Review and adjust weight of ITB CRX Si as appropriate

[Charlie Broring]

I just posted the following message on the SCCA Improved Touring forum.

The following paragraphs were added to the GCR on 1/1/2005.

9.1.3
During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as—but not limited to—manufacturer’s published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a "performance compensation adjustment" shall be made. Any performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle’s fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established.
On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle’s class.

Interesting quote from the GCR. It appears to mandate evaluating on track performance for newly classified cars and making appropriate adjustments. Why isn't that being done?

I might also conclude that the personal agenda of some recent ITAC members to ignore "the vehicles racing performance relitive to other cars in class" is at odds with the GCR.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Interesting quote from the GCR. It appears to mandate evaluating on track performance for newly classified cars and making appropriate adjustments. Why isn't that being done?

I might also conclude that the personal agenda of some recent ITAC members to ignore "the vehicles racing performance relitive to other cars in class" is at odds with the GCR.

Nobody ever wanted to 'ignore' on-track performance. It has been said over and over and over that it is a fine trigger to probe what input into the weight-setting process was incorrect. Once that factor is found and corrected, it should be re-inserted and a new number spit out. What that first paragraph really says is that the CRB will keep an eye out for overdogs.

What NOBODY ever advocated was "We won't consider the reprocessing of that car because it does just fine on-track" or "Let's throw 100lbs on that car and evaluate it over the next year".

BIG difference.

[JeffYoung]

Jjanos, there has been a lot of discussion over that paragraph, what it meant before the Great Realignment, and what it was intended to mean now.

I actually AGREE with the CRB that we are by rule prohibited from reprocessing cars by request based on that rule. But we did it anyway, and they let us -- for a while I would say that right there is the biggest reason we had a lot of folks resign. Once we started to touch some sacred cows with the reprocessing, we had some issues.

The CRB is open to a reevaluation of that rule, and has asked us to consider submitting a rewrite.

CRB/ITAC communciation is pretty good at this point, which is why I don't think some of the posting above is productive.

Now, the discussion about terms limits, or whether we need CRB oversight of the ITAC, that is a good discussion. Me:

1. This is an outlaw regional class. No need for CRB oversight...unless there are plans to go National......

2. Term limits, hell yes. 3-4 years of this and it is time for new blood. The problem, as Josh has pointed out, is finding it. Not a lot of folks want to do this. For obvious reasons.

[Ron Earp]

2. Term limits, hell yes. 3-4 years of this and it is time for new blood. The problem, as Josh has pointed out, is finding it. Not a lot of folks want to do this. For obvious reasons.

I submit that if you get term limits and an IT participation clause then you'll dissolve some of the "old boy network" and you'll attract new talent. New guys don't want to come into a quagmire created and still managed by some old guys that have been on the ITAC for 10 years and "know how it is done" and "know what members want".

Get that done and I'll sign up for some time on the ITAC - if that time comes and if I'm still actively involved in IT.

[jjjanos]

Jjanos, there has been a lot of discussion over that paragraph, what it meant before the Great Realignment, and what it was intended to mean now.

What the paragraph is intended to mean? Give me a freaking break. There is absolutely no, zero, zilch, zippo, nada, nichts room for interpretation of whether a classification of a particular car in a specific IT class may be altered in anyway other than through the addition of an intake restrictor. There is no errors/omission clause in the IT rules, period.

The CRB says it cannot reclassify a car unless there was an error because of that paragraph. I.e. 9.3.1 does not grant them that power. Very well, let us accept that the CRB may only act where the GCR grants them specific powers. Point to the text in 9.3.1. that grants them the authority to reclassify on the basis of an error....

It isn't there. Therefore, under their own half-brained rule, they have no power to make any correction outside that 4-year window.

I didn't create their rules - they did, so they need to live within them.

I actually AGREE with the CRB that we are by rule prohibited from reprocessing cars by request based on that rule. But we did it anyway, and they let us -- for a while I would say that right there is the biggest reason we had a lot of folks resign. Once we started to touch some sacred cows with the reprocessing, we had some issues.

Irrelevant. An error is an error is an error regardless of the source. If one may correct one type of error, then one may correct ANY error. Anything less is disingenuous and dishonest.

[lateapex911]

Yea, an glaring error is one that I was party to, we used the wrong multiplier on the MR2. It was SOP at that point to use 25% across the board, but, and I'm responsible, as Andy was traveling and not on the call, we used 30% accidentally...a simple math error. Now, in my defense, I was traveling too, and running the meeting on a laptop instead of my usual 27", 24" AND a laptop, but it happened.

Yet, even after identifying, and requesting to correct the error, it has been rejected.

Not to mention that even the 25% number makes little sense....but, hey, why bring reality into it?

Why that car can not be corrected is beyond me..there is NO legitimate reason that it can't, yet the Powers that can refuse it keep refusing it.

[jjjanos]

Yea, an glaring error is one that I was party to, we used the wrong multiplier on the MR2. It was SOP at that point to use 25% across the board, but, and I'm responsible, as Andy was traveling and not on the call, we used 30% accidentally...a simple math error. Now, in my defense, I was traveling too, and running the meeting on a laptop instead of my usual 27", 24" AND a laptop, but it happened.

Yet, even after identifying, and requesting to correct the error, it has been rejected.

The Club Racing Rules Process....

These rules are approved by the CRB: clarifications (these add or change language to mkae clear the original intent of a rule); errors and omissions (corrections to typos or information that was omitted when originally adopted); Sports Car, June 2010, page 52

Seems pretty obvious that the error above fits the definition.

Why that car can not be corrected is beyond me..there is NO legitimate reason that it can't, yet the Powers that can refuse it keep refusing it.

Ethical failure?

One simple question... the CRB liasons to the ITAC... IT drivers or not? If so, then they have no business being the advisor as the CRB operations manual specifically prohibits them being involved in any part of adopting a rules to change that would affect them personally. If they race an ITS car, then the moment discussion turns to classifying an ITS car, the liason must recuse themselves from being part of the discussion within the ITAC and the CRB and cannot vote at the CRB on the matter.

[Knestis]

...which (I believe) is exactly the opposite of what happens at the CRB level. I'm pretty sure that other members defer to the CRB "IT experts" for guidance on all IT class questions.

K

[tom91ita]

There is NO allowance for correcting "errors" outside that 5-year window - period.

which is why i am concerned about approaching the 5 year timing for the weight change of my car going from ITA to ITB. even though i have been asking for it to be re-processed via the "process" since 2008.

What NOBODY ever advocated was "We won't consider the reprocessing of that car because it does just fine on-track" ...

Actually Andy, i respectfully disagree since i feel that if not stated in words, that "feels" alot like what has happened to me in response to my requests.

has anyone actually said that? no. has the end result been effectively the same? in my view, yes.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually Andy, i respectfully disagree since i feel that if not stated in words, that "feels" alot like what has happened to me in response to my requests.

has anyone actually said that? no. has the end result been effectively the same? in my view, yes.

Tom,

I am not sure that you undertand that your car may be processed perfectly. You know the math now. Agree or disagree, even under the 'old' ITAC, your car wouldn't be getting any consideration for a change without substantial data that proved the math was/is wrong.

My comments are specifically applied to the ITAC as was constituted when I was on. The CRB was different.

[tom91ita]

I am not sure that you undertand that your car may be processed perfectly. You know the math now. Agree or disagree, even under the 'old' ITAC, your car wouldn't be getting any consideration for a change without substantial data that proved the math was/is wrong.

basically i disagree and was trying to give the data both based on the multiplier comparison and, since i have read different times that some members of the CRB and/or ITAC think that displacement is a key factor, in terms of # per liter.

i think that 1.35 is realistic based on feedback from people like Greg above and Catch/Scott. i don't think that this 12V motor that is quite similar to the other Honda 12V motors in terms of HP/Liter can have power gains effectively the same as Honda 16V motors.

but the difference between 1.35 (1.35*91*17-50 = 2038.45 so call it 2040) and the current 2130 is 90 #'s and i think this is worth asking for.

is the preferred method for me to build the motor and submit the dyno runs rather than make comparisons between similar cars & motors?

i know the on-track performance method can't be used because i stink at Road Atlanta and can't keep out of the way of the front running ITC CRX's.

[JoshS]

Tom, displacement is not and has never been part of the weight calculations, even though some members of some committees think that would be sensible.

[lateapex911]

Josh, that's true as it's written, I guess. But, the flip side is that weights that have been recommended have been rejected, and displacement was the reason given, so, in the end, it HAS been used to set weights, albeit in a reverse method.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Tom, displacement is not and has never been part of the weight calculations, even though some members of some committees think that would be sensible.

I am going to disagree on principle. It may not be a consideration in a new classification, but it is when cars are looked at for review. So by default, it is a factor the CRB uses when refusing to 'Process' legacy cars, no?