NC Region
1980 ITS Triumph TR8
what the process does well is make reasonably balanced fields when the cars respond like we expect them to. that's laregly the cas ein ITA and ITS. There's data on a bunch of the key players in each class which sets their weights, and mostly everythign else just works well at defaults.
ITB has more technology levels which do not respond equally to IT mods, was bogeyed on proportedly cheated up cars which ended up hurting same when they were run legally, and was never re-processed thuroughly. Chris is right, though, that we rely on data and that data is subjective and comes from parties with skin in the game. so we don't often see high numbers. the choice then is to leave everythign at the default values and let it shake out, or to freewheel it and pick weights that feel right, effectively abandoning the process all together, even if we call it a PCA.
Long term I like the process.
also, yeah, the accord was one of the cars with data that helped break the 30% rule, so was the MR2 (and siblings, they will get re-run soon). both are still 5% or more over what dydno data we have seen, though. because there's still fears about their potential performance.
and a personal oppinion, I know MR2s and 4AGEs pretty damn well, and I know some people invovled in the the ITNT running MR2. that car is a no holds barred build, but I have serious reservations believing it to be fully legal. which is a shame, because a build of that level could have been the touchstone car for the MR2 crowd, instead it's seen as a question mark or worse.
"But I do think it is overstated. It's related primarily to ITB, which is our problem child class for a lot of reasons. It takes up something like 75% of our time on our calls. And the changes you see are simply efforts to review and revise old weights using the Process since the whole class was never run through it.
I disagree with you on not having an effective means of determining the horsepower function of the process. I think we do. We have seven individuals reviewing data to determine what appears to be possible with a required level of confidence before a chance is made. "
Really ?? I have submitted several factory documents on the Audi's HP ?(pics somewhere on this web site) I was told that the ITAC has ONE document that disputes this..which this document still remains UNDISCLOSED ... In fact I know that a ITAC member has the Audi Factory Manual . So I disagree completely here....
"The MR2 example you raise is a red herring frankly. The car should have been in ITB where it is now from the start. And the on track evidence we have seen is that the car is just barely competitive against top flight A3s and Hondas."
Like everyone else in ITB now...
"I do agree with you that 5 hp errors in ITB are a big deal. But the only way to correct that is to send us information. Send your dyno sheets in and give us the information we need to correct this. If the A2 Rabbit/Jetta/Golf shouldn't be at 30%, do what the MR2 guys did."
I am glad we agree on this point ....as the Audi is 170 lbs overweight....(10 hp)
With the Scirocco , and the MKII Golf thing and the Audi HP "fear" , you can plainly see that something is amiss here.
Esp when the Toyota lose 190 lbs ??? And the magically reversal on the Honda Prelude ???
WOW...Really ??
John VanDenburgh
VanDenburgh Motorsports
ITB Audi Coupe GT
You're getting borderline offensive.
You've been told many times (I'm the guy with the Audi manual by the way, I'm looking at it right now) what happened with the Audi. There is conflicting data on teh stock hp number. There is a microfiche that I've seen that says 120. The manual says 110. I don't have the microfiche. If I did, I'd give it to you.
You're fairly new right? There have been several competitive Audis over the years. Until you spend the time and money necessary to develop your program and your driving skills, you simply can't expect to compete against a top flight ITB program.
I will say this. All of this discussion over ITB -- to the EXCLUSION of spending needed time on other IT classes -- is really, really frustrating. Some of it is certainly the historical classing issues in the class, but quite frankly, I don't think I've seen another group of drivers so virulent in "weight advocacy" as the ITB group.
Our goal is to get you guys close and let you race. If you want true micromanagement of your weights, well, I agree: go to Prod.
EDIT: Yes, really on teh MR2. It's now at a weigth still higher than what the dyno data shows for it.
NC Region
1980 ITS Triumph TR8
Great! Just treat them the same along the way and we're good.Our goal is to get you guys close and let you race.
It was an Accord John.
Dave Gran
Real Roads, Real Car Guys – Real World Road Tests
Go Ahead - Take the Wheel's Free Guide to Racing
I wish the ITAC could just sweep through ITB with the Process and be done, but we have to realize that its a class with so many different technologies and frankly, multiple stock HP rating methods because it spans 40 years worth of classifications. Crazy.
Oh, it can be done. Just need to set a goal and invest the time. If it were me, I would first agree on a conversion factor for the different HP ratings, then have 1 member run a spreadsheet with the core process results. Then over 3-4 con-calls you review the results and click them off ending with a final sheet to submit to the CRB. I would be sure to include notes on all cars that were outside the 25% and why.
To refresh everyone....
What we have is a case of multiple (and findable) sources that list 110 and a microfiche (and unfindable) source that lists 120, correct?
- Is the microfiche for an unmodified US car as sold in the US?
- What is the source of the microfiche (factory publication? trade magazine?)
- What is the citation for the microfiche so that those with an axe to grind can go to a research library and do some digging?
- Was the 120 BHP, SAE Gross, SAE Net or SAE certified?
It's because no consistent method has been used to classify the cars. Newer classifications have received unfair advantages and older classifications have to jump through hoops to be given the same set of assumptions used by newer cars. Nor does the appearance of a conflict of interest does not assist in finding harmony.I will say this. All of this discussion over ITB -- to the EXCLUSION of spending needed time on other IT classes -- is really, really frustrating. Some of it is certainly the historical classing issues in the class, but quite frankly, I don't think I've seen another group of drivers so virulent in "weight advocacy" as the ITB group.
You are on record supporting rules stabilization. That would pretty much mean that task for the ITAC would be the classification of unclassified vehicles and the reclassification of older cars in Accord with the process. ITB and ITC are the places you will find a massive GF of a mess, courtesy of the process. The ITAC has taken ITC off the table pending something, so that leaves ITB as the 600-lb white gorilla. It's also a very popular class.
If that were true, you would set weights based on published HP #s and to hell with RWD/strut/FWD modifiers and to hell with whether the car is a smogged out POS or a lean, mean fighting machine as it rolled out of the factory.Our goal is to get you guys close and let you race. If you want true micromanagement of your weights, well, I agree: go to Prod.
No Jeff I am not new ...
I have been racing in SCCA for over 10 years now....with a short break inbetween .
I just dont post on forums that often...only once in a great while.That is why you may think I am new, but since this is a public forum...and I have seen what has been written in this thread. I decided to voice my opinion ...for what that is worth
I dont like to "toot my own horn" . But I think I am a decent driver. (see : ITC Lime Rock track record ..also had Watkins Glen (LC) track record at one time too)
And I didnt want to say "Jeff has the Book !!".. but now the cat's out of the bag. Fine if you dont have the micofiche , that's cool.
Could you please tell me who does ? I would like to contact this person and request a copy .
John VanDenburgh
VanDenburgh Motorsports
ITB Audi Coupe GT
R/S/A? No issues and some of the same problems. Reason? Because the drivers in those classes for the most part realize that "50 lbs" does NOT equal a second a lap or some such nonsense, and actually work on and develop their cars rather than claim "new cars get advantages older ones don't." That mantra from the WDCR ITB crowd (well, some of them anyway) is pretty much nonsensical.
Since the Process came on line, the ITAC has done nothing but class cars via the Process.
THe Audi "issue" is straightforward. All shopmanuals and online sources say 110 hp. An internal Audi service microfiche says 120 for that same motor.
I believe 110 should be used. Others disagreed.
We've asked MANY MANY times for Audi drivers to send dyno sheets. THe Blethans have not and neither has John. If they did, this whole issue could possibly go away.
NC Region
1980 ITS Triumph TR8
FWIW, coming from ITA to ITB at the weight we are finally at would not have produced a sudden ringer in ITB. And it won't now. We fought hard for years in ITA to get a fair shake on ther 85-89 MR2, and it went through a couple weight loss adjustments while in ITA. Once we moved to ITB we were awarded 255# for the privilege. The car was a pig and we went through hubs and brakes like you wouldn't believe. After several years of endless debate, personal positions taken while seemingly ignoring dyno sheet evidence, and a few guys determned to keep the MR2 on the radar, we finally got what I consider fair treatment, NOT special treatment. And we had a lot of support from non MR2 racers who saw we were getting screwed for years.
So if you have a gripe, write you letters and ask for what you think is fair. Gather your buddies who run the same car and twist their arms to send in letters of support. Take the time to submit your dyno sheets and stay after it.
One thing I learned in this process is that most of guys on the ITAC and CRB want to do the right thing. It did take a long time, but I know from personal experience that the current ITAC is eager to help make thing fair. Remember, this is a club made up of volunteers with a passion for cars. Preparing for conference calls, debating the issues presented and making informed decisions is not an easy job and it's extremely time consuming.
I've been quilty of venting on his forum from time to time, but it doesn't help to sling mud or insult anyone. Just take a deep breath and start planning your strategy. Or not!
Art Jaso
Former 1989 Toyota MR2 #55 ITB
DC Region SCCA
DC Region Board of Directors
Coordinator of Racers Helping Racers Fund
http://www.racershelpingracers.com/
PDX/TT Committee Member
PDX Co-Chief of Grid
PDX Chief Technical Inspector
SCCA Pit Marshall
SCCA Pace Car
SCCA F & C
Producer of "Racing Summit Point" Video
http://vimeo.com/67177646
With all do respect... 50 lbs on ITC > 50 lbs on ITB > 50 lbs on ITA > 50 lbs ITS > 50 lbs on ITR. I hope I don't have to explain why.
Perhaps I have not understood correctly. A never-before classified 2005 Nash Rambler (will fit in IT with a multi-valve engine comes before you. There is no dyno sheet (the car has never been built to IT standards). It is FWD and rated at 100HP. The default HP multiplier is what?..and actually work on and develop their cars rather than claim "new cars get advantages older ones don't." That mantra from the WDCR ITB crowd (well, some of them anyway) is pretty much nonsensical.
An already-classified multi-valve Stutz Bearclaw GT (ITB car) has come before your august selves requesting reclassification. Reverse math gives the HP multiplier at 1.4. The competitor does not submit a dyno sheet. It is FWD and rated at 100HP. The default multiplier is identical to the one used above?
Y'all know NOTHING about either car other than the published information (and you have some really uncompetitive lap times for the Bearclaw). Both cars get identical weights without requesting additional information from the submitters?
And a little internet search shows that Audi had 5 "different" motors in the Audi and they seem to have different BHP ratings. (Yes, I used Wiki). So knowing that the document came from Audi doesn't help.THe Audi "issue" is straightforward. All shopmanuals and online sources say 110 hp. An internal Audi service microfiche says 120 for that same motor.
Was it for the stock US-legal motor and not a motor from a different English-language country? (Did the document have rhyming slang in it? Did it say in God We Trust or crikey or future home of the Lord of the Rings or wear a tuque?)
It could, but I bet it wouldn't. I bet some fleet-rank officers would claim the dynos were manipulated downwards.We've asked MANY MANY times for Audi drivers to send dyno sheets. THe Blethans have not and neither has John. If they did, this whole issue could possibly go away.
Matt Green
ITAC Member- 2012-??
Tire Shaver at TreadZone- www.treadzone.com
#96 Dodge Shelby Charger ITB- Mine, mine, all mine!
I was around when they actually improved Improved Touring! (and now I'm trying not to mess it up!)
This sounds amazingly similar to what we discussed. I've volunteered to step up and begin to wade through things, though this is certainly a learning process for me. I know that the others on the committee will be right there too, so this is a task I'm looking forward to in many ways. The issue becomes the conflicting information, which I/we intend to document thoroughly for posterity. My simple goal is- I want to be able to look a competitor in the eye and explain what we did (or what we didn't do) and why. It still ain't going to make everyone happy, but I know that the ITAC as a whole wants to do The Right Thing (TM). Problem is, I sincerely believe that the guys who came before wanted to do The Right Thing too, and I'd like to figure out where that went awry and deal with those issues.
I can also tell you that if you take the time to request, we will take the time to give all requests consideration and discussion. In the end, you may not get what you want, but we should be able to explain whatever result was handed down. Already I've come to understand that the phrase "This should be a clear-cut one," means that the serious discussion will last about 15-20 minutes, while we weigh all the options and the ramifications of each. The last thing I (or I think any other ITAC member) want to see is someone take something we didn't do as a result of complacency, and turn that into a policy statement.
A momentary rant though-
Coming on these boards just to say that you're going to Prod/NASA/Lemons/F1 because of something that got screwed up is not the way to entice others to join your battle. Sending a letter that spells out the issue and asks for a specific result will do a heck of a lot more for your chances. You may have "done that a while back", but things could be different now. At the same time, I will say that I don't want IT to ever become a class that varies year-to-year based on the whims of the powers that be. We have to justify EVERY decision we make, positive or negative, action or no action, to the CRB. We look at every request and make decisions based on every piece of info we can find. We don't, however, act on forum suggestions or personal gripes. I don't want to see ANY driver/competitor leave this class because they didn't feel like they got a fair shake, but telling us the problem as you walk out the door doesn't give us much chance to address things.
That said, I'll tell you that I sent in my resume not because I had a problem with something that's happening, but because I think we have a pretty damn good thing going here, thanks in large part to the hard work of the guys who came before me. I'm glad to have the chance to *continue* to hone and improve things, in a way that leads to better racing for everyone. (and if you read this far, you're as persistent as I am, and thanks for hearing me out!)
Matt Green
ITAC Member- 2012-??
Tire Shaver at TreadZone- www.treadzone.com
#96 Dodge Shelby Charger ITB- Mine, mine, all mine!
I was around when they actually improved Improved Touring! (and now I'm trying not to mess it up!)
The car was fast enough at Road America that other competitors called me and asked about it on Saturday morning. They also talked to the driver. He described a very thorough build process that included flow testing of multiple intakes and heads along the way, and an intention to run at the ARRC. That passes my snif test, and I expect we may get to find out next month.
The very point that this car is out there and appropriately competitive, yet you chose to act regardless definitely sent me a message about desire to get it right vs. desire to "fix" the MR2. It hurts perception regardless of any legitimate motivations.
Huh? The fact that we adjusted the car via the Process regardless of what ONE car did at ONE track should give you more comfort that this is far more objective than what we had before.
I really don't understand your position here. Are you saying we shouldn't have dropped the weight off the MR2 to get it "correct" under the Process vis a vis the dyno sheets we have because one MR2 ran well at Road America?
NC Region
1980 ITS Triumph TR8
Bookmarks