ITAC changes. Chairman resigns.

[lateapex911]

Quote by Jake today.

***IT, while WE think it is important, and one of the backbones of the club, is just another headache for the BoD and CRB guys.

Quote by a CRB member June 2007

***FWIW, Regional race entries account for about 75% of all entries over the year.***

Maybe someone or MANY of us should remind the CRB & BoD that during 2007 75% of all road racing entries were Improved Touring. I'll bet the entrie numbers are similar today.

Oh, I hear you DD, I just don't know if the BoD is going to get serious over what will be perceived as a "philisophical difference" between the CRb, and their 'employees".

Also, the BoD and the CRB actually see each other face to face, and have beers together at the bar. I'm thinking that it's hard to hate your neighbor, if he's a good guy, in spite of what you might be hearing about his philosophies.

Sadly, it's the way things work in the club.

I hope they actually read the letters, and call me. Or Andy, Or Kirk, or Scott. They'll get the SAME story. We're not making it up. But, I doubt the phone will ring.

 

[Ron Earp]

I was told, by the CRB chair, and I quote, "You'll never convince me that using stock HP is a valid starting point" (for any process), and "Don't waste your breath trying".

Then what the hell does he want to use?

It isn't 1969 and manufacturers aren't grossly underrating or overrating horsepower output depending on what they want to portray. SAE standards have been in effect since the mid 80s and recently became even more specific.

The use of factory rated horsepower sure beats the hell out anecdotal observations such as of "man, I saw one of those lay a wheel for 100 yards, they be fast" or "we had one of those down this way and it stomped the hell out of everyone".

If he doesn't like it then he needs to come up with something better. Pulling numbers out of a hat or basing everything on subjective track performance isn't better.

 

[tnord]

Then what the hell does he want to use?

displacement. valvetrain architecture. valve size/count. TB size. etc.

i'm not really saying that's the way to do it in a class with more significant mechanical restrictions like cams and TB......but it's not a completely random number.

 

[RedMisted]

Chris, I've read your posts, and you're very perceptive. I agree with all of your points accept this one.

Defining how they listen is tricky of course, but, keep in mind that the BoD, rightly or wrongly, probably doesn't want to get involved in this issue too deeply. On top of that, the CRB tends to all the other categories. IT, while WE think it is important, and one of the backbones of the club, is just another headache for the BoD and CRB guys.

I'd LOVE to think that the BoD hands down an edict of sorts, but my many years of involvement are skeptical, and I wouldn't conclude that we'll get the world we deserve based on our own actions.

(In other words, the big guys have shown the ability to ignore the members in the past...).

Jake: I agree with you, and I retract that statement. (Apologies to all.) It was made assuming that the IT community had a clear path to those in power to effectuate positive change. As you pointed out, and I should have remembered (hey, I'm a relative noob), there's competition from other sectors of SCCA for the attention of the BoD and CRB. IT members DO care, so IT deserves to prosper, whether under the SCCA umbrella or some other organization.

 

[JeffYoung]

It probably works great in GT or Prod where cams and other items are free.

It does NOT work in IT where a 1.8 Acura motor with a good head, and good engine management, etc. makes 185 whp and a 2.6 inline six old skool Datsun motor makes 175 whp.

We have too many limitations on the older motors for this to work.

displacement. valvetrain architecture. valve size/count. TB size. etc.

i'm not really saying that's the way to do it in a class with more significant mechanical restrictions like cams and TB......but it's not a completely random number.

 

[Greg Amy]

...but it's not a completely random number.

Uuuuuh, yes it is. Read what Jeff wrote ^^^

Compare the I.T. % improvements vs. stock rated horsepower on a Nissan SR20DE engine (2.0 liters, 4-valve, DOHC) to a Honda KA20 (2.0 liters, 4-valve, DOHC) to a Ford Focus SVT (2.0 liters, 4-valve, DOHC). For example. Basing I.T. weight simply on things such as you describe is pure folly. Thinking otherwise displays a distinct ignorance of automotive engineering...and I chose that word quite carefully...

But, hey, go for it. At least it'll make for some interesting entertainment...

GA, simply drooling for when cars like the above are classed in I.T. at the same "process" weight...

 

[RacerBill]

Bill, to be fair to the CRB, they do have their view of how this should work, and they do give the ITAC a lot of free rein on that.

They just don't think accepting a process result based on stock hp and expected IT gain (adjusted by dyno data if we have it) is enough. They want us to then take the weight and see if it makes sense via on track observations and via comparison to other cars in the class (some of which may or may not have been processed).

Again, they have a valid position, it is just in fundamental disagreement with ours. We would accept the process result UNLESS we saw something entirely out of whack on track later on. They want the gut check to occur earlier, and to be based on on track results and other things that we are very fearful of.

Jeff: Thanks for your comment. Until your post, I was not aware that the CRB had come back to the ITAC with recommended changes. And I agree with the majority of posts that the level of subjectivity that the CRB seems to want is not what we feel is in the best interests of the IT class.

I held up on my reply to you until I had read all of the posts that followed, to make sure that I had as much information as possible. I agree with all the letters that have been posted here, and applaud their authors for their wordsmith skills. I hope that the CRB and the BOD finally realize that something is broken. Our volunteers should be retiring because they feel that they have filled their mission sucessfully, not because they feel that they are butting their heads against a stone wall.

I also read in these posts that the CRB has rejected stock horsepower as a starting point for determining a car's class and weight - but, again, they seem to have neglected to give us an alternative for us to consider. Brings me back to my point about not rejecting someones idea or point of view unless you can propose a better one. Just 'No' without an explaination is not an answer.

That said, I hope to have the time to compose a well thought out letter to the BOD and CRB in the near future.

At the same time, please let me state that I am firmly committed to the Improved Touring class as my chosen class for competition. My competition was severly restricted in 2009 due to a reduction in jobs at my last employer, and it was with great difficulty that I was even able to obtain a replacement engine late in the season (still unemployed, BTW). But we are looking forward to a great year in 2010.

Thanks to all who have posted here. The last two pages have brought to light a lot of valuable information about the situation.

 

[JoshS]

I also read in these posts that the CRB has rejected stock horsepower as a starting point for determining a car's class and weight - but, again, they seem to have neglected to give us an alternative for us to consider.

The alternative is what happens in most of the rest of the club -- a new car is proposed for listing, it's "matched" using what the committee knows about it compared to existing listings, and it has a weight assigned so that the new car appears to fit in with the existing listings. If it turns out it's wrong, then it gets adjusted later.

It's not scientific at all, but the comp board, and then later the CRB and most of the ACs, have used that approach since the beginning of time.

Note that I'm not defending it, just merely trying to explain it. I'm a fan of what's been going on for the last few years. I also think all is not lost with respect to classing based on stock HP, but we'll try to figure that out next week.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Andy, Jake, Kirk, and Scott, thank you for your service on the ITAC. It's sad to me that the only option is to walk away from something you've spent so much time working on.

Jake, I have to wonder about your signature block. When are you resigning, at the end of this year?

 

[Ron Earp]

I also think all is not lost with respect to classing based on stock HP, but we'll try to figure that out next week.

What's going on next week that is going to change this attitude?

[From Jake's post quoting the CRB]
I was told, by the CRB chair, and I quote, "You'll never convince me that using stock HP is a valid starting point" (for any process), and "Don't waste your breath trying".​

 

[Knestis]

displacement. valvetrain architecture. valve size/count. TB size. etc.

i'm not really saying that's the way to do it in a class with more significant mechanical restrictions like cams and TB......but it's not a completely random number.

We tried that years ago, and it just wasn't repeatable. (I think that the closest we got was total exhaust valve area, by the way.) Trust me - "physical attributes" was my mantra because they can't be fudged, but we kept running into wingers, to the degree that we had more exceptions than rules.

BUT that's honestly not the real issue.

Regardless of what establishes the baseline, there's still got to be some system in place to allow for subjectivity. (Jeebus - am I actually saying this?) If that process is one CRB member pulling a number out of the air based on what he thinks Model X is going to do on the track compared to Models A, B, and C, then THAT is wrong. Unless of course, the record is going to reflect that he made that decision.

If a "physical attributes" model gets developed and published, then maybe. But I have a fear that what will happen is someone will pick and choose how they consider these attributes, in order to make them line up behind a preconceived notion of what a given car should weigh.

Prove me wrong...?

K

 

[tnord]

my point was not to try and show there was a better way of doing it, but that there is some reasoning and history in other classes of those classification approaches working, and that the CRB isn't a bunch of complete idiots.

like it or not, the ITAC has to work with the CRB rather than campaign against it.

 

[JeffYoung]

I agree with both of those sentiments but would also suggest that a focus on either an engine architecture or displacement based calculation shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the class.

If the idea is that "all 2.0 4V motors should be classed the same" and "2V inline six motors should be classed the same" then we have a problem. See examples above.

I mean, do we really think the 2.5 ITA Triumph motor will make the same as the 2.4 Datsun motor and the 4.2 liter Jeep motor? All 2V inline sixes, and of them, the LOWEST displacement one is going to make the most power by far due to cams, induction, head design, etc.

 

[tnord]

i agree jeff.

although i would like to explore the idea of de-listing any vehicle that hasn't been raced in maybe 5yrs....at which point maybe some of these currently unworkable methods become more feasible.

 

[Eagle7]

Then what the hell does he want to use?
...
If he doesn't like it then he needs to come up with something better. Pulling numbers out of a hat or basing everything on subjective track performance isn't better.

I think the principles and methodology that the ITAC has developed is absolutely essential. Somehow we've got to get the the CRB to buy into it. Maybe if they have a hand in developing it they'll begin to appreciate it. We probably need to lock the CRB & ITAC in a room for a weekend and let them hash it out. My guess is that the CRB never even tries to look at the big picture of 300+ cars. They always just focus on the one or two of current interest, so they don't realize how much inconsistency they're creating.

I've been wondering if there is room for compromise here. Based on the reports we've gotten, this could probably never happen, but in a perfect world, the CRB could/should provide the "correct" factors to account for in an adjusted calculation. Then a sampling of cars could be run through the new Process (capital P) and subjected to the smell test. Grade the results of various permutations of calculations and pick the one that seems most consistent.

 

[Ron Earp]

I think the principles and methodology that the ITAC has developed is absolutely essential. Somehow we've got to get the the CRB to buy into it.

Seems like a stretch to think they are going to buy into the ITAC process. But the weak arguments they might use against it though are simply not good enough:

"We've never done it that way"

"We've been doing this for 40 years, we know what we're doing"

"Our method works great for National classes, it will work for IT"

"We didn't agree to the ITAC process"

​

Arguments along those lines are mote. Why?

Because last time I checked the SCCA was a club. And if IT drivers decide we're going to do X via the ITAC then the CRB better damn well get with the program and push to get X done. Otherwise they'll find a lot of their grassroots core membership racing in other venues and clubs. There shouldn't be any compromise with the CRB as the ITAC should be calling the shots for what happens withing the IT framework.

All the IT racers mandate white cars for 2011? Then they should be white, not a compromise gray from CRB input.

I'm sure the CRB will always pull the "the ITAC can't know what all racers think" out of the hat. That excuse is used in all sorts of discussions involving a population. It is going on right now in Wake County/Raleigh with the new school board. But you know, you can't ever know what 100% of a population wishes. All you can do is use the methods available to you to sample the population and move on. In this day and age that is done via internet forums and email communication. Sorry, if you're an IT racer and not involved enough with the IT community to have a read on the interwebz from time to time, well, I doubt you're that passionate about IT racing.

 

[Knestis]

my point was not to try and show there was a better way of doing it, but that there is some reasoning and history in other classes of those classification approaches working, and that the CRB isn't a bunch of complete idiots.

like it or not, the ITAC has to work with the CRB rather than campaign against it.

You may be confusing "being critical of CRB actions" with "campaigning against it." And when that criticism is driven by a fundamental disconnect between what the membership describes as its priorities and what a small number of CRB members want? Well, I made my choice, I guess...

And "idiots" was your word.

K

 

[tnord]

you're right, idiot was my word. they have been called worse as of late.

 

[JeffYoung]

Marty, I'd say that most of what you suggest has already been tried.

It was before my time, but the first time the process was used on a batch of cars (the "Great Realignment"), the history as I understand it was this:

-some resistance from the BoD/CRB to the use of a process to fix some inequities in IT caused by the old curb weight/minus classing method.
-ITAC develops the "Miller ratio" power to weight formula.
-CRB sees merit to idea and helps ITAC shepard the process through acceptance by the BoD (many thanks to the CRB members on that, including -my understanding- Bob Dowie who really supported what the ITAC was doing)

So, we've used the process on a select group of cars (the bogey cars for each class and the most popular models) and guess what? Over the last few years it has worked. ITS/A/B, the racing is great.

CRB accepted, at the time, the stock hp/IT gain formula, allowed it used on a decent sized group of cars, and advocated its use to the CRB.

Two things happened. We (the ITAC) then turned to how to deal with using the process on other cars in the ITCS. Several schools of thought:

a. Do all cars (herculean task, with a lot of pitfalls because we don't know much about many of the unraced and unloved as Jake calls them).
b. Do only requested cars (I think this was becoming the consensus).

However, we decided to try to do all of ITB to see how that worked. I think the CRB was on board with this. We started the process but never finished before things shut down.

So it goes...

Travis, the best idea on how to deal with older cars I've heard comes from Josh (Sirota). Basically, if a car has not been raced in a period of time, leave it on the ITCS but remove its weight with a note that if someone wants to build one, they can request a weight classificatio and then we process it.

I like that solution a lot. It leaves the cars on the ITCS so that oddballs still have the opportunity of being built (and it happens a lot), but allows us to deal with them process wise on a case by case basis.

I think the principles and methodology that the ITAC has developed is absolutely essential. Somehow we've got to get the the CRB to buy into it. Maybe if they have a hand in developing it they'll begin to appreciate it. We probably need to lock the CRB & ITAC in a room for a weekend and let them hash it out. My guess is that the CRB never even tries to look at the big picture of 300+ cars. They always just focus on the one or two of current interest, so they don't realize how much inconsistency they're creating.

I've been wondering if there is room for compromise here. Based on the reports we've gotten, this could probably never happen, but in a perfect world, the CRB could/should provide the "correct" factors to account for in an adjusted calculation. Then a sampling of cars could be run through the new Process (capital P) and subjected to the smell test. Grade the results of various permutations of calculations and pick the one that seems most consistent.

 

[tom_sprecher]

Having not read or heard from the other side of this soap opera I have a couple of questions to ask before I think about writing any letters to the CRB or BoD.

Was the Process something the CRB tasked the ITAC with?
If so, did the CRB work with the ITAC to develop the Process guidelines?

If both answers are yes, then the ITAC needs to work with the CRB to see that objective to its end.

If both are no, then what did you expect and what was achieved by resigning?