ITAC News.

It's always been a contentious issue. Guys like myself, Jeff, Kirk, Josh, and Andy were pretty much in favor of it, once V2 practices were nailed down. I know I wanted to nail down a consistent policy/procedure/practice, and then publish it. It's not JUST the process that needs to be run consistently.

There were, of course, detractors. Some of the, lets say "old school guys" were dead set against it. "NO". (points to anyone who guesses who said that, LOL). Others didn't like having the math out there for all to see, and my take away was that they didn't want to endlessly debate whether 2% was a reasonable amount for the FWD adder. Or if Struts were worth a 50lb break. Etc etc. They felt it would do more harm than good.

I think the guys on the CRB were in that same camp...I'm very sure of that, based on their comments. But now, I think that pessimism may have eased. That's a total hunch, but I think it's more likely to be published now than a year ago, that's for sure.

I for one would LOVE to have V2 published, with it's methods of evidence gathering and admission. I think it would go a LONG way towards instilling confidence in the membership. Further, I think they have a right to know. They pay the bills, it's THEIR cars that are being manipulated, and the committees are there to serve the membership. I don't think keeping the membership in the dark is "for their own good" as some might suggest. I was a guy who was an ITAC member and was at big races (IT Fest, ARRC, and traveled more than most) and was approached by people with questions about things regularly. I LOVED being able to give them honest straight up answers. I hated saying "I can't tell you, it's confidential". Even if you didn't like my straight up answer, at least we had something to discuss. I don't think I ever had a conversation that I didn't take something away from, and I hope the member did as well, even when we were at 'odds' over something. But saying, "Can't tell you" sucks, and nobody gets anything from that....except distrust. As a committee member, I felt it was my job to be able to answer questions, not duck them.

But, my behavior caused much consternation among the higher ups, so, yea, maybe my way aint the best....but I still strongly fell it should be published
 
Last edited:
I have always wanted people to know the Process - and have gone over it numerous times in detail while in person and on the phone - but not until we finished V.2 was I comfortable publishing it. Why? Because there were/are subjective situations in the journey of each car and (the reason why the CRB wigged out) V.2 expalined every interation of what could/should happen and why.

In many cases, it would have created more questions than it answered if people just used it as a formula instead of a 'structured but somewhat subjective classification process based largely on power to weight and driveline layout'.
 
Absolutely, completely agree with Jake and Andy. I especially agree with the statement about the process that it is a 'structured but somewhat subjective classification process based largely on power to weight and driveline layout'. So that is important for the membership to know. But with the process published, then we would be able to look at a car has been classed over 5 years ago, or an unclassed car and say 'Hmmmmm, that might just work', or 'as much chance as a snowball in hell'.

Let's get out there and write some letters!!!!!
 
First off, let me offer a huge thanks to Josh et. al., as well as the people that Jeff mentioned (you made me blush!), as well as others. Seeing something like this happen has actually restored some of my faith in the SCCA to actually do the right thing, and do things right. Well done gentlemen, it's been a long, long road!

Like others, I'd love to see the whole thing out there for the public to see. I'll take Josh's comment on faith, and believe that it will eventually happen.

Jeff,

How about adding the Rabbit GTI to your list (or move it to ITC, since ITB has become essentially ITA-Lite). Also, can you fix the 50# weight difference between the Rabbit and Scirocco in both ITB and ITC? It's my understanding that there's no aero adder.
 
JeffYoung said:
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
Click to expand...

Apparently you alread did consider it. Here's my letter:

Marty Doane,
Your letter has been reviewed by the Club Racing Board. The response will be in an upcoming Fastrack. Your letter details are below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #2633
Title: IT Rule Change Feedback
Request: I am writing in partial support of the proposed Improved Touring rule change allowing changes to the weights of existing car classifications. However I am concerned about some aspects of this proposed change.

I have been a supporter of "The Process", and have written in the past in support of it. I believe that prior to last year's event that led to mass ITAC resignations, the ITAC was very close to formalizing a very good system. I was dismayed when the train ran off the tracks.

I believe it is essential to formalize the process that is used to set weights in IT. The key elements of that process should be:
  • Weights are set based on objective calculations from physical attributes of the car.
  • Exceptions from standard calculations are allowed, but must be based on physical evidence that the car does not match the standard assumptions.
  • On-track performance should only be used to trigger a study of the physical attributes of the car, not as a direct factor in setting the weight.
  • The calculations and assumptions used to set an individual car's weight should be fully documented. Any evidence used to support non-standard calculations should be fully documented.
  • Each action taken by the ITAC should be based on a vote of confidence. The results of that vote should be documented, including individual members' votes.
  • The process should be published, including the standard calculations.
  • The calculations for individual cars should be published. Evidence
    used to support exceptions from standard assumptions may be kept private, but should be retained by the ITAC.
  • The votes of the ITAC should be published.
  • The CRB should not set a weight different than recommended by the ITAC. If the CRB cannot accept the ITAC recommendation, it should send it back to the ITAC.
Concerns that I have about the recommended rule change:
  • It appears that racing history may be used as a factor in adjusting a car's weight. It should only be used as a trigger to re-evaluate the physical attributes of the car.
  • Displacement is listed as a factor. With the restricted modifications allowed in IT, this is much less significant than other factors in determining performance potential.
  • There is no mandate for recorded documentation nor for transparency (publication).
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you,
Club Racing Board
Click to expand...

Then six weeks ago I got this email:

Marty Doane,
Your letter has been reviewed by the CRB and the response will be in the October FasTrack. The FasTrack will be posted on the SCCA website on the 20th of this month.
Here is the link to the Fastrack:
http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=78
Club Racing Board
http://www.scca.com
Click to expand...

It was not listed in the October nor the November Fastrack.
 
Wow Marty, what an excellent letter! Well done.

shwah said:
Didn't the Rabbit GTI lose 100lbs 4 years ago?
Click to expand...

Yes it did Chris, but it's certainly no where near process weight.

I've done the math on this several times.

Current ITB spec weight: 2080#
Configuration: 1.8L SOHC 8v, CIS FI, FWD, strut/beam, close-ratio 5-spd
Stock power: 90 hp, 100 lb-ft
Process calculations:

90 x 1.25 (IT power gain) = 112.5 hp with IT build (standard 25% gain used)
112.5 x 17 (ITB 'Miller ratio') = 1912.5# (round up to 1915# or round down to 1910#)
1915# - 50# (FWD 'adder') = 1865#
1865# + 25# (transmission 'adder') = 1890#
2080# (current ITB spec weight) - 1890# (process weight) = 190# difference

Or going the other way...

2080# (current spec weight) - 25# (trans 'adder') = 2055#
2055# + 50# (FWD 'adder) = 2105#
2105# / 17 (ITB 'Miller ratio') = 123.8 hp with IT build
123.8hp / 90hp (stock hp) = 1.38 power gain multiplier

Same numbers for your car (A2 chassis Golf 1.8 8v CIS-E, FWD, strut/beam 103-105 hp)
103x1.25 =128.75
128.75x17=2188.75
2188.75-50=2138.75
2138.75+25=2163.75 (call it 2160 or 2165) That's a 110# - 115# difference from process weight, or in reverse, nets a 1.32 power multiplier (1.29 if you assume 105hp stock).

Same numbers for A3 Golf 2.0 8v EFI, FWD, strut/beam 115hp stock net a process weight of 2393.75# (2390 or 2395) using a 1.25 power multiplier and no 'adder' for the transmission.

Consider the recent addition of the Mazda MX3 1.6 4cyl to ITC. It has the following configuration:

1.6L SOHC 16v, EFI, 4cyl, 88hp, 98lb-ft, FWD, strut/twin trapezoidal link, 5-spd (not close-ratio)

This car landed in ITC @ 2070#, and that's w/ a higher 'Miller ratio' multiplier (I'd have to scroll back and see what it was).

Unless someone can document making that much power out of an IT-legal 1.8L VW JH motor, I think it's pretty evident than a mistake was made in calculating the weight of the Rabbit GTI in ITB, and could be corrected under the 'mistake' clause. The question then becomes, can you legally get one to 1890#? If not, a move to ITC would seem the logical alternative.
 
I think the disconnect on the VW's has always been the hp potential in IT trim. IIRC, Chris Albin was always using 100whp for the MK1, hence it's weight.

Bill knows this but for everyone else - 25% is used when nothing is known about the power output. If there is solid data on whp and someone is willing to stick there nuts on the line to support it, it goes through.
 
It was weight added to the car if the car had unusually good transmission ratios. It was used more (and not that often) in the 'formative" years of the Process.

Things like torque, brakes and trans ratios posed problematical for the Process. Defining just when you use them is difficult. One of the cornerstones of V2 was repeatability, and those were items that seemed to be thorns in the side of repeatability.

Also, it's interesting how things like torque and trans adders cancel each other out, in many cases.
 
Eagle7 said:
Apparently you already did consider it. Here's my letter:

Then six weeks ago I got this email:
...

It was not listed in the October nor the November Fastrack.
Click to expand...
Marty:

It got left out of the Fastrack because of a clerical error on my part. Sorry. But, the ITAC did consider it and the CRB saw it, too.

Dave
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
I think the disconnect on the VW's has always been the hp potential in IT trim. IIRC, Chris Albin was always using 100whp for the MK1, hence it's weight.

Bill knows this but for everyone else - 25% is used when nothing is known about the power output. If there is solid data on whp and someone is willing to stick there nuts on the line to support it, it goes through.
Click to expand...

Andy,

Even if you go w/ Chris' claim that 100 whp is possible, using the 15% driveline loss for FWD (in Bob Dowie's post), that still puts you at <118 crank hp. Working w/ 118 crank hp, the weight is still 100# high (115# if you use 117 crank hp). 118 is a 1.31 power multiplier and 117 is a 1.30 power multiplier. Given the calculated IT hp, based on the spec weight, the car would have to be making over 105hp at the wheels. That's just not possible w/ a legal IT build. 100hp at the wheels is pretty questionable w/ a legal build. I'd love to see data that supports the 100whp claim.

Yes, the stock exhaust manifold is a big power choke, but w/o changing the cam and throttle body, you just can't move that much air through the motor.

Running the numbers on the MX3 using the 18.84 'Miller ratio' for ITC yields a 1.28 power multiplier. If 1.25 were used, the car is 50# heavy, at 2070. That is, unless 50# were added for the rear suspension configuration. Then it's spot on with a 1.25 power multiplier.
 
nice note marty.

i am thinking those VW horses must resemble draft horses. they seem to be much larger than mine. but that is true of many things on the internet........
 
I just mentioned the timing of the GTI adjustment, because I thought that makes it ineligible for another look right now.
 
shwah said:
I just mentioned the timing of the GTI adjustment, because I thought that makes it ineligible for another look right now.
Click to expand...

The way I read it Chris, even things that were adjusted after 1/1/05 could be adjusted again, to correct errors that were made during the initial adjustment.

I actually wondered why the whole 1/1/05 thing was in there. Like Kirk always says, adding more words usually complicates things and creates unintended consequences. I'm not sure why it was necessary to included the GR in the new language, just state that all cars in the ITCS will be run through the process. Any deviations in process weight will have to be documented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top