ITAC News

[jjjanos]

The HP would not change, and everyone knows that. the multiplier is a political thing that many (myself included) dislike and would liek to see gone. there are camps that hold otherwise, and that's not the point of this thread.

But that is the answer to lateapex911's question regarding moving cars up or down between ITA and ITB.

For a 100 stock HP car with multi-valves, then if the HP-gain for a car is determined to be 130 HP, then that number, regardless of where that car gets reclassed is 130 HP. It isn't a 120 HP ITA car and a 130HP ITB car. It either is a 120 HP car or it is a 130 HP car. Period, end of story.

[JeffYoung]

You are missing a key point. The defaults are defaults used in the absence of other evidence.

If a car is getting moved, it's mostly likely going to be done with data, meaning we know the actual gain, and the default is irrelevant.

While I'm not a personal fan of the 1.3 default, it does not seem to me to be the huge issue you guys make it out to be.

But that is the answer to lateapex911's question regarding moving cars up or down between ITA and ITB.

For a 100 stock HP car with multi-valves, then if the HP-gain for a car is determined to be 130 HP, then that number, regardless of where that car gets reclassed is 130 HP. It isn't a 120 HP ITA car and a 130HP ITB car. It either is a 120 HP car or it is a 130 HP car. Period, end of story.

[jjjanos]

You are missing a key point. The defaults are defaults used in the absence of other evidence.

Nope, I get it. The same logic works for an unclassified car that is being considered for ITA or ITB. When the ITAC calculates the process weight of the car, the IT-trim better be the same damn number. If a stock 115-HP with no dyno data, multi-valve, FWD car is being considered for ITA or ITB, then the following sets of weights are the only ones on the table:
115 x 1.25 x 14 x .98 = 1970 (ITA)
115 x 1.25 x 17 x .98 = 2395 (IT

versus

115 x 1.3 x 14 x .98 = 2050 (ITA)
115 x 1.3 x 17 x .98 = 2490 (IT

THIS cannot be the two weights being considered:
115 x 1.25 x 14 x .98 = 1970 (ITA)
115 x 1.25 x 17 x .98 = 2395 (IT

And that's when the car being considered is a total blank slate.

I don't give a damn what the process says. The same motor cannot have 2 different IT-trim HPs. End of story.

If would be classified at 2050 as an ITA car and cannot get to that weight, then the car is a 2490 ITB car. Period. End of story. Cue the house lights.

While I'm not a personal fan of the 1.3 default, it does not seem to me to be the huge issue you guys make it out to be.

That's 100 pounds of weight. If 100 pounds isn't important, then round the weigts to the nearest 100 pound increment...

It is important.

[JeffYoung]

We could do this forever......

Why do you personally care -- other than for theoretical purity -- what the car weighs in A v. B?

Isn't it's relative competitiveness in the class what matters?

Yes, the motor can have two different IT trim power levels. They aren't (the A car and the B car) competing against each other, so the "disparity" just doesn't matter except in a theoretical sense.

Nope, I get it. The same logic works for an unclassified car that is being considered for ITA or ITB. When the ITAC calculates the process weight of the car, the IT-trim better be the same damn number. If a stock 115-HP with no dyno data, multi-valve, FWD car is being considered for ITA or ITB, then the following sets of weights are the only ones on the table:
115 x 1.25 x 14 x .98 = 1970 (ITA)
115 x 1.25 x 17 x .98 = 2395 (IT

versus

115 x 1.3 x 14 x .98 = 2050 (ITA)
115 x 1.3 x 17 x .98 = 2490 (IT

THIS cannot be the two weights being considered:
115 x 1.25 x 14 x .98 = 1970 (ITA)
115 x 1.25 x 17 x .98 = 2395 (IT

And that's when the car being considered is a total blank slate.

I don't give a damn what the process says. The same motor cannot have 2 different IT-trim HPs. End of story.

If would be classified at 2050 as an ITA car and cannot get to that weight, then the car is a 2490 ITB car. Period. End of story. Cue the house lights.



That's 100 pounds of weight. If 100 pounds isn't important, then round the weigts to the nearest 100 pound increment...

It is important.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We could do this forever......

Why do you personally care -- other than for theoretical purity -- what the car weighs in A v. B?

Isn't it's relative competitiveness in the class what matters?

Yes, the motor can have two different IT trim power levels. They aren't (the A car and the B car) competing against each other, so the "disparity" just doesn't matter except in a theoretical sense.

We care Jeff because if you have a car that doesn't make 30%, you have to go a billion more miles before you can get the weight correct. SEE MR2.

Why not put all new B cars with muti-valves at 50%? Why not 75%? Why not all cars with 5 lugs in ITB at 40%? Stupid examples yes, but the point is you are creating a MUCH harder road to a correct classification for no good reason. If you think some MV cars in ITB make 30%, then class them there using the dyno and power data that supports the hypothosis. Don't artifically handicap SOME of the cars then ask them to prove otherwise.

[JeffYoung]

I could say I didn't create anything Andy, and that I'm trying to deal with the legacy of a problem that has its genesis in discussions from a long time ago.

But what is most important to me right now is not to fuck up ITB. We classed some cars in B at 30% default. Despite doing that, other than the MR2 which I agree got a difficult deal, the sky is not falling.

Changing the default now could have an impact on the overall competitive balance of the class.

We are looking at all of ITB to try to clean this up. I'm not sure how it will turn out, but the primary consideration will be to make sure we don't screw up what is now a very competitive class.

We care Jeff because if you have a car that doesn't make 30%, you have to go a billion more miles before you can get the weight correct. SEE MR2.

Why not put all new B cars with muti-valves at 50%? Why not 75%? Why not all cars with 5 lugs in ITB at 40%? Stupid examples yes, but the point is you are creating a MUCH harder road to a correct classification for no good reason. If you think some MV cars in ITB make 30%, then class them there using the dyno and power data that supports the hypothosis. Don't artifically handicap SOME of the cars then ask them to prove otherwise.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Despite doing that, other than the MR2 which I agree got a difficult deal, the sky is not falling.

Because you classed them at a higher 'opening' weight as the rest of the class. Of course you aren't seeing an effect on the class, they are too heavy.

[Chip42]

We care Jeff because if you have a car that doesn't make 30%, you have to go a billion more miles before you can get the weight correct. SEE MR2.

I have an MR2, and suprise! I do not support the 30% default gain.
But I do understand the worry about a "je ne sais quoi" aspect of cars that are 20+ years newer than others in the class having an overall improved capabiltiy even with IT spec line items being equal (theoretical cars). I don't entirely agree with it, but I understand where it comes from. I think the expected gain was the wrong place to put an adder for this, if there has to be an adder at all. I need some convincing on that second point as well.

the good news is that, other than for the toyota 4A-GE sibs (Mr2, FX16, Corolla AE-86), everything that I am aware of that has been processed using the 30% gain seems to be able to live up to it*. so the "damage done" to the ITCS isn't very wide spread. The damage to the image of "the process" or the reputation of the rules making boards might be worse. I think that the default should be corrected before another car is run against it with zero supporting data, cannot make the gains, and is saddled with the need to prove less than process hp.

The MR2 got moved back to the overall default which I think is still high but others need convincing of. That's ok to the degree that that is how the process is supposed to work. Though I think the burden of proof is being set a bit high in this case, that's the prerogative of the members of the committee, and those I've spoken to about it have reasonable reservations, I'm just not able to spend the coin to satisfy them.

*there's less evidence I'm aware of for the FP-DE BJ Protégé, but i haven't seen any noise about it and it seems pretty strong so maybe that one was lucky and also makes close to 30% gains.

[jjjanos]

We could do this forever......

Jesus F'ing Keerist. You are defending giving the same freaking motor different HP ratings based on whether its in ITA or ITB. So, please enlighten me... what extra modifications can one do in ITB that cannot be done in ITA or is it that a vinyl "A" sucks HP from a motor?

Why do you personally care -- other than for theoretical purity -- what the car weighs in A v. B?

I don't give a frack what the car weighs in A v. B. I do care that if the ITAC says that if a motor is a 137HP motor in IT-trim, that it consistently uses that number. Otherwise, I'll submit their own damn discussions as to why the car they processed using a 1.3 multiplier needs to lose 100lbs.

Isn't it's relative competitiveness in the class what matters?

Not according to the ITAC. IT is all about getting the Weight/HP ratio to the targets. Hallelujah! I'm like Paul on the Road to Damascus and I've seen the glory of the Weight/HP ratio.

And even if it is all relative, all this little rule does is ensure relative competitiveness of all the cars incorrectly given a 1.3 multiplier. A car with the same exact IT-HP is going to weigh 100lbs less if it isn't a multi-valve motor.

Yes, the motor can have two different IT trim power levels. They aren't (the A car and the B car) competing against each other, so the "disparity" just doesn't matter except in a theoretical sense.

You are defending giving the same freaking motor different HP ratings based on whether its in ITA or ITB. So, please enlighten me... what extra modifications can one do in ITB that cannot be done in ITA or is it that a vinyl "A" sucks HP from a motor?

It isn't that the motor in B will be competing with the motor in A. It's that two IT-trim motors at 139HP will differ in weight by about 100lbs in the same class.

[JeffYoung]

Ok Jeff, if your goal was to run me out of patience, then you succeeded. You've run me out of patience. Tired of doing the same dance with you over and over and over and over. Here's what's 100% clear. You like to argue. I get that. You like to argue endlessly. I get that. What I don't get is what you truly WANT other than to show that the ITAC is all wrong, all the time, and ITB and Summit with cars classed using an ad hoc curb weight system was the epitome of how we should class cars nationwide.

I've said I don't agree with the 1.3 default. I undertsand the logical inconsistency in it. You can really save the keystrokes on that.

What I've said over and over and over is that I personally am looking to see what causes the least amount of damage. Getting rid of the default and getting a slew of letters to reprocess multi-valve cars that are presently racing in a very balanced class at 25%, or letting things remain as they are because they seem to work. What is it that YOU want? "Make my car and Charlie's car more competitive" is not an appropriate answer.

And this is completely, totally WRONG:

It isn't that the motor in B will be competing with the motor in A. It's that two IT-trim motors at 139HP will differ in weight by about 100lbs in the same class.

If we "know" what the motor actually makes, we don't use the default. This is going to be true for almost all of the popular cars in ITB, again showing that the time and effort spent on this "issue" is 99% wasted.

The amount of time being spent on ITB by the ITAC is incredibly disproportional to the rest of IT, the rest of IT is suffering some as a result, and the cause of all of this effort is NOT any real issue with the class but rather an issue with a few people, at one track, in the class.

And that is sad.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Which 2 members left the ITAC?

[jjjanos]

Ok Jeff, if your goal was to run me out of patience, then you succeeded. You've run me out of patience. Tired of doing the same dance with you over and over and over and over. Here's what's 100% clear. You like to argue. I get that. You like to argue endlessly. I get that. What I don't get is what you truly WANT other than to show that the ITAC is all wrong, all the time, and ITB and Summit with cars classed using an ad hoc curb weight system was the epitome of how we should class cars nationwide.

The 1.3 multiplier has nothing to do with Summit. I believe that, other than me, the people opposed to it race other places. But hey, when the logi or consistency of something is shown to be faulty, why not launch an ad-hominen defense of it?

I've said I don't agree with the 1.3 default. I undertsand the logical inconsistency in it. You can really save the keystrokes on that.

Great. You both oppose it and yet justify it.

What I've said over and over and over is that I personally am looking to see what causes the least amount of damage. Getting rid of the default and getting a slew of letters to reprocess multi-valve cars that are presently racing in a very balanced class at 25%, or letting things remain as they are because they seem to work. What is it that YOU want? "Make my car and Charlie's car more competitive" is not an appropriate answer.

I'm sorry that train left the station long ago and, frankly, is indefensible. A few cars were classified using the 17 ratio. A handful of those newly classified cars have been built. That already threw stability out the window. I've been told that equalizing the pre-FWD/mid-engine Weight:HP ratio with repeatability are the goals. Great, do it.

I don't give a damn about Charlie losing weight and I'm pretty certain that, while the 100% gains on my car aren't 1.3, they are closer to that than 1.25.

If we "know" what the motor actually makes, we don't use the default. This is going to be true for almost all of the popular cars in ITB, again showing that the time and effort spent on this "issue" is 99% wasted.

Read Mr. Young. Read.

You've got the choice of putting a multi-valve car into ITB or ITA. It's the 2005 Nash Rambler. It either makes 125HP or it makes a 130HP. You don't know squat other than the stock because it hasn't been classified.. you have no idea what it can gain as an IT car other than that 100HP stock motor is going to be a 125HP ITA car or a 130HP ITB car. You should only get 1 bite at the apple, and if the ITAC decides that it cannot make weight as a 125HP ITA car, then it needs to be run through as a 125HP ITB car when it first gets classified, NOT a 130HP ITB car.

Do you understand the problem now? Do what ever non-Luddite members of the CRB who read the internet understand the problem now?

The amount of time being spent on ITB by the ITAC is incredibly disproportional to the rest of IT, the rest of IT is suffering some as a result, and the cause of all of this effort is NOT any real issue with the class but rather an issue with a few people, at one track, in the class.

There's that big of a back log in classifying cars? Hell, wait until the ITC guys ask you to drop their weights by 40%! The process is going to bring back ITC racing because these cars are going to be so cheap to race because you'll have to change the brake pads and tires when its time to rebuild your engine. Hell, the cars will be disposable at that point.