Any news on ITB weights???

[AE86ITA]

Ok is September alreary, do we have any news ee can chew on?

[Chip42]

Not done yet. I know it's frustrating and I kinda wish we hadn't let the cat out of the bag ahead of being done. we ARE working on it, and yes, we appreciate that it is late in the year and close to the 2014 rules season.

[gran racing]

Not to be an ass, but it has been several years in the making. What's one more? And I know there are "reasons" and it's not this ITAC or the last ITAC's fault.

[JeffYoung]

My personal opinion is that it will be 2015 before you see any significant changes, based on what happened the first time around with this stuff.

[Knestis]

LOL - based on what happened last time, you'll submit the list, and it will be on like Donkey Kong. The chit will go DOWN, bra...

K

[callard]

I think I'll just pick a weight and post it on the sides of my car. Who's to know?????

[Gregg]

As long as it matches what you put in DLB, you're good to go, Chuck.

[ShelbyRacer]

Just make sure it's neat and clean (or perhaps use the weight decal to cover a minor imperfection...). Sorry, you know I had to.

[Chip42]

LOL - based on what happened last time, you'll submit the list, and it will be on like Donkey Kong. The chit will go DOWN, bra...

K

given the protectionist streak that the PTB seem to have on ITB, you're probably VERY correct. that and the attractiveness of a stable rule set and resistance to changes of any kind by many has a lot of inertia and is hard to nudge.

[Andy Bettencourt]

...the attractiveness of a stable rule set and resistance to changes of any kind by many has a lot of inertia and is hard to nudge.

This is where some of us get our panties in a bunch. The rules can be stable (which I think they are for the most part) but if you don't apply the rules evenly then all that work is moot. The Corvette got porked and ITB has been treading water. The PTB need to believe in the system and allow the 'fixes'. If they don't want to, then tell the ITAC and let them decide if the time they put in using the system they believe in is worth it.

[Chip42]

let me be clear that right now, the delay is within the ITAC. but we are just the first hurdle. take the rest of the above as you will.

[Andy Bettencourt]

let me be clear that right now, the delay is within the ITAC. but we are just the first hurdle. take the rest of the above as you will.

The ITB realign is a monumental task and I would expect it to take a shit-ton of months. Keep on keeping on.

[JeffYoung]

LOL - based on what happened last time, you'll submit the list, and it will be on like Donkey Kong. The chit will go DOWN, bra...

K

Troof. Things are a bit better now but some of this will be a huge battle....

[JeffYoung]

This is where some of us get our panties in a bunch. The rules can be stable (which I think they are for the most part) but if you don't apply the rules evenly then all that work is moot. The Corvette got porked and ITB has been treading water. The PTB need to believe in the system and allow the 'fixes'. If they don't want to, then tell the ITAC and let them decide if the time they put in using the system they believe in is worth it.

Bzzzt. It got "porked" based on your interpretation of an adder/subtractor. System was applied, it's just the system was murky.

right now, I'd say the PTB believe in the system more than ever. But there will be difficult cases and there will be a LOT of them in ITB.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bzzzt. It got "porked" based on your interpretation of an adder/subtractor. System was applied, it's just the system was murky.

Let's not argue about it. It's the only car in ITR to get a DW adder. The system was applied with a blind eye to how the system was applied in the past. The way to make it fair to everyone was to class it like the rest of the cars and then collectively 'correct' the group if the ITAC felt as if a DW adder needed to actually be in place for ITR.

right now, I'd say the PTB believe in the system more than ever. But there will be difficult cases and there will be a LOT of them in ITB.

ITB has a whole host of issues that make it a very hard task. It will be a hard sell but I think this is the group who can do it.

[JeffYoung]

Well, not to dicker, but you brought up, and continue to do so.

*it's 50 lbs over in your view, which I think no one would rationally call porked;

*we followed the manual in classing it;

*there are a LOT of inconsistencies in R right now that are far worse and the mess with the DW adder will get fixed with them as well.

[quadzjr]

In the ITB talks can you please, please, please address torque. It might be hard to accomplish work in ITB (see 4AGE and the weight balance of accord). Both had/have significant resistance.

[lateapex911]

In the ITB talks can you please, please, please address torque. It might be hard to accomplish work in ITB (see 4AGE and the weight balance of accord). Both had/have significant resistance.

LAst time we did this ITB thing, the head of the CRB switched his opinion 180 degrees monthly, and decided that ENGINE DISPLACEMENT wasn't being applied properly.

half the ITAC resigned in protest, essentially.

So, adding another factor isn't likely to grease the progress.

Although, he liked displacement as a proxy for tq. So maybe you're onto something??

I think however, that Chip and Kirk are sadly accurate.

It seems to me that a good guy member who wants to help by working as a volunteer in a committee environment in the SCCA results in the volunteer eventually taking one of two paths:
1- fighting for the members, trying to do the right thing, running against the old guard, and eventually a line gets crossed and he says, "Hold on, this is crazy, So and so is screwing everyone for his own benefit, and you all are a bunch of liars covering up for him!!!", and POOF, out the door he goes....
or
2- Fighting for the members, growing weary of the charades, and winds up pushing just this side of "too hard", hedges on principal, and makes the best 'deals' he can, while not getting fired.

Not sure which is better. Probably 50/50. Certain issues need a 1, but others don't warrant it, and compromise is better than nothing, so 2 works.

But, both kinda suck.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, not to dicker, but you brought up, and continue to do so.

*it's 50 lbs over in your view, which I think no one would rationally call porked;

*we followed the manual in classing it;

*there are a LOT of inconsistencies in R right now that are far worse and the mess with the DW adder will get fixed with them as well.

OK, I'll keep biting.

* More than 25% is not in the manual IIRC but was classed consistently with other V8's for power - can agree with that position
* DW adder was "followed" because of a mistake in the rewrite of the manual for ITR. So it stands alone in ITR as the only car with that weight penalty. It sits in limbo because of a mistake of either clerical nature and/or the idea that none of the ITAC remembered that the DW adder was never applied to those cars, only a strut/FWD subtractor which is unique to ITR as well.

In the first case the manual was not used in favor of consistency and in the second the manual was used without thought or knowledge of consistency. This is my point.

The ITR inconsistencies largely stem from a 'best guess' on HP multipliers. The committee that put that cut together did on a spreadsheet with all the calculations for each car. That sheet should be in the committees possession. If not, I can probably help getting them a copy.

I am sure the ITAC is doing the same thing with ITB. I would figure the biggest hurdle would be to determine an agreed upon set of multipliers to get everyone to a standardized 'stock' hp figure before even applying manual-based multipliers and adders. Then the list in ITB might even be the largest class of all.

[jjjanos]

Ok is September alreary, do we have any news ee can chew on?