THE BACK ROOM or ....

[jjjanos]

So let's do some math....

Formula: HP * P2WRatio*FWD*ITGain +/- Adders = minimum weight?

A mid-1980s FWD Studebaker with factory-rated HP of 91 in ITB.

91 * 17 * .98 * 1.3 = 1971 rounded to nearest 5-pound increment of 1970?

Anything wrong with that math?

If said car is currently classified at 2200lbs, then it "should" be run through the "process" and lose over 200 pounds of ballast?

Am I understanding this correctly or is this car forever doomed to carry the excess weight but similar cars will get classified at the lower weight?

[gran racing]

Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

[lateapex911]

Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

Pssst! I'd bet it's the ONLY category....

[Andy Bettencourt]

No Jake, that was for ITR only. Not many cars in ITS have DW's. Not sure the situation there but if there is a 50lbs adder in ITS, so be it. I still think it should be by axle.

[GKR_17]

No Jake, that was for ITR only. Not many cars in ITS have DW's. Not sure the situation there but if there is a 50lbs adder in ITS, so be it. I still think it should be by axle.

Note that while 'many' cars in ITR are DW front, it is not the majority.

[lateapex911]

jjjjjjanos-
no. hp x gain = base weight.
Base weight then gets FWD applied, then adders.

[iambhooper]

copy saved... thanks!

[Andy Bettencourt]

No more posts until Phil tells us where he got the document. Should be no problem if it was above board.

<---- Doubts that.

[jjjanos]

WTF does it matter from where he got the document? I mean, unless one has something to hide, there is no point in keeping the document hidden.

Smart money says the source is either an ITAC or CRB member opposed to "the process."

[Andy Bettencourt]

WTF does it matter from where he got the document? I mean, unless one has something to hide, there is no point in keeping the document hidden.

Smart money says the source is either an ITAC or CRB member opposed to "the process."

It doesn't matter at all, just teh fact he refused to answer is a punk move.

And since it's ON the SCCA website, it's obvious nobody has anything to hide but him...and your smart money would be lost. It's not a BAD thing it got out. It was intended to be published.

[jjjanos]

It doesn't matter at all, just teh fact he refused to answer is a punk move.

I disagree. If I had an inside source to a body whose decisions historically have been shrouded, NFW would I reveal that source.

And since it's ON the SCCA website, it's obvious nobody has anything to hide but him...and your smart money would be lost. It's not a BAD thing it got out. It was intended to be published.

Well, the question is whether it's on the SCCA because it already was out or because SCCA was going to post it at some point.

Given that the document, created by Josh on 29November2010 at 4:27PM using Microsoft Word, had been kept underwraps for 2+ months, I do not think it is a slamdunk that this would have seen the light of day in time for the membership to discuss its merits.

[preparedcivic]

Smart money says the source is either an ITAC or CRB member opposed to "the process."

That's what it has to be. Where else would the document have been in circulation? BoD level? That's a stretch.

[JeffYoung]

If a request is made to do so, we have the ability to "process" cars that were not processed before and/or cars that had errors made during processing.

If you want us to look at a car, write in.

Thanks.

Jeff

So let's do some math....

Formula: HP * P2WRatio*FWD*ITGain +/- Adders = minimum weight?

A mid-1980s FWD Studebaker with factory-rated HP of 91 in ITB.

91 * 17 * .98 * 1.3 = 1971 rounded to nearest 5-pound increment of 1970?

Anything wrong with that math?

If said car is currently classified at 2200lbs, then it "should" be run through the "process" and lose over 200 pounds of ballast?

Am I understanding this correctly or is this car forever doomed to carry the excess weight but similar cars will get classified at the lower weight?

[gran racing]

If you want us to look at a car, write in.

Could a list of what cars actually are on the list to be reviewed be listed? Many coming out with the next month's Fastrack?

[JeffYoung]

As a present member of the ITAC, I can't tell you how glad I am this thing is finally published, and out there for folks to see and use. I think that this kind of openness is critical to our success as a club, to attracting new members, to attracting new drivers to IT, and to keeping them once they are "in."

I've been racing in IT since 2004, not that long but long enough to remember the "dark ages" of cars being classed curb weight, and huge problems with class killing overdogs.

I was around when folks on IT.com started to talk about a new approach to classing cars, and work started on what is now Version 2 of the Process.

They guys who did a lot of that work deserve the thanks on this, not guys like me. George Roffe, Bill Miller, Darrin Jordan, and of course Kirk, Andy, Jake and Scott. They spent countless hours hashing this stuff out over years, both to make sure it worked across and wide variety of multi-marque cars in IT, and to fight the political battle to get others in the SCCA to accept it.

Josh Sirota, the current ITAC chair, deserves a lot of credit too for actually putting pen to paper and creating this, and having the political smarts to get it approved.

That group of guys have done so much to, in my view, ensure the future health of the category. I'm proud to have played a small role in it.

Great work guys. Much appreciated

[ajmr2]

They guys who did a lot of that work deserve the thanks on this, not guys like me. George Roffe, Bill Miller, Darrin Jordan, and of course Kirk, Andy, Jake and Scott. They spent countless hours hashing this stuff out over years, both to make sure it worked across and wide variety of multi-marque cars in IT, and to fight the political battle to get others in the SCCA to accept it.

Josh Sirota, the current ITAC chair, deserves a lot of credit too for actually putting pen to paper and creating this, and having the political smarts to get it approved.

That group of guys have done so much to, in my view, ensure the future health of the category. I'm proud to have played a small role in it.

I haven't participated on this forum for quite a while. In fact I finally determined my old user name this morning and had forgotten the old password...

Anyway, I just want to express my thanks to Jeff & Josh & Jake and Steve and all the folks who have been behind this move to just make the rules fair and transparent. The fact that we had guys that were willing to listen to reason and review our letters and spec sheets was a big step forward in my mind. I also want to thank Steven U. for keeping the MR2 in the forefront of the discussion. I don't think we're finished debating these issues, but I do appreciate all the support that has been shown by many of the members of this forum.

I've been racing my MR2 since it was in SSC back in 1995. I don't expect to be kicking anyone's butt due to this recent weight adjustment, but I will be more comfortable and confident in the car. To me it's always been about fairness and fun and getting more MR2s racing in the SCCA. This has been a step in the right direction.

[JeffYoung]

Thanks for the thanks Art, and for your patience while we worked through the MR2 issue.

[GKR_17]

If a request is made to do so, we have the ability to "process" cars that were not processed before and/or cars that had errors made during processing.

What about cars where the process has changed since the last time they were reviewed?

On one hand, it would really be a pain to updated the books when the parameters get tweaked. But on the other, why should existing cars get a penalty (or benefit) just because they've been around longer? That would also serve to give pause to anyone thinking of messing with the formula.

[JeffYoung]

Off the cuff, I would consider those situations (where an older version was used) to be an "error" we could correct. Others may disagree however.

What about cars where the process has changed since the last time they were reviewed?

On one hand, it would really be a pain to updated the books when the parameters get tweaked. But on the other, why should existing cars get a penalty (or benefit) just because they've been around longer? That would also serve to give pause to anyone thinking of messing with the formula.

[preparedcivic]

Off the cuff, I would consider those situations (where an older version was used) to be an "error" we could correct. Others may disagree however.

Hey Jeff:

Knock knock; 3G Civic Si/1G CRX Si in ITB? The letter Tom Lamb wrote several years ago where it languished at the bottom of conference call agendas never being gotten to until the request "aged out" and was pocket veto'ed?

Even at a magical Honda 35% (91hp x 1.35 = 123hp) (!!!) x 17 lbs/hp = 2088lbs x the 2% front drive deduct, puts it at 2046 (so 2050) vs. current rulebook weight of 2130. This is a strut/beam axle FWD car, so no other adders/subtractors would apply.

123 crank hp x 0.85 = 104hp at the wheels. That would be perfection and maybe slightly beyond in terms of an IT build for an EW4 motor, and obviously with an optimized aftermarket ECU running the injection.

I do understand that is what the ITAC has to assume, but no matter what the car is pushing 100lbs heavy.