ITAC News.

The spreadsheet is helpful (we have it) but the real issue is that we did ITR peicemeal as the Process developed. We need to do it all again consistently:

1. FWD percentage deduct.
2. DW adder.
3. 25% default rule (right now we have some cars at 35%, some at 30%, some at 25%, some at 15% and some at 10% and not a lot of data to back it up).

I know that last point will be the stickiest and no, we don't intend to make willy nilly changes (or many changes at all). And the good news is most cars are not far off process weight at all.
 
the problem, however you slice it, is that the ops manual and the "old" ITR cars classing maths don't agree.

newer ITR cars have been processed using the ops manual, as we have all agreed to do. asking helps us ID why the ops manual math doesn't work, but I think the math should work, it's based on sound principles. I also think that we should rerun the class with the math we said we would use, because this class is growing and the unblance will get worse in not much time.

I'd say the same about ITS-C but they are much better established and some cars "work" without being "right" by process, and that is understood and we just have to recognize that these guys seem to be appropritately classed by whatever circumstance or happy accident and move on. anything not properly classed should be addressed via the ops manual.

I say keep the DW adder in R, but apply it to all "advanced" deisgns (be they FWD, RWD, or AWD) and document that decision as we document all of our decisions.

so you will have
RWD +50 "advanced suspension"
RWD "neutral" suspension
RWD -50 RWD live axle
FWD -6% +50 "Advanced suspension"
FWD -6% -50 Strut. I'm willing to update the ops manual to remove this adder if the rest of the ITAC agrees with me. the other adders make it irrelevant.

yes, you could do -50 for "neutral" and FWD strut suspensions but then you have a functionally different adder schema through the ITCS. I prefer this way, and as an aside it adds a touch of weight to the FWD guys who are having trouble getting down (I'm looking at you, celica).

sorry if this upsets any one in the membership and/or old guard. I think the long term effects will be positive and the short term will be minimal.
 
Last edited:
So again....

Why is ITR different than any other class where the DW cars get a double whammy? The ops manual says +50 for DW. Has the ITAC decided to change the +50 to a net +100? If you implement a -50 for strut FWD then it's really a +100. On top of a huge deduction already for FWD?

Help me understand the logic of changing the current ops-manual methodology.

And again again, if you really think that a 100lb difference in needed in ITR alone (which I think is ridiculous) then do it as a 100lb advantage for the FWD strut cars.

And IMHO the 'right' thing would have been to class the Vette 'like' the other cars with a caveat that the entire class was getting looked at instead of giving it extra weight for who-knows-how-long until the CRB actually gets around to letting to do a total revamp. Kinda sucks.
 
Last edited:
Chip42 said:
the problem, however you slice it, is that the ops manual and the "old" ITR cars classing maths don't agree.

newer ITR cars have been processed using the ops manual, as we have all agreed to do. asking helps us ID why the ops manual math doesn't work, but I think the math should work, it's based on sound principles. I also think that we should rerun the class with the math we said we would use, because this class is growing and the unblance will get worse in not much time.

I'd say the same about ITS-C but they are much better established and some cars "work" without being "right" by process, and that is understood and we just have to recognize that these guys seem to be appropritately classed by whatever circumstance or happy accident and move on. anything not properly classed should be addressed via the ops manual.

I say keep the DW adder in R, but apply it to all "advanced" deisgns (be they FWD, RWD, or AWD) and document that decision as we document all of our decisions.

so you will have
RWD +50 "advanced suspension"
RWD "neutral" suspension
RWD -50 RWD live axle
FWD -6% +50 "Advanced suspension"
FWD -6% -50 Strut. I'm willing to update the ops manual to remove this adder if the rest of the ITAC agrees with me. the other adders make it irrelevant.

yes, you could do -50 for "neutral" and FWD strut suspensions but then you have a functionally different adder schema through the ITCS. I prefer this way, and as an aside it adds a touch of weight to the FWD guys who are having trouble getting down (I'm looking at you, celica).

sorry if this upsets any one in the membership and/or old guard. I think the long term effects will be positive and the short term will be minimal.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thoughts Chip. Questions:

asking helps us ID why the ops manual math doesn't work, but I think the math should work, it's based on sound principles.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't it 'work' - because everything wasn't locked in at 25%? That's not how the process is supposed to work. Otherwise it's a formula.

What other cars besides the Vette have been processed in ITR with the 'new' Ops manual? Curious. Can't think of any.

the problem, however you slice it, is that the ops manual and the "old" ITR cars classing maths don't agree.
Click to expand...
I disagree wholeheartedly. The OPS manual shouldn't say 'use 25% in every case no matter what'. ITR had a shit-ton of thought put into it to really try and estimate potential on the front end because they were so different that cars that were getting classed just 3-5 years prior. Tremendous specific outputs and such. When the weights were done, a lot of it was done using internet research and COMMON SENSE. The S2000 for example. 15% gains predicted. 240hp out of a N/A 2.0L. You change that, the Type R etc, and you will murder them. Yes, process first, THEN you look to see if it makes sense. Drill that into our heads. If it doesn't pass the smell test, research is done. You guys know but it seems to be getting lost in the wash somewhere. Yes, the class is growing. Say that again. Agree or disagree with the %'s used during classification no problem, but the ITAC needs to define what is right, then codify it...not lock in on 'but this is what the manual says we have to do'. Change the manual if it's wrong (see Josh's posts).

RWD +50 "advanced suspension"
RWD "neutral" suspension
RWD -50 RWD live axle
FWD -6% +50 "Advanced suspension"
FWD -6% -50 Strut. I'm willing to update the ops manual to remove this adder if the rest of the ITAC agrees with me. the other adders make it irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I guess I don't see the reasoning to slice this up into a million pieces. PLEASE DON'T ADD WEIGHT...just subtract it. Cars over 3000lbs now are going to gain more.

Why not (if you really want to add stuff):

Base car has 'Advanced suspension' TBD by ITAC, must be defined (no matter FWD or RWD, no need to clarify)
-50 for solid axle
FWD -6%
FWD -6% - 50 for strut

Soup.
 
Last edited:
One quick point on the 25%. No, we are not using it every case.

But we are requiring a higher standard than just a few calls or some guesswork to move off of that number.

The Z32 is a classic example of this (and it has now been processed using the Ops Manual procedure).

This car should have been a bread and butter car in the class but exactly one guy -- a dedicated Nissan guy -- has built one and all the Nissan oriented speedshops have stayed away from it. Why? Because it got tagged with a lot of weight based on a guess from an old dyno sheet.

The system can't work that way either.

The problem with why the numbers in the spreadsheet and the ITCS do not line up with what the Ops Manual says they should be relates primarily to (a) the percentage deduct for FWD; (b) the adjustment of other adders; (c) while you say a lot of thought went into the engine gain percentages, and I am sure they did, it certainly does look willy nilly and there is zero documentation to back it up (what research was done to tag the Mitsu/Dodge V6 with more than 25%??) and (d) just plain math errors.

ITR needs a clean up. Bad. The "offs" aren't huge but they are embarassing.

ON edit: That last statement is VERY dangerous. The manual should be set in stone. There are means for correcting erros within the existing procedures. But if the procedures can be changed willy nilly - that is EXACTLY what Kirk has warned about and he is right. The Process needs to stay consistent.
 
Last edited:
JeffYoung said:
This car should have been a bread and butter car in the class but exactly one guy -- a dedicated Nissan guy -- has built one and all the Nissan oriented speedshops have stayed away from it. Why? Because it got tagged with a lot of weight based on a guess from an old dyno sheet.
Click to expand...

Try not to re-write history. There is a TON of knowledge on that motor in the GT community. Stock sheets, bolt on sheets and full-prep sheets. Just like when we asked AS V8 builders for their input on the CamaroBirds when the CRB was freaked out, that was what was done there. The info was blended together. But whatever.

The problem with why the numbers in the spreadsheet and the ITCS do not line up with what the Ops Manual says they should be relates primarily to (a) the percentage deduct for FWD; (b) the adjustment of other adders; (c) while you say a lot of thought went into the engine gain percentages, and I am sure they did, it certainly does look willy nilly and there is zero documentation to back it up (what research was done to tag the Mitsu/Dodge V6 with more than 25%??) and (d) just plain math errors.

ITR needs a clean up. Bad. The "offs" aren't huge but they are embarrassing.
Click to expand...

A clean up is always good but lets not tag 'embarrassing' to a dynamic older way of doing things. When some ITAC members left and came on, a great initiative was undertaken to document the process, as you know. This led to months of running through scenarios and writing things down. It was great.

And maybe the new way is to hold the 25% more to the fire and we will have to accept it. Bottom line, we did the same thing vs the regime that preceded us...and they didn't like it either. :)
 
JeffYoung said:
ON edit: That last statement is VERY dangerous. The manual should be set in stone. There are means for correcting erros within the existing procedures. But if the procedures can be changed willy nilly - that is EXACTLY what Kirk has warned about and he is right. The Process needs to stay consistent.
Click to expand...

PLEASE don't be the guy waving the 'because that's how it's always been done' flag. If the ITAC feels there needs to be a 100lb delta on DW's, then it's your job to make it happen. Of course not willy-nilly. But if you believe the process needs to evolve. Evolve it.

And IIRC, Kirk never said the Process needs to stay consistent, he said that the Process needs to be documented and followed in a consistent fashion to remain consistent. TOTALLY different. It's like ISO standards. You can have imperfect procedures that are very dynamic to continue your process improvement, but you just have to have each iteration written down and followed during it's 'life'.
 
Last edited:
I'm not. But I'm the guy saying the Process ahs to stop evolving and settle -- for a good while. The constantly evolving process, while necessary, is also the genesis of a lot of the problems we have right now.

We have to let it settle. I feel a lot of frustration from drivers over the Process constantly "moving."


Andy Bettencourt said:
PLEASE don't be the guy waving the 'because that's how it's always been done' flag. If the ITAC feels there needs to be a 100lb delta on DW's, then it's your job to make it happen. Of course not willy-nilly. But if you believe the process needs to evolve. Evolve it.
Click to expand...
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Thanks for the thoughts Chip. Questions:



Why doesn't it 'work' - because everything wasn't locked in at 25%? That's not how the process is supposed to work. Otherwise it's a formula.

What other cars besides the Vette have been processed in ITR with the 'new' Ops manual? Curious. Can't think of any.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The OPS manual shouldn't say 'use 25% in every case no matter what'. ITR had a shit-ton of thought put into it to really try and estimate potential on the front end because they were so different that cars that were getting classed just 3-5 years prior. Tremendous specific outputs and such. When the weights were done, a lot of it was done using internet research and COMMON SENSE. The S2000 for example. 15% gains predicted. 240hp out of a N/A 2.0L. You change that, the Type R etc, and you will murder them. Yes, process first, THEN you look to see if it makes sense. Drill that into our heads. If it doesn't pass the smell test, research is done. You guys know but it seems to be getting lost in the wash somewhere. Yes, the class is growing. Say that again. Agree or disagree with the %'s used during classification no problem, but the ITAC needs to define what is right, then codify it...not lock in on 'but this is what the manual says we have to do'. Change the manual if it's wrong (see Josh's posts).

I guess I don't see the reasoning to slice this up into a million pieces. PLEASE DON'T ADD WEIGHT...just subtract it. Cars over 3000lbs now are going to gain more.

Why not (if you really want to add stuff):

Base car has 'Advanced suspension' TBD by ITAC, must be defined (no matter FWD or RWD, no need to clarify)
-50 for solid axle
FWD -6%
FWD -6% - 50 for strut

Soup.
Click to expand...

The math I ran mostly doesn't work because I ran a lot of FWD cars, and as using 6% per ops manual vs. 100lbs. The deduct for struts as the rule sits now only affets fwd cars and I agree that this is excessive, but I think it works better to add weight as fwd cars in particular are getting lighter than is achievable in many cases.

Tell ya what though, I'm a fair broker and my interest here is creating consitancy with the methods e use and all clasified cars. So if a deduct for struts seems more sensible and physically achievable, then I'm open to it over an adder. I like the consistency of the adder as it is what is used in other classes of IT. The only real difference in itr is the fwd strut deduct (see above on my thaughts there) and the stick axle deduct.

All other classes above ITC have 4 major weight options for a given engine:
Rwd dw +50
Rwd
Fwd dw -X% +50
Fwd -X%

So this isreally no different, and the 50 lbs vs itr power levels makes it actually less of a concern there than in the lower classes....
 
Chip42 said:
All other classes above ITC have 4 major weight options for a given engine:
Rwd dw +50
Rwd
Fwd dw -X% +50
Fwd -X%

So this isreally no different, and the 50 lbs vs itr power levels makes it actually less of a concern there than in the lower classes....
Click to expand...

Right, but it's always a concern because it's not about HP, it's about needless weight that affects braking, ballast placement, etc. Please do the research on the lighter cars and err toward less weight if it makes sense for the category. It may not, but I am betting aside from 1 or 2 listings, it does.

So lets get proactive and get rid of that 'extra' 50lbs on the Vette and either take it down 50 temporarily until the Ops manual gets corrected OR the rest of the class is brought up 50. If that can't be done in 2-3 months, I would suggest the first solution. Fair is fair.

Did you find any other ITR cars that have been classed? Curious.
 
JeffYoung said:
I'm not. But I'm the guy saying the Process ahs to stop evolving and settle -- for a good while. The constantly evolving process, while necessary, is also the genesis of a lot of the problems we have right now.

We have to let it settle. I feel a lot of frustration from drivers over the Process constantly "moving."
Click to expand...




Drivers are getting very tired of every new crew on the ITAC thinking they have a better way and need to keep screwing with classes. Fix the errors and stop. Add any more weight to ITR cars and you will see some builds stop--today. A duck shoot at a county fair has less moving targets.
 
seckerich said:
[/B]



Drivers are getting very tired of every new crew on the ITAC thinking they have a better way and need to keep screwing with classes. Fix the errors and stop. Add any more weight to ITR cars and you will see some builds stop--today. A duck shoot at a county fair has less moving targets.
Click to expand...

And I can buy this for sure. But what they have uncovered is that they blindly followed the Ops manual (which was in error) and mis-classed a car given how ITR was created and how the rest of the class is weighted. So they have 2 choices. 'Fix' the manual (add weight to everything in ITR with DW's) or correct the pending Vette listing -50.

Seems simple if the goal is for some short term stability.
 
New cars:
we recently classed the 1st gen Acura TSX. 2760 by process, and we are worried that this might be unachievably LIGHT. by "your" process it would have been 2785 by virtue of a 100# vs 6% FWD deduct, even with no +50lbs for suspension. so we are keeping some things lighter :rolleyes:

also clased the '84 'Vette, an older mustang ('86 GT IIRC), another comarobird. As the requests come in, more will be classed. I tend to believe that HEAVY and NOT ADVANCED suspension are the way of the newer additions because hp numbers have exploded and cars have gotten fat, but they have also been stamped out and spoprtiness is often not part of the equation. the DW adder should stay.

in fact, following the ops manual process perfectly, the hondas (including the S2000s)lose on average ~35#. the stealth/300GT loses 235#. Note that the ops manual also calls out weight adders for over/under displacment and tq. and we have NOT been follwoing the displacement math - it would raise the wait of the 'vette to 3165 if we did. again, I'm cool with dropping this from the ops manual with the FWD strut deduct if the rest of the committee is, but it's going to be hard to convince me to get rid of the DW adder.
 
Chip42 said:
New cars:
we recently classed the 1st gen Acura TSX. 2760 by process, and we are worried that this might be unachievably LIGHT. by "your" process it would have been 2785 by virtue of a 100# vs 6% FWD deduct, even with no +50lbs for suspension. so we are keeping some things lighter :rolleyes:

also clased the '84 'Vette, an older mustang ('86 GT IIRC), another comarobird. As the requests come in, more will be classed. I tend to believe that HEAVY and NOT ADVANCED suspension are the way of the newer additions because hp numbers have exploded and cars have gotten fat, but they have also been stamped out and spoprtiness is often not part of the equation. the DW adder should stay.

in fact, following the ops manual process perfectly, the hondas (including the S2000s)lose on average ~35#. the stealth/300GT loses 235#. Note that the ops manual also calls out weight adders for over/under displacment and tq. and we have NOT been follwoing the displacement math - it would raise the wait of the 'vette to 3165 if we did. again, I'm cool with dropping this from the ops manual with the FWD strut deduct if the rest of the committee is, but it's going to be hard to convince me to get rid of the DW adder.
Click to expand...

Again, much appreciated on the specifics...but help me with the math.

How would the S2000 lose weight by ops manual?

And how would the Vette gain weight seeing as it already has 150lbs 'extra' for torque? Does the ops manual have a double whammy for displacement AND torque?

Again, a separation between struts and DW is needed IMHO. Just get rid of the double application of the adder. The Vette is taking it in the ass on that front.

And PLEASE lets stop with the 'your' process stuff. I know you meant the 'collective' your...but I was the author of the deduction by % change. You see it in your ops manual now because of that regimes work. And frankly, that was one of the 'changes' that was on the pile when the CRB lost it's mind about the process.

EDIT: Why would the TSX ever get consideration for +50 for suspension? I would hope it's a strut car or else it would have gotten the +50 just like the Vette. No?
 
Last edited:
We did the torque adder with the Vette -- at least in the calculation I did. That car is by some 45 cubic inches the biggest motor in ITR and by far the highest stock torque.

Andy, the real error was a couple of steps back. It was in concluding that a DW "modifier" was appropriate in all cases other than ITR because ITR cars were primarily DW. They are not.

And I don't think we have any real basis to evaluate 'advanced" strut designs v. "non-advanced." We aren't eqiupped to evaluate suspension geometry (nor should we be doing that) and in any event, strut cars have some options to fix that with the way the rules are written (depending on design).

I know the easy way to you -- the guy building the Vette:) - is to just suspend the DW adder in ITR but to me it is not. We have a whole slew of cars that are screwed up in ITR right now and need to be fixed and to start doing cars the right way makes the most sense.
 
JeffYoung said:
We did the torque adder with the Vette -- at least in the calculation I did. That car is by some 45 cubic inches the biggest motor in ITR and by far the highest stock torque.
Click to expand...

No issues here. It was a piece of the pie when I was there and was fully expecting that adder. Thought I remembered +100 but it was 150.

Andy, the real error was a couple of steps back. It was in concluding that a DW "modifier" was appropriate in all cases other than ITR because ITR cars were primarily DW. They are not.
Click to expand...

But the facts remain. No cars in ITR got adders for DW AND there is a deduction for strut/FWD. Revise the process how you want, but that is how the cars were classed.

And I don't think we have any real basis to evaluate 'advanced" strut designs v. "non-advanced." We aren't eqiupped to evaluate suspension geometry (nor should we be doing that) and in any event, strut cars have some options to fix that with the way the rules are written (depending on design).
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree but there are certainly many shades of grey when evaluating. Cripes, the 2nd gen RX-7, the 944, 968, etc...strut cars.

I know the easy way to you -- the guy building the Vette:) - is to just suspend the DW adder in ITR but to me it is not. We have a whole slew of cars that are screwed up in ITR right now and need to be fixed and to start doing cars the right way makes the most sense.
Click to expand...
The problem is that no cars in ITR have a DW adder. That HAS TO BE taken into account someplace. I don't really care is there is a DW adder (but I am on record as saying it's better for the class and the racers to have a strut deduction instead) but right now the Vette is the only car in ITR with that distinction.

In fairness to the people building them, take the 50lbs out for now, get your 'fixes' done in the OPS manual, then apply changes to the whole class. Don't saddle the Vette with an extra 50lbs because the committee didn't know it's history. I hope common sense will prevail in the short term on the Vette and you can clear up the ITR issues as fast as possible.
 
Y'all keep talking about adders and subtracters for FWD and RWD based on what it does to handling. One area not addressed is RWD with engine in the rear - a real negative for handling. How about re-considering what should be done with the Porsche 911 models in IT-S and IT-R?
Is this the Rant guy -> :026:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top