Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

K

Knestis

Moderator
I feel a compelling need to relay some facts for consideration by interested IT racers, without imposing any interpretations or inferences of my own:

1. Almost 20 recommendations for weight changes to IT cars, each made in response to a member request, have been sent to the Board since the ITAC's April conference call.

2. While other recommendations have been sent up, voted on, and published in Fastrack during that time, none relating to weight specification have been acted on - include a couple that were corrections of very recent mistakes WE MADE and fully accepted responsibility for.

3. The last recommendation of this nature that was voted on, was a correction to the Golf and Jetta II. Our recommendation was to reduce the weight 10 pounds. The board voted against that change (May Fastrack).

4. (Some inference here.) This recommendation was seen by members of the ITAC as significant because it was the first application of a revised practice that ignored the traditional "close enough" guidelines. That is to say, the ITAC ran the numbers, determined the weight, and recommended exactly that weight - as opposed to subjectively deciding it was "close enough to not bother changing."

5. Finally, the Comp Board has formally asked the ITAC to explain and defend its current process and practices, finalized internally over the past few months and just recently finished and codified.

The upshot of this is that - for good, bad, or otherwise - conversations about the IT category are happening among the Club leadership. If you have opinions about issues relating to IT rules, classifications, specifications, or philosophies now would be a very good time to voice them. Get involved and be heard.

K
 
I guess I'll post here what I did elsewhere, and give some thought to the content of a letter on the general subject of IT to the powers that be. It's hard for me to do that because many of the issues I see are larger than IT, and require a re-consideration of the Club Racing structure as a whole (dump Regional/National, have 'Races', invite top 20 classes in participation to the Runoffs the following year, invite the rest to ARRC, treat all the classes equitably and make the effort to make them all competitive places to race - maybe apply some of what makes IT so good to other classes).

As far as what appears to have brought this conversation to the fore:

If the intention was to make a number of changes around 'target' cars to improve equity in the class, it seems putting that together as a package would have made the concept easier to communicate to the decision makers.

Of course I am still in the position currently that we need to address the 'standard of evidence' issue for alternative process inputs. If you guys get a car wrong on the heavy side, people will be incentivised to send in data showing a lower than assumed power gain, and that data can easily be skewed. If you guys get a car wrong on the light side, people will not be incentivised to share any data - I know I am not going through a 10/10ths build of a competitors power plant to prove the mistake, and they certainly are not dumb enough to share it. You are setting yourselves up to create overdogs by not addressing this issue first because the correction mechanism available won't be triggered (unless you start to consider 'on track performance' - which is a bad idea in most cases).

Since the A2 Golf/Jetta weight 'inaction' was precipitated by my request early last year, I'll speak to it. While I agree with the philosphy of classing the cars where they land, and on this basis wish the change were approved, I could care less about whether I get a 10 pound reduction, because the reality is that the car is closer to 10 times that far off achieving equitable power/weight compared to the other front runners in the class. At this point the issue is dead to me and I'll find a way to win with what I've got (EDIT - it has been suggested to me that the expectation was that other cars would move the other direction putting them in closer to equitable positions). Building and testing several custom headers now, flow testing several heads, manifolds and throttle bodies now, whatever it takes to remove any possibility of not having everything legaly possible out of the car. This is why I have not raced this year. I don't want to bring a knife to the back straight at MO or RA next year. My position is certainly not impartial on this particular case, so my opinions are likely skewed at least some on the subject.

I have heard rumors of other requests that were not acted on, and they have raised my eyebrows a lot. To the point that I would lose a lot of faith in the category if they went through. Thus my beating the drum of knowing that we know what we think we know, rather than knowing what we were told, before taking action. It will be harder to fix a mistake than I used to think IMO.
 
Last edited:
IMSA, NASA, and other racing organizations thrive due to the shortcomings of the SCCA. These alternate organizations would not exist had SCCA done a better job.

My recent request for the Volvo 240 is not a weight reduction request, but a line item review as some information listed is flat out wrong (i.e. exhaust valve size is 35mm, not 37mm!). If the weight changed, good. If not, at least I can build a legal car using OEM parts. I'm not sure if my request was denied. If it is, I will be writing a letter.

Same crap happens in SCCA Pro-Racing too. It's unfortunately the SCCA way.

Has the ITAC written down their philosophies and practices? If not, now is a good time since they are under scrutiny.
 
There will always be alternative motorsports organizations due to differing cultures. There are things that frustrate people about SCCA; there are things that frustrate others about NASA.

The Volvo request has been looked at several times and is being worked on. It has not been denied.

I certainly agree that, at a minimum, the "Process 2.0" for determining a car's race weight should be published.

rsportvolvo said:
IMSA, NASA, and other racing organizations thrive due to the shortcomings of the SCCA. These alternate organizations would not exist had SCCA done a better job.

My recent request for the Volvo 240 is not a weight reduction request, but a line item review as some information listed is flat out wrong (i.e. exhaust valve size is 35mm, not 37mm!). If the weight changed, good. If not, at least I can build a legal car using OEM parts. I'm not sure if my request was denied. If it is, I will be writing a letter.

Same crap happens in SCCA Pro-Racing too. It's unfortunately the SCCA way.

Has the ITAC written down their philosophies and practices? If not, now is a good time since they are under scrutiny.
Click to expand...
 
and would someone like to lay out just what version 2.0 is? it'd be kinda nice to know before i try and give feedback on it, and to see if i need to put the car i just built up for sale
 
More than anything, I think a potential competitor should be able to go to the rule book and either find his/her car or be able to run the process on a new car to ascertain the class in which it would run. Other organizations mentioned have that capability without jumping through hoops. Hopefully, process V2.0 will alleviate some of the angst in car selection.

NASA has thrived on the GTS front on HP/WT but I think interest in that class is waning. People are starting to realize that classification solely depends on money, as does competitiveness. I am seeing a lot of NASA drivers looking hard at IT. As they say, "come on down". Chuck
 
Opinion:

ITAC/Comp board would do a lot to win the trust of the masses if they would be a bit more transparent. If this legendary process was a bit less secretive there would be fewer questions asked (at least to publish how a weight was arrived at when a new car comes on board). If there is a question that has been put in front of either the ITAC or the comp board, it should be mentioned in every Fast Track until it gets closed. (How f'ing hard is it to acknowledge that you have a letter?)

If IT went national, similar to SM, there are enough people in the grid that you would see regional only classes pop up just like spec RX7 if it were merited. In other words if people found that National IT just didn't do it for them and they had enough people who agreed, there would be a move to make some change or gentlemen's agreement not to do what the national guys were doing. This would result in a non-national class.


Fact:
If "the process" was non-subjective, was consistent and had been applied to all cars on the books at the time, none should be off an ounce. So why are is anyone fiddling around w/ a 10 pound change? Get on to more important things please like trying to find new cars to fill the grids.
 
Two MAJOR problems with SCCA/IT now...

ITAC/Comp board should at least publish how a weight was arrived at when a new car comes on board.

How f'ing hard is it to acknowledge that you have a letter (other than an e-mail that only says you have been waiting 8 (or isit 9) months a few more won't be to bad... If there is a question that has been put in front of either the ITAC or the comp board, it should be mentioned in every Fast Track until it gets closed.

Raymond "Matt I am with ya" Blethen
 
I would also be interested to k ow who's requests have been worked on and who's are still on the shelf... 20 weight adjustment requests??? Get member feedback if you guys can't figure it out!

Oh wait you ask for member feedback then do nothing with it should I mention AWD???

Raymond
 
There has been and continues to be significant discussion about AWD. There are basically three 'camps" I see on the ITAC on this issue:

1. One group says class the cars, at least 2-3 people have written in wanting specifically to class an N/A AWD car so they can build it. That group feels like that is enough to justify doing it.

2. A second group sees it as a cost benefit analysis. There are so few N/A AWD cars as to create only a small benefit by classing them. On the downside, classing AWD cars will be difficult because we don't fully understand their handling dynamics, and whether (a) there actually is a handling "penalty" in the dry and (b) how much of an advantage AWD is in the wet.

3. A third group is adamantly opposed based on the perceived advantage AWD has in the rain.

Right now, it's stalled due to the significant split into the three groups I list above.
 
Has the ITAC written down their philosophies and practices? If not, now is a good time since they are under scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Yes. Just got them finalized but even that statement can be misleading since in truth, not much has actually changed since le Grand Réalignement. The math is pretty much the same. The biggest changes have to do with the practices around applying that math - in all instances, removing ambiguity and opportunities for subjectivity.

MMiskoe said:
...Fact: If "the process" was non-subjective, was consistent and had been applied to all cars on the books at the time, none should be off an ounce. So why are is anyone fiddling around w/ a 10 pound change? Get on to more important things please like trying to find new cars to fill the grids.
Click to expand...

Because (a) it was requested by a member to re-examine it, and (b) it had not been through the current process. The Golf II was one of the "bogey cars" for the Great Realignment since the perception was that it was competitive at its then-current weight. The other ITB cars that were changed (and a LOT WERE NOT) got their weights set by the ITAC at the time.

The "process" had substantial room for subjectivity at that time, as well: The MATH was pretty much the same as what we do now but the PHILOSOPHY was much different, such that if the process spit out a weight that "just wasn't right," it could be changed based on what committee members felt was best. The official guidelines in place at the time included directions to "Review the resulting classification weight and determine if the results are acceptable."

NO arguments from me - inside view - re: documenting requests, getting to them in a timely way, and keeping the membership accurately informed about where things are. We hear from our CRB liaisons that the Club office is working on a web-based system to manage that but I kind of feel like if the inclination and organization were in place to do those things well, they'd be done well. In my experience, a technology solution doesn't change inclination or organization. There's lots of room for improvement there.

It's not a general issue but member input on the AWD question WAS reviewed on the last con call (Jeff was on an airplane at the time, I think), and the ITAC responded to the CRB with a first-principle position on the subject. What they do with that will be the next step.
I would also be interested to k ow who's requests have been worked on and who's are still on the shelf... 20 weight adjustment requests??? Get member feedback if you guys can't figure it out!
Click to expand...

Read what I wrote again, Raymond: The ITAC has made its recommendations on those. They have been referred to the CRB. I don't think member input is warranted on every weight change but member input IS warranted re: factors that might bear on what the CRB does with those recommendations. THAT'S the point of my original post.

K

 
JeffYoung said:
There has been and continues to be significant discussion about AWD. There are basically three 'camps" I see on the ITAC on this issue:

1. One group says class the cars, at least 2-3 people have written in wanting specifically to class an N/A AWD car so they can build it. That group feels like that is enough to justify doing it.

2. A second group sees it as a cost benefit analysis. There are so few N/A AWD cars as to create only a small benefit by classing them. On the downside, classing AWD cars will be difficult because we don't fully understand their handling dynamics, and whether (a) there actually is a handling "penalty" in the dry and (b) how much of an advantage AWD is in the wet.

3. A third group is adamantly opposed based on the perceived advantage AWD has in the rain.

Right now, it's stalled due to the significant split into the three groups I list above.
Click to expand...

Why not class it "normally" then? the disadvantage in the dry gets cancelled out by the wet advantage?

I've been racing right about 20 years now, most of that in IT, and for me it mostly trying to keep up with the constant rule changes and the incredibly anal debate over so much of them. Right now, I'm having more fun in Lemons where its my driving and pit work that matters, not the car.
 
And it is nice to give the membership a couple months on a solicited item. AWD was voted on and a recommendation made to the CRB. Since the member comment was 'for' AWD (NA) overwhelmingly - hey, one FAMILY (right Ray?) can have 30% of the votes, you know... :)

So AWD is something the ITAC would undertake classing should the CRB lift the ban and ask us to do so.
 
the overall view.....

1) rules "season." Oct 31-Dec 31, eff Jan 1. No changes can be made outside of that window. you can talk about them all you want, but nothing goes into practice other than Jan 1 of the next year.

2) stability. this has been completely absent in my mind over the last few years. VIN rule, ECU, weight changes, cars moving classes, FWD weight breaks, etc. the underlying philosophy is that you should be able to build a 100% car today, and be able to count on running that car competitively for 5-10yrs without major change.

3) stop trying to balance the class "on the tip of the pin." i know it was a stated objective when the process v1 was run, but i feel like you've lost the plot on that one. using simulators as data, re-running all cars to go through the process and be classed within 5lbs of the output, stepped FWD weight breaks, all seem to be in conflict with this principle. it also violates rule #2.

4) maintain a prep level between Touring and Prod

now for the REALLY overarching stuff....

1) change SCCA World Challenge Touring car rules to match IT. Currently to do so you would use cars that would fall into the ITR performance window. In the future if cars continue to get more powerful, you might need to yet again create another faster class.

2) top TWENTY classes in participation are eligible for the runoffs, including IT. hopefully you would have world challenge guys showing up.

3) if a listed car does not record a FINISH in 3 years, it is removed from the ITCS.

4) for cars listed not using the standard formula, all supporting data is published.
 
A couple of your background points aren't entirely accurate (e.g., using simulations as "data") but THANK YOU, Travis.

K
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
The key takeaway Kirk from Travis' post is congruent with the misconceptions the CRB has.
Click to expand...

Visa-vis...

tnord said:
now for the REALLY overarching stuff....

1) change SCCA World Challenge Touring car rules to match IT. Currently to do so you would use cars that would fall into the ITR performance window. In the future if cars continue to get more powerful, you might need to yet again create another faster class.

2) top TWENTY classes in participation are eligible for the runoffs, including IT. hopefully you would have world challenge guys showing up.
Click to expand...

The pro guys are already racing for a championship, why would they want to add an amature one to their already busy schedule?

At my last race, too many years ago, I was pitted next to a Koni Challenge GS 993 racer and his student/renter. They were running in ITE same as me, but really the prep level on that GS car was very much like IT, more so than a WC car. After I had my shunt and I get back to my pit spot two green laps go by before the student racer puts two wheels off and the porsche goes into the pit wall which then gets hit by a Super Production (former Southwest Tour) car. This ends the chance of that team entering the next Koni Challenge race in a couple of weeks, as the body is tweeked. So everytime a pro team runs their car there's the chance they're going to push it off the cliff, and if they're a halfway decent team they know this. So what serious pro team would show up for the run-offs?
 
Last edited:
Z3_GoCar said:
Visa-vis...



The pro guys are already racing for a championship, why would they want to add an amature one to their already busy schedule?

At my last race, too many years ago, I was pitted next to a Koni Challenge GS 993 racer and his student/renter. They were running in ITE same as me, but really the prep level on that GS car was very much like IT, more so than a WC car. After I had my shunt and I get back to my pit spot two green laps go by before the student racer puts two wheels off and the porsche goes into the pit wall which then gets hit by a Super Production (former Southwest Tour) car. This ends the chance of that team entering the next Koni Challenge race in a couple of weeks, as the body is tweeked. So everytime a pro team runs their car there's the chance they're going to push it off the cliff, and if they're a halfway decent team they know this. So what serious pro team would show up for the run-offs?
Click to expand...


One with a renter willing to write a big check. The same reason they were at the race your refering too. Most koni teams can find a way to put almost any car back together in a couple weeks if the check is big enough. I don't see what the runoffs brings to IT racing?? I also don't understand why you would want to class AWD cars. From what i've seen they are generally gonna be classed like shitty strut fwd cars. Most of them don't handle all that well in the dry so the weight would basically be like a fwd race car, now it rains and they have a pretty good power to weight ratio+AWD. You can't possibly class them to be competitive in the dry and not walk away from everything in the wet. Ask the Koni Challenge guys.
 
B
ecause (a) it was requested by a member to re-examine it, and (b) it had not been through the current process. The Golf II was one of the "bogey cars" for the Great Realignment since the perception was that it was competitive at its then-current weight. The other ITB cars that were changed (and a LOT WERE NOT) got their weights set by the ITAC at the time.
Click to expand...

Kirk - do I understand this correctly that the "bogey" or baseline car is now being looked at and it doesn't fit the process weight? I really hope I'm wrong. If it is the baseline car it damn well better fit! What am I missing here?

The "process" had substantial room for subjectivity at that time, as well: The MATH was pretty much the same as what we do now but the PHILOSOPHY was much different, such that if the process spit out a weight that "just wasn't right," it could be changed based on what committee members felt was best. The official guidelines in place at the time included directions to "Review the resulting classification weight and determine if the results are acceptable."
Click to expand...

I am well aware that there is room for subjective differences when gathering information about any car. I understand that it would create a shit storm of questions if you published every detail of every car. Although I think it should be published I've realized its in the "ain't never gonna happen" pile. But the collective "they" could publish what they used when classing a new car.
 
You boys keep beating that IT National drum. You will be cussing yourself when it happens. Maybe it will take you a season or so, but the cussing will start just the same.

IT should remain a cheap, easy to build race car class. With the escalation of SM, IT is once again the place an average pocketbook guy can still have a chance at doing well.
It should be the ITACs main goal to keep it that way.

With 24+ classes you boys wanting to test yourselves nationally have plenty of places to play without screwing up IT.

As successful as IT seems to be, WHY DO YOU GUYS CONSTANTLY WANT TO MESS WITH IT? You have a good thing going, probably the best in SCCA, enjoy it.

Just an opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top