A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[DavidM]

Seems like we have a three step re-evaluation process:

1. Determine if car needs further scrutiny.

On track performance is used as a trigger for further research on a car.

2. Gather data and evidence.

What is the evidence? Dyno sheets still seem to be the only true data, but, as has been pointed out, those can be manipulated unless gotten in a controlled environment. Is lower compression evidence? Is longer cam duration evidence?

3. Set new weight.

Presumably, the idea is that the 25% number would be increased to whatever is determined by the evidence in step 2.


Did I leave something out? Step 2 is still where we have the problems.

[seckerich]

Marc, how about this. I fully support and agree with Kirk's fear of setting weights by on track performance.

On the other end of the spectrum, I also agree we can't completely ignore it, nor would it be possible to (we are human, and what we see and observe matters to us).

I think Jake put it this way, and this I agree with: observed on track performance should be a trigger for us to take a harder look at a car, or what the process "spits out" for that car.

I see that as a fair balance between the two extremes. Your thoughts?

Good points Jeff. If we ever get to the point that everything is determined by the process then the ITAC is irrelevant. We could just class our own car with the process and go racing. We have class advisory boards to look at the big picture and make their best attempt at getting a level playing field. Every formula will have the oddball and that is what you guys are there to deal with. Take that away and we go back to the days of SWAG"S. You have to have the leeway to deal with them and the differeing views of the ITAC members keep you from tilting too far one way. They call that balance.

[GKR_17]

I say bring a dyno to the ARRC (and other big races if possible) and the top 5 in each class get put on it right after the race. There's your data and it could be kept confidential to the ITAC if desired.

Dyno sheets still seem to be the only true data, but, as has been pointed out, those can be manipulated unless gotten in a controlled environment.

With custom ECU's that won't work. All it takes is the flip of one hidden switch and you can cut the engine power in half (or whatever fraction you want).

[jjjanos]

So the only factors that contribute to on-track performance - by the above logic - are...

** Legality

** Weight

Really?

K

EDIT - On reflection, this REALLY pisses me off. Even if they'd been torn down to the bare tubs and declared squeaky clean (which they were not), a couple of examples of a car demonstrate speed in qualifying at one event, and it's "proof" that the process doesn't work...? Then quit dinking about and commit to rewards weight. Fold up the ITAC's tent and call it a day.

Doesn't matter if it's a couple of laps in one event or not - it demonstrates what the car can do. If the driver is wildly inconsistent and cracked off a 1:28 in an ITB car at Summit and then turned nothing but 1:37s the rest of the session it simply means that a consistent driver would be capable of turning the 1:28s virtually every lap in that car. Only two sources of error - illegality and/or the model.

Use the process to take 200lbs off the car and the wildcat driver will turn a 1:27 and 1:36s and the good driver will turn 1:27 every lap.

Errors in the model could be due to specification or input error. Based on what's been said in this thread, it sounds to me that the assumption regarding 25% gains would be the culprit. That doesn't invalidate the hallowed process, but does point at operator error.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Errors in the model could be due to specification or input error. Based on what's been said in this thread, it sounds to me that the assumption regarding 25% gains would be the culprit. That doesn't invalidate the hallowed process, but does point at operator error.

Well, yes and no. We might be able to assume that based on historical on-track performance, that the 25% is wrong. I wouldn't call it operator error however. All we can plug in is what we know. The default for all cars is 25%. Absent any evidence to the contrary, what are we to do?

[DavidM]

With custom ECU's that won't work. All it takes is the flip of one hidden switch and you can cut the engine power in half (or whatever fraction you want).

True. The switch wouldn't even need to be hidden since it's legal per the rule book as ECUs are open.

However, maybe you could have something in the Supps for the event that says cars are not to be modified from their on-track configuration before being put on the dyno. There's nothing to keep someone from flipping their switch, but I think their integrity would come into question (Edit: If caught of course). I don't know if that's something you could specify in the Supps or not.

You have to trust people at some point. I just think it would be harder (mentally speaking, not actually doing it) to fudge things at an event versus sending in that dyno sheet of your car before the trick exhaust header and full ECU tuning. Maybe not, dunno.

David

[callard]

I've got two IT-S cars which each started with 165 (plus or minus 2) crank HP. One had a cast iron manifold and an ECU running the fuel and ignition. The other had factory supplied headers, distributor and mechanical fuel injection. I bumped both the half point in compression when I did my IT builds. On the one car, I replaced the cast iron manifold with headers, played with the ignition and fuel mapping (got 12.8 across the rev range with WBO2 readings) and got GOBS more power. With the other, I recontoured the fuel mapping cam in the injection pump to achieve 12.8 across the rev range, found that more advance didn't help much and got minimal additional power.
My issue with the process is the magic number 25%. Many cars can achieve that within the rules and a few will never be able to improve that much. All based on what you start with from the factory.
Chuck

[gran racing]

If we're going to use on-track performance for more than just a trigger to look closer at various vehicles, can we at least get some scouts at each event taking notes of conditions and potential causes of the results? Did the car have a fantastic tow, use bump drafting, what was the outside temp like, what were all of the track conditions like, who else showed up, what tires were they running and how many cycles did each have, who was doing the set-up and what were their qualifications, how good of a driver was behind the wheel, did they screw up at all, and so on, and so on. I mean if we're just going to start basing thing on the results, I sure would hope we know how each was achieved. Hey, pro, college, and even down to high school teams use scouts since this information is so important, why shouldn't we if using results as a bigger factor?

[Andy Bettencourt]

If we're going to use on-track performance for more than just a trigger to look closer at various vehicles, can we at least get some scouts at each event taking notes of conditions and potential causes of the results? Did the car have a fantastic tow, use bump drafting, what was the outside temp like, what were all of the track conditions like, who else showed up, what tires were they running and how many cycles did each have, who was doing the set-up and what were their qualifications, how good of a driver was behind the wheel, did they screw up at all, and so on, and so on. I mean if we're just going to start basing thing on the results, I sure would hope we know how each was achieved. Hey, pro, college, and even down to high school teams use scouts since this information is so important, why shouldn't we if using results as a bigger factor?

Because it's not possible. Right? Isn't that the point?

[gran racing]

Exactly the point. Without this type of information gathering tool, we'll never know and we're back to a guessing game and pure speculation.

[Knestis]

Doesn't matter if it's a couple of laps in one event or not - it demonstrates what the car can do. If the driver is wildly inconsistent and cracked off a 1:28 in an ITB car at Summit and then turned nothing but 1:37s the rest of the session it simply means that a consistent driver would be capable of turning the 1:28s virtually every lap in that car. Only two sources of error - illegality and/or the model. ...

Argh.

How about the DOZENS of other variables that influence where any given car finishes, relative to any collection of other cars?

Testing time, tire budget, set-up skill, maintenance of wear items (DNF/no DNF), nature of the track, dyno tuning time, track familiarity, driver rest and physical condition, engine build quality, shock/strut quality, ability to tune said dampers, brake pad choice, fuel (pump, race, secret sauce?), traffic, track conditions, miles on the engine, final drive choice, amount over (or under?) spec weight, weather conditions, tire choice, DRIVER SKILL...? Of EVERY car in any given race, to different degrees...???

Seriously.

Bowie won the '07 ARRC in my car. Does that mean it's an overdog? I got my butt handed to me at the Festival last year in the same car. Does that mean it's just a dog? Did I get beat at the SIC because I chose a VW (rather than an Accord or Celica) or because I didn't pull up my big-boy pants and get it done...?

SERIOUSLY.

You are smarter than this, Jeff. I can only figure you are being intellectually selective in your arguments to support a preconceived notion on your agenda.

K

[Knestis]

Exactly the point. Without this type of information gathering tool, we'll never know and we're back to a guessing game and pure speculation.

NO.

Without that "information" (which is flawed), we accept that we're OK with not being perfect, and that other factors will contribute more to on-track competitiveness - like the list above - than do the choice of car and its resultant race weight.

Or we don't accept that first principle. That's what I'm coming to understand here - that most of you agree with the CRB on this issue, and actually WANT the ability to pick and choose race weights based on how competitive you think cars are, from watching onesy-twosy examples on track.

Tell me clearly that's the consensus but don't bitch about the lack of "repeatable and transparent" because you can NOT have both. You get the IT you want.

K

[IPRESS]

Kirk, Please don't take this wrong, as I mean this as constructive..... but have you ever thought that maybe one of the reasons that you guys are having trouble getting your way with the PTB is because of the tone and attitude of your messages? Posts like the one above don't gain a side (any side) support. Jeff may disagree with what you or some of the others think, but he (so far) hasn't questioned your thought process. Damn, try a little sugar and spice. It might help sell the ITAC position.

Now on the question at hand. (or the one this thing has come around to)
Is the process by itself the answer?
Evidently the PTB (or at least the CR has not been convinced of this.
I think they realize that this is a sport with a human element. So far as bad as the present system seems to be IT has been able to cure most of its problems when one has arisen (thats a big word for me.) Now with the updated V2 to help out maybe big problems will be less likely to jump up.)
I think I will start another thread to get some info on problem cars.

[Ron Earp]

Looks like we're waaaaay off thread topic for many pages. Maybe the last few pages of posts should be merged over with the "Big Picture IT" thread?

[gran racing]

Exactly the point. Without this type of information gathering tool, we'll never know and we're back to a guessing game and pure speculation.

Kirk, you misinterpreted this and it could just have been due to poor wording on my part. What I meant was if on-track performance were used to classify cars and other information were not available, then we'd be back to a guessing game. I am NOT advocating using on-track peformance for more than a trigger to look at things closer.

[Knestis]

Kirk, you misinterpreted this and it could just have been due to poor wording on my part. What I meant was if on-track performance were used to classify cars and other information were not available, then we'd be back to a guessing game. I am NOT advocating using on-track peformance for more than a trigger to look at things closer.

I apologize, Dave - I read your post exactly backward. Back pronoun antecedent action on my part.

But I'm not going to apologize for being frustrated by this situation. Maybe I'm as PO'd at myself as anything or anyone else, for letting myself believe that we could actually get to a place where the category was, to the very best of our abilities, protected from the standard Club classing and spec'ing silliness that I've been watching since 1979.

We were THIS CLOSE ------> <------- to having the ITAC's documentation of the practices we use in their final form. Internally, we used the term "codified" - to put it in writing and make it a law. We put a TON of time into looking at options; collecting feedback; and rejecting ideas that we ultimately couldn't resolve in a way that was repeatable, explainable, and confidence-inspiring to members (like dealing with torque in a different way).

I don't have to be politic. I'm a crumudgeon and I view my role as being crumudeony. Andy does an amazing job herding the ITAC cats and understanding the political landscape and Club practices. We would all be well and truly screwed without him doing his job, but someone has to kick over the anthill to find out what's inside.

I've gone back and forth with JJJ and while I don't agree with him on a lot of things, he is a damned smart dude. He understands the scientific method and researchy stuff. If he's going to look at an example through a straw to cherry pick logic to support a position, he's going to do it well - but I'm going to call him on it.

K

(Sorry, Ron)

[gran racing]

Kirk, not that this will make you feel any better but you're not the only one whose frustrated. It seems like the more involved I become with this club the more annoyed I become.

[DavidM]

We were THIS CLOSE ------> <------- to having the ITAC's documentation of the practices we use in their final form. Internally, we used the term "codified" - to put it in writing and make it a law. We put a TON of time into looking at options; collecting feedback; and rejecting ideas that we ultimately couldn't resolve in a way that was repeatable, explainable, and confidence-inspiring to members (like dealing with torque in a different way).

Did I miss something? Are you guys saying the CRB, BOD, whoever is rejecting the process? I would definitely have an issue with that and would write in to support the ITAC and its work. I think a lot of thought has gone into the process and while not perfect, it's pretty darn good. I think most of the debate is about how to deal with the exceptions.

David

[JeffYoung]

Reject is probably a bit strong. They have a lot of questions about what we are doing. But, a letter from membership in support of the process would be helpful at this point.

Thanks on that David, the only 240sx guy I know with brake issues....lol...glad you got things sorted.

You going to try to get to CMP next spring?

Did I miss something? Are you guys saying the CRB, BOD, whoever is rejecting the process? I would definitely have an issue with that and would write in to support the ITAC and its work. I think a lot of thought has gone into the process and while not perfect, it's pretty darn good. I think most of the debate is about how to deal with the exceptions.

David

[Ed Funk]

[quote=Knestis;295183] Back pronoun antecedent action on my part.




K

WTF!! Shit I've forgotten a lot of High School English in 45 years, but don't think I've ever heard of that one!!