ITB - what a bunch of crap

[Knestis]

First a short answer: My preference would be to re-process cars only by member request, and to leave the output at the nearest 5 pounds. I'd further document the assumptions with which the process was applied (e.g., engine power multiplier) and make those figures available to the membership.

I honestly think that the current process (more on that word in a separate post) is pretty damned close. Most of my questions about it are academic (i.e., probably unhelpful) rather than intended to fix some major problem.

K

[ekim952522000]

First a short answer: My preference would be to re-process cars only by member request, and to leave the output at the nearest 5 pounds. I'd further document the assumptions with which the process was applied (e.g., engine power multiplier) and make those figures available to the membership.

I honestly think that the current process (more on that word in a separate post) is pretty damned close. Most of my questions about it are academic (i.e., probably unhelpful) rather than intended to fix some major problem.

K

I don't have a problem with the ITAC only running cars that are requested thru the process I just want somewhere I can look at see if a car has been ran thru it. (and if it has I really would like to have access to the math)

That way if I am looking at car A and car B and they both have almost the exact same specs I don't get upset that the weights are different because I know that car A has been processed and car B has not so instead of getting upset about how it is not fair I would simply send in a letter for car B to be ran thru the process if that was a car I was interesting in racing.

I still think a dedicated website is the only proper way to make all of this available to the membership. But would be happy if there was a PDF I could download for each IT class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's not about the work. Plenty of us are willing to put in the time. It's that right now, there is no majority inside the committee to take the plunge.

[Knestis]

(NOTE - make sure you read critically so you understand what is my understanding of how things are, vs. what I PERSONALLY think.)

Next - and it makes some people's heads hurt when I do things like this - I'd like to propose that we get clearer on a couple of terms. (And this is in response to those of you who asked me to PM/email you the "process.")

The PROCESS is the actual math and accompanying steps that determine from a limited set of factors, what the race weight of a car should be.

I'd propose the addition of a distinct term - call it the PROCEDURE - that is the sum of the practices around how the process is applied.

* * *

The process is pretty simple: Take the quoted stock horsepower, apply an "IT power multiplier," and multiply it by a class-specific adder, to get the "base weight."

To that are added or subtracted a very limited number of incremental amounts for specific mechanical attributes - FWD gets a minus weight (50 or 100), brakes a plus or minus (50, but that's been applied pretty rarely), suspension (+50 for A-arms, the base presumes struts; -50 for "bad designs"), gear ratios (I don't think I've seen that in my time on the ITAC yet), and "other" - which as far as I know is mid-engine layout or good/lousy torque).

The engine power multiplier is typically 1.25. We have a tendency to make adjustments to that based on "type" (e.g., "smogged up '70s POS"). There ARE other multipliers that have been applied for special cases. I PERSONALLY think that some of them are not particularly well grounded in evidence but all were determined by people who were very confident in their numbers. Further (personally), I'd prefer that we (a) document and codify these "types," and add them only grudgingly; and (b) require a really huge standard of evidence to do anything "special."

The class multipliers have been shared here before - 11.25, 12.9, 14.5, 17.0, 18.84, for R to C.

NOW, we have this clause that says, "Review the resulting classification weight and determine if the results are acceptable. Some adjustments may need to be made, but in general, the final result should be VERY close to what the recommended specification weight should be." My PERSONAL opinion is that this has been used too liberally in the past, but it tends NOT to be currently.

* * *

The procedure is a different thing, and frankly this is where many of the issues seem to be hiding. The obvious example is the "how close is close enough" question. It's NOT entirely silly to accept the notion that ANY change has costs. I personally think that the costs are small where changing a spec weight are concerned. Equally though, I think the cost IS great enough to not make it worth doing if nobody cares enough to make a request. (It's a close thing because the magnitudes are tiny.)

Another "procedure" question is, "What triggers review?" 2nd Great Realignment? Something else? One issue that I don't *think* has been mentioned is that when the first great realignment happened, it was granted by the board based on a promise that it would only be done once. (Remember this was in the day when there was NO way to address the problem of a maladjusted IT car, other than moving it to another class.)

I'm NOT going to get in the business here of making the case for why +/-100 pounds is the right answer, because I frankly don't believe that it's a good answer.

* * *

In short, I think it would be a VERY good idea if we could separate the issues of process from those of procedure. One problem we have with complex policies like this is that people say "no" to one little piece of the puzzle because they hate just that, while other people say "no" to a different piece. If they tried to figure out what aspects of the policy they agreed on, they might move forward and could work out the differences later.

K

[Catch22]

The process is pretty simple: Take the quoted stock horsepower, apply an "IT power multiplier," and multiply it by a class-specific adder, to get the "base weight."

To that are added or subtracted a very limited number of incremental amounts for specific mechanical attributes - FWD gets a minus weight (50 or 100), brakes a plus or minus (50, but that's been applied pretty rarely), suspension (+50 for A-arms, the base presumes struts; -50 for "bad designs"), gear ratios (I don't think I've seen that in my time on the ITAC yet), and "other" - which as far as I know is mid-engine layout or good/lousy torque).

The engine power multiplier is typically 1.25. We have a tendency to make adjustments to that based on "type" (e.g., "smogged up '70s POS"). There ARE other multipliers that have been applied for special cases. I PERSONALLY think that some of them are not particularly well grounded in evidence but all were determined by people who were very confident in their numbers. Further (personally), I'd prefer that we (a) document and codify these "types," and add them only grudgingly; and (b) require a really huge standard of evidence to do anything "special."

The class multipliers have been shared here before - 11.25, 12.9, 14.5, 17.0, 18.84, for R to C.

Here is a homework exercise for anyone that thinks the current situation is not busted.

Take the information Kirk provided above (this is what is supposed to be used to fairly and consistently class ALL cars) and apply it to the starting ITB grid at the '08 ITSpectacular at Mid Ohio.

It will take some work and effort. I know because I've already done it.

But its worth the effort, because after you do it you'll see how many cars that are being currently raced actually FIT their current specs via the process/procedure Kirk listed above.

I'll even save you a step and give you the list (from memory, so its not perfect)...
VW A3 GTI
VW A2 GTI
Porsche 924
Volvo 142
1st Gen Honda CRX Si
88-91 Honda Civic DX
Ford Mustang
Ford Pinto
BMW 2002

Go ahead and do some math. PLEASE do it if you are one of the folks in this thread that think we are currently close enough or don't want to risk screwing things up by making changes.

What you'll find is a range from nearly 100lbs too light to well over 100lbs too heavy. But don't take my word for it, DO THE MATH.

I can just about promise you that the results will change your mind. The range is HUGE, with some of the cars being closer to the ITC p/w target than the ITB target while other are UNDER the target of 17.

Just ain't right.

Scott, who looks at that diverse entry list and sees HUGE potential for the class... Maybe.

[Knestis]

That's a good exercise, Scott - primarily because it includes cars of different engine technologies, that form the basis of the "what multiplier?" point of subjectivity. Some of the comparisons are quite easy because they utilize the SAME technologies. Not surprisingly, this is where some of the first member inference-driven questions came up.

Y'all are not stoopid.

K

[Xian]

And then there are odd-ball weight decisions like the ITA CRX...

106 stock HP * 1.25=132.5
132.5*14.5=1921.25
-50 for FWD
+50 for A-Arms

Final weight of #1921

This seems kinda rediculous to me... I like the idea of the process but there are always going to be some cars that fall outside of this. What will the "process" be for cars that are under-rated or over-rated from the factory?

My math shows that the CRX gets something crazy like a 1.43 adjustment for power. This has it wind up where it's still competitve and I'm "ok" with this but WHO gets to make this call? Look at the RX8 in ITR... lead sled by many accounts but this one was justified by the argument of sticking to stock power figures in spite of other evidence that the cars didn't make stock figures.

If we run everything thru the process again how many "CRX" type situations will be created?

[Knestis]

And then there are odd-ball weight decisions like the ITA CRX...

And therein lies the rub.

This is going to chaff a few backsides but even I think the we need a "nuclear" option if a real preponderance of evidence emerges over time that an engine package/type/whatever appears to deserve one of those "special" multipliers. These cases should be very few and very far between.

That's the CRX Rule - the basis for the "review the resulting weight" step. The potential for problems is in the fact that there aren't any real checks and balances on its use.

K

EDIT - and FINALLY, finally - you all better understand that when you ask for change, you get what you get. If one/any/all of the membership don't like the resulting weight on something after it's been through the process, as implemented by the people charged with doing it, no bitching. And if you think you own car's in its sweet spot but your competitor asks us to review it and you get weight? Tough titties, right? When I do evaluation work, I never cease to be amazed at how the degree to which someone agrees with our data correlates to the degree to which they profit by the findings. How the "fairness" of a call by the refs depends on whether it's on your team or the other guys...

[Ed Funk]

Thank you!! Josh, Kirk, Andy, Jake and Bob for taking the time to do the committee thing, but also for taking the time to explain the "process/procedure" and your positions.

Now, it's time to take some of us who have offered to help at our word and start forming sub-committees or work groups to start working through the list and getting all cars "procedured". Steph and I were talking and thought it might be a good idea to start eliminating cars that have had no activity in the past X years. Or do you think that the infamous Borgward 3000 will become popular if classed and weighted properly!?!?

[JoshS]

Thank you!! Josh, Kirk, Andy, Jake and Bob for taking the time to do the committee thing, but also for taking the time to explain the "process/procedure" and your positions.

Now, it's time to take some of us who have offered to help at our word and start forming sub-committees or work groups to start working through the list and getting all cars "procedured". Steph and I were talking and thought it might be a good idea to start eliminating cars that have had no activity in the past X years. Or do you think that the infamous Borgward 3000 will become popular if classed and weighted properly!?!?

Here's what you can do to start.

Fill out a VTS sheet for all of the cars in IT. You can download the blank form from the SCCA website.

What we really need is all of the stuff that we list in the ITCS spec lines, plus suspension type. Also please explain the differences between model years and trim levels. And make sure to highlight what might make each particular model special with respect to the other cars in the class (such as restrictive intake manifolds).

Most of this information is hard to come by and the SCCA does not have it on file.

[shwah]

OK at least half of you are going to hate me for this extreme tangent, but....

Of course the bigger rub is whether any of this discussion can make a difference unless the BoD agrees to 'allow' changes more than once a decade to IT. ITAC recomendations do not consitute rule or classification changes.

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.

At some point we need to convince the PTB that IT matters, and I am not convinced we have, despite the obvious health of the category. I think we get it, the ITAC gets it, the CRB partially gets it, but I have no confidence that it goes beyond that.

This is one of the benefits that I believe we would see as a national class (or as a class in a single tier system), to be important enough to 'deserve' effort be expended to assure close, fair, equitable classification. At some point, I suggest now, we need to demand to our divisional directors that IT be viewed with the same level of respect as the other cagegories, and be treated as a category where the cars classified should be competitive with each other. period. whatever that may take to achieve in process deveopment or evaluation.

Until then I don't have confidence that anything will really change, regardless of what whomever on the ITAC thinks what about the issue.

[Xian]

And therein lies the rub.

This is going to chaff a few backsides but even I think the we need a "nuclear" option if a real preponderance of evidence emerges over time that an engine package/type/whatever appears to deserve one of those "special" multipliers. These cases should be very few and very far between.

That's the CRX Rule - the basis for the "review the resulting weight" step. The potential for problems is in the fact that there aren't any real checks and balances on its use.

K

EDIT - and FINALLY, finally - you all better understand that when you ask for change, you get what you get. If one/any/all of the membership don't like the resulting weight on something after it's been through the process, as implemented by the people charged with doing it, no bitching. And if you think you own car's in its sweet spot but your competitor asks us to review it and you get weight? Tough titties, right? When I do evaluation work, I never cease to be amazed at how the degree to which someone agrees with our data correlates to the degree to which they profit by the findings. How the "fairness" of a call by the refs depends on whether it's on your team or the other guys...

Quoted for truth.

This is my concern. We ALL know that the CRX and it's extended family would be horrible overdogs if classed straight off the Process. How many other unknown cars are out there that may be turned into the new "CRX" via wholesale rewighting? What then? Reweight again but this time based on performance? Ugh. How does you catch these types of cars on the first run thru the process? If you make the adjustment at a later date, how do you keep from having this turn into performance based adjustments?

[JeffYoung]

A very valid exercise. Now let's start asking the hard questions:

1. We use the stock horsepower number right? No questions asked? Some of those cars are old enough (the 142, the 2002 and perhaps the Pinto) so that the stock number is a GROSS number, not a NET. They get screwed.

2. Power potential. All 25%? Any oddballs? That Volvo sure seems to wake up in IT trim. How do we "prove" up the percentage?

3. Suspension design. Do we give the Pinto a break for leaf springs?? Or does the fact that people have figured out how to make that thing work matter?

I'm in favor of using the process/procedure. I just think it needs to be done carefully.

Here is a homework exercise for anyone that thinks the current situation is not busted.

Take the information Kirk provided above (this is what is supposed to be used to fairly and consistently class ALL cars) and apply it to the starting ITB grid at the '08 ITSpectacular at Mid Ohio.

It will take some work and effort. I know because I've already done it.

But its worth the effort, because after you do it you'll see how many cars that are being currently raced actually FIT their current specs via the process/procedure Kirk listed above.

I'll even save you a step and give you the list (from memory, so its not perfect)...
VW A3 GTI
VW A2 GTI
Porsche 924
Volvo 142
1st Gen Honda CRX Si
88-91 Honda Civic DX
Ford Mustang
Ford Pinto
BMW 2002

Go ahead and do some math. PLEASE do it if you are one of the folks in this thread that think we are currently close enough or don't want to risk screwing things up by making changes.

What you'll find is a range from nearly 100lbs too light to well over 100lbs too heavy. But don't take my word for it, DO THE MATH.

I can just about promise you that the results will change your mind. The range is HUGE, with some of the cars being closer to the ITC p/w target than the ITB target while other are UNDER the target of 17.

Just ain't right.

Scott, who looks at that diverse entry list and sees HUGE potential for the class... Maybe.

[Z3_GoCar]

A very valid exercise. Now let's start asking the hard questions:

1. We use the stock horsepower number right? No questions asked? Some of those cars are old enough (the 142, the 2002 and perhaps the Pinto) so that the stock number is a GROSS number, not a NET. They get screwed.

2. Power potential. All 25%? Any oddballs? That Volvo sure seems to wake up in IT trim. How do we "prove" up the percentage?

3. Suspension design. Do we give the Pinto a break for leaf springs?? Or does the fact that people have figured out how to make that thing work matter?

I'm in favor of using the process/procedure. I just think it needs to be done carefully.

The flip side to #2 ) Oddballs don't or can't make the 25% gain. That's why I advocate using simulation software to more precisely peg the potential in an IT rebuild. Otherwise we've got this big 25% gain swag right from the get-go.

Secondly, even thought I do appreciate Josh's efforts to get the Z3 classed, I'm not happy about the extra 60lbs I have to carry based on my car being classed having dual variable cams instead of the single variable cam system thats actually in all the 97-98 year cars. As it is I'm starting with a 4hp deficite on the dual cam motor and have to make up an extra hp gain based on this. It's 189hp not 193, why should I have to carry extra weight because the other motor is on the same spec line?

[JoshS]

Secondly, even thought I do appreciate Josh's efforts to get the Z3 classed, I'm not happy about the extra 60lbs I have to carry based on my car being classed having dual variable cams instead of the single variable cam system thats actually in all the 97-98 year cars.

James -- I had absolutely nothing to do with it. All of that got done before my tenure, and before I wrote a single letter about IT.

[tom91ita]

Here is a homework exercise for anyone that thinks the current situation is not busted.

VW A3 GTI
VW A2 GTI
1st Gen Honda CRX Si


Go ahead and do some math. ....

The range is HUGE, with some of the cars being closer to the ITC p/w target than the ITB target while other are UNDER the target of 17.
.....

okay, some snips from Scott's post and an example but i decided to do the math (not even sure which Golf this is i did).

To make sure I understand the way the process as outlined in this thread, this is the way this should work out right?

So the Golf (using HP numbers and the formula shown in this thread) should be at 115*1.25*17 = 2444 - 50 (FWD) - 50 (suspension) = 2344 or 2350 if we round to the nearest 50 #'s which is the weight in the GCR.

And a CRX Si (which I have) similarly should be 91*1.25*17 = 1934 - 50 (FWD) = 1884 and round to the nearest 50 would be 1900 vs. 2130 #'s in the GCR.

I am asking because when I ran this car when it was in ITA, I would typically find myself running with ITB. After the addition of 150#'s and the drop to ITB, I still run with some cars but wow do I get pulled on the straights.

and my car has struts/torsion bars up front (not real good) and what i consider a relatively poor suspension in the back (solid beam axle) but i was unsure and did not do a correction of 50 #'s for that.

and i don't think i can get down to 1900. i did have the car down to 1800 at one time in ITA trim. it was 1800 for the car as i recall and later was 1980 for car with driver. then went to the 2130 for ITB trim. i get lots of comments that i have lots of ballast in the car. yup, about 135 #'s.

so i guess i should write a letter....

[Catch22]

So the Golf (using HP numbers and the formula shown in this thread) should be at 115*1.25*17 = 2444 - 50 (FWD) - 50 (suspension) = 2344 or 2350 if we round to the nearest 50 #'s which is the weight in the GCR.

And a CRX Si (which I have) similarly should be 91*1.25*17 = 1934 - 50 (FWD) = 1884 and round to the nearest 50 would be 1900 vs. 2130 #'s in the GCR.

Bad math. Read Kirks post on the process more closely.
The current approach figures strut suspension as the default, so there is no -50 on the VW for that. Its also a large powerplant (in ITB terms) with excellent torque, so I would argue that needs a +50.
Using those numbers you get a process spec weight of 2445.

For your CRX you need to use a 35% adder (because Hondas can typically get that and its a 12v MPFI motor). That puts you at 2040.


Honestly, I thought about this alot last night, and you could even put guidelines in place to help guide you in the subjectivity of the HP adder.
You can use things like 8v vs 12v vs 16v coupled with TB Injection vs. Carbed vs. MPFI to get you pretty darned close to where you need to be. After that you can look at things like variable valve timing and cross flow head designs...
I ran a few samples of this through my own mini process and it actually is damned close to reality.

Perfect? Nope.
Will there be exceptions to the rule (like cars under or over rated from the factory)? of course.

But you can't just sit back and be afraid to address things. A 225lb delta between 2 cars in the same class just won't cut it. Having ANY cars currently in competition where the spec weight just "doesn't make sense" won't cut it.

I do agree with the "fix as requested" approach, for the variety of reasons already mentioned.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bad math. Read Kirks post on the process more closely.
The current approach figures strut suspension as the default, so there is no -50 on the VW for that. Its also a large powerplant (in ITB terms) with excellent torque, so I would argue that needs a +50.
Using those numbers you get a process spec weight of 2445.

Actually, his math is correct, and yours is off - again defining why this is such a hard excersize over any forum. The 'base' car is a strut-based, IRS, RWDer. The Golf has no adder for TQ and a -50 for a beam rear axle. Argue the validity all you want, but that is what it is.

[Catch22]

Well, Kirk posted that there IS an adder for TQ and that the process assumes struts.
And if the TQ adder is not there, it needs to be.

So... you are saying that struts are -50 and A Arms are +50???
So a 100lb delta for A arms in a class were cars are typically in the 100 to 120hp range?

Uhhh... I think my math, based on Kirk's post, is better.
Just sayin'.

Scott, who thinks its easy and we are making it hard.

[dazzlesa]

my ITA integra went through the "system" and had weight added to it. i hate it but nobody gave a rat's ass. so why should i care if others are pissed because they have the same fate? why do certain cars get wacked while others do not?