off topic discussion about current IT issues and more specifically ITB.

[quadzjr]

After following and participating on forums for a while now, and have become more and more involved in trying to help out. I know it has been mentioned before, (I believe by Andy B.) But has anybody else noticed that a lot of the weird problem child recent re-classifications or cars that were a part of the issues between the ITAC and the CRB have notoriously been ITB cars? Other cars in other class of IT, the CRB has taken the ITAC's recommendation. However for some reason for ITB, many issues have risen.


Is this just a coincidence?

thoughts..

[lateapex911]

I'll say this. Not in defense of the CRB, but as just a factual issue, ITB seems to have the greatest cross section of cars in IT. Seriously, there are cars from the 60s, and cars from 6 or so years ago. So it represents a huge change in technology. And that makes classing difficult.

I'll let Andy expand upon the factor applied to cars in ITB, specifically the 30% 'standard' for 16V cars going into ITB. He's got the best handle on the situation, but, generally speaking, when first adopted, I think the Process represented a bit of fear of 16V cars. (I was just coming on board the ITAC at this point) I think this was due to some problem children that were 16V. As it turns out, those cars were over achievers for different reasons, like under rated factory HP. But the Process suggested higher power factors for those cars. It also said "Discuss to make sure this makes sense" for every classification.

In the Great Reorg, certain cars were classified with higher factors than 25%, especially in ITA. See reasons for that above. And subsequently, there have been some classifications of 16V cars in ITB. (2 at 30% that I can think of) The CRB has been very insistent that 16V cars going into ITB MUST be at 30%. "That's how we were able to agree to put 16V cars in ITB" they say.

(It should be pointed out that, some people have set ideas of what 'kind' of car fits in what class. For example there was a distinct opposition among certain ITAC and CRB members against putting the American Pony cars into ITR. "They'll ruin the class", "It will look like a stock car race", "ITR is for SPORTS cars", were some of the remarks. And there is, among some members, the feeling that ITB isn't the place for "new" technology, like 16V cars.)

Anyway, somewhere along the way, the "Check to make sure this makes sense" clause resulted in most 16V cars NOT getting the higher gain factors, and in some cases, lesser factors than standard. it became the operative standard to start at 25%, and entertain evidence to the contrary. If none existed, the cars are classed at 25%. It's been that way for -3+ (?...Andy?) years now.

Additionally, adjustments where we knew something have been made. If the data exists and has the confidence vote of the ITAC, the weight will be calculated using actual hp. The recent RX-8 adjustment is an example.

So, at the time I left the ITAC, there was disagreement regarding a number of cars in ITB, most notably the MR2. The CRB insists that 30% is the right factor, the ITAC insists 25% is the standard, and that's before actual numbers are used. A case could be made to use 20% based on evidence.

Now, why haven't the issues occurred in other classes? Well, ITC sees little committee action. ITA...I dunno. ITS and ITR have their situations, but they are different.

[Knestis]

Broadly speaking, I'd also suggest that while ITA saw a substantial increase in its "index" - approximately how fast leading cars are - around the time of the (not so) Great Realignment, ITB did NOT. It wasn't forced to shift performance, so the "old order" and the "new order" are forced to coexist. Further, there were (and still are in some cases) ex-ITA cars that were left out after the bump in performance there. I *believe" that some members still think of some of those them as "ITA cars," so are resistant to including them.

Finally - and I'm going to be VERY explicit about my language here - it's the category with which the "IT members" of the CRB are most familiar. I absolutely do NOT believe that Chris A. and Peter K. are manipulating the listings to the advantage of the cars they drive...

^ ^ ^
READ THAT AGAIN BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER

...however, they have a TON of experience closely watching the class, as it is today and as it has changed over the years. That leaves them with a perspective that is essentially impossible for them to escape, when they look at how "right" car weights are. You could tell either of them that Model X should weigh XXXX pounds in ITB and they could instantly formulate a position about what they think it would do to the class.

They are probably, mostly, pretty close.

HOWEVER, this concentration of decision-making - to the degree that they can influence the final weight of cars in ITB - simply looks bad. I was a classroom teacher and coach of girls athletics, so I know a little something about the sucky realities of that kind of deal. It's NOT necessary for something hinky to have been going on, for people to get it in their heads that it's not OK for Mr. Knestis to wait all alone with little Cindy in a gym late at night after a volleyball game...

I make no apologies about the belief that this is a huge part of the reason that Process v.2 is superior ot the practices applied to the recent listings we've seen - most pointedly, the MR2. An appearance of impropriety is as damaging to an organization or culture as actual shenanigans.

K

[Bill Miller]

(It should be pointed out that, some people have set ideas of what 'kind' of car fits in what class. For example there was a distinct opposition among certain ITAC and CRB members against putting the American Pony cars into ITR. "They'll ruin the class", "It will look like a stock car race", "ITR is for SPORTS cars", were some of the remarks. And there is, among some members, the feeling that ITB isn't the place for "new" technology, like 16V cars.)

That's some pretty funny stuff right there Jake. I didn't realize a car that was 25 years old (like the AW11 MR2 w/ the 4A-GE engine) was considered 'new' technology. What other 'new' technology shouldn't be in ITB, EFI?

Finally - and I'm going to be VERY explicit about my language here - it's the category with which the "IT members" of the CRB are most familiar. I absolutely do NOT believe that Chris A. and Peter K. are manipulating the listings to the advantage of the cars they drive...

^ ^ ^
READ THAT AGAIN BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER

...however, they have a TON of experience closely watching the class, as it is today and as it has changed over the years. That leaves them with a perspective that is essentially impossible for them to escape, when they look at how "right" car weights are. You could tell either of them that Model X should weigh XXXX pounds in ITB and they could instantly formulate a position about what they think it would do to the class.

Kirk,

There shouldn't even be the chance for them to manipulate listings to the advantage of the cars that they drive, as they shouldn't be voting on things related to specific cars in the class(es) that they run in (in this case, IT. And while I'm sure they can formulate very good opinions about the impact of of a new ITB classification, they really should keep it to themselves.

You really have to head it off at the pass. Don't give people any ability to make claims of impropriety. I'm one of the leaders in my son's Boy Scout troop. We have VERY specific guidelines about adults being alone w/ the boys. We are required to go to specific training on the subject, and have to have refreshers every two years. Yes, a main purpose is to educate people. But it's also to CYA.

You know what they say, perception is reality. And if someone thinks that there's a chance for monkey business, that's all it takes. The SCCA's past history sure doesn't help in that regard.

[Charlie Broring]

I don't think the Process has served ITB particularly well in the last few years. I can only speculate if V2 would have been any better. I think a measure of adjustment based on observed on track performance is the simplest way maintain or reestablish balance in the class. And, I dont care who makes the decisions or if it is transparent and repeatable, as long as it nets good results.

I think I'm the Anti-Kirk. Instead of "transparent and repeatabe" I favor "Checks and Balances"

This is not to say I'm against using and further refining "The Process". I think it's a great peice of work. But, I don't think some of it's creators respect the limitations of the process. These limitations seem to be most apparent in ITB due to the diversity of the cars in the class. ITR is also a devirse class and I wouldn't be surprised if it has similar issues as the class develops.

I kinda like that term "Problem Child".

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually, the Process didn't fail ITB. I probably failed ITB to some extent. There have been cars over the past years that have been classed in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, one person can only argue so much until it becomes a situation of coming to a conclusion. I should have fought harder then - and V.2 put in place policies where I wouldn't have had to fight at all.

Cars have been classed from 25% to 30% in ITB while other classes have used 25%. More cars in ITB have been refused 'process based adjustments' than in any other class. These cars could be at 40+%. So you have a variety of weights based on a variey of menthods. It's not a flaw in the Process, it's a flaw in the consistancy of it's application. For those who think ITB is the most broken class, think about what I just wrote. Allowing V.2 to go and revise these issues would bring ITB in line quicker than you would imagine.

[gran racing]

I think a measure of adjustment based on observed on track performance is the simplest way maintain or reestablish balance in the class. And, I dont care who makes the decisions or if it is transparent and repeatable, as long as it nets good results.

Charlie, I can't possibly disagree with you any more (with all due respect of course lol). I only know of one other person in the country that races a 2nd gen ITB Prelude. Using your theory, I never should have built my car much, not bothered to work hard on becoming a better driver and could have simply waited for my car to be adjusted due to on track performance. Nice! Then once I got that adjustment, built the car to its full potential. Wheeee!

Since you don't car who makes the decisions and I now won't have to bother making my decision transparent, I'm slapping on 400 lbs to any VW and Volvo because.

[tom91ita]

..... I think a measure of adjustment based on observed on track performance is the simplest way maintain or reestablish balance in the class. .............".

i agree 100% that it is the simplest. i also think it is not the best or most fair.

Charlie, i see a volvo in your profile. is that your ITB of choice?

with regards to on track performance, my car sucks because i am the one driving it. it is always my hope that i can get better times than the ITC version of my car when at the ARRC. i will post up the multipliers for my car later.

[Bill Miller]

I don't think the Process has served ITB particularly well in the last few years. I can only speculate if V2 would have been any better. I think a measure of adjustment based on observed on track performance is the simplest way maintain or reestablish balance in the class. And, I dont care who makes the decisions or if it is transparent and repeatable, as long as it nets good results.

I think I'm the Anti-Kirk. Instead of "transparent and repeatabe" I favor "Checks and Balances"

This is not to say I'm against using and further refining "The Process". I think it's a great peice of work. But, I don't think some of it's creators respect the limitations of the process. These limitations seem to be most apparent in ITB due to the diversity of the cars in the class. ITR is also a devirse class and I wouldn't be surprised if it has similar issues as the class develops.

I kinda like that term "Problem Child".

Charlie,

Can you give some examples of what you mean by 'not serving ITB well'? Also, what do you consider 'good results'?

From what I've seen, most think ITB is pretty well balanced, but there a few cars that have gotten hosed along the way (Audi, 4A-GE Toyotas, Rabbit GTI, etc.). I haven't seen anyone that thinks there's an overdog in ITB, and if you want to use on track performance, look at recent ARRC results, there's nothing that seems to be a 'class killer'. What cars do you think have 'unbalanced' ITB?

Using on track performance really only works in one direction. You need a LOT more info to convince someone that a car is just slow than you do to convince someone that it's an overdog. If a car isn't performing that well, it can be due to a number of things, driver ability, prep level, budget, as well as the car. Much harder to quantify. If you've got multiple examples of a car that's always at the front, or runs away from the field, it's much easier to convince someone that it's probably the car.

[mom'sZ]

How is it not uncool for ITAC or CRB members to vote on cars in their own class? I don't mean IT drivers voting on any IT classification. I mean a ITB driver voting on a ITB classification. Conflict of interest by definition no?