ITAC News.

[JoshS]

There is no error in any of the classifications, period. Two "identical" cars having different weights is not evidence of error or omission. It is evidence that inconsistent classification methods have been used and, as the CRB has painfully demonstrated, there is no recourse for such inconsistency.

That is the purist way of looking at it, and I actually agree if we're going to be precise, believe it or not. Except ... there is a recourse that is okay with all parties involved, which is the handling of these things as errors. Maybe less pure but I think you might be the only one who has a problem with at least making some changes under the current ruleset. At least, you are the only one who I have actually heard voice a concern. I'm sure if the ITAC proposes a rule change then during the member input phase we'll hear from more people who would like to see no changes at all.

[jjjanos]

Jeff, Josh is trying to do what ever he can to make inroads in getting things consistent. I think the BMW 320 issue was that the same basic car, the 2002, has the same engine and suspension, essentially, and to the Process, they are the same car. So, both got examined, and one was considered to be right on the Process weight, so the other was adjusted to match.

But it isn't making things more consistent. It is doing exactly the opposite. It moves us from a situation where cars have been classified under 3(?) different systems but at least every car classified under a regime was done so consistently to a world where cars are classified under the same number of systems plus those who have close dopple gangers.

Can the CRB/ITAC provide evidence that the original weights weren't set using different HP factors for some reason? That's not an error. Can the ITAC/CRB provide evidence that aero qualities weren't used either explicitly or implicitly when both cars were classified - if not, there is no error, just different regimes. Can the ITAC/CRB demonstrate that the differences in compression and brake sizes weren't originally considered and the lack of a written, consistent classification process aren't to blame? If not, there is no error, just difference in the gut-feeling factor used.

That is the purist way of looking at it, and I actually agree if we're going to be precise, believe it or not. Except ... there is a recourse that is okay with all parties involved, which is the handling of these things as errors.

Well I'm darn well not OK with it. My car and others are carrying too much weight too and we are getting punished because the CRB and ITAC are misusing the errors clause.

Maybe less pure but I think you might be the only one who has a problem with at least making some changes under the current ruleset. At least, you are the only one who I have actually heard voice a concern. I'm sure if the ITAC proposes a rule change then during the member input phase we'll hear from more people who would like to see no changes at all.

I have no problem with correcting errors under the current ruleset. The MR2 is an error - the math guy punched in the wrong number and that can be demonstrated. The BMW, however, has no evidence that the weight as set by the ITAC wasn't exactly what was intended under the then current loosey-goosey classification process.

[Charlie Broring]

Well I'm darn well not OK with it. My car and others are carrying too much weight too and we are getting punished because the CRB and ITAC are misusing the errors clause.

Jeff, you have one of the 3 or 4 most capable ITB cars. If the Process justifies a weight reduction for you car I would conclude the Process is screwed up.

Justified or not, yours is another example of growing discontent and turmoil in ITB that is doing the class participation no good.

In my opinion the ITAC would do well using a bigger dose on on track performance evaluation. If nothing more it would show where the the classification Process is working and where it needs adjustment. The ITAC is dead on track developing the classification process formula. However the quest for "Open and transparent" and avoiding the occasional competition adjustment are getting in the way of the ultimate goal of fair and equal competition.

Also, the CRB needs to realize that IT has evolved quite a bit form the early days and the "No guarantee of competitiveness" no longer serves the class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

In my opinion the ITAC would do well using a bigger dose on on track performance evaluation. If nothing more it would show where the the classification Process is working and where it needs adjustment.

Please outline for us how you would evaluate on-track performance and how you would validate your findings.

Really.

[tom91ita]

Please outline for us how you would evaluate on-track performance and how you would validate your findings.

Really.

i agree that there is no good practical way to do this consistently but it is in the rules:

the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated.

if we can't do it, why is it in the rules?

[JeffYoung]

It is unfortunately a "know it when we see it" proposition. In rare cases, where cars are so visibly overdogs (the ITS E36 and the ITA CRX are the only two examples I recall) that we take a harder look at the power numbers.

But we don't adjust based solely on visible on track performance. We use it as a trigger to find out if there is something wrong in the process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

i agree that there is no good practical way to do this consistently but it is in the rules:



if we can't do it, why is it in the rules?

It can be done. Just depends on your definition of evaluation. Again, the practical application of the rule is to 'pay attention' for class overdogs. Cars that are having an adverse effect on 'class equity'.

[gran racing]

In my opinion the ITAC would do well using a bigger dose on on track performance evaluation.

Charlie, becareful of what you wish for. I have no idea how well built your car is, so this isn't said in any disrespect.

Take your car, have a TOP notch build done, pour $30,000 into with boat loads of development, maybe some factory support and engineering help, numerous test days, then have an absolute fantastic driver behind the wheel. YOUR car would get weight quite quickly. In fact, almost all of ours would in that scenario.

There are also other cars where people have gone beyond the rules such as putting in cams. There's quite a bit which can be done with some of the BMW 2002s related to cams, and getting to them for a protest isn't simple. That's just one example since I know the subject has come up in the past, but can easily be applied to any car. Now using on track performance, the legal cars are getting a penalty. Then there are days where everything just falls into place such as temps, cars to bump draft or even just draft with, and so forth.

A more personal example for you and know we've discussed this in the past (at least most of it). Summit point last year. Any idea how many new tires I was using? Not talking about 3 or 4 cycles old, but freshly mounted at the track. After an amazing battle with Martin, he came up to me after and said this next race is yours and bumped me on shoulder. (I did tell him the he better be racing me!) We worked together during that race and the times showed it. Having swapped the tires for old ones, and/or not having him to work with ontrack performance would have been different. Oh, then after the race our cars were weighed. No one torn engines down to look at legality.

In some categories on track performance can be more useful when there's a significant number (1.8 vs 1.6 SMs come to mind). We don't have that in IT. Prep and driver levels also vary greatly.

Use it as a trigger to look closer and that's it.

ps - while my Prelude was to stand losing weight when reviewed, I'm not entirely sure it would make it faster in a sprint race as the weight would have come off the rear of the car. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have the option though.

[jjjanos]

Jeff, you have one of the 3 or 4 most capable ITB cars. If the Process justifies a weight reduction for you car I would conclude the Process is screwed up.

Justified or not, yours is another example of growing discontent and turmoil in ITB that is doing the class participation no good.

Charlie, I would say that the CRX, the 142 and the 2002 -- when prepared to the same preperation level -- are about equivalent and I can say that, based on the process, the weights of the CRX and the 142 are too heavy. Can't say for certain for the 2002 since the innerweb gives me wild stock HP numbers.

CRX Official weight: 2130
CRX: 91 * 1.25 * 17 = 1934
CRX: 91 * 1.35 * 17 = 2088

Let's assume that the handling characteristics of a solid rear axle car are so superior as to offset the handicap of being FWD. The CRX still has drum rears and, relatively speaking, not enough torque to pull a string through whip cream.

That leaves the car somewhere between 50 and 200 pounds too heavy.

V142 Official weight:2640
V142: 118 * 1.2 *17 = 2407, call it 2405

I wouldn't call a 142 a sleek, road hugging sex pot, but it does have enough torque to drill through a diamond, so we'll say that the torque advantage cancels out the M1 Abram factor.

That leaves the car somewhere like 230+ pounds too heavy.

Advantage, CRX right now and I'd be perfectly happy if they applied a mohel rule and lopped off the top 50 pounds from your car and left mine where it is at....

BUT

VW Golf 2.0 Official Weight: 2350
VW G2: 115 * 1.3 * 17 = 2542

Now, we've both seen one raced and I think we would agree that, while the car is FWD, the brake system so large that it has its own zip code and the torque that allowed it to keep up with a certain cam-advantaged car cancels out the FWD subtraction.

So, that puts the car about 190 lbs too light - by the math the CRB says is used.

We've seen what that car, which has an ARRC-stamp of legality, can do with its current driving style and we've both heard what other drivers were capable of doing in the car when taking it easy on a test day. You saw what the G2 did to a brand-new Troxell-built CRX engine driven by someone who could run at nine-tenths, in the rain while wearing a blindfold at Summit

.. so, from where I sit...

your car, my car and the Bavarian mob are all way too heavy and, unless and until weight gets thrown on the Golf, we all might as well go run STU.

Also, the CRB needs to realize that IT has evolved quite a bit form the early days and the "No guarantee of competitiveness" no longer serves the class.

Ding.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why are you using 1.2 for the Volvo and 1.3 for the Golf?

[JeffYoung]

Because it suits his agenda.

[jjjanos]

Because it suits his agenda.

No sir, because the Chair of the CRB posted on the official SCCA forum the classification process used for the great alignment and strongly implied that none of the later regimes are in use.

And thus we return to the three adjectives I have used earlier in this thread for the CRB.....

[jjjanos]

Why are you using 1.2 for the Volvo and 1.3 for the Golf?

Because that's what Mr. Dowd says is the process in use..

1.20 or 20% for 2V Carburete
1.25 or 25% for 2V FI cars or older ECU cars
1.30 or 30% for Multi-Valve FI cars or Modern ECU cars
1.35+ or 35%+ for V-Tech, Vanos/Double Vanos, or other engine designs known to have higher potential/gains
http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1

See post #2

Unless, I've missed something on Charlie's car, I could swear it had a Carb and I'm pretty darn certain that there is no ECU on it.

The G2 certainly isn't an older ECU vehicle - it's a 90s vehicle -- so it either gets a 1.3 or 1.35+.

[shwah]

Because that's what Mr. Dowd says is the process in use..

1.20 or 20% for 2V Carburete
1.25 or 25% for 2V FI cars or older ECU cars
1.30 or 30% for Multi-Valve FI cars or Modern ECU cars
1.35+ or 35%+ for V-Tech, Vanos/Double Vanos, or other engine designs known to have higher potential/gains
http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1

See post #2

Unless, I've missed something on Charlie's car, I could swear it had a Carb and I'm pretty darn certain that there is no ECU on it.

The G2 certainly isn't an older ECU vehicle - it's a 90s vehicle -- so it either gets a 1.3 or 1.35+.

Vocabulary check: In the VW fanboi world G2 = A2 = Golf 2 = 1780cc counter flow 8v head
G3 = A3 = 1980cc cross flow 8v head with thin valve stems
Neither is a multi valve head. Both are available with electronic fuel injection. The 2 liter uses a modern mass airflow device, the 1.8 uses two different types of flapper/trap door air measuring devices.

What you are neglecting is that when something is 'known' about a motor that is taken into account. Just don't ask what the definition of 'known' is. It seems to be a 'we know it when we see it' kind of thing, which is my sticking point with the whole thing.

[mc-integra111]

1.35+ or 35%+ for V-Tech, Vanos/Double Vanos, or other engine designs known to have higher potential/gains

OK, here is where I think the biggest problem is. General assumptions like this are just wrong. Some of the Honda VTEC motors will likely gain much less than comparable non-VTEC cars. For example, I think my B18A makes good process power improvements (not great, but good). However, the B18C5 (Type R motor) is likey to make much smaller improvements as that thing is basically built to the hilt from the factory.

[shwah]

Why are you using 1.2 for the Volvo and 1.3 for the Golf?

Probably because the 1.8 Golf2 gets a 1.3 (though I have still never seen data to support this), and the 2.0 should make similar gains to the 1.8.

In reality I would be OK with the G3 just being run at 25% at least. But

It is what it is, and I will be back to run when my stuff is faster than it was last time.

[lateapex911]

The Process Bob posted was an early version, and was a flow chart. One step in the flow chart was "Review and discuss if it makes sense, and return to areas where it doesn't", or something similar.

So, in pracice, we saw that those starting points were making little sense, and we used the 'return" function to get closer to reality, and 25% became SOP in most cases. As a matter of fact, we discussed 30 or 35% as a POS factor. POS stood for, well, you know. Basically old emission era cars that, when you remove air pumps, horrible exhaust manifolds, and carb issues, they REALLY wake up.

Further, and this was a bit before my time, but the 142 was used as a bogey.

IMO, the G3# is 50 light because I think it got a rear axle break, which I don't think should be used.