Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[seckerich]

Ah post 5 and 6 in this thread were about what I was referring to, but thanks for being a dick.

It NOT a good thing that public unregistered people looking to get into SCCA see how it works on this site. The last time I checked, this inst just an IT forum. There are several conversations/threads about ST, but thanks again for making SCCA look like a bunch of assholes its perceived to be. I see how well this all works....

Glad I could help, I can be a dick when needed. You were pointing out the ITAC should be ashamed for the delay in a STL splitter letter, Correct?

[Chip42]

steve owes me a keyboard.

corey's point, if I follow correctly, is that the open discussions like this, where rules are picked apart, processes are discussed, etc... are a turn off to "I just wanna go fast" types, which would be most "new members". thus he feels these discussions to be a turnoff to new or potentially new members.

he may have a point, too. but the fact that the whole thing is out in the open and that some individuals invovled in these decissions from the varous boards and committees participate in them (as opposed to simply pronouncing their oppinions and walking away) is overall good for the comunity, sport, and club. hopefully, the end result is that people who prefer W2W over track day or TT type events will be less fed up long term here (SCCA) than in the NASA mold.

as for the guys who find it a turnoff, I think it's generational. not much you can do there.

I think the STL splitter thing was aimed at tGA. Corey knows the distinction of ITAC/STAC

[Greg Amy]

steve owes me a keyboard.

If you don't want to deal with the rules silliness, then either tune out the "Rules & Regs" sub-forum (where we talk in depth about, strangely enough, rules and regulations) or spend your time at sccaforums.com.

I think the STL splitter thing was aimed at tGA. Corey knows the distinction of ITAC/STAC

Yup, that's how I read it, too. But I already 'splained to him why he was low-priority-man on the 2012 totem pole; apparently that wasn't acceptable (even though he ultimately got what he was asking for, and at the absolute soonest time he could possibly have...)

GA

[S2_ITBVW]

IT is the entry point for the SCCA. Yeah, there are a bunch of really knowledgeable folks participating, but I ain’t one of them. I’m getting there, but it’s going to take more than the two years I currently have under my belt. I have been told that my A2 VW Jetta is classed “differently” than other cars because smart people on the Comp Board think it can realize a 30% gain. Not trusting my own expertise, I’ve talked to all the experienced A2 VW guys I know and none of them are achieving 30%. Nonetheless, the last two years I have done 99% of the things I am supposed to do to make my car fast. The things that are left to do are things that many would argue won’t make a difference anyway (e.g., I need to install a crank scraper). I am far from being a good VW tuner, so I don’t trust my dyno numbers to be the best, but I do NOT have a 30% gain. So, I do have dyno data that I can provide for this discussion. But, I’m a freakin’ Psychologist that is just figuring this stuff out, so I just don’t think my results will (or should) carry that much weight.

Here’s my real concern . . . this class is supposed to be for folks like me. I shouldn’t have to be an automotive engineer to make the case for my car to be classed properly. The BURDEN should be on the experienced EXPERTS that are running the show. If there isn’t documented evidence that is clearly communicated to justify my car being processed in a manner that deviates from the established standards, then my car SHOULD be processed according to those established standards. When someone inquires about a deviation from standard processing, there should be a record of why the car is being treated differently. The established process should prevail unless there is EXPLICIT justification to do otherwise. The BURDEN should not be on an entry level participant to refute “mysterious rules anomalies.”

When I am told that the justification for the “atypical” processing of my car is lost in antiquity, and that it is my responsibility as an entry level racer to prove that this atypical processing is wrong . . . well, that’s just crazy. Suffice it to say that I feel like am not only fighting an uphill battle, but I’m fighting a battle that I should not even be asked to fight in the first place.

So, I too am done with IT. To put it bluntly, my car is competitive in HP, so I am moving on. I hope, however, that you will consider the opinions of someone who is supposed to “fit” in Improved Touring. FWIW, I don’t think there is anything wrong with just “wanting to go fast” in a fair, competitive, safe and relatively “hassle free” race environment. That, quite frankly, describes exactly what I am looking for.

[jjjanos]

On the splitter rule, can someone help me out? What exactly is the issue? The rule allows an airdam within proscribed geometric space, and attaching points. If you can construct a splitter, or hell an M1 tank, within those parameters, you are ok, no?

. Incorrect. Loading of depleted uranium sabots in the car would violate the ballast rule. The M1 tank is out.

[jjjanos]

and to Bill, etc... there' no one saying otherwise. there are some cars I think are "right" at higher multipliers, like the 88-91 and 92-95 civics, and I for one would want to see proof to the contrary before lightening them.

Ummmm.... something,something... just like the old system of pulling numbers out of thin air.

"The Process" is suppose to prevent "I think this car needs more weight."

[Greg Amy]

On the splitter rule, can someone help me out? What exactly is the issue? The rule allows an airdam within proscribed geometric space, and attaching points. If you can construct a splitter, or hell an M1 tank, within those parameters, you are ok, no?

No.

A "splitter" is not an airdam or a spoiler. Neither is an undertray. IIDSYCTYC.

However, they are "technically" compliant because of the Roffe Corollary, but the implication - because they are not explicitly allowed - is that splitters and undertrays are not within the spirit/philosophy of the regs. Thus, intorturation, in violation of the GCR.

However, if the intent is to allow, why not explicitly allow? It clarifies it for everyone, not just us rules nerds.

GA

[seckerich]

So, I too am done with IT. To put it bluntly, my car is competitive in HP, so I am moving on. I hope, however, that you will consider the opinions of someone who is supposed to “fit” in Improved Touring. FWIW, I don’t think there is anything wrong with just “wanting to go fast” in a fair, competitive, safe and relatively “hassle free” race environment. That, quite frankly, describes exactly what I am looking for.[/QUOTE]



Dave it is a sad situation on the VW and to some extent the Volvo front. Some of the "known" values ingrained in some of the CRB are from cheated up cars to be blunt. Some of these became the benchmark and as rules got better and methods of checking cams, etc got better these cars got legal or went away. Now you get screwed to some extent for past practices. It will take some work, but you have a very open minded ITAC right now willing to try.

[JeffYoung]

IT is the entry point for the SCCA. Yeah, there are a bunch of really knowledgeable folks participating, but I ain’t one of them. I’m getting there, but it’s going to take more than the two years I currently have under my belt. I have been told that my A2 VW Jetta is classed “differently” than other cars because smart people on the Comp Board think it can realize a 30% gain. Not trusting my own expertise, I’ve talked to all the experienced A2 VW guys I know and none of them are achieving 30%. Nonetheless, the last two years I have done 99% of the things I am supposed to do to make my car fast. The things that are left to do are things that many would argue won’t make a difference anyway (e.g., I need to install a crank scraper). I am far from being a good VW tuner, so I don’t trust my dyno numbers to be the best, but I do NOT have a 30% gain. So, I do have dyno data that I can provide for this discussion. But, I’m a freakin’ Psychologist that is just figuring this stuff out, so I just don’t think my results will (or should) carry that much weight.

Here’s my real concern . . . this class is supposed to be for folks like me. I shouldn’t have to be an automotive engineer to make the case for my car to be classed properly. The BURDEN should be on the experienced EXPERTS that are running the show. If there isn’t documented evidence that is clearly communicated to justify my car being processed in a manner that deviates from the established standards, then my car SHOULD be processed according to those established standards. When someone inquires about a deviation from standard processing, there should be a record of why the car is being treated differently. The established process should prevail unless there is EXPLICIT justification to do otherwise. The BURDEN should not be on an entry level participant to refute “mysterious rules anomalies.”

When I am told that the justification for the “atypical” processing of my car is lost in antiquity, and that it is my responsibility as an entry level racer to prove that this atypical processing is wrong . . . well, that’s just crazy. Suffice it to say that I feel like am not only fighting an uphill battle, but I’m fighting a battle that I should not even be asked to fight in the first place.

So, I too am done with IT. To put it bluntly, my car is competitive in HP, so I am moving on. I hope, however, that you will consider the opinions of someone who is supposed to “fit” in Improved Touring. FWIW, I don’t think there is anything wrong with just “wanting to go fast” in a fair, competitive, safe and relatively “hassle free” race environment. That, quite frankly, describes exactly what I am looking for.

Thanks for the post- it is always good to get the perspective of new folks in IT.

I'm sorry you are leaving after only 2 years. While I do understand your frustration with the system, I can say this: at 2 years in, you should have a lot more on your driver/development/tuning plate than worrying about 5 or 10 hp. You are just starting out on the driver's learning curve, and on how to develop your program overall to be competitive.

If the ITB fields in your area are competitive, running up front in just two years in a sorta oddball car is probably not a realistic goal.

But I can assure you of this. We on the ITAC understand there are some issues in ITB right now arising from the now-old 30% rule. While I think your position that the ITAC needs to be experts on 300+ cars, rather than the procedure for classing them, is unrealistic, I do agree with you on this: our documentation and records on why certain cars got 30% and others did not is suspect.

So instead of taking your ball elsewhere, why not help us out? I know nothing about A2 Jettas or what they may make in IT trim. Send a letter and your dyno sheet and I can assure you it will be discussed at length.

[JeffYoung]

No.

A "splitter" is not an airdam or a spoiler. Neither is an undertray. IIDSYCTYC.

However, they are "technically" compliant because of the Roffe Corollary, but the implication - because they are not explicitly allowed - is that splitters and undertrays are not within the spirit/philosophy of the regs. Thus, intorturation, in violation of the GCR.

However, if the intent is to allow, why not explicitly allow? It clarifies it for everyone, not just us rules nerds.

GA

THanks, that helps Greg.

However, not sure I fully agree. We "allow" a number of things via the Roffe Corollary that are not expressly called out in the rules. Hoses for brake ducts, heat shields attached to "free" items, etc.

I'm not sure how adding this wording helps, although I'm not sure I see a down side either.

[Chip42]

To Dave E. That was a damn good post with damn good arguments. Thank you.

No intention to disrespect those who "just wanna go fast," only to distinguish them from rules nerds and the like. The club absolutely must appeal to that group as much as is possible. Particularly the subset of it that, like you, are intelligent professionals who share our passion for ra cing but no background with the tech.

Unfortunately, the burden of proof springs from politics and from the fact that there are outfits out there that are basically pro teams that can push all the buttons and make power others didn't. So we have to treat all cars as if they were built by those groups. Still, Your point about substantiating data for the current classification is spot on. We are working on making that data to be more easily searchable as history. We will look into the A2. I'm sorry to see you leave IT.

[Spinnetti]

I'm almost speechless. Waiting for official Fastrack.

I don't get it... why not the Corolla too? MR2 is a more modern design than the live axle corolla.... if it gets the drop too, maybe I'll come back to IT, as my Corolla is just sitting in the garage at this point while I run Lemons instead...

[erlrich]

After reading the last page or so of threads, it just occurred to me; what the SCCA really needs is a SS class for older cars (I know, I know...OMG not another class). I'm guessing that's kinda what IT was intended to be in the beginning. I would be all over something like that.

[JeffYoung]

After reading the last page or so of threads, it just occurred to me; what the SCCA really needs is a SS class for older cars (I know, I know...OMG not another class). I'm guessing that's kinda what IT was intended to be in the beginning. I would be all over something like that.

Thta's exactly what it was intended to be.

Corolla: write the letter and we'll recommend dropping the weight.

[mossaidis]

After reading the last page or so of threads, it just occurred to me; what the SCCA really needs is a SS class for older cars (I know, I know...OMG not another class). I'm guessing that's kinda what IT was intended to be in the beginning. I would be all over something like that.

That's exactly what IT is designed for... along with classing newer but older than 5 year old cars, which i think makes the ITAC job that much more demanding and granted, IT that much better.

PS. Keep the airdam/splitter opinions coming. We're definitely honing in on the issue.

[Flyinglizard]

See my post under the VW weight.
I still do not run IT becuase of the VW weights. The A 1 was way heavy from the start and got lowered after we started running it in HP. But the only engine change for this particular engine is the cam. It makes spec every where else. for IT.
I have two exact replica HT, 10/1 engines , as I build them all the same.
38% was derived form the early cheaty ass cars.

I would be happy to dyno these two engines. I expect them to make 120+-2 whp@ 6000rpm, with the legal cams (1985 GTI # 020() or the RD cam .



RE airdams. Must be attached to the body, does not preclude more attachments, IMHO
The very small area under the bumper does not allow any real advantage.

[mossaidis]

RE airdams. Must be attached to the body, does not preclude more attachments, IMHO
The very small area under the bumper does not allow any real advantage.

I disagree as it will vary from car to car. I notice the difference between the airdam and an airdam/splitter setup. With my old splitter setup, we had ~2" plane on splitter at vehicle center-line while still within the "nothing visible from above" rule. Tires also last much longer too as the car is planted through the corners.

[coreyehcx]

If you don't want to deal with the rules silliness, then either tune out the "Rules & Regs" sub-forum (where we talk in depth about, strangely enough, rules and regulations) or spend your time at sccaforums.com.


Yup, that's how I read it, too. But I already 'splained to him why he was low-priority-man on the 2012 totem pole; apparently that wasn't acceptable (even though he ultimately got what he was asking for, and at the absolute soonest time he could possibly have...)

GA

Chip was right with most of what he said.


I was not calling you out on the time frame, you explained it to me as you stated. You didn't tell me I was low on the totem pole though. I was just stating it. Do I think some type of reply back on it like "hey we need some time we are looking at it" is better than no response until now? Yes. I'm glad it will be added for next year.


I follow what you guys talk about on here because I'm running ITB in 2013. It's frustrating to see so many others upset and moving to other classes. It makes me wonder why I'm going to get involved in IT.

The only reason I will is because of Chip and the rest of the local guys I run with...without them no way in hell after seeing all the shit in this forum.

[JeffYoung]

It's far worse (or was) in Prod.

We have had a lot of changes here in IT in the last 5-7 years. One of my goals is to slow that down and get us back to the stability we had for 20 years -- but with the improved Process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's far worse (or was) in Prod.

We have had a lot of changes here in IT in the last 5-7 years. One of my goals is to slow that down and get us back to the stability we had for 20 years -- but with the improved Process.

And that can only happen if the CRB lets you do what is needed in a big chunk instead of pecking away at it.