ITB - what a bunch of crap

[Ed Funk]

Post #97--not sarcastic.
Post #99--sarcastic.

[Knestis]

I think Greg makes a great point: It's asinine to use different tolerances for different aspects of our rules - assuming that we believe that any of them make any difference, and think it's a good idea to follow them.

K

[JeffYoung]

While I understand the "one pound makes a difference" thinking, and agree with it, the tech shed underweight v. "fuzziness" in the car weight classification are two completely different things.

One is an absolute. A rule has been set and we all have to follow it. Failure to meet that rule, and run 5 lbs under, is objective, measurable and a bright line.

The second, given the way we classify cars, is very different. Because we are trying to classify a variety of makes with very different attributes, and trying in a very rough way to balance them by giving subjective weight adders/subtractors to them, there is no way to be 100% "accurate." Someone is going to think a car should get 50 lbs for torque, someone else 100. Ditto for beam axles, live rears, drums, etc. etc. etc.

The current FWD weight subtraction debate is a prime example of that.

In this milieu, as Kirk points out, there is no bright line of "right and wrong." And that brings me back full circle to my original question (although I am certainly not the first to raise it): how much "wrong" - or perhaps more accurately, disagreement -- do we tolerate in the subjective factors of the process?

[shwah]

I'm on record as agreeing with you. But I will not - EVER - get sucked into "that car beats me so it must be wrong" conversations.

Two separate issues.

K

Agreed. Comments like that don't fly.

[dazzlesa]

just for examples.
i have run a 2130 lb civic, a 2480 lb integra and a 2595 lb integra.
weight makes a huge difference. tires, brakes, acceleration, consistancy. please be as accurate as you can be. as greg said if we have to be a certain weight than make the effort to get the weights correct for everyone in the book. if we can fudge 50 lbs then give it and i will take it out in a heart beat. i have watched my videos and seen lighter cars creep away as the race has gone on. why i should carry anything that i do not have to.
remember the economy is suffering. lets cut back the extra weight when we can.

[shwah]

I contend that the Golf III is SPOT ON per the process. Maybe the latest developmental dollars are just headed to newer machines as Rick eluded too.

I fell for this one before Andy. You actually stated earlier in this thread that it is closer to 50# under, as have others.

To be clear, this is not an issue that I have with the Golf III, it is an issue with not classing cars at their spec weight. That car is 50 light, my car is 80 heavy (or 100 if you look at where the Mazda Protege would have landed in IT, so you get a bigger differential than the arbitrarily selected 100# window of the process. It happens in every IT class, this particular case is just getting more attention right now.

To Vaughan's comment on which is faster - The Honda pulled me better, but on a different straght. The Golf III is saddled with less ideal gearing. Your car definitely has the most pull on the 2nd half of the straight.

Whether anything changes or not, we will develop our car and driver more and find a way to the front. After all it is IT and we chose what we race with open eyes.

[JeffYoung]

Rick, I agree, accurate as we can be.

So how accurate do we NEED to be? What's the appropriate subtractor for FWD? 50 lbs? 100 lbs? How about a live rear? Doesn't the live rear "hurt more" as torque goes up? How about rear drums? Don't they "hurt more" as speed potential goes up?

Lots of subjectivity in there. In my view, it's asking the ITAC to do the impossible if we start arguing over whether a 50 lb subjective adder v. a 100 lb one is accurate.

[shwah]

Yup, even IF a car is 50 or 100 light, we (the ITAC) can't do anything about it. And the same goes if a car is 50 or 100 heavy. To my eyes, that means there's a theoretical delta of 198 between models. That restriction on noodling with weights is great for stability, unless you run a car that's 99 pounds heavy, and race against a guy who is equally prepped, and drives equally well, but is 99 pounds light.

When we have weights under 2000 pounds in ITB and ITC, that 198 pound delta equates to over 10% difference. I think that's significant. And I'm not a fan of it.

As they say, write your congressman.....

* And Jeff, yes, I DO think significant weight differences make a difference, when equal shoes and equal prep is in the equation. I just got done watching Tim Klavana's video of him spinning on the first lap at NJMP (In the NE section), and watched his drive up through the ranks, and yeah, I was a little surprised at some of the stuff I saw. Miatas..the easiest car in SCCA to drive.... missing turn in by 2 feet, the apex by 2 feet and track out by 2 feet, then the immediately following turn in, apex and track out by 2 feet. SHEESH! THREE hundred pounds wouldn't help that, LOL. But, that's not the concern. I think we need to get them spot on on paper, and let the chips fall where they may on the track.

To be clear, I don't want to see 'noodling with weights'. I want to see cars classed properly and consistently, and ones that were not in the past corrected as such. No way no how we should be having this discussion every year based on who was fast.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I fell for this one before Andy. You actually stated earlier in this thread that it is closer to 50# under, as have others.

Not sure I said that I think it is 50#'s under, probably Kirk. I think it's spot on because there is -50 for a beam.

[dazzlesa]

i agree 100% that the cars will never be equal. we do not want a spec class and there are to many variables to factor in. if we are asked to put lead in our car to make a certain weight than we should get it as acurate as possible. fudging 50lbs here and there is not right.

[Knestis]

It depends how you define "right" and "wrong," Jeff. But then, I'm one of those scary moral relativists that you read about...

I'm actually going to make a semantic difference between "right" and "Right." The latter represents some absolute Truth, where we have magically divined a race weight that is absolutely, 100% fair, such that all IT make/model examples have exactly the same chance of winning.

Proposition: We are NEVER going to achieve that.

You are arguing a point of view shared by some on the ITAC - that because we'll never be Right, we should settle for, "eh, whatever." (EDIT - that might be perceived as pejorative. Call it "settle for 100 pounds.") However, I think that's missing the point because (a) Right IS in fact not going to happen, (b) the idea of "letting perfect stand in the way of better" seems terribly wasteful to me, and (c) that whole perspective requires that we assume we are actually TRYING to accomplish that. I argue that we are not even TRYING for Right. (Some might think so; they are wrong.)

We are in fact shooting for "right" - which I would like to see defined as "repeatable, transparent, as-objective-as-possible weights." The goal is, accepting that they'll never be Right, to get car specification weights as reasonably close to that as possible but in a way that decreases the organizational costs of farting around with things. A weight is right when...

** It was arrived at in a way that everyone can see

** Done again - absent any new information - the system will produce the same weight outcome

I firmly believe that right is pretty much always going to be close enough that - as you (Jeff) quite correctly point out - the amount a car is "off" (the delta between right and Right) contributes little enough to real world competitiveness that it gets lost as noise. Frankly, I don't believe that's a very small window to hit.

In short, the argument that we can't be "accurate" makes the most compelling argument for being "consistent."

Because we CAN do the math to the pound, we SHOULD do the math to the pound. And to be VERY clear here, I am most assuredly NOT suggesting that...

** We should give cars more weight because make/model cases appear to be faster or more competitive

** We should entertain request after request to adjust by fiddly little pounds (once the system has been done, repeatability says the result will be the same)

Finally, another AMAZINGLY disingenuous position that I've seen in these discussions comes from the guy who on the one hand says, "we're fooling ourselves if we think a formula is going to be within 100 pounds of Right, so there's no use diddling with any that are more than that far off" but on the other says, "I know a guy who builds some of the best engines for Borgwards. I KNOW from him how much power they make, so I KNOW that car should be 100 pounds heavier than the formula says."

Bull biscuits.

K

[Knestis]

>> ...it's asking the ITAC to do the impossible if we start arguing over whether a 50 lb subjective adder v. a 100 lb one is accurate.

Which is why one of the most productive suggestions to come out of recent conversations has been a percentage instead. I think.

K

[JeffYoung]

Actually, that is EXACTLY the point I am trying to make. "Accurate" -- the capitalized one -- is not possible. But "accurate" in the sense that we try to apply the subjective factors within the process as consistently as possible in as objective a way as possible (with things like on track performce being immediately discarded), that we have to do.

What we will never get rid of, though, are the discussions/disagreements over how to apply the subjective factors. That's not a "whatever" to me. But it just means that a bright line/this weight is "Right" and that weight is "Wrong" just isn't possible, because you may think a motor can make 35% gain over stock while I think 25%, or someone else may think your beam axle really isn't a 50 lb detriment and you may disagree, etc.

The above is a great statement on how the system should work. We will never, however, get past the "arguments" over what the subjective factors should be. There is no "Right" there either.

[Knestis]

Not sure I said that I think it is 50#'s under, probably Kirk. I think it's spot on because there is -50 for a beam.

The MkIII got spec'd pre-Kirk but when the requests to revisit it came in, I don't recall any subtractor for the rear beam. Jake? Josh? Anyone? If there was, it didn't make it into the record.

Besides - the other Golfs would get the same adjustment and I *think* it's pretty safe to bet that Chris's math is relative to the MkII.

<--- Confused

K

[Knestis]

Actually, that is EXACTLY the point I am trying to make. "Accurate" -- the capitalized one -- is not possible. But "accurate" in the sense that we try to apply the subjective factors within the process as consistently as possible in as objective a way as possible (with things like on track performce being immediately discarded), that we have to do.

What we will never get rid of, though, are the discussions/disagreements over how to apply the subjective factors. That's not a "whatever" to me. But it just means that a bright line/this weight is "Right" and that weight is "Wrong" just isn't possible, because you may think a motor can make 35% gain over stock while I think 25%, or someone else may think your beam axle really isn't a 50 lb detriment and you may disagree, etc.

The above is a great statement on how the system should work. We will never, however, get past the "arguments" over what the subjective factors should be. There is no "Right" there either.

We are in 100% agreement, then - it sounds like, anyway.

On the "arguing over the subjective factors...?" THAT'S where I get to the point of invoking what Andy is fond of saying - "it is what it is." Again, because I think that the individual factors within the "formula" contribute so little, I'm pretty much a fan of "set and forget" where those factors are concerned.

We write them down, establish the process, and go racing.

K

[JeffYoung]

Yes, we agree. And so I'm clear, cause I'm often not..lol..., I think disagreements over the subjective factors are healthy and necessary. They are part of "right" -- they ensure that we debate and discuss them in an attempt to get them as close to accurate as possible.

But they will invariably end up with some folks thinking a car is light, and another is heavy. And that certainly "is what it is."

[shwah]

Not sure I said that I think it is 50#'s under, probably Kirk. I think it's spot on because there is -50 for a beam.

Your right Andy. I mis-read your post mentioning the -50 for the rear beam. Sorry about that.

At the end of the day, the Golf III and Golf II are the same car in terms of chassis. If the Golf III is spot on then the Golf II should be speced at 2145 (20.4lb/stock hp). That's not going to happen, whether because the Golf III is light, or folks don't want to reduce the weight of one of the more highly developed ITB cars out there (speaking on aggregate here, not about one specific car). Of course the Golf III having that exact same chassis, more torque and less lb/hp is why it has not taken long at all for them to gravitate to the front of the grid in every division that they are competing within a year or two. I welcome the compeition, but the Rabbits, Sciroccos, Golfs and Civics certainly deserve an equal opportunity within the system to get off the corner and down the straight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We can debate VW's all day. The bottom line here for this group is that half the ITAC would like to run every car through the process and reset it's weigh +/- ZERO, the other half thinks what we have is 'good enough' given the inherent guesses in the developed process.

I think we can always do better, but I empathise with the folks that would like to see some stability for a while. I think IT has never been healthier in terms of what can win.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The MkIII got spec'd pre-Kirk but when the requests to revisit it came in, I don't recall any subtractor for the rear beam. Jake? Josh? Anyone? If there was, it didn't make it into the record.

Besides - the other Golfs would get the same adjustment and I *think* it's pretty safe to bet that Chris's math is relative to the MkII.

<--- Confused

K

Kirk,

See IT-07-051 on our site.

[Greg Amy]

One is an absolute. A rule has been set and we all have to follow it. Failure to meet that rule, and run 5 lbs under, is objective, measurable and a bright line.

For a rule to be absolute, sacrosanct, and inviolate, the process that sets it must be as well. No rule commands more respect than the process/attitude that creates it.

...but I empathise with the folks that would like to see some stability for a while. I think IT has never been healthier in terms of what can win.

Let's ensure that this empathy is not misplaced towards persons who enjoy advantages - perceived or actual - due to the "status quo."

GA