ITAC News

[JeffYoung]

And they have an opportunity to prove that they don't. I agree that is not ideal, but it's not the end of the world.

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

 

[gran racing]

Travis, there's a big difference between being direct and being a dick as well as potraying a "I don't give a shit" attitude. But carry on.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

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.

When has the 2.8 been fixed?? It starts at the same HP as the M50 2.5 (189hp) and still weighs the same, so it must still be classed at a 30% default gain

Not that I've got a horse in this race anymore, I've swapped for the motor that can have a chance at making more hp instead of being saddled with an intake manifold that saps power.

 

[JeffYoung]

I didn't say it had been. I just acknowledge it may be an issue. I'm not entirely convinced it can't make 30%, or that we've seen a full tilt build on one of these yet.

When has the 2.8 been fixed?? It starts at the same HP as the M50 2.5 (189hp) and still weighs the same, so it must still be classed at a 30% default gain

Not that I've got a horse in this race anymore, I've swapped for the motor that can have a chance at making more hp instead of being saddled with an intake manifold that saps power.

 

[tnord]

When has the 2.8 been fixed?? It starts at the same HP as the M50 2.5 (189hp) and still weighs the same, so it must still be classed at a 30% default gain

Not that I've got a horse in this race anymore, I've swapped for the motor that can have a chance at making more hp instead of being saddled with an intake manifold that saps power.

great example. there's a letter sitting on our agenda addressing this exact engine, but we haven't been able to get to it because we've been spending so much time on ITB.

i've reached out to builders to try and get some data, but have not been able to gather anything. if you have anything that could help us out, please send it to me.

[email protected]

 

[tnord]

Travis, there's a big difference between being direct and being a dick as well as potraying a "I don't give a shit" attitude. But carry on.

in both my personal and professional experience, the only difference is the person interpreting the message.

 

[JeffYoung]

In my opinion, this has been a problem for several years. I would say 50% of total ITAC time and maybe as much as 70-80% of the time spent on specific cars is spent on ITB.

but we haven't been able to get to it because we've been spending so much time on ITB.

 

[jjjanos]

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

Please explain the physics of how a vinyl letter increases HP.

The norm isn't that multi-valved cars classified as ITB cars gain 30% in IT-trim.

The norm is that engines meeting all of these conditions will gain 30%:
1. Manufactured by [Insert A]
2. Built in the years [Insert B]
3. With stock HP between [Insert C1] and [Insert C2]
4. Displacement between [Insert D1] and [Insert D2]
5. These characteristics [Insert E].

It was just easier to slap a constant on the MV-issue than to fill in the blanks.

 

[jjjanos]

great example. there's a letter sitting on our agenda addressing this exact engine, but we haven't been able to get to it because we've been spending so much time on ITB.

i've reached out to builders to try and get some data, but have not been able to gather anything.

Which is it... you have the data and have been dealing with ITB or you don't have the data, so it doesn't matter that you've been dealing with ITB?

In my opinion, this has been a problem for several years. I would say 50% of total ITAC time and maybe as much as 70-80% of the time spent on specific cars is spent on ITB.

Through June, 18% of the category are ITB cars, which would suggest disproportionate time on ITB, but.... since it has been acknowledged that the HP multiplier is inconsistent with the majority of cars already classified in ITB (and that, presumably isn't the case for ITR/S/A), I would think that the majority of misclassified cars are in B. Thus shouldn't ITB and ITC be receiving the lion's share of attention to bring those older cars into line with the more recent additions?

If any of the 18.84 ITC cars were being run and were as well-developed as the newer ITB cars, I imagine the ITAC would be spending another 30% on ITC...

 

[JeffYoung]

No worries. 99% of the discussion is polite and I appreciate that.

Your last point is a tough one. The 1.3 is under discussion, but it is going to face a lot of opposition to change it and I continue to think making the effort just is not worth it. There are a lot more issues out there we need to be addressing, and this thing will chew up a ton of time.

If I had a groundswell of member opposition to it, then that may change things. But (and no offense) a few guys on this board doesn't constitute a consensus, a majority, or anything more than, well, just a few guys on this board.

I think the ITAC guys who do post here all think its hard to explain, but just don't see it has a huge problem.

Not really an answer so much as a rambling explanation on where we are....sorry if that wasn't much help.

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?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

Holy crap this demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of that CRB member of not only the position of the then ITAC and/or the Process and how it worked, works or could work. Unreal. The perception of Travis's version of Deap Throat is 100% opposite of reality. Sad really.

In the end, I suppose I have to take responsibility for that as I was Chairman but I have to say the CRB liaisons were asleep at the wheel and that pisses me off.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

in both my personal and professional experience, the only difference is the person interpreting the message.

LMAO. Stick to letting Jeff field the questions.

 

[JeffYoung]

Just an observation for all of us (myself included).

The way we discuss the IT world on the internet -- the rules, the competition, the personalities -- makes us look like in many cases a bunch of petty jerks that no one would want to race with, with a crappy rule set, and a "governing" body with mysterious and evil motives.

When in practice, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

We all know that IT racing is some of the best out there, that the folks we meet and talk to and race with in the paddock are the best around, and the IT ruleset and classification process is stable and works very well.

We are shooting ourselves (me included) in the foot with these types of discussions.

I don't hesitate to say that if it was this kind of dialogue I stumbled across back in 2001 when I was rooting around for a place to race, rather than the extremely helfpul and friendly place this was back then, I'd probably be racing something else in another class.

 

[quadzjr]

I am sick of this ongoing debate about the MV 30% gain in ITB. It is like a political forum nobody is changing their mind and everyone is bantering back and forth.

Travis, in years past you have been somehow seemingly well knowing of how the CRB felt on issues even before you were on the ITAC and you were accused of being in the center of some evil backroom deal shenanigans. I choose to ignore as I do not know whom was honest or speaking out of emotion. During the time of the mass exodus you were agreeing with what the CRB liaison was saying. Which is fine, doesn't both me a bit. However, when I rose a stink on here or the other site about the MR2, I believe it was you that said I choose the wrong car (could be wrong, and do not feel like looking it up.. it was either you or PK.) When that was said, it was the first time I felt that I was wasting my time on the car as I had no hope of truly communicating what I know to what others know “they know”. You are right though, I did pick the wrong car, and if it wasn't for the stupid amount of money I have invested into this car thinking that I could prove it was not classed right as it was my impression that the ITAC needed information. I was partially naive in thinking that and didn't know the history of the MR2 (4AGE) battles in thinking I could gather data and things would be fixed. I could of spent 1/2 the money on a honda or VW, and been alot more competitive in ITB. I would of sold the long ago, but I wouldn't get near a 1/3 of what I invested as who would want a car that has no chance of winning? ( I understand this is not a problem of the ITAC, only myself, but I was under the belief that my efforts would pay off, so I continued…)

I did chuckle a bit about the miata overdog comment. Though you seemed to dislike having the conversations back then you discussed and defended it to length, on atleast two different forums. So please do not get upset if others want you to do the same that has an affect on them. I have read what you have put on sites for others to read and you are smart and know how to drive a car. I do not think you ignorant or even stubborn, we are just on other sides of the fence.

 

[Knestis]

Holy crap this demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of that CRB member of not only the position of the then ITAC and/or the Process and how it worked, works or could work. Unreal. The perception of Travis's version of Deap Throat is 100% opposite of reality. Sad really.

In the end, I suppose I have to take responsibility for that as I was Chairman but I have to say the CRB liaisons were asleep at the wheel and that pisses me off.

THANK YOU, Andy, for saving me a lot of typing time. We tried to explain the difference between the Process and a "spreadsheet" to "that CRB member," and he was frankly uninterested in listening.

We developed a comprehensive PROCESS - not a formula - for determining race weights of all IT cars. We forced it to be repeatable, transparent, and documented. We wanted to prevent precisely the kind of random, unclear, unaccountable crapola that is represented by the "1.3 default" silliness.

If it turns out that every multivalve car that gets listed in B happens to need a 1.5 multiplier, the Process will let that happen.

There WAS a 1.3 "default" for inline sixes but that went away when we improved the Process to allow it to deal with 100% - not 95-99%, Travis - of our cars.

What the CRB wanted was to pick numbers that they simply BELIEVED were correct - like the one that has been dumped on the Toyotas - without all of those pesky steps, documentation, or accountability imposed by the Process.

I guess I should be glad that with just a couple of glaring exceptions, the mostly-intact and now documented (thank you Josh, et al.) process should be allowed to work but dammit guys, the next time the CRB preempts the system on this stuff, would you PLEASE grow some stones and just ask them nicely to please follow good governance practices?

K

 

[Knestis]

Just an observation for all of us (myself included).

The way we discuss the IT world on the internet -- the rules, the competition, the personalities -- makes us look like in many cases a bunch of petty jerks that no one would want to race with, with a crappy rule set, and a "governing" body with mysterious and evil motives.

When in practice, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

We all know that IT racing is some of the best out there, that the folks we meet and talk to and race with in the paddock are the best around, and the IT ruleset and classification process is stable and works very well.

We are shooting ourselves (me included) in the foot with these types of discussions.

I don't hesitate to say that if it was this kind of dialogue I stumbled across back in 2001 when I was rooting around for a place to race, rather than the extremely helfpul and friendly place this was back then, I'd probably be racing something else in another class.

...or the ITAC could fix the problem that so many seem to think is a stupid little thing.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

Sorry Kirk. You're a friend, but you've lost me. No room for other viewpoints or compromise with you. You can't run a committee that way, and you can't expect everyone to agree with you all of the time.

You got 99% of what you (we) wanted in the Ops Manual and you are hung up on the one thing you didn't get. That's fine, and you are entitled to that belief, but I personally think it is incredibly naive -- especially for one of your intelligence and knowledge of how group dynamics work -- to expect it to have gone entirely "our" way.

And you miss the point. While I think it is a minor issue, it is a very important one to others on the CRB (and other members). No one on the committee can just snap their fingers and get this changed.

...or the ITAC could fix the problem that so many seem to think is a stupid little thing.

K

 

[Knestis]

But it's like Andy kind of pointed out, Jeff - that someone thinks the system NEEDS a 1.3 we-don't-have-to-think-about-it default for one kind of power plant is emblematic that they JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. I guess why I'm most disturbed about this whole thing is that I had allowed myself to be optimistic about where we ended up - post my departure - but now I see a huge crack in the structure.

And I apologize for being terse. Here's how "fix" goes:

1. Discuss the question within the ITAC. End the discussion the minute someone makes the same point twice, as that's an indication that you've reached saturation.

2. Call for a vote. Vote. Record who votes how.

3. If a majority of ITAC members support the status quo, you're done. You can revisit the issue when feelings change or new information comes to light. YOU HAVE DONE YOUR JOB.

4. On the other hand, if you have a sufficient majority to do so, make an official recommendation through your liaison of your finding. I'd picture something like, "the 1.3 default is inconsistent with the principles that drive the Process, and the ITAC is confident that striking that clause from the ops manual still leaves you fully equipped to handle ANY case that might come along." But as Travis insists on pointing out, I quit and I'm bitter.

5. Let the CRB do its job, deciding whether or not to act on your recommendation.

I utterly fail to see why this is so difficult, how what I propose is somehow issuing ultimatums or "going to war," and what you have to lose from it. By NOT following some sensible, standard practices in committee work and governance, you (collectively) leave the members with secret bullshit stories circulating and room to quite reasonably presume that we've got shenanigans again.

If the operating principles between the ad hocs and the CRB are so dysfunctional - honestly, my worst fear - that this kind of approach will throw them into a tizzy, then we have MUCH bigger issues at hand. But even if that's not the case, this is still not just about ITB cars.

K

 

[tnord]

Travis, in years past you have been somehow seemingly well knowing of how the CRB felt on issues even before you were on the ITAC and you were accused of being in the center of some evil backroom deal shenanigans. I choose to ignore as I do not know whom was honest or speaking out of emotion. During the time of the mass exodus you were agreeing with what the CRB liaison was saying. Which is fine, doesn't both me a bit. However, when I rose a stink on here or the other site about the MR2, I believe it was you that said I choose the wrong car (could be wrong, and do not feel like looking it up.. it was either you or PK.) When that was said, it was the first time I felt that I was wasting my time on the car as I had no hope of truly communicating what I know to what others know “they know”. You are right though, I did pick the wrong car, and if it wasn't for the stupid amount of money I have invested into this car thinking that I could prove it was not classed right as it was my impression that the ITAC needed information. I was partially naive in thinking that and didn't know the history of the MR2 (4AGE) battles in thinking I could gather data and things would be fixed. I could of spent 1/2 the money on a honda or VW, and been alot more competitive in ITB. I would of sold the long ago, but I wouldn't get near a 1/3 of what I invested as who would want a car that has no chance of winning? ( I understand this is not a problem of the ITAC, only myself, but I was under the belief that my efforts would pay off, so I continued…)

I did chuckle a bit about the miata overdog comment. Though you seemed to dislike having the conversations back then you discussed and defended it to length, on atleast two different forums. So please do not get upset if others want you to do the same that has an affect on them. I have read what you have put on sites for others to read and you are smart and know how to drive a car. I do not think you ignorant or even stubborn, we are just on other sides of the fence.

you're right, i absolutely did say that i had zero issue with saying the process may not work 100% of the time....and i still agree. have i used anything but since january? no, and i don't think i will....but that whole always/never thing is dangerous. i don't recall saying you chose the wrong car, but if you built that car post realignment and after the move to B then yeah, i'd agree....you did build the wrong car. does that mean i think it should permanently be saddled at 30% gain? no it doesn't.....but i didn't get to vote on that issue. that was the month before me.

the 30% MV ITB default and the MR2 need to be separated, because they are not the same issue, at least to me they aren't. i'm not going to get into the whole miata debacle again.....but that was born out greg and his hand puppet jeremy using bad data from sportscar, theoretical/salesman numbers from kessler, and the completely false public perception that you can just start adding on power gains from IT modifications on top of a SM dyno curve.

 

[tnord]

Holy crap this demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of that CRB member of not only the position of the then ITAC and/or the Process and how it worked, works or could work. Unreal. The perception of Travis's version of Deap Throat is 100% opposite of reality. Sad really.

In the end, I suppose I have to take responsibility for that as I was Chairman but I have to say the CRB liaisons were asleep at the wheel and that pisses me off.

that's fine, but i tried to tell you guys exactly what was going on with the CRB, and for whatever reason you guys were unable to work it out.

i remember being attacked by "all of you" for not disclosing the names of the CRB members (that's right, plural) who had that view, and as steve points out, you guys accused me of being part of the problem when i was trying to help you out.

this whole big pile of steaming poo feels about the same to me.