ITAC News.

[JoshS]

That is a completely made-up piece of crap rule. WHY IN THE WORLD DOES 30% APPLY IN ITB ONLY????? It makes zero sense, made zero sense and is a big pile of FAIL.

Personal opinion coming here: All cars in any one class should be treated the same, as long as the significant elements are roughly the same. Adders and subtractors exists purely to take into account things that are exceptional for the class in question.

That 5% difference for multivalve engines is effectively just an adder, albeit a percentage-based one instead of a fixed-value one, like FWD is in Process V2. Based on the rough "average ITB car", its value is +/- 90lbs.

So the question is, is a multivalve engine something that's exceptional enough in ITB to warrant an adder? It does appear to be a fairly abnormal trait for an ITB car.

But despite that, In my personal opinion, it still doesn't warrant an adder. That's because the advantage gained by the fancy head is already accounted for in the published horsepower figure.

It's the same way I feel about any engine-related adder. Adders should be to cover exceptional items not covered by that stock horsepower number.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

So the question is, is a multivalve engine something that's exceptional enough in ITB to warrant an adder? It does appear to be a fairly abnormal trait for an ITB car.

But it doesn't fit the 'adder' guidlines. Meaning, who cares if it's normal or abnormal? If a multivalve engine is going to get 30% in ITB, it should get it in all the IT classes - because the assumption is that it is the REASON for more power. That trait doesn't change when you hop a class.

ITB ITAC guys....you really need to look in the mirror here.

 

[Chip42]

Someone needs to stand up and fix it.

From what I gather, that may be difficult for some of the responisble members.

complete agreement in kind, though - this mess needs to be cleaned up, somehow. I don't see why a class by class rework simillar to "the great realignment" is so feared. is there honestly fear of mass resentment by the membership for fixing the current state of affairs? I find that difficult (but not impossible) to believe.

 

[JeffYoung]

Solely my opinion:

1. The higher ups see it (a complete processing of all cars) as a "mass comp adjustment" that is not appropriate for IT. Under our existing rules, there is more merit to that argument than you would think.

2. I have some concern about reprocessing every car, personally. It's easy to do the process math on a mid 90s Honda, or a 12a rotary. But try to find accurate specs on say an early 70s Fiat, or a 1968 Corvair. Lots of errors could be made, and it will be a Herculean task. Josh, however, has come up with a great (partial) solution, which is to simply delete the weights for older, problematic cars that aren't raced and allow the weight to be relisted (via the process, and research) if someone requests it.

When I first joined the ITAC this issue -- whether to process all cars or not -- was the biggest open item. I think we were heading towards a "reprocess" with Josh's mod when we were first tasked with trying it out on ITB.

I remember being initially opposed to the whole "reprocess everything" idea given the amount of work it seemed to be, and the potential for error. But, I think the events of the last six months make it clear (to me) that that is exactly what we should do.

1. Publish the process.

2. Give it the force and effect of a rule, binding on "future" ITACs.

3. Use it to set the weight on all cars.

From what I gather, that may be difficult for some of the responisble members.

complete agreement in kind, though - this mess needs to be cleaned up, somehow. I don't see why a class by class rework simillar to "the great realignment" is so feared. is there honestly fear of mass resentment by the membership for fixing the current state of affairs? I find that difficult (but not impossible) to believe.

 

[Chip42]

Dropping existing classifications due to lack of participation has precedent in Production. this would certinaly prune the list, making the herculean task of going through an entire category a bit more manageable.

I for one wouldn't formally suggest a full group reclass as it's obviously a TON of work. But I think that a valid member request for a reclassification or correction using updated REAL WORLD information such as dyno plots or flow bench numbers or even on track results (if only to demonstrate the inequity not to prove it) should be considered reasonable by everyone involved. this is where the current ITCS language stands in the way from what I can see. and from what I gather, the CRB is not interested in helping change it.

But what shop manual do you copy pages from to support a request to change the rules???

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Mmmm, fun! Let me play!

Solely my opinion:

1. The higher ups see it (a complete processing of all cars) as a "mass comp adjustment" that is not appropriate for IT. Under our existing rules, there is more merit to that argument than you would think.

Pffft. Crock. Yes, it will adjust the competition level of any class. But so will classing a new car in the exact same way. Don't let anyone hide behind that excuse. Push to define 'comp adjustment'. Bringing cars in line with each other based on specs is SOOOO different than making an adjustment based on results.

2. I have some concern about reprocessing every car, personally. It's easy to do the process math on a mid 90s Honda, or a 12a rotary. But try to find accurate specs on say an early 70s Fiat, or a 1968 Corvair. Lots of errors could be made, and it will be a Herculean task. Josh, however, has come up with a great (partial) solution, which is to simply delete the weights for older, problematic cars that aren't raced and allow the weight to be relisted (via the process, and research) if someone requests it.

^^^ This.

I remember being initially opposed to the whole "reprocess everything" idea given the amount of work it seemed to be, and the potential for error. But, I think the events of the last six months make it clear (to me) that that is exactly what we should do.

1. Publish the process.

2. Give it the force and effect of a rule, binding on "future" ITACs.

3. Use it to set the weight on all cars.

Of course this is the solution. Add the Process date in the notes section of the ITCS. Reprocess' will not be considered unless proof that an error was made in the calculation.

 

[lateapex911]

Mmmm, fun! Let me play!



Pffft. Crock. Yes, it will adjust the competition level of any class. But so will classing a new car in the exact same way. Don't let anyone hide behind that excuse. Push to define 'comp adjustment'. Bringing cars in line with each other based on specs is SOOOO different than making an adjustment based on results.



.

THATS a major issue, as my definition of "Comp adjustment" is "adjusting a car because I think I've seen it be too competitive or not competitive enough".

But, the CRB tells us that any change is a comp adjustment....I've gone round and round on this with Dowie.

 

[JoshS]

this is where the current ITCS language stands in the way from what I can see. and from what I gather, the CRB is not interested in helping change it.

I don't think that's true, I think there will be support from the CRB.

 

[lateapex911]

Andy,

I know whose memory is sharper. I know what was posted was superceeded. The question is why doesn't the chair of the CRB know that or, at the very least, why is an outdated method being posted as the current method?

Got to use what the head honcho says is being used.



Which would be nice if it was what the CRB claimed to be using.

Why is it being used now??? Revisionist history is one reason, althought thats not a reason, actually.

WHY...that's the question. Kirks point about the ITB spreadsheet, and the Audi debacle triggering a giant pull back suggests those in charge were very uncomfortable, suddenly. But i really don't know the true motivations. We were told at teh time that the BoD had come down on them for operating outside the rulebook.....but then, I asked BoD guys and got blank stares. We were then told that the CRB WOULD get in trouble for operating outside the rules. Even though we'd been doing exactly that with full CRB knowledge and involvement for 5 years.

SOMEthing pissed SOMEbody off, that's for sure.

 

[gran racing]

I don't see why a class by class rework simillar to "the great realignment" is so feared.

Aren't things good enough right now? IT seems pretty darn healthy to me. (Not my words or feelings)

Then there are the Charlies of the world who feel that just because a driver & car combo is fast, they shouldn't have the car evaluated based on what it's potential actually is. Or if the darn process was actually published for everyone including him to see, all of this would make a lot more sense.

I've always thought that approaching this on a request basis would be the best approach. If Tom who drives a CRX cares enough to write in, do it. If other drivers of another car don't, then don't worry about it. Do publish something in the GCR noting when it was reviewed again. Lets not forget that at least in ITB, a BUNCH of cars have already been reviewed. Even if the process has been changed a bit (no idea how close it currently is to when those cars were looked at again), use that as a guide to determine what cars should receive priority. MR2? Duh. I was so smart to distract Guilick on that call!! LOL

There's also irony in all of this since after the IT review was stopped, there was a certain car make which received an interesting brake upgrade allowance just in time for the runoffs.

 

[lateapex911]

Actually, this is wrong too. If you were to go by that old first-cut sheet, EVERYTHING 16V is supposed to get classed at 30%. In EVERY class. Just simply didn't happen like that. In every class 25% was used. When the first 16V car that was to be classed for ITB hit (MR2), all of the sudden 30% was 'what we used'.

I don't care who you are or what your recollection, this is what happened. I can go back and look at every ITA car that was classed or reclassed and prove 25% was used. I ask those who fought for 30% on the MR2, where was that 'fight' when every other car 16V was being classed?

Ugh.

Right, and Andy, I don't know if you were on the particular call when this came up, (again) and Peter Keane said,

"Because that was the only way we would let 16V cars ito ITB, that was the deal we made to get that done, 16V cars in ITB get 30%"

I would NEVER have agreed to that, and if I had known about it I would CERTAINLY remember it. I have NO IDEA where that came from, it makes no sense. I mean WHO would you make such a deal WITH?? The armed guards of ITB?? Who would they be?

 

[JeffYoung]

I agree with this. They have specifically asked us to look at that rule, and whether we think it should be changed.

I don't think that's true, I think there will be support from the CRB.

 

[Knestis]

A really good legal Volvo 142 makes 10% more flywheel HP then the factory rating. If this is the basis of the ITB Process no wonder the system is wonky.

I feel like we keep explaining this but that people don't listen...

I understand from people who were there, that the 142 was one of the "bogey" cars for ITB at the time of the great realignment. Other cars were adjusted TO it, BASED ON EVIDENCE OF ON-TRACK PERFORMANCE in the years prior to tGR.

I'm strongly of the suspicion that some of those observations were of cheated-up Volvos being more competitive than they should have, were they legal (e.g., VIR track record set in 2002 - 2:22.6). Over the years, the culture of IT has gotten less tolerant of cheaters, cheater cars got parked or tidied up, and the Volvos are stuck with a weight based on bad data.

Only one way that "on-track performance" is a flawed measure of how "right" a listing might be.

K

 

[Chip42]

Regarding changes to the classification review language in the ITCS:

I don't think that's true, I think there will be support from the CRB.

wow. ok, so who's drafting the new language for the proposal? submit it, and I for one will write in support of it. I can see a few others would too, assuming it meets with our expectations.

and defines error...

 

[lateapex911]

Or doesn't NEED to define "error". Because it's a much more open system, and doesn't have to rely on the "error clause " as an end around way to adjust cars.

(Because, according to the CRB, that's what we were doing...)

 

[JoshS]

ok, so who's drafting the new language for the proposal? submit it, and I for one will write in support of it. I can see a few others would too, assuming it meets with our expectations.

As I said earlier, the ITAC will do it, and I will make sure to incorporate input from the CRB so we hopefully won't run into too many hurdles on down the road. Please be patient, it will be a while. We're talking about a 2012 effective date at the earliest. We will dedicate one of our summer meetings to it. I'm sure it will go on beyond that though. At some point if we can internally agree on a strategy, we'll put out a draft and request member input, continue to work on it after that, and then eventually submit the proposal up the chain for approval.

 

[Ron Earp]

We're talking about a 2012 effective date at the earliest. We will dedicate one of our summer meetings to it. I'm sure it will go on beyond that though.

You've got to be kidding. Committees of the same size have coordinated the construction of the world's largest structures and planned successful invasions of countries. I'd suggest you aim a bit higher.

 

[JoshS]

You've got to be kidding. Committees of the same size have coordinated the construction of the world's largest structures and planned successful invasions of countries. I'd suggest you aim a bit higher.

I'm not kidding. There's a "rules season" now. There might still be a small opportunity to sneak something small and easy into the 2011 season, but not for something that's going to require this kind of effort and member input.

EDIT: The definition of "error," which is what has allowed weight changes that would otherwise violate the rules, could conceivably change prior to the 2012 season, as I don't think that would be bound by the rules season. Not saying it will, just saying it could.

 

[gran racing]

The BOD needs to intervene. 2012 is laughable. There won't be support for anything happening then as it waaaay too far off in the distance.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sorry Josh but this needs to be Priority 1. It CAN get into the ITCS for 2011. Get the CRB on board, work together and push it through.

The next Fast Track could tell members of your intent and ask them to write in on the topic NOW.

This is the current ITAC's legacy.