Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I hope you are joking.
Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions
- Thread starter Knestis
- Start date
I hope you are joking.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Phew...it's a long way to drive to administer a beat down, 
gran racing
Super Moderator
Right or wrong, here are my thoughts that I forwarded on to the CRB.
Dear CRB,
I am an active racer within the Improved Touring Category I T B and want to voice my support of the ITAC’s process to classify cars, the need to use it on additional cars, and suggest future improvements. Thank you for taking the time to read this and you’re consideration.
Utilization of the Classification Process:
Huge improvements on the classification process have been made during the past couple of years, which lead to what I personally consider the best thing that has happened to the category in quite some time. While some cars were put through the revised process and adjusted accordingly, there are still numerous which were not and it is quite evident classification errors still exist. I recognize that initially only “major” issues were identified and the weight or classification was adjusted accordingly. While a fantastic first step, it needs to be utilized further. Based on my understanding, only cars that fell outside of a 100 pound + / - target weight were initially reviewed and acted on.
We now need to take the next step and examine other vehicles to gain more accurate and consistent classification results among cars. While it might not be practical to run all cars through the process, we could at least run cars membership submits requests for to be run through the process. Based on this, evaluate the results and make any necessary adjustments if it falls outside of a 10 pound window of its current spec weight. If for some reason there’s a consensus that a particular vehicle falls outside of the standard parameters, table the vehicle and conduct additional research. Do not fall into a trap of permanently tabling the request, but take some additional time to do additional research and give it the attention is deserves. If no conclusive evidence is found that the process is inaccurate, then trust the process after all it’s the best method of classing cars we’ve had yet.
We also have to recognize that some cars will perform better at some tracks. Just because a vehicle has traits that lend itself to being quite successful, it may not have the traits to be successful at other tracks. I do not expect the process to be totally accurate, however it does need to be explainable and consistent. My biggest fear is that we have a great tool to evaluate cars yet we’ll elect not to use it . That would be a shame and step backwards in the confidence of what members have viewed so positively thus far.
Process Improvement aka Process 2.0:
Based on my understanding, the recently updated process is merely reducing subjectivity and better defining how the math is applied. In order for vehicles to be run through the process and obtain consistent results in both the short term and long term future, this is a necessary step. Our goal should be for future boards to arrive at the same results (or very close to) as previous boards. An explanation that one car was classed by one board and another by a different board which explains why the weights are so different is unacceptable. This refinement to the process will move towards this goal.
How should on-track performance be utilized? Do not use the on-track results as subjective adders or deductions in the classification process itself. Instead, use this as one method to uncover potential mistakes and identify cars that might necessitate further research. For example, maybe initially it was thought a power multiplier of .25% was used and now various results make that multiplier questionable. Do not simply make assumptions; instead do further investigative research. There are way too many variables that can impact this beginning with track conditions, quality of driver and car prep, to the potential of it being an illegal car. For all we know it could have illegal cams, gears, among other things. By using on-track results we’d be hurting people who race the same exact car legally. Again, if there are too many questions about the vehicle table the request and conduct further research.
Improved Touring Rules Stability:
Most IT drivers will agree that one great thing about the class is its rules stability. We should continue to strive limit the number of adjustments to the rules themselves.
While it may not seem like it, reviewing additional cars and utilizing the process goes towards rules stability. It’s impossible to say that we have a stable rule set if the same rules (in this case classification results) are not being applied. Using the process and adjusting classifications accordingly actually takes a step toward rules stability and membership confidence.
Communication Improvements:
There’s room for improvements with the communication provided to the IT community (actually the entire SCCA membership base but that’s a different discussion). One of the first steps should be to document and make available to membership the most recent classification process. This information should clearly state how the process is applied, define how results are concluded, and any other key elements to the classification formula.
Another area for improvement is when a member submits a request, we receive a brief message that it has been received and will be forwarded to the appropriate board. With at least one of my requests, it was determined that the ITAC did not receive it. If I had not followed-up, it would appear it was received and in process. In addition to receiving the initial automated message, we should receive some type of tracking number related to the request. While this might not be a short term improvement, ideally members could log into a website or database and obtain a status update even if a concise and simple one (pending review, reviewed – approved, reviewed – denied, reviewed – pending BOD approval).
Thank you again for the time and energy you are spending on these areas. I truly believe utilizing the process on additional cars will yield benefits for the category as a whole.
Dear CRB,
I am an active racer within the Improved Touring Category I T B and want to voice my support of the ITAC’s process to classify cars, the need to use it on additional cars, and suggest future improvements. Thank you for taking the time to read this and you’re consideration.
Utilization of the Classification Process:
Huge improvements on the classification process have been made during the past couple of years, which lead to what I personally consider the best thing that has happened to the category in quite some time. While some cars were put through the revised process and adjusted accordingly, there are still numerous which were not and it is quite evident classification errors still exist. I recognize that initially only “major” issues were identified and the weight or classification was adjusted accordingly. While a fantastic first step, it needs to be utilized further. Based on my understanding, only cars that fell outside of a 100 pound + / - target weight were initially reviewed and acted on.
We now need to take the next step and examine other vehicles to gain more accurate and consistent classification results among cars. While it might not be practical to run all cars through the process, we could at least run cars membership submits requests for to be run through the process. Based on this, evaluate the results and make any necessary adjustments if it falls outside of a 10 pound window of its current spec weight. If for some reason there’s a consensus that a particular vehicle falls outside of the standard parameters, table the vehicle and conduct additional research. Do not fall into a trap of permanently tabling the request, but take some additional time to do additional research and give it the attention is deserves. If no conclusive evidence is found that the process is inaccurate, then trust the process after all it’s the best method of classing cars we’ve had yet.
We also have to recognize that some cars will perform better at some tracks. Just because a vehicle has traits that lend itself to being quite successful, it may not have the traits to be successful at other tracks. I do not expect the process to be totally accurate, however it does need to be explainable and consistent. My biggest fear is that we have a great tool to evaluate cars yet we’ll elect not to use it . That would be a shame and step backwards in the confidence of what members have viewed so positively thus far.
Process Improvement aka Process 2.0:
Based on my understanding, the recently updated process is merely reducing subjectivity and better defining how the math is applied. In order for vehicles to be run through the process and obtain consistent results in both the short term and long term future, this is a necessary step. Our goal should be for future boards to arrive at the same results (or very close to) as previous boards. An explanation that one car was classed by one board and another by a different board which explains why the weights are so different is unacceptable. This refinement to the process will move towards this goal.
How should on-track performance be utilized? Do not use the on-track results as subjective adders or deductions in the classification process itself. Instead, use this as one method to uncover potential mistakes and identify cars that might necessitate further research. For example, maybe initially it was thought a power multiplier of .25% was used and now various results make that multiplier questionable. Do not simply make assumptions; instead do further investigative research. There are way too many variables that can impact this beginning with track conditions, quality of driver and car prep, to the potential of it being an illegal car. For all we know it could have illegal cams, gears, among other things. By using on-track results we’d be hurting people who race the same exact car legally. Again, if there are too many questions about the vehicle table the request and conduct further research.
Improved Touring Rules Stability:
Most IT drivers will agree that one great thing about the class is its rules stability. We should continue to strive limit the number of adjustments to the rules themselves.
While it may not seem like it, reviewing additional cars and utilizing the process goes towards rules stability. It’s impossible to say that we have a stable rule set if the same rules (in this case classification results) are not being applied. Using the process and adjusting classifications accordingly actually takes a step toward rules stability and membership confidence.
Communication Improvements:
There’s room for improvements with the communication provided to the IT community (actually the entire SCCA membership base but that’s a different discussion). One of the first steps should be to document and make available to membership the most recent classification process. This information should clearly state how the process is applied, define how results are concluded, and any other key elements to the classification formula.
Another area for improvement is when a member submits a request, we receive a brief message that it has been received and will be forwarded to the appropriate board. With at least one of my requests, it was determined that the ITAC did not receive it. If I had not followed-up, it would appear it was received and in process. In addition to receiving the initial automated message, we should receive some type of tracking number related to the request. While this might not be a short term improvement, ideally members could log into a website or database and obtain a status update even if a concise and simple one (pending review, reviewed – approved, reviewed – denied, reviewed – pending BOD approval).
Thank you again for the time and energy you are spending on these areas. I truly believe utilizing the process on additional cars will yield benefits for the category as a whole.
seckerich
New member
I had that Z car up my tail at the last race Jake--he gets NOTHING!!!
All joking aside the ITAC has done a pretty good job with getting IT to good close racing we can all enjoy. It is more and more the place to be for drivers leaving other classes. I stand by my post in the fastrack thread about the "resistance" to further change by the CRB.
OPINION:
1. Get your process ironed out and in writing.
2. Run every car REQUESTED through the process (waste to bother with cars nobody has raced for years)
3. Put a note on the spec line for any car that got other than a 25% power number. Back it up with the numbers you used and let someone prove it was wrong. If that happens then you can fix it.
4. You have the power in the IT rules now to deal with the obvious overdog and modify the power number.
5. if the power number is correct and they are winning big they build a good car--period.
6. Rule changes happen in one month only to be effective for the following race season. This allows rules to be set for the regions that start their next years racing in October. After that only "errors and omissions" clarification. You can post them all year but no changes happen mid year.
I understand the CRB opinion that IT is pretty good right now and they do not want to mess that up. If there is no documentation how we got here future CRB/ITAC will go down the same path that almost killed ITS.
All joking aside the ITAC has done a pretty good job with getting IT to good close racing we can all enjoy. It is more and more the place to be for drivers leaving other classes. I stand by my post in the fastrack thread about the "resistance" to further change by the CRB.
OPINION:
1. Get your process ironed out and in writing.
2. Run every car REQUESTED through the process (waste to bother with cars nobody has raced for years)
3. Put a note on the spec line for any car that got other than a 25% power number. Back it up with the numbers you used and let someone prove it was wrong. If that happens then you can fix it.
4. You have the power in the IT rules now to deal with the obvious overdog and modify the power number.
5. if the power number is correct and they are winning big they build a good car--period.
6. Rule changes happen in one month only to be effective for the following race season. This allows rules to be set for the regions that start their next years racing in October. After that only "errors and omissions" clarification. You can post them all year but no changes happen mid year.
I understand the CRB opinion that IT is pretty good right now and they do not want to mess that up. If there is no documentation how we got here future CRB/ITAC will go down the same path that almost killed ITS.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Dave, see my private email. Steve, I like your points. Please also forward them, today (!) to the CRB/BoD. Thanks. And that goes for all of you!
shwah
New member
Just making the point that they are different cars with different motors/heads.
Hmm....just noticed that I'm an example here. First let me say that I believe that this system/process is the best thing going. Then, some folks say that it needs a few tweaks still. I have to agree.
I built and drive a Porsche 911E that started life with 165 crank HP. It also started life with individual runners, cross flow, headers, small intake ports and matched intake stacks, a mechanical fuel injection pump and mechanical distributor. The process says that by applying an IT build I should be able to get at least 25% more and have 206 flywheel HP. That number is not achievable by a long shot. With enrichment of the 911E MFI space cam we're lucky to get 10% more HP on my car, not the 25% that sets my weight.
I wrote the letter last year to have my car reassessed and the feeling was that the MFI can be manipulated (I agree) to produce more power. I just don't agree that with the other advantages already on the car that the MFI itself would account for the 25% gain that other cars can achieve when adding headers and playing with spark and fuel via ECUs.
Stop by my pit at the Summit double this coming weekend and admire the stack of 45 pound barbell weights bolted to my floorpan. That's data. IT build = 25% more power isn't as precise.
Regards,
Chuck
I built and drive a Porsche 911E that started life with 165 crank HP. It also started life with individual runners, cross flow, headers, small intake ports and matched intake stacks, a mechanical fuel injection pump and mechanical distributor. The process says that by applying an IT build I should be able to get at least 25% more and have 206 flywheel HP. That number is not achievable by a long shot. With enrichment of the 911E MFI space cam we're lucky to get 10% more HP on my car, not the 25% that sets my weight.
I wrote the letter last year to have my car reassessed and the feeling was that the MFI can be manipulated (I agree) to produce more power. I just don't agree that with the other advantages already on the car that the MFI itself would account for the 25% gain that other cars can achieve when adding headers and playing with spark and fuel via ECUs.
Stop by my pit at the Summit double this coming weekend and admire the stack of 45 pound barbell weights bolted to my floorpan. That's data. IT build = 25% more power isn't as precise.
Regards,
Chuck
Chuck has pointed out something that makes it clear that I lied in my first post here. It's been substantially more than the "almost 20" weight-change recommendations sent up the line from the ITAC but not yet acted on. He reminded me that we reviewed 911 listings in January and recommended some changes. Those are apparently waiting as well.
K
K
seckerich
New member
Dave, see my private email. Steve, I like your points. Please also forward them, today (!) to the CRB/BoD. Thanks. And that goes for all of you!
Letter written and sent tonight. Is there a direct email address that goes to all ITAC members?
JeffYoung
New member
Steve, I didn't get the Z PAST your tail pipe, so clearly it needs a non cross flow head weight break.
Helpful thread though, Kirk thanks for starting this.
I will say one that thing that seems crystal clear: the majority of those offering input want the process published, and a limited "rules season." I agree strongly with both of those points, personally.
Helpful thread though, Kirk thanks for starting this.
I will say one that thing that seems crystal clear: the majority of those offering input want the process published, and a limited "rules season." I agree strongly with both of those points, personally.
Good point there, Josh. Real rule changes (a la the VIN requirement going away) and new car listings already have to wait for Board approval and publication in the follow year's Fastrack.
We do weight fixes through technical bulletins, among "Errors and Omissions, Competition Adjustments [bleah!], Clarifications, and Classifications." I would be VERY surprised if folks wanted us to have to wait a year to fix things that we find to be in error.
And to be clear about something - ITAC practices, including the math that is the core of the process used to classify and specify cars, are not "rules." We have chosen to codify what we do in an effort to make it as repeatable as possible but there's absolutely no requirement for any ad hoc committee to do such a thing. We could totally pull classes and weights out of our butts if we decided to...
K
We do weight fixes through technical bulletins, among "Errors and Omissions, Competition Adjustments [bleah!], Clarifications, and Classifications." I would be VERY surprised if folks wanted us to have to wait a year to fix things that we find to be in error.
And to be clear about something - ITAC practices, including the math that is the core of the process used to classify and specify cars, are not "rules." We have chosen to codify what we do in an effort to make it as repeatable as possible but there's absolutely no requirement for any ad hoc committee to do such a thing. We could totally pull classes and weights out of our butts if we decided to...
K
Z3_GoCar
New member
Jake, I agree this isn't a simple problem with simple answers that can be typed in one post. That's why you, Andy, Josh, Kirk, et. al
But, I think we all agree the assumptions need to be minimized. Isn't that what the process v 2.0 is about?
lateapex911
Super Moderator
And To Be Clear About Something - Itac Practices, Including The Math That Is The Core Of The Process Used To Classify And Specify Cars, Are Not "rules." We Have Chosen To Codify What We Do In An Effort To Make It As Repeatable As Possible But There's Absolutely No Requirement For Any Ad Hoc Committee To Do Such A Thing. We Could Totally Pull Classes And Weights Out Of Our Butts If We Decided To...
K
Pooma!
To respond to some prior comments/questions on my note;
1) The reason I think that race results, entry counts and times are important is that it seems to me that results are the most compelling basis for adjustment and classification discussions. As an example, I commented that VTEC cars are getting a sort shrift. If I have race results showing for example that even the best prepped ITS Civics and Del Sols can't run against midpack ITS cars, I would reconsider that and arguement. As it is today, I can only comment based on the handfull of tracks I see. Without data, its pretty easy to argue that the process is right and that anybody who questions is is just isn't trying hard enough....
The second need for class results is I think its time to be worried about entry and participation trends. Again, I can only judge based on the fields I see but I see a 10 year trend of declining fields (other than spec miata.) and I believe unless the concept of IT is changed, there could be problems sustaining regional racing. Again without data its just an opinion.
2) To clarify the question regarding why I recommend that the class focus on reasonable cost and lots of competitive cars, I believe we need to get the participation numbers up in IT. At this point of time, I don't see a lot of difference in cost between a front running IT and a front running Prod car which I think is wrong if IT is supposed to be SCCA's feeder class. (Speaking as a feeder class, why is it that used Showroom stock cars don't have a competitive place to run in IT) As I see it, its a problem to grow IT if half the cars in the race are 20 years old. Nobody can find those cars, knows how to work on them, or is particularialy excited by them. I may be naive, but I think that SCCA is more likely to get new cars and new racers if it focuses on cars that are recent. But as I also mentioned, to hedge the bet, I also think SCCA should focus like NASA on some classes where there are sizeable participation likely like a Honda, 944, 3 series etc challenges. For the all time great IT cars, if there are the participation numbers, we want them to have a place.
Here is my big picture, the ITAC needs to come up with a plan that grows IT fields by 50% in 5 years. Otherwise, we may not have a regional series to compete in. Its going to be a crap economy for a while so keep it cheap, simple, rely on both spec classes and classes with similar cars with limited prep to discourage the cheaters. Who knows, you might end up with something, Do nothing, my feeling is with declining workers and fields, SCCA will take a hard look and eliminating regionals and morphing IT with prod.
1) The reason I think that race results, entry counts and times are important is that it seems to me that results are the most compelling basis for adjustment and classification discussions. As an example, I commented that VTEC cars are getting a sort shrift. If I have race results showing for example that even the best prepped ITS Civics and Del Sols can't run against midpack ITS cars, I would reconsider that and arguement. As it is today, I can only comment based on the handfull of tracks I see. Without data, its pretty easy to argue that the process is right and that anybody who questions is is just isn't trying hard enough....
The second need for class results is I think its time to be worried about entry and participation trends. Again, I can only judge based on the fields I see but I see a 10 year trend of declining fields (other than spec miata.) and I believe unless the concept of IT is changed, there could be problems sustaining regional racing. Again without data its just an opinion.
2) To clarify the question regarding why I recommend that the class focus on reasonable cost and lots of competitive cars, I believe we need to get the participation numbers up in IT. At this point of time, I don't see a lot of difference in cost between a front running IT and a front running Prod car which I think is wrong if IT is supposed to be SCCA's feeder class. (Speaking as a feeder class, why is it that used Showroom stock cars don't have a competitive place to run in IT) As I see it, its a problem to grow IT if half the cars in the race are 20 years old. Nobody can find those cars, knows how to work on them, or is particularialy excited by them. I may be naive, but I think that SCCA is more likely to get new cars and new racers if it focuses on cars that are recent. But as I also mentioned, to hedge the bet, I also think SCCA should focus like NASA on some classes where there are sizeable participation likely like a Honda, 944, 3 series etc challenges. For the all time great IT cars, if there are the participation numbers, we want them to have a place.
Here is my big picture, the ITAC needs to come up with a plan that grows IT fields by 50% in 5 years. Otherwise, we may not have a regional series to compete in. Its going to be a crap economy for a while so keep it cheap, simple, rely on both spec classes and classes with similar cars with limited prep to discourage the cheaters. Who knows, you might end up with something, Do nothing, my feeling is with declining workers and fields, SCCA will take a hard look and eliminating regionals and morphing IT with prod.
seckerich
New member
I won't quote Bobs post because it is so long but a few comments.
You see IT as a feeder class where many of us see it as a destination. I have run at a National level and the racing is better in IT for the most part. Drivers going to just enough races to get a "finish" and pulling in. Then they hide until the runoffs and don't support the National race series. That is why Nationals are in trouble everywhere except Road America. Damn, thats where I want to race.
Many IT drivers run 10 plus races in the Southeast. Why does everyone think you have to be moving to a different class in SCCA to be growing?
You talk about cost of IT compared to production and then say we need places for newer cars and SS cars to go. Newer = higher cost for inital investment as well as replacement parts. No cheap parts cars. Get this process ironed out so the newer cars WE WANT TO RACE get classed correctly. That will grow the fields more than some BS about a home for Showroom stock. Much like the home for World Challenge we created. How is that big snafu working out?
Not personal towards you Bob, but you bring up the usual points that assume IT racers are just Noobs that are passing through. IT goes from $5000-$30,000 and has a place for just about any budget.
You see IT as a feeder class where many of us see it as a destination. I have run at a National level and the racing is better in IT for the most part. Drivers going to just enough races to get a "finish" and pulling in. Then they hide until the runoffs and don't support the National race series. That is why Nationals are in trouble everywhere except Road America. Damn, thats where I want to race.
Many IT drivers run 10 plus races in the Southeast. Why does everyone think you have to be moving to a different class in SCCA to be growing?You talk about cost of IT compared to production and then say we need places for newer cars and SS cars to go. Newer = higher cost for inital investment as well as replacement parts. No cheap parts cars. Get this process ironed out so the newer cars WE WANT TO RACE get classed correctly. That will grow the fields more than some BS about a home for Showroom stock. Much like the home for World Challenge we created. How is that big snafu working out?
Not personal towards you Bob, but you bring up the usual points that assume IT racers are just Noobs that are passing through. IT goes from $5000-$30,000 and has a place for just about any budget.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Bob,
I am pretty confident that you are overestimating the field size of some of the NASA classes you quote and vastly underestimate the size of the IT fields across the country. IT is the single largest category SCCA has (keeping in mind it has 5 classes within)...but it certainly requires tracking.
It would be stupid to ignore NASA. They are a for-profit dictatorship that has done some things that the SCCA should takes notes on...but ask the Honda-Challenge guys what they do wrong. You will get an earful.
The bottom line is that new OR old, no matter what marque you like, IT has some real solid options for you.
I am pretty confident that you are overestimating the field size of some of the NASA classes you quote and vastly underestimate the size of the IT fields across the country. IT is the single largest category SCCA has (keeping in mind it has 5 classes within)...but it certainly requires tracking.
It would be stupid to ignore NASA. They are a for-profit dictatorship that has done some things that the SCCA should takes notes on...but ask the Honda-Challenge guys what they do wrong. You will get an earful.
The bottom line is that new OR old, no matter what marque you like, IT has some real solid options for you.
Sounds like some IT guys are giving the ITAC an earful about what they are doing wrong too..
No sanctioning body is prefect, no rules group is. And not every competitor is going to be happy.