ITAC and CRB and the Process

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

Yes, I will edit.

 

[Bill Miller]

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 BOD 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.

Thanks Andy. Bob's comment leaves out a few important details (like the +/- 100# is close enough). Gotta applaud Jeff for not pulling any punches w/ his post on the SCCA board.

 

[lateapex911]

For those who don't 'cross read", there is a similar thread regarding this subject, (which I'll call 'the CRB /ITAC debate regarding the proper application of the Process') going on over at RR/AX.com.

And we know of the thread on SCCA, which was started with a statement by Bob Dowie.

So that we're all on as much of the same page as possible, and since the discussion has been sadly lacking CRB response, I'm going to cross post a post by Peter Keane from RR AX so that everyone is in the loop.

I was going to wade into this mess, but have decided it would be better to just let this cool off. I want to look forward and continue on the course that we started six years ago.

I would like to say that the guys on this forum who have bashed Bob Dowie are ridiculous. Bob was the unlucky guy that had to write a statement to you guys. Most of you guys have only heard the ex-ITAC member’s side of the story and have no clue what was discussed on these calls or on our private forum. I personally know and respect all the players in this dispute, but what has been said about Bob is not right. Bob is the most genuine SCCA racer that I have ever met. He is a huge IT supporter and only wants what is best for the class. If this dispute happed 5 or 6 years ago the CRB and BOD would have told you to pound sand.

I believe what happened here was the ITAC had a five year run of never being questioned by the CRB. When the ITAC started to amend the process the CRB got concerned and started asking questions. That is the CRB job! I believe the ITAC, unintentionally, took the questions as an insult and took a defensive stance of how dare you question us. These positions lead to more questions by the CRB and more tension on the ITAC.

As for Bob’s statement on internet use, we had several occasions when the day after the ITAC conference call, members were on this forum airing dirty laundry about the CRB position. The problem with that is no decision had been made about anything. The discussion was still ongoing and V2 had not even been put down on paper yet. It is a real bitch when you are airing dirty laundry that has not even been through the spin cycle yet.

I would like to dispute Andy’s observation that the rest of the CRB did not know about the IT process. Of course they knew about the process. A couple of years earlier I had sold them on a modified IT process to classify Showroom Stock and Touring cars. I believe the questions that Andy received, from the CRB on the version 2, were the members doing what they thought was due diligence, not out of ignorance of the process. The CRB was asking questions that they thought they would get from the membership. The CRB has to try to cover all the bases; because once it becomes public it is open to the members input. You can see from this forum alone, how kind and forgiving the membership is about CRB decisions.

I would also like to say it is ridiculous for Jake to say his feelings were hurt by Bob on the conference calls. What are we 6 years old? Jake move your zipper from the side to the front.

The last thing I would like to say is never did the CRB say V2 was a dead issue. The CRB had some major concerns, but never said it is over. The members of the ITAC got very frustrated and took their ball and went home. My hope is the new ITAC can find common ground and move forward. Secondly, if you read the threads of the people that are pissed off, you will see that it is about their garage. I believe that- the health of IT is way more important than one individual’s garage. PK

That post is here: http://roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?p=685154#post685154 , post #538

Obviously I'm amused by some comments, but my central issue is the "revisionist history" aspect, and the lack of debate/response regarding real questions put to the CRB.

For those who don't know, Peter Keane is a very talented ITB driver from Florida, who has challenged for the ARRC win these past few years (His brother Duce Keane is a multi time winner in an identical car). Peter was an ITAC member, was then appointed to the CRB (ITAC liaison), and then reappointed to the ITAC. I know he was on the ITAC 5 years ago, but I don't know when he was first appointed.

 

[dyoungre]

FWIW, I sent in my letter to the CRB to voice my support for the ITAC and the Process. I ain't no Edgar Allan Poe, but I hope that volumes of support help as much as quality. It's hard to get a good note written with poopie diapers to take care of!

Request Details
Title: Support for ITAC Process
Class: IT
Car: none
Request: I would like to express my support for the classification process proposed and developed by the ITAC. To be specific, I support vehicle weight to be determined based, as an initial starting point, on published HP for the vehicle in production trim.
My support is based on my technical knowledge and understanding of both internal combustion engines, and the restrictions and opportunities afforded by the ITCS rules.
To defend my technical knowledge, allow me to share:
I have a Master's in Mechanical Engineering from Michigan, a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. I've worked my whole career in powertrain since 1987, for an OE or a supplier. I have spent over 10 of my 23 years analyzing engine performance data (power, volumetric efficiency and emissions). Fundamentally, I believe my engineering judgement is sound when discussing factors which effect engine performance.
I have also been involved for 15 years in SCCA racing (as well as IMSA) as car engineer and crew for World Challenge, GT, and as a driver as well, in IT for 12 years.
It is from this education and experience that I conclude that the restrictions within the ITCS that require stock valve sizes, camshafts, intake manifolds and throttle bodies, that stock horsepower is a fundamental starting point in determining the potential for engine output in full racing trim, when all modifications within the rules are exploited.
I recognize that some engines have more potential than others. Comparing a 2.0L Zetec in a Ford Focus ZX3 to a 2.0L SVT Focus is a prime example â€" the SVT has already exploited much of the ‘low hanging fruit’ allowed in IT, so there is not much left. That being said, a non SVT focus engine will NEVER approach the power of an SVT Focus, simply because SVT cam timing and ports allow for more airflow than stock head will achieve. Simply assuming that ‘all 2.0L 4 valve engines have equivalent potential’ would be detrimental to IT racing, as it would eliminate the variety in vehicles that we desire.
Please recognize the ITAC for exactly what it is - a voice that is closest to the IT racing community, that has a clear and well thought out understanding of the wants of it's members.
　
letter number #728

 

[lateapex911]

Good stuff Dave. I'd suggest you cc that to the BoD. Just to keep everybody in the loop. Dick can correct me, but that seems like a prudent approach considering recent history.

 

[IPRESS]

That was a good letter Dave.
I think key in that is the part of using stock HP as a "starting point". Maybe the part that worries the CRB is the occasional inflated or deflated Mfg HP claim that really throws a monkey wrench in the works. I know, I know there is room within the process to address that. Maybe Josh can convince them.

 

[924Guy]

Excellent letter, Dave, thanks very much...

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

That was a good letter Dave.
I think key in that is the part of using stock HP as a "starting point". Maybe the part that worries the CRB is the occasional inflated or deflated Mfg HP claim that really throws a monkey wrench in the works. I know, I know there is room within the process to address that. Maybe Josh can convince them.

He shouldn't have to Mac. Anyone who understands the Process knows that stock hp is not just the starting point, they also know that the REAL number that gets put through the math is 'estimated hp in IT trim'. There are a TON of examples of how this works well in the ITCS. Two cars on the opposite side of the spectrum:

101hp 12A ITA RX-7. Processed at 50%+
240hp S2000. Processed at 15%

25% is a starting point, and that's it. But when you don't have any other information ro can't drawn logical conclusions (like how much might be left out of a NA 2.0 at 240hp), what do you do? You leave it! And if the CRB understands the Process like Peter Keene says they do, this should never have gotten to where it is today. If they don't understand, which I know some did not, then it was Peter, Chris' and Bob's job to do that. They bought it for years and allowed us to do what we did to IT. /broken record

 

[dyoungre]

Thanks guys. That was a second attempt, as I started a letter at work that went on and on and on about the unique draw to IT due to the challenge of choosing a car first and making it competitive second, being a car club, not just a racing club .... then decided that it was WAY too philosophical.

Andy, when I read '50%+' for the 12A RX7, my gut reaction was "that's why I sold it" ... then thinking that we're talking crank horsepower to crank horsepower, and ... well, I know I had gotten ~46%, so 50% really wasn't so far off. If I could have taken 50 lbs out of my cage ....

My biggest frustration with car classification (pre process) had been that the very cars that I think would be cool to see on the track - Fiero, MR2, Rotary anything, and great street cars like the S2000 - appear to get over restricted in fear of them being overdogs. What results is a formulaic, pick your best Nissan / Honda / VW and you've chosen wisely. 924Guy, you were one of the few I could beat at Waterford in ITA, back when I started. I'm glad to see you stuck with your passion (and glad that the 924 was adjusted appropriately) as it also fits in as something just a little different - but wasn't ever going to be competitive as it was classed in 1998!

I'm only seeing one side of the ITAC/CRB issue, I know ... but I was very disturbed to read about the lack of respect your efforts have been given as of late. I appreciate everything you have done to date, and hope the path you have blazed carries through.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dave,

I really like your letter. Thanks for that. A 'lack or respect for our efforts' isn't how I would exactly characterize the situation but I get your point. Josh is going to do a great job.

 

[lateapex911]

101hp 12A ITA RX-7. Processed at 50%+
240hp S2000. Processed at 15%

Ah HA!
No wonder I suck in ITA. And the Hondas always win!

It's Honda payola money...grrrr