ITAC News

[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]

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.....

[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...)

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is a good exercise.

True. It seems the MR2 is just like the RX-7 in this respect. I submit all those combinations are legal.

The way I have read - and still read the rules - is simple. Cars with the same, make, model, body type and engine size - on the same spec line, are effectively the same car to the ITCS. You are allowed to interchange parts as you see fit per the 'assembly' restrictions.

Interestingly, the ITCS reads funny. What do we think it means by the 'creation' of a TYPE of car? I think it means you can't create a vert out of a coupe or build some kind of freak-mobile that never exisited as a model.

[quadzjr]

If we break it down to the level of create a model that didn't come off the showroom floor. You are going to have a SLEW of additional classifications. I wonder how many classifications the ITB Mustang would be? In the 2nd gen RX7 example. You would have to classify every different variation of the car. Obviously everybody would run a GTU as with teh current process based on hp, this is irrelevant.

in the civic si example you would have to class the 94' by itself, you would have to classify the verts and coupe independently, All three of the toyota MR chassis would be split up in numerous spec lines..

Or the ITB fiero in atleast 3 different classifications.

the 240 into a few.. The list goes on and on.

All of these multi classifications of the same model of car sharing an engine would have the same spec'ed weight. per the

Which would get us to a time back to the VIN rule days.

How minute do you want to bring this. what if the sheet metal on the floor stampings are slightly different for wind noise on a 2000 model year and not onthe 1999.. does this mean I cannot up/bd and a 99' chassis to a 2000? as they would be technically creating a model. I know this is cutting hairs and brining it down to minute details, and this is not the car show.

side story.. at a car show our number matching chevelle was doing well. we lost first place because our brake lines were made out a galvanized steel (we got from autoparts store) and factory was un-protected steel. Thusly our car we deemed not "original" and we lost to a trailer queen (I was pissed). We did give them a parting burnout through the gears as we drove it home.

[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

[Gary L]

Interestingly, the ITCS reads funny. What do we think it means by the 'creation' of a TYPE of car? I think it means you can't create a vert out of a coupe or build some kind of freak-mobile that never exisited as a model.

That's what bugs me about the 'creation' statement. We don't know for sure (or at least can't agree) what a 'model' is, and we really don't have a clue what 'type' means, so it's really difficult to understand what the overall intent was.

One thing is for sure - some time, some place, someone did (or wanted to do) something that drove the additional condition. If you look at the old proposed 1985 national IT ruleset, the update/backdate allowance has apparently always been there, but the 'creation' qualifier was added later.

In any case, my personal leaning would be to leave the former and strike the latter. It then becomes incumbent upon us to keep this in mind when making new classifications.

[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.

[Andy Bettencourt]

That's what bugs me about the 'creation' statement. We don't know for sure (or at least can't agree) what a 'model' is, and we really don't have a clue what 'type' means, so it's really difficult to understand what the overall intent was.

One thing is for sure - some time, some place, someone did (or wanted to do) something that drove the additional condition. If you look at the old proposed 1985 national IT ruleset, the update/backdate allowance has apparently always been there, but the 'creation' qualifier was added later.

In any case, my personal leaning would be to leave the former and strike the latter. It then becomes incumbent upon us to keep this in mind when making new classifications.

Welcome aboard Gary! Enjoy your time, it can be fun.

On the 'no clue what TYPE' means...we know what it means because it tells us right in there. Sedan, coupe, vert.

To me, it's additional language that was slapped in there to 'clarify' someones intorturtation, that so often actually adds grey area.

[gran racing]

Breaking it down beyond models: In addition to creating several additional variations and cars on different spec lines, it also creates additional challenges.

• Many of the IT cars being driven are old and part sourcing is becoming difficult. This will make it even tougher for some to find replacement parts.
• The process classification doesn't account for most items being discussed anyways, so who cares? If there are vehicles where the end classification would be impacted by more than just a few pounds, then break the cars out in different spec lines.
• While this is technically not relevant since it's rules versus enforcement (although the ECU rule change happened exactly because of this), policing and attempting to determine legality will become even tougher.

[Chip42]

Breaking it down beyond models: In addition to creating several additional variations and cars on different spec lines, it also creates additional challenges.

• Many of the IT cars being driven are old and part sourcing is becoming difficult. This will make it even tougher for some to find replacement parts.
• The process classification doesn't account for most items being discussed anyways, so who cares? If there are vehicles where the end classification would be impacted by more than just a few pounds, then break the cars out in different spec lines.
• While this is technically not relevant since it's rules versus enforcement (although the ECU rule change happened exactly because of this), policing and attempting to determine legality will become even tougher.

Dave,

I completely agree. the topic came up because others (here) have expressed firm disagreement. those weren't voices I tend to ignore, so I akse d aquestion. just so happens that my first ITAC con call had my letter on the agenda, so I was able to 'splain why I was writing it. we're gonna play with some things on the committee and put out somethign for member input. I appreciate the comments like yours because it helps frame the issue. thanks.

[JeffYoung]

And to be clear: I think the rules are not clear, and in one place allow the update/backdate Chip and Andy talk about, and then add that last sentence on "not creating a model" that is poorly defined.

My personal opinion is we should remove it and allow the update/backdating to go on, that is presently going on.

Like I said on committee, a strict interpretation of the rule makes illegal the induction system on pretty much every competitive ITS RX7 I'm aware of, and I don't want to do that. I need someone to beat, I mean race with.....

Dave,

I completely agree. the topic came up because others (here) have expressed firm disagreement. those weren't voices I tend to ignore, so I akse d aquestion. just so happens that my first ITAC con call had my letter on the agenda, so I was able to 'splain why I was writing it. we're gonna play with some things on the committee and put out somethign for member input. I appreciate the comments like yours because it helps frame the issue. thanks.

[JeffYoung]

No Jake that's about as incorrect of a statement as I've seen you make.

There are many issues we are working on in regards to IT. For me personally, the 1.3 default in ITB is a minor one. There are bigger picture items to address.

On top of that, how do you know "membership" is opposed to this? Basically, I see you, Andy, Kirk, Jeff and to a lesser extent Chip opposed? Trust me, I could count an equal number in support (and after a lot of thinking, color me mostly ambivalent but mildly opposed).

And let me ask you a big picture question:

Would you rather have NO Process at all, or a Process that had this 1.3 multiplier in ITB?

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.

[Chip42]

And let me ask you a big picture question:

Would you rather have NO Process at all, or a Process that had this 1.3 multiplier in ITB?

Process with better than no process.

[tnord]

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.

hey jake, piss off. :026:

i know you're bitter about the whole thing, but you're not on the committee anymore, so quit trying to run the show from your keyboard and acting like you know everything.