Any news on ITB weights???

And the band played on.....

MM, beyond the basic philosophical issues , how doe you propose that the ITAC actual DO that? When Andy and I were on the ITAc, would you have thought we should have flown to say Sebring and then talked some guys into letting us measure their cars??
There's no "Run it or you're dq'ed" clause that can be used. And once in, how are we to know that the data is actually good? Good as in robust, repeatable, and not screwed with? We don't. And we won't, whether we are looking for over OR underdogs...

The BEST way to get data is to process the cars, and let people react.
Like the MR2 guys.
(Unless the new guys have memory and see what all the data got the MR2 guys....then it's likely they won't bother)


In a category with 300 cars, some will have high tq and won't rev, or high tq and awful trans ratios, or vice versa, or high tq, high revs, but the engine falls apart every hr of use and the thing is struts all around and can't make weight.

And, if there IS a car that has it all, then the ITAC looks closer at it and makes a change as warranted.
 
Kirk, I was addressing what I thought I read from you saying "it's good enough." and being somewhat dismissive to the argument about peaky vs. flat power curves - more on that in the future. in general I wasn't proposing anything other than "be open to seeing it differently."

I agree that we can't REALLY say that the process does or does not work until we see how good it is when implemented in B. seems to work well in A and up. I agree that the math should be run as published unless there's piles of data saying otherwise. this is how we have been operating. one of the main reasons we haven't gotten all of B on the same process at this point is the confusion over the basic input of HP - there's too many standards and so little good "OEM" data about so many of the cars in B. BUT, what cars are run, with good modern data - most hondas, most VWs, anything with 4 valves/cyl (assuming the rest of the 4AGE cars were published using the 20% multiplier like the MR2) are MOSTLY pretty even - with some exceptions. And yes, some exceptions are going to happen, no one is going for angels on a pin head here. but people choosing to NOT race because their car simply hasn't got a prayer isn't showing the balance we are making to be close enough, either. some people feel very strongly that this is the case. some of those people have cars on the above list and really do have enough development and talent to have a read on this. and it's also likely that they are making process numbers. so there's already evidence that the math we're using now isn't getting it done. conclusive? no. but not something I'm prepared to ignore, either.

believe me when I say I'm WELL aware of the inability to prove a negative. right now we're trying to get the process, as published, run through all of ITB as we've said is our goal. AFAIK *I* am the only committee member who believes the balance issues are real. right now, THAT is a subject for internet demagoguery, running standard 25% math on the rest of ITB is the actual thing being done.
 
Last edited:
We're getting sucked into making judgments of "how well the process works" based on observations of on-track competitiveness, using miniscule sample numbers and an utter lack of control of other variables.

I'd agree to make adjustments to cars - or the process, since it can be diddled to effectively adjust individual cars - if and only if I'm convinced that they are all being driven with exactly the same talent, with the same tire budgets, the same engineering, and the same attention to detail preparation.

Put differently, why didn't I "wax the field" on my first trip to the IT Fest...? I had the magic Golf.

If OBSERVED on-track parity is going to be the ultimate measure of success, just skip to the end and start making actual competition adjustments (bleah). Go fast? Whatever you are driving gets lead. Just don't make the mistake of being a less talented driver in the chassis run by the fast guys or its double-whammy time.

K
 
dude you are over reacting. I'm only saying that people are frustrated and some are walking away. we need to fix that. part one of fixing that is completing the ITB reprocess. As it stands now, there is no magic car in the field, there's a small number of very good choices. then there are some real duds and some middling cars that likely need some development to show their potential. basically like in the rest of the category. on that, we agree completely.

there are only 5 IT classes containing hundreds of cars. It's unrealistic to assume that every one of them is going to be fighting for a podium every weekend. not every car is going to be a winner, even if god himself rubs Carol Smith's essence all over them. we get that.

BUT AFTER ITB is finally processed, and AFTER that has had time to settle out, we owe it to the membership to investigate their ongoing concerns. There's a lot of grumpy ITB guys out there with a pretty consistent message. they MIGHT have a point and we cannot disregard that.

oh, and ON TRACK data is not an input in my mind - it's a feedback loop. relative parity on track, as measured in numerous ways and from knowledgeable analysis, tells us if the system works or not. you can't disregard it completely.
 
Of course you can run al of the cars. But you cantake a well built power train that doesn not make the expected power and verify that fact pretty easy.
 
BUT AFTER ITB is finally processed, and AFTER that has had time to settle out, we owe it to the membership to investigate their ongoing concerns. There's a lot of grumpy ITB guys out there with a pretty consistent message. they MIGHT have a point and we cannot disregard that. ...
Click to expand...

Sorry - I misunderstood the direction the conversation was going. It sounded like addressing grumpiness was part of (or ahead of) getting "fully processed" and "time to settle out."

Get that done. Stat. Some of us got frustrated and walked away influenced by the ongoing dithering, evident lack of direction, and hints that what is good about IT was going to be lost to micromanagement of spec lines.

K
 
On our worst day IT has by far the most stable multi make racing in SCCA. What we make a big deal of would make any other class laugh. Ask GTL how it feels to be one step away from elimination. Get it done and fix the odd balls later. :023:
 
JeffYoung said:
Huh? Cop out? No, it's just asking the Rabbit GTI drivers or people interested in the car to do the same work that anyone else who wants a change in the weight on the car. Get your paperwork and submit it. Otherwise, it's just useless talk. The car was processed previously. You disagree with their conclusions. I'm not going to disturb those conclusions without evidence submitted by those who have it.

It's pretty simple really, and yes, it does seem to me that nearly every post of yours lately has included "and look at the Rabbit GTI in it." If it bothers you that much, send us the data and we'll take a look, just like I've told you several times in the past. If you aren't willing to do that, then I just don't see the basis for the complaining.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely correct Jeff. The car was one of the first cars to get a weight adjustment as part of TGR, but it wasn't 'processed'. At least not in the context of what that means today. It had 100# taken off the spec weight, but that wasn't based on any process, but more of a "Yeah, that sounds about right, and we're not going to make massive adjustments" situation.

Ask some of your former ITAC colleagues that were around then. There's no data that supports how the weight was arrived at, it was, as Kirk says, a POOMA.

And my position ("basis for complaining" as you put it) is, and always has been, transparency and objectivity. No one should have to ask how a given car arrived at a given weight. Either it's a straight process output, or there's published information as to why a deviation from the process was made. That hasn't changed in the 10+ years we've been talking about it on this site.
 
Bill, just curious...why NOT send them the data and ask that it be run through the process?? yea, I know, you'd rather have them 'just do it", but there are hundreds of cars...
When I was ON the ITAC, and I wanted some car to have action taken, I put on my member cap and wrote a letter, with data supporting whatever position I was taking. That letter went into the system, was put on the board for discussion, made it to the con calls agenda, and was processed as appropriate. Then I got an update that said I could read Fastrack for results.

Thats how the system works, even for those who are "inside".

I got calls and emails from guys racing, and i'd discuss things with them happily, but my advice was ALWAYS the same, write us a letter, as I can't just wave a wand and make crap happen without a letter.

Not trying to be adversarial, but while IT.com has been a GREAT resource for the members to communicate with the ITAC (more so in the past) and for the ITAC to reach out to the members, it's not an official submission entry point.
 
Actually Bill, it's changed a lot over the last 10 years. Transparency and objectivity and repeatability were just ideas for a LONG time and now are, more so than ever, actually a reality. We've got a stable Process, it hasn't changed in a few years (in the early years it was changing frequently as it was developed -- necessary but problematic).

So, right now, we do have a lot of cars in the ITCS that were Processed using different formulations of the Process than we have now. We'll take a look at them, but we have to respect what previous ITACs have done. Otherwise, like it or not, you'd have situations like the Miata (weight up, weight down, weight up) over and over and that is very damaging to the class.

I still don't see any real reason for you to essentially object to doing what everyone else has done, and what I've asked you to do for y ears, and that is put your information together and submit it so we can review. Is it really that hard to do if the answer is, as you say, so obvious?
 
I heard today that ITB and ITC were going away so that we could create two new classes above ITR. The idea is to draw in BMWCC members and the drift crowd.

Just kidding.

:)

Look team, this is a monumental undertaking that has a bunch of front end work before you can just 'process' cars. At least 3 different crank HP standards need conversion factors, then it's possible that each of those different eras get different multipliers. Carbed cars make huge peak gains...why? Probably because that era had hp choking emissions and poor build tolerances but they have a tough time tuning the actual curve. Lot's of little things to think of.

You do all that work in committee, then you plug the cars in and then you have to go through them one by one to see if they 'make sense' per the Ops manual. Then after all THAT is done, you have to present your process and conclusions to the CRB in hopes that they don't shit-can it. And lets say they don't chit-can the entire concept, just 2 cars that they feel are 'wrong'. Do you hold your ground and explain the value of the Process again or do you let them squeeze you into a number you can't back up or isn't done the same as the others?

The ITAC is getting there, be patient. It's a process with 100 heads. Each needs to be chopped up systematically in hopes of success.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
I heard today that ITB and ITC were going away so that we could create two new classes above ITR. The idea is to draw in BMWCC members and the drift crowd.

Just kidding.

:)

Look team, this is a monumental undertaking that has a bunch of front end work before you can just 'process' cars. At least 3 different crank HP standards need conversion factors, then it's possible that each of those different eras get different multipliers. Carbed cars make huge peak gains...why? Probably because that era had hp choking emissions and poor build tolerances but they have a tough time tuning the actual curve. Lot's of little things to think of.

You do all that work in committee, then you plug the cars in and then you have to go through them one by one to see if they 'make sense' per the Ops manual. Then after all THAT is done, you have to present your process and conclusions to the CRB in hopes that they don't shit-can it. And lets say they don't chit-can the entire concept, just 2 cars that they feel are 'wrong'. Do you hold your ground and explain the value of the Process again or do you let them squeeze you into a number you can't back up or isn't done the same as the others?

The ITAC is getting there, be patient. It's a process with 100 heads. Each needs to be chopped up systematically in hopes of success.
Click to expand...

All very true.
 
JeffYoung said:
Actually Bill, it's changed a lot over the last 10 years. Transparency and objectivity and repeatability were just ideas for a LONG time and now are, more so than ever, actually a reality. We've got a stable Process, it hasn't changed in a few years (in the early years it was changing frequently as it was developed -- necessary but problematic).

So, right now, we do have a lot of cars in the ITCS that were Processed using different formulations of the Process than we have now. We'll take a look at them, but we have to respect what previous ITACs have done. Otherwise, like it or not, you'd have situations like the Miata (weight up, weight down, weight up) over and over and that is very damaging to the class.

I still don't see any real reason for you to essentially object to doing what everyone else has done, and what I've asked you to do for y ears, and that is put your information together and submit it so we can review. Is it really that hard to do if the answer is, as you say, so obvious?
Click to expand...

Jeff,

I think you misunderstood me. What I was referring to that hasn't changed for over 10 years is what I want the IT process to be, transparent, objective, and the deviations documented with published reasons for the deviation.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the hard work that you and many others have put in, to get things where they are today. I know it has been a Herculean task. But for things to be truly equitable, everyone needs to get measured by the same yardstick. So, while there are several cars that were processed via different standards, if the standards change, those folks deserve to have their cars re-processed. It may benefit some, but it may hurt others. However, if it's done objectively, you can't say someone got a raw deal.
 
Older ITB cars

I have an older,1970s ITB car ,Is it true in the redoing of this class that some cars are going to be removed. Don't want to fix it up to not have a spot in IT. Thanks Jim
 
I see no reason why they would remove any cars. If you want your cars to possibly classed more correctly (if it doea not make 25% gains). Submit your dyno plot, build sheet, and a letter to class your car via the process.

You running an opel? Always been a fan of the Opel GT.
 
Jimopel said:
I have an older,1970s ITB car ,Is it true in the redoing of this class that some cars are going to be removed. Don't want to fix it up to not have a spot in IT. Thanks Jim
Click to expand...
Theres been talk of not processing cars that aren't being run, but...how does the ITAC actually KNOW what cars aren't being run?
They COULD list the cars getting ignored/dropped in Fastrack, but ask any tech inspector how many guys show up each spring with blank stares on their faces when they are asked why their cars didn't get safety updates that were announced multiple times in Fastrack, and you'll see the pitfalls in THAT plan.
So it's probably safe to say they'll not go that route.
 
Just me speaking here:

There may be SOME older ITB and C cars that remain on the ITCS but have their weight removed pending a request (with appropriate documentation) to have the car processed and the weight relisted. I don't think there will be many of those.

So, no, no running cars (or non-running for that matter) will be delisted from the ITCS.
 
Older IT cars

Yes it's an opel gt,2000,2001,2002 Narrc champ.Had a few medical problems in the past few years so no money to race.
Looking at the weights verses horse power,what standard are we using? I know that many of the older cars numbers are not sae and there for somewhat inflated. Jim
 
Cool car. As a fellow oddball driver, I salute you.....

SAE gross v. net is a big issue. We are working off of net numbers, so if we encounter an SAE gross rating we'll have to discount it. There are some means to do that but it can be tricky especially when you throw in some ratings that are DIN.

Wiki says 102 gross in 71, 83 gross in 73 due to compression reduction. Is that correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top