ITAC News

[Andy Bettencourt]

Like I said on committee, a strict interpretation of the rule makes illegal the induction system on pretty much every competitive ITS RX7 I'm aware of, and I don't want to do that. I need someone to beat, I mean race with.....

And we disagree on this strict interpretation...it says I can, so I do. You are basing your whole arguement on a term that nobody can agree on the meaning. Not a great foundation IMHO.

...and I bet most of the RX-7's you run against are 89-91's anyway...legal even by your read.

I DO agree with your planned course of action however. Strike the works nobody agrees what they mean and it's clear.

 

[JeffYoung]

I thought most folks used the earlier chassis cause it was ligther? With the 5 lugs and hood and GTUs 5th gear, and later induction system?

I'm really just playing devil's advocate here. I think your interpretation is the right one but I don't think it jives with the "don't create a model" language, which will drive my view of how we fix this.

And we disagree on this strict interpretation...it says I can, so I do. You are basing your whole arguement on a term that nobody can agree on the meaning. Not a great foundation IMHO.

...and I bet most of the RX-7's you run against are 89-91's anyway...legal even by your read.

I DO agree with your planned course of action however. Strike the works nobody agrees what they mean and it's clear.

 

[JeffYoung]

I agree with all of that.

Breaking it down beyond models: In addition to creating several additional variations and cars on different spec lines, it also creates additional challenges.

• Many of the IT cars being driven are old and part sourcing is becoming difficult. This will make it even tougher for some to find replacement parts.
• The process classification doesn't account for most items being discussed anyways, so who cares? If there are vehicles where the end classification would be impacted by more than just a few pounds, then break the cars out in different spec lines.
• While this is technically not relevant since it's rules versus enforcement (although the ECU rule change happened exactly because of this), policing and attempting to determine legality will become even tougher.

 

[23racer]

hey jake, piss off. :026:

i know you're bitter about the whole thing, but you're not on the committee anymore, so quit trying to run the show from your keyboard and acting like you know everything.

As an outsider, watching this whole "splitting the hair" discussion about rules, I am a bit surprised at this response.

The whole discussion seems to be more about the responsiveness of the ITAC and the CRB to members concerns about rule inconsistencies. A number of members have brought valid questions to the fore about clarifying rules that are perceived to be unfair and without proper explanation from the "rulesmakers", people insert their own biased ideas as to why things happen.

A number of Commitee Members are doing a great job explaining what is going on and the thinking behind it, but this response serves no purpose and just fosters distrust. What the SCCA ITAC and CRB doesn't seem to realize is that the racers are actually customers and voting with their discretionary income on what and where they race. As discretionary income gets harder and harder to access, people are going to spend what they have with the groups that make them feel the most welcome.

This is supposed to be a fun hobby. Name calling and deriding people doesn't help.

Eric

 

[Knestis]

...And let me ask you a big picture question:

Would you rather have NO Process at all, or a Process that had this 1.3 multiplier in ITB?

So the proposition behind your question is that the CRB wouldn't have 'approved the Process' without the 1.3 multivalve multiplier for B cars. We've seen suggestions of that elsewhere.

Is this the case...?

K

 

[gran racing]

I think we should back off Jeff on this a bit. He's just one of the ITAC members and while this multivalve thing bothers me, he's not the one we need to convince.

Jeff, what (if anything) would be the most productive way to help eliminate this default in the process?

 

[JoshS]

As an outsider, watching this whole "splitting the hair" discussion about rules, I am a bit surprised at this response.

It's true that Travis could have used more tact, but I will say that Jake, your "call to arms" is really disruptive to what is generally a well-operating machine.

So the proposition behind your question is that the CRB wouldn't have 'approved the Process' without the 1.3 multivalve multiplier for B cars. We've seen suggestions of that elsewhere.

Is this the case...?

We don't know, as it never came down to that very specific question. There were a few areas of concern from the initial drafts and this issue was one of them. As I wanted to grease the skids, I agreed to add this language to the Ops Manual after a discussion with the ITAC and our CRB liaisons, and obviously, it ultimately jumped through the appropriate hoops in that form.

Although I don't really consider it to be a very sensible clause, it's not a lot different in effect than the "All I6s get a 30% default" as was the practice for a time there. Both of those defaults do make sense in many cases, so it's not really that crazy. Of course it's true that the MR2 and its siblings had to go uphill there for a little while, and theoretically some other multivalve car might have to follow in its footsteps, this seemed like the best way to actually ratify and publish an Ops Manual. Despite this hubbub, I'd make the same decision again.

 

[lateapex911]

No Jake that's about as incorrect of a statement as I've seen you make.

There are many issues we are working on in regards to IT. For me personally, the 1.3 default in ITB is a minor one. There are bigger picture items to address.

On top of that, how do you know "membership" is opposed to this? Basically, I see you, Andy, Kirk, Jeff and to a lesser extent Chip opposed? Trust me, I could count an equal number in support (and after a lot of thinking, color me mostly ambivalent but mildly opposed).

And let me ask you a big picture question:

Would you rather have NO Process at all, or a Process that had this 1.3 multiplier in ITB?

Jeff,1- I agree it's only one issue, and there are others. The 'create a model" for one. I agree with your conclusions on this one. I think that there are issues in ITB. One one hand you guys talk about what a mess ITB is, then on the other you say, (Playing devils advocate, I know) that changing the default 4V factor risks messing up the competitive balance of ITB. I know you speak in generalities for others, and you're not always expressing your own opinion, so contradictions like that do make sense to me, but...
2- I differ from you in that I am not looking at the actual here and now proven effect the factor may or may not have on the actual racing in ITB. Such conclusions are very difficult or impossible to draw at this point. I think it's folly to focus on those aspects when discussing this. I look at the bigger issue as it concerns the Process and the future. Hey, it might never actually prove to be a headache at all. But that doesn't make it something I want in the Process.
3- I think that if you made IT drivers read this thread, and vote, you'd find majority support for doing away with the 30% factor. And you know there are many guys out there who may not have commented, or that you haven't mentioned.

4- Such ultimatums miss the point. Sure, I'd rather have A Process than nothing. My point is that it's unfortunate that that is the decision that had to be made. Remember, this doesn't affect me in the least. I only care because I think it's a diservice to the PRocess and those affected by it.

5- I'm sorry if I'm getting on your case about it. Understand that, as far as any of us know, you're the 'conduit' into the ITAC, as far as ITACers who participate in dialog. Up to two days ago that is.
Glad to see the new additions. Two thumbs up from me on both of them.

 

[lateapex911]

It's true that Travis could have used more tact, but I will say that Jake, your "call to arms" is really disruptive to what is generally a well-operating machine.



We don't know, as it never came down to that very specific question. There were a few areas of concern from the initial drafts and this issue was one of them. As I wanted to grease the skids, I agreed to add this language to the Ops Manual after a discussion with the ITAC and our CRB liaisons, and obviously, it ultimately jumped through the appropriate hoops in that form.

Although I don't really consider it to be a very sensible clause, it's not a lot different in effect than the "All I6s get a 30% default" as was the practice for a time there. Both of those defaults do make sense in many cases, so it's not really that crazy. Of course it's true that the MR2 and its siblings had to go uphill there for a little while, and theoretically some other multivalve car might have to follow in its footsteps, this seemed like the best way to actually ratify and publish an Ops Manual. Despite this hubbub, I'd make the same decision again.

Josh, I hear, you, and I get it.
The 4V default DOES make sense in certain cases, you're right. But that's not a glowing tribute, either, LOL. As is makes NO sense in many cases and stands to do as much harm as it does good.

I'd differ on the "MR2 had to go uphill there for awhile". Do you really think that? I'd say the MR2s have had to go steeply uphill for as long as I can remember them being discussed (10 years) and they are STILL screwed.

Yes, I see it's a well oiled machine, I just think it's too bad this one chunck of sand can't be removed from the gearset* so that it will run like a top as far into the future as we can see.

Travis, I'm not bitter...but I can see that somebody in the works is acting in a way that's not in the best interest of the members...not you or Jeff or Josh, and it bugs me. Heck, I don't know if whoever it is 'gets' it. Or if it's become rationalized in their minds.

*(understood that it's a seldom used gearset)

 

[JeffYoung]

Josh did a good job answering this. We don't know. All we know is that this (the 1.3 multiplier in IT was very important to some folks. Josh put it in the Ops Manual, I looked it at and didn't have a huge issue with it, and we went from there.

So the proposition behind your question is that the CRB wouldn't have 'approved the Process' without the 1.3 multivalve multiplier for B cars. We've seen suggestions of that elsewhere.

Is this the case...?

K

 

[tnord]

Josh, I hear, you, and I get it.
The 4V default DOES make sense in certain cases, you're right. But that's not a glowing tribute, either, LOL. As is makes NO sense in many cases and stands to do as much harm as it does good.

Yes, I see it's a well oiled machine, I just think it's too bad this one chunck of sand can't be removed from the gearset* so that it will run like a top as far into the future as we can see.

Travis, I'm not bitter...but I can see that somebody in the works is acting in a way that's not in the best interest of the members...not you or Jeff or Josh, and it bugs me. Heck, I don't know if whoever it is 'gets' it. Or if it's become rationalized in their minds.

*(understood that it's a seldom used gearset)

get it through your head jake, what is "fact" to you is not necessarily so. i believe you were on the committee when you guys came up with the 30% I6 default no? how is that any more sensical than a 30% multi-valve default? they were both born out of the same limited experience fear, one from honda and one from BMW.

this temper tantrum is all about perception and hardly at all about reality. you just said yourself that it makes sense in some cases. it seems to me that, partially by coincidence alone, it works more than half of the time. chip of all people said in this very thread that more often than not the cars that are saddled with the 30% multiplier are able to achieve it. i can't remember if it was MV ITB cars that are not run through at 30%, or cars that are run through at 30% but aren't being raced that we went through on monday......but this MV default is absolutely NOT the biggest problem IT has.

find another flag to fly why don't you? the more the internet-betty's bitch about it, and the more letters we have to go through on the issue is just time taken away from the real problems. so who is it that really has the members best interest in mind here?

 

[Terry Hanushek]

Travis

hey jake, piss off. :026:

In your short tenure on the ITAC you have demonstrated an incredibly thin skin and an inability to deal with adverse comments. If conversations like this really bother you, perhaps you should find some are area to contribute, one that does not involve interfacing with competitors.

My $.02

Terry

 

[lateapex911]

get it through your head jake, what is "fact" to you is not necessarily so. i believe you were on the committee when you guys came up with the 30% I6 default no?

I was going to comment on josh's I6 example but didn't, for brevity. I was on the committee then and I actually went and dynoed Fred Fox's car with Bob Dowie over a weekend in mid state NY to try and get to the bottom of the E36s apparent overdog status. Bob was confident in the findings, I was on the fence, but it added to a mountain of data that said that E36 car made way more than it should. I still hand it to Bob for taking the time and going through the hassle to do that. Andy knows the later BMW cars better, so he can speak to that, but, MY take on the 30% I6 factor was that certain BMWs of a certain vintage needed to be watched like hawks, and seemed to be consistent overachievers. I entertained the notion that ALL I6s shared the same characteristics, but never bought in. I don't remember honestly if the factor was ever applied to another brand/vintage of car without specific model knowledge. In my mind that was not a 'default factor" that was used, except for those specific examples.

how is that any more sensical than a 30% multi-valve default? they were both born out of the same limited experience fear, one from honda and one from BMW.

It's not, and I drew my line at the application to BMWs. And the Honda cases that i remember were born from experts like Bob Clarke who had the knowledge about the specifics.

this temper tantrum is all about perception and hardly at all about reality. you just said yourself that it makes sense in some cases. [

So apply it in the known cases it makes sense. That's all I'm saying.

it seems to me that, partially by coincidence alone, it works more than half of the time.

Cool, glad coincidence is on our side....for now.

find another flag to fly why don't you? the more the internet-betty's bitch about it, and the more letters we have to go through on the issue is just time taken away from the real problems. so who is it that really has the members best interest in mind here?

Something something betty bitch Miata overdog..... is ..Is NOT...IS....is NOT......something something.

 

[gran racing]

My take is that you mean well Travis and provide a meaningful contribution to the ITAC, but your communication skills are certainly lacking from an ITAC standpoint.I know, you don't care as previously stated.

 

[tnord]

tangent commentary for those missing the backstory because i'm tired of the accusations.....

the jake/andy/kirk regime got the hammer brought down on them by the CRB and were unable to "correct" cars that were never "processed" or done incorrectly so because of this exact type of arguement (some were asked to leave the ITAC, some left "on their own"). they were too stuck in their "process fundamentalism" to come to any sort of compromise with the CRB. i had conversations with the CRB via phone and in person about the issue, telling them i believed in the process on the whole and asking to not kill the whole thing. what they told me is that they agreed it was a good tool, but all they wanted was acknowledgement from the ITAC that it might not work 100% of the time. one CRB member said to me that he believed it was probably fine 95-99% of the time, but he wanted something to allow them to correct a car outside of the formula if another ITS BMW or Honda CRX showed up.

they wouldn't budge despite the fact that that tiny compromise would've allowed them to get back to work on making IT better, it was more important to them to maintain the purity of the religion/ideals/process than practical matters and end results. i tried myself to reach out to them, in private and in public, telling them that all they needed to do was work with the CRB in some miniscule amount to break the stalemate. i was lambasted for even suggesting anything that had the potential for "diddling." you want to accuse people of playing politics? refusing to work and compromise with the other side of the isle couldn't be any more political. sound like something else going on in DC right now?

so attack the current ITAC all you want for not circling the wagons and getting all fired up about this 30% MV ITB issue. i wasn't around when it was agreed to be put it in the manual, but for whatever reason it seems to hold true more often than not. i have spoken out against it, but i'm more concerned about practical matters than idealistic ones. the current ITAC has a great relationship with the CRB, and we're back to correcting listings and making a very competitive category better....even with the MV ITB default multiplier.

 

[tnord]

Travis

In your short tenure on the ITAC you have demonstrated an incredibly thin skin and an inability to deal with adverse comments. If conversations like this really bother you, perhaps you should find some are area to contribute, one that does not involve interfacing with competitors.

My $.02

Terry

no, they don't REALLY bother me. anyone that has known me since i've been involved with SCCA can tell you my demeanor has not changed in 8 years, and if you knew my mother, she'd tell you my demeanor has not changed in 30yrs.

if you don't think i should be on the ITAC, write a letter.

www.crb.com

 

[tnord]

My take is that you mean well Travis and provide a meaningful contribution to the ITAC, but your communication skills are certainly lacking from an ITAC standpoint.I know, you don't care as previously stated.

i will be perfectly happy going back to being off the grid, but then everyone will just bitch about no-communication.

i do not apologize for communicating in a direct manner.

 

[lateapex911]

Travis, what about the entire 'bring evidence to the contrary of the norm and confidence vote on it" concept? Isn't THAT not formulaic??

 

[JeffYoung]

Actually the six cylinder issue is an example of exactly why this 30% default in ITB is (a) not such an outlier as it is being protrayed and (b) not the huge problem like it is being portrayed.

When the ITR listing came out, there were a ton of cars that just didn't make sense from a "gain" perspective. A lot of them were inline and V-6 cars. The Nissan 300ZX got 30% with no real evidence of what it would make. The Toyota inline 6s did as well. All BMW inline sixes did too, regardless of things like the intake issue on the 2.8 motor.

Not surprisingly, none of this destroyed the category. It just created issues we had to work through, which is fine.

Frankly, I think most of the poo being slung at the 1.3 default -- and I think Josh's position on it sums up mine pretty succicintly -- is that it serves as a symbol of a "bad time" between the ITAC and the CRB, and is viewed as "someone pulling the strings."

It's not. Here is the 100% honest to God truth: some of the guys on the CRB actually believe that all or almost all multi valve cars in ITB will make more than 25%. They were concerned about another CRX situation in ITA, happening in ITB, before there was enough dyno data available (if that data ever became available)to correct that situation.

 

[tnord]

Travis, what about the entire 'bring evidence to the contrary of the norm and confidence vote on it" concept? Isn't THAT not formulaic??

"the norm" seems to be that MV ITB cars make 30%.