A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[Knestis]

>> ...what mechanism will we leave ourselves to make a correction? I really don't have an answer. I guess put the club data boxes in and hope people don't sand bag is one way...

The option of revisiting any listing with evidence that we need to use a different power multiplier is always available. That's the rationale - which I actually agree with, despite my desires to be as locked down as possible on processes - for the subjectivity in the process, applied to that step (and that step ONLY).

>> ...if you are giving that car a 25% gain, you damn well should be giving my car one too. Like I said, I would expect more gain from that low compression 5 pot than my high compression 4.

Yeahbut... We have boxed ourselves in such that we require "evidence" of what actual examples of any make/model under consideration achieve in terms of IT power gains - NOT "expectations" of what they might do. I'd posit that you don't REALLY want to give the power to a small group of people, to base weights on predictions grounded in no data. That's a recipe for all kinds of mischief. Or maybe I AM WRONG. I've heard lots of things that surprise me in the last 2 weeks or so.

EDIT - In short, we are equipped to deal with the possibility of an overdog emerging, but we are NOT - and should not, I don't think - be trying to proactively prevent that from happening through the manipulation of race weights. Unless pertinent evidence is available through happenstance somehow.

K

[DavidM]

That is the crux of the issue that has been debated ad nauseum. What is considered enough "evidence" to increase the weight of a car from what is derived by the process. And what we're really focused on here is power generation from the motor. Dyno sheets are really the only true empirical data we have to use. I seriously doubt people are going to give out their dyno data if they know the ITAC is looking for data to increase their car weight; despite all the proclamations of openness.

I say bring a dyno to the ARRC (and other big races if possible) and the top 5 in each class get put on it right after the race. There's your data and it could be kept confidential to the ITAC if desired.

Otherwise, it's going to be people evaluating an engine's architecture and guessing about how much gain can be made over stock. It's going to be educated guessing for sure, but still guessing and that's always going to cause some controversy. If we're ok with that then so be it. If not, then we have to get data somehow.

David

[shwah]

That is the crux of the issue that has been debated ad nauseum. What is considered enough "evidence" to increase the weight of a car from what is derived by the process. And what we're really focused on here is power generation from the motor. Dyno sheets are the most easily manipulated data we have to use. I seriously doubt people are going to give out their dyno data if they know the ITAC is looking for data to increase their car weight; despite all the proclamations of openness.

fixed

[Flyinglizard]

The Audi has less compression, less cam , more front weight. If it is faster than the Golf, Than something got missed. Did SCCA ever get a real cam for those?? .
Evry time the rules change to take more stuff out, we have to go and lower the Cg, move the # to the rear, etc. Constant obsession for weight management.
Give the cars with wind up front windows a 50# weight break.
MM

[Bill Miller]

there was a repeatable process in play long ago.

Talk about a guy that has absolutely no clue what he's talking about! You say you've been around IT ~ 5 years now. Kirk, do you recall when you first dubbed it the 'Miller ratio'?

[Knestis]

Talk about a guy that has absolutely no clue what he's talking about! You say you've been around IT ~ 5 years now. Kirk, do you recall when you first dubbed it the 'Miller ratio'?

November of 2001 was the first use of the term in this forum. In that same thread I wrote, "...my sense is that there is a lot of frustration (in all of the make-specific forums) with the lack of 'transparency,' where the IT classification and specification setting process is concerned. If we were able to see into the process, then there would be no room for even the suggestion that something hinky is going on."

We've come a long way in 8 freakin' years, eh...? Gawd. How depressing.

K

[Bill Miller]

Wow Kirk, what a walk down memory lane! And you're right, look where things are now!

[shwah]

Yeahbut... We have boxed ourselves in such that we require "evidence" of what actual examples of any make/model under consideration achieve in terms of IT power gains - NOT "expectations" of what they might do. I'd posit that you don't REALLY want to give the power to a small group of people, to base weights on predictions grounded in no data. That's a recipe for all kinds of mischief. Or maybe I AM WRONG. I've heard lots of things that surprise me in the last 2 weeks or so.

EDIT - In short, we are equipped to deal with the possibility of an overdog emerging, but we are NOT - and should not, I don't think - be trying to proactively prevent that from happening through the manipulation of race weights. Unless pertinent evidence is available through happenstance somehow.

K

Which is why I labeled that as a personal/selfish comment. I do understand the issue.

Doesn't change the reality, which I understand why others may not realize it yet, that it will make greater gains (raw and %) than the 4 cylinder. Lets just make sure we are not afraid to use said mechanism when we do get it wrong.