Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is when the Process is inadequate. The Process also fails when a capable builder/driver builds a dog (such as Chuck Allard's 911). This is where the ITAC needs to look beyond the limitations of the process, consider the multitude of other information that's available and apply some common sense. Certainly not as easy as sticking to the Process formula. However, I personally trust the ITAC to use good judgment in competition adjustments a lot more then I trust them to come up with a perfect "Process".

If "Car A" is really that good, there will be plenty more of them running soon enough. I sure hope Car A isn't racing in ITB!

Maybe I'm expecting too much.

It is easier for the ITAC to adjust the results of the Process if the details of the Process are not published.

Charlie

You didn't answer my question. I understand you think the process fails here. What would YOU do - and why? Running the exersize through the keyboard helps you think it through and us to understand where we can improve.

 

[lateapex911]

Like some of my ITB friends I feel that our older cars such as BMW’s, early VW’s, Volvo 142's are being left behind. My perception is that as a result of the new ECU rules, the ITA cars that the process moved to ITB, and a classification system that seems to favor newer cars, ITB is changing. And, the ITAC is so caught up in their numbers game that they wont even look to see if that’s happening. I personally don’t trust the “Process 2.0" to not perpetrate the instability I see in IT.
Charlie

3) I think Improved Touring needs to have a "re-think" of trying to make an equivalancy formula for almost every sedan ever built..... People invest in race cars at the club racing level to have a good experience, at reasonable costs, and for at least half the racers having a modicum chance of being competitive. As it sits now, The hot car in a given class might be something plentiful and cheap to build like an integra, or it could be obscure such as a volvo or fiero..... Its crazy, does SCCA want cars that nobody and find, support, and frankly, nobody knows if are legal.

I don't doubt the original idea of a competitive class for every car was well intended but I believe a rethink is needed, The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class.

From my perspective, its time to recharge IT and make it real attractive for people to build late model cars. From my perspective, I am racing against pretty much the same cars I raced agaunst 10 to 15 years ago.

Wow....hard to believe the two guys race in the same club. But, maybe that's because their views are self centric. What happens to their pond, and their cars is considered most important.

Bob, your points are most interesting. I think you're saying that new cars should be classed in such a manner as to make them the top dogs, and older cars should be handicapped, to encourage people to get new cars.

Yet, you also state that the racing should be "of reasonable cost" with "at least half the racers having a modicum chance of being competitive."

I'm struggling how to resolve those two very different goals. Causing a large contingent of cars to be "B listed" would, in effect, you say, push people into new cars. Well, that's actually a forced move. You want to run near the front? Forget that car you've got and have developed and go get a NEW car. How is that "reasonable"????

I assume you don't think that new cars should be classed at weights below the current class performance envelope do you? Track records be damned? So that leaves only the option of adding weight to all the 'old' cars.

This guys, illustrates the conflicting picture that is IT. We got, just last month, tow requests to classify old Alfas and Fiats. REALLY old. And we get requests to classify cars young and old, all the time. Should we be just refusing if they aren't new and cool? And by whose standards?

(Bob, don't forget, the S2000 got classed with THE lowest power multiplier in ALL of IT. We got hate mail on that too.)

 

[Knestis]

2) As a racer, its hard to get the data needed to discuss competitive issues from SCCA. It would greatly enhance the discussion if there was a listing for each track of the top 3 for each class, the car, and best lap time so a discussion about what is competitive and what is not.

How would that information be used - contribute to resolving "competitive issues?"

...The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class. ...

I know I asked for input and am trying to let people share their ideas but this demonstrates a misconception re: how new cars get classified. There is no - zero - disincentive applied to new listings. Now, if you are talking about the 5-year rule, that's a different thing but otherwise, you want it listed? It gets listed using the same process that has been getting applied in response to "please revisit" requests.

On the other hand of course, if current cars are specified such that they are lighter than the CURRENT PROCESS says they should be, they WOULD indeed start the process at a disadvantage.

K

 

[Charlie Broring]

Andy, I thought I did answer you question but I'll be more specific. I would ask questions and listen to the answers. The hypothetical Car A that you describe may be very challenging, but I bet all of his fellow competitors at the ARRC have observations. Such as " has a center of gravity below the ground and a real wide track. Nobody can go through a corner like him." or " I saw him filling the nitrous bottle between sessions." Or look at lap times are they all over the place or all the same and a second faster then everybody else.

Yea, it's more work and time. However, I was recently told by a ITAC member that he "actively avoids" looking beyond the numbers of the Process.

I think that in some cases correcting for shortcomings in the Process is relatively easy. In the example I sited, the 911 Porsche, a member of the ITAC who is also a ITS driver rep could look at the car, report back that the car is really nicely built, well driven, but has 200# of lead on the floor and runs mid pack ITA times. And if this information was deemed reliable, the ITAC may consider a weight adjustment.

So, may answer is when appropriate to seek information that is not considered by the Process, and more importantly if such information is available, act on it.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

As it sits now, The hot car in a given class might be something plentiful and cheap to build like an integra, or it could be obscure such as a volvo or fiero..... Its crazy, does SCCA want cars that nobody and find, support, and frankly, nobody knows if are legal.

I don't doubt the original idea of a competitive class for every car was well intended but I believe a rethink is needed, The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class.

Well, I guess I feel the total opposite. To me, its the WHOLE point of IT and the Process. No matter what year, what make, what model - you have a chance - ON PAPER. Slightly better, slightly worse, so be it...it will NEVER be perfect or exact...but everyone gets to play. I am not sure why the age of a car has anything to do with the sucess of a category - so long as those who like new and those who like old, feel that they are being treated fairly.

The SCCA shouldn't care about CARS, they should care about MEMBERS.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, may answer is when appropriate to seek information that is not considered by the Process, and more importantly if such information is available, act on it.

I appreciate your response Charlie but what if you only had the information I gave you? The Process can only be so granular. Centers of Gravity? Track width? While they are just examples, how detailed do you expect us to be? And most importantly, how would you like to apply weight given one of these issues?

Car A just came across our plates. Really. Anyone else want to take a shot?

 

[tom91ita]

i wrote a note November 23, 2008 stating that i felt the weight calculation needed to be revisited and should not be the nearest 100#'s but should be within the accuracy of the scales, etc.

also, in the interest of disclosure, i used my crx si in ITB as an example of what i think is an incorrect weight. the intro of my letter is below;

Dear CRB,

I believe that the basic formula as applied to Improved Touring needs to be revisited. It is my understanding that if a car was within 100 pounds of its target weight, no adjustments were made. I believe this is in error. These process weights should not be to the nearest 100#'s, they should be to the nearest 5 or 10#'s or something that is limited by the accuracy of the scales (e.g., + / - 0.5%).

I must also share that I think my car (1986 Honda CRX Si at 2130 #'s in ITB was negatively impacted. I am unable to use any reasonable factor of the formula to arrive at my car¢s existing weight.

i went on to state that it looks like the car has a 44% power multiplier to get to the 2130 #'s using all the adders, etc. as i know them from the web, etc.

if any response to this was in fastrack, i missed it. is the '86 crx si one of the 20 cars mentioned in previous posts? as i recall the weight of this car, it was 1800 #'s for the car when in ITA. it was later 1980 #'s with driver. and when it went to itb, it received an adder of 150 #'s. given the nice round number, i am assuming it did not go through "the" process.

i have no issue with sending a note to the BOD, CRB, etc. again, but it seems like they did not hear me the last time.....all i ever remember is the note from John Bauer that my note was being forwarded.

sorry to sound frustrated but i just drove 400 + miles and had 5 diet cokes and it looks like nothing will happen for 2010 as well.

i am pleased with the overall direction that the ITAC is taking and even agree with the "intellectually honest" recommendation of the 10# revision. if you think it is wrong, it is wrong, plain and simple. i do think there might be some "larger" wrongs out there and i am guessing that is part of the CRB's thinking.

and with regards to the "triggers" for over-dogs, etc., i think having a dyno at the major events (IT SPECtacular, ARRC, etc.) that would be used prior to teardowns might tell a lot. i don't even care if the results are public or not but it might give some of the real world data of a power multiplier and what is achievable for given cars.

and if the dyno is too expensive or intrusive, put a DL-1 in from Fast-Tech in the car that is the "trigger" and get acceleration data that way..........

 

[tom91ita]

i wrote a note November 23, 2008 stating that i felt the weight calculation needed to be revisited and should not be the nearest 100#'s but should be within the accuracy of the scales, etc.

also, in the interest of disclosure, i used my crx si in ITB as an example of what i think is an incorrect weight. the intro of my letter is below;

Dear CRB,

I believe that the basic formula as applied to Improved Touring needs to be revisited. It is my understanding that if a car was within 100 pounds of its target weight, no adjustments were made. I believe this is in error. These process weights should not be to the nearest 100#¢s, they should be to the nearest 5 or 10#¢s or something that is limited by the accuracy of the scales (e.g., + / - 0.5%).

I must also share that I think my car (1986 Honda CRX Si at 2130 #¢s in IT was negatively impacted. I am unable to use any reasonable factor of the formula to arrive at my car¢s existing weight.

i went on to state that it looks like the car has a 44% power multiplier to get to the 2130 #'s using all the adders, etc. as i know them from the web, etc.

if any response to this was in fastrack, i missed it. is the '86 crx si one of the 20 cars mentioned in previous posts? as i recall the weight of this car, it was 1800 #'s for the car when in ITA. it was later 1980 #'s with driver. and when it went to itb, it received an adder of 150 #'s. given the nice round number, i am assuming it did not go through "the" process.

i have no issue with sending a note to the BOD, CRB, etc. again, but it seems like they did not hear me the last time.....all i ever remember is the note from John Bauer that my note was being forwarded.

sorry to sound frustrated but i just drove 400 + miles and had 5 diet cokes and it looks like nothing will happen for 2010 as well.

i am pleased with the overall direction that the ITAC is taking and even agree with the "intellectually honest" recommendation of the 10# revision. if you think it is wrong, it is wrong, plain and simple. i do think there might be some "larger" wrongs out there and i am guessing that is part of the CRB's thinking.

and with regards to the "triggers" for over-dogs, etc., i think having a dyno at the major events (IT SPECtacular, ARRC, etc.) that would be used prior to teardowns might tell a lot. i don't even care if the results are public or not but it might give some of the real world data of a power multiplier and what is achievable for given cars.

and if the dyno is too expensive or intrusive, put a DL-1 in from Fast-Tech in the car that is the "trigger" and get acceleration data that way..........

 

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

It certainly makes someone question the process, however I think that if the ITAC feels that they have a good process then all the cars should be run through the process the SAME, and it should not look at current or past success. I can give plenty of examples of cars that have dominated without any weight adjustments going back a couple years to when Volvo's dominated ITB to more recent years when Miata's dominated ITA in certain areas/tracks. As discussed many times before maybe Car A is a great car at tracks like Road Atlanta or Pocono but not so great at tracks like NHMS. You cannot class a car based on the success at certain tracks. You have to trust the process that you are trying to sell.

This car you question at the ARRC... Was it successful before or after the GR (Great Realignment) where several cars were added or re-classed and now dominate the class?

Raymond "With such success I bet the request (even though it may appear) was not made for his/her interest but more with a feeling that all should be treated the same, if such a process existed" Blethen

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ray - I am just asking a hypothetical. I will always fall on the side of 'trust the process, it hasn't let us down yet - and WHEN it does, we have the ability to fix it'.

 

[Knestis]

...However, I was recently told by a ITAC member that he "actively avoids" looking beyond the numbers of the Process.

That was me. I'm not alone in that respect among ITAC members, I don't believe.

Tom - On the ITB CRX Si, your letter was considered along with a number of others (Gran, at least one Blethen, et al.) as part of the genesis of what got us to where we are right this very second. We did not act on your letter as a particular agenda item, because it didn't ask for a rule change or anything like that, but it did contribute to the conversation.

The primary issue that we started to address then was the "close enough" question. Recollection among ITAC members on that CRX is consistent with what you describe - it got a chunk of weight when it went to B, pre-process. THEN when the process WAS run on it, it was "within 100 pounds" so it got left alone.

That is most absolutely NOT how we are currently running the ITAC specification process - which appears to have something to do with why the 20 cars in question are waiting. (And no, the CRX isn't among them.)

I'd normally suggest that you specifically request that we revisit that car but at this point, we're on hold it appears.

For the spreadsheet that I keep, what's the stock HP of that car? Is it the same for all years of that generation? Is it the same as the Civic Si...?

K

 

[Knestis]

...So, may answer is when appropriate to seek information that is not considered by the Process, and more importantly if such information is available, act on it.

In that kind of a protocol, how would Dave Kerr's 7-year-old VIR ITB lap record of a 2:22.6 figure into deliberations...?

K

 

[tom91ita]

........

For the spreadsheet that I keep, what's the stock HP of that car? Is it the same for all years of that generation? Is it the same as the Civic Si...?

K

as far as i know, and i am quite certain, all 85-87 honda crx si's and civic si's are 1488 cc, 91 HP and 12 valves and same basic suspension geometry (torsion bar and strut up front and beam axle in the back). they are "equivalent" except for the civic is sometimes seemed as more stable (longer wheelbase) and the crx is seen as better aero.

EDIT: and 93 ft-#'s of torque per this site:

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/AffordableClassics/2004/January/


and i will rephrase my original request into two letters. one for to look at the weight of the car and another to support the process.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Let me post a question to those who have replied so far:

Car A is set at 2500lbs now in ITX. Never been run through the process. VERY FEW examples exist on the track as it is a rare car, one that not many people are familiar with and to some, not desirable for varying reasons...call it 4 in the whole country. One of these cars however starts on the front row of the ARRC amidst traditionally tough competition and is a threat to win most of it's Regional races, week after week.

Legal? Unknown. It doesn't finish the ARRC and does not go through the tech shed but it's performance potential seems apperent to some - without knowing everything about that specific car.

Owner of car X writes in and requests a re-run of his car via the process. The SAME process that was used to class the past few ARRC championship winning cars. Process weight is spit out. 2300lbs.

What do you do? (Edit - I originally gave a few options but don't want to lead anyone - PLEASE explain in detail WHY you would do what you did.

There's not enough information in your example, some info you have that would help illuminate the example:

1) Motor data:

a) displacement ( and bore/stroke )
b) oe hp at what rpm
c) valve sizes and number per
d) does it have cheap cast oe manifold, is it a narrow v6 or have a dual length intake manifold
e) how many gear ratios, what are they?

2) Chassis data:

a) front or rear wheel drive?
b) Struts or A arm front
c) solid axle, trailing arm, or multi-link rear
d) Brake size
e) how aero is the body, is it a brick, or does it have a round tail end that sheds vortices (ala early TT/350Z)

This should mostly be avalible on the VTS sheet.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

There's not enough information in your example, some info you have that would help illuminate the example:

1) Motor data:

a) displacement ( and bore/stroke )
b) oe hp at what rpm
c) valve sizes and number per
d) does it have cheap cast oe manifold, is it a narrow v6 or have a dual length intake manifold
e) how many gear ratios, what are they?

2) Chassis data:

a) front or rear wheel drive?
b) Struts or A arm front
c) solid axle, trailing arm, or multi-link rear
d) Brake size
e) how aero is the body, is it a brick, or does it have a round tail end that sheds vortices (ala early TT/350Z)

This should mostly be avalible on the VTS sheet.

Why do you need that data James? That data was used in the caluclation of the 'process weight of 2300lbs'. Assume that all the ganularity of the process has been utilized. If you are asking us to consider aero, the amount of gears, the construction of the intake manifold, the size of the valves...we don't.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Why do you need that data James? That data was used in the caluclation of the 'process weight of 2300lbs'. Assume that all the ganularity of the process has been utilized. If you are asking us to consider aero, the amount of gears, the construction of the intake manifold, the size of the valves...we don't.

I'd be looking for a reason it'd have a larger gain than normal. Is there a chance that a cam swap was performed? How about intake manifold swaps? Is that another possibility? Gearing can really help too, see the discussion on the ITB Metro for sale thread, where at one time a factory aftermarket race ratio set was avalible. Maybe the owner felt the car was such an outsider, he took matters into his own hands to equalize it in his own less than kosher way. You need to find out if the single case was an outlier, or the norm.

 

[lateapex911]

I'd be looking for a reason it'd have a larger gain than normal. Is there a chance that a cam swap was performed?

chance? Sure, because the car wasn't torn down, the only thing we KNOW, is that we don't KNOW what was in the engine.

How about intake manifold swaps? Is that another possibility?

Sure, see above.

Gearing can really help too, see the discussion on the ITB Metro for sale thread, where at one time a factory aftermarket race ratio set was avalible. Maybe the owner felt the car was such an outsider, he took matters into his own hands to equalize it in his own less than kosher way. You need to find out if the single case was an outlier, or the norm.

James, you have a point. But, how are we supposed to do that? None of the racers can! Well, some of the racers are SURE the other guy is cheating, and some of the racers are SURE the cars just classed wrong....

Do you want us to:
1- Assume he's cheating, and ignore it?
2- Assume he's legal, look at the lap times and just add a hundred pounds.

I'm guessing most will choose "3".

So, how do you get the data, and how do you trust it? What can you apply consistently as a method for such data acceptance?

Simple answers are few and far between.........

 

[shwah]

The 10 pound weight reduction request for the ITB 2.0 Golf is a perfect example. First, looking at the big picture it’s clear that one of the fastest ITB cars didn’t need a weight reduction. Secondly a 10 pound change is insignificant. Lastly, the fact that they are concerned about such a small change illustrates how the ITAC grossly the overestimate the precision of the “Process”.

Just to clarify for those that don't speak VW. The A2, or Mk2 Golf is NOT the 2.0 liter powered Golf. Kirk races a Golf III aka A3 Golf aka MK3 Golf, which has a 2 liter, 8v, crossflow head engine. I race a Golf 2, aka A2 Golf, aka Mk2 Golf, which has a 1.8 liter, 8v, counter flow head engine. The 10# suggestion was in relation to my car, not to Kirk's car.

 

[jimmyc]

now for the REALLY overarching stuff....

1) change SCCA World Challenge Touring car rules to match IT. Currently to do so you would use cars that would fall into the ITR performance window. In the future if cars continue to get more powerful, you might need to yet again create another faster class.

I don't think this is possible. With the invent of WC-Vision, it seems that SCCA pro racing is JUST a sanctioning body, that enforces rules given to them, and conducts all of the on track stuff. But they don't have, or appear to have much of anything to do with the rules.

And WC-Vision seems VERY set on keep the current rules they have.

 

[Ron Earp]

, 8v, counter flow head engine. The 10# suggestion was in relation to my car, not to Kirk's car.

Hmmmm. All us Z guys have non-crossflow heads. I wonder if that was taken into account when we got our weights assigned?