Escort GT/LXE to ITB?

[jjjanos]

This post just confirms why you have zero impact on club racing. You are completely incapable of the words "I agree." You take issue with EVERY assertion I make because, well, that's your nature. You are a smart guy, but irrelevant, because you didn't get that "how to win friends and influence people" the rest of us got.

You want someone to agree with everything you say -- go talk to mirror. My concerns with the process has nothing to do with you saying it. I've had the same discussion with Kirk. If I agreed with it, I wouldn't have chimed in here.

In short, people have valid concerns about the outcomes of the Holy Process and your answer is they should be thankful we used lube.

The Process is not perfect. It's not meant to be. It gets cars close, and using a gut check of empirical observation it works. It's that simple. That one sentence answers about 99% of your beef above, which veers all over the place but in short just wants something we can never have: perfect classing of cars.

I agree (happy now?), we probably cannot get perfection. We certainly can move towards it. We know that aero matters. We know that torque matters.

A car that has too much weight because there is no adjustment for these known factors is no different than a car that has too little weight because the wrong adjustment was applied. Both weights are wrong. The only question is which has the largest deviation from the correct weight. Declaring that we can't make an adjustment for this because we might get it wrong is disingenuous because by already accepting that aero or torque matters concedes that the weight on the car is wrong.

And your ECU fix? Yeah. Good luck finding a sock ECU for some of the cars on grid.

1. Good luck finding spare body panels/fenders for some of the cars on the grid. We still require these and the people who race these cars find them. Where there is a will, there is a way.
2. I think you underestimate what people will and can do if they think that Robert Reflashed-ECU is running an illegal ECU. Moreover, if parts for a car are so rare, then, most likely, so will be those cars. I acknowledge and accept that the rule might not work for all cars. The current rule suffers the same problem. The open-ECU rule helped those cars with ECUs and hurt those that do not.

 

[jjjanos]

But we have to realize that just because this example 'clearly' shows one should weigh more than another to be equal, most of us agree that it doesn't matter. Here is why:

First - thank you for an actual reply.

No adders or subtractors should be based on stock figures, they need to be based on figures 'with IT mods' if you really want them to mean something.

Valid point.

...to set a group of parameters and get everyone onto the same playing field, not to try and stack everyone in the center of said field, right on the 50 yard line.

Which is fine and great for a regional-only class with a uniform set of national rules. It's less fine if the goal is to spend a week in Wisconsin or where-ever that big event will be next.

...having dedicated metrics for...
On edit: If we want to argue that the Process needs to be more granular because situations like this are not acceptable, then a real strong methodology needs to be proposed and adopted inside the Process to accommodate.

Dedicated - maybe yes, maybe no.

We already have a methodology in the Process that can be used. It's the one used to deviate from the default stock-HP multipliers. Here is the formula-generated weight of the Nash Torpedo. Here is the formula-generated weight of the Nash Billboard. They are identical because they run an identical power train. Do we think that identical builds driven by Michael Schumacherferrari will generate the same outcome? Yes/No. How much weight needs to be addedto /come off the Torpedo/Billboard to make you comfortable that Michael Schumacherferrari will perform the same in the cars?

It's not perfect and it runs the risk that the 'wrong' weight will be on the car that gets the adjustment - but we already have that "problem." It certainly won't work in a world where those setting the weights feel that everything needs to be formulaic (except for the HP multiplier). We already trust the committee to adjust HP multipliers on gut instinct and some data. I acknowledge that the system isn't repeatable as who sits on the committee will determine whether a car gets an aero/brake/torque adjustment, but that's also the case for whether a car gets an HP-multiplier adjustment. (I do acknowledge that there is more data in the HP-multiplier adjustment.)

 

[RacerBowie]

God I'm glad I bought a ChumpCar.

 

[JeffYoung]

God I'm glad I bought a ChumpCar.

See this right here? This is what this constant dickering over the Process breeds. Bowie's sentiment is 100% justified.

Over the last 10 years, the ITAC has faced two daunting tasks:

1. Fundamental change to an objective process the likes of which SCCA had not really seen before; AND

2. Once that change was in place, locking down the Process AND STOPPING LEADERSHIP/MEMBERSHIP FROM CONSTANTLY DICKING WITH IT IN THE NAME OF IMPROVEMENT.

Jjanos, I'm all for improvement and I do understand that you are offering your thoughts in the name of improvement.

But I think -- strongly -- that the biggest improvement we could have in IT right now is NO MORE CHANGE FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME.

We are running the risk of running people (like Bowie, dedicated IT guys) off due to instability. The Miata (his car) is a good example. A few years back we vote to leave it at its current weight. A few years later we add 80 lbs due to a correction that was discussed and rejected by a previous ITAC.

Not good.

 

[RacerBowie]

To Jeff's thoughts:

I've been an IT racer since 1999. I started crewing for an IT car in 1996, in HIGH SCHOOL. IT has been what I've known and wanted to do that whole time. Not a stepping stone, rather the goal point.

In 2007 I wadded up my ITA 1.6 Miata. I had raced it (among other borrowed or shared cars) for 9 seasons at that point. The rules had changed precisely 3 times in that period that I can remember:
1) ECUs opened up.
2) 15" wheels
3) 50lbs was added to that car during "The Great Realignment"

As I'd been running the car for a long time I hemmed and hawed (and had some life changes) and didn't get anything built for over a year. I thought about building a Miata for ITS (still wish I had), thought about building another 1.6 with what I had left, and then ended up building a 1.8 Miata for two reasons:
1) Loyalty to Mazda/economies of the parts I had leftover from the crashed car
2) Perception that the 1.8 was slightly better than the 1.6 and would race more competitively with the Integras and CRXs and whatnot. My thought here was that this would be due to torque, not power-to-weight.

Before the car is even done people are going crazy on the internet about changing this or changing that, so I did some digging around and determined things weren't that bad, things were stabilizing out, etc. There are still noises, but I'm building a car so I just unplugged for a while and worried about my own stuff.

So the car is built and we drag it out and start sorting it out and it does ok... nothing special. But I'm hearing more and more constant internet and racetrack noise about how these dominant ITA 1.8 Miatas are ruining everything.

Then I'm having teething pains, problems with the engine builder (oh, that's me) and problems with the driver taking longer than expected to get back up to pace (damn, me again) but the one constant is the bitching.

Start getting things close this year and BOOM, mid-year 80lb lead trophy. Grand. Sure makes me wish I hadn't just pissed all this money into a moving target.

All of that above stuff is just life, and that's fine, except for this is a HOBBY and supposed to be fun... and over the past 4 months or so I've found myself avoiding checking this board, and avoiding rules discussions on The Sandbox... and looking to other pastures. STL piqued my interest for a while, and still does, but that's some racing that has the potential to weigh on the checkbook pretty damn heavily really quicklike. Running Prod locally might be ok, but same deal there, because I've met me and I know I like to give a full effort to whatever I'm doing.

Then I started talking with some buddies that are running ChumpCar. Those guys are having a BLAST and being very competitive, and you know what? They aren't spending all that much money and are driving A LOT.

Yes, Chump/Lemons has warts too. Dictatorships and whatnot. But having been through this for sooooo long, maybe it is time to unplug from what I thought I would always want to do and try something else? Maybe I'll like it, maybe I won't. Maybe I'll run some of both next year, which is the current plan. Or maybe I'll put the ITA car up for sale and find somewhere else to play. Somewhere that at least FEELS more stable. I neither am able or willing to play somewhere that the target keeps moving.

edit: What it comes down to is this sad fact: I'm WAY more excited and interested to tear into this 22 year old crapbox Honda that makes all of 100 hp than I have been about working on my "real" racecar in over a year. My buddy Matt Reppert's the same way. That's two recent ARRC winners that are wandering off, being sick of hearing the bitching.

Enough rambling, back to work.

 

[Flyinglizard]

The Chumpcar deal is no rules. The target has moved 10 sec. @ Sebring. Fast lap this year was 2:36. You need an E 30- E 36 or big Jap V6 to stay near the top 10.

ITAC, if you are ignoring the aero input, you are simply doing it wrong. Stop what you are doing . The VW example is simple y wrong. Get a new "process."

 

[RacerBowie]

The Chumpcar deal is no rules. The target has moved 10 sec. @ Sebring. Fast lap this year was 2:36. You need an E 30- E 36 or big Jap V6 to stay near the top 10.

ITAC, if you are ignoring the aero input, you are simply doing it wrong. Stop what you are doing . The VW example is simple y wrong. Get a new "process."

Except for the 1.8 liter pair of MX3s that are in contention for every race, or the 1.8 liter DA integra that won the 24 hour at VIR, or...

edit: he doesn't get it, never mind, signing off.

 

[JeffYoung]

ITAC, if you are ignoring the aero input, you are simply doing it wrong. Stop what you are doing . The VW example is simple y wrong. Get a new "process."

Why, because it is easy to get right on one car?

You apparently missed years of history where folks way smarter than me, and you, hashed out the Process with input from racers, the CRB, etc. Aero was discussed at length and rejected as a factor that we simply could not consider accurately when processing cars. Done. Correct, too. And close, full fields of S/A/B cars seems to prove it.

Last point. It's rather arrogant to tromp in here and tell us/the previous ITAC that we are "simply doing it wrong" and to "get a new process" when thousands of man hours of have been put into trying to get it as right as is realistically possible.

 

[Flyinglizard]

Funny. I was asked about 12yrs ago about the very cars we have been talking about.
" Mike Do you think that the Rocc and Rabbit GTI are good with 50#?"
"yes. they are about right with 50#".

 

[JeffYoung]

And there you have it! We should just put you in charge to handle all car weighting/Process issues.

 

[Flyinglizard]

I'd be happy to help.esp with the aero .
My airplane flies @ 38mph.

 

[JeffYoung]

Airspeed of an african swallow?

Coconut or no coconut?

 

[shwah]

T
Start getting things close this year and BOOM, mid-year 80lb lead trophy. Grand. Sure makes me wish I hadn't just pissed all this money into a moving target.

The target moves when the standard of performance is moved around you in your class too. This is my concern. The Protege, the Honda (Underwood style) and the MR2 all have the potential to significantly change the standard of performance in ITB. Before anyone starts in, I get that with development we continue to improve. I expect that, and have poured, and will continue to pour my efforts into that. Right up to the point that the target moves so far that I will be better off converting to HP or FP and playing somewhere that I can expect a consistent level of competition.

To be clear, I am NOT taking my ball and going home, but I can see a scenario where I decide to do that.

There were a number of lively conversations here and elsewhere about the MR2 in ITB, and how it could not make enough power to compete at the current weight. About how it cannot even make 15%, and should be classed as such (even though it allegedly cannot get to that weight - which tells me it is an ITC car based on current precedent). Then I see one show up at Road America for the first time and run close to a lap record set by someone running "the car" to have at that time (Golf 3) at their home track (has thousands of laps there), while I was pushing him for the entire race (and missing the lap record by .2s). Now I imagine the same car classed at 15%, losing lots of weight, and wonder why I would even show up. The same car ran well at ITFest, and plans to be at the ARRC. I am happy for the guy that he has put together a solid effort, and really developed the hell out of his car, and don't want to take anything away from that, but also don't want to see weight taken off of a very fast car based on unsubstantiated claims that it can't make power and can't get to the lower weight anyhow.

The Protege that showed up a few years ago at the ARRC was by many accounts an SS car. That may or may not be true, but many commented on how it was not yet developed, yet it ran very fast and competitively against many of the best.

Underwood was very competitive when he took is car to the ARRC for the first time, and we were not surprised because of the quality of the build, and the level of existing development he leveraged, as well as new development that he completed. Yet when I watched the in car video from that race, the car stuttered routinely while it was making up ground on the leader after making a mistake. When someone gets the engine management right on that car it will fly. But IIRC we just took weight off of that car (correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is the same type of car that ran away from Albin last month at MPH).

I get the issues of using on track performance as a single input to classification, but I don't get ignoring empirical data - that is every bit as valid and reliable as dyno sheets, if not more so (cannot fudge seconds with a correction factor) and making a sniff test before/after making changes.

In light of these examples of recent additions/changes to ITB, I am reluctant to support the ITAC moving more cars down from A, until we figure out what the performance envelope will be, and how we will land cars there AND correct them if we miss it.

 

[ShelbyRacer]

As the newest member of the ITAC, I can testify to one major thing here:

There is a LOT of debate, investigation, data collection, further discussion, reanalysis, more debate, etc. that goes on over each individual issue. In two calls, I have already developed a tremendous respect for those on the committee, AND for the ones who came before, who left us with a pattern to follow to guide the discussions and give us a great point at which to start for each car. We don't all agree. We do all listen and participate. From the beginning, I was given respect and a chance to participate, not the old "shut up for the first six months and just listen". Several members of this committee are willing to participate in these forums despite concerns from many people. You all have more input than you realize at times, but I can also assure you that even if you were on the committee, you may not get your way all the time, even if you're sure it's the Right Thing To Do (TM).

Now, the points below are MINE, not necessarily those of the ITAC (disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer)...

Mike- your points about aero are valid concerns, but I think, as a few here have said, you're adding a level of complexity that would do more harm than good. One more variable is one more chance to mess things up. Unlike other adders, aero is MUCH more dependent upon track design (achievable speeds). Also, your situation from 12 years ago was one of the problems at the time. Things were done (from my understanding) SOLELY on what "feels" right, and perhaps one or two friends were consulted who would confirm that feeling, thereby making everyone feel better. Many of those feelings put us with the disparity we are still sorting out today. Yeah, they may have gotten one right, but what about the tens that weren't?

Jeff (Janoska)- I like you. I get it. But damn dude, even when you make a decent point, you ram it in so hard (no lube?) that it gets lost. If you and I hadn't met face to face, I'd say you were a new identity for another hard-charger (cough-Weisberg-cough). In the end, he didn't get it. I hope you do. I hope to make it to Summit in October, so try to look me up if you're there.

That all said, I'm bound and determined to make sure of one thing- I don't want to earn the title of "one of those guys on the ITAC when everything got screwed up". I want to be a good custodian of the class. I'd suggest that if you feel your idea has merit, you send it in to be discussed officially. In what I've seen since I've been here, nothing gets decided on these forums. I'm also with Jeff (Young) in that I think we need to stabilize some things to see where it all shakes out.

 

[JeffYoung]

Good post. We are lucky to have Matt on the committee.

 

[Knestis]

... There were a number of lively conversations here and elsewhere about the MR2 in ITB, and how it could not make enough power to compete at the current weight. About how it cannot even make 15%, and should be classed as such (even though it allegedly cannot get to that weight - which tells me it is an ITC car based on current precedent). Then I see one show up at Road America for the first time and run close to a lap record set by someone running "the car" to have at that time (Golf 3) at their home track (has thousands of laps there), while I was pushing him for the entire race (and missing the lap record by .2s). Now I imagine the same car classed at 15%, losing lots of weight, and wonder why I would even show up. The same car ran well at ITFest, and plans to be at the ARRC. I am happy for the guy that he has put together a solid effort, and really developed the hell out of his car, and don't want to take anything away from that, but also don't want to see weight taken off of a very fast car based on unsubstantiated claims that it can't make power and can't get to the lower weight anyhow.

You'll note that the MkI Rabbit GTI that ran as fast at this year's 'fest as the MkIII cars was found to be non-compliant. Scott Giles cited that very example in an old thread I saw recently about the 2010 IT Festival, as evidence of that car still having some life in ITB and not being a C car.

That's the problem with samples of n=1.

...which really gets at the nut of the issue. For the zillionth time, we cannot be changing stuff based on observed on-track performance. As much as folks want to trust their eyes, we have absolutely no freaking idea about what is making the car go as fast as the watch says it goes.

K

 

[shwah]

I understand what you are saying Kirk. Rightly or wrongly a car that goes to the fest and arrc is one that I am more likely to expect to be legal. Regardless, I do not see it as any more definitive than a single dyno sheet. There are just as many uncontrolled variables in both types of data they way we do it now.

Also - read what I said again. I did not say to make changes to a car based on track performance. I did say that the performance of 3 recent (relatively) changes to the B class suggest that we are not getting it right, and maybe we should stop making changes until we figure out what is really happening. Big difference.

I think that it is equally incorrect to say that you should always adjust based on track performance, or to say that you should never do so. Absolutes are not real.

 

[Chip42]

IT rules are pretty well sorted out, and I can't see allowing any sort of changes other than pidly things like that washer bottle or the coolant tank in the survey on the home page, and then only with a demonstrated need, not just "because racecar".

my views on the process and my role on the ITAC:

1) I'm not a process disciple myself, but I am a member of a committee which has an operations manual, and I follow it as though it were scripture. If I were around when it was written, I would have argued for some things to be different, but I have no objective to change it in any meaningful way (I DID have a part in getting the language on the 30% thing revised, and I'm happy about that). that manual codifies a process that has had very good results in S and A (which were realigned), and among recently classed cars at least, mostly very good results in B (so demonstration of a functional process). I think R is good, too, though car counts are still low in most places.

B ) Any significant issues with the process can only be identified when ALL cars in a run group are run through as accurately as possible AND there is time to settle out and see what rises and falls. if Aero, or brakes, or torque, or some other thing needs to be addressed, that baseline will GIVE you the data needed to address it AS CORRECTLY AS POSSIBLE. any other attempts to change the process, despite what anyone may percieve to be its shortcomings, are just going to make parity worse as some cars get "fixed" and some don't.

iii) To that end, when a car doesn't get a fair shake (it is way off the process numbers) it deserves to be re-examined based on evidence, and it's listing corrected BY THE PROCESS if found to be in error. I don't care if the car has been classed for 20 minutes or 20 years. I dont' want to see lead trophies, or weight changes done to anything other than data-driven process outputs. cars that are too fast or too slow because the committee was wrong are bad for the class and category, and skew the reuslts of any attempt to identify what needs changing if and when such an effort is undertaken. cars that are "too fast or too slow" on track but correct to the process as best as can be determined should stay as is.

quatro) ITB has not been reprocessed 100%. this is a problem with regard to old car / new car parity.


About the very strong MR2 running ITNT (including IT Fest):
I need to find out more about this car. It's driven by Nick Engels of TX region, if anyone knows anything about it, please share. If I / others / the ITAC have wrong information (and we have a LOT of it) about the MR2's potential, that would be good to know. If he is not 100% legal, that would be very useful info as well.

to Jeff Young - Supermodels probobly don't give very good blow jobs. they arent' used to things larger than a cigarette going into their mouth...

 

[jjjanos]

But I think -- strongly -- that the biggest improvement we could have in IT right now is NO MORE CHANGE FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME.

I guess I don't view taking 25/50 lbs off a car because we know it is at a disadvantage vis-a-vis a car with an identical drive train as a rules change. I would say allowing spherical bearings, or carbon fiber hoods or wings as a a rules change. The first impacts one car and the second impacts everyone.

I look at the CRX and its uglier twin Civic and I know the cars shouldn't weigh the same. The Civic is a dead-man walking if the CRX gets in its draft and the same is true if the Civic tries to draft the CRX. How much should come off the Civic -- I haven't a clue, but even if 25lbs isn't enough, at least its a bone.

The older cars have a legitimate beef regarding the rules change. They built cars under one set of rules and then the targets moved to their disadvantage and they've been told -- tough or throw gobs of money into prepping your car (with no guarantee that you'll be equal) to compete with a car that isn't going to have to go through the same effort and cost. It would be one thing if we always had an open ECU rule, but we didn't.

The Miata shows the weakness of the Process. I agree, the Miata shouldn't have had weight put on it based on the Process. I still think it needed it because of the things the Process doesn't include and that's the weakness of excluding things that cannot be nailed down with a specific number.

The MR2 is a problem. There's more than enough dyno information to suggest that it has an IT-multiplier issue. That being said... Doug Kinser built an excellent prep MR2 under the heavier weight and both ran up-front with the dreaded VWs, but also was beating them (IIRC) both times he ran the car.... and then he broke a front hub both times on a car that never had a history of breaking hubs. (The consensus was the car just couldn't carry that much weight as a race car.) What little I know of Doug makes me believe his car was legal.

 

[Knestis]

I understand what you are saying Kirk. Rightly or wrongly a car that goes to the fest and arrc is one that I am more likely to expect to be legal. Regardless, I do not see it as any more definitive than a single dyno sheet. There are just as many uncontrolled variables in both types of data they way we do it now. ...

I absolutely do NOT agree that we should ever use non-standard multipliers based on a single dyno sheet either. I can't conceive of a situation where that would warrant the extremely high confidence numbers necessary to make that happen.

K