January Fastrack

JeffYoung said:
This is probably an area of how classification works that has changed since you left the ITAC. We have a STRONG preference for classing at 25% initially until proven wrong with actual evidence.
Click to expand...

Nope, that is how it was when I was there - except there was some evidence to consider, you just didn't look for it - or ask for it.

To that point - it's why the record-keeping implemented 2 years ago was so important.

Either way, reasonable people will disagree. I'm just glad you have the power to make changes and know you do it will 100% good intention.
 
Last edited:
JeffYoung said:
Not knocking Johs, but I think the actual thinking was that basically ALL sixes in ITR were hit with a 30% gain (at least) whether there evidence to support it (like with the BMW 2.5 motors) or not (the Supra and the 300ZX).

In my personal opinion, the Supra should get a similar reduction, if requested.
Click to expand...
The SHO, Acura Legend, Stealth, Contour SVT, 3000GT, various Porsches were processed at 25% IIRC.
 
You are right on the SHO, Legend, Stealth twins and Contour.

I think the Porsches got less than 25%.

The Toyota and BMW inline sixes got 30% -- no data at all on the Toyotas. So too did the 300zx.

I still don't see any evidence being available on that motor. To me, builder speculation prior to a build doesn't cut it. Real data does.

Thanks on the last statement. It is appreciated. It was true when you led the ITAC and I hope we try hard to live up to that standard.

Andy Bettencourt said:
The SHO, Acura Legend, Stealth, Contour SVT, 3000GT, various Porsches were processed at 25% IIRC.
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
VERY tough for that car to be competitive in STL. Or any rotary for that matter.
Click to expand...
"Competitive" is not the short-term priority right now; "inclusion" is. Long-term this is not "the final answer".

Multiply the 12A weight by 1.025; try guessing at the answer before you do.

Donja worry, there's a long-term plan and outlook. Just sayin'.

GA
 
Josh: Thanks very much for getting the weight reduced for the Shelby. I did write a letter (#3616) requesting a clarification of the process used to determine the weight, but only as a result of looking at the line in Fastrack that said 'change weight from 2340 to 2290' which would have been a reduction of only 50 lbs. The actual GCR weight is 2430, so the reduction of 140 lbs is just about what I was hoping for. BTW, the weight of my car as it rolled over the scales the last time I weighed it was 2452, and I've lost a few pounds since then. Looking forward to getting it back on the road a little lighter.
 
JeffYoung said:
No, I'm pretty sure we got this right.

The rule is 25% default unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

All we have is a dyno sheet for (my car) showing a lot of wheel hp on an SSA "build." That car has some visibly illegal stuff on the suspension, so who knows about the motor.

The N/A build information we were able to find in no way supports a 30% gain on this motor. Admittedly, it's not an IT build, but basic stuff (headers, etc.) doesn't result in big power gains on it.

Prod and GT have no bearing on an IT build -- you know that.

The BIG problem we have with this car is it was tagged with 30% with no real evidentiary trail of why, other than a very suspect dyno sheet. That's not how we do things. It's 25% unless we have a lot of evidence of IT builds either on the high side or low side.

P.S. - I recused myself from the vote AND am selling the car I have.
Click to expand...

JeffYoung said:
Actually, no, we wouldn't. We'd assume 25% unless there was strong evidence to the contrary. Speculation on what an IT build might make wouldn't cut it.

There's no evidence this car will make 30%. When and if there is, I would support a change to 30%.

This is probably an area of how classification works that has changed since you left the ITAC. We have a STRONG preference for classing at 25% initially until proven wrong with actual evidence.
Click to expand...

.
 
Sorry for the double and multiple posts.... not sure how many times I tried the quote thing.... smart phones aren't always the best!

Anyway... using my quotes above is it safe to assume that all new classifications (or old cars being adjusted to the process weight) will use the 25% multiplier unless multiple documented dyno charts exist to warrant a higher or lower multiplier.

Does this set a new precedent going forward? Or will the rules change depending on the car or percieved performance?

Thanks,
Stephen
 
Just me speaking here, need to be careful about that and add a Greg Amy disclaimer to my posts.

My understanding is that we use 25% as a fdefult unless there is sufficient EVIDENCE (not just dyno charts) to warrant a change.

The one exception is that apparently we use 30% for multi-valve cars in ITB. Personally, I don't agree with that but I respect the vote for it and will of course adhere to that.

This isn't that different from previous experience; I would just say, at least for me, the preference for the 25% default is stronger.

StephenB said:
Sorry for the double and multiple posts.... not sure how many times I tried the quote thing.... smart phones aren't always the best!

Anyway... using my quotes above is it safe to assume that all new classifications (or old cars being adjusted to the process weight) will use the 25% multiplier unless multiple documented dyno charts exist to warrant a higher or lower multiplier.

Does this set a new precedent going forward? Or will the rules change depending on the car or percieved performance?

Thanks,
Stephen
Click to expand...
 
Greg Amy said:
Donja worry, there's a long-term plan and outlook. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

In the mean time, people could be spending money going the wrong way, and more and more the ST category has people scratching their heads more than licking their lips.

is it even worth writing in with ideas? there has to be SOME place I can run an AW11 MR2 where it wont suck, I'd like ST to be that place.
 
Bad refrain I know, but working on ITB...working on ITB.....

Chip42 said:
In the mean time, people could be spending money going the wrong way, and more and more the ST category has people scratching their heads more than licking their lips.

is it even worth writing in with ideas? there has to be SOME place I can run an AW11 MR2 where it wont suck, I'd like ST to be that place.
Click to expand...
 
My post actually has nothing to do with the mr2 or my 10valve Audi (not multi valve) which is classified well above 30% and as high as 40% depending on what you use as a stock HP number. To be honest I don't want to go back to those ugly discussions...

I am more concerned with new cars being classified and how the committee would decide if weight should be added to an already classed car. The 300zx has now set the precedent in what will happen with future requests... am I wrong?

I am spending thousands of dollars building a new car for ITR and I would like to see consistent policy.

Stephen
 
For me, the default is 25% unless there is pretty strong evidence to the contrary.

I fully agree with you on consistency and I think that -- a strong default rate -- helps keep things consistent.

StephenB said:
My post actually has nothing to do with the mr2 or my 10valve Audi (not multi valve) which is classified well above 30% and as high as 40% depending on what you use as a stock HP number. To be honest I don't want to go back to those ugly discussions...

I am more concerned with new cars being classified and how the committee would decide if weight should be added to an already classed car. The 300zx has now set the precedent in what will happen with future requests... am I wrong?

I am spending thousands of dollars building a new car for ITR and I would like to see consistent policy.

Stephen
Click to expand...
 
Chip42 said:
In the mean time, people could be spending money going the wrong way, and more and more the ST category has people scratching their heads more than licking their lips.
Click to expand...
I completely recognize that, which is why I am asking that we finalize and publish the philosophy as well as where we think the category will go in 12-18 months.

is it even worth writing in with ideas?
Click to expand...
Short-term micro ideas and long-term macro ideas, absolutely. To think that a group of a half-dozen guys have it all figured out, and can come up with all the answers with complete objectivity is silly. Fresh ideas are always a good thing... - GA
 
With all due respect to the ITAC, you MUST remove the 30% for multi-valve rediculousness from ITB. It MAKES ZERO SENSE.

All you have to do is ask yourself this simple question when the topic comes up:

Why does a multi-valve car in ITB have more power potential than a multi-valve car in ANY OTHER CLASS? Because of the 'ITB' sticker? Come on.

You guys are doing a great job of being consistant lately (maybe to a fault IMHO) and this sticks out as one of the last glaring evidences of ITB protectionism. There is simply zero data to back up the MR2 at 30% nevermind a class-based policy that differs from the others in the entire category. It's based on architechture - yet not applied evenly across the category - which is a core value in IT, no?

Just. Fix. It.
 
JeffYoung said:
Just me speaking here, need to be careful about that and add a Greg Amy disclaimer to my posts.

My understanding is that we use 25% as a fdefult unless there is sufficient EVIDENCE (not just dyno charts) to warrant a change.

This isn't that different from previous experience; I would just say, at least for me, the preference for the 25% default is stronger.
Click to expand...

So Jeff, it is safe to assume that any request to re-evaluate the weight of car that was classed using a factor other than 25% would cause the ITAC to re-examine the evidence used in the original classification?
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
With all due respect to the ITAC, you MUST remove the 30% for multi-valve rediculousness from ITB. It MAKES ZERO SENSE.

All you have to do is ask yourself this simple question when the topic comes up:

Why does a multi-valve car in ITB have more power potential than a multi-valve car in ANY OTHER CLASS? Because of the 'ITB' sticker? Come on.

You guys are doing a great job of being consistant lately (maybe to a fault IMHO) and this sticks out as one of the last glaring evidences of ITB protectionism. There is simply zero data to back up the MR2 at 30% nevermind a class-based policy that differs from the others in the entire category. It's based on architechture - yet not applied evenly across the category - which is a core value in IT, no?

Just. Fix. It.
Click to expand...

SHENANIGANS.

Who championed that policy, Jeff? Josh? The membership deserves to know. Hell, we deserve to know who voted on it and how.

K
 
If we published the process, and let people know how individual cars were classed, that would go a long way towards resolving the issue you identify.

Kirk, what I can tell you is it was discussed at length, hashed out, and was the result of committee action. I personally don't think any individual biases or any such shenanigans were involved. As a whole, the committee felt that 4 valve motors in ITB typically resulted in a 30% gain, and that is the default for those cars. I respect the committee's decision, and the process used to reach that conclusion.

You may disagree with that decision, or even think it dumb, but shenanigans is a pretty strong and very inappropriate word for it.

Andy Bettencourt said:
How are people going to know when to submit data to support or refute these requests? Make a plan because you will need one....
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top