ITAC News
- Thread starter JeffYoung
- Start date
I have an MR2, and suprise! I do not support the 30% default gain.
But I do understand the worry about a "je ne sais quoi" aspect of cars that are 20+ years newer than others in the class having an overall improved capabiltiy even with IT spec line items being equal (theoretical cars). I don't entirely agree with it, but I understand where it comes from. I think the expected gain was the wrong place to put an adder for this, if there has to be an adder at all. I need some convincing on that second point as well.
the good news is that, other than for the toyota 4A-GE sibs (Mr2, FX16, Corolla AE-86), everything that I am aware of that has been processed using the 30% gain seems to be able to live up to it*. so the "damage done" to the ITCS isn't very wide spread. The damage to the image of "the process" or the reputation of the rules making boards might be worse. I think that the default should be corrected before another car is run against it with zero supporting data, cannot make the gains, and is saddled with the need to prove less than process hp.
The MR2 got moved back to the overall default which I think is still high but others need convincing of. That's ok to the degree that that is how the process is supposed to work. Though I think the burden of proof is being set a bit high in this case, that's the prerogative of the members of the committee, and those I've spoken to about it have reasonable reservations, I'm just not able to spend the coin to satisfy them.
*there's less evidence I'm aware of for the FP-DE BJ Protégé, but i haven't seen any noise about it and it seems pretty strong so maybe that one was lucky and also makes close to 30% gains.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Wrong. Read the rule again.
UD/BDing is only permited between cars of the same make, model and body type...
Just because they are on the same spec line doesn't make a vert a coupe.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I love how you lump them all together.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
And since two BRILLIANT dudes like Jeff and I read it differently, it must need a clarification. LOL
JeffYoung
New member
No, I'm not. The rule is, like this whole rule, not very well written.
It says:
It says:
To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating
of components is only permitted within cars of the same make,
model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and
engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.
It defines "make, model and body type" as what is listed on a single Improved Touring spec line.
What that means it that sedans, coupes, converts, etc. should not be listed on the same lines. But they are in many cases and when they are, arguably, you can update/ backdate.
Whole rule needs a clean up, and yes I think one of the things we need to look at in evaluating it is who people have interpreted it over time.
of components is only permitted within cars of the same make,
model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and
engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.
It defines "make, model and body type" as what is listed on a single Improved Touring spec line.
What that means it that sedans, coupes, converts, etc. should not be listed on the same lines. But they are in many cases and when they are, arguably, you can update/ backdate.
Whole rule needs a clean up, and yes I think one of the things we need to look at in evaluating it is who people have interpreted it over time.
JeffYoung
New member
Well, that would be because the default is supposed to apply to them a group. Lumped together.
JeffYoung
New member
I'd argue with that, but that would be pulling a Janoska and I try not to do that!
Tridents for everyone.
Tridents for everyone.
gran racing
Super Moderator
Looking at some of the level of prepped cars, equipment on them including tire conditions, and drivers, I'm not so sure 100 lbs either direction is going to make or break many of the multivalve cars being driven. That still doesn't mean it couldn't influence what's needed to reach that pointy end though. This all goes back to the on-track performance and how the results are achieved.
For example the Accords, Deuce will be right up front regardless of the 100 lbs or not.
Based on that comment, it makes it at least sound like the default being used does play a role in the eventual classed outcome. Not trying to be a jerk here and once again, appreciate you sticking this conversation out.
Shortly I'll have my ECU tuned which will be the last of the basic* power adders I can think of. Not sure if it would be helpful to you in any way, but would be willing to share the dyno results with you Jeff and explain what was done to the car to get there.
* I recognize that no matter how well developed a car is, there will always more out there some how some way but gains at a certain point are typically minimal.
Last edited:
exactly.
Jesus F'ing Keerist. You are defending giving the same freaking motor different HP ratings based on whether its in ITA or ITB. So, please enlighten me... what extra modifications can one do in ITB that cannot be done in ITA or is it that a vinyl "A" sucks HP from a motor?
I don't give a frack what the car weighs in A v. B. I do care that if the ITAC says that if a motor is a 137HP motor in IT-trim, that it consistently uses that number. Otherwise, I'll submit their own damn discussions as to why the car they processed using a 1.3 multiplier needs to lose 100lbs.
Not according to the ITAC. IT is all about getting the Weight/HP ratio to the targets. Hallelujah! I'm like Paul on the Road to Damascus and I've seen the glory of the Weight/HP ratio.
And even if it is all relative, all this little rule does is ensure relative competitiveness of all the cars incorrectly given a 1.3 multiplier. A car with the same exact IT-HP is going to weigh 100lbs less if it isn't a multi-valve motor.
You are defending giving the same freaking motor different HP ratings based on whether its in ITA or ITB. So, please enlighten me... what extra modifications can one do in ITB that cannot be done in ITA or is it that a vinyl "A" sucks HP from a motor?
It isn't that the motor in B will be competing with the motor in A. It's that two IT-trim motors at 139HP will differ in weight by about 100lbs in the same class.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I disagree with this interpretation 100%. It doesn't mean at all that they should be on seperate lines, it means what it says: You can only UD/BD within those parameters on the spec line. No interchanging vert stuff with coupe stuff or sedan stuff or anything that is not what you are presenting as your logbooked car.
RX-7 example: If the GTUs didn't come with the aluminum hood, no ITS car would be allowed to run it even though the vert had it.
JeffYoung
New member
That wording defines make, model and body type by what is listed on the spec line. Putting coverts and coupes, or hatches and coupes, or 2+2s and non 2+2s on the same spec line causes a problem because THAT is what defines make/model/body type if you read that literally.
But that is what has been done.
But that is what has been done.
JeffYoung
New member
Ok Jeff, if your goal was to run me out of patience, then you succeeded. You've run me out of patience. Tired of doing the same dance with you over and over and over and over. Here's what's 100% clear. You like to argue. I get that. You like to argue endlessly. I get that. What I don't get is what you truly WANT other than to show that the ITAC is all wrong, all the time, and ITB and Summit with cars classed using an ad hoc curb weight system was the epitome of how we should class cars nationwide.
I've said I don't agree with the 1.3 default. I undertsand the logical inconsistency in it. You can really save the keystrokes on that.
What I've said over and over and over is that I personally am looking to see what causes the least amount of damage. Getting rid of the default and getting a slew of letters to reprocess multi-valve cars that are presently racing in a very balanced class at 25%, or letting things remain as they are because they seem to work. What is it that YOU want? "Make my car and Charlie's car more competitive" is not an appropriate answer.
And this is completely, totally WRONG:
If we "know" what the motor actually makes, we don't use the default. This is going to be true for almost all of the popular cars in ITB, again showing that the time and effort spent on this "issue" is 99% wasted.
The amount of time being spent on ITB by the ITAC is incredibly disproportional to the rest of IT, the rest of IT is suffering some as a result, and the cause of all of this effort is NOT any real issue with the class but rather an issue with a few people, at one track, in the class.
And that is sad.
I've said I don't agree with the 1.3 default. I undertsand the logical inconsistency in it. You can really save the keystrokes on that.
What I've said over and over and over is that I personally am looking to see what causes the least amount of damage. Getting rid of the default and getting a slew of letters to reprocess multi-valve cars that are presently racing in a very balanced class at 25%, or letting things remain as they are because they seem to work. What is it that YOU want? "Make my car and Charlie's car more competitive" is not an appropriate answer.
And this is completely, totally WRONG:
If we "know" what the motor actually makes, we don't use the default. This is going to be true for almost all of the popular cars in ITB, again showing that the time and effort spent on this "issue" is 99% wasted.
The amount of time being spent on ITB by the ITAC is incredibly disproportional to the rest of IT, the rest of IT is suffering some as a result, and the cause of all of this effort is NOT any real issue with the class but rather an issue with a few people, at one track, in the class.
And that is sad.
Last edited:
Jeremy Billiel
New member
Which 2 members left the ITAC?
JeffYoung
New member
Charlie Broring (he was only on for a few months)
Josh Sirota (long time, highly effective guy who got the Process approved and the Ops Manual formalized -- very much missed)
Josh Sirota (long time, highly effective guy who got the Process approved and the Ops Manual formalized -- very much missed)
Jake,
take the AW11 MR2:
Later (87-89) rear brakes are larger, and bolt to the earlier suspension, but the later suspension doesn't bolt onto the earlier tubs due to revised rear engine room stampings and the associated changes to bolt locations. there were a lot of other changes along the line in these cars: bumper contours, tail lights, radiator mounting plane, front brake diameter and thickness, the position of the parking brake handle and many dashboard details, with 3 different types of rear wing (2 piece and no light, single piece with light in middle support, and single piece with LED in the wing) OR with none, the transmission was upgraded to a new PN, which was again upgraded to a new bellhousing, clutch diameter and flywheel, pistons, gudgeon pins, rods, and crank (just rod journal diam), computer, injectors, master cylinder, AFM, wiring harness routing, air filter location, evap system, added a drain plug to the gas tank,... hell they changed the orientation of the letters on the valve cover.
but it's all a MkI MR2. they all share a chassis code, an engine (with the same specs though different levels of revision), and a spec line, and to an uneducated observer are all but identical.
if I swap later brakes onto 85 car, I just made a combination of entities that never existed, by updating along the specline. legal?
if I swap the LED wing onto an 88 car, I just duplicated what is identical, otherwise, to an 89. I just updated an 88 to an 89 but did NOT make a combination that differs (aside from the VIN) from a car sold through a showroom. legal? (obviously)
what's right? and more importantly, why? the less obvious mid-model run changes are what can create "unique" cars. upgraded factory bolt ons are obviously under the intent of the rule, and if nothing else changes there's nothing else to say. but something else always does. so the rule is, under the strictest reading, rendered NEARLY useless.
take the AW11 MR2:
Later (87-89) rear brakes are larger, and bolt to the earlier suspension, but the later suspension doesn't bolt onto the earlier tubs due to revised rear engine room stampings and the associated changes to bolt locations. there were a lot of other changes along the line in these cars: bumper contours, tail lights, radiator mounting plane, front brake diameter and thickness, the position of the parking brake handle and many dashboard details, with 3 different types of rear wing (2 piece and no light, single piece with light in middle support, and single piece with LED in the wing) OR with none, the transmission was upgraded to a new PN, which was again upgraded to a new bellhousing, clutch diameter and flywheel, pistons, gudgeon pins, rods, and crank (just rod journal diam), computer, injectors, master cylinder, AFM, wiring harness routing, air filter location, evap system, added a drain plug to the gas tank,... hell they changed the orientation of the letters on the valve cover.
but it's all a MkI MR2. they all share a chassis code, an engine (with the same specs though different levels of revision), and a spec line, and to an uneducated observer are all but identical.
if I swap later brakes onto 85 car, I just made a combination of entities that never existed, by updating along the specline. legal?
if I swap the LED wing onto an 88 car, I just duplicated what is identical, otherwise, to an 89. I just updated an 88 to an 89 but did NOT make a combination that differs (aside from the VIN) from a car sold through a showroom. legal? (obviously)
what's right? and more importantly, why? the less obvious mid-model run changes are what can create "unique" cars. upgraded factory bolt ons are obviously under the intent of the rule, and if nothing else changes there's nothing else to say. but something else always does. so the rule is, under the strictest reading, rendered NEARLY useless.
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
ajmr2
New member
Originally Posted by JeffYoung 
Despite doing that, other than the MR2 which I agree got a difficult deal, the sky is not falling.
Thanks Andy, you speak the truth. And thanks for the acknowledgment Jeff. How nice it would be to revisit the MR2 and make it an example of how the ITAC and the CRB can admit an error and correct it, rather than being the repeated example of a car that was wronged after finally being moved to ITB. Even I'm tired of arguing for it. It would go a long way in my mind to reinforcing the flag waving about keeping current members and bringing new members into the SCCA. Simple fairness in classifications without reverting to preconceived notions.
My fear as a 21 year member is that the MR2 is an example of how to toss a bone and maintain the illusive status quo.
AJ
Despite doing that, other than the MR2 which I agree got a difficult deal, the sky is not falling.
Thanks Andy, you speak the truth. And thanks for the acknowledgment Jeff. How nice it would be to revisit the MR2 and make it an example of how the ITAC and the CRB can admit an error and correct it, rather than being the repeated example of a car that was wronged after finally being moved to ITB. Even I'm tired of arguing for it. It would go a long way in my mind to reinforcing the flag waving about keeping current members and bringing new members into the SCCA. Simple fairness in classifications without reverting to preconceived notions.
My fear as a 21 year member is that the MR2 is an example of how to toss a bone and maintain the illusive status quo.
AJ
Last edited:
The 1.3 multiplier has nothing to do with Summit. I believe that, other than me, the people opposed to it race other places. But hey, when the logi or consistency of something is shown to be faulty, why not launch an ad-hominen defense of it?
Great. You both oppose it and yet justify it.
I'm sorry that train left the station long ago and, frankly, is indefensible. A few cars were classified using the 17 ratio. A handful of those newly classified cars have been built. That already threw stability out the window. I've been told that equalizing the pre-FWD/mid-engine Weight:HP ratio with repeatability are the goals. Great, do it.
I don't give a damn about Charlie losing weight and I'm pretty certain that, while the 100% gains on my car aren't 1.3, they are closer to that than 1.25.
Read Mr. Young. Read.
You've got the choice of putting a multi-valve car into ITB or ITA. It's the 2005 Nash Rambler. It either makes 125HP or it makes a 130HP. You don't know squat other than the stock because it hasn't been classified.. you have no idea what it can gain as an IT car other than that 100HP stock motor is going to be a 125HP ITA car or a 130HP ITB car. You should only get 1 bite at the apple, and if the ITAC decides that it cannot make weight as a 125HP ITA car, then it needs to be run through as a 125HP ITB car when it first gets classified, NOT a 130HP ITB car.
Do you understand the problem now? Do what ever non-Luddite members of the CRB who read the internet understand the problem now?
There's that big of a back log in classifying cars? Hell, wait until the ITC guys ask you to drop their weights by 40%! The process is going to bring back ITC racing because these cars are going to be so cheap to race because you'll have to change the brake pads and tires when its time to rebuild your engine. Hell, the cars will be disposable at that point.