A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[DavidM]

I find this really interesting that the membership will argue ad-nauseam about removing (or not going out and buying) things like washer bottles, but apparently nobody raises an eyebrow for open ecu's coilovers etc... is this supposed to be low cost racing or not?

There was quite extensive debate about the ECU rule. Ironically, lowering cost was one of the reasons cited *for* the new rule. But that's

I think the ITAC is on the right road. The fact that there is a big push to document everything is something I personally am very pleased to see. The process will never be perfect, but if everything is documented then at least we'll know how something was determined.

I'm all for putting every car through the process. In fact, I think a cycle should be created where every so many years the process gets run again. That way if something changes for a car then it can be adjusted when the next cycle comes around.

Leave everything else alone for the time being, though.

David

[Andy Bettencourt]

What does the IT community feel about THIS concept:

Run car A through the process. No 'additional' information is known about power output so 25% is used. A process number is spit out and recommended. It is 200lbs lower than it is now.

The CRB rejects the recommendation based on 'historical on-track perfromance'. Meaning the car is competitive now, lowering its weight would result in a problem given what we have seen so far on track.

To what level is the IT comminuty acceptant of on-track performance being used in the process. I won't comment. If you feel stringly either way - WRITE THE CRB NOW.

[JeffYoung]

I feel very stringly...lol...

I think Jake said it best. We can never cut ontrack performance out completely even if we tried -- human nature and all. But we can limit it to being a trigger for a closer look to see if something is wrong with the process. But that's all.

In the case I above, I say use the 25% and have at it.

[GKR_17]

I'd love to know how you lose a washer bottle in a car wash... or is that a British car issue?

I've complained for quite a while that the process was applied inconsistently, and I'm all for fixing that. Though I won't sign on to V2.0 without all the details, it seems clear there is more not on the table. The rest is claimed to be very minor, but if that's true why not spell it out?

Otherwise, count me in for no. Enough change. Leave IT alone.

[JeffYoung]

I pointed the high pressure gun at the engine bay to clean it and it destroyed my already deteriorating bottle...literally blew it to pieces. It was kind of cool to watch.

[seckerich]

I pointed the high pressure gun at the engine bay to clean it and it destroyed my already deteriorating bottle...literally blew it to pieces. It was kind of cool to watch.

And you and what two other people living today know what the stock one looked like? AutoZone is calling.

[seckerich]

What does the IT community feel about THIS concept:

Run car A through the process. No 'additional' information is known about power output so 25% is used. A process number is spit out and recommended. It is 200lbs lower than it is now.

The CRB rejects the recommendation based on 'historical on-track perfromance'. Meaning the car is competitive now, lowering its weight would result in a problem given what we have seen so far on track.

To what level is the IT comminuty acceptant of on-track performance being used in the process. I won't comment. If you feel stringly either way - WRITE THE CRB NOW.

I would say you just found a pretty good trigger to believe it is outside the 25% power gain and more research is needed. If the car is as fast as you say you are missing something.

[shwah]

I would say you just found a pretty good trigger to believe it is outside the 25% power gain and more research is needed. If the car is as fast as you say you are missing something.

Sounds like it is outside the 25% power gain. Is it similar in engine architecture to other cars that are awarded a higher than 25% power gain?

[shwah]

Putting 2 and 2 together on Andy's post.

Competitive 'historical on track performance' means one thing to the CRB/ITAC in my opinion -> ARRC

I mostly know the VW / Audi stuff, so thinking about the engines/cars I know...There is a car that has the same combustion chamber as mine, less compression and one more cylinder that is rated at 110hp stock, vs 105 for the 4 cylinder. It was also a front row qualifying ARRC car a few years ago.

You guys trying to take 200# out of the Audi Coupe GT? No wonder they put the brakes on.

If I have that right - you do realize that the car should make larger gains that the '30% gain' Golf right? They are the same basic architecture engines. Displacement gain with 5 oversized pistons is 25% more, compression gain from 8.5:1 is 6% vs 2.5% from 10:1, easily tuned CIS-E. Basically less optimized from the factory than the 1780cc 4 was. Now don't be surprised if all the Audi racers fail to send you dyno sheets showing the gains, they may not be that dumb.

Get that one through and you will have created an overdog IMO.

[Knestis]

Bag --> Cat



K

EDIT - Seriously, folks. This is a very important test case for the ITAC's application of the process and practices around it. But ask yourself - whatever you decide is right re: what to do with Andy's not-so-hypothetical case - would you want the SAME OPTION to be available to the powers-that-be when it comes time to set the weight on YOUR CAR...?

[shwah]

That car caught my eye when I first started looking at weights in the ITCS a few years ago. I just assumed that it was treated like the low compression 1780cc Rabbit GTI - a motor that will make a big gain. I could see it losing some weight from where itis right now, but expect it to be above the A3 Golf 100% build power level, and thus more than 10# above the A3 weight (that may be 50# light as is).

It all goes back to what is the standard to know what we know about a given motor. And we may not be able to know what we need to know to get every one right. And in those cases, what mechanism will we leave ourselves to make a correction? I really don't have an answer. I guess put the club data boxes in and hope people don't sand bag is one way...

EDIT: From a personal/selfish viewpoint - if you are giving that car a 25% gain, you damn well should be giving my car one too. Like I said, I would expect more gain from that low compression 5 pot than my high compression 4.

[Knestis]

>> ...what mechanism will we leave ourselves to make a correction? I really don't have an answer. I guess put the club data boxes in and hope people don't sand bag is one way...

The option of revisiting any listing with evidence that we need to use a different power multiplier is always available. That's the rationale - which I actually agree with, despite my desires to be as locked down as possible on processes - for the subjectivity in the process, applied to that step (and that step ONLY).

>> ...if you are giving that car a 25% gain, you damn well should be giving my car one too. Like I said, I would expect more gain from that low compression 5 pot than my high compression 4.

Yeahbut... We have boxed ourselves in such that we require "evidence" of what actual examples of any make/model under consideration achieve in terms of IT power gains - NOT "expectations" of what they might do. I'd posit that you don't REALLY want to give the power to a small group of people, to base weights on predictions grounded in no data. That's a recipe for all kinds of mischief. Or maybe I AM WRONG. I've heard lots of things that surprise me in the last 2 weeks or so.

EDIT - In short, we are equipped to deal with the possibility of an overdog emerging, but we are NOT - and should not, I don't think - be trying to proactively prevent that from happening through the manipulation of race weights. Unless pertinent evidence is available through happenstance somehow.

K

[DavidM]

That is the crux of the issue that has been debated ad nauseum. What is considered enough "evidence" to increase the weight of a car from what is derived by the process. And what we're really focused on here is power generation from the motor. Dyno sheets are really the only true empirical data we have to use. I seriously doubt people are going to give out their dyno data if they know the ITAC is looking for data to increase their car weight; despite all the proclamations of openness.

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.

Otherwise, it's going to be people evaluating an engine's architecture and guessing about how much gain can be made over stock. It's going to be educated guessing for sure, but still guessing and that's always going to cause some controversy. If we're ok with that then so be it. If not, then we have to get data somehow.

David

[shwah]

Yeahbut... We have boxed ourselves in such that we require "evidence" of what actual examples of any make/model under consideration achieve in terms of IT power gains - NOT "expectations" of what they might do. I'd posit that you don't REALLY want to give the power to a small group of people, to base weights on predictions grounded in no data. That's a recipe for all kinds of mischief. Or maybe I AM WRONG. I've heard lots of things that surprise me in the last 2 weeks or so.

EDIT - In short, we are equipped to deal with the possibility of an overdog emerging, but we are NOT - and should not, I don't think - be trying to proactively prevent that from happening through the manipulation of race weights. Unless pertinent evidence is available through happenstance somehow.

K

Which is why I labeled that as a personal/selfish comment. I do understand the issue.

Doesn't change the reality, which I understand why others may not realize it yet, that it will make greater gains (raw and %) than the 4 cylinder. Lets just make sure we are not afraid to use said mechanism when we do get it wrong.

[jjjanos]

What does the IT community feel about THIS concept:

Run car A through the process. No 'additional' information is known about power output so 25% is used. A process number is spit out and recommended. It is 200lbs lower than it is now.

The CRB rejects the recommendation based on 'historical on-track perfromance'. Meaning the car is competitive now, lowering its weight would result in a problem given what we have seen so far on track.

To what level is the IT comminuty acceptant of on-track performance being used in the process. I won't comment. If you feel stringly either way - WRITE THE CRB NOW.

Red Herring.

Are the currently raced cars legal? Has this been confirmed? If so, then I would say the process itself should be rejected. Failing to hit real world data by that far would indicate either specification or calibration error.

[lateapex911]

Red Herring.

Are the currently raced cars legal? HOW Has this been confirmed? HOW do we Know what we know? If so, then I would say the process itself should be rejected. Failing to hit real world data by that far would indicate either specification or calibration error.

Added some ...

[Knestis]

Red Herring.

Are the currently raced cars legal? Has this been confirmed? If so, then I would say the process itself should be rejected. Failing to hit real world data by that far would indicate either specification or calibration error.

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.

[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?

[jjjanos]

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?

You have evidence - the current performance of the car. Until demonstrated that the car is illegal, one must assume that it is legal.

Absent requiring every car to be presented in 100%-build condition for an official dyno test, one has to use what is available. Thus, if the car is competitive at its current weight and the process says take 200lbs out, then either the assumptions used to generate the weight or the process used to get the weight are in error.