May 2011 Fastrack

[JeffYoung]

We do make adjustments based on data. We did on the MR2. It's just that you disagree with the amount of the adjustment.

But in the absence of actual data about IT level builds, I can assure you I am not going to rely on calls to a couple of engine builders to make a 'guess" about what a motor will do in IT trim.

No one is saying that we are stuck on 25%. But I am saying the evidentiary standard to move off it is higher than it was, and it should be in my view. We relied too heavily on potentially suspect dyno data, and "guesses" from engine builders in the past.

And I would say the gamesmanship was not gone when you were there. This has nothing to do with you personally, but we weren't able to do anything with the MR2 until you guys left. Now, you paved the way for it as part of getting the CRB to accept the Process, but in my view part of the trade off in doing so was the committee being asked to be more critical about dyno numbers, quotes, etc. And I think that is appropriate after doing a lot of reading about dynos and "what we know." While I think that is a valid concept, in a lot of cases we DON'T actually know what we think we know.

And we do disagree. I believe you use the 25% as a starting point, see what information is out there and make an EDUCATED guess. Sticking with 25% is simply stubborn in my mind because it is no way 'more correct' than any %.

My issue with the description you write is that you put the safegaurds and internal gamesmanship ABOVE 'your best effort'.

The safegaurds were in place when I left, the gamesmanship was gone - or ther was a mechanism to squash it...all while providing a path for 'better guesses'.

This MR2 issue proves only one thing to me, that the committee would rather 'look' like they aren't fiddling with the numbers than actually putting the car at a number they are pretty sure is accurate...and the majority of the IT community has been sure of for years. Single point of data or not, weigh it's value. You have a tremendous resource that is getting counted as equally as 'It's an Atlantic motor'.

It seems like the committee is more formula than Process these days, and I think that hurts the classifications and will lead to MORE overdogs because you aren't willing to go with solid info, regardless of quantity.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We do make adjustments based on data. We did on the MR2. It's just that you disagree with the amount of the adjustment.

Not buying that. You didn't change to the number the data pointed too, you just made it 'less worse' while still making huge assumptions. I assert you were way too conservative, for what I have no idea, but we will agree to disagree.

But in the absence of actual data about IT level builds, I can assure you I am not going to rely on calls to a couple of engine builders to make a 'guess" about what a motor will do in IT trim.

Fair enough, but not applicable to the MR2 situation.

No one is saying that we are stuck on 25%. But I am saying the evidentiary standard to move off it is higher than it was, and it should be in my view. We relied too heavily on potentially suspect dyno data, and "guesses" from engine builders in the past.

Well you actually are saying you are stuck on 25% unless you hit the new evidentiary standard. No issues there, except that I feel it's too high to remain nimble and accurate.

And I would say the gamesmanship was not gone when you were there. This has nothing to do with you personally, but we weren't able to do anything with the MR2 until you guys left. Now, you paved the way for it as part of getting the CRB to accept the Process, but in my view part of the trade off in doing so was the committee being asked to be more critical about dyno numbers, quotes, etc. And I think that is appropriate after doing a lot of reading about dynos and "what we know." While I think that is a valid concept, in a lot of cases we DON'T actually know what we think we know.

Hell, when I was there, some CRB members wanted to class based on architecture. Geez. The only cars that got gamed were ones that ran through when I missed a call. I would have jumped through the phone on the MR2 should I have been on. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed on the RX-8.

[Charlie Broring]

It seems like the committee is more formula than Process these days, and I think that hurts the classifications and will lead to MORE overdogs because you aren't willing to go with solid info, regardless of quantity.

This was my observation during my very short time on the committee. I can't help but think that the rather heated debate between Jeff and myself about ITB and the Process may have pushed the Committee further in this direction.

[JeffYoung]

This remains an odd (to me) misconception.

No one is saying we are stuck on 25%. We aren't. All we are saying is that hard, supportable data is required to move off of it.

Talking to another guy in the paddock is not enough.

A call to an engine buidler is not a enough.

One or two dyno sheets of an "IT like" build are not enough.

Moreover, I'd say the issues that led to Charlie leaving the committee actually had more to do with using the Process to game the system than being stuck on a "formula." There was a push by some folks from the DCR Region running ITB to, in my view, "add weight to new cars in ITB and take weight from old ones" without any basis in the Process and instead based on perceived competitiveness against World Challenge quality driver/prep levels at Summit Point.

This was my observation during my very short time on the committee. I can't help but think that the rather heated debate between Jeff and myself about ITB and the Process may have pushed the Committee further in this direction.

[Charlie Broring]

Actually a pretty fair fact based argument to reevaluate the process power to weight multipliers figure for ITB and C cars was presented. I observed that most ITB, and all ITC cars will need weight reductions in order to comply with the process. The only cars that seemed "right" were the ITA cars that got bumped down to ITB a few years ago. However, that's past history and it may now be best to continue down the road were on.

I do take issue with your contention that I was pursuing a DC Region agenda. That's just silly. It also shows a lack of insight by one of the people making the the club rules.

[jjjanos]

Actually a pretty fair fact based argument to reevaluate the process power to weight multipliers figure for ITB and C cars was presented. I observed that most ITB, and all ITC cars will need weight reductions in order to comply with the process.

Based on the 8-10 calculations I've done on various cars, this seems to be the case. Mind you, there are more than 10 cars in ITB.

[JeffYoung]

No one disagrees that some ITB cars have not been through the Process.

The question was how to do it, and the answer is not "add weight to the new cars, and subtract from the old."

[Knestis]

Actually a pretty fair fact based argument to reevaluate the process power to weight multipliers figure for ITB and C cars was presented. I observed that most ITB, and all ITC cars will need weight reductions in order to comply with the process. ...

The current ITB multiplier was established - qualitatively - to level cars adjusted during the Great Realignment, aligning them to cars viewed as "competitive" through observed on-track performance during the immediately preceding seasons.

Many front-running cars - including some key Volvos - were running at the time under a cheating detente. They were fast but not legal (e.g., my often-cited example of the VIR lap record holder).

Cars added using the then-new process (and its multiplier) ended up somewhere near the performance envelope established by those cheated up MkI GTIs, 2002s, 142s, et al. - which would have been fine, if not for the fact that the culture of IT started clamping down on cheats at about the same time...

EDIT - and yes, a couple of really good drivers built top-notch efforts around newly listed cars (Underwood and Herbert). Whether you are advancing a "DC Region agenda" or not, Charlie, you have to be honest that your perspective on the competitive state-of-the-art is influenced by what you see at MARRS events.

The net result is that some of those then-competitive cars now appear to be adrift - and probably are to some degree - based (again) on on-track performance.

The problem is exacerbated in B because it's got a HUGE range of ages, technology, layouts, standards for stock HP, and other factors that make it a nightmare model-to-model. And the situation is further messed up because even if they were adjusted, some models - notably the 142 - can't get light enough to make their new target weight appropriate for a "what-we-know" power figure.

So as I understand it, the suggestion here was to change the B class multiplier to provide more latitude. Problematic, perhaps, because it would force weight changes on cars that have been set in recent years using what should be the established Process. It's also not clear what "most ITB cars" means, where losing weight is concerned and further, how many cars would NOT be able to make said weight (a la said 142). My (not current) sense is that we would be upsetting the established apple cart for a handful of cars, that frankly should be in C under the current paradigm.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I'm on record as supporting the idea of a complete do-over of ITB, simply because it IS a great mess, which would allow for a fix in the form of a new multiplier. But that would be a huge undertaking...

I can see both the wisdom of lean-on-the standard conservative approach AND the value of a the V.2 Process that allowed for documented, hard-to-diddle committee judgment about multipliers. Both are sensible and defensible. What is NEITHER - and is in fact truly asinine - is the 30% "architecture" bump. Plain and simple, that's a holdover bias left over from days that should be long past.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

This remains an odd (to me) misconception.

No one is saying we are stuck on 25%. We aren't. All we are saying is that hard, supportable data is required to move off of it.

And at some point Jeff, your data standard could get so hard to satisfy that you are by defacto, 'stuck' on 25%.

I truly feel that enough is known about the MR2 motor by the committee that a 15% multipler is easily supportable. The ITAC currently doesn't. Nobody can provide sheets or ANY info saying that 20% is doable...ugh.

No problem, but to me, you are 'stuck'.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, saying that the committee "moved off the standard" on the MR2, is, (I bet to YOU too), BS, because the 30% thing is a joke and a half. I understand, AND REALLY REALLY APPRECIATE, that you here discussing, and are walking the line on representing the committees views fairly, while remaining reasonable. But, I think the committee has NO legitimate reason to cling to the silly 30% "Deal" that was made to "allow 4v engines into ITB".

Charlie, I'd like to understand more of your proposal on ITB.
(I only hope it doesn't rely on "This guy is faster than these guys at this track")

I agree with Andy 200% that if the data (over years of getting dynos sheets and information) on the MR2 is insufficient to budge off the 25% standard, then it aint gonna happen to any car, but the rare exception (like the RX-8*) ...the world of IT will be a 25% place.

Seriously....the committee needs to swallow hard, admit the 30% thing is just stupid and makes them look silly, and accept the data and list the car at 15%. Or, barring that, 20% at the WORST...but seriously, would YOU spend the cubic dollars building that motor on the bet that it can make 20%??? I know, MAYBE it can be done. Well, MAYbe we'll land a man on the moon in 5 years, MAybe the middle east will figure their shit out and go to Disney World hand in hand....but we all know those are dumb bets.

*Question....if the RX-8 were to be classed today, what would the ITAC class it at? 15%? 20% 25%? What data would be acceptable to move off the standard?

[JoshS]

You guys drive me batty sometimes. You were on the committee when we implemented the idea of the confidence factor to vary from the standard. The idea was that each member was to express how confident they were that the alternate horsepower was really what could be expected in IT trim.

Based on the evidence, when we did the MR2, there wasn't a high enough confidence to get lower than 115 (or something, I can't remember the specifics anymore) whp. That is to say, the committee didn't reach "confident" that this is the IT whp potential until we got that high.

This is the process that you loved. It's the one that I managed to get written down and added to the CRB ops manual as an appendix. It's based on the committee member's gut feelings based on evidence presented. Sorry if the confidence just wasn't that high. I'll tell you that I personally didn't have enough confidence in these numbers as low as 110. I felt like only one person has tried under these rules, and with plenty of other cars, we know that the first one that tried wasn't the one that "figured it out."

And like it or not, the "norm" is 30% right now. Without compelling evidence, it would still be up over 2500 lbs.

Can you please go barking up another tree? Maybe a fresh one so we can stop hashing over the same things?

[jjjanos]

No one disagrees that some ITB cars have not been through the Process.

The question was how to do it, and the answer is not "add weight to the new cars, and subtract from the old."

And yet, that's what the fancy math formula with the arrows and squiggles does.

So as I understand it, the suggestion here was to change the B class multiplier to provide more latitude. Problematic, perhaps, because it would force weight changes on cars that have been set in recent years using what should be the established Process.

A Process which you've acknowledged is faulty for B because the class multiplier was set to equate new cars to the illegal performance envelope of existing cars.

IMO, with the exception of the MR2s that got moved down to B and certain newer cars that were classed using the flawed multiplier, there has been a good competitive mix in B.

Clearly classifying the new cars too light couldn't continue... but now the question is whether the ITB Process is suppose to serve ITB or whether ITB is suppose to serve the ITB Process.

I can get the weight out of my car, so I'm happy I lost over 100lbs of lead this year. That puts me at an advantage over the rest of the old guard... what about them?

How many "new" cars were built using the incorrect multiplier? How many existing cars will need to adjust their weights or be forced down to a new class because of an arbitrary decision that the ITB multiplier SHALL BE 17?

[JeffYoung]

And nobody has proved that it's not.

I remember thinking 165 whp was the most I could ever get out of my motor, and had dyno sheets to prove it.

I remember thinking 170 whp was the most I could ever get out of my motor, and had the dyno sheets to prove it.

And so on.

Because this car was stuck in ITA was not competitive there, my personal opinion is (and no offense to Steve) that there has never been a truly full tilt, multi-year development effort on this motor like there was for the E36, or the L24 Datsun motors, or the Miata motor, or the 12A and 13B.

Given that, and given just another 6-8 hp gets this motor to 20%, I was ok with that figure as a conservative power gain number. The remaining members of the committe thought it should be higher (I think, one or two may have voted with me). I respect that.

Why? Because we went through the very same data analyzing/confidence assessing process that this same group -- Kirk, Andy, Jake, Josh, and to a much lesser extent me -- came up with.

There was no gamesmanship and there was no BS. It was a straight assessment.

You two guys disagree with that assessment. That's fine. But I don't know what else to tell you. Other than the fact we had to start with the 30% default, which I disagree with personally, I think this car was treated fairly by the committee. I disagree with the result, but the Process itself worked.

You can't turn on the Process, or the committe, when the one subjective part of it is used to produce a result you just don't agree with.

And at some point Jeff, your data standard could get so hard to satisfy that you are by defacto, 'stuck' on 25%.

I truly feel that enough is known about the MR2 motor by the committee that a 15% multipler is easily supportable. The ITAC currently doesn't. Nobody can provide sheets or ANY info saying that 20% is doable...ugh.

No problem, but to me, you are 'stuck'.

[JeffYoung]

No, actually it doesn't. It leaves the new cars in B at their existing process weight, and drops some of the older ones down to their Process weight.

And yet, that's what the fancy math formula with the arrows and squiggles does.



A Process which you've acknowledged is faulty for B because the class multiplier was set to equate new cars to the illegal performance envelope of existing cars.

IMO, with the exception of the MR2s that got moved down to B and certain newer cars that were classed using the flawed multiplier, there has been a good competitive mix in B.

Clearly classifying the new cars too light couldn't continue... but now the question is whether the ITB Process is suppose to serve ITB or whether ITB is suppose to serve the ITB Process.

I can get the weight out of my car, so I'm happy I lost over 100lbs of lead this year. That puts me at an advantage over the rest of the old guard... what about them?

How many "new" cars were built using the incorrect multiplier? How many existing cars will need to adjust their weights or be forced down to a new class because of an arbitrary decision that the ITB multiplier SHALL BE 17?

[lateapex911]

You guys drive me batty sometimes.

Well, life at the top can be exasperating, even for a retired chairman.

You were on the committee when we implemented the idea of the confidence factor to vary from the standard. The idea was that each member was to express how confident they were that the alternate horsepower was really what could be expected in IT trim.

Based on the evidence, when we did the MR2, there wasn't a high enough confidence to get lower than 115 (or something, I can't remember the specifics anymore) whp. That is to say, the committee didn't reach "confident" that this is the IT whp potential until we got that high.

This is the process that you loved. It's the one that I managed to get written down and added to the CRB ops manual as an appendix. It's based on the committee member's gut feelings based on evidence presented. Sorry if the confidence just wasn't that high. I'll tell you that I personally didn't have enough confidence in these numbers as low as 110.

I hear you Josh, and not once have I said boo about the Process failings.
I've harped ( ) on the issue that the majority of the committee has dug their heels in and expressed disdain regarding the evidence. Yes, that's their right. BUT, Jeff has gone on to say that the committee, as a whole, has been proactively taking the stance that they will not move off the standard...(and that suggests that IF they move they won't move far...) unless much higher evidentiary standards are met. So yes, you are correct that the Process and the protocols have been followed, it's also true that the bar has been raised.

That's where I have issues. I just don't think that's wise, and certainly in this case, I find it incredible that the committee stood firm on a number 10% higher than anything they've seen.

I felt like only one person has tried under these rules, and with plenty of other cars, we know that the first one that tried wasn't the one that "figured it out."

Can you please go barking up another tree? Maybe a fresh one so we can stop hashing over the same things?

Yea, but it's not the first time anyone has done a build. Maybe you have only one "IT full or near full build" on record, but, you have other builds that while they might not be the exact build you'd prefer, theresults match logical expectations. And IIRC you have builds that are beyond IT rules which STILL don't hit the numbers the committee insists are possible.

Nobody has said one thing about the fact that the ability to fix a mistake exists...so to me, this seems like a mistake, and it's a shame for the cars and the owners. 170 extra pounds is more than I'd want to needlessly carry.

To sum up:
I love the Process.
You and Jeff have been good about communicating, and being upfront, and that's appreciated.
I still think, (As I did when on the committee) that votes and voting records should be published.
I think the new "raised bar" for moving off the standard, and/or tighter evidentiary standards is creating defacto formulaic classing.
And I think we can, and should, do better.

[JeffYoung]

And the flip side is the tighter evidentiary standards avoid issues like motors getting tagged with 30% based on a few calls to builders, or because a six cylinder from another era and manufacturer made a lot of power and thus a modern motor of similar architecture should get the same adder.

There are a LOT of issues, in my view, in how some of the ITR weights were set. Instead of sticking with 25% when we didn't know much, a lot of guesswork went into adders and deducts for which we have zero real evidence to back up, or we have anecdotal or incorrect evidence.

Having seen the Process play out on the committee know for some time, I am very comfortable with how its done, very comfortable with the fact that we look for hard evidence to move off the default and very comfortable iwth the fact that we don't move off the default until we have that evidence.

I respect everything you guys did over the years in regards to the Process, and the ITAC in generall, but in my opinion that is "doing better" than the way some cars were treated over the last few years.

I think the new "raised bar" for moving off the standard, and/or tighter evidentiary standards is creating defacto formulaic classing.
And I think we can, and should, do better.

[JeffYoung]

Jake, you're losing me man. Disdain? No one has expressed any disdain that I'm aware of. I personally (and Josh -- I'll let other committee members speak for themselves) just have doubts about how conclusive the evidence is on the MR2. Like I said, 6-8 hp more in development and all of a sudden we have an issue if we classed it at 15%.

I am willing to agree that reasonable minds could look at the data and reach a conclusion of 15%. I'm having a hard time why you think that 5-6 dyno sheets, only one of which is an IT build, and without the years of development that went into other motors in IT, is somehow conclusive. I see a range of what is possible for this motor, from 15% (most likely) to 20% (possible) to 25% (very unlikely). But I respect the viewpoint of folks who ended up on both the lower and the higher end of that spectrum.

The more I read about dynos, and gains, the more I become very dubious of anyone who says that "this IT motor ALWAYS makes this amount of power." When we are talking about ranges of 5-10 hp -- which mean a lot in the Process -- I'm not sure we have the resolution in the data we are given to get up on a soapbox and say one number is absolutely right and all others are incorrect.

I've harped ( ) on the issue that the majority of the committee has dug their heels in and expressed disdain regarding the evidence. Yes, that's their right. BUT, Jeff has gone on to say that the committee, as a whole, has been proactively taking the stance that they will not move off the standard...(and that suggests that IF they move they won't move far...) unless much higher evidentiary standards are met. So yes, you are correct that the Process and the protocols have been followed, it's also true that the bar has been raised.

That's where I have issues. I just don't think that's wise, and certainly in this case, I find it incredible that the committee stood firm on a number 10% higher than anything they've seen.

[lateapex911]

And the flip side is the tighter evidentiary standards avoid issues like motors getting tagged with 30% based on a few calls to builders, or because a six cylinder from another era and manufacturer made a lot of power and thus a modern motor of similar architecture should get the same adder.

There are a LOT of issues, in my view, in how some of the ITR weights were set. Instead of sticking with 25% when we didn't know much, a lot of guesswork went into adders and deducts for which we have zero real evidence to back up, or we have anecdotal or incorrect evidence.

Having seen the Process play out on the committee know for some time, I am very comfortable with how its done, very comfortable with the fact that we look for hard evidence to move off the default and very comfortable iwth the fact that we don't move off the default until we have that evidence.

I respect everything you guys did over the years in regards to the Process, and the ITAC in generall, but in my opinion that is "doing better" than the way some cars were treated over the last few years.

I would certainly agree that there have been instances where cars were classed on factors that have been less than well vetted.

However, in most cases, real world evidence hasn't supported that there have been problems with them.
Still I DO see your point. The MR2 though, to my eye (I've been seeing dyno plots on this cars for yeeeaaaars) has a bunch of evidence far greater than most of the cars you are thinking about when you cite the flip side.

I am willing to agree that reasonable minds could look at the data and reach a conclusion of 15%. I'm having a hard time why you think that 5-6 dyno sheets, only one of which is an IT build, and without the years of development that went into other motors in IT, is somehow conclusive. I see a range of what is possible for this motor, from 15% (most likely) to 20% (possible) to 25% (very unlikely). But I respect the viewpoint of folks who ended up on both the lower and the higher end of that spectrum.

You mentioned 6-8 more hp in development. Lets look at the data points now. Stock HP is what, 112 crank? Best build has been 112 whp? And you're saying that 6 or 8 more is possible. I guess I just don't see it. While you have one IT dyno plot, it's not the first time people have messed with the engine, and I think the bigger gains come early while later builds refine and yield smaller results, in general. Your build is very admirable, but lets face it, it's a polar opposite of this. (V8, very responsive to header tuning, and British production tolerances, plus your ECU work which has done things that just weren't possible when your car was built, have yielded huge improvements that just won't be seen on this very different motor.)

So, for me: 15%: Likely. 20% very doubtful, believe it when I see it., 25%, ludicrous.
But hey, that's just me, LOL

One more time: What would the committee class the RX-8 at today?

[Andy Bettencourt]

You guys drive me batty sometimes. You were on the committee when we implemented the idea of the confidence factor to vary from the standard. The idea was that each member was to express how confident they were that the alternate horsepower was really what could be expected in IT trim.

Based on the evidence, when we did the MR2, there wasn't a high enough confidence to get lower than 115 (or something, I can't remember the specifics anymore) whp. That is to say, the committee didn't reach "confident" that this is the IT whp potential until we got that high.

This is the process that you loved. It's the one that I managed to get written down and added to the CRB ops manual as an appendix. It's based on the committee member's gut feelings based on evidence presented. Sorry if the confidence just wasn't that high. I'll tell you that I personally didn't have enough confidence in these numbers as low as 110. I felt like only one person has tried under these rules, and with plenty of other cars, we know that the first one that tried wasn't the one that "figured it out."

And like it or not, the "norm" is 30% right now. Without compelling evidence, it would still be up over 2500 lbs.

Can you please go barking up another tree? Maybe a fresh one so we can stop hashing over the same things?

You are right on all accounts Josh, except - like Jeff says - it seems the individual standard for 'confidence' is exceptionally high these days.

Sorry to agitate, but the 30% issue is so rediculous that it deserves a public thrashing at every possible moment.

But reasonable minds can diasagree.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why? Because we went through the very same data analyzing/confidence assessing process that this same group -- Kirk, Andy, Jake, Josh, and to a much lesser extent me -- came up with.

There was no gamesmanship and there was no BS. It was a straight assessment.

Oh NO it wasn't Jeff. If it was a straight assesment, it would be at 15%. You have NOTHING to prove it can even make that. So you used some fudge-factor, some educated guessing and some conservativism to place it at X% because you 'think that might be possible'.

That IS gamesmanship. It's not NEGATIVE gamesmanship, it's doing what you felt was right at the time...and I am all for that, I just disagree with the numbers based on the evidence we have all seen - or not seen - over the past 5 or so years.