Tires per race - there will always be someone who is buying fresh tires and shaving them down for each race. Stickers for qualifying of course!
ITAC News.
- Thread starter lateapex911
- Start date
Tires per race - there will always be someone who is buying fresh tires and shaving them down for each race. Stickers for qualifying of course!
He is also a past SCCA Jim Fitzgerald Rookie of the Year Award recipient.
Mseiler
New member
OK, late to the discussion but, a few observations.
"The graying of SCCA is a problem" I heard this in 1987 when I went to my first SCCA meeting. I autocrossed a few times, got transfered in my job, then "merged" "downsized" and "outplaced" 3 times in 4 years. I got back into SCCA in '03 after doing a noon drive around Mid-Ohio(sitting under the Honda bridge after a clean run through the ESSES I looked at my wife and told her "we're going racing", thankfully she enthusiastically agreed) I had no idea how I was going to do this and it took until last Feb before I did the Double School at Roebling. The whole journey could fill a book but, the bottom line is everyone comes to the sport from a different direction so there is no one answer as to how to get people involved.
I learned something long ago from the best salesman I ever knew who told me, "I never sold anyone anything, I just make it easy to buy" If SCCA has a problem, this is it, we don't make it "easy to buy". To that end our region has begun putting out simple "guerilla marketing" pieces. A business card that asks, "Wanna Race" with a description on the back of Autocross, Time Trials/Hill Climbs and Road Racing. These are given to members to stick under the wipers of "hot" street cars they see or hand out to people they meet. We've also developed a 1-page, 2-sided Quick Start Guide for TT & Hill Climbing. It covers the MINIMUM prep needed to move up in the sport and cuts away all the GCR fog. We should put together a similar piece for Road Racing. All these direct the recipient to our website.
This is an expensive hobby no matter how you cut it. Let's be realistic, one fumble can turn your beloved racecar into a paperweight in seconds. Not everyone can afford that type of hobby or is willing to take that risk. As such you will never have the kind of customer pool from which to draw like golf or bird watching. My wife and I don't go on cruises or have a beach house or condo in the mountains, we race. As someone previously pointed out, the divorce rate for racers ain't low, thankfully we do this as a team. Now our son is co-driving with me and our grandson just got his race kart at the age of 8 and is autocrossing. Maybe you have a family member you can help get started as well.
The best thing we can do is get the word out about the sport. To that end, it would be nice if SCCA would make the main website easier to navigate to find your region (this business of several steps to look at chopped up state maps in crazy. How about a box on the main page where you enter your zip code(most folks have one) and up pops your region's website...sheesh, how hard is that?) AND do some advertising on SPEED and other race broadcasts to simply let people know HOW TO GET INVOLVED.
I don't claim that these are the answers but, I hope it may trigger thoughts from other upon which to build.
[stepping off soap box]
"The graying of SCCA is a problem" I heard this in 1987 when I went to my first SCCA meeting. I autocrossed a few times, got transfered in my job, then "merged" "downsized" and "outplaced" 3 times in 4 years. I got back into SCCA in '03 after doing a noon drive around Mid-Ohio(sitting under the Honda bridge after a clean run through the ESSES I looked at my wife and told her "we're going racing", thankfully she enthusiastically agreed) I had no idea how I was going to do this and it took until last Feb before I did the Double School at Roebling. The whole journey could fill a book but, the bottom line is everyone comes to the sport from a different direction so there is no one answer as to how to get people involved.
I learned something long ago from the best salesman I ever knew who told me, "I never sold anyone anything, I just make it easy to buy" If SCCA has a problem, this is it, we don't make it "easy to buy". To that end our region has begun putting out simple "guerilla marketing" pieces. A business card that asks, "Wanna Race" with a description on the back of Autocross, Time Trials/Hill Climbs and Road Racing. These are given to members to stick under the wipers of "hot" street cars they see or hand out to people they meet. We've also developed a 1-page, 2-sided Quick Start Guide for TT & Hill Climbing. It covers the MINIMUM prep needed to move up in the sport and cuts away all the GCR fog. We should put together a similar piece for Road Racing. All these direct the recipient to our website.
This is an expensive hobby no matter how you cut it. Let's be realistic, one fumble can turn your beloved racecar into a paperweight in seconds. Not everyone can afford that type of hobby or is willing to take that risk. As such you will never have the kind of customer pool from which to draw like golf or bird watching. My wife and I don't go on cruises or have a beach house or condo in the mountains, we race. As someone previously pointed out, the divorce rate for racers ain't low, thankfully we do this as a team. Now our son is co-driving with me and our grandson just got his race kart at the age of 8 and is autocrossing. Maybe you have a family member you can help get started as well.
The best thing we can do is get the word out about the sport. To that end, it would be nice if SCCA would make the main website easier to navigate to find your region (this business of several steps to look at chopped up state maps in crazy. How about a box on the main page where you enter your zip code(most folks have one) and up pops your region's website...sheesh, how hard is that?) AND do some advertising on SPEED and other race broadcasts to simply let people know HOW TO GET INVOLVED.
I don't claim that these are the answers but, I hope it may trigger thoughts from other upon which to build.
[stepping off soap box]
Last edited:
chuck baader
New member
JS154,,,actually I buy them for the ARRC and run them the next year and I do fairly well on them. You don't shave A6s
Chuck
Chuck
JeffYoung
New member
Ok, very productive call last night. Lots of letters ploughed through and you will see a number of items in Fastrack this month I think.
A couple of big picture items were addressed. One, Chip and I spent some time sorting through the matter of the double wishbone adder in ITR. The issue was that while the Ops Manual stated that the DW adder applied to all classes (or more accurately was silent on any exclusions), it appeared that a lot of cars in ITR had not gotten it added. The thinking apparently was that double wishbones were the "norm" in ITR and thus the adder was not needed -- sound logic.
However, as Chip and I went through the ITCS it became apparent that a large chunk of the cars in ITR in fact had struts. So, the empirical basis for not using the DW adder in ITR did not seem to be correct.
I think (personal opinion) that the long term plan is to address this by a complete 'go through' of the cars in ITR to make sure the process was applied consistently. Two things on that: (a) it was NOT the fault of the prior ITAC as they were doing this at a time when the Process/Ops Manual was still in development and not entirely settled and (b) if anyone is to blame for the inconsistencies it is me since I was there when the Ops Manual was finalized.
The good news is most of the weights in ITR do not appear to be "off Process" by much so we do not anticipate any huge changes.
We made recommendations on the evap rule as well.
Again, the use of the Process has really made our job easier. I think we classed 5 cars last night all in the matter of 30 or so minutes because the Process (as it should) limits and directs our attention to a few factors in setting the weight rather than a free ranging discussion of (hypotheticall) how this car might do on track.
Kudos to Chip, Gary S., Gary L., Danny Doern, Lee and our CRB reps for a productive call.
A couple of big picture items were addressed. One, Chip and I spent some time sorting through the matter of the double wishbone adder in ITR. The issue was that while the Ops Manual stated that the DW adder applied to all classes (or more accurately was silent on any exclusions), it appeared that a lot of cars in ITR had not gotten it added. The thinking apparently was that double wishbones were the "norm" in ITR and thus the adder was not needed -- sound logic.
However, as Chip and I went through the ITCS it became apparent that a large chunk of the cars in ITR in fact had struts. So, the empirical basis for not using the DW adder in ITR did not seem to be correct.
I think (personal opinion) that the long term plan is to address this by a complete 'go through' of the cars in ITR to make sure the process was applied consistently. Two things on that: (a) it was NOT the fault of the prior ITAC as they were doing this at a time when the Process/Ops Manual was still in development and not entirely settled and (b) if anyone is to blame for the inconsistencies it is me since I was there when the Ops Manual was finalized.
The good news is most of the weights in ITR do not appear to be "off Process" by much so we do not anticipate any huge changes.
We made recommendations on the evap rule as well.
Again, the use of the Process has really made our job easier. I think we classed 5 cars last night all in the matter of 30 or so minutes because the Process (as it should) limits and directs our attention to a few factors in setting the weight rather than a free ranging discussion of (hypotheticall) how this car might do on track.
Kudos to Chip, Gary S., Gary L., Danny Doern, Lee and our CRB reps for a productive call.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
DW's weren't specifically called out in ITR back then, just the concept that the cars in ITR had 'advanced' suspension technolgy and were not different enough from each other to warrant an adder. See the FWD cars like the Contour and SHO getting strut 'deductions' as being 'not the norm'.
Please either eliminate the DW adder language in ITR or eliminate the -50 for struts in ITR. Better yet, please apply different language to a class of 'real' sports cars vs cars like in ITC.
JoshS
New member
I think I can take the blame for the DW confusion. I knew, when I wrote the Ops Manual, that the only suspension-type adjustments that we were making in ITR were the live axle RWD deduct, and the front-strut FWD deduct. I think maybe I just didn't get it written down right and during the review process, I didn't notice (and I guess no one else did either!)
I think if you review the weights, you'll find that those two adjustments are the only two used.
I think if you review the weights, you'll find that those two adjustments are the only two used.
JeffYoung
New member
No worries. I didn't catch it either. But see below.
From the work Chip and I did, it does look like the only way to explain some of the Honda/Acura weights is that a 50 lb adder in ITR was used for DW.
That caused us to think it through more and it does seem that the empirical basis for NOT having the adder in ITR is not correct. The predominant suspension in ITR is not DW. There are many cars in ITR with a strut based suspension (BMWs, Ponies, some of the Toyotas and Nissans, etc.) that are at a disadvantage to the DW cars.
So, the way the Ops Manual is written seems to work (whether intentional or not!):
1. DW cars in ITR get +50.
2. RWD cars with struts in the front are neutral.
3. FWD cars with struts in the front get -50.
That seems roughly "fair" to me and, I think, the rest of the committee.
From the work Chip and I did, it does look like the only way to explain some of the Honda/Acura weights is that a 50 lb adder in ITR was used for DW.
That caused us to think it through more and it does seem that the empirical basis for NOT having the adder in ITR is not correct. The predominant suspension in ITR is not DW. There are many cars in ITR with a strut based suspension (BMWs, Ponies, some of the Toyotas and Nissans, etc.) that are at a disadvantage to the DW cars.
So, the way the Ops Manual is written seems to work (whether intentional or not!):
1. DW cars in ITR get +50.
2. RWD cars with struts in the front are neutral.
3. FWD cars with struts in the front get -50.
That seems roughly "fair" to me and, I think, the rest of the committee.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I would love to see your math please. Just from memory:
Type R: 195x1.20x11.25-100 for FWD. Spot on. Yes, -100 for FWD in ITR.
RSX: 200x1.25x11.25-100 FWD -50 strut. Spot on.
S2000: 240x1.15x11.25-100 for no torque. Spot on.
Gen 4 Prelude: 190x1.25x11.25-100 for FWD. Spot on.
I could go on.
Do all the ITR cars a favor and rewrite the ops manual. Do a deduction for struts if you really want to. Help keep the overall weight of the class down. I still submit, as I did then, that the 'strut' set-up in a Supra or 300ZX vs the DW's of a S2000 does not pose the same 'difference' as say a Miata and a Escort or Protege or Sentra.
The idea of an adder is to apply compensation for something significantly different. Those cars are advanced. And in class now with the Vette getting +50, there is a double whammy for it because, as proven above, FWD strut cars got a deduct.
In your above scenario, you treat struts differently for FWD and RWD? Why?
I love you guys but I fail to see why you would try and recreate the wheel by yourselves and get it wrong when Josh and I are a phone call away to help you understand the numbers/history.
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
We aren't recreating the wheel. And we do consult with you guys on nearly all of these issues that come up.
What we are trying to do is rectify a LOT of inconsistencies that arose because of the timing on this. ITR came into being before the Process was firmed up. 100 lbs off in ITR for FWD? Not any more, we use a percentage deduct. So the weights appear off -- and may have led us to believe that a DW adder was used.
Be that as it may, the fundamental premise for not having a DW adder in ITR doesn't hold water. There are a LOT of strut cars in ITR and I do believe they are at a disadvantage to the DW cars. All strut cars retain the ability to correct a lot of geometry issues with the "struts are free" rule so I don't think there is as much difference between the strut suspensions in B and C and in R and S.
This ITAC believes that having the DW adder for R makes sense. This isn't some fundamental philosophical shift; it is a small adder that you disagree with. That's going to happen as we go forward, and it will happen to me when I leave the committee.
This, however, one the key reasons why we are trying to create a written record of classing decisions, and a written manual of IT philosophy and commitee operating procedures. No knock on you guys, you had a lot going on, but almost all of the issues can find their genesis in not having good records of why things were done back in the day (including the "day" that I was on the committee -- I'm as much at fault as anyone).
99% of what you guys came up with remains in place, solid and won't/can't be changed.
P.S. You might want to check the Supras and 300zxs. Don't think they are struts (in fact, I think the Supra is double wishbone front and rear).
What we are trying to do is rectify a LOT of inconsistencies that arose because of the timing on this. ITR came into being before the Process was firmed up. 100 lbs off in ITR for FWD? Not any more, we use a percentage deduct. So the weights appear off -- and may have led us to believe that a DW adder was used.
Be that as it may, the fundamental premise for not having a DW adder in ITR doesn't hold water. There are a LOT of strut cars in ITR and I do believe they are at a disadvantage to the DW cars. All strut cars retain the ability to correct a lot of geometry issues with the "struts are free" rule so I don't think there is as much difference between the strut suspensions in B and C and in R and S.
This ITAC believes that having the DW adder for R makes sense. This isn't some fundamental philosophical shift; it is a small adder that you disagree with. That's going to happen as we go forward, and it will happen to me when I leave the committee.
This, however, one the key reasons why we are trying to create a written record of classing decisions, and a written manual of IT philosophy and commitee operating procedures. No knock on you guys, you had a lot going on, but almost all of the issues can find their genesis in not having good records of why things were done back in the day (including the "day" that I was on the committee -- I'm as much at fault as anyone).
99% of what you guys came up with remains in place, solid and won't/can't be changed.
P.S. You might want to check the Supras and 300zxs. Don't think they are struts (in fact, I think the Supra is double wishbone front and rear).
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
OK, Supra:
220x1.3x11.25 Spot on.
300ZX also spot on (before you 'corrected' it to 25%)
Where are the DW adders?
OK, like I said, if you want to differentiate DW's and struts, do it. But DON'T do in in an adder. Do it in a subtractor. Give strut cars (FWD or RWD - just like the DW adder is done in the other classes) a deduction. It functions the same way but helps the class on the whole because weights are REALLY high.
Yes, you use a % now. Much better IMHO...but again, a quick call when the numbers weren't making sense would have helped instead of incorrectly stating that a DW factor has been applied...it was never applied in ITR...and your subsiquent decision to keep the Vette with the +50 is flawed.
So please, either way you go (I say go with a deduction), please do it on the whole so that newer cars like the Vette aren't double handicapped until you bring everything in line with the Ops manual.
Edit: Porsche 944/968. Widely considered one of the best handling cars ever. Front struts.
220x1.3x11.25 Spot on.
300ZX also spot on (before you 'corrected' it to 25%)
Where are the DW adders?
OK, like I said, if you want to differentiate DW's and struts, do it. But DON'T do in in an adder. Do it in a subtractor. Give strut cars (FWD or RWD - just like the DW adder is done in the other classes) a deduction. It functions the same way but helps the class on the whole because weights are REALLY high.
Yes, you use a % now. Much better IMHO...but again, a quick call when the numbers weren't making sense would have helped instead of incorrectly stating that a DW factor has been applied...it was never applied in ITR...and your subsiquent decision to keep the Vette with the +50 is flawed.
So please, either way you go (I say go with a deduction), please do it on the whole so that newer cars like the Vette aren't double handicapped until you bring everything in line with the Ops manual.
Edit: Porsche 944/968. Widely considered one of the best handling cars ever. Front struts.
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
That's the point -- the Supra and the 300z have DW but didn't get the adder.
It "appears" the Hondas/Acuras did but it's just hard to tell right now.
We see three rough types of cars in ITR:
DW front -- +50
Front strut, RWD -- neutral
Front strut, FWD -- -50
I'm not sure why that isn't, again roughly, fair, other than we can dicker about the validity of the adder and the size of it (which is why I was opposed to almost all of these things).
It "appears" the Hondas/Acuras did but it's just hard to tell right now.
We see three rough types of cars in ITR:
DW front -- +50
Front strut, RWD -- neutral
Front strut, FWD -- -50
I'm not sure why that isn't, again roughly, fair, other than we can dicker about the validity of the adder and the size of it (which is why I was opposed to almost all of these things).
I'm pretty sure that all of the cars that were put into ITR were included in the xls spreadsheet that I handed over on my way out, that lists every factor that went into the weight recommended to the CRB.
If you're looking for "what was done," it should be there. If you're looking to "do it over," that's a different question.
It might be useful to check if there are any differences between the recommended weight and the weight approved by the CRB, too. I don't *think* there are any like that among the R cars but it's always a potential point of variation.
K
If you're looking for "what was done," it should be there. If you're looking to "do it over," that's a different question.
It might be useful to check if there are any differences between the recommended weight and the weight approved by the CRB, too. I don't *think* there are any like that among the R cars but it's always a potential point of variation.
K
JeffYoung
New member
We are looking for "what was done." If the DW adder was never applied in ITR, and we could explain the weights of the Hondas/Acuras, then it's a harder call.
But we still get snagged on the issue of the empirical basis for it not being applied to ITR just doesn't seem correct.
I believe Chip was working off your spreadsheet, but again, pretty sure that was before the percentage deduct and I also think some of the power percentages were adjusted from what is on it. Mitsu/Dodge V6 gets 35% for some reason....
But we still get snagged on the issue of the empirical basis for it not being applied to ITR just doesn't seem correct.
I believe Chip was working off your spreadsheet, but again, pretty sure that was before the percentage deduct and I also think some of the power percentages were adjusted from what is on it. Mitsu/Dodge V6 gets 35% for some reason....
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
As I try and figure out what 'type' of front suspension was on the Z32 300ZX's, it hits home again why the DW adder was left off and a subtractor was put in:
The 300ZX appears to NOT be a DW design, but a complex multi-link. It's not a strut and it's not a true DW either. Hence the concept of 'advanced' cars as the target, others getting help.
The Supra does indeed have DW's.
The 300ZX appears to NOT be a DW design, but a complex multi-link. It's not a strut and it's not a true DW either. Hence the concept of 'advanced' cars as the target, others getting help.
The Supra does indeed have DW's.
JeffYoung
New member
Front and rear on the Supra as a matter of fact. It's a Supramiata!
Having looked at a 300zx suspension up close -- including illegal ratcheting upper control arms -- how is that not DW? Just asking, trying to understand.
Having looked at a 300zx suspension up close -- including illegal ratcheting upper control arms -- how is that not DW? Just asking, trying to understand.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I can't make that one work but its more like 30% (like all the big 6's got).
222x1.3x11.25 - 100 -50 = 3095 (listed at 3120)
35% would have been 3220lbs with the -150 for FWD and struts.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
So now that we know the history...the question is what SHOULD be done.
I submit that either the Vette gets classed without a DW adder so it is on par with the rest of the class...
AND
Class all DW cars at +50 in ITR, remove -50 strut deduction - and do it all together
OR
Use DW's as the 'zero' bogey and give struts the -50 to keep ITR weight in check.
But as an aside, it's not fair to handicap the Vette by whacking it on both sides.
I submit that either the Vette gets classed without a DW adder so it is on par with the rest of the class...
AND
Class all DW cars at +50 in ITR, remove -50 strut deduction - and do it all together
OR
Use DW's as the 'zero' bogey and give struts the -50 to keep ITR weight in check.
But as an aside, it's not fair to handicap the Vette by whacking it on both sides.
JeffYoung
New member
I can tell what was done, and what I *think* will be done going forward.
- we agreed on the rough outline I presented above.
DW - +50 in ITR
Struts/RWD - neutral
Struts/FWD - -50
Vette got the +50 for DW.
- we realize that there are inconsistencies in the ITR weights and are starting a "relook" to make sure everything was classed consistently.
- the reality is that this will take some time and cars in ITR that get a DW adder might be at a slight disadvantage (50 lbs) until this is corrected.
- we agreed on the rough outline I presented above.
DW - +50 in ITR
Struts/RWD - neutral
Struts/FWD - -50
Vette got the +50 for DW.
- we realize that there are inconsistencies in the ITR weights and are starting a "relook" to make sure everything was classed consistently.
- the reality is that this will take some time and cars in ITR that get a DW adder might be at a slight disadvantage (50 lbs) until this is corrected.