ITAC News.

[JoshS]

My intent was to send something on the Friday before each call, but just for Jake, this month's will go early:

The next call is next Monday, 3/22/10.

In the March Fastrack, the CRB published a request for member input about engine mount allowances in IT, and the response has been fantastic. We have 40+ letters on the topic, which I think may be more than we ever got in response to requests for input about the ECU rules, and that request was published over many months. A new record, I'm pretty sure. I expect to close out this issue during next week's call.

Overall, the letters to be discussed (as of today) include 2 rule changes, 7 requests to look at existing listings, and 7 requests for new listings.

I know you're all wondering how we're going to operate with respect to the adjustments of existing listings. For the moment, we will be following the rules. That means that listings that have been around for a long time are not really adjustable, unless it can be shown that there is a real error. One example of such an error would be two cars that are, for all practical purposes, the same as each other, yet have wildly different weights (or even different CLASSES, as is highlighted in one of this month's letters.) By "same," I don't mean '88 Honda 1.6L vs. '99 Mazda 1.6L here. I mean ... the same parts in the drivetrain, the same or essentially identical chassis, etc. Recently, both Honda and BMW listings have fallen into this category and have been adjusted as errors, and we will continue to correct such errors as they are identified.

There is also a mechanism to change the rules, and I know that a lot of you are in favor of doing that (and I think that many of you are not, as well). As chair of the committee I will certainly be open to such a request, but please understand that any rule change of that nature will be conducted with due care, with input from the committee, from the CRB, from the members, and ultimately, from the BOD.

Josh

 

[Spikep]

Thanks for the update Josh.

Spike

 

[rsportvolvo]

I know you're all wondering how we're going to operate with respect to the adjustments of existing listings. For the moment, we will be following the rules. That means that listings that have been around for a long time are not really adjustable, unless it can be shown that there is a real error. One example of such an error would be two cars that are, for all practical purposes, the same as each other, yet have wildly different weights (or even different CLASSES, as is highlighted in one of this month's letters.) By "same," I don't mean '88 Honda 1.6L vs. '99 Mazda 1.6L here. I mean ... the same parts in the drivetrain, the same or essentially identical chassis, etc. Recently, both Honda and BMW listings have fallen into this category and have been adjusted as errors, and we will continue to correct such errors as they are identified.

What about cars with the same chassis, different drivelines, and the same weight? Is that considered and adjustment or an error?

 

[GKR_17]

What about cars with the same chassis, different drivelines, and the same weight? Is that considered and adjustment or an error?

Like the ITS Alfa Milano's. One has a 2.5 liter engine with 154 hp, the other is 3.0 liter with 183 hp. Both weight in at 2780 lbs.

 

[JeffYoung]

Other than engine mounts and some clean up not a whole lot going on on the ITAC board.

 

[quadzjr]

What about cars that were recently classed that were wrong?

I know .. I know..

 

[JLawton]

There is also a mechanism to change the rules, and I know that a lot of you are in favor of doing that (and I think that many of you are not, as well). As chair of the committee I will certainly be open to such a request, but please understand that any rule change of that nature will be conducted with due care, with input from the committee, from the CRB, from the members, and ultimately, from the BOD.

Josh

Do you mean a rule change in reference to using the/a formula? I've heard it called a comp adjustment and yes, that would be a rules change. But what's the definition of a comp adjustment? Using a formula to correct weights is not a comp adjustment (nor rules change) in my book.......... Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? Which is very possible since it's been a looong day and I'm tired!!

 

[Bill Miller]

My intent was to send something on the Friday before each call, but just for Jake, this month's will go early:

The next call is next Monday, 3/22/10.

In the March Fastrack, the CRB published a request for member input about engine mount allowances in IT, and the response has been fantastic. We have 40+ letters on the topic, which I think may be more than we ever got in response to requests for input about the ECU rules, and that request was published over many months. A new record, I'm pretty sure. I expect to close out this issue during next week's call.

Overall, the letters to be discussed (as of today) include 2 rule changes, 7 requests to look at existing listings, and 7 requests for new listings.

I know you're all wondering how we're going to operate with respect to the adjustments of existing listings. For the moment, we will be following the rules. That means that listings that have been around for a long time are not really adjustable, unless it can be shown that there is a real error. One example of such an error would be two cars that are, for all practical purposes, the same as each other, yet have wildly different weights (or even different CLASSES, as is highlighted in one of this month's letters.) By "same," I don't mean '88 Honda 1.6L vs. '99 Mazda 1.6L here. I mean ... the same parts in the drivetrain, the same or essentially identical chassis, etc. Recently, both Honda and BMW listings have fallen into this category and have been adjusted as errors, and we will continue to correct such errors as they are identified.

There is also a mechanism to change the rules, and I know that a lot of you are in favor of doing that (and I think that many of you are not, as well). As chair of the committee I will certainly be open to such a request, but please understand that any rule change of that nature will be conducted with due care, with input from the committee, from the CRB, from the members, and ultimately, from the BOD.

Josh

Thanks for the update Josh. Would something like the VW New Beetle in ITC and the Mk IV Golf in ITB but an example of what I bolded?

 

[JoshS]

Thanks for the update Josh. Would something like the VW New Beetle in ITC and the Mk IV Golf in ITB but an example of what I bolded?

Without totally understanding the differences between those two cars, they could be. One reason why they might be in different classes appropriately though is if their achievable weight in IT trim is dramatically different. I think that might have been the belief with those cars but I'm not sure.

Also, in my opinion the Volvo/Alfa examples mentioned above could also be considered similar errors (speaking as an individual, not as the ITAC here), but we'd need to discuss them in committee. We have some letters regarding the Volvos so we'll see where that goes.

 

[JoshS]

The next call is next Monday, 4/26/10.

We have quite a lot of items on the agenda this month. We will continue to discuss the proposal for which we asked for member input, the engine mount allowance for IT. There are 5 additional letters asking for new allowances in IT as well.

In terms of classifications and weights, we have requests for 5 new classifications and requests to adjust 7 existing ones. I think most of these are actionable at this point and we should be able to bring closure to many of them next week.

Josh

 

[gran racing]

and requests to adjust 7 existing ones

Josh, I'm SOOOOO confused with what's going on and what the current direction / stance on things are right now. I had thought that no cars already classed were going to be up for review and weight or class changes. Then the Civic si gets reclassed which has been in ITS for a long, long time. Now requests are coming in for other existing cars? Are they getting the "no changes will be allowed" response? If not, what has happened to all of the previous cars that were being reviewed and had letters sent in? I know I've never seen anything posted on my request and it's been a damn long time even though it had been reviewed. I'm sure many other people haven't received answers.

At least from a membership perspective, one day it's this is okay the next day it's not. It would at least nice to see some consistancy. I recognize that you personally might not have control of some of these items but maybe you can shed some light on these?

 

[JoshS]

Josh, I'm SOOOOO confused with what's going on and what the current direction / stance on things are right now. I had thought that no cars already classed were going to be up for review and weight or class changes. Then the Civic si gets reclassed which has been in ITS for a long, long time.

It's not that simple. We will make weight adjustments or reclass cars if the current listing appears to be an ERROR. Again, the "bar" right now for adjusting weight or class is that there have to be two basically identical cars, drivetrain-wise, with different classifications/weights, indicating that one of them must be an error because any reasonable person would classify them the same. Or alternately, if a car is classed at an unattainable weight, we'll try to reclass it.

This Civic kind of got both worlds. There were decent arguments on both sides of the "attainable weight" thing. In addition, at the same time we were classing the next-generation car with the very same engine, and THAT car was clearly going to ITA.

Now requests are coming in for other existing cars? Are they getting the "no changes will be allowed" response?

The volume of requests for looking at old listings hasn't really changed in either direction for the last few years. Some of the requests are just to fix bad spec line info or correct model years -- those are pretty straightforward. We have two of those this month. Most requests for weight adjustments will get the "no basis for a change" response but others might be considered errors and will get corrected. We just have to look through each letter and decide if there's any real basis for change.

If not, what has happened to all of the previous cars that were being reviewed and had letters sent in? I know I've never seen anything posted on my request and it's been a damn long time even though it had been reviewed. I'm sure many other people haven't received answers.

Give me a letter number or a date and I'll try to figure out what happened with older requests. I will say that every letter that was on the agenda for last month either got sent to the CRB or was tabled, and therefore, the authors should have received an automated response when that happened. If you or anyone wrote a letter more than a month ago and have not received anything about it or seen something in Fastrack, then the letter is NOT pending and either there was a failure to get the resolution into Fastrack or the letter was lost. The new letter tracking system is backed by a database and pretty much guarantees that nothing can fall through the cracks and has a record of the resolution of each letter, but in the old system we just hope we kept good notes. Member feedback about the new system has been excellent. In any case, send me e-mail with enough info about your letter for me to track it down, and I'll let you know what I find and we'll come up with the right approach for it depending on what turns up.

 

[lateapex911]

In addition, at the same time we were classing the next-generation car with the very same engine, and THAT car was clearly going to ITA.

Why was that car clearly going to ITA?

 

[mossaidis]

Civic dork alert!!!

This Civic kind of got both worlds. There were decent arguments on both sides of the "attainable weight" thing. In addition, at the same time we were classing the next-generation car with the very same engine, and THAT car was clearly going to ITA.

Could you clarify which car are you comparing with the 99-00 civic Si? Cause if it's the "next-generation car" the 02-05 Si, it's certainly DOES NOT have the "very same engine" or is it the same car by any means!

99-00 Civic Si had a B-series 1.6-liter B16A2 engine that made 160 hp (120 kW) at 7,600 RPM and 111 ft-lbs of torque at 7,000 RPM.

"02-05 Civic Si adopted the K-series K20A3 engine rated 160 bhp (120 kW) at 6500 rpm and 132 ft·lbf (179 N·m) at 5000 rpm. With a redline of 6,800 rpm, the Si distanced itself from the narrow, high-rpm powerband engine of its predecessor, and as a result saw a 20 percent increase in torque. ... the switch to MacPherson struts from double-wishbone suspension (in the '99-'00 si) resulted in less responsive handling, and a near-150 lb (68 kg) increase in weight to 2,744 lb (1,245 kg) contributed to slower acceleration than the lighter '99-'00 Si.Much of the weight gain is attributed to the chassis' stouter structure when compared to the previous generation hatchback, with the '02 Si boasting an increase in torsional rigidity by 95 percent and a bending rigidity increase of 22 percent..."

That should NOT stop you from putting both cars in ITA and treating them as having 160 hp though...

 

[rsportvolvo]

The next call is next Monday, 4/26/10.

We have quite a lot of items on the agenda this month. We will continue to discuss the proposal for which we asked for member input, the engine mount allowance for IT. There are 5 additional letters asking for new allowances in IT as well.

In terms of classifications and weights, we have requests for 5 new classifications and requests to adjust 7 existing ones. I think most of these are actionable at this point and we should be able to bring closure to many of them next week.

Josh

Can we get a rundown on last night's conference call?

 

[JoshS]

Can we get a rundown on last night's conference call?

Yes you may!

First of all ... everyone who had a letter on the agenda last night except for a couple in which we're still working out some final follow-up, should have already received an automated notice from the letter-tracking system that their letter was either forwarded to the CRB, or tabled. By the end of the week I expect that the remaining couple will be handled too.

In a few cases where there are multiple letters asking for effectively the same thing, only the first one received will receive a notification when things are tabled.

That said, we had a late start last night due to issues with the SCCA voice conferencing system (3rd month in a row we've had something go wrong with it), and we didn't really get started with a full slate of voices until about an hour late. So we didn't get to nearly as much as we would have hoped.

We had spirited discussions on all of the rules-change letters, which included requests for:

• Alternate motor mounts
• C-clip eliminators for live axle cars
• Relocation of the engine reference sensor from the distributor to the crank (which turned into a discussion about ignition system allowances in general)
• Battery relocation
• Short shifters
• Relax the roll cage mounting points limits
• Forced induction cars in IT

A running theme during all of the discussions above was about the philosophy of IT and its place in the whole club racing program, with input from our CRB liaisons, of course. We discussed who our members are, who we want our members to be, etc.

All of these issues reached a conclusion in the ITAC last night and have been forwarded to the CRB for action. But understand that a couple of these are not slam dunks and if you haven't weighed in yet, your additional input could still be valuable as the CRB will have to weigh in on the ITAC recommendations at their next meeting.

I am going to avoid posting how things were concluded by the ITAC until the CRB acts on them, but I will present what I believe to be the strongest arguments on either side of a couple of these items. Note that this is the written policy that all committee members agree to when they join, and it's nothing new. Please understand that although these items have moved to the next step, these are still open items until they reach a final conclusion, which will be published in Fastrack. All rules changes ultimately need approval by the ITAC, the CRB, and the BOD.

On motor mounts, the strongest argument for the allowance says that alternate mounts, or just reinforced stock mounts, are a cheaper, easier way to relieve the pain of replacing fragile stock mounts on a regular basis. The strongest argument against the allowance is that this rule is unnecessary because there is already a very effective and inexpensive rule in place that will alleviate the same pain, and there is no need to advance our way down the slippery slope of rules creep. That's a gross summary of the discussion, there are a tremendous number of nuances and other arguments both pro & con. Most of them have been seen on various forums already.

The roll cage question was a fun one. On the negative side, there is a concern that allowing additions to the roll cage (tie to the pillars/roof, or extend to the front strut towers, etc) would change the game in IT builds quite a bit, and a lot of existing drivers might feel that we are just forcing them to spend money to be competitive. But on the pro side of the argument, there was a recent anecdote of a car that wanted to cross over from another club into IT, but its cage well exceeded IT rules, so the owner was told he'd have to remove all of that extra stuff. Had he done so, and had an injury-producing accident, could the club be held liable? And to what extent should the club be holding the line on safety mods? But, might a really extensive cage in a unibody car be LESS safe, due to the impact it would have on the original crush zones? Interesting discussion.

Due to the late start and the complex nature of some of the rules allowance questions, we were only able to close out a couple of the car classification letters before we quit at 11:30 eastern, and the rest were tabled for next month. I apologize to those of you waiting for action on those. We are doing our best and we will lead off our next meeting with those!

As always, please feel free to contact me privately to discuss any of these issues or anything else you've got on your mind. You can contact me through this forum and I will send you my phone number, or give me a number and a time to call you and I'll do my best to make it happen.

 

[benspeed]

Thanks Josh - and yes, I did receive an update on my request. Thanks!

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thanks for the time to post this Josh.

 

[lateapex911]

Thanks Josh. The cage discussion is very very scary. The IT rules core brilliance is in the cage limitations. Once you tie the chassis together, you've opened the Pandoras box of huge spring rates and the attendant damper needs and costs. As it stands now, there's a strong diminishing returns effect in play on dampers. Spend all you want, but the benefits get mighty slim once you pass a certain pint. Tie the structure together, and that aspect goes out the window.

I'm still shocked the engine mount thing is in play. Tell Lee and Les to get in the current century, LOL.

 

[JeffYoung]

I totally agree on the cage issue. The person who brought it up makes valid points, but at the same time, allowing unlimited cages in IT makes a fundamental change to what has constitued an IT car for many, many years.