ITAC News.

Look, Jake/Andy / Kirk (And Steve)

the objective is not to change anything. that's not the same as the objecting being to not change anything.

we followed the book. the book didn't match the old classes. we noted that difference and in trying to figure out what was going on, found many more discrepancies between the book and the old process. (thanks for your help sorting that out) we will evaluate the cars past, current, and some potential future (throw some at me!) and see what makes the most sense with the least impact to the ops manual and existing classifications, is amenable to the future, and supported by facts about the cars, not about history.

this is a case where there is no one right answer, and there is no perfect solution. we just want the best we can manage, and think the membership deserves as much, and to know why whatever we recommend is recommended, even if that's to re-run the newer listings and leave the rest as is.

if that's the dark ages, fine with me.
 
I have ZERO problem with applying the Process consistently to all cars. That was the idea, and the only thing that prevented the ITAC c.2009 from doing so was the CRB.

But it's been established that the manual does not reflect the Process-as-designed in this one minor instance. FIX IT - then do everything you think you can do. You'll have nothing but support from this corner.

K
 
Chip42 said:
we followed the book. the book didn't match the old classes. we noted that
Click to expand...

Chip,

What we are saying is that you followed the book, and the book was in error. If you went to class a car today and noticed that the FWD deduction was missing, would you just say screw it, and recommend that number - or would you correct the ops manual?

This is the same thing. The manual was missing some info. Agree with that info or not, the proof that it should have been is clear. I see no reason why in the short term the ITAC wouldn't get it fixed.
 
Chip42 said:
Look, Jake/Andy / Kirk (And Steve)

the objective is not to change anything. that's not the same as the objecting being to not change anything.

we followed the book. the book didn't match the old classes. we noted that difference and in trying to figure out what was going on, found many more discrepancies between the book and the old process. (thanks for your help sorting that out) we will evaluate the cars past, current, and some potential future (throw some at me!) and see what makes the most sense with the least impact to the ops manual and existing classifications, is amenable to the future, and supported by facts about the cars, not about history.

this is a case where there is no one right answer, and there is no perfect solution. we just want the best we can manage, and think the membership deserves as much, and to know why whatever we recommend is recommended, even if that's to re-run the newer listings and leave the rest as is.

if that's the dark ages, fine with me.
Click to expand...


Fair enough Chip. Lets review a few things to give basis to some of our frustration. ITR was started under many of the current and a few past ITAC members posting on this forum. This was to be a new class, and a new day in classing transparency with real record keeping and a process that was fair to everyone as best we could given the granularity of IT racing.

Now I sit and see posts from many involved in this creation that can not agree on the math or the process used to class these cars. Multiple pages of "I think I have it in a spreadsheet somewhere" or "I seem to remember", etc. You fill in the excuses but in all due respect this is sad that we are back here again in such a short time. Spin it how you like but either record keeping sucks or data was not passed on to current ITAC. Either way you need to get your ducks in a row before you screw with any more cars weight. :023:
 
We busted our butts to maintain records of all of the specs recommended to the CRB. The documentation is there.

K
 
In defense of the current ITAC, even though the sheet shows the calculations from start to finish, the disconnect is in that it was done before certain tweaks hit the Ops Manual - like the change from a straight 100lb deduct to a 6% deduct for FWD as well as the application (or not application) of the stick axle deduct.

So the classifications are documented and the adders are all in there, they just don't line up with any numbers that may be run today, notwithstanding the error in omission for the DW rules in ITR.
 
seckerich said:
you need to get your ducks in a row before you screw with any more cars weight. :023:
Click to expand...

dude, I consider you a friend so please keep that in mind when I say this: this whole thing stems from 2 new classifications, of which only one seems to pique anyones interest. that 1 car (84 vette) has 50 lbs "too many," the other (1st gen TSX) is 22 lbs "too light" (6% deduct and DW adder). characterizing that as "screwing with cars' weights" is a bit dramatic. believe me, you'll all know what we decide to do from here BEFORE the CRB. k? k.

and no offense to any of you, but with all the time I spend on this forum and in this thread in particular, if I didn't have the timeline of the process and previous ITAC at least understood by now, which I do, you'd be wise to ignore every word I say because I'd have to be as dense as tungsten.

we didn't research the "old" process in classing the new cars because we followed the book. until this week, I didn't know it was "wrong", my focus has been on the lower classes. a lot of legacy data is available. we don't have every comment voiced on a con call but we have the decisions and the posts in the fora ("forums") as there are 2, current and old. and can refer to it as needed.
 
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt said:
In defense of the current ITAC, even though the sheet shows the calculations from start to finish, the disconnect is in that it was done before certain tweaks hit the Ops Manual - like the change from a straight 100lb deduct to a 6% deduct for FWD as well as the application (or not application) of the stick axle deduct.

So the classifications are documented and the adders are all in there, they just don't line up with any numbers that may be run today, notwithstanding the error in omission for the DW rules in ITR.
Click to expand...

thanks andy - FWIW "the sheet" I have only shows 6 ITR cars: '03 Z4, 2 eras of fox body stang, 3rd gen camarobird, and 2.2L S2000. I have to hunt for the rest unless someone has the data already tabulated.
 
When I hear going back through as Jeff mentioned and adding double wishbone adders to all ITR cars that is more than 2 cars. I am your friend and will always shoot straight regardless. Just keep stability in mind as you go forward.
 
We had a call last night, and nothing groundbreaking came from it. we have begun to address our backlog and the decisions we've been telling you all about that haven't shown up in fastrack for the past 3 or so months should start flowing soon.

Jeff has taken pains to get the 84 Corvette classiifcation at the head of the line, and even to recieve special attention by the CRB in order to get a classification published before May 1.

some VW adjustemnts were made where data was incorrect in the spec lines, re-ran the 16v Jetta GLI and Scirocco II in A, and the JH motored Mk1 GTI and Scirocco II in B. recommended that all 4 lose some weight as a result.

approved wording on a new rule and a slight shuffle to the ITCS to accumulate the generic electrical rules into their own section, rather than have them sctattered in the way they are now. the hard work has not yet been done there. the new rule may not be very popular with some of you, we'll wait to see how it comes through the CRB to discuss. overall it's a minor change.

thanks to everyone for their patience in recent months while we deal with some internal issues. despite outward appearances, this committee does function well and works pretty efficiently.
 
Chip, good post. I think that sums up the call nicely. Really proud of this group, and really happy with the CRB interface. Things are working very well right now on the committee.
 
Update.

we missed the call in May due to scheduling issues around memorial day so last night was our first con call since april. we did conduct a fair amount of business on the forum in the interum.

last night we covered a large number of outstanding issues that simply need to be sent up to the CRB. we've gotten ourselves straitened out and this oversight is largely my fault. expect the next fastrack or 2 (depending on CRB's workload) to have a good number of IT letters - at least 3 new cars (mostly hondas), some member input, and a few adjustments/corrections to speclines.

new recomendations made last night address some long-standing "issues" in the ITCS. we don't have CRB approval of them yet, so I'll wait for the fastrack to start commentary, but I think most everyone will be pleased with the results if they go through.

The CRB has been really forthcoming and helpful as of late as we work through some contentious issues. we don't always agree, but we deal with those disagreements very professionally and I'm really glad to report that the committe/CRB relationship is very good right now.

more as things develop.
 
June 2013 ITAC news

Wow - have I really slacked on this update for a year???

well, I hope everyone is doing well in 2013. we've been a bit backed up this summer. reading the above, it appears this is a trend. right now we have 6 new speclines for CRB review in ITB, S, and R. No crazy/controversial rules requests or clarifications in a while though we have had some cars that we couldn't classify and some requests to reclassify that we couldn't do much with.

Generally it's been pretty smooth running of late. we are in the midst of a general review of ITB. on paper it's a straightforward task of getting all of the cars "processed" to the same standard. the issue is the age of many of the cars classified in B and the general lack of information on so many of them. we hope to have this complete in time for CRB review and membership review by the end of summer. we appreciate peoples understanding during this time as we are not adjusting existing classifications outside of the group. new entries are only cut and dry ones. We are NOT looking to change the rules or adjust the class balance, only to make sure all cars are correctly run through the process as published.
 
Last edited:
Wow, thanks for the yearly....to the day...update!
ITB is tricky. It's been a long time coming. That spreadsheet Kirk did dates back now...time flies!
 
Honestly too little to late on ITB at this point if you race a VW.
While I get that the goal has always been to do the right thing for the class, the reality is that the right thing was done with the Golf 3, and then we went off the rails making "process" weight reductions on cars without sufficient evidence, or sufficient time since the previous reductions to understand the implications.
The cars that were the bogey/target for the original process may be competitive locally, but no longer have a legitimate shot at the ARRC, and a whole lot are making the move the level 2 prod.

On the other side of that coin, it will probably be cool for many that different marques are positioned to win, and will be fun to watch the development path of those cars.
 
lateapex911 said:
Wow, thanks for the yearly....to the day...update!
ITB is tricky. It's been a long time coming. That spreadsheet Kirk did dates back now...time flies!
Click to expand...

hey, I was a day early for an annual update. :p

shwah said:
Honestly too little to late on ITB at this point if you race a VW.
Click to expand...

the A2 is "right" by process within a pretty reasonable error.

what sucks is that a lot of "correct" cars are getting beaten by a number of other "correct" cars. many cars have never been run through the process, and mostly those are getting beaten, too. the A2 used to be a very strong car in ITB. now it's just a strong car. others are in a worse position, some better off. There are enough A2s out there that perceived issues with that car can be damaging to the class, but it's not classed wrong as far as I can tell.

You've been vocal about this for a long time, and I want you to know it's been taken seriously. There's only so much we can do within the rules and process, and we feel that a static process and mostly unchanging rules are "the rock" of IT. to that end, we have found that there are a lot of problems with trying to piecemeal "fix" a class that has so much out of whack. we know what the process says to do, we are trying to make sure everything in the list is set "correctly" to that standard. if performance outliers that "match" our power/weight expectations arise AFTER everyone is on the same playing field, then maybe we can find a way to better balance the class, but first we need to get the house in order.
 
Sorry Chip - it's only "right" if you use a power function that is not accurate for the car. You know how that fight goes, but in this case no one will share the source of the 30% number, or listen to 10/10ths builds that don't get it.

The fact that every hp in error equals 17# of weight is the challenge you guys face. My experience with the A2 was that it was competitive despite a power to weight disadvantage. With that disadvantage increased - there is no way it wins over equally prepped and driven lb/hp leaders.

I know I was vocal. That's because it meant a lot to me, and to a lot of the ITB drivers. That is the way the system is designed. Unfortunately I probably should have taken a different route and joined the ITAC. In the end I hope the new ITB prospers, and won't dwell on it. The "new" national/regional/majors racing format stuff is likely a bigger issue for all of IT than any of the individual class minutia.
 
shwah said:
The "new" national/regional/majors racing format stuff is likely a bigger issue for all of IT than any of the individual class minutia.
Click to expand...


Yea, remember way back when and we were discussing whether IT should be National or not? ANd some thought it could help the club, and that regional IT would be fine after the big guns went national, while others said it would ruin IT?

it's not exactly the same, but we will see how a version of that plays out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top