IT Process - Run All IT Cars Through it or not?
- Thread starter Ron Earp
- Start date
gran racing
Super Moderator
I understand this viewpoint but at the same point, why don't we treat all cars fairly? I would hope that we've evolved from a "not guaranteed competitiveness" line of garbage. What's worse is we have a method of to do this, a ton of work has been put into getting it just this close, and we're shutting the door and running away. That's just not fair.
For the record, my Prelude never went through the new process. Comparing the car to the Golf III and a few others, I also decided to submit my car to be run through the process - for better or worse. If nothing else I wanted a valid explaination of why my car AND OTHERS are classed at various weights that simply don't make sense compared to others. (Please refer to the Audi thread.) I'm sick and tired of hearing a BS answer of "well, gee, I don't know. That car was classed by another board and it seems to do okay." So what happens when we have another IT board cycle through? The dart board classification game starts all over again with a whole new set of darts and rules.
People want rules stability? Run cars though the process, get it right, and form a base that can be worked off of for years to come. We can't possibly have "rules stablity" until all of this happens.
Bill Miller
New member
I voted 'as requested'. I'd really like to see all the cars run, but I am also a realist, and don't see the value of spending a lot of time and effort for cars that no one is interested in. To me, that's just busy work. Especially since each car needs an individual look. That's something I always felt was needed, and always advocated for. Waaaayyyy back when, I never felt that a straight formula would work, but it was the kind of starting point that was needed. Couple a formulaic process w/ a well documented basis for exceptions, and I think you've got something that just about everyone can hang their hat on. And the best part of that, is that 10 years from now, when somebody pulls a '68 Cortina out of the mothballs, and wants to run it, they can request it be run through the process, and it will be treated the same as all the other ITC cars.
Stephen,
A couple of things to consider when you bring up 'you knew what you built when you built it'. Use your car as an example. I would say that a LOT has changed in IT since you and your brother built those cars (what was it, 10 years ago?). ECU's are now free, new cars have come in, etc. The 'you know what you built when you built it' is all well and good, provided nothing changes after that point in time. This of course would all be moot if all the cars had been classified the same, objective way.
When tGR was taking place, I wanted to know why all cars weren't run through the process. My thinking was that it was a 'new day' for IT. Treat it as if none of the cars had ever been classified, and start off w/ everyone on the same, level playing field. I'd still like to see that, but realize that taking a pragmatic approach is probably more realistic.
Stephen,
A couple of things to consider when you bring up 'you knew what you built when you built it'. Use your car as an example. I would say that a LOT has changed in IT since you and your brother built those cars (what was it, 10 years ago?). ECU's are now free, new cars have come in, etc. The 'you know what you built when you built it' is all well and good, provided nothing changes after that point in time. This of course would all be moot if all the cars had been classified the same, objective way.
When tGR was taking place, I wanted to know why all cars weren't run through the process. My thinking was that it was a 'new day' for IT. Treat it as if none of the cars had ever been classified, and start off w/ everyone on the same, level playing field. I'd still like to see that, but realize that taking a pragmatic approach is probably more realistic.
Andy:
Obviously I don't get it. But as you explained it to me, you have a stock HP # which gets a multiplier, then you have various adders, subtractors that get applied to produce a weight. Its the subjective nature of those adders that takes the time. But if you were to send out the spreadsheet w/ all the cars on it & ask that people fill in the blanks, you'd have 90% of the information on 90% of the cars. Then you look at the ones that look askew. But if your system is at all accurate, that list of askew cars should be small. Its kind of like the open source programming.
This is the part I can't get my head around. Why wasn't it done at the time of re-alignment? By not doing it to all cars you simply added to the ambiguity of only checking certain cars. No different than the original approach which was not terribly scientific.
You tell me that SCCA Pro racing just throws darts at the wall when classing cars, perhaps standing further from the dart board for cars that didn't offer some $$ to the process? Why haven't we looked at how WC classes cars? Cripe those guys have even figured out how to deal w/ far out ideas like AWD and forced induction.
I'll climb off the soap box now as this thing appears to have come full circle and what we've got is what we've got. All we're doing now is a lot of typing.
>> Why wasn't it done at the time of re-alignment? By not doing it to all cars you simply added to the ambiguity of only checking certain cars.
History is important on this point: The only reasons that the CRB agreed to do it were (a) it would realign only a few key cars, perceived to be popular but potentially off kilter; and (b) it was a one-time deal. That latter point is why we didn't just try do any comprehensive do-over in the past 6 months or so.
>> Its the subjective nature of those adders that takes the time.
Actually, as of a couple weeks ago anyway, the adders are pretty much yes/no kinds of considerations. What takes time (potentially) is discussion around the power multiplier - that's the point at which the process allows (sorry, allowed) subjective review of evidence to consider the use of values other than the standard 1.25.
K
History is important on this point: The only reasons that the CRB agreed to do it were (a) it would realign only a few key cars, perceived to be popular but potentially off kilter; and (b) it was a one-time deal. That latter point is why we didn't just try do any comprehensive do-over in the past 6 months or so.
>> Its the subjective nature of those adders that takes the time.
Actually, as of a couple weeks ago anyway, the adders are pretty much yes/no kinds of considerations. What takes time (potentially) is discussion around the power multiplier - that's the point at which the process allows (sorry, allowed) subjective review of evidence to consider the use of values other than the standard 1.25.
K
RSTPerformance
New member
Sorry Dave... Thank you for clarifying. Did you run your own car through the process? How did it turn out?
Also have you submited any requests to the CRB... did you get a reply?
Raymond
Also have you submited any requests to the CRB... did you get a reply?
Raymond
irondragon
New member
I got grumpy a few years ago when my Datsun 280Z suddenly got a big weight reduction.
For me it was no gift as I could not possibly get that much weight out of my car as it was built. I saw the change as a spurious way to rejigger the 280 power/weight ratio so as to justify including newer cars with higher ratios.
Question I asked was: will this keep happening such that older cars have to keep adjusting weight downward to accomodate newer cars in ITS?
Answer was: No. This is a one time recalibration to fix mistakes in classification made early on in ITS. Will never happen again.
But as I read through this thread it seems that there is a wish to have it happen again.
I hope not.
But I'm not as engaged in the problem as I was.
Sold the 280 and now I have a Miata in SM which is a differently managed class .
Best Regards - Bill Miskoe
For me it was no gift as I could not possibly get that much weight out of my car as it was built. I saw the change as a spurious way to rejigger the 280 power/weight ratio so as to justify including newer cars with higher ratios.
Question I asked was: will this keep happening such that older cars have to keep adjusting weight downward to accomodate newer cars in ITS?
Answer was: No. This is a one time recalibration to fix mistakes in classification made early on in ITS. Will never happen again.
But as I read through this thread it seems that there is a wish to have it happen again.
I hope not.
But I'm not as engaged in the problem as I was.
Sold the 280 and now I have a Miata in SM which is a differently managed class .
Best Regards - Bill Miskoe
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Bill, The one time thing was actually determining a power to weight target for each class. Those are NOT moving targets.
seckerich
New member
The most recent fastrack should answer this thread. F you, go away. Notice all the proposals out for member input? Welcome back to year 2000 in IT where you have a place to play and anything else is too much of a bother for the CRB or BOD. You could see the brass ring, almost touch it, and then you just went a little too far up the political ladder and the power structure. STU RX8 under construction. Screw IT until we get some of the current CRB replaced. Looking forward to December.
RSTPerformance
New member
Am I missing something??? I didn't see anything and I was promised by the CRB chair that I would see something...
Also does this make sense, displacement to power ratio being used to determine a cars competitiveness? <--- Should be displacement to weight ratio, NOT displacement to power.
Raymond
Last edited:
seckerich
New member
Welcome to SCCA. You want action then change the wording in the IT specs about no guarantee of competitiveness. This is the BS they always bring up when their ox is gored. Welcome to musical chairs and everyone that matters has a seat. Good luck with the next game. If you call you will be told it somehow was too late to make fastrack. Very convenient how that seems to happen just when time runs out to get anything done for 2010. You have no say in the game so get used to it or work to change the system from the top down.
JoshS
New member
What are you reading that talks about displacement-to-power ratios?
RSTPerformance
New member
StephenB
New member
If you are on the ITAC I think it was your boss.
RSTPerformance
New member
Josh- I stand corrected, displacement to weight ratio...
As you probably know the Audi issue has fustrated me beyond belief. I do not feel that my 5 year old performance of putting the Audi on the pole at the ARRC should be used to determine the cars capability and/or have any influence on the ITAC process failing.
I sent out several e-mails begging for someone to care, anyone, and finally someone did respond to me. After my desperate attempts I recieved a couple e-mails from Bob Dowie. The last e-mail asked specificly how he could justify the Audi weighing more than 200#'s over the process weight. Bob Dowie (CRB Chair) said "Looking at the specs for the Audi I don't see it out of the ball park as far as displacement to weight..." This tells me that beyond what the ITAC has for a process the CRB looks at every cars displacement to weight ratio. I don't understand how this works or if anyone else besides the CRB has used it as a compairable.
On a side note, Bob Dowie also promised that my request on the Audi would be posted in the next Fasttrack "I don't believe there are any items from you pending on the agenda other than the request on the Audi that will be answered in the next Fasttrack. I apologize for the delay on posting the responce, but since the request was based on the CRB embracing the new process that had to be decided first. I assure you there was no disrespect intended." e-mail dated 10/1/09. Still nothing in the November Fasttrack.
What is also interesting (and relevant to this thread) is that this e-mail also states that the Audi was reviewed during the realignment, only six cars in the last three years have recieved corrections because the ITAC felt there were errors made, and "re-running any car through the process is a violation of the GCR" and they (The CR
should have simply denied my request last spring on that basis.Raymond "Can someone just put in Fasttrack that my request is denied so I can start putting together my protests" Blethen
StephenB
New member
What is also interesting (and relevant to this thread) is that this e-mail also states that the Audi was reviewed during the realignment, only six cars in the last three years have recieved corrections because the ITAC felt there were errors made, and "re-running any car through the process is a violation of the GCR" and they (The CR
Raymond if you still have this e-mail could you forward it to me. I am wondering if the 2 ITB cars driven by 2 current CRB members went through this process.
Thanks,
Stephen Blethen
...aaaaand THERE'S the nugget of the issue: Without a repeatable, transparent process, we have the appearance of impropriety or inequity even if none actually exists. It's like if I took a vacation with a woman other than my wife. What would we expect people to think?
I've repeatedly - and publicly - said that I believe the MkIII Golf is heavy but that's relative to other process-based weights for cars in the same class. I make my comparisons theoretically. HOWEVER, I have zero reason to believe (using the example with which I'm most familiar) that Chris Albin is influencing the CRB decision to his own benefit of some silly 50 pounds.
The system is bustifed but it's NOT that simple.
Key points in the above:
1. It is an INTERPRETATION that adjusting IT cars to a theoretical weight standard, based on a repeatable process, is a "violation of the GCR." **
2. The ITAC, in the time I was involved, used comparisons to the process weights as its standard of "an error was made." Cars adjusted during that time BY THE CRB were set by that standard and approved by that group - or individuals of that group. However, those cars weren't viewed as "already fast." That's precisely how the Audi concern was voiced to the ITAC - that it's already fast and if it gets aligned to the theoretical process, it will "be a killer."
3. THAT perception is based on a tiny little collection of examples, the ARRC pole being one.
4. Remember that the ITAC recommends and the CRB decides. The ITAC recommended that the Golf II get a tiny little change, on the heels of an internal decision that we should set aside old (and unpublished) standards of 50 or 100 pounds "is close enough." They chose to not approve that recommendation. In hindsight, that 10 pounds represented a new commitment on the ITAC's part but it's clear to me that it was the beginning of the end of the process.
5. Kicking the "100 pound" assumption to the curb was arguably one of the most important changes that makes the so-called "new process" different than the "old process." It represented a *very* important step in taking out an opportunity for the subjective application of the math. I don't think any change that we made in the past year had more consistent support among the members we heard from - remembering that we weren't changing a RULE to make it happen. We were changing a procedure. We were also getting "too big for our britches."
6. ...SO when someone tells you that the "new process" was different, bear in mind that it was the procedures and practices USED BY THE ITAC TO FORMULATE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CRB that changed. There is ABSOLUTELY NO CODIFIED DESCRIPTION OF WHAT SHOULD INFORM THE ITAC'S RECOMMENDATIONS and the CRB is completely, absolutely, 100% within their purview to not approve those recommendations. As long as the recommendations made by the ITAC weren't viewed as meaningful - that they would make a difference - the CRB seems to have been OK with them and the CRB "violated the GCR" by approving them. Bear in mind that we used pretty much the same exact math as was in place when I left the ITAC to set all of those weights.
Nobody told us "no" until it got to the point where the CRB was going to be forced to be on record as giving each recommendation based on a transparent, repeatable process a "fair up or down vote on the floor," to poach a phrase from politics. That would have made it clear that a transparent, repeatable process doesn't align with the decision-making culture of the Club. They want to reserve the right to do precisely what they did with the Audi: Make a decision for an entire category based on subjective fears, potentially of just a couple of individuals, of some boogie-man car...
That is my biggest disappointment because, like the Pollyanna I guess I am, I ACTUALLY believed we were on the verge of changing that.
K
** EDIT - To be fair, that interpretation is well founded based on the language that was added to the GCR at the time of the Great Realignment as a sop to the then-CRB that IT wasn't going to implement competition adjustments (bleah!) and become a huge, complex, spec-changing mess. That "clarification" was in hindsight among the worst mistakes made for IT, in my opinion.
I've repeatedly - and publicly - said that I believe the MkIII Golf is heavy but that's relative to other process-based weights for cars in the same class. I make my comparisons theoretically. HOWEVER, I have zero reason to believe (using the example with which I'm most familiar) that Chris Albin is influencing the CRB decision to his own benefit of some silly 50 pounds.
The system is bustifed but it's NOT that simple.
Key points in the above:
1. It is an INTERPRETATION that adjusting IT cars to a theoretical weight standard, based on a repeatable process, is a "violation of the GCR." **
2. The ITAC, in the time I was involved, used comparisons to the process weights as its standard of "an error was made." Cars adjusted during that time BY THE CRB were set by that standard and approved by that group - or individuals of that group. However, those cars weren't viewed as "already fast." That's precisely how the Audi concern was voiced to the ITAC - that it's already fast and if it gets aligned to the theoretical process, it will "be a killer."
3. THAT perception is based on a tiny little collection of examples, the ARRC pole being one.
4. Remember that the ITAC recommends and the CRB decides. The ITAC recommended that the Golf II get a tiny little change, on the heels of an internal decision that we should set aside old (and unpublished) standards of 50 or 100 pounds "is close enough." They chose to not approve that recommendation. In hindsight, that 10 pounds represented a new commitment on the ITAC's part but it's clear to me that it was the beginning of the end of the process.
5. Kicking the "100 pound" assumption to the curb was arguably one of the most important changes that makes the so-called "new process" different than the "old process." It represented a *very* important step in taking out an opportunity for the subjective application of the math. I don't think any change that we made in the past year had more consistent support among the members we heard from - remembering that we weren't changing a RULE to make it happen. We were changing a procedure. We were also getting "too big for our britches."
6. ...SO when someone tells you that the "new process" was different, bear in mind that it was the procedures and practices USED BY THE ITAC TO FORMULATE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CRB that changed. There is ABSOLUTELY NO CODIFIED DESCRIPTION OF WHAT SHOULD INFORM THE ITAC'S RECOMMENDATIONS and the CRB is completely, absolutely, 100% within their purview to not approve those recommendations. As long as the recommendations made by the ITAC weren't viewed as meaningful - that they would make a difference - the CRB seems to have been OK with them and the CRB "violated the GCR" by approving them. Bear in mind that we used pretty much the same exact math as was in place when I left the ITAC to set all of those weights.
Nobody told us "no" until it got to the point where the CRB was going to be forced to be on record as giving each recommendation based on a transparent, repeatable process a "fair up or down vote on the floor," to poach a phrase from politics. That would have made it clear that a transparent, repeatable process doesn't align with the decision-making culture of the Club. They want to reserve the right to do precisely what they did with the Audi: Make a decision for an entire category based on subjective fears, potentially of just a couple of individuals, of some boogie-man car...
That is my biggest disappointment because, like the Pollyanna I guess I am, I ACTUALLY believed we were on the verge of changing that.
K
** EDIT - To be fair, that interpretation is well founded based on the language that was added to the GCR at the time of the Great Realignment as a sop to the then-CRB that IT wasn't going to implement competition adjustments (bleah!) and become a huge, complex, spec-changing mess. That "clarification" was in hindsight among the worst mistakes made for IT, in my opinion.
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
The concept of dispacement as a component of factoring weight is one the CRB uses in many other classes. For IT, I don't like it because things like cranks, cams, intake and TB's need to be stock.