Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Z3_GoCar]

The key takeaway Kirk from Travis' post is congruent with the misconceptions the CRB has.

Visa-vis...

now for the REALLY overarching stuff....

1) change SCCA World Challenge Touring car rules to match IT. Currently to do so you would use cars that would fall into the ITR performance window. In the future if cars continue to get more powerful, you might need to yet again create another faster class.

2) top TWENTY classes in participation are eligible for the runoffs, including IT. hopefully you would have world challenge guys showing up.

The pro guys are already racing for a championship, why would they want to add an amature one to their already busy schedule?

At my last race, too many years ago, I was pitted next to a Koni Challenge GS 993 racer and his student/renter. They were running in ITE same as me, but really the prep level on that GS car was very much like IT, more so than a WC car. After I had my shunt and I get back to my pit spot two green laps go by before the student racer puts two wheels off and the porsche goes into the pit wall which then gets hit by a Super Production (former Southwest Tour) car. This ends the chance of that team entering the next Koni Challenge race in a couple of weeks, as the body is tweeked. So everytime a pro team runs their car there's the chance they're going to push it off the cliff, and if they're a halfway decent team they know this. So what serious pro team would show up for the run-offs?

[frnkhous]

Visa-vis...



The pro guys are already racing for a championship, why would they want to add an amature one to their already busy schedule?

At my last race, too many years ago, I was pitted next to a Koni Challenge GS 993 racer and his student/renter. They were running in ITE same as me, but really the prep level on that GS car was very much like IT, more so than a WC car. After I had my shunt and I get back to my pit spot two green laps go by before the student racer puts two wheels off and the porsche goes into the pit wall which then gets hit by a Super Production (former Southwest Tour) car. This ends the chance of that team entering the next Koni Challenge race in a couple of weeks, as the body is tweeked. So everytime a pro team runs their car there's the chance they're going to push it off the cliff, and if they're a halfway decent team they know this. So what serious pro team would show up for the run-offs?

One with a renter willing to write a big check. The same reason they were at the race your refering too. Most koni teams can find a way to put almost any car back together in a couple weeks if the check is big enough. I don't see what the runoffs brings to IT racing?? I also don't understand why you would want to class AWD cars. From what i've seen they are generally gonna be classed like shitty strut fwd cars. Most of them don't handle all that well in the dry so the weight would basically be like a fwd race car, now it rains and they have a pretty good power to weight ratio+AWD. You can't possibly class them to be competitive in the dry and not walk away from everything in the wet. Ask the Koni Challenge guys.

[MMiskoe]

B

ecause (a) it was requested by a member to re-examine it, and (b) it had not been through the current process. The Golf II was one of the "bogey cars" for the Great Realignment since the perception was that it was competitive at its then-current weight. The other ITB cars that were changed (and a LOT WERE NOT) got their weights set by the ITAC at the time.

Kirk - do I understand this correctly that the "bogey" or baseline car is now being looked at and it doesn't fit the process weight? I really hope I'm wrong. If it is the baseline car it damn well better fit! What am I missing here?

The "process" had substantial room for subjectivity at that time, as well: The MATH was pretty much the same as what we do now but the PHILOSOPHY was much different, such that if the process spit out a weight that "just wasn't right," it could be changed based on what committee members felt was best. The official guidelines in place at the time included directions to "Review the resulting classification weight and determine if the results are acceptable."

I am well aware that there is room for subjective differences when gathering information about any car. I understand that it would create a shit storm of questions if you published every detail of every car. Although I think it should be published I've realized its in the "ain't never gonna happen" pile. But the collective "they" could publish what they used when classing a new car.

[IPRESS]

You boys keep beating that IT National drum. You will be cussing yourself when it happens. Maybe it will take you a season or so, but the cussing will start just the same.

IT should remain a cheap, easy to build race car class. With the escalation of SM, IT is once again the place an average pocketbook guy can still have a chance at doing well.
It should be the ITACs main goal to keep it that way.

With 24+ classes you boys wanting to test yourselves nationally have plenty of places to play without screwing up IT.

As successful as IT seems to be, WHY DO YOU GUYS CONSTANTLY WANT TO MESS WITH IT? You have a good thing going, probably the best in SCCA, enjoy it.

Just an opinion.

[Bob Roth]

1) I think the way that car weights are calculated leaves the Honda VTEC contingent and other cars with high stock Hp/liter cars out to lunch. If a car has 100hp/liter stock, 10.5/1 compresson, free breathing intake, decent exhaust etc, there isn't the legal development potential compared to cars like the non-vtec prelude that has 0.6 hp/liter. Say what you want, the most raceable honda's built are absent from signficant IT results and numbers.

2) As a racer, its hard to get the data needed to discuss competitive issues from SCCA. It would greatly enhance the discussion if there was a listing for each track of the top 3 for each class, the car, and best lap time so a discussion about what is competitive and what is not.

3) I think Improved Touring needs to have a "re-think" of trying to make an equivalancy formula for almost every sedan ever built..... People invest in race cars at the club racing level to have a good experience, at reasonable costs, and for at least half the racers having a modicum chance of being competitive. As it sits now, The hot car in a given class might be something plentiful and cheap to build like an integra, or it could be obscure such as a volvo or fiero..... Its crazy, does SCCA want cars that nobody and find, support, and frankly, nobody knows if are legal.

I don't doubt the original idea of a competitive class for every car was well intended but I believe a rethink is needed, The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class. My suggestion is that the IT classes be considered based on what cars SCCA believes would make good fields, focus on them as the competitive target for IT classes, and let less qualified cars also compete knowing that they probably won't win. Also I think at NASA has it right with Spec Honda, Porsche 944, BMW etc.

From my perspective, its time to recharge IT and make it real attractive for people to build late model cars. From my perspective, I am racing against pretty much the same cars I raced agaunst 10 to 15 years ago. Otherwise I think the trend is not promising, face it, without Spec Miata (which has probably peaked) IT and regionals would be in a bad situation.

[lateapex911]

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.
Charlie

3) I think Improved Touring needs to have a "re-think" of trying to make an equivalancy formula for almost every sedan ever built..... People invest in race cars at the club racing level to have a good experience, at reasonable costs, and for at least half the racers having a modicum chance of being competitive. As it sits now, The hot car in a given class might be something plentiful and cheap to build like an integra, or it could be obscure such as a volvo or fiero..... Its crazy, does SCCA want cars that nobody and find, support, and frankly, nobody knows if are legal.

I don't doubt the original idea of a competitive class for every car was well intended but I believe a rethink is needed, The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class.

From my perspective, its time to recharge IT and make it real attractive for people to build late model cars. From my perspective, I am racing against pretty much the same cars I raced agaunst 10 to 15 years ago.

Wow....hard to believe the two guys race in the same club. But, maybe that's because their views are self centric. What happens to their pond, and their cars is considered most important.

Bob, your points are most interesting. I think you're saying that new cars should be classed in such a manner as to make them the top dogs, and older cars should be handicapped, to encourage people to get new cars.

Yet, you also state that the racing should be "of reasonable cost" with "at least half the racers having a modicum chance of being competitive."

I'm struggling how to resolve those two very different goals. Causing a large contingent of cars to be "B listed" would, in effect, you say, push people into new cars. Well, that's actually a forced move. You want to run near the front? Forget that car you've got and have developed and go get a NEW car. How is that "reasonable"????

I assume you don't think that new cars should be classed at weights below the current class performance envelope do you? Track records be damned? So that leaves only the option of adding weight to all the 'old' cars.

This guys, illustrates the conflicting picture that is IT. We got, just last month, tow requests to classify old Alfas and Fiats. REALLY old. And we get requests to classify cars young and old, all the time. Should we be just refusing if they aren't new and cool? And by whose standards?

(Bob, don't forget, the S2000 got classed with THE lowest power multiplier in ALL of IT. We got hate mail on that too.)

[Knestis]

2) As a racer, its hard to get the data needed to discuss competitive issues from SCCA. It would greatly enhance the discussion if there was a listing for each track of the top 3 for each class, the car, and best lap time so a discussion about what is competitive and what is not.

How would that information be used - contribute to resolving "competitive issues?"

...The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class. ...

I know I asked for input and am trying to let people share their ideas but this demonstrates a misconception re: how new cars get classified. There is no - zero - disincentive applied to new listings. Now, if you are talking about the 5-year rule, that's a different thing but otherwise, you want it listed? It gets listed using the same process that has been getting applied in response to "please revisit" requests.

On the other hand of course, if current cars are specified such that they are lighter than the CURRENT PROCESS says they should be, they WOULD indeed start the process at a disadvantage.

K

[tom91ita]

i wrote a note November 23, 2008 stating that i felt the weight calculation needed to be revisited and should not be the nearest 100#'s but should be within the accuracy of the scales, etc.

also, in the interest of disclosure, i used my crx si in ITB as an example of what i think is an incorrect weight. the intro of my letter is below;

Dear CRB,

I believe that the basic formula as applied to Improved Touring needs to be revisited. It is my understanding that if a car was within 100 pounds of its target weight, no adjustments were made. I believe this is in error. These process weights should not be to the nearest 100#'s, they should be to the nearest 5 or 10#'s or something that is limited by the accuracy of the scales (e.g., + / - 0.5%).

I must also share that I think my car (1986 Honda CRX Si at 2130 #'s in ITB was negatively impacted. I am unable to use any reasonable factor of the formula to arrive at my car¢s existing weight.

i went on to state that it looks like the car has a 44% power multiplier to get to the 2130 #'s using all the adders, etc. as i know them from the web, etc.

if any response to this was in fastrack, i missed it. is the '86 crx si one of the 20 cars mentioned in previous posts? as i recall the weight of this car, it was 1800 #'s for the car when in ITA. it was later 1980 #'s with driver. and when it went to itb, it received an adder of 150 #'s. given the nice round number, i am assuming it did not go through "the" process.

i have no issue with sending a note to the BOD, CRB, etc. again, but it seems like they did not hear me the last time.....all i ever remember is the note from John Bauer that my note was being forwarded.

sorry to sound frustrated but i just drove 400 + miles and had 5 diet cokes and it looks like nothing will happen for 2010 as well.

i am pleased with the overall direction that the ITAC is taking and even agree with the "intellectually honest" recommendation of the 10# revision. if you think it is wrong, it is wrong, plain and simple. i do think there might be some "larger" wrongs out there and i am guessing that is part of the CRB's thinking.

and with regards to the "triggers" for over-dogs, etc., i think having a dyno at the major events (IT SPECtacular, ARRC, etc.) that would be used prior to teardowns might tell a lot. i don't even care if the results are public or not but it might give some of the real world data of a power multiplier and what is achievable for given cars.

and if the dyno is too expensive or intrusive, put a DL-1 in from Fast-Tech in the car that is the "trigger" and get acceleration data that way..........

[tom91ita]

i wrote a note November 23, 2008 stating that i felt the weight calculation needed to be revisited and should not be the nearest 100#'s but should be within the accuracy of the scales, etc.

also, in the interest of disclosure, i used my crx si in ITB as an example of what i think is an incorrect weight. the intro of my letter is below;

Dear CRB,

I believe that the basic formula as applied to Improved Touring needs to be revisited. It is my understanding that if a car was within 100 pounds of its target weight, no adjustments were made. I believe this is in error. These process weights should not be to the nearest 100#¢s, they should be to the nearest 5 or 10#¢s or something that is limited by the accuracy of the scales (e.g., + / - 0.5%).

I must also share that I think my car (1986 Honda CRX Si at 2130 #¢s in IT was negatively impacted. I am unable to use any reasonable factor of the formula to arrive at my car¢s existing weight.

i went on to state that it looks like the car has a 44% power multiplier to get to the 2130 #'s using all the adders, etc. as i know them from the web, etc.

if any response to this was in fastrack, i missed it. is the '86 crx si one of the 20 cars mentioned in previous posts? as i recall the weight of this car, it was 1800 #'s for the car when in ITA. it was later 1980 #'s with driver. and when it went to itb, it received an adder of 150 #'s. given the nice round number, i am assuming it did not go through "the" process.

i have no issue with sending a note to the BOD, CRB, etc. again, but it seems like they did not hear me the last time.....all i ever remember is the note from John Bauer that my note was being forwarded.

sorry to sound frustrated but i just drove 400 + miles and had 5 diet cokes and it looks like nothing will happen for 2010 as well.

i am pleased with the overall direction that the ITAC is taking and even agree with the "intellectually honest" recommendation of the 10# revision. if you think it is wrong, it is wrong, plain and simple. i do think there might be some "larger" wrongs out there and i am guessing that is part of the CRB's thinking.

and with regards to the "triggers" for over-dogs, etc., i think having a dyno at the major events (IT SPECtacular, ARRC, etc.) that would be used prior to teardowns might tell a lot. i don't even care if the results are public or not but it might give some of the real world data of a power multiplier and what is achievable for given cars.

and if the dyno is too expensive or intrusive, put a DL-1 in from Fast-Tech in the car that is the "trigger" and get acceleration data that way..........

[Andy Bettencourt]

As it sits now, The hot car in a given class might be something plentiful and cheap to build like an integra, or it could be obscure such as a volvo or fiero..... Its crazy, does SCCA want cars that nobody and find, support, and frankly, nobody knows if are legal.

I don't doubt the original idea of a competitive class for every car was well intended but I believe a rethink is needed, The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class.

Well, I guess I feel the total opposite. To me, its the WHOLE point of IT and the Process. No matter what year, what make, what model - you have a chance - ON PAPER. Slightly better, slightly worse, so be it...it will NEVER be perfect or exact...but everyone gets to play. I am not sure why the age of a car has anything to do with the sucess of a category - so long as those who like new and those who like old, feel that they are being treated fairly.

The SCCA shouldn't care about CARS, they should care about MEMBERS.

[Knestis]

B

Kirk - do I understand this correctly that the "bogey" or baseline car is now being looked at and it doesn't fit the process weight? I really hope I'm wrong. If it is the baseline car it damn well better fit! What am I missing here?

I am well aware that there is room for subjective differences when gathering information about any car. I understand that it would create a shit storm of questions if you published every detail of every car. Although I think it should be published I've realized its in the "ain't never gonna happen" pile. But the collective "they" could publish what they used when classing a new car.

As clearly as I possibly can: The "bogey" cars were left alone - without being run through the math - because the ITAC at the time of the GR saw them running competitively on the track.

Their weights were not changed and a second group of cars was aligned with them, using the process as it was in place at the time. A third group of cars was not even looked at.

In addition to the three-tiered situation, during the time of the Great Realignment the "process" was infused with substantial opportunities for subjectivity. Subjectivity as in, "I think that Civic needs to be heavier than that. It's going to be a class killer if we let it race at that weight."

For these reasons, when cars are run through the current, more constrained and consistent process, they come out different. Just like members have seen - and questioned - cars with similar physical characteristics running at different race weights.

And in the current process, there is room in one place for subjectivity: The power multiplier. And at that, only a tiny handful of the 20 cars waiting for action used anything other than the standard assumption on that factor.

K

[Ron Earp]

Have to clean them up a bit but you asked and here they are.

IT should be about grassroots racing using race cars. Not street cars. Not dual purpose cars. But grassroots, trailer-your-car-to-the-track, amateur road racing using race cars. The IT rules set should reflect this simple philosophy.

• The ITAC should strive to maintain a long-lasting and stable rules set. The rules should be simplistic. Rules that are on the books that are not 100% clear to someone with an eigth grade education and rudimentary knowledge of cars should be clarified. Once the current rules set has been modernized then steps should be taken to minimize changes. A couple of examples of moderizing and streamlining the rules:
  
  
  • The IT rules set should eliminate any holdover vestiages of dual purpose cars: washer bottles having to be present, heater cores remaining in the car, original wiring harness must be used, and so forth. It costs nothing to remove such items and a racer might save money by not having to purchase other lightweight components in the quest for minimum weight. If nothing else these items are not needed in a race car and make the car simplier and easier to maintain.
  • To level the playing field between old and new engine management systems fuel injected cars should be allowed to use any ECU and sensors needed to function. The stock fuel/air metering devices must remain in the air stream though, i.e. – throttle body, vane meter, MAF – all must remain stock size/shape/dimension and engine air must pass through them.
  • (AWD/F induction)
    
  
  
  
• The IT classification process should be easily understood and should not use subjective modifers. The classification process should focus on power to weight ratios of the classed cars and it should be as simple as possible. Class resolution should be no less than 25 lbs to eliminate the use of “prod like” adjustments.

• The classification process should be published in its entirety. It should be possible for a racer to discover an unclassed car, run it through the classification process, and obtain the same race weight that the ITAC would calculate. The weight provided by the classification process should be used as projected.

• The classification of newer cars with hp ratings outside the envelope of the current classes should be classed without drama. Proposals and year-long dicussions should not be needed (a la ITR) to instate a higher performance IT class if/when needed. Consideration should not be given to look, feel, or apperances of classes nor should impact on other classes be considered. If a car fits into a class based on its attributes then it should be available to an IT racer.

• The ITAC should consider some form of self-policing with respect to term limits or maybe even election of members. I’m a bit fuzzy on what I’m trying to say or propose here but the basic concept would be that the ITAC gets new blood periodically (and I know this just happened recently). I do not think you’d want a 100% turnover every X period of time because we’d lose too much knowledge and continuity. But having new members added every X period of time with some change in the controlling entity of the group is a good thing to make sure the committee aligns with member wishes.

I’ll work on these concepts and others for a letter of some sort. Sorry for the disorganization of these ideas and poor writing.

[lateapex911]

Wow. interesting...ummm.. reactions. Lets think big picture.

Back in the day, as Kirk explains, we did the big reorg. (the Great Realignment) But, it was a HUGE deal to dink with IT cars, and the BoD was dead set against the idea going in. The CRB championed the cause, and changes were made. Now, we tread very lightly at the time, because of the internal resistance.

So, yea, some (a LOT) of cars never got touched. The idea, at the time, was that 90% of IT's problems were caused by 10% of the cars. Changing that much was a MAJOR deal, and really corrected the path.

Now, post GR, we've used the Process, but it's had, as Kirk points out, some susceptibility to tinkering. Adders can (could) be subjectively applied. That can result in things like "Give it a bit extra for brakes to counter the possibility of it being an overachiever in the engine" ...

The REFINEMENT of the SAME process, that we have been hammering out recently, seeks to avoid such subjectivity. IF we have DATA that the committee can document, and can vote individually with confidence on, we will alter the standard parameters. But without that, there's not any 'winging it' based on our knowledge/experience/eye witness accounts/suspicions/hunches and or, but not limited to, feelings.

Now, what Kirk is saying, is that the CRB is holding back our recent work on cars that have been requested to be reprocessed. Why? Well, they are not happy, one must conclude, with the refinement of the process.

To me, it's ironic, because I see the new 2.0 version as merely a sharper and more robust version of the 1.0 version that we've been humming along with for a few years now.

Andy will go on a con call tomorrow night, I think, to try and illustrate the similarities, and the differences so that they understand what we're doing.

You, the interested IT racer, can, no, should weigh in.

If you think the FIRST PRINCIPALS (in the classification procedure) should be consistency, transparency, repeatability, and that subjectivity should be used only with hard data as a back up, and that on track performance should be used as a trigger to go get hard data, well, tell them that.

If you prefer that we continue to use the process as before, but use our intuition when the numbers it spits out don't look right, tell them that.

To boil it down REALLY far down, if you like the basic direction the ITAC has tried to take, and think it's on the right path, say so. If you think we're driving the category off the cliff, speak up.

The CRB and especially the BoD are guys who have been in the game for a long time, and they are used to the ship running a certain way. That's normal. Doing it differently raises eyebrows and makes people very nervous. Tell them it's ok. Or not. But let them know you exist, you care, and you're a member who's watching and in the game.

If you are wanting to know how it all affects YOUR car before you do anything, well, that's rather missing the point.

[RSTPerformance]

Ron- I agree 100% with what you have said...


Jake- From the personal friendships and conversations I have (and reading posts on this site) I like what the ITAC has been doing. However I don't know how they feel with the several requests I have put in. While I am friends with some I never have and don't expect to get an officialin writting personal answer before the rest of SCCA. What I want is for the ITAC to officially publish all requests and recomendatios (to them from members and the ones fro
them to the CR. Untill then how can I agree with what they are doing??? Even if it is the fault of the CRB or BOD it's all just talk and no show simply because we (members not involved behind the sceens) are not seeing results.

Raymond "how do I support Version 2.0 when I don't know what it is?" Blethen

[Ron Earp]

You, the interested IT racer, can, no, should weigh in.

If you think the FIRST PRINCIPALS (in the classification procedure) should be consistency, transparency, repeatability, and that subjectivity should be used only with hard data as a back up, and that on track performance should be used as a trigger to go get hard data, well, tell them that.

If you prefer that we continue to use the process as before, but use our intuition when the numbers it spits out don't look right, tell them that.

Sorry. I thought you wanted to know what I, the racer, thought about IT and the rules set. It appears you want me to affirm, or not affirm, the direction the ITAC is going.

[StephenB]

Dear ITAC members. Could you please voice your opinions in support of or against the Classification processes that I presented last week.

Thanks,
Stephen

PS: I am guessing you know nothing or very little of what I presented but honestly this is the exact same thing you are asking of all of us to do.