ITA changed, IMO, when the CRX was classed. I'm not sure that there even WAS an ITAC back then. It is known to have an artificially low HP rating, and it was a winner right out of the box. That was 92 or 93 or so. The bar was raised. After that, we in new England saw some top notch efforts. And some clearly illegal efforts. (a certain car driven by a funny man's son, perhaps?)
At the time, there was no changing of weights allowed. So, in order to keep ITA from becoming a one car class, other cars were added at the CRX level. Then the ECu issue reared it's head, and 'chips' were allowed, then ECus in the stock boxes. That raised the CRX game even further. (and not just the CRX).
All this occurred before the 'current' ITACs watch.
Then Darin, and Andy, and some others joined. I sent a proposal to then chair Rick Pocock to allow weight changes, with a structured review system. Rick left, and Darin took over, and a system of classing cars, and adjusting weights was pushed through. One of the first changes was a reevaluation of the CRX, taking into account the
stock hp issue, and the increased performance available to it via post classification rules changes. And other cars got the same attention. (Also for similar reasons)
That action sought to restore class equity to the greatest degree possible, while avoiding competition based weight adjustments. The changes were made based on empirical factors. It was NOT rewards weight.
Raymond, if the system hadn't been created, where do you think we'd be today?! you speak of ITA changing drastically, and, to a point, you're right, the bar has been raised. BUT, without the new Process being instituted, where would we be today? Well, obviously, ITA would be faster. The CRX would never have gotten a correction, and cars entering the class would have done so at levels comparable to that. So, ITA would clearly be even faster.
I don't see where anyone here is blaming the past. The MR2 was classed before our time, and the CRX et al were added before our time.
The whole system wouldn't exist if the past problems didn't exist. I'm not blaming anyone, it just is what it is. But it's important to know how, and why we got where we are. Or we are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past.
....you are the current members class the cars right and forget about the past.
Really, Raymond,
we're trying to class the cars correctly.
We recommended to the CRB that the MR2 be corrected to a weight that is in line with the 25% standard, (we used the wrong math when it was reclassed) and it was rejected. We recommended that it's sister, the AE86 be moved to ITB at the process weight which also uses a 25% factor. On that car, they moved it, but added 95 pounds.
Why? I can't tell you.
What I CAN tell you is that the car makes 112 stock crank. That's 95 at the wheels. General consensus has the built power around 110 at the wheels, or, converted, 126 crank. I have never seen any evidence that supports the below numbers.
25% predicts 140 crank, or 119 wheel
30% predicts 145 crank, or 123 wheel.
The ITAC has bent over backwards trying to create methods that are consistent, rigorous, documentable, fair, robust, repeatable and transparent. It's safe to say that many of us are frustrated with the fact that the hard lifting has been done, but the fruit isn't forthcoming.
... honestly
