ITAC News

[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.

[Knestis]

If we think that "multivalve" cars are going to be run through the "what we know" path of the Process, it doesn't MATTER what their default is. I think that's kind of what Jeff Y. is trying to say...

Point is, that's as good an argument for their default being 25% as it is that it be 30% - and the former settles down possible objections that it simply doesn't make sense.

K

[JeffYoung]

Correct and correct.

Only (important) thing to add is that trying to change the default could (a) do some damage to ITB as it is presently constituted OR (b) cause bigger issues with the CRB, etc. such that pushing for the change is not worth it.

I still see this as a minor problem. I don't think any popular competitive cars are going to end up at a default gain rate.

If we think that "multivalve" cars are going to be run through the "what we know" path of the Process, it doesn't MATTER what their default is. I think that's kind of what Jeff Y. is trying to say...

Point is, that's as good an argument for their default being 25% as it is that it be 30% - and the former settles down possible objections that it simply doesn't make sense.

K

[lateapex911]

If we think that "multivalve" cars are going to be run through the "what we know" path of the Process, it doesn't MATTER what their default is. I think that's kind of what Jeff Y. is trying to say...

Point is, that's as good an argument for their default being 25% as it is that it be 30% - and the former settles down possible objections that it simply doesn't make sense.

K

Correct and correct.

Only (important) thing to add is that trying to change the default could (a) do some damage to ITB as it is presently constituted OR (b) cause bigger issues with the CRB, etc. such that pushing for the change is not worth it.

I still see this as a minor problem. I don't think any popular competitive cars are going to end up at a default gain rate.

I know thats what he's saying, but, the first word you wrote, Kirk, was "IF"...and that's a mighty big IF. IF the ITAC does that now, IF they have data, IF they do that in the future, IF the future ITAC has data...and I'd argue it's MORE likely, given the amount of data that is needed to sway the ITAC (see MR2 as a prime example) that they will NOT have data....

Regarding the CRB, it's clear then that they have NOT bought into the Process if they are digging their heels in on this issue. Or they want it for some other reason.
Either way, it is then politics, and that sucks.
(Yes, I know that to get anywhere you have to give up something, I guess I'm too idealistic...)

[jjjanos]

If we think that "multivalve" cars are going to be run through the "what we know" path of the Process, it doesn't MATTER what their default is. I think that's kind of what Jeff Y. is trying to say...

I understand that if trusted, 100% built dyno sheets are submitted, the default multiplier is meaningless as the actual multiplier is known. There's even wiggle room around how close to 100% you need to get to have the default adjusted downward.

The issue is the evaluation of an unclassified car where there isn't such a history. The "what we know" path is going to be stock-HP and maybe a hodge-podge of data on non-IT builds.

It's questionable whether the car can make ITA weight, but viewing lighter cars as healthier for the class, it gets tossed into ITA. A couple of schmucks build the car and nope, it can't make weight. So, the car gets dropped to ITB. The dyno sheets submitted, if any, just don't convince the ITAC that they've got a full-tilt IT build to look at, so there is no reason to adjust the default multiplier.

Poof magic, that car suddenly makes 4% more power (1.3/1.25).

I don't know whether the current ITAC would do that, even though that is exactly what the process says must be done. I am almost certain that some future ITAC will do that exactly because that is the nature of formulaic systems.

[Knestis]

Let's be clear about this tho - I do NOT think the 30% default thing is a good idea. I don't even think it's an ACCEPTABLE idea.

I still see this as a minor problem. I don't think any popular competitive cars are going to end up at a default gain rate.

Then leave the default as the default - 25% - the way the actual Process developed by the ITAC is supposed to be, and run the "WTF do we know?" pathway on the cars that you all think warrant doing so.

If the hokey default isn't actually going to be used, why would the ITAC want to piss off your constituents and leave them distrustful of the committee and their practices? Talk about a BIG PICTURE issue.

K

[lateapex911]

If the hokey default isn't actually going to be used, why would the ITAC want to piss off your constituents and leave them distrustful of the committee and their practices? Talk about a BIG PICTURE issue.

K

Because, evidently*, the ITAC (well, those that have weighed in) feels it's better to piss off the constituents, rather than the CRB.

But I think that's backwards. The MEMBERS are the boss, and the BoD, and the CRB and the ITAC answer to them, ultimately. Of course, that line of thinking got my ass in a world of hurt with the CRB when I was on the CRB...

But I still think it's the way everybody on any of those committees needs to operate.

*I say that based on the multiple "Political capital" comments made by Jeff, Travis and Josh about this.

[lateapex911]

JWG: Chip states, referring to the effect of the artificial 30% factor used in ITB only:
......The damage to the image of "the process" or the reputation of the rules making boards might be worse. I think that the default should be corrected before another car is run against it with zero supporting data, cannot make the gains, and is saddled with the need to prove less than process hp.

How nice it would be to revisit the MR2 and make it an example of how the ITAC and the CRB can admit an error and correct it, rather than being the repeated example of a car that was wronged after finally being moved to ITB. Even I'm tired of arguing for it. It would go a long way in my mind to reinforcing the flag waving about keeping current members and bringing new members into the SCCA. Simple fairness in classifications without reverting to preconceived notions.
My fear as a 21 year member is that the MR2 is an example of how to toss a bone and maintain the illusive status quo.
AJ

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.

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.

It's a shame this car got so dicked over and it's now a dead horse...

Jeff, what if the default was 25%?? Would the ITAC have been 'brave' enough to take the 12% dyno sheets and round them to 20%?
See by STARTING at a ridiculous 30%, going to 20 seems like a big deal. But at 25%, not so much.

Chip nails THE major reason on the head. Such an obviously loony, illogical and nonsensical rule makes people not trust the PTB. Distrust in the people you pay is a bad bad thing.

And lets not minimize the difference 5% makes. That's 102 pounds!
(off the top of my head numbers: hp is 112? Difference from 20 to 25% is 6hp)
I don't know about anyone else, but carrying around FOUR cinder blocks because the PTB thinks my engine makes 6 hp more with a 'B' sticker on the side would piss be off royally.
Honestly, I'm shocked more of these guys haven't just gone to NASA and raced in PT whatever......

This is so simple...the ITAC really needs to do the right thing.
DO NOT be fooled into worrying about 'disrupting' the competitive balance of ITB. IF you change the 30% 'caveat' in the Process. (That's it, I'm calling it a 'caveat', not a 'module'!) and you get letters requesting the Yagaroo 2500 4V get reprocessed, do the homework. If it makes more, then class it according to real world known data. If not, do what you would with anything else. The sky will NOT fall.

But lets not say, "I dunno, things look ok now"...That TOTALLY undermines the point of the Process.....

[ajmr2]

It's a shame this car got so dicked over and it's now a dead horse...
And lets not minimize the difference 5% makes. That's 102 pounds!
Honestly, I'm shocked more of these guys haven't just gone to NASA and raced in PT whatever......

I'm still a firm believer in dancin' with the one you brung, and it's still about the friends I've made, but there are plenty of guys jumping ship, especially younger racers. There are more and more cars with NASA stickers showing up at MARRS & PDX events, and when there's a conflict in event scheduling they go to NASA. Our events suffer accordingly. I hate to see that.
AJ