Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[Andy Bettencourt]

And I am not understanding the Accord bitching. We all know how we got here and nobody has to like it - but here is the net result:

All ITB cars processed at 25%, 30% multi-valve boner gone
MR2 finally gets it's dyno data read and approved at a lower %

If the MKII VW's can make 25% over stock, they are fine. If they can't, send in the data.

[Chip42]

And I am not understanding the Accord bitching. We all know how we got here and nobody has to like it - but here is the net result:

All ITB cars processed at 25%, 30% multi-valve boner gone
MR2 finally gets it's dyno data read and approved at a lower %

If the MKII VW's can make 25% over stock, they are fine. If they can't, send in the data.

I'm pretty sure the A2s are run @ 30%, thus their gripe. I've said it a million times - data changes things, griping just makes people disinterested.

[Bill Miller]

I'm pretty sure the A2s are run @ 30%, thus their gripe. I've said it a million times - data changes things, griping just makes people disinterested.

So where's the data that supported the A2's being run at 30% (and the A1's being run at 38%)? If there's no data to support applying a higher multiplier, why is the higher # being used? You said you guys chucked the default 30% multiplier for multi-valve ITB/C cars, but are going to look closer at them. Why should anything else that doesn't have supporting evidence that justifies a higher multiplier be treated any differently?

You've got a long time member of this forum, and ITB racer, that has finally had enough of the BS. You've got the guy w/ the ITB Scirocco, that had it take over a year and a half to get his letter through, and they still stuck it up his ass, w/o any supporting data. I'd say that is the kind of stuff that makes people disinterested.

[Hoof Hearted]

You've got the guy w/ the ITB Scirocco, that had it take over a year and a half to get his letter through, and they still stuck it up his ass, w/o any supporting data. I'd say that is the kind of stuff that makes people disinterested.

"That guy" is me... ...and I've moved to the Prod side in the H variety. In the CenDiv, H Prod is currently nationally strong and I'm looking forward to joining the Prod Party, right Chris? Have you located your Lexan yet?

[Flyinglizard]

HP is filling up with VWs.
Good stuff. MM

[coreyehcx]

You guys should have this part of the website invisible to the public. This is exactly the type of ego bull shit that turns people away from SCCA.

Who submitted that STL splitter letter again? 7 months ago....

[seckerich]

You guys should have this part of the website invisible to the public. This is exactly the type of ego bull shit that turns people away from SCCA.

Who submitted that STL splitter letter again? 7 months ago....

Quick reminder this is an IT site. It is also where we expect our ITAC to answer questions and discuss items of interest to the class. Please go bitch about ST on an ST site. It is good for this to be in the open and everyone see the process work.

[Chip42]

So where's the data that supported the A2's being run at 30% (and the A1's being run at 38%)? If there's no data to support applying a higher multiplier, why is the higher # being used? You said you guys chucked the default 30% multiplier for multi-valve ITB/C cars, but are going to look closer at them. Why should anything else that doesn't have supporting evidence that justifies a higher multiplier be treated any differently?

You've got a long time member of this forum, and ITB racer, that has finally had enough of the BS. You've got the guy w/ the ITB Scirocco, that had it take over a year and a half to get his letter through, and they still stuck it up his ass, w/o any supporting data. I'd say that is the kind of stuff that makes people disinterested.

the "minimum" multiplier for ITB/C multivalve cars has been removed. if and when justification exists to use something higher or lower than 25%, it will be used.

re existing classifications - we can change them IF there is data substantiating them. yes, it can mean proving a negative. the idea is to NOT make it easy to change willy nilly. I don't have the data in front of me that lead to the A2 weight. it's been around a while. but if it can be proven "heavy" then I'd support the change. ditto any other car being too light or heavy for it's class. but in many cases the committee doesn't know enough about the situation of any specific car to initiate that change on our own.

I am terribly upset to hear that ANYONE is upset with the changes to date. everything we recommend is done with the intention of matching power to weight in the class using as close to actual output as we can agree on and the process formula. that's the idea behind the process, right?

re the 'rocco - timing was ITAC, we dropped the ball, simple as that. as for the weight it was given, that was a decision made by the CRB. thats how the system works sometimes. not a lot the ITAC can do about that, though we can push further with support.

[Bill Miller]

the "minimum" multiplier for ITB/C multivalve cars has been removed. if and when justification exists to use something higher or lower than 25%, it will be used.

re existing classifications - we can change them IF there is data substantiating them. yes, it can mean proving a negative. the idea is to NOT make it easy to change willy nilly. I don't have the data in front of me that lead to the A2 weight. it's been around a while. but if it can be proven "heavy" then I'd support the change. ditto any other car being too light or heavy for it's class. but in many cases the committee doesn't know enough about the situation of any specific car to initiate that change on our own.

I am terribly upset to hear that ANYONE is upset with the changes to date. everything we recommend is done with the intention of matching power to weight in the class using as close to actual output as we can agree on and the process formula. that's the idea behind the process, right?

The way I see it Chip, is if there isn't compelling evidence to use a number other than 25%, regardless if the car is currently classified or not, no one should have to prove that it should get the default multiplier. I thought that was the underlying principle of the ITAC ops manual. If you want to use a different number, you damned well better have data to support it. Not only that, you need a high level of confidence from the rest of the committee to support using a different number.

If a car is classed with a different multiplier, and there is no supporting data/documentation, the weight should be set at the default process weight until such time as someone can provide evidence as to why it shouldn't be.

re the 'rocco - timing was ITAC, we dropped the ball, simple as that. as for the weight it was given, that was a decision made by the CRB. thats how the system works sometimes. not a lot the ITAC can do about that, though we can push further with support.

And there's the real problem. Someone can jump through all kinds of hoops, and provide all kinds of supporting evidence, but if the CRB doesn't want it to go that way, it won't. And they don't have to give any reasons for it. Do you really think that's the right way to run this, especially after all the hard work that has been done by the ITAC to develop a transparent, objective process?

[JeffYoung]

Bill, I agree that the lack of documentation is a problem with a lot of our classing right now. Even if it exists, it is not easy to find.

Chip has greatly improved the system by adding internal notes on our electronic forum on EVERY classing decision so that this stuff should be easy to find.

I don't know anything about VWs, or the history on this particular car, but I personally would want to see data to back up the 30% that a previous ITAC had applied if someone requested a reset at the default.

On the splitter rule, can someone help me out? What exactly is the issue? The rule allows an airdam within proscribed geometric space, and attaching points. If you can construct a splitter, or hell an M1 tank, within those parameters, you are ok, no?

So what about the rule is not clear?

Seriously asking for some help; I may be missing something. Chip? Greg? Andy?

[jjjanos]

On the splitter rule, can someone help me out? What exactly is the issue? The rule allows an airdam within proscribed geometric space, and attaching points. If you can construct a splitter, or hell an M1 tank, within those parameters, you are ok, no?

. Incorrect. Loading of depleted uranium sabots in the car would violate the ballast rule. The M1 tank is out.

[Greg Amy]

On the splitter rule, can someone help me out? What exactly is the issue? The rule allows an airdam within proscribed geometric space, and attaching points. If you can construct a splitter, or hell an M1 tank, within those parameters, you are ok, no?

No.

A "splitter" is not an airdam or a spoiler. Neither is an undertray. IIDSYCTYC.

However, they are "technically" compliant because of the Roffe Corollary, but the implication - because they are not explicitly allowed - is that splitters and undertrays are not within the spirit/philosophy of the regs. Thus, intorturation, in violation of the GCR.

However, if the intent is to allow, why not explicitly allow? It clarifies it for everyone, not just us rules nerds.

GA

[JoshS]

And there's the real problem. Someone can jump through all kinds of hoops, and provide all kinds of supporting evidence, but if the CRB doesn't want it to go that way, it won't. And they don't have to give any reasons for it. Do you really think that's the right way to run this, especially after all the hard work that has been done by the ITAC to develop a transparent, objective process?

Yes, I agree. The ITAC Ops Manual was written with the cooperation of the CRB and yours truly thought that both the CRB and the ITAC would abide by it. If anyone wants to make their own changes to the recommended weights, then they should be considered comp adjustments ("PCAs") - you'll notice that the Ops Manual allows those - instead of trying to make up new inputs to the process. The multiplier is the multiplier. You don't back into a multiplier to get the weight you want. You use the right multiplier, and if you really can't stand the weight, then you adjust with a PCA.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I agree that the lack of documentation is a problem with a lot of our classing right now. Even if it exists, it is not easy to find.

Chip has greatly improved the system by adding internal notes on our electronic forum on EVERY classing decision so that this stuff should be easy to find.

I don't know anything about VWs, or the history on this particular car, but I personally would want to see data to back up the 30% that a previous ITAC had applied if someone requested a reset at the default.

Thanks Jeff, I appreciate that. But how do you deal w/ a case like the guy w/ the Scirocco? Letter comes in, seems pretty straight forward, yet CRB says "Nope, you get boned w/ the same 38% multiplier that your sister car got. Thanks for playing".

Yes, I agree. The ITAC Ops Manual was written with the cooperation of the CRB and yours truly thought that both the CRB and the ITAC would abide by it. If anyone wants to make their own changes to the recommended weights, then they should be considered comp adjustments ("PCAs") - you'll notice that the Ops Manual allows those - instead of trying to make up new inputs to the process. The multiplier is the multiplier. You don't back into a multiplier to get the weight you want. You use the right multiplier, and if you really can't stand the weight, then you adjust with a PCA.

I agree Josh, that's EXACTLY the way it should work. The problem is, to do it that way, someone has to actually come up w/ data to support their position.

[Chip42]

the CRB has been supportive and good to work with. they also come with a healthy amount of skepticism and do on occasion over-ride the ITAC's recommendations. that's how the system works. if they agreed with everything we recommend, they wouldn't be doing a good job as gate keepers - the committee, after all, is not infallible.

and no one is backing a number from a weight. in the case of the 'roco they just matched the A1 GTI. "fair enough". if we get a letter to re-process the pair of them, maybe we can dislodge that 38%.

and to Bill, etc... there' no one saying otherwise. there are some cars I think are "right" at higher multipliers, like the 88-91 and 92-95 civics, and I for one would want to see proof to the contrary before lightening them. others are heavy or light because they were never processed (see Geo Storm GSi) or there's data out there - anything processed off of 25% should have been done on data or VERY STRONG evidence. that exists, but the historic record isn't the easiest thing to search sometimes. we depend on our forum as well as this one and older members, previous members, and the CRB's memories sometimes to find the pointers to it.

[ShelbyRacer]

Yes, I agree. The ITAC Ops Manual was written with the cooperation of the CRB and yours truly thought that both the CRB and the ITAC would abide by it. If anyone wants to make their own changes to the recommended weights, then they should be considered comp adjustments ("PCAs") - you'll notice that the Ops Manual allows those - instead of trying to make up new inputs to the process. The multiplier is the multiplier. You don't back into a multiplier to get the weight you want. You use the right multiplier, and if you really can't stand the weight, then you adjust with a PCA.

Josh,

So, what you are saying is, everything gets processed at 25% (since the 30% multivalve ITB/ITC default is gone), period. If a car appears to be performing outside expectations for the class, ANY change is done via a PCA, and NOT by reexamining the multiplier?

That's not necessarily how I read things in the Ops Manual. Specifically, the Ops Manual says the following about PCAs: "It is the goal of the rules to allow for this possibility but with the sincere hope that it will never be necessary."

Is it not better to center a discussion on "why a different multiplier would be necessary" and have debates/discussions about that, than to focus more on the "how much weight to we need to slow down this fast car?" If discussions rely on technical data analysis of the potential (and realization) of a particular engine combination, it would seem to me to be a better way than something that would be seen as REWARDS weight and the like. It appeared to me that non-standard multipliers were possible to address such as situation from an "error in the process for this combination" standpoint, rather than a Competition Adjustment relying on an arbitrary amount of weight.

[gran racing]

All ITB cars processed at 25%, 30% multi-valve boner gone

When did this happen? I received an e-mail not that long ago that my request to eliminate the 30% multi-valve was declined.

And I am not understanding the Accord bitching.

The bitching is about getting all cars given a fair shake. There's been plenty of data on the Accord. Hell, one of the CRB members (former? don't even know anymore).

Yeah Tom, the Prelude I have has 110 stock HP. The differences between them are CR as you noted, and a couple of other non-legal IT mods.

[Andy Bettencourt]

When did this happen? I received an e-mail not that long ago that my request to eliminate the 30% multi-valve was declined.

Forget where I read it, maybe the Box, but all ITB now processed at 25% with a proactive look for power numbers on anything with Multi-valve before classification or correction.

The bitching is about getting all cars given a fair shake. There's been plenty of data on the Accord. Hell, one of the CRB members (former? don't even know anymore).

So it would seem we are there. 25% on new classifications. If a car is classed at over that based on the boner, then it should get swapped back per the Ops Manual. If it's processed over that based on dyno numbers, so what?

[jjjanos]

It says that it(whatever you happen to call it) must be attached to the body, but not ONLY the body.

It says it must be attached to the body (except for those with Integrated bumper assemblies who may attach to the bumper assembly.)

9.1.3.D ....Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.

So, yes, it is only to the body or the integrated bumper assembly.

So where is the confusion about mounting?

Seems perfectly clear to me.

Agreed. So long as the mounting doesn't do something illegal, I don't get the issue.

9.1.3.D ....Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.

That's the issue. The GCR specifies how these are to be mounted. There is no allowance to mount them anywhere but the body. It may be a stupid restriction, but it is the rule.

[Greg Amy]

There is no allowance to mount them anywhere but the body. It may be a stupid restriction, but it is the rule.

The reason for that restriction lies in 1985, when cars has separate bumpers (prior to plastic aerodynamic bumper covers). The reason for specifying mounting them to "the body" (and limiting the attachment to below 4" above wheel centerline) was to keep competitors from mounting them to separated bumpers, thus closing out the whole front of the car. - GA