ITB - what a bunch of crap

[Knestis]

...Another way to put this is if you have speced a car at a weight that will likely make it have to carry 100+ pounds of ballast, you need to be able to say why it has to carry that ballast.
Currently that can be done for a few cars and thats it. Most can't be justified, and many of the ITAC guys will honestly look at you and shrug because even they can't explain why.

Sorry, Scott - I'm not tracking on this point.

There's always going to be examples out on the ends of the distribution among cars within a class, of the difference between their spec weight and "bare naked IT prep weight." To fit in a class "bucket" some will need ballast, or put differently, will need to not be lightened as much as others. This is particularly the case if we try to classify a make/model (that is, put it in a class; as opposed to specifying its weight) such that the target spec weight is below what can be achieved with IT preparation. The latter just isn't right.

Or maybe I'm still confused...?

K

[Knestis]

>> ...Seems to me that I recall the realignment to be a 'single bullet theory' event. Hit it once, fix it up and let it run on autopilot forever again. "after all it's not a national class" goes the BoD thought process.

Again, yup. The changes that have been made since, have been under (a rather liberal interpretation of) "errors and omissions." That's also why you don't have to wait until the new GCR comes out for these "fixes" to be implemented: They aren't actually "new rules."

K

[Catch22]

Sorry, Scott - I'm not tracking on this point.

Its a part of being transparent and consistent.
If I have 100lbs of ballast in my car then a calculator should easily explain why.

[AjG]

The Pinto was reprocessed last year and the weight went from 2490 to 2340.(thanks itac)
Numbers are:
92hp x 1.25 x 17(itb) + 50 (a-arm)= 2005 lbs oops…hmmm math wrong?
92hp x 1.45(“smogged up '70s POS” ???) x 17(itb) + 50(a-arm) = 2333 lbs
I actually think 2340 would be a pretty good weight.
The problem, even at 2340 pounds, is in actually loosing the weight.
If the VW Golf is accurately Processed, and is being used as the standard for ITB, and is already a pretty good car( being generous here) then a lot of cars are going to end up loosing weight when reprocessed. But the problem in IT is that you can’t actually take anything off the car! (heater cores for example) So then you end up with a very narrow obtainable weight range. Unless of course you ADD weight to the typically faster/friendlier subjectively(?) process-ified cars, and that probably ain’t gonna happen.

[JeffYoung]

A possibility would be a move to C.

92 x 1.45 x 18.4 +50 is approximately 2500 lbs.

If the "lower" weight in a "higher" class is not obtainable, the next option is to move down a la the now ITB MR2.

[Catch22]

If the VW Golf is accurately Processed, and is being used as the standard for ITB...

It doesn't even appear that the A2 Golf is accurate:
105x1.25x17=2231
-50 (fwd)
+50 (tq)
= A process weight of 2230. Current spec is 2280 so even it is 50lbs overweight.

As far as losing weight to get to minimum, sometimes that costs money. Don't confuse "can't" be done with "I don't want to spend the money to do it."

Remember that simply saving 5lbs per wheel gets you 20lbs. Not only 20lbs but 20lbs of rotating mass.

[shwah]

It doesn't even appear that the A2 Golf is accurate:
105x1.25x17=2231
-50 (fwd)
+50 (tq)
= A process weight of 2230. Current spec is 2280 so even it is 50lbs overweight.

As far as losing weight to get to minimum, sometimes that costs money. Don't confuse "can't" be done with "I don't want to spend the money to do it."

Remember that simply saving 5lbs per wheel gets you 20lbs. Not only 20lbs but 20lbs of rotating mass.

edit = nevermind, found my mistake.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It doesn't even appear that the A2 Golf is accurate:
105x1.25x17=2231
-50 (fwd)
+50 (tq)
= A process weight of 2230. Current spec is 2280 so even it is 50lbs overweight.

And a good example of why the crap hits the fan if everyone runs their car through the 'process'. You say it's 'innaccurate'. I am not sure the A2 was classed during the process tenure but it could have easily been this:

105 x 1.3 x 17 = 2321
-50 (fwd)
2271 or 2270.

We have been documenteing everything over the past year...another reason why going in a checking (and correcting) everything is a good idea IMHO.

I took ITB last night and 'corrected' all of them. There are easily 25-30% of the cars that don't make ANY sense because of old HP ratings. Do the excersize and tell me that you would be happy with the result - AND be able to defend your position.

I think now my position has changed. I think we reset about half of the cars and wait for requests on the ones that have little info. When someone requests a looksie, that person had better have a metric-shit-ton of info to help us help them...or else its all just a huge SWAG.

Example: Plymouth Fire Arrow @ 110 hp. 2.6L and rwd. Go for it. Currently at 2360.

Dave Gran - front suspension type?

[dazzlesa]

is scotts's calculations right?

[shwah]

Yes what is really missing is the documentation of when the cars were classed and/or reviewed. That is a great improvement that you guys have made.

More likely IMO, the car was classed in the early/mid 90s, Chris Albin won the ARRC 3 times with it, and no way no how was weight going to come off during the realignment. We like to say that on track performance does not impact performance. It appears that a similar effect has taken place with the Civic.

Again, this is all just fun interwebdebation unless the ITAC or CRB will actually be permitted to make changes on a larger scale. If not then it will be as current status quo - review on a as requested basis, and leave the giant tolerance in place.

[jjjanos]

I took ITB last night and 'corrected' all of them.

No fair keeping secrets.

There are easily 25-30% of the cars that don't make ANY sense because of old HP ratings. Do the excersize and tell me that you would be happy with the result - AND be able to defend your position.

"These are the rules underwhich new cars are classified. Consistency and fairness requires that all cars be classified under the same system. Your car received an unfair advantage/disadvantage because it was classified using a system that was deemed inaccurate. If your car no longer is competitive/an underdog, please refer to the IT section of the GCR where it clearly states that we do not guarantee the competitiveness of any car."

I think now my position has changed. I think we reset about half of the cars and wait for requests on the ones that have little info. When someone requests a looksie, that person had better have a metric-shit-ton of info to help us help them...or else its all just a huge SWAG.

I like that solution, but I'd like to suggest an adder - if the car hasn't been raced in the last 3 years, delist it if the information isn't available. When/if a request to classify it occurs, either the required information is produced or the factors used are the most disadvantaged. (i.e. if 35% is the max HP multiplier for any car, then no info = 35% HP multiplier).

[ekim952522000]

Do the FWD cars in ITS/ITR get a 100lbs deduct?

do these look right?

93 prelude 190hp x 1.25 = 237.5 x 11.25 =2670 - 100lbs = 2570 + 50 for A arms? - 50? for no torque = current weight of 2570?

RSX 200 x 1.25 = 250 x 11.25 = 2812 - 100 for fwd - 50 for struts?
2662 round up 2665 current weight

[lateapex911]

The Pinto was reprocessed last year and the weight went from 2490 to 2340.(thanks itac)
Numbers are:
92hp x 1.25 x 17(itb) + 50 (a-arm)= 2005 lbs oops…hmmm math wrong?
92hp x 1.45(“smogged up '70s POS” ???) x 17(itb) + 50(a-arm) = 2333 lbs
I actually think 2340 would be a pretty good weight.
The problem, even at 2340 pounds, is in actually loosing the weight.
If the VW Golf is accurately Processed, and is being used as the standard for ITB, and is already a pretty good car( being generous here) then a lot of cars are going to end up loosing weight when reprocessed. But the problem in IT is that you can’t actually take anything off the car! (heater cores for example) So then you end up with a very narrow obtainable weight range. Unless of course you ADD weight to the typically faster/friendlier subjectively(?) process-ified cars, and that probably ain’t gonna happen.

Classic.

IIRC when we got some letters on this, the suggestions were across the board as to what was wanted. One letter, (and I'm not suggesting it was about Pintos) requested a weight break for his ITB car, but went on to say that no matter what, don't move it to ITC, because the writer didn't like the guys in ITC.

Sometimes you just can't have your cake and eat it too....

Not to pick on this fellow, (no name/sig, so sorry, I can't be more polite), but.....

Has the car been on a diet? What does the driver seat weigh? What tires are used? What do the wheels weigh? Type of radiator? Stainless header and exhaust? Light weight hardware in all locations? Simple door bars to allow gutting doors? Hollow sway bars with aluminum arms? And I could go on.

And don't respond with "That stuff costs toio much, or takes too much time..."

Listen, I run an old crappy car. It got a weight break. The car can get to that weight, (thanks to the list above) maybe 10 pounds less, but even that isn't enough. It is what it is. The ITAC can not add 100 or more pounds to every car on the ITA list in an effort to make a few specific cars like mine competitive. The cost of such a change would be borne by EVERYONE, while only benifitting me, and a couple others. No, that's crazy.

On the other hand, when we did the GR, we added weight to a small goup of cars to bring them in line with the process. And look at the complaining. Rick Benazic is STILL bitching (see his posts in THIS thread, LOL) about how the weight ruined his car, yet that same model car just won the ARRCs.



Again, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

My position:

• Do away with the 100 pound window of change. Round to the neatest 5.
• Adjust cars on a proactive basis within the ITAC (Cars that are known issues), AND adjust cars based on member request.
• Continue to fine tune the process, and DOCUMENT. And sure, publish the math.

[Catch22]

My position:

• Do away with the 100 pound window of change. Round to the neatest 5.
• Adjust cars on a proactive basis within the ITAC (Cars that are known issues), AND adjust cars based on member request.
• Continue to fine tune the process, and DOCUMENT. And sure, publish the math.

Great.
Do it.

[ekim952522000]

.........

My position:

• Do away with the 100 pound window of change. Round to the neatest 5.
• Adjust cars on a proactive basis within the ITAC (Cars that are known issues), AND adjust cars based on member request.
• Continue to fine tune the process, and DOCUMENT. And sure, publish the math.

This sounds like a great way to handle it to me. After/If this is done would it be to much to ask that a list off all cars that have not been processed be available?

[AjG]

Classic.



And don't respond with "That stuff costs toio much, or takes too much time..."

This board is hilarious… well I wasn’t actually asking for anything Jake, just pointing out that if you reprocess based off a fast car other cars will get lighter and getting lighter is difficult/expensive/impossible in IT. So where does that get you? I’m quite content with my POS and yes losing weight is too expensive for me. I mean where do you draw the line? I know I could call up Minilite or whoever and get some custom magnesium wheels but come on, this is improved touring not pro touring. I’d be embarrassed to even use them. Admittedly my cut off is a bit lower than some with a $3300 total investment in the car but I actually like to race with people, not time trials with a $15,000 IT car. Hee hee. I’d be much more in favor of sheding non-essential crap than adding weight to anyone(don’t want to start that one here). But if your not adding weight and at the same time don’t have many ways to shed weight(imo) then fiddling with weight dosen’t get you too far.

[lateapex911]

This board is hilarious… well I wasn’t actually asking for anything Jake, just pointing out that if you reprocess based off a fast car other cars will get lighter and getting lighter is difficult/expensive/impossible in IT. So where does that get you? I’m quite content with my POS and yes losing weight is too expensive for me. I mean where do you draw the line? I know I could call up Minilite or whoever and get some custom magnesium wheels but come on, this is improved touring not pro touring. I’d be embarrassed to even use them. Admittedly my cut off is a bit lower than some with a $3300 total investment in the car but I actually like to race with people, not time trials with a $15,000 IT car. Hee hee. I’d be much more in favor of sheding non-essential crap than adding weight to anyone(don’t want to start that one here). But if your not adding weight and at the same time don’t have many ways to shed weight(imo) then fiddling with weight dosen’t get you too far.

Well, that's not accurate, entirely. For you, it might not, but that's because of the choices you've made. And you just said you chose not to avail yourself of some of the options you have. Others might take a crappy cheap to get car, then make it top drawer, because they see it as a way to get to the top, and competition is what racing is about. Some decide they want to compete up front, others are happier in the middle. And that's fine.

But, you can't say to a governing board, "Look, I don't want to spend a lot of money here, but i want my car to be competitive, and it's not. It weighs too much compared to others. So, make them all add weight, or allow me to remove things" Which will, in turn cause everyone else to need to do the same, if they wish to be as competitive as they were pre allowance. And that is the dangerous Rules creep scenario.

If you were on the governing board, you'd have a tough time justifying that to everyone slapping in the weight, or needing to remove heater cores, or make lexan windows, or carbon fenders, and on and on. Really, you would.

You're coming at this from the point of view that things haven't been reprocessed. They have. This discussion is about fine tuning, or a second swipe to get things closer. Cars in the front HAVE been slapped with weight. Some weren't classified when the GR took place, but their weights should reflect the framework laid out.

Don't forget that there are FIVE classes. Each class has a performance target/window. The architecture of the framework was to, in each class, come to a target that added weight to the front runners, and removed a reasonable amount from the backmarkers. With 300 cars, it is very very difficult to strike a balance, and have every car happy. Trust me, I was involved, and my car came up short...and that's the way it needed to be. The class/category needs outweighed my personal desires. In your case, you have the opportunity to improve your lot, and it's up to you to chose whether it's worth it to you to take the advantages.

I'm not trying to pick on you, really, but your post focused a light onto some of the issues surrounding the structure, and the limitation of the classifications, and I think some reading this aren[t aware of things that have occurred over the years, or why things are the way they are.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Its a part of being transparent and consistent.
If I have 100lbs of ballast in my car then a calculator should easily explain why.

Actually, ballast has nothing to do with anything. The calculator should be able to explain people weights - regardless of ballast. Just because you have ballast in your car doesn't mean you got 'extra' weight, it just means your car may be 'light' when stripped down to IT build for the hp it will make.

My Miata carries 70lbs of ballast.