Any news on ITB weights???

[Andy Bettencourt]

I honestly can't think of a project bigger than this ITB redo guys. I am sure they are in the midst of hashing out a huge spreadsheet car by car going over each one making sure that they are confident that they can defend any and all recommendations to the CRB once it gets into their hands. Give it time, it will be worth it.

 

[Knestis]

I honestly can't think of a project bigger than this ITB redo guys. I am sure they are in the midst of hashing out a huge spreadsheet car by car going over each one making sure that they are confident that they can defend any and all recommendations to the CRB once it gets into their hands. ...

...which, having put a lot of hours myself into that very process, I am confident is also the root cause of its inevitable failure.

(Note here that the spreadsheet we used while I was on the ITAC, and that I subsequently shared with replacement members, is actually an evolution of the first "MILLER RATIO" worksheet that I started when I was still at UVa working on my dissertation, and looking toward building another IT car - and when the World Trade Center was still a feature on the Manhattan skyline.)

The PTBs are going to object to some detail in that proposal and use it to scuttle the entire effort. The last harangue was catalyzed by the Audi Coupe but this time it will be SOMETHING - unless there's been an earth-shattering see change in the Club management.

If the culture of protectionism and micromanagement where the CRB meets the ITCS can't be changed, then there's no point in trying to perfect a "list" that is doomed to failure when a weight for one car on that list doesn't jive with one CRB member's preconceived notions of "on-track competitiveness."

The only viable solution will be, and always has been, to apply a repeatable and transparent system, with as few moving parts (variables, differences) as possible; and have it accepted by a Board that puts stability and consistency of the category above key individuals', well, individual differences - even if at the individual car level, it creates potential winners and losers. IF THE LATTER CAN'T BE ACHIEVED, THERE IS NO POINT TRYING TO PITCH THE FORMER and even less sense kidding ourselves - and wasting days, weeks, months, or YEARS of volunteer ITAC time.

Kirk (who's filling out Production VTS sheets knowing that as bad as Prod can get, it's really only different bad, not worse, than this)

 

[jjjanos]

1. Get list of every ITB car that has races in last 7 years. In theory, the home office should have this as they get copies of the official results. (IIRC)

2. Everything not on that list gets a contact SCCA note for its weight.

3. Everything else gets run through. No point wasting effort getting the correct classification weight on a car that hasn't raced since 1987.

4. Stand firm on list generated by #3. Make official the name of the higher-up and the specific objection. None of the double-dealing, two-faced, bullshit that created the Vichy ITAC.

 

[lateapex911]

4. Stand firm on list generated by #3. Make official the name of the higher-up and the specific objection. None of the double-dealing, two-faced, bullshit that created the Vichy ITAC.

Can you expound on that?? Not sure what you're driving at.

The first part, I get.
"Make official the name of the higher up and the specific objection".
Well, see, theres the thing. What if the higher up is the chairman of the CRB??? The king, whether he wears clothes or not, is still the king. (you like historical references, as I recall)

I can send you to the SCCA forum thread where the CRB chair Bob Dowie posted a 'explanation' regarding ITB the last go round. Now I LIKE Bob. He's a neat guy, and has gone WAY out of his way to help the SCCA, and lots of specific members, including myself.

But based on notes I had taken during ITAC meetings...and read back to Bob word for word during the meetings to be sure I had them transcribed accurately, Bobs explanation of the events surrounding the last ITB debacle, didn't line up with what I, Kirk, Andy, Scott, and...my notes....said actually happened on the con calls.

Bob said and did things of his own volition, and ignored previous protocols and procedures and promises.

Now, I am SURE he felt what he was doing was 'the right thing". And I felt I had to call him out on it, because I work for, ultimately, you, and the other members. I report to the CRB, but ultimately if I feel that the embers are getting screwed, then something has to give.

So anyway, I can link the thread, but I'm sure you've read it, even on SCCA.com...where NObody goes, LOL. Long and short of it was that I was told to GTFO, and it was obvious that I needed to resign. I called directors who looked into it, but it was really the first clearly scandalous thing on his watch, and he was done in less than a year anyway, so they "had a talk" with him, and that was that.

Half the ITAC resigned over the situation, but hey, it's just a dumb ole advisory committee. I'd wager 75% of the IT racers in the country had no idea that their advisory committee had been halved, and of those that did have some awareness, 75% of them were confused befuddled by whole thing.

So, while it's great to say (and I am 1000% behind 100% transparency) "name the names", in reality, you CAN name the name, you get fired, the ITAC has to regroup.....and 5% of the members you work for actually notice, and 2% actually care.

As Kirk says, we get the category we deserve.


Now, THAT said, I think that of all the categories, the ITAC has, under guys like Darin Jordan, and Andy Bettencourt, and Josh Sirota, done a HUGE job of moving a glacier, and while there have been some rifts formed along the way, the overall work done is tremendous. IT is in a MUCH MUCH MUCH better place today, than it was when Darin took over the ITAC, back at the turn of the century.

 

[Knestis]

...and I have an email (accidentally cc'd to me, though sent to someone who actually has a history of posting here) from Jim Drago, from about the same period of time, that completely misrepresents where the ITB classification process issues were coming from - again, directly to a member.

Paraphrasing (and this was after the preliminary ITB "list" was provided to the CRB through our liaison and concurrent with the cessation of all approvals of recommendations sent up by the ITAC), the explanation was that the ITAC was sitting on member requests, but that Jim would do what he could to personally help this member out with his problem...

Now, to be fair, it is an open question whether Drago - as a non-IT-focused CRB member - was getting a shaded/filtered view of the situation from those on the board who did manage IT business before that body. He may have been operating completely in good faith on bad information, but regardless it REALLY hammered the reality of the situation home for me. Color me glad to be gone at that point.

Kirk (who was pleased about Dick P's post-blow-up explanation that practice would change to assign individuals without vested interests to be CRB Ad Hoc liaisons; but wonders how that is working out)

 

[lateapex911]

.

Now, to be fair, it is an open question whether Drago - as a non-IT-focused CRB member - was getting a shaded/filtered view of the situation from those on the board who did manage IT business before that body. He may have been operating completely in good faith on bad information, but regardless it REALLY hammered the reality of the situation home for me. Color me glad to be gone at that point.

Kirk (who was pleased about Dick P's post-blow-up explanation that practice would change to assign individuals without vested interests to be CRB Ad Hoc liaisons; but wonders how that is working out)

I think Drago means well, and acts in good faith. BUT, there's a whole shit ton of back channel whos talking to who crap going on.
I was lambasted for "Speaking out of school" in regards to my public discussions regarding ITAC doings...
BUT, I'm of the mind that it is FAR better to be open and transparent with the members of a CLUB than it is to be discussing this stuff "in school" but behind committee members backs...the good ole boy crap.

And thats what the CRB at the time was doing. Sorry, it just was.
Members of the CRB with IT cars voting and forming ITB policy!?!?!?
Are you freaking KIDDING me!?!?!

Kirk, I'm right with you..thank the stars Dick Patullo is in position.....and while its unclear whether he's the catalyst for the change or reporting it, he's on the case and aware, which is a very good thing.

 

[JeffYoung]

Maybe difficult to believe but we really don't have the protectionist issues we had in the past, generally speaking. We got past the 30% issue in ITB, mostly fixed the MR2 and I *think* we can get past the other stuff with the Audi and others. As Kirk says, proof is in the pudding though.

"Vichy ITAC?" Jjanos is the Pants guy from the brown board right? That's about par for the course for him. Kirk/Jake/Andy did what they thought was right. I almost resigned as well and came close to being told to do so, but Josh impressed me with his leadership and impressed on me the need for us to stay on the committee to stay the course.

The result? Andy/Kirk/Jake made a statement and got attention of the higher ups, and got us the ability to do things like the Ops Manual.

 

[JeffYoung]

OK, I'll keep biting.

* More than 25% is not in the manual IIRC but was classed consistently with other V8's for power - can agree with that position
* DW adder was "followed" because of a mistake in the rewrite of the manual for ITR. So it stands alone in ITR as the only car with that weight penalty. It sits in limbo because of a mistake of either clerical nature and/or the idea that none of the ITAC remembered that the DW adder was never applied to those cars, only a strut/FWD subtractor which is unique to ITR as well.

In the first case the manual was not used in favor of consistency and in the second the manual was used without thought or knowledge of consistency. This is my point.

The ITR inconsistencies largely stem from a 'best guess' on HP multipliers. The committee that put that cut together did on a spreadsheet with all the calculations for each car. That sheet should be in the committees possession. If not, I can probably help getting them a copy.

I am sure the ITAC is doing the same thing with ITB. I would figure the biggest hurdle would be to determine an agreed upon set of multipliers to get everyone to a standardized 'stock' hp figure before even applying manual-based multipliers and adders. Then the list in ITB might even be the largest class of all.

We followed the manual in adding 50 lbs to the car. During the ITR fix (next after IT, we'll address it. The ITR inconsistencies are all over place. Impossible to figure out, and then compounded by the fact the class came to be during the evolution of the process -- the torque adder, the FWD "percentage," etc.

I just wish you wouldn't claim that the "porking" of the ITR Corvette (a car you had a vested interest in) is some sort of evidence that the Process/Ops Manual isn't working. It is. The real issue is consistency and manipulation during the original development of the ITR classifications.

I can agree to chalk that up birthing pains for ITR and the Process. But I won't agree that the issues during that period somehow mean the Process isn't working now when it is working exactly as it was intended.

 

[lateapex911]

Maybe difficult to believe but we really don't have the protectionist issues we had in the past, generally speaking. We got past the 30% issue in ITB, mostly fixed the MR2 and I *think* we can get past the other stuff with the Audi and others. As Kirk says, proof is in the pudding though.

"Vichy ITAC?" Jjanos is the Pants guy from the brown board right? That's about par for the course for him. Kirk/Jake/Andy did what they thought was right. I almost resigned as well and came close to being told to do so, but Josh impressed me with his leadership and impressed on me the need for us to stay on the committee to stay the course.

The result? Andy/Kirk/Jake made a statement and got attention of the higher ups, and got us the ability to do things like the Ops Manual.

I met Josh out in the Bay area in '10. he's a sharp guy, as you know. I'd like to have half his sharpness!
I'm sure he's no fan of mine though, as he had to do triage after the three of us lobbed nasty words at the CRB. I felt bad leaving you guys. I really enjoyed my ITAC time. But I get idealistic, and i can not stand self serving people.

I'm REALLY glad that the protectionist issues have faded, but I'm still annoyed that they've faded on their own, as opposed to being taken care of properly. The stuff that went on that the CRB supported..nee promoted, was shameful.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I just wish you wouldn't claim that the "porking" of the ITR Corvette (a car you had a vested interest in) is some sort of evidence that the Process/Ops Manual isn't working. It is. The real issue is consistency and manipulation during the original development of the ITR classifications.

How do I have a vested interest in a car I don't own that a friend built in his garage on his own? I guess I am emotionally vested because we talked about what car to build and about what weight it could have been if it was classed at 25% and no DW adder (roughly 3035lbs with the 150 for tq)

So according to the Ops Man, it should have gotten 25%. It didn't. Why? Because there was a consistency issue to deal with. Again, I can buy that. Class everything like whats there then fix the WHOLE thing. I agree with that to some degree. But then the opposite happened with the DW. Ignoring consistency (or just the ignorance of ITR classification parameters) the Ops Man was followed (also largely to to a transcription error) to put weight on. See how that isn't right?

The Ops Manual only works if 1. it's correct and 2. you use it 100% of the time. I just don't see what the argument is here...and let's not mention 'it's only 50 lbs'. It's either 'right' or it's not.

Also, the term 'porking' sounded harsher than it was meant. It was tongue-in-cheek for weight that shouldn't be on the car, it any quantity 1lb or 100lbs.

on edit: I went back to look at why I even used the term...and it was about applying the rules evenly. We may disagree but I feel the Corvette could have gone in at 25%/no DW and should have gone in at 30% and no DW but it got both which to me is a simple 'can't have it both ways' scenario.

ITR will get cleaned up in due time but I can tell you that if you just go in blind at 25% the class is toast. I am sure validation on HP estimated will be done and not many changes will be made.

 

[JeffYoung]

How about you put up a dyno sheet and tell us what the car makes? That would answer the question on 25% v 30%.

That said, we treated the Corvette with 100% consistency vis a vis all other V8s. Because of a variety of factors, they are expected to make more than 25% because of....gasp!...what we know. And that's more than just a call to a single builder, which crippled the 300zx. ALL V8s in ITR get have gotten 30% based on research on gains, etc. Just like rotaries and so on.

No issue there.

The DW adder will be fixed so there is consistency across ITR.

It's just frustrating that a system that is working is being nitpicked for errors that occurred under another regime and that we are trying to correct.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

How about you put up a dyno sheet and tell us what the car makes?

If you are talking about the Vette I'll see if I can get the owner to scan his latest version. IIRC he is around 22% hp and a mega-ton of torque. 4500rpm redline. Not sure what that has to do with anything though. My comment on the 'blind' 25% has to do with the cars that were estimated at less than 25%.

It's just frustrating that a system that is working is being nitpicked for errors that occurred under another regime and that we are trying to correct

Disagree. DW adders were never a part of ITR. FWD with struts was the deduction. I am not sure where you are placing blame for the DW issue in ITR. Transcription in the formal write up of the Ops? Nobody on the committee with any current knowledge of how ITR was classed? Nobody on the committee calling anyone with said knowledge? Application of the DW is contrary to the concept of class consistency in my mind.

We should probably agree to disagree. The current climate at the ITAC/CRB is far better than it was when I was on the ITAC. I believe most of the CRB has bought into the OPS manual, sees it's value and won't slam on the brakes on a classification that an individual doesn't agree with. It's a better place.

 

[JeffYoung]

It has to do with complaining/lobbying on the 30% and if our decision to go 30% like all other 80s V8s was correct.

If the motor is flat lining at 4500, sounds like the owner needs to get on the horn with Burns and work on the tuning.

The adders and deducters during your time on the committee (and mine, I'm also to blame) were all over the place. Completely inconsistent. You guys did good work getting us to where we were when you left, but we took it from there. You may disagree with DW adder in ITR, but it's there and makes sense to some of us.

I absolutely was there when ITR was created. In fact, I was there when Ron did the very first spreadsheet of cars, worked with you guys when ITR was first approved and then on the ITAC very shortly thereafter.

There are reasons for the inconsistencies, but none of them have anything to do with the present ITAC, who is trying to sort out the inconsistencies that resulted from an evolving process. Nothing wrong with that other than getting nit picked for not having done the way you would prefer.

But I agree on agree to disagree.

 

[jjjanos]

Kirk/Jake/Andy did what they thought was right. I almost resigned as well and came close to being told to do so, but Josh impressed me with his leadership and impressed on me the need for us to stay on the committee to stay the course.

IIRC, I commended them for their actions and still do.

The result? Andy/Kirk/Jake made a statement and got attention of the higher ups, and got us the ability to do things like the Ops Manual.

I *think* we can get past the other stuff with the Audi and others.

Troof. Things are a bit better now but some of this will be a huge battle....

Which it is it? The Ops Manual or things like the Audi, because either you use the Manual or you don't. Your words aren't a ringing endorsement of a CRB on-board with the classification method that they approved.

IIRC, the corrections of errors is is being done en masse because of perception issues, correct? I.e. the perception that sending this up for approval as they are done will give the impression that the rules are not stable? If you have the CRB on board with the Ops Manual, then there shouldn't be a problem forwarding the corrections as they are completed by the ITAC.

Or is it because the CRB doesn't want to be bothered with IT issues?

The real rules instability is when you revise the Ops Manual for ITC because the published multiplier is unobtanium for a huge number of cars, if not a veto-proof majority of them. Y'all have been sitting on a request to drop the weight of the ITC CRX for a couple of years now because of that.... I mean, the comprehensive weight adjustment for the class.

 

[shwah]

Unfortunately with the large weight impact of getting it wrong, I don't know there is much that the ITAC can do to make the "ITB problem" go away. There are just too many lbs/hp to allow much differing perception of the power capability of any given car.

I do hope that the class gets better as the ITAC rolls through it, but until there is a way to objectively confirm the power adder for a given car, folks won't be happy. This is why so many A2 VWs have made the move to Production. No one can get 30%. No one can tell us of any legitimate knowledge of a car legally getting 30%, but the car is classed there because "someone" says it can.

It is a good time to run a Toyota or Honda in ITB though. It might create a beneficial influx of new cars/drivers into the class.

 

[Knestis]

unfortunately with the large weight impact of getting it wrong, i don't know there is much that the itac can do to make the "itb problem" go away. There are just too many lbs/hp to allow much differing perception of the power capability of any given car.

I do hope that the class gets better as the itac rolls through it, but until there is a way to objectively confirm the power adder for a given car, folks won't be happy. This is why so many a2 vws have made the move to production. No one can get 30%. No one can tell us of any legitimate knowledge of a car legally getting 30%, but the car is classed there because Chris Albin says it can.

It is a good time to run a toyota or honda in itb though. It might create a beneficial influx of new cars/drivers into the class.

fwiw

k

 

[quadzjr]

It is a good time to run a Toyota or Honda in ITB though. It might create a beneficial influx of new cars/drivers into the class.

It is a good time to run a MK3 VW, Honda Accord, or Protege in ITB. I can assure you. I have spent more money than I care to admit on my toyota.. I still come no where near the process power. On top of that.. I make 30% less torque than an A2. I joke aroudn with A2 drivers down here.. I am down a few hp which coudl be dyno noise but they make 30% more torque than me. They laugh at how bad it is for me. So the VW .. same hp, alot more torque, and weighs 50 lbs lighter..

My personal opinion is that the MK2 should be the bogey car. That is a great car and is driven by alot of ITB drivers. The MK3 has more power, more torque, better brakes, and a better transmission than a MK2.. however only the hp number is took into consideration per the class.

Long story short.. if you get beat by a Toyota in a straight line.. either your engine is about to blow up (Happened to Jetta I was chasing at sebring), You were driving in the grass (Happened at Roebling), or the Toyota is illegal. There is one Toyota that I think is/was illegal. I told his friend that if I see him expect to be inspected.

 

[Ralf]

Kirk, how much hp did your A3 cars make?

 

[shwah]

fwiw

k

I know Chris very well, like decades. I don't beleive that either one of us were able to achieve 30%, and even his word does not mean enough without some form of data in this case (IMO).

I had originally decided to just swallow the 30%, and try one more time, but with the weight that came off other competitive cars while I was back in school, it became a futile effort. It still might be the best for the class in the end. New cars are likely to show up in B at this point. Might bring with it some fresh enthusiasm.

 

[Knestis]

Kirk, how much hp did your A3 cars make?

Remember that you're asking that of the guy who requested that the weight of that car be reviewed, which resulted in an increase...

:026:

K