Car specs in the ITCS

[Greg Amy]

The Bentley is the factory manual for all Volkswagens and Audis. Period.

You go to a service department at the dealership and look on their shelves, that's what's there. Fact.

Now, if we're talking hypothetical here, and we're to assume that BMW (or Porsche, or whomever) contracted someone else to do their factory-issued workshop manuals and they use some other system than Bentley as the official factory documentation, then yes, you're correct, that would not be adequate in a protest or compliance situation, no more than a cheesy Chilton's would be for a Golf GTi.

But factory is factory; for VWoA, that means Robert Bentley Publications.

GA

[Z3_GoCar]

The Bentley is the factory manual for all Volkswagens and Audis. Period.

You go to a service department at the dealership and look on their shelves, that's what's there. Fact.

Now, if we're talking hypothetical here, and we're to assume that BMW (or Porsche, or whomever) contracted someone else to do their factory-issued workshop manuals and they use some other system than Bentley as the official factory documentation, then yes, you're correct, that would not be adequate in a protest or compliance situation, no more than a cheesy Chilton's would be for a Golf GTi.

But factory is factory; for VWoA, that means Robert Bentley Publications.

GA

Here's the rub... If you go to the dealer and try to purchase what they have on their shelf, it's not for sale. Only the Bentley manual is sold by the parts department. Now, some disgrutled former employees have stolen what's not for sale and made illegal copies that are for sale on e-bay. Furthermore, there are some factory performed repairs that are not noted even in these dealer only documentation. This knowledge is retained by regional service advisors. I'd rather not break copywrite laws to satisfy some compition spec.

[Greg Amy]

Only the Bentley manual is sold by the [dealership] parts department.

Then that is, de facto and de jure for SCCA scrutineering purposes, the "factory shop manual".

GA

[Chip42]

and here we see why the questions we ask never get answered for sake of debating a sidebar.

1) the factory workshop OR ALTERNATIVE IF THE FACTORY MANUAL IS NOT AVAILABLE is the required, competitor provided document for ALL scrutineering inquiries, even to the extent of over riding the ITCS. if you disagree on what constitues a factory service manual, start another thread.

2) the ITCS spec line contains X data. what of that is of use to US as racers, scrutineers, rules makers, or other club specialty or interest? would more or less info be of value to US? could arranging it in an alternate way or combinging lines where applicable help US to read, use, enforce, edit or maintain this information?

Josh and the ITAC might be asking this in order to help US. I for one think many of the ITCS speclines are a mess and would love to see a global revision that brings them up to date and aleviates all of the artificial limits and disagreements between otherwise identical classifications.

[almskidd]

Does anyone think there is big value in having car specs listed in the ITCS?

Yes. As many people have already said the value is in having one place to have a quick comparison of all the spec'ed cars in IT.

[JoshS]

Josh and the ITAC might be asking this in order to help US.

Actually, that was just me asking, not the ITAC, but if something swayed me I'd bring it up to the committee. My motivation was that I'm frustrated with how hard it can be to put together new spec lines, and fix old ones, and it's not clear to me what purpose the specs serve anyway. As far as I can tell, the printed specs are not binding, other than weight and wheel diameter, which are explicitly referenced in the allowances. What everyone is required to work from is what the factory says the specs are, not what the SCCA says the specs are.

For reference, the wheel and weight references: 9.1.3.D.7.a.1, "Cars may not fit wheel diameters smaller than those listed on their spec line", and 9.3.50, "All cars shall meet or exceed the minimum weight specified with driver, exactly as they come off the race circuit, at the conclusion of a race or qualifying session." I don't think any of the other specs in the book have a rule that specifically references them.

The comments that the specs are useful when assessing the class are good though.

I'm starting to think that maybe we don't need to try so hard to get the specs right. For example, we have an active letter right now asking us to include the Neon non-ACR rear brake sizes on the Neon spec line, because the non-ACR is intended to be legal, but only the ACR brake sizes are listed. So the question is ... does it really matter?

[JeffYoung]

For a protest, no, at the end of the day it does not. If the protestee can prove he has a brake size on his car that came on a car on his spec line, then he's good to go regardless of what the spec says.

I still use the ITCS specs just as a reference, to assess competitiveness, to get a basic understanding of a car's specs, and to compare it to others.

I fully agree we should try to get them as 'right" as we can, and as Chip notes a lot of them are a mess, but I don't think a fly speccing of the entire ITCS is needed.

[Chip42]

if things like brakes and gearing aren't hard allowances, then why are they listed at all?

If all you want are the make, model + trim, weight, wheels and notes, then reduce it to such. I'd add engine configuration and dimensions just because there are cars that have optional engines that are not trim-level specific. this would instantly clean up errors in at least 10 classification in ITA alone.

[rsportvolvo]

However, in this day and age, why not publish a separate PDF in the rules section on the web page with all the VTS info? If a competitor wants a handy comparo, they download it.

Ditto on this. SCCA Pro has the VTS sheets listed this way and this is also how the FIA classifies cars. Rule books should be class specific with separate docs. for specific vehicles. Additionally the VTS will list more information to see how the car stacks up against the rest of the field. More info, better organization.

[lateapex911]

Personally, I like having the data available. Having the VTS available would do the same thing...but since the VTS and the data are required to class the car, copying a few of the specs to the ITCS doesn't seem like that big of a deal, and it's good to have. So, one vote in favor of "keeping, but adding VTS availability".

But, my BIGGEST vote would be to, on every weight listing, specify HOW it was arrived at.
For example:
1969 Triumph herald. ITB, weight 2535, NKM (No Known Method)

1985 Mazda RX-7, ITA: 2280. Process V1, 101 Hp x Special multiplier of 1.6 x 14.5 ITA factor, -50lbs Tq 3/2006

2006 Mazda RX-8, ITR, 2850, Process V2, 215 wHp (committee research) x 11.25 ITR factor, -100 tq. 6/2009

1998 Honda Civic QR, ITB: 2450, Process V2, 115hp x 1.25 x 17 ITB factor -2% FWD, +50 Susp. 6/2010

It shows the starting hp assumed, the factor, adders, and any deviation in methods, as well as date of calculation. (I made the Honda one up)

[joeg]

A Triumph Herald...hmmm.

[seckerich]

A Triumph Herald...hmmm.

It does have the small chamber, high compression head.

[JeffYoung]

Steve, that's your next project. Triumph DOMINATION of ITB.

[Greg Amy]

Huh. "Triumph" and "DOMINATION" (capitalized, no less) in the same sentence...

Neat.

[JeffYoung]

Well, he said something about "high compression." That means it wins right?

[Greg Amy]

Apparently.

GA, who still harbors pleasant thoughts about the Group 44 TR8s....

On edit: And to finalize this thread 'jack:

[seckerich]

The best time to jack a thread is when panties are all getting bunched.

[Z3_GoCar]

Steve, that's your next project. Triumph DOLOMITE of ITB.

Jeff, fixed that for ya'

Now where's that Pimp-Kane??

Greg, what happened to your picture??

[Eric Parham]

I also like having the data on the spec line for quick comparisons. Unfortunately, the spec line data is very often erroneous, and other times possibly correct but in conflict with the factory shop manuals (e.g., ALL 5 spec lines for ITA VW brake specs). As far as protests go, I understand that the protested competitor should be fine as long as s/he can show acceptable documentation for the spec (hence, the general requirement for at least the factory shop manual, but additional credible documentation can’t hurt), OR that the protested item meets the ITCS spec line (and this is really where the alternate specs from such additional credible documentation should already be listed).

Many times the most prevalent correct specs aren't listed at all on the ITCS spec line. With the current format, we're often left wondering whether the different listed specs are erroneous, or whether evidence was provided apart from the shop manuals to support the alternate specs. Personally, my rule of thumb has been to assume that anything on the spec line “better” than what’s in the shop manual is a legitimate (or otherwise allowed) alternate spec, but that anything on the spec line that is “worse” than what’s in the shop manual (or separate owners manual) is an error or misprint. Unfortunately, "better" versus "worse" is not always crystal clear, such as larger brake diameter versus heavier brakes, etc.

In cases of actual errors, most competitors seem content to let sleeping dogs lie (especially if the erroneous spec is “better”), while others sleep better if they can get the errors on the ITCS spec line corrected. Lately, I’ve been wondering whether erroneous “better” specs should be corrected so that performance projections, classing and weight adjustments might become more accurate.

Thus, I think the best solution would be to specifically note a spec as "Alt:" when it is not found in the standard/accepted factory shop manual(s) -- I think it actually used to be done this way. An even better solution would be to cite the source of each primary and alternate spec. To limit competitor reliance on alternate specs without alienating those who already use them, perhaps a nominal weight increase should be specified for each one

EDIT: If we really wanted to clear up many of these errors quickly, perhaps we could require every competitor to "declare" any specs on their car that do not match the current spec line (other than weight), and to provide a comment as to why they believe that their spec is correct. Such declarations could be posted for peer review, or just for someone to collect and forward to ITAC for use in checking the accuracy of the various ITCS spec lines.

[JoshS]

Thus, I think the best solution would be to specifically note a spec as "Alt:" when it is not found in the standard/accepted factory shop manual(s) -- I think it actually used to be done this way. An even better solution would be to cite the source of each primary and alternate spec. To limit competitor reliance on alternate specs without alienating those who already use them, perhaps a nominal weight increase should be specified for each one

Eric, that was well-reasoned. But it's my belief (although admittedly I don't really know for sure) that none of the specs are intended to replace a stock spec. That is to say, nothing in there would qualify as "Alt:". If anything differs from stock (and yes, I've seen lots of examples), I believe that they are errors.

The ITAC did get your letter about fixing the VW specs and we will do so.