Problem Cars

[Knestis]

>> The ITAC should just classify all cars old and new with the same process right or wrong then get a set of balls and tell all the winers and complainers that the process is what it is, its the same for all cars in all classes, don't like it pick another car or another place to race.

Thanks for stepping into this mess, Stephen. But be clear about who you should be unhappy with.

K

[JeffYoung]

You'd be surprised how many people have been willing to do that. It's pretty impressive actually.

which translates into....Stephen has to be willing to turn in dyno sheets showing he should get weight.

[tnord]

You'd be surprised how many people have been willing to do that. It's pretty impressive actually.

I was one of them.

How many have knowingly submitted dyno data that would result in a significant addition of weight?

[JeffYoung]

Blake Meredith, Kirk Knestis, myself (potentially, the car could get more weight depending on a few things), the E36 BMW guys back in the day, your great friend Greg Amy, etc.

[frnkhous]

Actually I don't think Greg Amy thought that the car would get weight if he shared his dyno numbers as I believe he's said he'll never do that again. But maybe that is for some other reason.

[tnord]

i don't want to get too far off topic, and this is all way back in my memory and could very well be wrong (and frankly i don't really care to argue this miniscule aspect of the bigger picture), but....

the Golf gained 10lbs?

Blake's 914 dyno sheet doesn't show it above 30% does it?

your sheet doesn't show it should get weight based on peak power, but possibly rather torque/powercurve (which you already get weight for and know that starting to use calculus to determine area under the curve is WAY beyond what we're trying to do here)

The last time i heard Greg discuss his old NX he mentioned that he made public those numbes with the understanding his car would NOT gain any weight. Believe it or not he actually came to my defense when i wouldn't make public my dyno numbers (which i provided only to Jake Gulick) and cited the issue with the NX (which still hasn't received weight, despite the data).

E36 BMW data is "pre-process" and i don't really think is relevant to the specific issue at hand

like i said....from the cloudy areas of my memory.

[JeffYoung]

My car could get weight with the peak numbers. It's never been run through.

Greg has said he wouldn't share again, but the fact is he did.

I can't remember specifically what we did with Blake's numbers other than I know the 914 weight was set using his dyno data.

Actually, the E36 submissions were at the same time the process came on line, and used to support an ITAC recommendation that the car get weight. The CRB decided to go with a restrictor.

I don't really know much about the Golf, although I know a lot about Kirk and I will tell you of anyone, he'd be the first to put whatever process weight on his car the process and his dyno plots required.

Don't give up on folks and their dyno sheets until we have a real problem, which would be an overdog we can't get dyno sheets for. That day may come, but it has not come yet.

[tnord]

there's plenty more to debate on those individual issues....but whatever....

PS - the problem is not only with overdogs, but underdogs as well. if no one wants to build it because of the weight....where are you going to get data from?

[JeffYoung]

Travis, remember, we can't make sure that every car in the ITCS can win. We can get them close, but that's about it. There will always be perceived "dogs" -- although I agree with you it is far more likely that the "underdog" problem will not be solved as quickly if at all as the overdog problem(s).

Jake had a good quote about that "the unraced and unloved will be left alone" or something (Jake?). Until someone wants to come along and "process" an ITB MGB or something and prove it can't make 25%, it will probably just sit, I agree.

But I do think we underestimate one of the beauties of IT -- people build weird farked up shit. And not just me. There are Alfa Milanos and GTVs out there, Spitfires, Fire Arrows, TR6s, Fieros, TR7s, Olds Achievas, Opel GTs and Mantas, etc. etc. etc.

IT racers are a diverse, eclectic crowd.

there's plenty more to debate on those individual issues....but whatever....

PS - the problem is not only with overdogs, but underdogs as well. if no one wants to build it because of the weight....where are you going to get data from?

[StephenB]

>> The ITAC should just classify all cars old and new with the same process right or wrong then get a set of balls and tell all the winers and complainers that the process is what it is, its the same for all cars in all classes, don't like it pick another car or another place to race.

Thanks for stepping into this mess, Stephen. But be clear about who you should be unhappy with.

K

I am unhappy with anyone that doesn't want a consistent process for all cars being classified in the ITCS. If the ITAC decides that cars are fine with the current weights, going forward, any new car classified goes through this process then fine with me, or if they choose that ALL cars currently classified in the ITCS will be "re-aligned" then that is fine with me also, lets just make a decision and go with it so I can build my new car and move on! I am tired of sitting in limbo racing my same old car because I have no clue what IT will look like next year. I want a new car and it will be in a class that is consistant and looks stable into the future.

If you're on the ITAC, CRB, or a SCCA member and you think any car should get an "exception" both plus or minus then I am unhappy with you. Classify the cars consistantly then leave them alone and let us choose what we want to race you and everyone else with.

Stephen

[Knestis]

i don't want to get too far off topic, and this is all way back in my memory and could very well be wrong (and frankly i don't really care to argue this miniscule aspect of the bigger picture), but....

the Golf gained 10lbs?

Blake's 914 dyno sheet doesn't show it above 30% does it?

your sheet doesn't show it should get weight based on peak power, but possibly rather torque/powercurve (which you already get weight for and know that starting to use calculus to determine area under the curve is WAY beyond what we're trying to do here)

The last time i heard Greg discuss his old NX he mentioned that he made public those numbes with the understanding his car would NOT gain any weight. Believe it or not he actually came to my defense when i wouldn't make public my dyno numbers (which i provided only to Jake Gulick) and cited the issue with the NX (which still hasn't received weight, despite the data).

E36 BMW data is "pre-process" and i don't really think is relevant to the specific issue at hand

like i said....from the cloudy areas of my memory.

On relatively current issues...

** The MkII Golf got a recommended 10 pound decrease which the CRB voted against. The MkIII Golf (mine) is sitting on a huge list of ITB cars that we compiled but were waiting on word re: whether we could do a "Great Realignment Part Deux," before the current batch of recommendations - all those since the Golf II, actually - were put on hold pending the CRB getting the information it's looking for.

** I don't have my documentation handy but I'm pretty sure that the 914 is among those recommendations on hold.

** We've been around and around on torque and in the end, opted to use a simple adder rather than any of the more complex approaches discussed, primarily so the membership would be familiar and comfortable with it.

K

[tnord]

one more on this topic because i basically agree with all of your last post....

even the oddball guy that does take a flyer on some ITX crapwagon even though he thinks it can't be competitive at its current weight will be left out to pasture. unless he throws a full $20k (approx full build cost for an oddball) at a car, gets dyno data, develops some more, gets more dyno data, and lobbies and lobbies......his car still won't have a shot in hell at an adjustment. we'll all just shout that the car isn't developed enough, a single example isn't enough to adjust for, etc etc.

that guy is left up shit creek without a paddle, and so is the car. nobody else in their right mind would build another one after that, and the adventurous oddball trailblazer is left with $20k invested in a car he can sell for maybe 5k. the car is dead, and this guy probably doesn't look very fondly on SCCA anymore.

[bamfp]

Be carefully about on track performance adjustments. Watch the Fastrac after the Runoffs. There will a bunch of letters asking for weight on the winning car or remove wait on this car. It sucks. I have run Prod before and that part of it is not fun.

I sent a letter, a year ago, asking the ITAC to run the 914 through the "Process". I have given them engine dyno numbers and chassis dyno numbers. I am not sure what the out come is. I have heard that they are waiting on the CRB. I am also not sure what % gain they used. I wanted them to have chassis dyno numbers to show the power loss through the transmission which is about 21%. I will take what ever I get. If it looses weight great, if not fine. I will just spend more time on the dyno and chassis setup to get it better. I never stop developing a car, even one that is 36 years old.

Blake Meredith

[StephenB]

even the oddball guy that does take a flyer on some ITX crapwagon even though he thinks it can't be competitive at its current weight will be left out to pasture. unless he throws a full $20k (approx full build cost for an oddball) at a car, gets dyno data, develops some more, gets more dyno data, and lobbies and lobbies......his car still won't have a shot in hell at an adjustment. we'll all just shout that the car isn't developed enough, a single example isn't enough to adjust for, etc etc.

that guy is left up shit creek without a paddle, and so is the car. nobody else in their right mind would build another one after that, and the adventurous oddball trailblazer is left with $20k invested in a car he can sell for maybe 5k. the car is dead, and this guy probably doesn't look very fondly on SCCA anymore.

He should be "left up shit creek without a paddle"! It was his/her risk to take and his/her decision to make. not mine, not yours not the CRB , not the ITAC. It's His/her mistake and it's up to him/her to take ownership and responsibility for their decision. The rulebook and the weights are all their for them to see, and once (or if) the "process" is published then we all are to blame for the car WE choose to build and race.

Since non of us are argueing any of this to help ourselves We all need to stop feeling sorry for those that make poor decisions. Lets seal this deal make the process final and then make our own decisions on what to run and then race and have fun!

Stephen

[tnord]

sure thing Stephen....i'd be happy to have everything in IT locked down as it is, but there are a metric crapton of people who are not.

REGARDLESS of countless admissions by the ITAC that "The Process" is not meant to be perfectly accurate, really amounts to nothing more than an educated guess, and the relatively strong level of parity existing today across cars that were or were not "Processized"......there are are a large contingent of people that insist that every single car be rerun through the process and listed to the nearest 5lbs.

i get the impression that there really are quite a few cars that haven't been run through "The Process," which stands to reason that quite a few cars would go up, or down in weight. so it's not really just the individual who may have "taken a flier" on a car that didn't turn out to be listed to competitively, but potentially a whole host of people who at one time had at least a *decent* car that may not be so anymore.

it's easy to say "run everything through and lock it down!" when you know the risk you bear is losing another 200lbs.

maybe i've got this all wrong?

[lateapex911]

1.) Why wouldn't I if i knew my car could potentially be 200ls lighter? That is like sticking the thanksgiving turkey on the counter with a 2 year old great dane that looks into the sink for water. (Ya that really happened to me!)

.

SB- LOVE that. made me laugh out loud. You've seen "A Christmas Story", no doubt? "You'll shoot your eye out!"

Liked your post too!

[StephenB]

it's easy to say "run everything through and lock it down!" when you know the risk you bear is losing another 200lbs.

maybe i've got this all wrong?

Just to be clear... I want stability and the ability to move forward feeling good about what IT will look like in the future. If that means that I keep the extra 200lbs so be it. I would be just as happy if all cars that are already in the GCR DONT go through the process and we "lock down" the current weights, and move forward consistantly placing cars as they currently are being classified.

Stephen

[gran racing]

Doesn't that go contray to the "want all cars treated fairly" if others don't get classed by the same process? I'm sure you're probably just feeling sick of all this especially given your position and that's understandable.

[tnord]

Doesn't that go contray to the "want all cars treated fairly" if others don't get classed by the same process? I'm sure you're probably just feeling sick of all this especially given your position and that's understandable.

and this is where i think some have lost the plot.

the end goal is to get a competitive landscape across many makes/models and strong participation numbers. sounds like what we have now doesn't it? i think some people have become too fixated on this whole "process" and the corresponding idea of what "fairness" is.

i'm a guy that focuses on the goal, end game, outcome, whatever. i don't care as much how we get there. it seems like i'm the minority though.

[gran racing]

the end goal is to get a competitive landscape across many makes/models and strong participation numbers. sounds like what we have now doesn't it? i think some people have become too fixated on this whole "process" and the corresponding idea of what "fairness" is.

It's not necessarily about this process or another form of classification. Fairness to me is being able to ask and understand the rationale of how cars reached it's classification regardless of whether one fully agrees with some of the factors. I do not think it's fair when a member seeks input on why one car that has a greater performance potential than others is classed at a lower weight and the only justification the PTB can provide is it was classed by a previous group of people. I also think it's great to have a group of people who are at least willing to listen if a member believes the factors used to class their car are wrong, and ability to provide some proof.