August 2011 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

Preliminary Minutes

Preliminary Tech Bulletin

[Chip42]

interesting update to the "E" decal rules in minutes/GCR/5

[lateapex911]

So, Les Chaney, and Sam Moore, both (ex?) ITB Volvo drivers (although not currently in IT, as far as I know), got together with Rick Benazic, a Honda Civic driver to have the weight of the Civic reduced in ITB??? Huh? LOL

[quadzjr]

So, Les Chaney, and Sam Moore, both (ex?) ITB Volvo drivers (although not currently in IT, as far as I know), got together with Rick Benazic, a Honda Civic driver to have the weight of the Civic reduced in ITB??? Huh? LOL

Don't know enough to support one way or another but last time I talked to Les he was there in support of his friends ITB honda. Les was there with his FP volvo but from what I remember on track shennangans made it it easy for him to skip out on the race.

Curious was this a process move? of recently both the CRX and the Civic in ITB have lost 160lbs.. How much data was presented to get such a reduction? how many 10/10ths builds were handed in to get the percentage correct?

[lateapex911]

Just seemed like an interesting combination....Rick Benazic is a New Yorker (As in close to NYC) I think and Les and Sam were, I thought, more Southern, and you'd think with them being Volvo guys, they wouldn't be on that letter. It's just a surprising combination, that's all.
Now, the letter DOES make sense in light of the recent CRX adjustment, so good on them for that.

[quadzjr]

Just seemed like an interesting combination....Rick Benazic is a New Yorker (As in close to NYC) I think and Les and Sam were, I thought, more Southern, and you'd think with them being Volvo guys, they wouldn't be on that letter. It's just a surprising combination, that's all.
Now, the letter DOES make sense in light of the recent CRX adjustment, so good on them for that.

No I totally agree that if the Civic and CRX have the same power plant they should be classed at the same weight. I was just curious how a car that was alread somewhat competitve (and more competitive than my car) some how got a bigger weight break? I know what I submitted to get 95lbs.. to get 160lbs.. you would think cosworth or someone submitted info or soemting.

I am joking.. but seriously intrigued on how much data backed up the decision for the first (CRX) weight break.

[Harvey]

Jake in case you don't remember I raced a ITC CIVIC for about 8 years or so before I started to run the Volvo and the Civic And the CRX in this case have always and should always go hand in hand.

[StephenB]

How much data was presented to get such a reduction? how many 10/10ths builds were handed in to get the percentage correct?

I am sure they had several dyno sheets and supporting evidence. They don't just run cars through the process without supporting data to do so. I am sure it had supporting data from Kessler. How is it compaired to yours on a dyno Dave? (Gran)

Stephen

PS: I am very suprised at both Hondas having the reduction in weight. Based on "on track performance"

[lateapex911]

I am sure they had several dyno sheets and supporting evidence. They don't just run cars through the process without supporting data to do so. I am sure it had supporting data from Kessler. How is it compaired to yours on a dyno Dave? (Gran)

Stephen

PS: I am very suprised at both Hondas having the reduction in weight. Based on "on track performance"

???

What does the Process spit out for that car!?

I too would be interested to hear what amount of data was needed to gain the 'confidence level" of the ITAC.

[Knestis]

Don't know enough to support one way or another but last time I talked to Les he was there in support of his friends ITB honda. Les was there with his FP volvo but from what I remember on track shennangans made it it easy for him to skip out on the race.

Curious was this a process move? of recently both the CRX and the Civic in ITB have lost 160lbs.. How much data was presented to get such a reduction? how many 10/10ths builds were handed in to get the percentage correct?

With respect, the whole "10/10ths build" thing was never the big deal that it's been made for you around the Toyota question. I think you've been led astray by post hoc rationalization of a weight spec on the MR2 that's based in bias and fear.

The Process v.2. simply asked the ITAC members to record their judgment of whatever evidence was presented for a non-standard - other than 1.25 - power multiplier. The idea from the outset, from a guy who helped craft that system, was to impose a pretty high expectation of confidence from the entire committee in order to shift us off of "SOP" and on to "what we know." If we had repeated dyno evidence of a reputable, pro build, that would have been taken into consideration differently than "I've never put it on a dyno but my friend built it and I know it makes like 120whp."

(I hate the term "what we know," by the way, because we NEVER actually KNOW anything.)

The actual change for the CRX Si happened after I left but we looked at a pretty good accumulation of evidence that generated substantial confidence around a 1.3 multiplier for that make/model (with 91 hp stock). Not coincidentally, that multiplier puts it at its current GCR weight. The Civic version should have been done at the same time but wasn't.

You are going to drive yourself crazy looking for a way to make classifications more generally - or the Process v.2 as it was applied c.2008-2010 and should still be applied - align with what happened with (or to) the MR2. That listing is crap. It's always been crap. It should be fixed. Until it is, my confidence in the ITAC is very low.

K

[Bill Miller]

With respect, the whole "10/10ths build" thing was never the big deal that it's been made for you around the Toyota question. I think you've been led astray by post hoc rationalization of a weight spec on the MR2 that's based in bias and fear.

The Process v.2. simply asked the ITAC members to record their judgment of whatever evidence was presented for a non-standard - other than 1.25 - power multiplier. The idea from the outset, from a guy who helped craft that system, was to impose a pretty high expectation of confidence from the entire committee in order to shift us off of "SOP" and on to "what we know." If we had repeated dyno evidence of a reputable, pro build, that would have been taken into consideration differently than "I've never put it on a dyno but my friend built it and I know it makes like 120whp."

(I hate the term "what we know," by the way, because we NEVER actually KNOW anything.)

The actual change for the CRX Si happened after I left but we looked at a pretty good accumulation of evidence that generated substantial confidence around a 1.3 multiplier for that make/model (with 91 hp stock). Not coincidentally, that multiplier puts it at its current GCR weight. The Civic version should have been done at the same time but wasn't.

You are going to drive yourself crazy looking for a way to make classifications more generally - or the Process v.2 as it was applied c.2008-2010 and should still be applied - align with what happened with (or to) the MR2. That listing is crap. It's always been crap. It should be fixed. Until it is, my confidence in the ITAC is very low.

K

Kirk,

This is in no way a reflection on you, or directed at you, but based on things I've been told by various former ITAC members over the years, the bolded part really made me chuckle.

Here's what I believe is the math for how the 1G CRX Si/3G Civic Si's got adjusted to their current 1970lbs:

91hp * 1.30 * .98 * 17 = 1970.8

Tom Lamb's letter languished in the ITAC for years. I wrote mine over the winter in support of his and adding some new points of my own. It was well established the old weight was completely arbitrary when the car was moved down from A to B.

BTW, that previous weight of 2130lbs was a power multiplier of 40%+.

Rob,

The math seems right.

This math however, doesn't

90hp * X * .98 * 17 = 2080 lbs

Or, rearranged to solve for X:

X = 2080 / (.98 * 90 *17) = 1.39

And another:

90hp * X * .98 * .17 = 2130 lbs

X = 2130 (.98*90*.17) = 1.42


The second set of equations is for the 1.8 8v VW Scirocco II. That's a car w/ a 1.8L 8v SOHC engine running CIS. The first set of equations is for the Rabbit GTI. Same chassis as the Scirroco, just a square back vs a slope back, like the Civic Si / CRX Si.

It's well accepted that there's no performance advantage of the CRX body over the Civic body, in IT trim, yet the Rabbit / Scirocco pair is saddled w/ a 50# weight penalty for the slope back body (it's 60# for the 1.7 ITC versions of those cars). I realize that these differences pre-date the GR and were based on some perceived aero advantage, but it seems like such an obvious error and easy correction today.

In light of Jeff's comments, I'm not sure why the 1.39/1.42 power factor hasn't been addressed.

Let me try to cover as much of the above as I can.

1. On the ITB Hondas. When we finally got the "go" to "reprocess" cars, we looked at the ITB CRX based on Tom's letter and others. The existing GCR weight (I can run th calc if someone wants) seemed to have no rational relation to any of the existing gain modifiers. So, honestly, in the absence of any real data, that car should be at 1.30 default rather than the 1.45 or whatever it was at.

We looked at Tom's data (which included dyno information if I recall correctly), Rob's and others. I'm not a Honda or ITB guy but the guys on the committee who are agreed we were not looking at a motor that would make ITA CRX gains.

So the vote was put it at default, or 1.3, for the class. The Civic then followed.

We do have to get away from the notion of "why did you lower weights on cars that are already competitive?" We had that discussion on the ITAC, but once you put something like the Process in place you have to trust it and use it. And that is what we did.

[Greg Amy]

interesting update to the "E" decal rules in minutes/GCR/5

That's a clarification. That decal was NEVER intended for handheld bottles, it's for denoting the locations for the release for fire systems only. Think of it this way: there's absolutely no need for a corner worker to know the location of a handheld, they won't be using it. But they might just reach in and hit a fire system actuator.

They should make a similar emphasis (it's already there) for fire system pins, so that uninformed grid (and tech) personnel won't make you pull the pin out of your handheld fire bottle (thus making it unsafe).

GA

[StephenB]

I was hoping they would consider ABS with a weight penelty. It is obviously much safer and I personally do think it is a competitive advantage. By adding the weight penelty I suggested in my letter I was hoping it would be considered. Since it wasn't posted for input from others I am guess it is not something they would even consider with a weight penalty. Oh-well... All new IT cars classified will have it and eventually they will all need it to run with how fast technology is moving. But then again IT can look 4-5 years into the future when planning things like this.

I am going to run my car without a sensor connected and hoping it doesn't create a "limp" mode issue like my Jag does. I will let you know after the Glen in a few weeks!

Stephen

[Greg Amy]

Since it wasn't posted for input from others I am guess it is not something they would even consider with a weight penalty.

If you've not seen it in Fastrack and you've not received an email telling you it's been considered, then it's still on their agenda. Committees don't always get to everything every month, but may table it to subsequent months (especially game-changing items that require significant discussion/thought).

When something leaves the committee and goes to the CRB you get one email, then when it's dispensed by the CRB you get another. Until then...patience.

GA

[StephenB]

If you've not seen it in Fastrack and you've not received an email telling you it's been considered, then it's still on their agenda. Committees don't always get to everything every month, but may table it to subsequent months (especially game-changing items that require significant discussion/thought).

When something leaves the committee and goes to the CRB you get one email, then when it's dispensed by the CRB you get another. Until then...patience.

GA

It was in the fast track meeting minutes thing you posted. Basically said no-go... I kinda figured as much. I get not allowing it as I do see it as a competitive advantage. I was just hoping with some type of penalty (weight) that it would be considered. I do get it, but I also think they will need to allow it at some point. I was hoping sooner rather than later so I didn't have to spend all the money re-plumbing in new lines and valves and such. I know we had another thread on the ABS thing a while back but I can't find it. Back then I even said it was an advantage but argued it was also safer.

I guess in the end I am not looking for an advantage, I just don't want to waist time and money on something that will be allowed within the next few years anyway. I beleive Its already allowed in every other class in SCCA where a car came stock with it, including SCCA PRO.

Stephen

From meeting minutes:

NOT APPROVED BY THE CRB

IMPROVED TOURING
1. #4329 (Charles O'Toole) change head gasket thickness rules
The rules are correct as written.
2. #4432 (David Russell) Allow alternate valve seat material
Not consistent with class philosophy.
ITR
1. #4635 (Stephen Blethen) Allowance of ABS in ITR
Not consistent with current class philosophy.
ITS
1. #4970 (Fred Brett) Reclassify to ITA 99-2000 Civic
This car is classified correctly.
ITA
1. #4226 (Chris Gentry) reclassify scirroco 16v
This car is classified correctly.
2. #5332 (Grant Boshoff) Increase weight

[jjjanos]

I was hoping they would consider ABS with a weight penelty. It is obviously much safer and I personally do think it is a competitive advantage.

Safer? Please explain how one locks down a car with ABS? One of the first things they teach in DS is both feet in. It puts the spinning car on a predictable path and keeps the engine running. How does one do that with ABS?

[jjjanos]

1) Maybe your questioning if Kessler built Ricks engine... I thought so but maybe I am wrong and if so PLEASE correct me. Kessler is a GREAT guy and builds top notch stuff IMHO. That is why I would think the ITAC would have asked for his dyno sheets.

2) As far as what it spits out... no clue. Doesn't matter does it? I didn't think we could change any car without dyno sheets and supporting data.

I assume that with the process being codified, every car has a chance to be run through as if it had never been classified. I.e. 1.25 multiplier for anything in ITB except for multi-valve engines which use 1.3

After that, raising or lowering the multiplier is going to depend on proving the case for such a movement via the confidence thingy.

If that isn't the case, what's the point?

[StephenB]

Safer? Please explain how one locks down a car with ABS? One of the first things they teach in DS is both feet in. It puts the spinning car on a predictable path and keeps the engine running. How does one do that with ABS?

I am not sure how you would "Lock it down". I would argue that the ABS is safer due to accident avoidance rather than after your already into trouble and spinning.

I would try to simulate accident avoidance in a parking lot. Use cones if you must. Place a cone where I have an "I" marked below. When driving you must go between the cones. Drive (through this course starting from the bottom) using brakes without ABS and see how fast you can go through or see how late you can hit the brakes and still make it through. I suggest entering it at about 60MPH anything slower isn't really going to simulate track speeds. Then go back and do the same thing and brake later (less warning of incident) I bet you will be amazed at how much later you can brake and you will see how much faster you can go through it. To be honest I bet you can go through at least 15MPH faster. This is a very basic and simple example of how ABS can improve Accident avoidance. ABS gives you the power to utilize any given wheel at maximum threshold braking. This concept allows you to actually continue to steer the car while using your maximum braking power. Without ABS you can only use the brakes at the maximum threshold of the first tire to loose grip.



____________________I I___________________________



_________________I I____________________________




____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________
____________________I I__________________________

As I said above ABS is great for accident avoidance. If you are already spinning because you already messed up I am not sure how much of a help it would have.

Everyone views this differently and it was debated in another thread a while ago. I am interested in this topic so if you have any articles that site any ABS Vs. non ABS comparisons feel free to PM me. Also please note I am talking about newr model cars, I already get that 80's and 90's cars didn't have anything close to what exists nowadays and that they wouldn't benifit nearly as much and in fact I would argue the 80's Audis ABS was worse than having none!

Just a reminder that Grand-am, Continental Challenge, and World Challenge here in the states uses ABS, as well as SCCA Showroom stock and Touring.

Stephen

PS: If you want to experience this in a controlled safe environment they do this in most officer schools including Stevens Advanced Driving here in NH.