Any news on ITB weights???

[Chip42]

And it's a shame - there are many good, affordable cars out there built or driving around on the street that make reliable, fun, "fast" ITB cars. I honestly believe there's no better racing on a budget (especially if the street tire challenge concept gains traction as ITB is the class best suited to it)

yet outside of pockets of the country (the big # areas, CFR, NARRC, MARRS) ITB is woefully undersubscribed. the "debacle" doesn't help much. but the biggest issue is the shopping preferences of middle class males leaning decidedly away from small sedans with <130hp, many <110hp. "no one" gives a shit about the cars we race. they want integras and RX7s and moosetangs. and that's great.

the UPside of all of this is the lessons learned portion. we got rid of the 30% rule (it's now a suggestion - I have to check if the new version has been posted yet) the MR2 is classed at 20% which made everyone happy (yes, by process it's off a bit but just about every car is running around heavy now anyhow so approaching irrelevant) and the Audi, while the classing was done on some numbers that aren't widely agreed upon, seems to be doing OK regardless so can't be THAT far off actual as raced numbers. yeah, that's not the point of the issue and we all know it, but when the green drops the only thing that matters is weather or not you have a chance, and in that light I think the Audi is OK. I'd rather it be re-run using "what we know" (from good data) and let the weight fall objectively from the math, but there you go. what we have now does agree with the conversational data we have, which is all we have. the lessons transcend ITB and are applicable throughout all of IT, and to ST, prod etc... as well to a degree.

regarding torque - we don't really process for it. in ITR there's a 100-150# penalty for having gobs of the stuff, but you rarely find any use of the torque adders in ITC-A and it's not very common in ITS. one of the reasons I want the database completed in B, and all other classes, is to have mean, median, and Std Dev. torque values for each class so we can more objectively apply the torque adder. I believe there are many places where it's needed and not used, and not a few where it's used unnecessarily. but that's the future, and it's one man's objective as I'm not speaking for the committee nor the board. right now we have to get the data sorted out and get everyone on the same page, even if it's a somewhat larger page than one might want.

 

[gran racing]

Seems I've been reading about ITB on this site for five years.

Imagine how frustrating it is to be more involved than just reading about it.

As I began racing with SCCA, I was often told that things operate in a backroom and don’t be surprised with the politics as well as decisions that just don’t make sense.
Then came about the process as a great way to minimize subjectivity, if it were to actually be utilized as intended.
I have since on from ITB but the whole deal still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If there had be openness, things would be different. My dealings with the multi-valve adder where a CRB member had specific interest in the Accord, that car gained weight associated with how the adder was documented, then lost weight right at the point where it was said no more weights would be adjusted for the time being in ITB. Seriously? When was that now, two years ago?

Many cars in the ITB class have not been provided the opportunity to be run through the process in a fair matter. Ways to handle the volume have been discussed way too often. A member submits the request, provides supporting information, it goes in line.

It was truly disappointing how all of things have been handled and the often perceived back room deals of SCCA sure seem legitimate to many people. I’m not saying that it is happening now, or even the ITAC could have done anything different. But hey, ask membership and the majority will say “politics as usual in racing.”

What I’m most disappointed in is that I felt we had the tools and the people in place to do things right and the way they should be in racing. We blew it. Yes, time to move on and do what can be done going forward.

 

[Chip42]

we the ITAC, decided to stop piecemeal adjustments to the class or "Death by a thousand cuts" as this was seen as widening gaps, real or perceived, and decided instead to rerun everything when the data was collected. I think that was roughly 1 year ago now. we have approved new cars, but haven't adjusted any existing ones pending completion of this endeavor, and I am starting to agree that it would be good to run "just those cars" that are running, but in reality we really have to do all or nothing in order to EVER get to the rest of the cars. yeah, we could pull weights a'la production but I'm sure we'd miss something that is being run but isn't being talked about. probably a lot of somethings. we'll discuss, it's pretty much our highest priority right now and only large project.

 

[JeffYoung]

Yeah but...

I know you feel frustrated, and you should be, vis a vis the Accord, but at the same time for every situation like the 30% adder in ITB/the Audi/the MR2 there have been probably over a hundred cars that were processed or "fixed" during the Great Realignment. Because your car was involved, I get you feel the system failed, but when you look at it wholistically, it's doing exactly as promised.

The problem children get all the attention though (not you, I mean the situation with a couple of cars in IT.

I guess the only frustration I feel with posts like yours is the fact that they are coming from a car that was VERY competitive anyway. I know that the 30% for your car but not the Accord wasn't fair, and it took a long and winding road to get it fixed, but in the interim it wasn't like your car was consigned to the scrap heap.

Anyway, I understand most of what you are saying and just want to assure you that 99% of the time the Process works awesome. It really does.

Imagine how frustrating it is to be more involved than just reading about it.

As I began racing with SCCA, I was often told that things operate in a backroom and don’t be surprised with the politics as well as decisions that just don’t make sense.
Then came about the process as a great way to minimize subjectivity, if it were to actually be utilized as intended.
I have since on from ITB but the whole deal still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If there had be openness, things would be different. My dealings with the multi-valve adder where a CRB member had specific interest in the Accord, that car gained weight associated with how the adder was documented, then lost weight right at the point where it was said no more weights would be adjusted for the time being in ITB. Seriously? When was that now, two years ago?

Many cars in the ITB class have not been provided the opportunity to be run through the process in a fair matter. Ways to handle the volume have been discussed way too often. A member submits the request, provides supporting information, it goes in line.

It was truly disappointing how all of things have been handled and the often perceived back room deals of SCCA sure seem legitimate to many people. I’m not saying that it is happening now, or even the ITAC could have done anything different. But hey, ask membership and the majority will say “politics as usual in racing.”

What I’m most disappointed in is that I felt we had the tools and the people in place to do things right and the way they should be in racing. We blew it. Yes, time to move on and do what can be done going forward.

 

[shwah]

sorry - but on track competitiveness is not part of the analysis

 

[Knestis]

LOL - same stuff, different day.

We can argue about consumer preferences but the simple fact is that mismanagement by the CRB (and its proxies) has chased real, live, racers out of ITB.

It is pointedly NOT an all-or-nothing proposition and the most surefire way to assure that "nothing" gets done is to set as the standard that it "all" gets done.

And with the paradigm established by The Process, "seems to be doing OK" is as bad a reason for doing nothing as "Dave Gran is winning every time he races" would have been for giving his Honda a lead trophy.

Since it seems that the CRB obstructionism has been resolved, all of the tools are in place to start making fixes. I'm sorry, ITAC guys, but to not do so is just a different brand of the same old silliness.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

sorry - but on track competitiveness is not part of the analysis

Ugh.

No, it's not. Except to monitor whether we've just gotten something completely wrong with the process. Which was not the case with Dave's Accord.

AGAIN GUYS: with the perceived "problem" with the ITAC and the Process being .3% of the cars in ITB (Accord, Audi, MR2) I can't help but conclude that a large part of the problem is unrealistic expectations of membership.

No, we are never going to be able to get all of this "right" in a way that suits everyone. No, nothing is ever going to be 100% consistent. But I'll take 99.7% or whatever we are at.

 

[JeffYoung]

LOL - same stuff, different day.

We can argue about consumer preferences but the simple fact is that mismanagement by the CRB (and its proxies) has chased real, live, racers out of ITB.

It is pointedly NOT an all-or-nothing proposition and the most surefire way to assure that "nothing" gets done is to set as the standard that it "all" gets done.

And with the paradigm established by The Process, "seems to be doing OK" is as bad a reason for doing nothing as "Dave Gran is winning every time he races" would have been for giving his Honda a lead trophy.

Since it seems that the CRB obstructionism has been resolved, all of the tools are in place to start making fixes. I'm sorry, ITAC guys, but to not do so is just a different brand of the same old silliness.

K

Ok, that happened. It's over. The 30% rule is gone. The Accord, Prelude and MR2 are fixed. The Audi is in all likelihood at a number that is close to its actual output. One of the VWs is probably over weight at 30% but it's not off by much.

If you want perfection, sure, there's lot to get angry about. If you want close, very well balanced muti-marque racing, put down the keyboard and race IT.

I frankly don't care about whether we do ITB piecemeal or all at once. Either way we'll catch flak. Part and parcel with the "job." I just want it done RIGHT. With "RIGHT" not being "what Joe thinks is correct for his car." We get a lot of that.

 

[Rabbit05]

the UPside of all of this is the lessons learned portion. we got rid of the 30% rule (it's now a suggestion - I have to check if the new version has been posted yet) the MR2 is classed at 20% which made everyone happy (yes, by process it's off a bit but just about every car is running around heavy now anyhow so approaching irrelevant) and the Audi, while the classing was done on some numbers that aren't widely agreed upon, seems to be doing OK regardless so can't be THAT far off actual as raced numbers. yeah, that's not the point of the issue and we all know it, but when the green drops the only thing that matters is weather or not you have a chance, and in that light I think the Audi is OK. I'd rather it be re-run using "what we know" (from good data) and let the weight fall objectively from the math, but there you go. what we have now does agree with the conversational data we have, which is all we have. the lessons transcend ITB and are applicable throughout all of IT, and to ST, prod etc... as well to a degree.

But isn't that considered using as on-track performance as a guide or benchmark ? Which isn't allowed... And as Jeff mentioned, the Toyota and Accord have been fixed.....So do the ITAC folks really think the Audi will blow up the class if it sheds the extra weight ?

 

[JeffYoung]

But isn't that considered using as on-track performance as a guide or benchmark ? Which isn't allowed... And as Jeff mentioned, the Toyota and Accord have been fixed.....So do the ITAC folks really think the Audi will blow up the class if it sheds the extra weight ?

Chip is articulating exactly how all of us, even the most "conservative" ITAC members past and present, would view on track performance -- just as after the fact evidence of whether the classification (and the expected gain in IT trim) was right or wrong. Just a way to validate whether 25% on a CRX or a rotary was correct or incorrect, and to sniff out overdogs.

I don't think the Audi will blow up the class if it was classed at 25% gain on 110 stock hp. That said, I also don't think the Audi drivers as a group have been as forthcoming in helping us to fix the claimed error by submitting dyno sheets (dyno runs are not expensive) like the Mr2 drivers did. Less complaining and more work/effort by them would have perhaps gotten this resolved sooner, and more favorably to them.

I would be especially peeved if the Audi drivers as a group KNEW their cars made well more than 25% and still pushed for the 110 hp classification as a knowing attempt to game the process. I'm not saying that happened, but I would be very unhappy if it did.

 

[gran racing]

Don't think I'm upset with your opinions on this Jeff but that's not fully what I was upset about. And believe it or not, it was, and still remains to be much more than just about what impacted me individually.

just want to assure you that 99% of the time the Process works awesome.

I agree, when it is applied the say way.

Which was not the case with Dave's Accord.

That's just it. Accord had a lower % adder when the CRB decided to add the multivalve adder to ITB. I played the game and submitted two requests. 1 - eliminate the adder or at least use it as done now. 2 - increase the weight of the Accord. 3 - Put the car I was racing (a Prelude) through the process which had similar engine arcitecture structure but 10 HP less stock. The Accord weight got bumped up to the defacto 30%. All of a sudden now that the Accord was impacted, coincidently (ha?) the multivalve deal is changed. The Accord then gets weight reduced. Then no other cars are allowed to be adjusted, including the Prelude.
It was seeing the politics behind this and other situations. Yes, it bothered me that I wanted to go down to the ARRC and would be racing against the Accords which were directly involved with those on the CRB. It also opened my eyes to how things work and certainly concerned me about how ALL cars and categories that the CRB is involved in would be treated.

While I moved on from ITB, I still care about those cars. It really wasn't about a single car classification. The Audi ARRC and a different CRB member's reaction was absolutely a part of this. I had zero faith in the CRB at that point in time. The ITAC and Process? Absolutely.

If they weren't, I truly think certain members of the CRB should have been asked to step down and no longer in office of SCCA due to these reasons.

Focusing on the present, I just hope things are much more in the open. Put cars through the process, be able to explain why a car was classed the way it was, the CRB not put personal objectives into decision making or recuse themselves if it's too closely tied. Open communication.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I hate to see bitching about the Audi. Two different HP rating are on file. So what do you do? You try and validate one of them. Printed docs show two numbers from the factory. You gather dyno data and engine build data and then try and make sense of the information. Guess what? None exists. Whose fault is that?

I would have classed it at 120 until someone proved that 127.5whp wasn't possible.

 

[lateapex911]

I don't think the Audi will blow up the class if it was classed at 25% gain on 110 stock hp. That said, I also don't think the Audi drivers as a group have been as forthcoming in helping us to fix the claimed error by submitting dyno sheets (dyno runs are not expensive) like the Mr2 drivers did. Less complaining and more work/effort by them would have perhaps gotten this resolved sooner, and more favorably to them.

Look at it from the outside, Jeff....
The general timeline-

1- The MR2 motor was classified at a ridiculous 30%. (in a "deal" made by a then ITAC member to "allow" multivalve motors into ITB, because "multivalves make more gains")
2- MR2 owners howl in protest. Lose wheel size AND get screwed on power?? Just grrrreat!
3- The same ITAC member who devised the 30% fiasco moves to the CRB, (!!!!!!) and flat refutes their claims, and states "It's a Formula Atlantic engine!!!" The ITAC requests dyno sheets.
4- They get dyno sheets, all of them pretty weak, one was a Prod engine that STILL didn't sniff at anything close to 30%, nor even 25%. More resistance from the naysayers, notably guys who have ITB cars. (Not saying they were all biased, but they had ITB cars and they resisted mightily, simple as that)
5- Finally, the car gets adjusted, but what are the actual sheets showing as gains? My recollection shows 11%, or 12%. So the classification gets set to 20%. Now that IS a LOT better than the 30%, (Which is kinda like saying "Great, I have gonorrhea! The BEST of the sexually transmitted diseases!"~).....but, it took forever, and I bet the MR2 guys still think it's not where it should be.


So, after watching that fiasco, and the end result transpire, I can see how the Audi guys might say, "F-that"....I mean you KNOW the deal: The ITAC needs more sheets, wants a different dyno, wants more build data, wants more exhaust header experimentation, doesn't like the F/A curve, and so on, and after all that, IF the sheets come in at say 21% of 110, they'd be terrified that the old "Stick 5% more on it just because" would be done, just like the MR2.

So, why go to ALL that expense, and bother, just to be right where you started?

Especially when they knew that there was certainly clear indications that hanky panky could have been happening with members of the PTB who had vested interests in the same class!

Honestly, I don't blame them one bit for just shaking their heads and moving on.

 

[lateapex911]

I hate to see bitching about the Audi. Two different HP rating are on file. So what do you do? You try and validate one of them. Printed docs show two numbers from the factory. You gather dyno data and engine build data and then try and make sense of the information. Guess what? None exists. Whose fault is that?

I would have classed it at 120 until someone proved that 127.5whp wasn't possible.

As long as we're playing "I would have...."

I never saw this reported microfiche that exists in some drawer in Ingolstatd, but I have seen multiple and numerous references to the 100 rating. I also never saw dyno sheets that people swore existed showing big gains. So, show me the paper.

I'd have proposed, if I were on the ITAC, and we somehow came to the scenario of choosing 110 or 120, that we do a 'confidence vote".

It's a vexing problem all across ITB. Maybe the confidence vote concept can help? Divide and conquer.

 

[Knestis]

I would have done what I tried to do: Write off the mythical higher-power document as an anomaly, clarify and tighten up the spec line to only include the years to which the lower documented figure applied, run the process, and go racing.

At which point the CRB would go up in a puff of obstinacy.

K

 

[Flyinglizard]

We need to take the CRB out of the classing stuff and keep it at the safety items only. They screw most of the racing up.
Let the ITAC do it all and get on with it. The snails pace of change has driven many away.

As I prior noted; the cars with multi valves have much better peripherals and thus dont make a lot more power with simple add ons. 10-15 % with much controller work
The older car with shittyexhaust manifolds show lots bigger improvements with a header, while the 4V cars often show a zero gain with most headers. MR 2, VW, 16V etc.

Keep on the street tire thing please.
MM

 

[Chip42]

Keep on the street tire thing please.

working on logo and sponsors. watch your inbox, we will have the package rolled out for CFR by turkey trots and it will be "open source" to any region that wants to borrow the webpage, decals, and rules.

 

[RSTPerformance]

That said, I also don't think the Audi drivers as a group have been as forthcoming in helping us to fix the claimed error by submitting dyno sheets (dyno runs are not expensive) like the Mr2 drivers did. Less complaining and more work/effort by them would have perhaps gotten this resolved sooner, and more favorably to them

Raymond "trying so hard to keep out of this... errrrr. It's soooo hard!" Blethen

 

[RSTPerformance]

Deleted... Rethought and going to go back to racing after one final thought: The issues with ITB and the ITAC/CRB have nothing to do with the Audi or any other specific car, its the people who make the decisions. We have moved on so please don't refer to our experience (it just makes me upset), our cars (they were fast before all the new cars were added to the class) or our performance (Its not all the car, we have a great crew) any longer.

The cars that win don't win because cars are classed "wrong." They win because the team they are on choose a good car, developed it, put a good driver behind the wheel, and figured out the correct car set up. Anyone can win with a weight penalty, if you don't think you can add weight for a session to you car and see how much slower you are... It's not a huge difference as the internet makes it out to be.

Raymond "Go out and built an ITB car, it's the best racing you will find on the globe if you are racing on a budget" Blethen

 

[Bill Miller]

Imagine how frustrating it is to be more involved than just reading about it.

As I began racing with SCCA, I was often told that things operate in a backroom and don’t be surprised with the politics as well as decisions that just don’t make sense.
Then came about the process as a great way to minimize subjectivity, if it were to actually be utilized as intended.
I have since on from ITB but the whole deal still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If there had be openness, things would be different. My dealings with the multi-valve adder where a CRB member had specific interest in the Accord, that car gained weight associated with how the adder was documented, then lost weight right at the point where it was said no more weights would be adjusted for the time being in ITB. Seriously? When was that now, two years ago?

Many cars in the ITB class have not been provided the opportunity to be run through the process in a fair matter. Ways to handle the volume have been discussed way too often. A member submits the request, provides supporting information, it goes in line.

It was truly disappointing how all of things have been handled and the often perceived back room deals of SCCA sure seem legitimate to many people. I’m not saying that it is happening now, or even the ITAC could have done anything different. But hey, ask membership and the majority will say “politics as usual in racing.”

What I’m most disappointed in is that I felt we had the tools and the people in place to do things right and the way they should be in racing. We blew it. Yes, time to move on and do what can be done going forward.

Pretty much this. Those that were around back then will remember that I got shouted down pretty bad for suggesting that we implement and objective system for classifying cars that was based on a power/weight ratio (what Kirk refers to as the "Miller Ratio") for each class, and some defined and documented modifiers. I never suggested that it would be a "one and done" deal, but that it would get fine tuned as more data became available. Nope, something like that will NEVER work.

LOL - same stuff, different day.

We can argue about consumer preferences but the simple fact is that mismanagement by the CRB (and its proxies) has chased real, live, racers out of ITB.

It is pointedly NOT an all-or-nothing proposition and the most surefire way to assure that "nothing" gets done is to set as the standard that it "all" gets done.

And with the paradigm established by The Process, "seems to be doing OK" is as bad a reason for doing nothing as "Dave Gran is winning every time he races" would have been for giving his Honda a lead trophy.

Since it seems that the CRB obstructionism has been resolved, all of the tools are in place to start making fixes. I'm sorry, ITAC guys, but to not do so is just a different brand of the same old silliness.

K

Indeed. But, what did I miss w.r.t. the CRB obstructionism being resolved?

Ok, that happened. It's over. The 30% rule is gone. The Accord, Prelude and MR2 are fixed. The Audi is in all likelihood at a number that is close to its actual output. One of the VWs is probably over weight at 30% but it's not off by much.

If you want perfection, sure, there's lot to get angry about. If you want close, very well balanced muti-marque racing, put down the keyboard and race IT.

I frankly don't care about whether we do ITB piecemeal or all at once. Either way we'll catch flak. Part and parcel with the "job." I just want it done RIGHT. With "RIGHT" not being "what Joe thinks is correct for his car." We get a lot of that.

With all due respect Jeff, you and I have had MANY discussion about the Rabbit GTI. Unlike the Audi, there's no other published number on the hp. Everything out there says it makes 90hp stock. It's also pretty well established that the stock exhaust manifold was a turd. But, there's nothing other than one guy's "I know a guy who lived next to a guy that heard of a guy that saw it written on a bathroom wall that there is one that makes 100hp". What's even worse, is if you do the math based on that number, the car is STILL heavy. And if you use the same 30% factor that the A2 GTI does, it's still heavy by ~90#. I know it hasn't gotten the press that the MR2 and Audi have, but the Rabbit GTI is the car that's the poster child for pulling the weight out of someone's ass. I've asked countless times, yet no one has been able to produce any documented evidence of why that car deserves that weight.