off topic discussion about current IT issues and more specifically ITB.

[Charlie Broring]

I don't think the Process has served ITB particularly well in the last few years. I can only speculate if V2 would have been any better. I think a measure of adjustment based on observed on track performance is the simplest way maintain or reestablish balance in the class. And, I dont care who makes the decisions or if it is transparent and repeatable, as long as it nets good results.

I think I'm the Anti-Kirk. Instead of "transparent and repeatabe" I favor "Checks and Balances"

This is not to say I'm against using and further refining "The Process". I think it's a great peice of work. But, I don't think some of it's creators respect the limitations of the process. These limitations seem to be most apparent in ITB due to the diversity of the cars in the class. ITR is also a devirse class and I wouldn't be surprised if it has similar issues as the class develops.

I kinda like that term "Problem Child".

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually, the Process didn't fail ITB. I probably failed ITB to some extent. There have been cars over the past years that have been classed in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, one person can only argue so much until it becomes a situation of coming to a conclusion. I should have fought harder then - and V.2 put in place policies where I wouldn't have had to fight at all.

Cars have been classed from 25% to 30% in ITB while other classes have used 25%. More cars in ITB have been refused 'process based adjustments' than in any other class. These cars could be at 40+%. So you have a variety of weights based on a variey of menthods. It's not a flaw in the Process, it's a flaw in the consistancy of it's application. For those who think ITB is the most broken class, think about what I just wrote. Allowing V.2 to go and revise these issues would bring ITB in line quicker than you would imagine.

[gran racing]

I think a measure of adjustment based on observed on track performance is the simplest way maintain or reestablish balance in the class. And, I dont care who makes the decisions or if it is transparent and repeatable, as long as it nets good results.

Charlie, I can't possibly disagree with you any more (with all due respect of course lol). I only know of one other person in the country that races a 2nd gen ITB Prelude. Using your theory, I never should have built my car much, not bothered to work hard on becoming a better driver and could have simply waited for my car to be adjusted due to on track performance. Nice! Then once I got that adjustment, built the car to its full potential. Wheeee!

Since you don't car who makes the decisions and I now won't have to bother making my decision transparent, I'm slapping on 400 lbs to any VW and Volvo because.

[Knestis]

I've got a theory - that I can't substantiate with anything other than anecdote and hearsay - that might bear on your perspective, Charles:

I think that the ITB Volvos are the victim of perceptions, going back to the days pre-(not so)-Great-Alignment. A few, key, cheater examples raised perceptions of what that car could do "on the track," that persisted and got considered during what I think of as the "soft use" of the very first (nsGR-era) process.

I think it's damned hard to make a legal Volvo competitive now because current weights are a legacy of codfying observed performance of a few illegal cars into the 142 spec line, and beyond into the other "Scary Volvos" in the book...

As Andy explains, v.2 would have allowed the ITAC to address issues like that, that exist all the way through the ITB section of the ITCS.

And as I've tried to explain elsewhere, WHOSE results should be used to establish "balance in the class?" How about my performances at the IT fest and SIC in 2008? (Nice, high profile events like the RubOffs, that establish the benchmarks for National cars.) The Golf III would weigh 200# less than it does by that standard. Sure, you say - a couple other Golfs ran really well at Mid-O but what if (as Dave alludes to) I had been driving the only Fiat Brava, and that it had been prepared to what is arguably a pretty damned high standard by Cameron Conover?

Surely it would deserve to get lighter, right?

K

PS - I personally think a Fiat Brava would be a kick-ass cool ITB car, and if I had $40K of spare dough laying around, I'd build one. Then having proved it's too heavy, I'd lobby for a weight reduction with another basket full of dough...

EDIT - A little napkin math suggests that the 2.1 version of the 242 needs a power multiplier of something like 1.65(!) to get to its current ITCS spec weight. REALLY...? In IT-legal form, we think that's going to happen...?? NFW. Version 2 would be on that like stink on a Road Atlanta porta-john in mid-August.

[rsportvolvo]

EDIT - A little napkin math suggests that the 2.1 version of the 242 needs a power multiplier of something like 1.65(!) to get to its current ITCS spec weight. REALLY...? In IT-legal form, we think that's going to happen...?? NFW. Version 2 would be on that like stink on a Road Atlanta porta-john in mid-August.

So can anyone on the BoD, CRB, ITAC explain why a 98 hp 2.0L OHV Volvo 240, a 107 hp 2.1L SOHC Volvo 240, and a 114 hp 2.3L SOHC Volvo 240 all have the same curb weight? If they're all going to have the same weight, wheelbase & brakes they might as well be one line item.

[Knestis]

So can anyone on the BoD, CRB, ITAC explain why a 98 hp 2.0L OHV Volvo 240, a 107 hp 2.1L SOHC Volvo 240, and a 114 hp 2.3L SOHC Volvo 240 all have the same curb weight? If they're all going to have the same weight, wheelbase & brakes they might as well be one line item.

<sigh>

BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T ALL BEEN THROUGH THE SAME SPECIFICATION PROCESS.

(Yes, I was hollering but for Pete's sake, people - we've been saying this over and over and OVER here for MONTHS.)

That kind of situation was right on the table in front of the ITAC last spring, as we finalized and codified "version 2" of the Process. We wanted to address these glitches systematically, the CRB (it seemed) wanted to retain the option of picking race weights they were more comfortable with, than those that the Process determined.

We had people theoretically doing the due diligence on several of the Volvos at the time but I fear that may all have gone PFFFTT! in the ensuing months. Or who knows? Maybe it will all get ironed out with the April Fastrack...

K

[rsportvolvo]

<sigh>

BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T ALL BEEN THROUGH THE SAME SPECIFICATION PROCESS.

(Yes, I was hollering but for Pete's sake, people - we've been saying this over and over and OVER here for MONTHS.)

That kind of situation was right on the table in front of the ITAC last spring, as we finalized and codified "version 2" of the Process. We wanted to address these glitches systematically, the CRB (it seemed) wanted to retain the option of picking race weights they were more comfortable with, than those that the Process determined.

We had people theoretically doing the due diligence on several of the Volvos at the time but I fear that may all have gone PFFFTT! in the ensuing months. Or who knows? Maybe it will all get ironed out with the April Fastrack...

K

So my request last spring to review the Volvo 240 line items was just for corrections? What was the point of digging up all the data and filling out the VTS forms? That's really disappointing if my request was not taken seriously. I know Les Chaney helped me out a bunch getting all of the info situated.

[Charlie Broring]

Charlie, I can't possibly disagree with you any more (with all due respect of course lol). I only know of one other person in the country that races a 2nd gen ITB Prelude. Using your theory, I never should have built my car much, not bothered to work hard on becoming a better driver and could have simply waited for my car to be adjusted due to on track performance. Nice! Then once I got that adjustment, built the car to its full potential. Wheeee!

Since you don't car who makes the decisions and I now won't have to bother making my decision transparent, I'm slapping on 400 lbs to any VW and Volvo because.

Dave I'm OK with the weight on the VW but wish you would reconsider the poor old Volvo.

There is a pretty common opinion down at Summit that the MK-3 VW and both the big and little Honda's have outdated the older ITB cars. Both you and your car made a very impressive showing down at SP Labor day. I hope you can make it back this season. Possibly the Volvo and Prelude can share that 400 pounds? 200 each? or maybe 100 and 300... oh never mind.

Charlie

[jjjanos]

Dave I'm OK with the weight on the VW but wish you would reconsider the poor old Volvo.

There is a pretty common opinion down at Summit that the MK-3 VW and both the big and little Honda's have outdated the older ITB cars. Both you and your car made a very impressive showing down at SP Labor day. I hope you can make it back this season. Possibly the Volvo and Prelude can share that 400 pounds? 200 each? or maybe 100 and 300... oh never mind.

Charlie

Charlie,

How old were the the tires you were using? How many seasons are on your motor? I know that the little Hondas were running fresh rubber and 2 of 3 had brand-new motors this season (and the third motor isn't that old). The shocks on the CRXs were rebuilt recently... how old are the suspensions on the European Tanks?

The little Hondas have 1.5 liter motors, 91 HP and 93bhp@4500RPM
The 142Es have 2 liter motors, 118 HP and 123bhp@3500RPM.
The Golf III, has got a 2liter, 115HP and decent torque.

Running all through the process giving by Dowie at the SCCA forums, and depending on what one adds for having enough torque to pull a semi out of the mud, the 142Es are probably 175-230 lbs too heavy. The CRX is carrying an extra 250 pounds. The Golf is close to 200 pounds too light!

I'll give you the 230, but only if the CRX gets to lose it's extra driver too.

Jeff

[Andy Bettencourt]

Charlie,

How old were the the tires you were using? How many seasons are on your motor? I know that the little Hondas were running fresh rubber and 2 of 3 had brand-new motors this season (and the third motor isn't that old). The shocks on the CRXs were rebuilt recently... how old are the suspensions on the European Tanks?

The little Hondas have 1.5 liter motors, 91 HP and 93bhp@4500RPM
The 142Es have 2 liter motors, 118 HP and 123bhp@3500RPM.
The Golf III, has got a 2liter, 115HP and decent torque.

Running all through the process giving by Dowie at the SCCA forums, and depending on what one adds for having enough torque to pull a semi out of the mud, the 142Es are probably 175-230 lbs too heavy. The CRX is carrying an extra 250 pounds. The Golf is close to 200 pounds too light!

I'll give you the 230, but only if the CRX gets to lose it's extra driver too.

Jeff

Here is the deal on the GolfIII guys. It is spot on the process except we subtracted 50lbs for the beam rear axle. In V.2 clarified the 'crappy rear suspension' subtracter to just a solid axle for rwd cars. That car wouldn't get a torque adder with my vote and it was processed at 25%. So it's 50lbs too light according to V.2.

The other cars could get redone should the CRB allow the ITAC to help them.

[shwah]

Here we go again. If the G3 is 50 light, the G2 is at least 50 heavy - not the 10 requested. The math does not add up, because some unknown point of data convinced the ITAC that the G2 gains 30% (or was that 27%?), yet the G3 is processed at 25%. It has the same compression ratio, longer stroke, larger bore, cross flow head with thinner valve stems that flows better than the counter flow head/valves on the G2, and uses a better flowing MAF. Now the process does not take those items into account, only a documented higher power output. The G3 is capable of the same or higher gains than the G2, but I predict that data will never be made available to the ITAC.

The cars have literally identical chassis designs, albeit the G3 has a wider track and larger brakes. If you consider the cars equivalent and assume that the power gain is the only differentiator you see that the current G3 specification must assume a 22% power gain. So something does not jive in how these cars were 'processed' at approximately the same point in time.

[Charlie Broring]

Here is the deal on the GolfIII guys. It is spot on the process except we subtracted 50lbs for the beam rear axle. In V.2 clarified the 'crappy rear suspension' subtracter to just a solid axle for rwd cars. That car wouldn't get a torque adder with my vote and it was processed at 25%. So it's 50lbs too light according to V.2.

The other cars could get redone should the CRB allow the ITAC to help them.

You miss my point. The Volvo is just fine in weight. Most old cars except for the poor early VW's are fine. Even the Audi is fine. A few recently classed cars, most notibally the VW MK 3 are significantly too light or just too fast. The process formula is off in ITB and you will never see it unless you look at on track performance.

I've said too much. Back into the woodwork.

[lateapex911]

Dave I'm OK with the weight on the VW but wish you would reconsider the poor old Volvo.

There is a pretty common opinion down at Summit that the MK-3 VW and both the big and little Honda's have outdated the older ITB cars. Both you and your car made a very impressive showing down at SP Labor day. I hope you can make it back this season. Possibly the Volvo and Prelude can share that 400 pounds? 200 each? or maybe 100 and 300... oh never mind.

Charlie

Charlie, I'm not agreeing OR disagreeing with what's heavy, and what's not.
But...keep in mind that's one track, one event. I know you feel the 'modern era' ITB cars are outpacing the 'old skool' era ITB cars, but, one of the villians at Summit, Dave Gran, saw his car gets spanked at the Glen....by a BMW 2002. Old skool reigns! And sets a track record. (Albeit in qualifying)

Also, consider that a certain RX-7 set a track record that same weekend. Should the RX-7 get weight? (As you know, that record was set in the IT-7 class).

So, it's partly good prep, bringing resources, and a bit of luck.

BUT, being allowed to use V2 would certainly give us a good point of reference.

[gran racing]

I already share some weight with ya Charlie. ); Using he same process that says your car is too heavy, mine has an extra 110 lbs (or there abouts, can't remember exactly anymore). I won't bring up the Golf III or IV because pretty much everyone knows my thoughts on those cars.

Going back to using performance - there are simply too many factors that impact things. I took the Labor Day weekend pretty seriously knowing that would be one of the three race weekends I could participate in '09. For the event, I had 2 sets of brandy new Hoosiers. I know plenty of other ITB drivers choose not to be so silly with their tire allocation.

I had an engine overheating issue in my subsequent race but have the Labor Day event at Summit as one of the ones I really want to attend this year. Awesome event overall and you guys were more than welcoming.

[tom91ita]

..... I think a measure of adjustment based on observed on track performance is the simplest way maintain or reestablish balance in the class. .............".

i agree 100% that it is the simplest. i also think it is not the best or most fair.

Charlie, i see a volvo in your profile. is that your ITB of choice?

with regards to on track performance, my car sucks because i am the one driving it. it is always my hope that i can get better times than the ITC version of my car when at the ARRC. i will post up the multipliers for my car later.

[Bill Miller]

I don't think the Process has served ITB particularly well in the last few years. I can only speculate if V2 would have been any better. I think a measure of adjustment based on observed on track performance is the simplest way maintain or reestablish balance in the class. And, I dont care who makes the decisions or if it is transparent and repeatable, as long as it nets good results.

I think I'm the Anti-Kirk. Instead of "transparent and repeatabe" I favor "Checks and Balances"

This is not to say I'm against using and further refining "The Process". I think it's a great peice of work. But, I don't think some of it's creators respect the limitations of the process. These limitations seem to be most apparent in ITB due to the diversity of the cars in the class. ITR is also a devirse class and I wouldn't be surprised if it has similar issues as the class develops.

I kinda like that term "Problem Child".

Charlie,

Can you give some examples of what you mean by 'not serving ITB well'? Also, what do you consider 'good results'?

From what I've seen, most think ITB is pretty well balanced, but there a few cars that have gotten hosed along the way (Audi, 4A-GE Toyotas, Rabbit GTI, etc.). I haven't seen anyone that thinks there's an overdog in ITB, and if you want to use on track performance, look at recent ARRC results, there's nothing that seems to be a 'class killer'. What cars do you think have 'unbalanced' ITB?

Using on track performance really only works in one direction. You need a LOT more info to convince someone that a car is just slow than you do to convince someone that it's an overdog. If a car isn't performing that well, it can be due to a number of things, driver ability, prep level, budget, as well as the car. Much harder to quantify. If you've got multiple examples of a car that's always at the front, or runs away from the field, it's much easier to convince someone that it's probably the car.

[mom'sZ]

How is it not uncool for ITAC or CRB members to vote on cars in their own class? I don't mean IT drivers voting on any IT classification. I mean a ITB driver voting on a ITB classification. Conflict of interest by definition no?

[lateapex911]

How is it not uncool for ITAC or CRB members to vote on cars in their own class? I don't mean IT drivers voting on any IT classification. I mean a ITB driver voting on a ITB classification. Conflict of interest by definition no?

The ITAC members typically abstain. On issues involving my RX-7 in ITA, I would present info, make recommendations, but didn't vote. Same for Andy and his Miata. At that juncture, the committee was larger and usually there were enough votes and most issues resulted in one sided votes.

[mom'sZ]

The ITAC members typically abstain. On issues involving my RX-7 in ITA, I would present info, make recommendations, but didn't vote. Same for Andy and his Miata. At that juncture, the committee was larger and usually there were enough votes and most issues resulted in one sided votes.

I thought I remembered you mentioning that Jake and I think that is cool. Seems having to write it (ITAC members not voting on issues that effect their specific IT class or their specific car) into the rules would kind of suck especially if the group is small or composed of a lot of guys from one class but...
I guess that's what bums me out the most about the recent departures from the ITAC... I had come to trust you guys. Not by blind faith, but by watching what you (not just you Jake, but you the whole commitee) had done and how you had done it.

[gran racing]

David, your request and many others were taken seriously by the ITAC. That's not where the problem lies.