ITB - what a bunch of crap

[shwah]

My letter(s) have been sent. I don't see much value in beating the horse from one member, but the rest of you reading this should think about where you stand, and let the ITAC know whether you want status quo and 100# tolerance (200# window) of an already imperfect process, or eliminate this extra noise and limit the potential miss to the accuracy of the process, and class them where the process drops them.

[pfcs]

"Doing this blindly (just running every car through the process) is going to screw up S and A. I agree it needs to be done, but if you do it without a better accounting for torque you are asking for trouble." Jeff
The issue isn't really torque-it's more about the torque curve-how well the engine continues to develop torque accross the rev range-which creates higher horsepower numbers. Your 3.5L engine, with mild camshaft timing and restricted inlet, makes (expected) large torque at low rpm, but that torque falls off quickly as revs rise (Jeff-I know you know this). The E36 with its modern/well engineered head and manifolds, augmented by adjustable cam timing, is able to generate prodigous torque accross the board, especiially at higher engine speeds, producing high HP #s as well as lower speed grunt. I can't think of a way to formulate a "rule" to factor this issue. Perhaps we could have a birth of common sense? (I was always a dreamer!). Assign engines to one of 3-5 groups based on fuzzy math. 3 groups is easiest/least contentious. If the Rover V8 is 1, then the BMW is 3. The A2/A3 VW is a 2. The 142E Volvo-is that a 2? Well it has a better torque curve than a VW and makes more top end torque, useable horsepower to 6700+, maybe we should make 5 categories and make the 142E a 4.
Glad I don't make these rules.

[Catch22]

And I'm still bothered that we have cars that HAVE been through the process that still don't "fit" within it.

Guys, until we resolve this there is no point in doing anything else.
As Ron (I think it was Ron) mentioned earlier, if the ITAC uses the process, but changes the outcome due to some sort of voodoo or bias... Whats the point?

We have more than one problem, and I'm waiting on suggestions for how that gets resolved.
I haven't seen it yet.

[shwah]

You guys are missing the low hanging fruit here.

We have subtractors in the current process in the 50# range, yet we won't look at anything that is less than 100# off. If 198# doesn't make a difference, then why the heck are we pulling weight of in 50s for layout, suspension type, etc? The whole thing is absolutely inconsistent.

Also - the process IS more than a formula, as it sits right now. Whether any of us agree or not, there is an element of subjectivity. I am not sure how I feel about that, but regardless, all we are doing with the 'window' is making it possible for any car that was classed prior to the process to be even further off from whatever the ideal state would be, due to tolerance stackup. Say the process really is only accurate up to 100, well then a car really can be nearly 200 off of ideal simply because it was classed via oija board in 1992 off in the same direction that the imperfect process placed it. So now a car that would be 'perfect' at 2400 (and let me go on record that we will not ever, any time, any way be able to arrive at the theoretical perfect weight for a car with any method other than 'by accident'), came out of the process at 2495, was classed before at 2575, and will stay that much further from ideal forever.

Remove the obvious additional tolerance error. It is relatively easy to do, and does not preclude refining the process to account for more or different characteristics.

[Greg Amy]

First and foremost, those of you who want the world to be perfect, well, life sucks, and it's going to take a while to get there.

I know you're kidding, Jake, but just to be clear: no one is asking for perfection. The VAST majority of the dissenters are asking for best-faith effort to make all vehicles (certainly at least the ones currently in use!) classified as close to their formulated nominal weight as possible.

It's a real simple request.

...But, no matter what, right now, there isn't a large enough majority on the ITAC that thinks the 100 pound window is [unacceptable]...

And THAT is not a best-faith effort. Why would something like this even be up for debate?? It's inconceivable to me - and, no doubt, the vast majority of the people reading this right now - that someone, anyone, could outright believe that "within 100 pounds" is "acceptable"!!!

Why? Give me a good reason. Hell, give me a BAD reason...!!!

I can think of only three reasons why someone would not want to adjust a vehicle within 5 pounds:

1) They don't believe in the process, and for whatever reason they believe they, themselves, know what's better for the category than everyone else (The Marie-Antoinette syndrome);

2) Laziness. They don't want to take the time or be "bothered" with such trivial activity;

3) They recognize that they may have a significant advantage in their own competition, and re-adjusting cars may remove that.


If none of these, then what?

This is not rocket science, dudes!! And, frankly, if you're not willing to do this, then I do not have enough faith in you to be a member of a committee that directly affects my discretionary income, as well as that of my racing peers.

Apologies for being blunt, but "get it done, or get outta there".

I suggest that the best approach is the market driven approach.

Agreed. It's reasonable, it's "do-able", and it makes sense.

OK, so here's the funny part: so we write a letter to the CRB. First thing the CRB's gonna do is toss it to the ITAC. Who's going to meet on it. Then vote it down (as in, if you ain't got the votes now, you're screwed).

Here's how to "fix" this, and I'm willing to bet a dollar to a donut it ain't gonna happen: "out" the members of the ITAC that are against this ideal. Sending letters to the ITAC isn't gonna get the ITAC to change its mind, but consistent, logical pressure on the resistors, in person, at the track, will.

Or, if that makes you nervous, tell us here (like we can't infer it from the posts in this topic ) if you're "for" it, so we can guess who's against it.

C'mon, do it: tell us who you are.

The rebellion grows...

[Ed Funk]

^ what he said!! Shit or get off the pot! Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way!

This is a CLUB not a effin dictatorship! Be a man and come out of the damn dark and tell us how you vote.

The above is directed at the ITAC

[ekim952522000]

I agree with Greg

On a related note how about a website that list all the cars in IT with their current weights and the math of how they got to them in the process, or it can say if they have not been ran thru it yet?

That way members would have a place to see how the weight was came to, and would have the ability to check and make sure it was fair compared to other cars? I would be willing to do this if the information would be provided to me?

[JoshS]

Why? Give me a good reason. Hell, give me a BAD reason...!!!

I'm on record as an ITAC member who feels that **IF** the goal is ultimate consistency between listings, then we need to redo all of the cars in the ITCS in one big effort, and not do them onesy-twosy like we do now.

But here are some reasons not to do it:

1) It's a TON of work. We all have day jobs.
2) Members/Racers will inevitably bitch if their car gets heavier. I know that there are many IT racers here on these boards who have the integrity of the process at heart, but there are MANY MORE out there who will just see their weight get higher and won't be very good with that.
3) There will be adjustments to many, many listings. The population out there (including all of the people on this forum) are going to micro-analyze them, compare one car to another, even more than they do now. It's going to cause a firestorm of controversy and nit-picking the likes of which we have never seen. It's likely that as many cars would get heavier as would get lighter. It just moves things around a little, but doesn't really change the big picture. Is it worth it to do that when most people agree that things are really pretty good right now, even if there are a few inconsistencies?

[Ed Funk]

Josh Sirota, CA
Kirk Knestis, WV
Marshall Lytle, VA
Andy Bettencourt, MA
George Roffe, TX
Jake Gulick, CT
Lee Graser, TN
Les Chaney, NC
Bob Clark, WI

there are the names of the ITAC, how about each of you guys weigh in, soon, tells us how you vote and why. If you can't "man-up" to your beliefs, then maybe you should step down.

See sig!

[Z3_GoCar]

Doing this blindly (just running every car through the process) is going to screw up S and A. I agree it needs to be done, but if you do it without a better accounting for torque you are asking for trouble.

In A, the E30 325e is going to LOSE weight despite making extraordinary torque numbers, and it's already a front runner.

In S, my car presently makes 160 whp and 198 wtq. I am expecting that to go up with a full tilt fuel injection IT build with fuel computer (Haltech), perhaps significantly. If it is run through the process at 133 stock horsepower with even a 100 lb adder for torque, it is going to lose significant weight.

Before we run all cars through the process, we need to sort the torque issue first. This (torque) is a bigger problem in A and S because there are more cars with significant spreads between hp and torque.

And I do not believe a power number is the fix since it does not account for useable power band (see above). But some of the smart folks here I hope can come up to something that is a reasonable compromise.

I would argue that torque at the flywheel is irrelevent, what matters is torque at the wheels. But because final drive gearing is open, we have little control of it. That's why hp and not torque is the important number, it take into accout both torque and rpms. Now if we really wanted to do this right so that power is evenly matched to weight, we'd run a program to predict the ultimate power from an IT build for each motor classed in IT. Then there'd no longer be any guessing that motor A makes 25% more while motor B only makes 15%. The problem is most of the information needed ( cam profiles any one? ) is harder to come by than the torque curve.

[Catch22]

It would seem to me that certain ITAC members are urging us to write many many letters because certain other ITAC members are hiding behind the "The membership doesn't WANT us to change this." tree.

Honestly, there are likely a few people in the club that hold that position, but I'm guessing its a very small number and those folks currently enjoy an advantage under the current format (loose usage of that term).

So write letters requesting that All IT cars should be speced with a goal of getting within 5lbs of their process weight.

Simple.
Will it work?
I dunno. But some people are giving us a really big hint, so lets take it.

Write your letters. Get your friends to write their letters and have them tell their friends to write them. I'd suggest copy/pasting what I wrote in bold above and sharing it with everyone so things don't get convoluted to the usual "His car whips my ass because its too light" level. That won't accomplish a damned thing.

My letter is in.

[Ed Funk]

OK, there's a vote by Josh to "process" the whole bunch.

Josh Sirota, CA votes for
Kirk Knestis, WV
Marshall Lytle, VA
Andy Bettencourt, MA
George Roffe, TX
Jake Gulick, CT
Lee Graser, TN
Les Chaney, NC
Bob Clark, WI

[ekim952522000]

........All IT cars should be speced with a goal of getting within 5lbs of their process weight. ......

Sending mine now. Someone should start a thread over at the SandBox telling everyone to do the same.

[Catch22]

I'm on record as an ITAC member who feels that **IF** the goal is ultimate consistency between listings, then we need to redo all of the cars in the ITCS in one big effort, and not do them onesy-twosy like we do now.

But here are some reasons not to do it:

1) It's a TON of work. We all have day jobs.
2) Members/Racers will inevitably bitch if their car gets heavier. I know that there are many IT racers here on these boards who have the integrity of the process at heart, but there are MANY MORE out there who will just see their weight get higher and won't be very good with that.
3) There will be adjustments to many, many listings. The population out there (including all of the people on this forum) are going to micro-analyze them, compare one car to another, even more than they do now. It's going to cause a firestorm of controversy and nit-picking the likes of which we have never seen. It's likely that as many cars would get heavier as would get lighter. It just moves things around a little, but doesn't really change the big picture. Is it worth it to do that when most people agree that things are really pretty good right now, even if there are a few inconsistencies?

Those are excuses Josh.

1. You'll get all the help you need on the math and the research. Just ask and promise that you'll USE the data collected.
2. Tough. If the same process is applied evenly and fairly to everyone, there is no legitimate bitch. There will surely be bitching, but you can't use that as an excuse to maintain the status quo when the status quo is clearly incorrect.
3. No. If you make the process clear and transparent, and apply it fairly and equally to everyone. Then bitching and nitpicking is just that. Bitching and nitpicking.

Right now the bitching and nitpicking is valid, and as an ITAC member its your job to invalidate it.

Its research and math with a little subjective opinion to figure out the HP multiplier (what percentage to use). But if you can SHOW you made a good faith effort to get it as close to right as can be reasonably expected... Job well done.

Right nowits just a mess that makes sense for some and is nonsensical for others. You MUST fix that.

[Z3_GoCar]

It would seem to me that certain ITAC members are urging us to write many many letters because certain other ITAC members are hiding behind the "The membership doesn't WANT us to change this." tree.

Honestly, there are likely a few people in the club that hold that position, but I'm guessing its a very small number and those folks currently enjoy an advantage under the current format (loose usage of that term).

So write letters requesting that All IT cars should be speced with a goal of getting within 5lbs of their process weight.

Simple.
Will it work?
I dunno. But some people are giving us a really big hint, so lets take it.

Write your letters. Get your friends to write their letters and have them tell their friends to write them. I'd suggest copy/pasting what I wrote in bold above and sharing it with everyone so things don't get convoluted to the usual "His car whips my ass because its too light" level. That won't accomplish a damned thing.

My letter is in.

Simple it's not, because no one knows how all the different motors now classified respond to a top notch build and if there might be a way to make more. Right now the hp gain on an IT build is a swag, there's no way to get weight assigned to a 5lb window when the output isn't accuratly predictable. I think the classic example is the Chevrolet Monza with a 3.8l Buick V6, stock hp 136. This is an ancestor to the ITR Camero motor that makes 190hp. But no one know what the Monza will do with a good build because no one's running one, so needless to say it's not been touched.

[ekim952522000]

....
2. Tough. If the same process is applied evenly and fairly to everyone, there is no legitimate bitch..............

This is the reason I think a place (website) we could all go to to review the math and the process for each car would be great.

Does anyone else think this would be a good idea?

[Ed Funk]

Sub-committees: might be a good idea if the ITR sub-committee has no ITR drivers, and the ITC sub-committee has no ITC drivers, just to try to eliminate the temptations.

That is assuming that anyone with power thinks that sub-committees are a good thing to spread the work around.

Yeah, Josh right now it is "pretty good", which is in my opinion another term for adequate. Adequate doesn't cut it in my job, does it in yours?

[JeffYoung]

Adequate cuts it a lot better than all farked up.

Guys, this is a noble idea. But what it is going to do is set off a crapstorm of debates over:

1. Whether the Civic EX gets a 10% IT gain or a 15% one.

2. Whether MY ITB car has worse aero and should get a 50 lb subjective deduct.

3. Your ITA car has a "really good suspension." 100 lb adder!

I do agree that how we got to where we are now was not perfect. Basically, the process was applied to (a) popular cars and (b) problematic cars to set a basic balance for the class, and either via plan or just blind luck it worked. It was certainly more likely to work on a smaller universe of cars, than the multitude that populate the ITCS.

Does anyone really see an overdog in any one particular class? I sure don't.

This thing is a great idea, but it's going to go off the track quick and some of you guys who are all united in it are going to be at each other's throats over 10 lbs here or there before it is over.

Me, my low revving, high torque is going to lose a bunch of weight since the process doesn't deal with its ilk very well, so I'm checking out.

[Catch22]

Jeff, to say that the current situation is acceptable is saying that a 198lb weight disparity in ITC is OK and acceptable.

Is that acceptable?

I don't think it is. I think its a deal killer.

I'll say it one more time... Just because we are better off than we were 5 years ago does NOT mean we are "fixed." We are in fact a loooong way from fixed.

So when you are already broken, its worth the risk to try to fix it when the only downside is breaking it (breaking it more?) The payoff is potentially "fixing" it.
Wow... Imagine that.

Again, perfection is not attainable. Ain't gonna happen.
But the reasoning behind why every car is speced where it is should be explainable, reasonable and defendable. Currently that is very much NOT the case.

Example:
"Why is car A speced at xxx weight?"
"Well, it has a stock hp rating of xxx, we gave it a 25% IT prep HP adder, added xxxlbs for double wishbone suspension and subtracted xxlbs for lack of tq." "That resulted in the spec weight of xxxxlbs."

Currently, you can try to give an answer like that, except sometimes when you are done you still have 90, 100, 120lbs you can't explain. Sometimes you can't explain it even when you do maximum adders for everything.

That simply has got to go. Its still the old voodoo weight specing of the old days if you can't use math and a fair process to explain the whys and hows.

[shwah]

Jeff - how is that different from every single new car classification from now on?

What is different about cars that were on the books before and inside the 200# wide window?

I'll keep prepping my car and myself to be competitive against the cars that benefit from the status quo, but there are anomolies out there, succeeding at the highest levels with stock, untouched short blocks because of it.

Don't worry people will complain no matter what happens. It's the one thing we can count on. One more reason to offer thanks to every one of the ITAC and CRB members when you can for doing what they do, and getting a crap sandwich in thanks most of the time.