Any news on ITB weights???
- Thread starter AE86ITA
- Start date
ShelbyRacer
New member
Yes, what he said.
I will freely admit that I've spent more time on my own car than on that project. Sorry.
I would think that any reprocess would probably not be implemented until 2014, pending completion by us and approval from the CRB. That said, I'd like to see it done during this year, so it can be put in place ASAP.
I will freely admit that I've spent more time on my own car than on that project. Sorry.
I would think that any reprocess would probably not be implemented until 2014, pending completion by us and approval from the CRB. That said, I'd like to see it done during this year, so it can be put in place ASAP.
Terry Hanushek
Member
Matt / ITAC
I would think that to make it effective in 2014 that it should be approved by the BoD no later than their December meeting. Given the necessary competitor review time, CRB deliberations, negotiations, etc., there does not seem to be that much time to dawdle.
Terry
I would think that to make it effective in 2014 that it should be approved by the BoD no later than their December meeting. Given the necessary competitor review time, CRB deliberations, negotiations, etc., there does not seem to be that much time to dawdle.
Terry
ShelbyRacer
New member
At this point, our plan is to go through the class in phases and discuss each item, and we've been gathing info to do that. We populated a spreadsheet a while back (thanks to previous ITACers for giving a decent starting point with an archive of info!) and have been trying to fill in the holes, using the divide and conquer method. I believe we'd like to send it to the CRB in packets so as not to overwhelm anyone and also to handle similar cars together for efficiency.
While I know we can adjust weights at any time, I (and I believe the rest of the ITAC) would prefer to do it between seasons if possible, so as to minimize any disruption for competitors.
Looking at what we have, I'd say we're about 25-30% done.
I'll try to update things as possible, as I'm not sure if our work would be noted at all in FasTrack until it's complete.
While I know we can adjust weights at any time, I (and I believe the rest of the ITAC) would prefer to do it between seasons if possible, so as to minimize any disruption for competitors.
Looking at what we have, I'd say we're about 25-30% done.
I'll try to update things as possible, as I'm not sure if our work would be noted at all in FasTrack until it's complete.
It would definitely be in fastrack, but without a rules change (weight =/= rule) there likely would not be a "what do you think".
and yes, Terry is right that we are in deed running up short on time.
we're reviewing ITB because it's a mess of various ages of classification, technology, etc... and cars there often don't respond as well to the same published process inputs as a car from the past 20 years or so. there's also a lot of development knowledge to draw from in many cases.
It needs to be done because every new car classed further offset the balance toward those that "fit" the "as processed" class, and those that don't.
and yes, Terry is right that we are in deed running up short on time.
we're reviewing ITB because it's a mess of various ages of classification, technology, etc... and cars there often don't respond as well to the same published process inputs as a car from the past 20 years or so. there's also a lot of development knowledge to draw from in many cases.
It needs to be done because every new car classed further offset the balance toward those that "fit" the "as processed" class, and those that don't.
Bill Miller
New member
Good job guys, keep up the good work. 
Terry Hanushek
Member
I am aware that a weight adjustment is not a rule change subject to the rules season. It can be helpful to make a necessary adjustment to a car weight in real time. However, a project to review / adjust the weights of all of the cars in a class with its potential shift in class balance should be announced / approved at the end of the year for implementation in the following year.
This is simply an observation, not a suggestion that the ITAC is not making good project. It is a complex task.
Terry
Last edited:
ShelbyRacer
New member
Yes, that's one of the points of the project. During a reprocess, inconsistencies like that should be taken care of.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
To my recollection, a sweeping reorg such as whats been discussed will require more time for the CRB. (than December '13). I'd suggest that it be done as a whole, (you all know this, I think), so the CRb can see the whole picture. I remember being told "August" on things like this by the CRB, if we wanted January action.
So, yea, unless things have changed up the line and they are muuuuch faster (Which would be GREAT!!! There are STILL some ITAC items in the old CRB drawers, I'd bet, LOL), 14 is a optimistic goal if you're looking at a 30% completion point currently.
So, yea, unless things have changed up the line and they are muuuuch faster (Which would be GREAT!!! There are STILL some ITAC items in the old CRB drawers, I'd bet, LOL), 14 is a optimistic goal if you're looking at a 30% completion point currently.
ShelbyRacer
New member
Well, just to be clear, the 30% we have "done" is the following-
A spreadsheet was "created" (cough*stolenfromKirk*cough)
Formulae were updated
All current data was loaded in it
Many of the "known" data points for stock HP and any adders were inserted
Much investigation was done to try to "fill in the blanks"
The task was presented to the ITAC
Work load to find missing info/confirm data/etc. was divided amongst the current ITAC members
Individual work has commenced
At this point, no presentation of data has been made to the CRB, and therefore nothing has been approved/denied/etc. It's all with us at this point.
Just want to be as detailed as I can, so that no one misinterprets anything
A spreadsheet was "created" (cough*stolenfromKirk*cough)
Formulae were updated
All current data was loaded in it
Many of the "known" data points for stock HP and any adders were inserted
Much investigation was done to try to "fill in the blanks"
The task was presented to the ITAC
Work load to find missing info/confirm data/etc. was divided amongst the current ITAC members
Individual work has commenced
At this point, no presentation of data has been made to the CRB, and therefore nothing has been approved/denied/etc. It's all with us at this point.
Just want to be as detailed as I can, so that no one misinterprets anything
none in the queue but submit away. right now NEW classifications are not a problem, its reclassifying that's causing us pain. old cars, old metrics, you know the drill.
and yeah, the 2.0L 16V lancer is going to be one to watch. it's processed 100% to the book at 25%, NOT 30%. lots of them out there for low money, gearbox is not horrible, handling should be on par with others (but one can always invoke smith's axiom if not), and parts availability should be there due to sharing a platform with the raliart and evo (if only non-USDM ones), and I think it will make good torque which I believe is what matters in IT everything else being equalish. I don't think it's going to have a hp advantage. at all.
Last edited:
Bill Miller
New member
Does that mean you're going to re-process the other ITB/C multi-valve cars at 25%? Also, if you're dropping a 2.0 16v car that makes 120hp and 130 lb-ft into ITB, doesn't that pave the way for some other ITA cars to move to ITB? The 1.8 16v VW's are what immediately jumped to my mind.
The Lancer is a heavy car.
this, mostly - it's all about power to weight, the cars go where they fit best, or where we think people will be happiest all around when we have options. in the case of the lancer, it would be ~370lbs lighter in ITA, so it fit better in B.
and bill - all cars are being reviewed. I can promise that some 16v cars will stay as they are, others will change. weights in general might move around as we focus in on what the cars can actually do or what their "corrected" power ratings are, with weight via process.