ITAC and CRB and the Process

Not sure what more I can do. Really.. I had the MR2 IT community wrtie in an dvoice ther eopinion on teh weight of the MR2.

Was listed in the fast track as "mulitple"

I then collected and submittted probably a dozen dyno plots of engine builds for the motor. Apparently that did nothign for me..

I submitted support and wrote letters again to the CRB and BOD. That with many other resulted in the response from Mr. Dowie.

I don't like wasting my time as I have investe alot of time trying to show the right people and getting guidance from the right people on how to jsut show that someone is wrong. Nobody wants to hear that they are wrong. :(
 
Last edited:
Steve, the picture is bigger than just the MR2. Yes, I agree that car is a part of it but first the CRB (and BOD) need to be convinced what we want for IT. Until that happens, anything further at this point in time is essentially going to be just spinning your wheels. How on track performance is factored is one of the big ones.

How much does the process say that the MR2 is off right now?
 
Steve,

Yes, your car is symbolic of the problem with the CRB. They're the people who say, "Isn't this the same motor used for formula Atlantic?" The problem is what they know isn't reality because of limits that IT imposes that FA didn't have.

If you're going to post over there why not use this thread as a sounding board. Post what you're going to post there, as a draft here and we'll at least get all the gramatical and spelling errors out.
 
gran racing said:
Steve, the picture is bigger than just the MR2. Yes, I agree that car is a part of it but first the CRB (and BOD) need to be convinced what we want for IT. Until that happens, anything further at this point in time is essentially going to be just spinning your wheels. How on track performance is factored is one of the big ones.

How much does the process say that the MR2 is off right now?
Click to expand...

well I know that it is just a small part of the issue. But is a shinning exmaple of the issue. Like I said I have sent letters addressed to teh BOD and CRB in suppor the ITAC twice Once in support of V2.0 and the othe rmore recnetly asking for a resultion between the CRB and ITAC. Neither one of those letters did I mention the MR2.

To be really correct you would have to use a 20% multiplier as nobody has been able to get a 20% gain.

so currently it sits at 112*1.30*17+50=2525
if they used the standard 25% it would be 2430.
at 20% which is STILL unobtainable puts it at 2335.

so sadly I have a car that weighs 2525 and has 106rwhp.:(

(that is after doing everything that is 100% IT legal and not "techshed legal" and spending too much money to get every once of hp legally from the motor to get what around 13% gain?)
 
Last edited:
Z3_GoCar said:
Steve,

Yes, your car is symbolic of the problem with the CRB. They're the people who say, "Isn't this the same motor used for formula Atlantic?" The problem is what they know isn't reality because of limits that IT imposes that FA didn't have.

QUOTE]

All engines that are the same displacement do not have the same horsepower, and all engines that have the same horespower are not the same size. But when we apply the modifications that allowed by the IT rules, we do not substantially change displacement, we change horsepower and torque. Therefore horsepower should be the base we use to determine weight.
Click to expand...
 
I feel the same way. Since hp is largly determined by cam profiles, throttle body (or carb) size, compression ratio, valve size, head design, etc...our engines in IT trim are fairly limited in the grand scheme of things because we can not change any of that from stock. If all of that were open, then overall size of the slugs would be a real consideration IMHO.
 
Agreed, from one of the largest motors in IT. Cams, compression and induction limit the power in most IT builds, not displacement.

The GSR motors make the same or better whp as my 3.5 liter V8 at half the displacement.
 
The displacement arguement is so patently odd in my mind that I wonder if it's a red herring. Just a method or way to say "we want more 'freedom' or 'wiggleroom' to nudge things in ways we think we want to".

The Audi example is one where they said, "No the weight is fine: We see it looks good on the track. It has a big engine. It shouldn't weigh less with that size engine in that class".

Obviously, our position is that that is illogical and full of holes. (I'll spare you the details, but one very pertinent one is that a CRB liaison, Chris Albin, considered building one, actuallHAD the chassis, but decided it wouldn't be the best move at it's current weight, and sold the chassis. Simple logic to see that HE didn't think it would be competitive, yet he objected to looking at it's weight. Also, the CRB didn't send the recommendation back to the ITAC with a "PLease scrub this down for us, try to get evidence as to it's true HP potential, this doesn't 'smell right' to us", they flat rejected it, AND threw the whole adjustment process into a lockdown...only to just as mysteriously lift the lockdown a couple months later....)

Why we are having all these issues ONLY in ITB is beyond me....

If anybody is responding to this thread, positive or negatively, they should do so over there as well. The CRB has essentially decreed that is their ' internet channel'; so be it, we can talk there. But, as Vaughan points out, if we say nothing, the CRB will ABSOLUTELY interpret that as a vote of confidence. it might be a philosophical discussion, but it has a VERY real effect on your future as an IT racer. We've spent 8 years trying to clean up the practices and systems and eliminate even the appearance of back room politics, and this recent shift is clearly a power play that rejects the above board methods developed by the ITAC, and if the MR2 example and the recent ITA Golf rejection are indicators, it's a return to the old loosey goosey ways of classifications.
 
Last edited:
I did a little digging this evening, curious about the disposition of the cars for which recommendations were made to from the ITAC to the CRB, re: "please review the weight" requests. By my count, there are still a number that have never been acted on, based on my record of rec's and Fastrack:

Toyota Celica GT 2000-2004
Porsche 914-6 70-72
Civic DX 1.5 1988-91
Neon R/T & ACR 2001-03
Porsche 911T 1968-69
Porsche 911T 1970-71
Porsche 911E 1972-73
Mercury Capri 1979-86
Ford Focus SVT 2002-2004
FX16 87-88
Mazda Miata 94-97
Mazda Protégé 1999-00
Neon R/T & ACR 2001-03
Neon SE, ES, SXT 2000-03
Mustang V6 94-98
BMW 528e 82-87
Honda S2000 (2.2) 2004
Mazda MX3 1992-1993

I've probably missed some but I KNOW there are some that just got ignored.

K
 
The Mr2 does not make the right power because it revs the same as stock. It cant burn much more fuel than stock. Therefore the only increase, is the small compression increase.
Pounds per CC, times the usable rpm, is a fairly good estimator. This brings all of the engineering values into play. Throttle body area, cam, Mapping, etc. That is the same reason that ITB Golf 2 , with a good 4x1 header runs the same as a 16V with the stock header and cams. They run the same rpm7200+-100max.
The cars that respond well over the stock readings, are turning way over the rated RPM range and burning more fuel. Physics cant be cheated. If yourace car cant spin 1000 RPM more than rated HP, your sunk. IMHO.
The Audi 5cyl, have very weak cams, and low compression. Did those ever get taken apart, CCd , and the cams checked? They were turning almost 2000RPM over rated values.( with worse cams than the Golf 1)
 
Flyinglizard said:
The Mr2 does not make the right power because it revs the same as stock. It cant burn much more fuel than stock. Therefore the only increase, is the small compression increase.
Click to expand...

There are a few things more than that.. the biggest issue when faced on trying to find "gains". is that the motor has already been optimized. Many SAE papers have been written and shared on the incredible amount of work that was done in research to optimize the 4A that replaced the 3TC. The motor comes stock with a tublar header design, stock with port matched intake and exhaust, and stupid small camshafts. So for the most part the big things that wake up other motors IT wise, Toyota already has done.
 
Bob has responded to Vaughn's posting, so again guys if you want to be heard go post on the scca site. Be respectful and make sure to explain your position. what I found to be interesting was Bob's response to this question.


Edit: Damn formatting will not copy...
 
Bob's post seems to be saying that ALL the cars in IT were considered during the initial application of the process, and ones that weren't adjusted didn't need to be. That's SIGNIFICANTLY different than what we've heard from the ITAC members (both current and former). Or maybe that's some of the revisionist history that Andy has mentioned.
 
On my list of lingering decisions above - Jake, Andy, and Josh have pointed out that more than a few of them have indeed been resolved. The Miata was an unusual situation because once it went through the entire process internal to the ITAC, we determined that it was spot-on even with the then-most-brand-new process. No findings/recommendation was reported to the CRB, although in hindsight, to have done so might have squelched some lingering anxiety about among the membership re: IT Mafia hit squads and all... :)

K
 
There is some very interesting dialog taking place on the IT portion of the SCCA forum. The CRB has chosen this vehicle to engage members of the IT community. The dialog has been enlightening and polite. It is up to everyone who reads our pages here and believes tin the process that our ITAC developed over the past few years to stand up and let our position be known to the CRB.

Thank you to those who have already posted, and thanks to those who will post soon.
 
Bill Miller said:
Bob's post seems to be saying that ALL the cars in IT were considered during the initial application of the process, and ones that weren't adjusted didn't need to be. That's SIGNIFICANTLY different than what we've heard from the ITAC members (both current and former). Or maybe that's some of the revisionist history that Andy has mentioned.
Click to expand...

The original cut was a multi-pronged attempt. First, any car that was INSIDE +/- 100lbs was considered 'close enough'. Second, anything that was outside the window was looked at, and if there was information that we could use to pin down a new power multiplier, we did. Third, while the CRB was on-board with the effort, they new it would be a hard sell to the then-BOD so we were advised to be cautious (like using the +/-100 and not sending too many cars to them to approve at once). And forth, anything that was outside the window that we had no-freaking-idea about (like the Audi or Alfa's or whatever, got left alone awaiting member request should them come in.

So while they were ALL considered, they were certainly not all adjusted. That consideration was a very simple version for fear that it would get rejected in whole. It made sense given how much of a departure it was from the norm at the time.
 
Last edited:
RacerBill said:
There is some very interesting dialog taking place on the IT portion of the SCCA forum. The CRB has chosen this vehicle to engage members of the IT community. The dialog has been enlightening and polite. It is up to everyone who reads our pages here and believes tin the process that our ITAC developed over the past few years to stand up and let our position be known to the CRB.

Thank you to those who have already posted, and thanks to those who will post soon.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bill. If it were me, I would emphasise how much we don't want on-track to be a determinant, how well the process has proven to work in the past 5 years, how great IT is currently...
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
The original cut was a multi-pronged attempt. First, any car that was INSIDE +/- 100lbs was considered 'close enough'. Second, anything that was outside the window was looked at, and if there was information that we could use to pin down a new power multiplier, we did. Third, while the CRB was on-board with the effort, they new it would be a hard sell to the then-CRB so we were advised to be cautious (like using the +/-100 and not sending too many cars to them to approve at once). And forth, anything that was outside the window that we had no-freaking-idea about (like the Audi or Alfa's or whatever, got left alone awaiting member request should them come in.

So while they were ALL considered, they were certainly not all adjusted. That consideration was a very simple version for fear that it would get rejected in whole. It made sense given how much of a departure it was from the norm at the time.
Click to expand...

This description needs to be chiseled in those tablets we have laying around here somewhere. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the GR - and having folks operating without accurate history is a big problem.

I think you mean it would have been a hard sell to the "then-BOD," tho, right?

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top