ITAC News.

[JeffYoung]

V2 is what the ITAC has used, and is using (for new cars), and therefore defacto what the CRB is using when it has approved new classifications and adjustments.

The only part of the "old assumptions" on power gains that gets used still (and I personally disagree with it) is all 16v motors in ITB get 30%. Everything else is 25% default unless proven otherwise by actual data.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The only part of the "old assumptions" on power gains that gets used still (and I personally disagree with it) is all 16v motors in ITB get 30%. Everything else is 25% default unless proven otherwise by actual data.

Actually, this is wrong too. If you were to go by that old first-cut sheet, EVERYTHING 16V is supposed to get classed at 30%. In EVERY class. Just simply didn't happen like that. In every class 25% was used. When the first 16V car that was to be classed for ITB hit (MR2), all of the sudden 30% was 'what we used'.

I don't care who you are or what your recollection, this is what happened. I can go back and look at every ITA car that was classed or reclassed and prove 25% was used. I ask those who fought for 30% on the MR2, where was that 'fight' when every other car 16V was being classed?

Ugh.

[JeffYoung]

It's not wrong for what happens now. The default 30% gain for 16v motors is ITB only.

Where I agree with you is that makes no sense, and I also agree that it appears (I was not on the ITAC at the time) that the 30%/16v was not used as a default in other classes.

Ugh, I agree.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's not wrong for what happens now. The default 30% gain for 16v motors is ITB only.

Where I agree with you is that makes no sense, and I also agree that it appears (I was not on the ITAC at the time) that the 30%/16v was not used as a default in other classes.

Ugh, I agree.

That is a completely made-up piece of crap rule. WHY IN THE WORLD DOES 30% APPLY IN ITB ONLY????? It makes zero sense, made zero sense and is a big pile of FAIL. Someone needs to stand up and fix it. (or at the lease apply it equally across all classes!!!)

The best leaders can admit when they made a mistake, fix it, and prevent it from happening again. That is what I want in a CRB/Ad Hoc.

[JoshS]

That is a completely made-up piece of crap rule. WHY IN THE WORLD DOES 30% APPLY IN ITB ONLY????? It makes zero sense, made zero sense and is a big pile of FAIL.

Personal opinion coming here: All cars in any one class should be treated the same, as long as the significant elements are roughly the same. Adders and subtractors exists purely to take into account things that are exceptional for the class in question.

That 5% difference for multivalve engines is effectively just an adder, albeit a percentage-based one instead of a fixed-value one, like FWD is in Process V2. Based on the rough "average ITB car", its value is +/- 90lbs.

So the question is, is a multivalve engine something that's exceptional enough in ITB to warrant an adder? It does appear to be a fairly abnormal trait for an ITB car.

But despite that, In my personal opinion, it still doesn't warrant an adder. That's because the advantage gained by the fancy head is already accounted for in the published horsepower figure.

It's the same way I feel about any engine-related adder. Adders should be to cover exceptional items not covered by that stock horsepower number.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So the question is, is a multivalve engine something that's exceptional enough in ITB to warrant an adder? It does appear to be a fairly abnormal trait for an ITB car.

But it doesn't fit the 'adder' guidlines. Meaning, who cares if it's normal or abnormal? If a multivalve engine is going to get 30% in ITB, it should get it in all the IT classes - because the assumption is that it is the REASON for more power. That trait doesn't change when you hop a class.

ITB ITAC guys....you really need to look in the mirror here.

[Chip42]

Someone needs to stand up and fix it.

From what I gather, that may be difficult for some of the responisble members.

complete agreement in kind, though - this mess needs to be cleaned up, somehow. I don't see why a class by class rework simillar to "the great realignment" is so feared. is there honestly fear of mass resentment by the membership for fixing the current state of affairs? I find that difficult (but not impossible) to believe.

[JeffYoung]

Solely my opinion:

1. The higher ups see it (a complete processing of all cars) as a "mass comp adjustment" that is not appropriate for IT. Under our existing rules, there is more merit to that argument than you would think.

2. I have some concern about reprocessing every car, personally. It's easy to do the process math on a mid 90s Honda, or a 12a rotary. But try to find accurate specs on say an early 70s Fiat, or a 1968 Corvair. Lots of errors could be made, and it will be a Herculean task. Josh, however, has come up with a great (partial) solution, which is to simply delete the weights for older, problematic cars that aren't raced and allow the weight to be relisted (via the process, and research) if someone requests it.

When I first joined the ITAC this issue -- whether to process all cars or not -- was the biggest open item. I think we were heading towards a "reprocess" with Josh's mod when we were first tasked with trying it out on ITB.

I remember being initially opposed to the whole "reprocess everything" idea given the amount of work it seemed to be, and the potential for error. But, I think the events of the last six months make it clear (to me) that that is exactly what we should do.

1. Publish the process.

2. Give it the force and effect of a rule, binding on "future" ITACs.

3. Use it to set the weight on all cars.

From what I gather, that may be difficult for some of the responisble members.

complete agreement in kind, though - this mess needs to be cleaned up, somehow. I don't see why a class by class rework simillar to "the great realignment" is so feared. is there honestly fear of mass resentment by the membership for fixing the current state of affairs? I find that difficult (but not impossible) to believe.

[Chip42]

Dropping existing classifications due to lack of participation has precedent in Production. this would certinaly prune the list, making the herculean task of going through an entire category a bit more manageable.

I for one wouldn't formally suggest a full group reclass as it's obviously a TON of work. But I think that a valid member request for a reclassification or correction using updated REAL WORLD information such as dyno plots or flow bench numbers or even on track results (if only to demonstrate the inequity not to prove it) should be considered reasonable by everyone involved. this is where the current ITCS language stands in the way from what I can see. and from what I gather, the CRB is not interested in helping change it.

But what shop manual do you copy pages from to support a request to change the rules???

[Andy Bettencourt]

Mmmm, fun! Let me play!

Solely my opinion:

1. The higher ups see it (a complete processing of all cars) as a "mass comp adjustment" that is not appropriate for IT. Under our existing rules, there is more merit to that argument than you would think.

Pffft. Crock. Yes, it will adjust the competition level of any class. But so will classing a new car in the exact same way. Don't let anyone hide behind that excuse. Push to define 'comp adjustment'. Bringing cars in line with each other based on specs is SOOOO different than making an adjustment based on results.

2. I have some concern about reprocessing every car, personally. It's easy to do the process math on a mid 90s Honda, or a 12a rotary. But try to find accurate specs on say an early 70s Fiat, or a 1968 Corvair. Lots of errors could be made, and it will be a Herculean task. Josh, however, has come up with a great (partial) solution, which is to simply delete the weights for older, problematic cars that aren't raced and allow the weight to be relisted (via the process, and research) if someone requests it.

^^^ This.

I remember being initially opposed to the whole "reprocess everything" idea given the amount of work it seemed to be, and the potential for error. But, I think the events of the last six months make it clear (to me) that that is exactly what we should do.

1. Publish the process.

2. Give it the force and effect of a rule, binding on "future" ITACs.

3. Use it to set the weight on all cars.

Of course this is the solution. Add the Process date in the notes section of the ITCS. Reprocess' will not be considered unless proof that an error was made in the calculation.

[lateapex911]

Actually, this is wrong too. If you were to go by that old first-cut sheet, EVERYTHING 16V is supposed to get classed at 30%. In EVERY class. Just simply didn't happen like that. In every class 25% was used. When the first 16V car that was to be classed for ITB hit (MR2), all of the sudden 30% was 'what we used'.

I don't care who you are or what your recollection, this is what happened. I can go back and look at every ITA car that was classed or reclassed and prove 25% was used. I ask those who fought for 30% on the MR2, where was that 'fight' when every other car 16V was being classed?

Ugh.

Right, and Andy, I don't know if you were on the particular call when this came up, (again) and Peter Keane said,

"Because that was the only way we would let 16V cars ito ITB, that was the deal we made to get that done, 16V cars in ITB get 30%"

I would NEVER have agreed to that, and if I had known about it I would CERTAINLY remember it. I have NO IDEA where that came from, it makes no sense. I mean WHO would you make such a deal WITH?? The armed guards of ITB?? Who would they be?

[tom91ita]

................ and Peter Keane said,

Quote:
"Because that was the only way we would let 16V cars ito ITB, that was the deal we made to get that done, 16V cars in ITB get 30%"

............

if i can find a honda 16V head that fits on my engine, can i have a 30% factor instead?