A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[IPRESS]

I apologize, Dave - I read your post exactly backward. Back pronoun antecedent action on my part.

But I'm not going to apologize for being frustrated by this situation. Maybe I'm as PO'd at myself as anything or anyone else, for letting myself believe that we could actually get to a place where the category was, to the very best of our abilities, protected from the standard Club classing and spec'ing silliness that I've been watching since 1979.

We were THIS CLOSE ------> <------- to having the ITAC's documentation of the practices we use in their final form. Internally, we used the term "codified" - to put it in writing and make it a law. We put a TON of time into looking at options; collecting feedback; and rejecting ideas that we ultimately couldn't resolve in a way that was repeatable, explainable, and confidence-inspiring to members (like dealing with torque in a different way).

I don't have to be politic. I'm a crumudgeon and I view my role as being crumudeony. Andy does an amazing job herding the ITAC cats and understanding the political landscape and Club practices. We would all be well and truly screwed without him doing his job, but someone has to kick over the anthill to find out what's inside.

I've gone back and forth with JJJ and while I don't agree with him on a lot of things, he is a damned smart dude. He understands the scientific method and researchy stuff. If he's going to look at an example through a straw to cherry pick logic to support a position, he's going to do it well - but I'm going to call him on it.

K

(Sorry, Ron)

Point Taken ..... and you are more an internet curmudgeon and far less grumpy in person!
I think that frustration runs on both sides of the issue. I understand that when something is worked on for such a long time and is not accepted as planned, that it can make you POed. Hopefully all the alphabet groups can find a middle ground.

 

[IPRESS]

Ed great sig!

David, from what I can gather the PTB has some doubt as the Process being the only determination. They (and I am just speculating) and some others in IT aren't convinced that the Process is accurate. For some cars it may be accurate but isn't when used on others.
One other thing to keep in mind, some of the people making the call at the next step have a strong IT background...they are IT people and IMHO as smart about the subject as most any on this forum. I have to believe that they want the best for the class and the club.
They deserve the same respect in their opinions as the posters and ITAC guys get from this community.

 

[erlrich]

I have a question - is there a non-spec (and I would include NASCAR in the "spec" category) professional series that completely ignores on-track performance when setting weights, i.e. uses only a formulaic process to evaluate cars? I realize the differences between most pro racing series and IT are many and great, but I'm just wondering if anyone has ever had success in classing cars the way we want to.

 

[DavidM]

Reject is probably a bit strong. They have a lot of questions about what we are doing. But, a letter from membership in support of the process would be helpful at this point.

Thanks on that David, the only 240sx guy I know with brake issues....lol...glad you got things sorted.

You going to try to get to CMP next spring?

Heh. My issues are always different. Everyone else has brakes that fail. Me, I get brakes that stick on. At least I managed to get my two races in.

I'll make it back to CMP eventually. I like going there. Probably won't be next Spring, though. I need to get my ass in gear and finish the new shell.

 

[mom'sZ]

I haven't logged on to this site in a while. Now I know why. My eyes are bleeding.
hello... news flash....
leave the damn washer bottle off
leave it off
nobody cares
really they don't
request to the crb
please change the rule disallowing the washer bottle to be removed
need for rule change as follows: so the membership will quit using it as a reason to trot out the ECU rule change debate ... AGAIN!!!
new suggested rule wording: the washer bottle may NOT be removed but failure to comply with this rule may not be used as a protest of any competitor
there done
what is it snowing up north already?

 

[Bill Miller]

I have a question - is there a non-spec (and I would include NASCAR in the "spec" category) professional series that completely ignores on-track performance when setting weights, i.e. uses only a formulaic process to evaluate cars? I realize the differences between most pro racing series and IT are many and great, but I'm just wondering if anyone has ever had success in classing cars the way we want to.

Earl,

I guess it matters what you consider a 'spec' series. I agree that NASCAR is pretty much a spec series, but I don't think F1 is. But then again, all those cars have to weigh the same. I don't know enough about the in's and out's of pro sports car and GT racing to say for sure, but I thought things like ALMS used a formulaic process, and no rewards weight. But I haven't researched it to say for sure.

 

[spawpoet]

I haven't logged on to this site in a while. Now I know why. My eyes are bleeding.
hello... news flash....
leave the damn washer bottle off
leave it off
nobody cares
really they don't
request to the crb
please change the rule disallowing the washer bottle to be removed
need for rule change as follows: so the membership will quit using it as a reason to trot out the ECU rule change debate ... AGAIN!!!
new suggested rule wording: the washer bottle may NOT be removed but failure to comply with this rule may not be used as a protest of any competitor
there done
what is it snowing up north already?

I changed my mind on this. I now think everybody should have to run TWO washer bottles!

 

[jjjanos]

Well, yes and no. We might be able to assume that based on historical on-track performance, that the 25% is wrong. I wouldn't call it operator error however. All we can plug in is what we know. The default for all cars is 25%. Absent any evidence to the contrary, what are we to do?

You have evidence - the current performance of the car. Until demonstrated that the car is illegal, one must assume that it is legal.

Absent requiring every car to be presented in 100%-build condition for an official dyno test, one has to use what is available. Thus, if the car is competitive at its current weight and the process says take 200lbs out, then either the assumptions used to generate the weight or the process used to get the weight are in error.

 

[jjjanos]

Argh.

How about the DOZENS of other variables that influence where any given car finishes, relative to any collection of other cars?

Which is irrelevant to what I said - I gave lap times, not finishing positions.

Testing time, tire budget, set-up skill, maintenance of wear items (DNF/no DNF), nature of the track, dyno tuning time, track familiarity, driver rest and physical condition, engine build quality, shock/strut quality, ability to tune said dampers, brake pad choice, fuel (pump, race, secret sauce?), traffic, track conditions, miles on the engine, final drive choice, amount over (or under?) spec weight, weather conditions, tire choice, DRIVER SKILL...? Of EVERY car in any given race, to different degrees...???

And among a well-developed field of cars in a particular class, that works out to no net effect. I specifically picked ITB and Summit Point for a reason, i.e. a large group of highly competitive and highly experienced drivers competing in a hard-fought series with cars that, up-front, are fully developed.

You come in and run a second or two faster than the front of that field - you are either illegal or mis-classified.

Seriously.

Bowie won the '07 ARRC in my car. Does that mean it's an overdog? I got my butt handed to me at the Festival last year in the same car. Does that mean it's just a dog? Did I get beat at the SIC because I chose a VW (rather than an Accord or Celica) or because I didn't pull up my big-boy pants and get it done...?

Slow? That's all you unless you have other evidence. Fast? How fast? Put half a lap on the field at the ARRC fast?

SERIOUSLY.

You are smarter than this, Jeff. I can only figure you are being intellectually selective in your arguments to support a preconceived notion on your agenda.

Nope. I'm not even sure about the car that the process wants to take 200lbs out of. What I do know, however, is that if that car is running at the front of MARRS or NARRC or NYSRRRRRRRRCCCC or the ARRC, it sure as hell doesn't need weight taken off of it. Now, if that car is running at the front of the EBF Grand Prix with a grand total of 2 competitors, the jury would be out.

 

[jjjanos]

I've gone back and forth with JJJ and while I don't agree with him on a lot of things, he is a damned smart dude. He understands the scientific method and researchy stuff. If he's going to look at an example through a straw to cherry pick logic to support a position, he's going to do it well - but I'm going to call him on it.

I am going to pick the outliers to illustrate the problem with a 100% objective process. The process is nothing more than a model making a prediction as to the "correct" weight of the car and it's based on a lot of assumptions that work, in general. It's when the general != the specific that causes a problem.

The problem in this particular instance is that you've got observable data (of quality I don't know - but assume it's good quality data) that says the model misses. In this instance, if you use the prediction as your forecast of the correct weight, you'll create an over dog. (If it said add weight, you'd just be messing with the one car not an entire class.).

 

[frnkhous]

Ok, I wanna move in a slightly different direction here. For all those who want to be able to remove washer bottles, How do you suggest allowing the removal of these items? I'm still not convinced this is anything but leading down the road toward prod. These are not safety issues which means people will be spending money or time removing horns, washer bottles, heater cores(which may actually be worse for safety) etc. and what is the gain to the class? A few people such as jeff young don't have to search for 100 dollar used washer bottles. I don't see how allowing removal does anything to improve the class. But to that end are we talking specific allowances, and are you going to add something to the list everytime somebody finds a new dohicky on there race car that isn't needed if your not street driving? Not the washerbottle removal itself but I think this could very fast lead down a slippery slope if your intent is to allow removal of "street" equipment generically I can think off all kinds of things that would suddenly become removable. The wiring is also a slippery slope, I bet I could remove a nice chunk of weight if I rewired my car specifically with what I needed. Some newer cars would likely be over 10 pounds but at what cost? Wiring can get expensive really fast if the goal is to reduce weight with no rules. All fuses, relays, etc. can be replaced with a single box weighing less than a typical fuse box, I believe the price of those things is between 6 and 10k dollars if I remember right. It might have been as high as 14k. More than most It cars are selling for these days. I'm not suggesting this would become necessary, simply pointing out extremes somebody could go to for being able to ballast a car differently/remove weight. Would it now not qualify as a 100% build if you didn't do such things?

 

[Knestis]

... What I do know, however, is that if that car is running at the front of MARRS or NARRC or NYSRRRRRRRRCCCC or the ARRC, it sure as hell doesn't need weight taken off of it. ...

There's no question where you are on this issue, J. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. I think it's going to be pretty sad should that point of view get its way with IT, but as of today, I'm about 90% convinced that you'll see your competition adjustment approach in IT inside of 3 years.

K

 

[jjjanos]

There's no question where you are on this issue, J. Thanks for taking the time to explain it. I think it's going to be pretty sad should that point of view get its way with IT, but as of today, I'm about 90% convinced that you'll see your competition adjustment approach in IT inside of 3 years.

K

Correct me where I'm wrong, but based on the above, I'm inferring that your view would be that if
1. Someone built a Studebaker Hawk
2. Raced it in one of the regional series
3. And that series had a long history of close competition in that class
4. Among experienced drivers
5. And well-developed cars
6. And the Hawk was running at the front of the series during the car's inaugural season, in terms of comparative lap times (note: not finishing position)
7. And someone asked the ITAC to review the process weight
8. And the process determined that the car, as classified, was 200 lbs too heavy
9. You would support removing the 200 lbs of weight.

Is that correct?

What you just wrote sounds like it and I'd like you to confirm my conclusion before giving a full reply.

 

[frnkhous]

I think the answer is gonna be yes, IT has the process, no competition adjustments. Now, the hawk likely makes more power than the process figures, as it sounds like the audi that was brought up likely does. But until you have evidence of that what you have is a competition adjustment if you don't set the weight according to the process. How do you know that the guy isn't just that much better that he's driving around being 200lbs heavy? Maybe we should go on a witch hunt to prove vesa silgren's car is illegal because he hasn't lost an itc race in 2 years( I don't believe for one second it is). Obviously it isn't misclassed as he beats other itc crx's, not just other random cars. In this example the guy has won the arrc and the itfest 2 years in a row, not small races, not a regional series. This is why ontrack performance can't always be trusted. He's beaten former arrc winners in itc at the arrc as well. If you want comp adjustments based on on track performance and no "street" parts why don't you guys go race a limited prep prod car. I predict we'll see you back in IT within a couple seasons.

 

[Tristan Smith]

I've been racing in IT for the last 16 years, and can I just say........let's take a break from rule changes/tweaking.

Here I am building a new car, and quite frankly, I am scared to death that before I even get it out there that there are going to be ten new rules I have to comply with, or a new weight that I have to make.

I am all for the removal of the following: washer bottles, heater cores, and horns. Yes, remove the dual purpose clause, please. But lets just stop after that.

I remember when we got to remove all the interior pieces/panels in the cars. Good call. Like washer bottles, it doesn't cost the racer time and money yanking out those things. Unlike having to find a model-correct washer bottle at a junk yard.

But I am quickly becoming one of the anti-rule change guys.

Lets put a hold on anymore "changes" or "corrections" for a while. Lets see where we are for a season, and if the changes we already have made are enough, correct, and relevant.

Otherwise I think we are going to wake up one day and
wonder how in the heck we ended up in the class we've made.

The class was never "broken", it just needed a few tweaks, and I think we have made them. Lets race on it.

Just my humble and insignificant opinion.

 

[gran racing]

... What I do know, however, is that if that car is running at the front of MARRS or NARRC or NYSRRRRRRRRCCCC or the ARRC, it sure as hell doesn't need weight taken off of it. ...

You said you "know this" but how? Lets assume this car is legal. The driver is the next Mario Andretti, and has skill sets beyond the average or even very good club racer. He's able to extract 100% of the cars abilities. Other drivers attending the event are quite good, but the reality is they're not at the same level. The you look at Mario to be's car and the prep level is just amazing. It's legal, but every little allowance is taken advantage of. He's got deep pockets and can use the absolute best tires in the best condition possible (maybe stickers for qual, scrubs for race). The downside is the process says it's 150 lbs heavy. Not unexpected, he goes out and wins each of these series. Now several other drivers are racing the same make and model car, and have it prepped pretty darn well. They manage to stay in the top 1/3 of cars, but can't overcome the disadvantage they start out with - being 150 lbs over weight. But since this other driver was on a different level than all of his competitors, we say the car is classed just fine. It's not fair to all of the other people who drive the same make/model, but tough.

When I first started looking into running Honda Challenge, my car didn't have a set weight. I supplied them with specs, and they came back with a weight that was just silly. I asked how in the world they came up with that weight and was told they heard I was pretty fast. What?? I asked what if I go out and don't do so well, will the weight be adjusted - yes. Fine, I'll go out for two races and suck on purpose. Then go on and adjust my weight based on my on track performance.


I agree, no more rule changes but lets have cars classed by the same rules. It's beyond annoying and frustrating to know one car was classes by X crappy process, and another car was classed by an improved process. Fine. You don't like the improved process, then at least class both cars using the crappy process. Is having some consistency on how cars classed really asking too much? I sure as hell don't think so.

 

[spawpoet]

Ok, I wanna move in a slightly different direction here. For all those who want to be able to remove washer bottles, How do you suggest allowing the removal of these items? I'm still not convinced this is anything but leading down the road toward prod. These are not safety issues which means people will be spending money or time removing horns, washer bottles, heater cores(which may actually be worse for safety) etc. and what is the gain to the class? A few people such as jeff young don't have to search for 100 dollar used washer bottles. I don't see how allowing removal does anything to improve the class. But to that end are we talking specific allowances, and are you going to add something to the list everytime somebody finds a new dohicky on there race car that isn't needed if your not street driving? Not the washerbottle removal itself but I think this could very fast lead down a slippery slope if your intent is to allow removal of "street" equipment generically I can think off all kinds of things that would suddenly become removable. The wiring is also a slippery slope, I bet I could remove a nice chunk of weight if I rewired my car specifically with what I needed. Some newer cars would likely be over 10 pounds but at what cost? Wiring can get expensive really fast if the goal is to reduce weight with no rules. All fuses, relays, etc. can be replaced with a single box weighing less than a typical fuse box, I believe the price of those things is between 6 and 10k dollars if I remember right. It might have been as high as 14k. More than most It cars are selling for these days. I'm not suggesting this would become necessary, simply pointing out extremes somebody could go to for being able to ballast a car differently/remove weight. Would it now not qualify as a 100% build if you didn't do such things?

Is the allowance to remove engine trim pieces leading down the road to production? I agree with your concern about wiring allowances, and glass would worry me too because you can see a path people will chase in their builds with these items. To me a wash bottle (and the rest of Ron's list) is no more threatening than removing engine bay trim which is allowed. On our own car we are actually trying to get our heater core, wipers, and headlights working again (all disabled or removed by PO), so I don't have anything to gain. Just don't see ANY danger in removing these specific items. That said I respect the position many on the ITAC have on this, and given their dedication to preserving what IT seems to mean to all of us I'm happy with whatever they want to do.

 

[Knestis]

...and I'd like you to confirm my conclusion before giving a full reply.

And I'd like to retire from the field of battle.

I know your position on the most important question, I can't change your - or anyone else's - mind because its rooted in a basic difference in first assumptions, so you win.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

This ITAC member says, for himself only:

Yes, but.

The but being the on track performance would cause me to take a harder look at the assumptions underlying the weight via the process. But if those assumptions proved correct, the car should lose the weight regardless of any on track performance we "observe."

If we didn't, the inequity would be that we were classing all cars except one using the process.

Tristan, I hear you (and others). It's time to let IT congeal for a while, in my view. While I am in favor of removing the dual purpose stuff, I think we wait a few years to tackle that, and anything else.

Correct me where I'm wrong, but based on the above, I'm inferring that your view would be that if
1. Someone built a Studebaker Hawk
2. Raced it in one of the regional series
3. And that series had a long history of close competition in that class
4. Among experienced drivers
5. And well-developed cars
6. And the Hawk was running at the front of the series during the car's inaugural season, in terms of comparative lap times (note: not finishing position)
7. And someone asked the ITAC to review the process weight
8. And the process determined that the car, as classified, was 200 lbs too heavy
9. You would support removing the 200 lbs of weight.

Is that correct?

What you just wrote sounds like it and I'd like you to confirm my conclusion before giving a full reply.

 

[jjjanos]

You said you "know this" but how? Lets assume this car is legal. The driver is the next Mario Andretti, and has skill sets beyond the average or even very good club racer. He's able to extract 100% of the cars abilities. Other drivers attending the event are quite good, but the reality is they're not at the same level. The you look at Mario to be's car and the prep level is just amazing. It's legal, but every little allowance is taken advantage of. He's got deep pockets and can use the absolute best tires in the best condition possible (maybe stickers for qual, scrubs for race). The downside is the process says it's 150 lbs heavy. Not unexpected, he goes out and wins each of these series. Now several other drivers are racing the same make and model car, and have it prepped pretty darn well. They manage to stay in the top 1/3 of cars, but can't overcome the disadvantage they start out with - being 150 lbs over weight. But since this other driver was on a different level than all of his competitors, we say the car is classed just fine. It's not fair to all of the other people who drive the same make/model, but tough.

Excuse me, but the above is the level of prep and ability to which the MR-2 and the other cars that were dropped from ITA to ITB were held when people said the process weight was too heavy - i.e. 10/10ths build and Fangio-like ability. The fast car has demonstrated what a 10/10ths prep/build can do. The other drivers are capable of building a similar car.

All you've done is re-enforce that the classification of this particular car has either 1. relied on inappropriate assumptions (25% HP gain) or 2. demonstrated a model failure.

I'd love to not have to build my car to 10/10ths. How about taking 200lbs out of my car too to compensate for my lack of mechanical ability, dedication and finances?

And I'd like to retire from the field of battle.

I know your position on the most important question, I can't change your - or anyone else's - mind because its rooted in a basic difference in first assumptions, so you win.

K

Kirk,

I'm somewhat disappointed with you. Not because you won't engage, but from a model-builder and data analysis standpoint.

You know that your model is an approximation of what occurs and are entirely dependent on the assumptions used and yet, when given real world data that the model has erred, you would stand by the prediction.

This is akin to the Chairman of the Fed saying - I don't care that the measured unemployment rate is 12%, the model says it should be 5%. We're not lowering interest rates.

I've been building economic models for 24 years and I'd never produce a forecast that flies in the face of reason. A prediction saying that one should take 200lbs out of a car where you have observable data that, at its current weight, the car is a front-runner screams model error and/or assumption error.

In short, if the model is to be the be-all/end-all of classification, then one needs to use the most optimistic HP gain modifier until a 10/10ths build is presented for independent/trustworthy dyno analysis. I.e. EVERY car, until demonstrated otherwise, uses the max.