A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[DavidM]

If we are going to creep we gotta creep fairly. It's probably best (meaning most fair) that all the sensors be open.

As to sensor ease of installation/usage, no, the Process doesn't parse car models that fine. It is (the sensor package) under discussion.

Since ECUs are free, shouldn't the drivers of these Weber carbed cars be allowed similar freedoms? High speed enrichment holes drilled into the carb body and concurrent opening throttle plates? Chuck

These are just from this last page. I didn't include JJJanos' sarcastic comment about the weighting process. Apparently he would like to spend all his time researching cars, motors, ECUs, etc. so that he can more correctly weight them. While he has valid arguments, at some point you have to say we've done the best we can. I think we've reached that point.

That sound you hear is the vortex spinning faster. Leave IT the f alone for at least a little while.

David

[jjjanos]

These are just from this last page. I didn't include JJJanos' sarcastic comment about the weighting process. Apparently he would like to spend all his time researching cars, motors, ECUs, etc. so that he can more correctly weight them. While he has valid arguments, at some point you have to say we've done the best we can. I think we've reached that point.

Of course it was sarcasm and it's intent was to point out the foolishness of relying on a entirely objective process. While I like things to be transparent and repeatable, but not at the cost of rationality.

I'd like to change my vote - leave the damn bottles on the cars.

[lateapex911]

While he has valid arguments, at some point you have to say we've done the best we can. I think we've reached that point.

That sound you hear is the vortex spinning faster. Leave IT the f alone for at least a little while.

David

LOL, that sound has been playing for years. Sometimes it sounds off key, other times it's a pretty sweet harmony. But, it will always play.


We're looking at the sensor situation, and discussing it's merits.

Regarding the intricacies of car to car abilities to take advantage of their particular carb, or their particular fuel injection setup, it's just not in the cards for IT. 350 cars over a 42 year span.

We'll never get them all balanced on the head of a pin. Not going to happen. Ever.

In my opinion, I think we'd like to apply the process to each of them*, account for their individual physical properties to a somewhat medium fine level, and, in cases where they don't fit the standard (rotaries, cars under/over rated from the factory, overachievers, etc) apply repeatable corrections based on data and evidence.

If we can do that, we'll worry about washer bottles and other such stuff, but honestly, we have enough big picture stuff in the works that washer bottles is just noise.

We want to avoid overdogs, sure, but the cream will rise. And some cars, like mine, are just not going to fit the process.

And you know what? In most of the cases, that's ok. I fully accept that my car, for example (an ITA RX-7) has had it's day in the sun, and that fighting for greater equality is putting the of the few ahead of the needs of the many. Some cars just won't be top dogs, and there's not much that can be done, short of re-orging the classes. Which would just create other issues.

*(or more exactly, each that hasn't been processed, and is in need of processing. Member requests seem to be a good method of attending to that)

[JeffYoung]

Agree with most of Jake's post although feel the "washer bottle" issue is bigger picture than he does (honest disagreement) -- it's more about dual purpose vestiges of many kinds.

Spaw, to answer your question -- was the diffference between carb and EFI cars accounted for in the process -- the answer is not specifically.

As I understand the history, and understand how things work now, that is all rolled up in the expected power multiplier for a particular. For example, even though a 944 is EFI, it's been fairly well established via dyno sheets that you aren't going to get as much gain out of that motor as you would, for example, a Z car or a carb'ed TR8.

So in some ways, the process is "better" than a standard carb or EFI adder/subtractor, in that it does, in a very rough way, try to be car specific in determining power potential.

Now, again, Jake is right. There is no way we can do that with 100% accuracy for all cars. Not possible, but we try to get it as "right" as we can and go from there.

[callard]

Jeff,
Are you saying that the 944 (another Porsche) doesn't get the magical 25% horsepower increase that the process is based on?
Chuck

[JeffYoung]

I don't know for sure, but I think that is right. I think it was 15% but Jake can answer it definitively.

[Knestis]

The 944 hasn't been reviewed since February 2008, when we started keeping a consolidated record of reviews and recommendations.

K

[spawpoet]

Thank you Jake and Jeff. I agree the best you guys can do is get close, and that inevitably means some cars will be on the positive side of close, and others on the negative. And that what's in the best interest for the broadest group of IT racers is the direction the ITAC must push. IMHO most pro series could take a few lessons from how SCCA has achieved parity within IT. At the end of the day most IT competitors would be better served focusing on making themselves better drivers than worrying so much whether their car is fairly classed. I apologize for all the questions, and really appreciate you guys taking the time to answer them.

[JeffYoung]

No apologies necessary -- keep the good questions coming.

And, I hate calling you "spaw" -- lol....can you tell me your first name?

Thanks again for the thoughtful discussion. It is appreciated.

[lateapex911]

Thank you Jake and Jeff. I agree the best you guys can do is get close, and that inevitably means some cars will be on the positive side of close, and others on the negative. And that what's in the best interest for the broadest group of IT racers is the direction the ITAC must push. IMHO most pro series could take a few lessons from how SCCA has achieved parity within IT. At the end of the day most IT competitors would be better served focusing on making themselves better drivers than worrying so much whether their car is fairly classed. I apologize for all the questions, and really appreciate you guys taking the time to answer them.

Thanks! Tell our bosses, the CRB!

(I can't think of any Pro series that has 350 cars on the spec lines. THAT is really the crux of the issue in IT. If we had 3 or 5 models to attend to, we might take a different tact. We'd have a MUCH bigger matrix of data to look at, and the variabilities would be reduced in comparison. But we don't, so we have to take another approach. Your point about driver skill is well made. We have to take that into account when even discussing on track performance, and it is a HUGE factor. We've heard from members that they'd rather we are consistent than perfect.)