Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Charlie Broring]

I have concerns with the ITAC recognizing the “Big Picture” at present. First of all, I think the “Process” is a great tool for the ITAC. However I think they are rather carried away with the accuracy of the formula and they underestimate the negative impact on rules stability that it is causing. I don’t think it is the Holy Grail that some of the ITAC think it is.

The 10 pound weight reduction request for the ITB 2.0 Golf is a perfect example. First, looking at the big picture it’s clear that one of the fastest ITB cars didn’t need a weight reduction. Secondly a 10 pound change is insignificant. Lastly, the fact that they are concerned about such a small change illustrates how the ITAC grossly the overestimate the precision of the “Process”.

Like some of my ITB friends I feel that our older cars such as BMW’s, early VW’s, Volvo 142's are being left behind. My perception is that as a result of the new ECU rules, the ITA cars that the process moved to ITB, and a classification system that seems to favor newer cars, ITB is changing. And, the ITAC is so caught up in their numbers game that they wont even look to see if that’s happening. I personally don’t trust the “Process 2.0" to not perpetrate the instability I see in IT.

The desire for more equal competition, is the whole point of the “process”. However some checks and balances including review of on track performance need to be part of the plan. The Process just isn’t good enough to be used on its own.

On a completely different note, I think that the SCCA would benefit from a group of classes, just above IT in preparation level, with Runoffs eligibility. Production and Super Touring just are not filling that role very well. This would both give the IT racer a “next step” in club racing and take away some of the pressure to make IT fill a role it wasn’t designed to do. Of course developing such a new class is a formidable undertaking.

Charlie

[JoshS]

The 10 pound weight reduction request for the ITB 2.0 Golf is a perfect example. First, looking at the big picture it’s clear that one of the fastest ITB cars didn’t need a weight reduction. Secondly a 10 pound change is insignificant. Lastly, the fact that they are concerned about such a small change illustrates how the ITAC grossly the overestimate the precision of the “Process”.

Charlie, this is well-written and I think your view is shared by many people including some CRB members.

Let me just say simply that no one on the ITAC believes that 10 lbs is significant, nor does anyone on the ITAC think it "needed a weight reduction."

This is about consistency. If the 2.0 Golf was not currently classed but a request came in, it would be assigned a weight 10 lbs lighter than it is now. More significantly, if another car that's on paper IDENTICAL to that Golf, it too would be assigned a weight 10 lbs lighter. Then you would all be asking why this new listing was 10 lbs lighter than the Golf which was already there.

This has already happened, BTW, many times, only it's not usually about 10 lbs, it's usually about 100 lbs. Basically, we feel that we should adjust all of the cars such that their weights are 100% reliable and defensible, so that listings between very similar cars look similar, to reduce those sorts of questions and to lend more credibility to the weight-assignment process.

Like some of my ITB friends I feel that our older cars such as BMW’s, early VW’s, Volvo 142's are being left behind.

Now, I think you must be talking not about the weight-assignment process, but about the changes to modification allowances. Totally different deal, of course. I'm sure you recognize that a 1971 car is assigned a weight with exactly the same process as a 1999 car. As far as the newer rules changing appearing to favor newer cars, I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not the intent.

[Knestis]

I want to elaborate on my original post by reminding everyone that you can post here until the cows come home, and it means NOTHING to the powers-that-be. In fact, I've heard grumblings about "internet chatter" as seemingly unwelcome by some folks in the rules-making process.

Write to your representative on the Board. Email the CRB. Tell them - don't tell us.

Stephen - I'm personally trying hard to not make this a question about endorsing or not endorsing current ITAC practice. I suppose that IS the question to a significant degree but we need to focus on first principles, like Ron and Charlie elaborated. The differences between "v.1" and "v.2" are MINUSCULE compared to those considerations and unless/until there's some vision established for the category, we'll always be mired in the minutiae.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me post a question to those who have replied so far:

Car A is set at 2500lbs now in ITX. Never been run through the process. VERY FEW examples exist on the track as it is a rare car, one that not many people are familiar with and to some, not desirable for varying reasons...call it 4 in the whole country. One of these cars however starts on the front row of the ARRC amidst traditionally tough competition and is a threat to win most of it's Regional races, week after week.

Legal? Unknown. It doesn't finish the ARRC and does not go through the tech shed but it's performance potential seems apperent to some - without knowing everything about that specific car.

Owner of car X writes in and requests a re-run of his car via the process. The SAME process that was used to class the past few ARRC championship winning cars. Process weight is spit out. 2300lbs.

What do you do? (Edit - I originally gave a few options but don't want to lead anyone - PLEASE explain in detail WHY you would do what you did.

[Charlie Broring]

What do you do? (Edit - I originally gave a few options but don't want to lead anyone - PLEASE explain in detail WHY you would do what you did.

This is when the Process is inadequate. The Process also fails when a capable builder/driver builds a dog (such as Chuck Allard's 911). This is where the ITAC needs to look beyond the limitations of the process, consider the multitude of other information that's available and apply some common sense. Certainly not as easy as sticking to the Process formula. However, I personally trust the ITAC to use good judgment in competition adjustments a lot more then I trust them to come up with a perfect "Process".

If "Car A" is really that good, there will be plenty more of them running soon enough. I sure hope Car A isn't racing in ITB!

Maybe I'm expecting too much.

It is easier for the ITAC to adjust the results of the Process if the details of the Process are not published.

Charlie

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is when the Process is inadequate. The Process also fails when a capable builder/driver builds a dog (such as Chuck Allard's 911). This is where the ITAC needs to look beyond the limitations of the process, consider the multitude of other information that's available and apply some common sense. Certainly not as easy as sticking to the Process formula. However, I personally trust the ITAC to use good judgment in competition adjustments a lot more then I trust them to come up with a perfect "Process".

If "Car A" is really that good, there will be plenty more of them running soon enough. I sure hope Car A isn't racing in ITB!

Maybe I'm expecting too much.

It is easier for the ITAC to adjust the results of the Process if the details of the Process are not published.

Charlie

You didn't answer my question. I understand you think the process fails here. What would YOU do - and why? Running the exersize through the keyboard helps you think it through and us to understand where we can improve.

[Charlie Broring]

Andy, I thought I did answer you question but I'll be more specific. I would ask questions and listen to the answers. The hypothetical Car A that you describe may be very challenging, but I bet all of his fellow competitors at the ARRC have observations. Such as " has a center of gravity below the ground and a real wide track. Nobody can go through a corner like him." or " I saw him filling the nitrous bottle between sessions." Or look at lap times are they all over the place or all the same and a second faster then everybody else.

Yea, it's more work and time. However, I was recently told by a ITAC member that he "actively avoids" looking beyond the numbers of the Process.

I think that in some cases correcting for shortcomings in the Process is relatively easy. In the example I sited, the 911 Porsche, a member of the ITAC who is also a ITS driver rep could look at the car, report back that the car is really nicely built, well driven, but has 200# of lead on the floor and runs mid pack ITA times. And if this information was deemed reliable, the ITAC may consider a weight adjustment.

So, may answer is when appropriate to seek information that is not considered by the Process, and more importantly if such information is available, act on it.

[Z3_GoCar]

Let me post a question to those who have replied so far:

Car A is set at 2500lbs now in ITX. Never been run through the process. VERY FEW examples exist on the track as it is a rare car, one that not many people are familiar with and to some, not desirable for varying reasons...call it 4 in the whole country. One of these cars however starts on the front row of the ARRC amidst traditionally tough competition and is a threat to win most of it's Regional races, week after week.

Legal? Unknown. It doesn't finish the ARRC and does not go through the tech shed but it's performance potential seems apperent to some - without knowing everything about that specific car.

Owner of car X writes in and requests a re-run of his car via the process. The SAME process that was used to class the past few ARRC championship winning cars. Process weight is spit out. 2300lbs.

What do you do? (Edit - I originally gave a few options but don't want to lead anyone - PLEASE explain in detail WHY you would do what you did.

There's not enough information in your example, some info you have that would help illuminate the example:

1) Motor data:

a) displacement ( and bore/stroke )
b) oe hp at what rpm
c) valve sizes and number per
d) does it have cheap cast oe manifold, is it a narrow v6 or have a dual length intake manifold
e) how many gear ratios, what are they?

2) Chassis data:

a) front or rear wheel drive?
b) Struts or A arm front
c) solid axle, trailing arm, or multi-link rear
d) Brake size
e) how aero is the body, is it a brick, or does it have a round tail end that sheds vortices (ala early TT/350Z)

This should mostly be avalible on the VTS sheet.

[Andy Bettencourt]

There's not enough information in your example, some info you have that would help illuminate the example:

1) Motor data:

a) displacement ( and bore/stroke )
b) oe hp at what rpm
c) valve sizes and number per
d) does it have cheap cast oe manifold, is it a narrow v6 or have a dual length intake manifold
e) how many gear ratios, what are they?

2) Chassis data:

a) front or rear wheel drive?
b) Struts or A arm front
c) solid axle, trailing arm, or multi-link rear
d) Brake size
e) how aero is the body, is it a brick, or does it have a round tail end that sheds vortices (ala early TT/350Z)

This should mostly be avalible on the VTS sheet.

Why do you need that data James? That data was used in the caluclation of the 'process weight of 2300lbs'. Assume that all the ganularity of the process has been utilized. If you are asking us to consider aero, the amount of gears, the construction of the intake manifold, the size of the valves...we don't.

[Z3_GoCar]

Why do you need that data James? That data was used in the caluclation of the 'process weight of 2300lbs'. Assume that all the ganularity of the process has been utilized. If you are asking us to consider aero, the amount of gears, the construction of the intake manifold, the size of the valves...we don't.

I'd be looking for a reason it'd have a larger gain than normal. Is there a chance that a cam swap was performed? How about intake manifold swaps? Is that another possibility? Gearing can really help too, see the discussion on the ITB Metro for sale thread, where at one time a factory aftermarket race ratio set was avalible. Maybe the owner felt the car was such an outsider, he took matters into his own hands to equalize it in his own less than kosher way. You need to find out if the single case was an outlier, or the norm.

[Andy Bettencourt]

To clear things up...and it isn't coincidence that some of the misconceptions here are shared with the CRB....

First off, 'V.2.0' of the process is 95% clarification, 5% change. And by 'change' I mean things like moving from a fixed FWD subtractor to a percentage - something that makes way more sense and has been pointed out here numerous times. What we have done over the past 9 or so months is to set into practice a step-by-step way of setting a cars weight. It is not a formula but is as close as I really feel you can get. I would LOVE a formula but don't think it's possible. Each step has it's checks and balances and is documented. We had to hash out every possible nook and cranny - and define many things in order to get it down on paper. The result IMHO is really quite nice. Again, it's not so much change, as it is really a development excersize in definitions and policies so that we could go back and be guaranteed (barring no new information) that we would get the same answer for the same car year after year.

As for as the MK II VW is concerned...we ARE NOT telling anyone that a 10lb change is more accurate. What we are doing is running cars through the process - as documented - and setting the weight as spit out. That could be a 5lb change or a 200lb change...doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that all cars are 'set' using the same stick (however flawed that stick may be). I want to run every car through the process and set the weights however they fall, no matter the delta that is in the ITCS. Again, not saying that it's more accurate, just more consistant...and that is a HUGE goal of the ITAC...and by defination to some, STABLE. To me, the weights in the ITCS are a cluster-fark. Easily 3 ways of classing cars have resulted in weights that are in there. I can't think of one car that is a dominant run-away - that has been classed by the process. The cars that being 'left behind' are cars that we haven't had the 'luxury' of measuring with the same stick the current cars are being measured by.

The on-track performance issue is a grey area. I believe it is to be used as a 'trigger' to take a closer look. A look that is aimed at uncovering a 'mistake' or 'new information' that needs to be plugged into the process that would result in a different weight...most common would be a car exceeeding the standard 25% power multiplier. I do not believe in using it to reset weights based on finishing positions at singular races. The Process is still the way we class cars in IT. Not by trap speeds at the end of a straight at RA or whatever else you want to look at that we traditionally call 'Prod-style' adjustments.

Some still want to bring up the ECU issue (or rule changes like it) and rules stability. If you want to freeze the IT rules in time, then we could do that. But most agree that as times change, they rules will need to be updated. Wheel sizes, shock format, ABS...all being requested for change NOW by members just like yourselves. We resist such things for as long as we feel it makes sense. I can tell you for 100% certainty that the ITAC is a 'no' first, a 'yes' only after significant discussion and pain.

So, in summary, not much about the 'process' has changed, just defined. The CRB needs to recognize this too. They need to understand that a request to change a weight 10lbs isn't a proclamation that we think that is more accure - but that it is CONSISTANT and CONGRUENT with how everything that we have been classing over the past X years. To me, that is what will make IT desireable for years to come.

[shwah]

The 10 pound weight reduction request for the ITB 2.0 Golf is a perfect example. First, looking at the big picture it’s clear that one of the fastest ITB cars didn’t need a weight reduction. Secondly a 10 pound change is insignificant. Lastly, the fact that they are concerned about such a small change illustrates how the ITAC grossly the overestimate the precision of the “Process”.

Just to clarify for those that don't speak VW. The A2, or Mk2 Golf is NOT the 2.0 liter powered Golf. Kirk races a Golf III aka A3 Golf aka MK3 Golf, which has a 2 liter, 8v, crossflow head engine. I race a Golf 2, aka A2 Golf, aka Mk2 Golf, which has a 1.8 liter, 8v, counter flow head engine. The 10# suggestion was in relation to my car, not to Kirk's car.

[Ron Earp]

, 8v, counter flow head engine. The 10# suggestion was in relation to my car, not to Kirk's car.

Hmmmm. All us Z guys have non-crossflow heads. I wonder if that was taken into account when we got our weights assigned?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hmmmm. All us Z guys have non-crossflow heads. I wonder if that was taken into account when we got our weights assigned?

I hope you are joking.

[JeffYoung]

He's 100% joking.

[lateapex911]

Phew...it's a long way to drive to administer a beat down,

[gran racing]

Right or wrong, here are my thoughts that I forwarded on to the CRB.

Dear CRB,

I am an active racer within the Improved Touring Category I T B and want to voice my support of the ITAC’s process to classify cars, the need to use it on additional cars, and suggest future improvements. Thank you for taking the time to read this and you’re consideration.

Utilization of the Classification Process:
Huge improvements on the classification process have been made during the past couple of years, which lead to what I personally consider the best thing that has happened to the category in quite some time. While some cars were put through the revised process and adjusted accordingly, there are still numerous which were not and it is quite evident classification errors still exist. I recognize that initially only “major” issues were identified and the weight or classification was adjusted accordingly. While a fantastic first step, it needs to be utilized further. Based on my understanding, only cars that fell outside of a 100 pound + / - target weight were initially reviewed and acted on.
We now need to take the next step and examine other vehicles to gain more accurate and consistent classification results among cars. While it might not be practical to run all cars through the process, we could at least run cars membership submits requests for to be run through the process. Based on this, evaluate the results and make any necessary adjustments if it falls outside of a 10 pound window of its current spec weight. If for some reason there’s a consensus that a particular vehicle falls outside of the standard parameters, table the vehicle and conduct additional research. Do not fall into a trap of permanently tabling the request, but take some additional time to do additional research and give it the attention is deserves. If no conclusive evidence is found that the process is inaccurate, then trust the process after all it’s the best method of classing cars we’ve had yet.

We also have to recognize that some cars will perform better at some tracks. Just because a vehicle has traits that lend itself to being quite successful, it may not have the traits to be successful at other tracks. I do not expect the process to be totally accurate, however it does need to be explainable and consistent. My biggest fear is that we have a great tool to evaluate cars yet we’ll elect not to use it . That would be a shame and step backwards in the confidence of what members have viewed so positively thus far.

Process Improvement aka Process 2.0:
Based on my understanding, the recently updated process is merely reducing subjectivity and better defining how the math is applied. In order for vehicles to be run through the process and obtain consistent results in both the short term and long term future, this is a necessary step. Our goal should be for future boards to arrive at the same results (or very close to) as previous boards. An explanation that one car was classed by one board and another by a different board which explains why the weights are so different is unacceptable. This refinement to the process will move towards this goal.

How should on-track performance be utilized? Do not use the on-track results as subjective adders or deductions in the classification process itself. Instead, use this as one method to uncover potential mistakes and identify cars that might necessitate further research. For example, maybe initially it was thought a power multiplier of .25% was used and now various results make that multiplier questionable. Do not simply make assumptions; instead do further investigative research. There are way too many variables that can impact this beginning with track conditions, quality of driver and car prep, to the potential of it being an illegal car. For all we know it could have illegal cams, gears, among other things. By using on-track results we’d be hurting people who race the same exact car legally. Again, if there are too many questions about the vehicle table the request and conduct further research.

Improved Touring Rules Stability:
Most IT drivers will agree that one great thing about the class is its rules stability. We should continue to strive limit the number of adjustments to the rules themselves.

While it may not seem like it, reviewing additional cars and utilizing the process goes towards rules stability. It’s impossible to say that we have a stable rule set if the same rules (in this case classification results) are not being applied. Using the process and adjusting classifications accordingly actually takes a step toward rules stability and membership confidence.

Communication Improvements:
There’s room for improvements with the communication provided to the IT community (actually the entire SCCA membership base but that’s a different discussion). One of the first steps should be to document and make available to membership the most recent classification process. This information should clearly state how the process is applied, define how results are concluded, and any other key elements to the classification formula.

Another area for improvement is when a member submits a request, we receive a brief message that it has been received and will be forwarded to the appropriate board. With at least one of my requests, it was determined that the ITAC did not receive it. If I had not followed-up, it would appear it was received and in process. In addition to receiving the initial automated message, we should receive some type of tracking number related to the request. While this might not be a short term improvement, ideally members could log into a website or database and obtain a status update even if a concise and simple one (pending review, reviewed – approved, reviewed – denied, reviewed – pending BOD approval).

Thank you again for the time and energy you are spending on these areas. I truly believe utilizing the process on additional cars will yield benefits for the category as a whole.

[seckerich]

I had that Z car up my tail at the last race Jake--he gets NOTHING!!!

All joking aside the ITAC has done a pretty good job with getting IT to good close racing we can all enjoy. It is more and more the place to be for drivers leaving other classes. I stand by my post in the fastrack thread about the "resistance" to further change by the CRB.

OPINION:
1. Get your process ironed out and in writing.
2. Run every car REQUESTED through the process (waste to bother with cars nobody has raced for years)
3. Put a note on the spec line for any car that got other than a 25% power number. Back it up with the numbers you used and let someone prove it was wrong. If that happens then you can fix it.
4. You have the power in the IT rules now to deal with the obvious overdog and modify the power number.
5. if the power number is correct and they are winning big they build a good car--period.
6. Rule changes happen in one month only to be effective for the following race season. This allows rules to be set for the regions that start their next years racing in October. After that only "errors and omissions" clarification. You can post them all year but no changes happen mid year.

I understand the CRB opinion that IT is pretty good right now and they do not want to mess that up. If there is no documentation how we got here future CRB/ITAC will go down the same path that almost killed ITS.

[shwah]

Hmmmm. All us Z guys have non-crossflow heads. I wonder if that was taken into account when we got our weights assigned?

Just making the point that they are different cars with different motors/heads.