ITAC News.

See! I KNEW my NOT sending a letter of support in would help the cause!
Nice job, Josh, Jeff and the rest of the ITAC'ers. (well, those that voted for it).

Man, Jeffs post highlights the time it's taken. It's been over 6 years of trying.

I think a couple must look ats are the aforementioned MR2, and Toms Honda.
 
Josh, and all the present and past ITAC members - very well done. Thanks for your effort. With this change, I am going to wait to decide to fix or replace. Hope to get a number soon.
 
We have a list of the cars that have come up for discussion in the last couple of years and those will be addressed first, so there is no need to resubmit requests that were previously denied on the grounds that the rules didn't permit us to make any changes.
Click to expand...

I have to imagine that most people would know if one of the cars they submitted for review fell into this category or not, but a part of me wonders if it would be beneficial to list the vehicles included in this? No other information about the request needs to be included. I know that this could be gathered from previous posts during the years here, but it would be nice to know the ITAC is working off the same list. What are your thoughts on this?
 
JoshS said:
We aren't too late to make adjustments for the 2011 season, although we're probably too late to get any weight changes into the actual published rulebook -- they will come out in Fastrack form.

Weight adjustments can be done by the CRB as a "tech bulletin," but any cars that end up getting assigned to a wholly different class will have to go through the BOD, they are treated like rule changes.
Click to expand...

thanks for the good news. and getting some of the "backlog" done for 2011 would be icing on the cake.
 
Josh, I'm not sure that is right on timing -- I don't want to get anyone's hopes up prematurely. I thought we were told that we had to have any weight changes we wanted approved by the CRB done last call for 2011. Maybe I'm wrong.

Dave, I'm fine disclosing the cars that we have looked at, mostly in ITB:

CRX, Audi Coupe, MR2, the Mopar 2.2 cars. There are others I am sure but that has been the focus to date.

Chuck -- give us a bit of a break please. Motor mounts are a separate issue.
 
I know it has been probably been posted somewhere in another post ..but is there an actual published theory of calculating car weights ?

And can I suggest to the administrators to start a new "Sticky " thread in the Rules and Regs section. Just so newcomers, and the vets, to the sport can find this car process easily ?

Congrats to all for moving the ball forward on this !:happy204:
 
How about creating a 'class and weight process' thread and make it sticky? Include statement about any subjective elements in the determination of weight.
 
^^ I think that thread will LOTS of attention. While leaving 'Rules and Reg' for general ITCS issues (non-weight specific), my first thought would be to add another section under 'IT Forums' called 'Process Weight' or the like.

Create a "sticky" thread under "Process Weight" where ITAC publishes the weight processing for ITx, including adder and subtractors. I am sure we will be a lots of "thoughts" on that topic alone! lol

Folks can add a new thread under "Process Weight" for concerns relating to a specific model line as to not clog up the sticky. Again, the sticky would simply address the philosophy of the weight processing.
 
Create what you wish and I can make it sticky. I can also edit topic names if we get disagreements and/or move posts in and out.
 
RacerBill said:
Working on it, Greg. Just need to find the class multipliers.
Click to expand...
Bob Dowie @ SCCAbb.com said:
Based on estimated HP, decide which class the car likely belongs in and use the appropriate multiplier to determine the starting weight. Multipliers are based on the target WT/HP ratio for the class in question and the class is determined partially based on whether or not the resulting weight is achievable. The multipliers are as follows

Class Multipliers for IT

ITS 12.9
ITA 14.5
ITB 17.0
ITC 18.84

3. Discuss how the mechanical merits of the vehicle compare to the key cars in the class and assign “adder” weight accordingly. Examples of Adders are as follows:

Front Wheel Drive -50
Brakes +25
Suspension/Handling +25 to +50
Transmission Ratios +25
Other +25

If a car has a particular perceived advantage, or disadvantage, it should be taken into consideration accordingly. Often times, adders cancel each other out (i.e.: good brakes, bad suspension, etc…)
Click to expand...

http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1&TPN=1
 
almskidd said:
http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1&TPN=1
Click to expand...

One, I'm not sure what the ITAC is using currently, but, that above quote isn't what was being used when I left. The adders aren't right. Moreover, they depend on the class under discussion. Andy knows this like the back of his hand, and I've got it written down as well, in V2 form.
But, without knowing what the ITAC is doing currently, it's misinformation.

(I think I remember hearing that they were using essentially V2 where they could, but, I'd want confirmation from Jeff or josh on that)
 
So,

since everyone is eligible to be processed using the current formula....

Could we get that formula or a synopsis with a sticky on the front page?
 
Sorry guys. It's very much like V2 with some minor adder tweaks, but as of right now, we're not publishing it. One step at a time ...
 
Of course, if someone would submit a letter requesting that we publish the process that might speed up the debate....
 
Well, all I can tell you is we technically did not have a process to publish until just now.

I am speaking for myself but my initial position is I would vote to publish. That doesn't mean the ITAC will recommend that, or that those who have some concerns about publishing are hiding anything.

We'll consider the letter I am sure and try to get something one way or the other in Fastrack in the next several months.

Thanks Marty.

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