THE BACK ROOM or ....

[JeffYoung]

A lot of thought went into that.

Believe me, the position you advocate was discussed -- I have a car whose torque peak is BELOW my race rpm range and essentially unusable.

A significant portion of us came to the conclusion that torque ultimately doesn't matter so long as a car has the ability via gear ratios to stay in its peak hp range.

What you see is what we ultimately settled on.

[JeffYoung]

It's funny that over the last few weeks, I've heard essentially this same statement from several ITB Volvo drivers in their 50s/60s.

I understand some of the frustration with the rules changes. If I were in IT in the mid 90s, I probably wouldn't be happy with open ECUs and spherical bearings either.

But a blanket statement that things were much better 15 years ago just ain't so, in my view. Classing cars using curb weight? Lobbying behind the scenes for undocumented weight changes?

This process is light years ahead of that, if implemented properly.

Originally Posted by gran racing
Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.

[tnord]

Originally Posted by gran racing
Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.

out with it then.....who are the upset many? what specific allowances are you referring to?

[Andy Bettencourt]

out with it then.....who are the upset many? what specific allowances are you referring to?

Translation for you Trav:

'Back in the day the racing was awesome. Every week we had 10 guys who could win. We raced nose to tail every weekend..."

Translation of that translation:

'We have no idea why cars were fast and why the racing was good. We pretty much all had 50% prepped cars and we all towed in with our station wagons, used 1 set of tires all year and everything was perfect. Then some new cars were classed and a couple of guys prepped them to the limit of the rules and ran away from us.'

[tnord]

no translator needed here. as jeff mentioned, we've already been through this a few times in less than a month.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But the net/net - and the crux of my recent letter, is that if a car smells funny from the get go, it needs to be put under a microscope before slapping a generic 25% on it. The health of ITB and ITC depend on it. Just a due dilligence comment/warning as all.

[tnord]

i'm refering specifically to the volvo, not ITB and ITC as a whole.

[lateapex911]

Originally Posted by gran racing
Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.

Well, I for one think 180 degrees differently.

Phil, cite the examples of the awful creep that have resulted in the less than excellent condition you claim we have now.
And also, cite the "upset many". Who are these people? Name names.

I'll take a crack at two things I bet are some of your beefs.
1- Spherical bearings in the suspension. Just curious, can anyone tell me when the "Bushing material, including that used to moutn a sub frame to a chassis, is unrestricted" rule first appeared? I seem to remember it from my early days in 92, but my GCRs only go back to 2000.
2-the ECU.

I'd like to hear if those are on your list and why, and what else.

But, in terms of the rules governing classification, I'd submit that the world 15 years ago may have pleased some, while others were up the brown river with no paddle, and no hope.* Today's actions and policies by the ITAC are WORLDS ahead than ANY other committee in the club...ever. This is an awesome and unprecedented step. In the past, cars were classed in many different manners. New Golf? It went to ITS, because the OLD one was in ITA. This was not done with every car, but was with some, on a "lets see how it does" basis. And weights? A vertible grabbag of methods were used to set weights, and...once done, they were DONE. Mistake? Class dominator created? Hmmm, class another car a bit light to reduce the problem. The "system" changed, reversed itself and was based on suspect logic at best. MAYbe some racing in some areas was great, but...it was more by luck than design.

*Like me. In ITA the RX-7 was never the big dog, but, it could do ok for itself. Then the CRX got classed....a bit light. And, it turned out that it was way more car once developed than expected. Oops. Oh well. So they classed another to try and blunt the situation. And another. Which meant that the current stakeholders watched their finishing positions erode with every new car classifications. The 'solution' to the classing of an overdog was to raise the entire class performance envelope, without giving all the cars the ability to perform at teat level. Now, maybe it didn't happen in the class YOU were racing in at that time, but that was very much a BIG problem for many. That was the wonderful world of 15 years ago. I like todays world much better. (And, by the way, my car is STILL not properly classed, but I certainly understand why, and wouldn't think of pushing for the world to cahnge around it. The needs of the many.....

[lateapex911]

Translation for you Trav:

'Back in the day the racing was awesome. Every week we had 10 guys who could win. We raced nose to tail every weekend..."

Translation of that translation:

'We have no idea why cars were fast and why the racing was good. We pretty much all had 50% prepped cars and half of us DROVE them to the track, used 1 set of tires all year and everything was perfect. Then some new cars were classed and a couple of guys prepped them to the limit of the rules, invested in fresh and better rubber, got real dampers, took advantage of readily available real race parts, tested and tested, and used...gasp!...data acquisition systems to learn the cruel truth of where they were slow, and ran away from us.'

Time marches on and the world changes.....

[jjjanos]

The 'solution' to the classing of an overdog was to raise the entire class performance envelope, without giving all the cars the ability to perform at teat level.

What cup size do they need?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Time marches on and the world changes.....

But given the 'Process', we have the ability to try and balance these cars on paper if they don't currently balance. We owe that to everyone. No guarantees mind you, but at least the effort.

[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.

[lateapex911]

But given the 'Process', we have the ability to try and balance these cars on paper if they don't currently balance. We owe that to everyone. No guarantees mind you, but at least the effort.

Absolutely. You're preaching to the choir. But I'm talking about the 'style' of racing, or the effort level that's more typical today versus 15 or 20 years ago.
Like say, data acquisition. 15 years ago, it was a F1 level expense, but today, it's commonplace, and one of the better investments to make a car/driver package faster.

[dickita15]

That's excellent Dick. I looked everywhere I could, and logged in, wen to the file cabinet and looked at every category, opening several in the Club Racing category, but didn't find it.
I assume it's on it's way.
Either way, good job to the ITAC for staying the course, and it's great news to hear that it is intended for public consumption.
As soon as it's posted officially, one of us mods will sticky a post here with a link.

Jake the links were a little screwed up but I think they are all fixed now. Log in at SCCA.com tab resources and file cabinet. Look for CRB and Advisory Committee operations manuals. It is right there for any member.

[robits325is]

I think its great that this information has been shared. Someone with more time than I have could create a Car Classification Weight calculator online to determine which car would be best to build.

A couple of questions pop into my mind:

1.) What constitutes abnormally large or small brakes?

2.) Dyno sheets have too many variables and should not be used at all (my opinion)

[jjjanos]

I applaud the publication of the new operations manual.

I have doubts about the parameters used....

For example, if you own an ITC car, you'll need to put both yourself and the car on crash diets.

Using a uniform gain of 30% in IT trim and relying on published HP numbers, I get this...

CRX: 76HP Process - 1860 Current - 1955 Drops 95lbs
X1/9: 75HP Process - 1885 (mid-engine) Current - 2090 Drops.. 205 lbs (!)
75 Rabbit: 70HP Process - 1715 Current 2000 drops 285lbs(!)
Colt: 81HP Process - 1985 Current 2270 drops 285lbs
New Beetle: 115HP Process - 2815 Current 2760 gains 55lbs and 40% heavier than the cars listed here.

Most of the ITB guys will need to go on crash diets too...
CRX Si: Current 2130, process 1970 loss: 160lbs
2002: Current 2280, process 2165 loss: 115lbs
Accord LX: 2550, process 2380 loss 170lbs
Mini: 2500, process 2490 loss 10lbs, that's close enough for gubberment work.
Rabbit GTI: 2080, process 1950, loss 130 lbs
Jetta III: 2350, process 2490, GAIN 140 lbs.

Interesting times, interesting times.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Using a uniform gain of 30% in IT trim and relying on published HP numbers, I get this...

This will be the #1 error everyone who thinks they can 'use' the process to figure something out. NEVER assume the gains.

[gran racing]

Could you expand upon that further Andy? It appears like the standards are fairly well established. With the way this process works, how often or how difficult is it to deviate from the standard?

[quadzjr]

some cars have documented gains more than 30% some make less. How much percentage it gets is based on information that the board has infront of them.