ITAC News

[JeffYoung]

Ok, so we had a productive call tonight. Gist of it was:

1. A fair amount of time spent discussing the update/backdate issue discussed in Ron Earp's thread below. This one remains under consideration, and any member input on it would be appreciated. Basically, it appears have a situation where there is "older" language in the rule (the "don't create a model" sentence) that may be unecessary after the VIN rule changed.

2. We worked more on the 240s -- David, the request was sent back from the CRB to make sure that our classification recommendation was correct. After further thought, we decided to put it out for member comment.

3. We handled a few letters classifying and processing a few cars.

4. We had a lengthy discussion about the 30% default rule in ITB in an effort to try and figure out what the right thing to do for the class is now. Matter remains open and under discussion.

I'm open to any questions about my own personal beliefs/opinions on the above.

Thanks.

Jeff

[lateapex911]

Jeff-
THANKYOU for communicating the goings on. It is much appreciated. Thanks to the ITAC for supporting the concept as well as the CRB.

"The 240"...as in the 240Z?? Or a Volvo 240?

VERY GLAD, THRILLED, to hear the 30% is getting airtime.

Thankyou ITAC for your time spent on this issue.
I feel it is perhaps the only thorn in the side remaining, the Process is awesome, but that is a huge tripping point in my eyes. (As you, cough, dead horse, cough, know. )

[JeffYoung]

Volvo 240s, sorry.

We are also taking a look to make sure -- on our own initiative -- that all of what we view (although I think we'd all appreciate member input on what these cars are) as the most "popular" 7-10 cars in ITB have been through the Process. That will include a second look at the 142 with more accurate hp numbers, the 2002, the Swift, etc.

I personally go back and forth on the 1.3. I've said before I would vote against it.

However, in doing some historical research, there were good reasons for it that haven't really been discussed here. More importantly, I personally think the goal at this point is to do whatever does the least harm to the class, and more and more I personally think changing weights on cars by going back to a 1.25 default would be more disruptive. If we get the gain numbers right, what the default "is" shouldn't matter, or matter most on new cars coming into the class. We should have decent power numbers on the contenders and ultimately that will be what is used to get the class straightened out.

But I remain open to further (reasonable! lol) discussions about it.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, I HOPE you guys think bigger picture and future picture. A year or two or three from now, think about two cars with the same power specs, same HP dyno sheets being moved into ITB from ITA. Nobody should have to make a case to change one OFF the 'standard 30%" default when it's already at the category wide default..as it was in ITA...just because it has a "B" on the door now.

Use the ability to move off default for specifics...Hondas that overachieve, Toyotas that underachieve, etc.

Get the froundation right...build on that.

[JeffYoung]

I do think we are trying to think big picture.

To me, the chances of a 4-valve car (or any car really) getting moved from A to B are pretty low at this point. I think it more likely that shifting 4 valves for which we have no documentation from 30% to 25% would be more dangerous.

But I am wide open on this one to more discussion.

Jeff, I HOPE you guys think bigger picture and future picture. A year or two or three from now, think about two cars with the same power specs, same HP dyno sheets being moved into ITB from ITA. Nobody should have to make a case to change one OFF the 'standard 30%" default when it's already at the category wide default..as it was in ITA...just because it has a "B" on the door now.

Use the ability to move off default for specifics...Hondas that overachieve, Toyotas that underachieve, etc.

Get the froundation right...build on that.

[Russ Myers]

Jeff, since there are still a few of us racing Pinto's, could you guys have a look at it as well???

Russ

[jjjanos]

Jeff, I HOPE you guys think bigger picture and future picture. A year or two or three from now, think about two cars with the same power specs, same HP dyno sheets being moved into ITB from ITA. Nobody should have to make a case to change one OFF the 'standard 30%" default when it's already at the category wide default..as it was in ITA...just because it has a "B" on the door now.

Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved down from ITA to ITB? Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved from ITB to ITA? The only way that HP number can change is if ITA cars are allowed different engine modifications than an ITB car or if there are some unknown HP-impact from switching a vinyl decal from B to A.

Let's say the Webber Hibachi, a "multi-valve", FWD ITB car with stock HP of 130HP generates IT-trim HP of 130x1.3 or 169HP. As an ITA car, it [b]still[b] must have IT-trim HP of 169HP.
My calcs say the Geo Storm GSI, as an ITB car is [130 x 1.3] x .98 x 17 or 2815 lbs.
The same car as an ITA would be [130 x 1.3] x .98 x 14 = 2310 lbs.

The only way it could go through the process this way: 130 x 1.25 x .98 x 14 = 2215 lbs is if the ITAC would have run it as an ITB car with the 1.25 factor.

And that's why the 1.3 for ITB/ITC looks alot like bunk.

[Chip42]

Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved down from ITA to ITB?...the 1.3 for ITB/ITC looks alot like bunk.

The HP would not change, and everyone knows that. the multiplier is a political thing that many (myself included) dislike and would liek to see gone. there are camps that hold otherwise, and that's not the point of this thread.

the geo storm GSi is a poor example, it is one of the many ITB cars to have never been processed. I honestly think it should be an ITA car at 2310#,assuming 130hp sae net as stock.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved down from ITA to ITB? Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved from ITB to ITA? The only way that HP number can change is if ITA cars are allowed different engine modifications than an ITB car or if there are some unknown HP-impact from switching a vinyl decal from B to A.

This is really the crux of it. It's NOT class dependent. Set it at 25% and do the work it takes to prove it is 30%, if it is. Simple.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If we get the gain numbers right, what the default "is" shouldn't matter, or matter most on new cars coming into the class.

True, but consider how hard it is to 'change' to more accurate numbers. The default hurts until you prove the negative, which has historically proven VERY hard to do.

[shwah]

While you are looking at the 'popular' B cars, will that include validating the data used to apply a 30% to the 8v A2 Golf/Jetta?

[JeffYoung]

Chris, my personal opinion is yes. I think we need to take a hard look at everything in ITB. Can't speak for everyone else though.

AJ, I understand. I do think this about the MR2. I think that given the data I've seen -- which itself is not conclusive -- 20% is possible and thus the car may only be 5% off. I do agree with Andy that it's hard to argue around the fact that the 30% default rule made it easier to go with 25% on this car.

But, I would add that the committee members who voted for 25% did so because they thought the car could get to that gain level, and as best I could tell for no other reason.

I'd like to see more of those cars in B. They are good for the class. But I think the issue of gain on them is now officially a dead horse....perhaps unfortunately.

[rsportvolvo]

2. We worked more on the 240s -- David, the request was sent back from the CRB to make sure that our classification recommendation was correct. After further thought, we decided to put it out for member comment.

Jeff,

Thanks for the update. What specific member comments/input are you looking for?

[JeffYoung]

All of the 24x models we are looking at make somewhere between 100 and 114 hp. At their curb weights, it does not appear to us that the ITB process weight is acheivable. So we calculated both a B and C weight and asked for member input on whether the car should go to B and C. Primarily we are looking for the (very few we understand it) members who are building or interested in building these cars telling us whether they prefer ITB, or ITC.

Jeff,

Thanks for the update. What specific member comments/input are you looking for?

[Andy Bettencourt]

1. A fair amount of time spent discussing the update/backdate issue discussed in Ron Earp's thread below. This one remains under consideration, and any member input on it would be appreciated. Basically, it appears have a situation where there is "older" language in the rule (the "don't create a model" sentence) that may be unecessary after the VIN rule changed.

As was discussed, only one real opinion thinks there is an issue. Simplify the wording if you have to but you may not. A model is a CAR, not a trim or option package. Miata, Mustang, S2000, CRX, Civic, etc are MODELS.

You put bumpers from a 1986 RX-7 on a 1991, you haven't created a model, you have simply backdated a piece that is allowed per the rules because the cars are on the same spec line.

[Chip42]

a real problem is the lack of an agreed definition of "model" in the GCR or amongst a random sampling of members. thus the difference of oppinions. I don't like rules that can be read to mean contradictory things by different people, especially when those people are intelligent, experienced, understand the topic, and honestly not trying to find a loophole to exploit.

that's the situation that seems to exist with the "make a model" language, and even thoough the reading is unbalanced in favor of the more liberal reading to which you subscribe, extrapolating the number of forum participants to the number of active members means thatthere are stilla few hundred people in the opposite camp. agree upon the intention, wether it is historically consistant or not, and move forward with everyone on the same page.

FWIW andy, I read it as you do, though I read "model" in this case as spec line, due to cases where the trim level IS alone on a spec line and has unique equipment not found on other trims of the same "model" in other trims. ex: Civic Si (any of them).

[Andy Bettencourt]

FWIW andy, I read it as you do, though I read "model" in this case as spec line, due to cases where the trim level IS alone on a spec line and has unique equipment not found on other trims of the same "model" in other trims. ex: Civic Si (any of them).

And this will be the trouble if they want to change the rule I guess. SOME spec lines have trim levels - typically when that trim level includes an engine of unique design. Two good examples that exemplify the differences:

Honda CRX: Most trim levels have their own spec line because Honda had different engines by trim level. HF, DX, Si, and on and on. Updating and backdating is VERY limited.

Mazda RX-7: All of the trim levels from a given year all used the same engine. Updating and backdating is almost a free-for-all.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with Chip, but I think a reasonable person could look at that rule and say the "don't create a model" language means you can't build something that wasn' sold off the showroom floor.

But more and more I think that language (the "don't create a model") is a vestige of pre-VIN rule days.

We will most likely be sending a proposal to eliminate the "create a model" language around for member comment in a few months.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with Chip, but I think a reasonable person could look at that rule and say the "don't create a model" language means you can't build something that wasn' sold off the showroom floor.

And the reason I disagree with this line of thinking is because if you run that thought process through it's natural progression, the UD/BD rule is TOTALLY useless. Why tell me I can interchange parts within cars on my spec line and then tell me that if it wasn't as delivered it was illegal?

Makes zero sense.