August 2011 Fastrack
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
lateapex911
Super Moderator
So, Les Chaney, and Sam Moore, both (ex?) ITB Volvo drivers (although not currently in IT, as far as I know), got together with Rick Benazic, a Honda Civic driver to have the weight of the Civic reduced in ITB??? Huh? LOL
That's a clarification. That decal was NEVER intended for handheld bottles, it's for denoting the locations for the release for fire systems only. Think of it this way: there's absolutely no need for a corner worker to know the location of a handheld, they won't be using it. But they might just reach in and hit a fire system actuator.
They should make a similar emphasis (it's already there) for fire system pins, so that uninformed grid (and tech) personnel won't make you pull the pin out of your handheld fire bottle (thus making it unsafe).
GA
StephenB
New member
I was hoping they would consider ABS with a weight penelty. 
It is obviously much safer and I personally do think it is a competitive advantage. By adding the weight penelty I suggested in my letter I was hoping it would be considered. Since it wasn't posted for input from others I am guess it is not something they would even consider with a weight penalty. Oh-well... All new IT cars classified will have it and eventually they will all need it to run with how fast technology is moving. But then again IT can look 4-5 years into the future when planning things like this.
I am going to run my car without a sensor connected and hoping it doesn't create a "limp" mode issue like my Jag does. I will let you know after the Glen in a few weeks!
Stephen
It is obviously much safer and I personally do think it is a competitive advantage. By adding the weight penelty I suggested in my letter I was hoping it would be considered. Since it wasn't posted for input from others I am guess it is not something they would even consider with a weight penalty. Oh-well... All new IT cars classified will have it and eventually they will all need it to run with how fast technology is moving. But then again IT can look 4-5 years into the future when planning things like this. I am going to run my car without a sensor connected and hoping it doesn't create a "limp" mode issue like my Jag does. I will let you know after the Glen in a few weeks!
Stephen
Don't know enough to support one way or another but last time I talked to Les he was there in support of his friends ITB honda. Les was there with his FP volvo but from what I remember on track shennangans made it it easy for him to skip out on the race.
Curious was this a process move? of recently both the CRX and the Civic in ITB have lost 160lbs.. How much data was presented to get such a reduction? how many 10/10ths builds were handed in to get the percentage correct?
Last edited:
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Just seemed like an interesting combination....Rick Benazic is a New Yorker (As in close to NYC) I think and Les and Sam were, I thought, more Southern, and you'd think with them being Volvo guys, they wouldn't be on that letter. It's just a surprising combination, that's all.
Now, the letter DOES make sense in light of the recent CRX adjustment, so good on them for that.
Now, the letter DOES make sense in light of the recent CRX adjustment, so good on them for that.
No I totally agree that if the Civic and CRX have the same power plant they should be classed at the same weight. I was just curious how a car that was alread somewhat competitve (and more competitive than my car) some how got a bigger weight break? I know what I submitted to get 95lbs.. to get 160lbs.. you would think cosworth or someone submitted info or soemting.
I am joking.. but seriously intrigued on how much data backed up the decision for the first (CRX) weight break.
StephenB
New member
I am sure they had several dyno sheets and supporting evidence. They don't just run cars through the process without supporting data to do so. I am sure it had supporting data from Kessler. How is it compaired to yours on a dyno Dave? (Gran)
Stephen
PS: I am very suprised at both Hondas having the reduction in weight. Based on "on track performance"
If you've not seen it in Fastrack and you've not received an email telling you it's been considered, then it's still on their agenda. Committees don't always get to everything every month, but may table it to subsequent months (especially game-changing items that require significant discussion/thought).
When something leaves the committee and goes to the CRB you get one email, then when it's dispensed by the CRB you get another. Until then...patience.
GA
lateapex911
Super Moderator
???
What does the Process spit out for that car!?
I too would be interested to hear what amount of data was needed to gain the 'confidence level" of the ITAC.
StephenB
New member
It was in the fast track meeting minutes thing you posted. Basically said no-go...
I kinda figured as much. I get not allowing it as I do see it as a competitive advantage. I was just hoping with some type of penalty (weight) that it would be considered. I do get it, but I also think they will need to allow it at some point. I was hoping sooner rather than later so I didn't have to spend all the money re-plumbing in new lines and valves and such. I know we had another thread on the ABS thing a while back but I can't find it. Back then I even said it was an advantage but argued it was also safer. I guess in the end I am not looking for an advantage, I just don't want to waist time and money on something that will be allowed within the next few years anyway. I beleive Its already allowed in every other class in SCCA where a car came stock with it, including SCCA PRO.
Stephen
From meeting minutes:
NOT APPROVED BY THE CRB
IMPROVED TOURING
1. #4329 (Charles O'Toole) change head gasket thickness rules
The rules are correct as written.
2. #4432 (David Russell) Allow alternate valve seat material
Not consistent with class philosophy.
ITR
1. #4635 (Stephen Blethen) Allowance of ABS in ITR
Not consistent with current class philosophy.
ITS
1. #4970 (Fred Brett) Reclassify to ITA 99-2000 Civic
This car is classified correctly.
ITA
1. #4226 (Chris Gentry) reclassify scirroco 16v
This car is classified correctly.
2. #5332 (Grant Boshoff) Increase weight
Last edited:
StephenB
New member
Jake,
Not sure what the ??? are but
1) Maybe your questioning if Kessler built Ricks engine... I thought so but maybe I am wrong and if so PLEASE correct me. Kessler is a GREAT guy and builds top notch stuff IMHO. That is why I would think the ITAC would have asked for his dyno sheets.
2) As far as what it spits out... no clue. Doesn't matter does it? I didn't think we could change any car without dyno sheets and supporting data.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Don't play the safety card, you're smarter than that, Stephen...
Also, the other classes in SCCA, like Pro, that allow it, are MUCH more tightly managed classes with 5% of the total models listed. Apples to oysters, methinks.
StephenB
New member
Yup I am smarter than knowing that that it would persuade anyone into allowing it. However it is a fact that it is safer and I think it is a competitive advantage. I will never deny either of those statements.
I am playing the save time and money thing... If you notice they normally put "Not consistent with class philosophy." My notation says "Not consistent with current class philosophy." This says it all and it will change I guarentee it. Mark this day down and I promise that before I get rid of my current car it will be allowed (unless I ball the thing up... then the bet is off!)
Stephen
With respect, the whole "10/10ths build" thing was never the big deal that it's been made for you around the Toyota question. I think you've been led astray by post hoc rationalization of a weight spec on the MR2 that's based in bias and fear.
The Process v.2. simply asked the ITAC members to record their judgment of whatever evidence was presented for a non-standard - other than 1.25 - power multiplier. The idea from the outset, from a guy who helped craft that system, was to impose a pretty high expectation of confidence from the entire committee in order to shift us off of "SOP" and on to "what we know." If we had repeated dyno evidence of a reputable, pro build, that would have been taken into consideration differently than "I've never put it on a dyno but my friend built it and I know it makes like 120whp."
(I hate the term "what we know," by the way, because we NEVER actually KNOW anything.)
The actual change for the CRX Si happened after I left but we looked at a pretty good accumulation of evidence that generated substantial confidence around a 1.3 multiplier for that make/model (with 91 hp stock). Not coincidentally, that multiplier puts it at its current GCR weight. The Civic version should have been done at the same time but wasn't.
You are going to drive yourself crazy looking for a way to make classifications more generally - or the Process v.2 as it was applied c.2008-2010 and should still be applied - align with what happened with (or to) the MR2. That listing is crap. It's always been crap. It should be fixed. Until it is, my confidence in the ITAC is very low.
K
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Can Jeff run us through the process on the lightened Hondas?
JeffYoung
New member
Yes. Home eating dinner but I'll run through it when I get back to the office. This was based off of the various letters to Tom A. and Rob Foley sent (among others). If I recall correctly, the basic idea here was this car was tagged at like 50% or something, and with the dyno data we had we set it back at above default I think. But I will run the numbers and check.
I was hoping they would consider ABS with a weight penelty.
Safer? Please explain how one locks down a car with ABS? One of the first things they teach in DS is both feet in. It puts the spinning car on a predictable path and keeps the engine running. How does one do that with ABS?
I assume that with the process being codified, every car has a chance to be run through as if it had never been classified. I.e. 1.25 multiplier for anything in ITB except for multi-valve engines which use 1.3
After that, raising or lowering the multiplier is going to depend on proving the case for such a movement via the confidence thingy.
If that isn't the case, what's the point?