some regionals) the car turned some really competitive lap times. It didn't finish high enough to get torn down.
3. The ITAC recommended removing the 200lbs and the CRB said look at it again.
4. Some portion of the CRB, presumably someone in authority like the chair or the BoD liason since nobody else has that authority, got his panties in a wad over the forums discussing the issue.

Essentially correct?

How much on-track performance evidence is there that the car is competitve as classified? Is it a single observation or is it repeatable in a field of cars that most would accept are at the top of the curve? Because if this is a one-off or getting the draw to an inside straight situation, I'd say there really isn't convincing evidence that things should be left alone.

Now, let's say we take the weight off the car and the IT gain is more than 25%. The car becomes an overdog at process weight, when a full build is done. What mechanism or procedure is in place to rectify that situation that does not depend on the good faith of the owners of the car in question? As far as I can tell, there is none and that means that there isn't convincing evidence that the weight should be changed because, once it is changed - it won't be readjusted.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Now, let's say we take the weight off the car and the IT gain is more than 25%. The car becomes an overdog at process weight, when a full build is done. What mechanism or procedure is in place to rectify that situation that does not depend on the good faith of the owners of the car in question? As far as I can tell, there is none and that means that there isn't convincing evidence that the weight should be changed because, once it is changed - it won't be readjusted.

GCR page 332, last paragraph right above the beginning of Section D.

[jjjanos]

GCR page 332, last paragraph right above the beginning of Section D.

Irrelevant.

Without reliance upon on-track performance, there is no basis to apply this adjustment. Adjusting weights in a zero-tolerance for subjective performance world requires hard data - HP in excess or below the assumed HP gain, realization that the car does not have FWD, etc.

A former member of the ITAC has implied that the ITAC would like a 100% objective classification process. Seems to me that the CRB has reasonable and justifiable doubts about such a move. One side seems to be saying, there's subjective evidence that this car is correctly classified and the other is saying no there isn't and we should wait until we put another IT class on life support like did with ITS and the BMW.

Seems to me that both sides seem are willing to meddle with process weights via competition adjustments. The only disagreement is when to throw out the process.

This is sounding more and more like a debate as to whether Christ did, or did not own his own clothes.

[Knestis]

>> How much on-track performance evidence is there that the car is competitve as classified? Is it a single observation or is it repeatable in a field of cars that most would accept are at the top of the curve? ...

That's the $64,000 question right there. I'd argue that in the Audi case we have something just slightly better than "single observation." And OTHER observations of the same cars paint a different picture.

When we do qualitative research, we adhere to methodological standards for rigor. (It is NOT true that all qualitative research is sloppy: Only sloppy qualitative research is sloppy.) One necessary step in the analysis of any narrative or similar evidence is what we call "searching for disconfirming evidence," where the researcher actively goes looking for evidence in the data that says his or her inferences are not warranted.

If we are just looking for scraps of evidence that any given car is uber-competitive, we can find them. What we need to do - if we're going to go traipsing down the competition adjustment path (bleah!) is look for evidence that the same car is NOT competitive and give it the same kind of weight. In all of the races ever run by an Audi GT, how many times has it NOT won? How many different make/model cases have finished ahead of the Blethen's examples, since they are being held up as the gold standard?

Damn, people. We are not stoopid. THINK about this stuff.

If you are among those who think the ITAC and/or CRB should include a mechanism for injecting their anxieties, biases, paranoia, urban myth, etc., into how IT cars are specified, picture for a minute how you'd feel if you got 200 pounds because two brothers who happen to drive the same kind of car as you were SMART enought to go to the ARRC and bump-draft down that mother of a straight...

K

[Knestis]

...A former member of the ITAC has implied that the ITAC would like a 100% objective classification process. ...

Objection, your honor. The witless is making stuff up again.

[jjjanos]

>> How much on-track performance evidence is there that the car is competitve as classified? Is it a single observation or is it repeatable in a field of cars that most would accept are at the top of the curve? ...

That's the $64,000 question right there. I'd argue that in the Audi case we have something just slightly better than "single observation." And OTHER observations of the same cars paint a different picture.

So, the question is not whether the Audi has the correct weight as is; the question is whether the Audis that gave the "fast" observations were legal when they did it. I.e. if one legal car can be that "competitive", it must be assumed that they all can. Good luck proving that.

If we are just looking for scraps of evidence that any given car is uber-competitive, we can find them. What we need to do - if we're going to go traipsing down the competition adjustment path (bleah!) is look for evidence that the same car is NOT competitive and give it the same kind of weight. In all of the races ever run by an Audi GT, how many times has it NOT won? How many different make/model cases have finished ahead of the Blethen's examples, since they are being held up as the gold standard?

Wrong standard. The rest of the Audi's do not matter other than to cast doubt as to the legality of the "fast" Audi. To me, the correct standard is "How many times has the fast Audi turned similar performances and, if possible, under what conditions ?"

If you are among those who think the ITAC and/or CRB should include a mechanism for injecting their anxieties, biases, paranoia, urban myth, etc., into how IT cars are specified, picture for a minute how you'd feel if you got 200 pounds because two brothers who happen to drive the same kind of car as you were SMART enought to go to the ARRC and bump-draft down that mother of a straight...

Which would, IMO, disqualify the observations as not displaying the actual performance of the car.

Objection, your honor. The witless is making stuff up again.

Member emeritus of the ITAC?

[Bill Miller]

jeff, the 25% rule of thumb yields the following results for two ITB hondas

86 crx si

1.25 x 91 x 17 #'s per hp -50 (FWD) - 50 (struts and beam axle) = 1834 # vs. 2130

89 accord LXi

1.25 x 120 x 17 - 50 (FWD) = 2500 vs. 2550

since these are both Hondas and pre OBD0, etc., one would expect similar gains, right?

i do think my car is overweight per any reasonable interpretation of "the process" but apparently it is "right" per the CRB's undisclosed methods.

Tom,

Run the same exercise for the '83 - '84 Rabbit GTI. Should fall pretty much where the '86 Civic / CRX Si does (90hp for the GTI, 91hp for the Si). Yet the spec weight is 2080#. That's ~150 over the process weight. (~100# if there is no strut/beam subtractor). To get to 2080# (assuming the 17lb/hp # is correct), and assuming no strut beam subtractor, you need a power factor of almost 1.4 (1.392 by my calculation). That translates to getting 125+hp out of that motor, with an IT-legal tune. I've been playing w/ those cars for a looooong time, and I can tell you, you don't get that kind of power out of an IT-legal tune. They came w/ a very restrictive exhaust system, but even after you take that away, you've still got a restrictive throttle body and a crappy cam. The 1.25 power factor is much more on target for an IT-legal tune.

And the Rabbit GTI was one of the cars that was run through the process during tGR. How'd the 1.4 power factor get justified? And more importantly, where is it documented?

[tom91ita]

My guess is there is a beleif it makes more than 25% gains. When I ran that math for my car and found 2131 as a 'process weight'
1.25 x 105 x 17 - 50 strut/beam - 50 fwd
I wrote a letter.

i wrote a letter a year ago to the CRB and noted that to make the weight i have, i must have nearly a 1.44 factor. i see that my math was off slightly since i subtracted 50 # for my suspension when i should not have as K noted, it was an adder to those that had it, etc..

but the gist of my letter was that if you back calculate (i love excel "goal seek" by the way) you get my 1st gen crx si having essentially the same power multiplier as the ITA crx si.

i know they both have the mighty "H" on the nose (well actually mine fell off..........) but there is no way a 12 valve vacuum advance distributor is going to get the same power multiplier as the 16 valve OBD0 ECU 2nd gen.

one reason i picked the ITB accord is because

1. it was much closer to the "process" weight (or right on if it has A-arms?)
2. it has essentially the same hp/cc ratio listed in on-line spec resources as mine
3. one of the variants has done rather well at the ARRC
4. i thought one of the names listed for the CRB looked like a name i had seen at the ARRC driving an accord (not even sure if it was the one i picked for the comparision)

and somewhere on this site i saw the outline of the process and i had made notes that it was 17 #/hp for ITB. can't remember where that was at or maybe it is a sticky?

but i would at least like to know if the formula is as follows;

1.25 x 91 x 17 - 50 (FWD) + 246(CR = 2130

note that i am implying that there is apparently some unknown CRB fudge factor.

or if my car can get 35% and then it is;

1.35 x 91 x 17 -50 + 92 (CR

i don't KNOW there is a CRB fudge factor, i am suggesting that my car NOT moving is apparently the result of the CRB (or ITAC although i do not think/know this) thinking it is okay.

i would think the rabbit and the crx would be similar with regards to the 90 vs. 91 hp. However, I do/should have the magical, mystical "H" on my hood. Bill, i will loan you a magic marker and we can give you an "H" on your hood as well? or i have a friend that does vinyl that could make an "H"?

[Bill Miller]

Bill, i will loan you a magic marker and we can give you an "H" on your hood as well? or i have a friend that does vinyl that could make an "H"?

Them's fightin' words Tom!

[Knestis]

...And the Rabbit GTI was one of the cars that was run through the process during tGR. How'd the 1.4 power factor get justified? And more importantly, where is it documented?

Yes it was, it's not clear, and nowhere.

K

[Bill Miller]

Yes it was, it's not clear, and nowhere.

K

Kirk,

This is not directed at you, so please don't take it like that. It's directed at the ITAC as a whole. What exactly was the point in this whole exercise if you were going to throw it out the window right out of the gate? Exactly how is it any better now than it was before? You guys ran cars through the process, and didn't even have enough faith in it to trust the output? You talk about transparent, repeatable, and objective, but you're still doing business as usual. No wonder people's confidence in the whole thing is shaken, you guys don't even believe in it yourself.

[Knestis]

Remember Bill that we run into issues if we judge historical acts by the standards of a different time. I need to reiterate the distinction too, between the MATH that makes up the process and the "Process" as it was constructed as of this month. What has changed since the GR is NOT the math. What changed was the practices and policies wrapped around the math.

There's no question that the GTI got some subjective poundage when viewed through a 2009 helmet visor, but at the time that was perfectly OK per the practices of the ITAC in place.

We - well, they - have been working toward transparent, repeatable, and objective (more about this last one in a sec) over the past 2 years. It's the fact that the CURRENT practices of the ITAC got us very, VERY close to that ideal that I think has created the backlash among members of the CRB, as we moved away from the internal allowances that let the Rabbit be too heavy. The CURRENT ITAC members are as a whole pretty much on board with the ideals behind your point.

As regards "objective" (and this goes to JJJ's point above), that current process still has one - but ONLY ONE - place where ITAC members can inject subjectivity. I've come to understand that this is both necessary and reasonable, based on our work this past winter and spring.

K

EDIT - ...and documentation is one of the major changes over that time, Bill - thus eliminating most of the concern you describe.

[lateapex911]

It's been an uphill climb. It's not like the ITAC hasn't wanted to do certain things, or move in certain directions, but harnessing the power politically isn't easy. Apparently we might be bumping against a soft ceiling. Maybe not. We'll see.

[Andy Bettencourt]

IIRC, the VW experts on the ITAC at the time had evidence that 100whp was possible from that Rabbit.

In today's system, that person would have to present the evidence, the committee would vote on their confidence in the evidence and, if it passed muster, it would be documented and recorded.

Point in fact for those who may be missing something here: The 'Process weight' of a car is not neccessarily based on a 25% increase. It's only based on that number as an assumption if no numbers are available (common in new classifications)