ITB - what a bunch of crap

Well, you guys know where I stand, and if you don't well, you're thick, LOL (Or you aren't willing to read the reams I write. )

I'm not going to "out" my fellow ITACers for several reasons.

1- I didn't write down the votes. (Sorry, towing back from testing, in the fog, entering 20 digit access numbers every time service dropped over the 3 hours between Watkins Glen and Monroe Ct was dangerous enough,) but..I was pissed, that's for sure! (So much so I made a few calls the next day to see if my comments were out of line)

2- They have their reasons. Perhaps I don't know them. Or they couldn't explain them in a way I could understand. So, they need to speak for themselves.

But, it's likely you all won't get each one to discuss it, because many have jobs, families, etc, and don't spend the hours internetting.

HOWEVER..I will say that each IS concerned with the membership, and THAT's why I keep saying, "Write in". They'll get the idea. I promise.

I also categorically reject the idea that anyone is voting purely out of self interests. Heck the one guy that votes no on things that might affect him in a bad way, votes "No" on everything, LOL. (and he's actually not in a position currently for anything to affect him directly anyway) I really have to think hard to the time he voted yes on something. And it's good to have dissenting opinions on things, as it helps you see other points of view. Others have initially voted "no" on things like my ECU initiative, then come back, after doing their own research, and voted "yes". Theres a reason we have guys on the ITAC from varied geographical areas, classes, and economic involvement, and that is that it represents the club at large.

There ARE good reasons not to do every car. You may think it's easy to come up with all the numbers, and do the work, but it's not. And that alone isn't a good reason, but when you're doing that work for cars that don't run, it can get silly, and with limited resources, we need to hit the big issues. Like attending to other requests and issues. Just coming up with the Great Realignment list needed multiple con calls that went from 8PM until 2 Am.

Also, a car that gets it's weight upped by 10 pounds, is a rather oddball car, owned by an oddball driver ends up being tossed by tech when he's 8 pounds underwieght next year, because he missed the announcement. (I know, it's hard to imagine, to us, that everyone isn't getting ITAC updates on their i Phone 3G, but... ;) ) (and yes, everyone is responsible for keeping up...)

There are cost associated with all changes. Dr K can come up with a few as well, I bet...
 
I appreciate what the ITAC does, I appreciate all the volunteers in the club. I even appreciate my elected reps in DC, and I can find out how they vote on pretty much every issue that I'm interested in. I do not understand the need to have votes that are non-published, or a "process" that even after a few hours of hitting the search button, I can't find. is there a reason we can't have published in a clear format the "process"?
And, please, saying that it's here isn't helpful. We either have a process that the majority can understand or we have a mess.
 
Chris, Scott, I can't strongly disagree with what you have written. And don't, other than I just see the "running every car through the process" to be a nightmare exercise that will result in a lot of crap flinging over the subjective portions of the process. Comparing that to where we already are......I'm not sure I see the overall benefit, but at the same time, it may be necessary pain for us to go through.

This is from someone who's car will probably lose 200 lbs if the process is strictly applied to it.
 
Is it fair to have a class of cars that have not been spec'd by the same process? Is it fair that a member in good standing has to go thru the nut roll of writing letters in order to get his car properly weighted?

There have been several volunteers to help (myself included). Perhaps after running all thru the process nothing much changes. BUT.....Perception is reality and the current perception is that it is not fair.
 
JeffYoung said:
Chris, Scott, I can't strongly disagree with what you have written. And don't, other than I just see the "running every car through the process" to be a nightmare exercise that will result in a lot of crap flinging over the subjective portions of the process. Comparing that to where we already are......I'm not sure I see the overall benefit, but at the same time, it may be necessary pain for us to go through.

This is from someone who's car will probably lose 200 lbs if the process is strictly applied to it.
Click to expand...

At minimum I would expect every car run through the process today, whether new classification or requested review, would be classed at process weight.

I cannot for the life of me figure out what differentiates those cars from all the others in your mind though.:shrug:
 
Because it is easier to do. A new car is a clean slate. Run it through and class it -- that is what gets done. Can take a while (see ITR V8s) due to arguing about subjective factors though.

What I'm scairt of is trying to do this with 300 cars. At once. To me it is just as likely that in all the noise that debate will generate -- and there will be a ton of it, all kinds of "me" noise -- we are going to fark things up as much as "fix" them.
 
is there a reason we can't have published in a clear format the "process"?
Click to expand...

Is the process the ITAC uses at least documented enough so that new people who come onto the ITAC board would have a solid understanding how cars are classed, and come to very close weights (not meaning within 100 lbs)? I have to imagine you also need to provide documentation to the BOD on what process is being used, no? If not, these are issues that need to be addressed now.

I imagine some of the process documentation is a bit rough, but it sure would be a good exercise for your group, future groups that eventually take your positions, and to fellow Improved Touring racers. I recognize that some things in the process may involve subjectivity, but even then you can give a brief summary of what you're looking at and how it could impact the classification. <waiting for Kirk to reply with a detailed list :) >
 
Generally speaking it is:

stock horsepower X expected percentage gain in IT trim X target power to weight ratio for the class + subjective adders (or subtractors)

I only know the target pw/weight for ITS off the top of me head: 12.9.

So, for my car, currently classed at 2560, the process is:

133 x 1.25 (25% is the default expected gain) = 166 x. 12.9 = 2144!

2144! Let's add in the max adder for torque (100 lbs) and ignore the live rear axle, front struts and drum brakes.

2244! Or, 316 lbs less than process weight. You'd think I'd be leading the charge here.....but I'm not. Why? Because the process wasn't designed to fix EVERY problem, just the glaring ones.

If we are going to apply the process to every car, we are going to have to do serious tweaking to it to avoid major crapisasters.
 
JeffYoung said:
Because it is easier to do. A new car is a clean slate. Run it through and class it -- that is what gets done. Can take a while (see ITR V8s) due to arguing about subjective factors though.

What I'm scairt of is trying to do this with 300 cars. At once. To me it is just as likely that in all the noise that debate will generate -- and there will be a ton of it, all kinds of "me" noise -- we are going to fark things up as much as "fix" them.
Click to expand...

Then just start with the top 5 active cars in every class.
When they are done do the next 5 active cars in every class.

Still don't see why this is as hard as you are making it out to be. The 'me' noise will be there regardless, is there now, so it is a non-factor.

You only mention new classifications here - since they do go through cars that are requested for review, why not act on those with 5# accuracy as well?
 
Ed Funk said:
Josh Sirota, CA
Kirk Knestis, WV
Marshall Lytle, VA
Andy Bettencourt, MA
George Roffe, TX
Jake Gulick, CT
Lee Graser, TN
Les Chaney, NC
Bob Clark, WI

there are the names of the ITAC, how about each of you guys weigh in, soon, tells us how you vote and why. If you can't "man-up" to your beliefs, then maybe you should step down.

See sig!
Click to expand...

I'm against it at this point but IF someone supplies all the "VTS" sheets and factory shop manuals that the GCR requires for all the cars that there are none for I, will change my thinking and we can run the process for all those cars and see where they line up. As was pointed out earlier there are way to many cars that we have limited information on. Many of these were classed long before any of us were involved.
I'm quite comfortable with the 100lb issue as are others on the ITAC.
Just remember we ADVISE and do not make the rules. That is the CRB's job. Yes, they take our imput and usally go along with our line of thinking. One example of when they did not was the BMW restrictor. The ITAC was against it but the CRB went ahead with it.
As was pointed out before we, are volunteers with day jobs and race also. Not everyone can be and expert on every make and model car. The ITAC has a very good mix of people that each know a lot about certain car makes and have a good general knowledge also. The committee is very evenly balanced out in this respect.
Another point to think about is that I have personally asked several people that post here if they would be interested in taking over for me when I step down. Not one has said they would. Just my 2 cents worth and I'm sure I'll regret even posting this. I gave up on posting awhile ago after getting flamed way too many times... Will see what happens here......

Bob Clark
SCCA IT Advisorary Committee
 
Last edited:
I would say that (start with top 5 in each class) is effectively what was done, just what, 2 years ago?

Maybe it's time to move to the next five and do it as you suggest, in small steps.

It is my understanding that all new cars are not classed at a +/- 5 lbs level of accuracy, they are classed at a 100% by the process level of accuracy. To the extent an equation that has as many subjective factors as the process can be said to be 100% accurate.

I do think focusing on a few cars at a time might address my biggest concern. If we do ALL at once, we are going to make more mistakes because a lot of people are going to be arguing for expected hp gain percentages and subjective adders/subtractors solely out of self interest.

Example? Look how hard it was and how long it took to class TWO cars: the RX8 and the V8 ponies in ITR.

shwah said:
Then just start with the top 5 active cars in every class.
When they are done do the next 5 active cars in every class.

Still don't see why this is as hard as you are making it out to be. The 'me' noise will be there regardless, is there now, so it is a non-factor.

You only mention new classifications here - since they do go through cars that are requested for review, why not act on those with 5# accuracy as well?
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
It is my understanding that all new cars are not classed at a +/- 5 lbs level of accuracy, they are classed at a 100% by the process level of accuracy.

Example? Look how hard it was and how long it took to class TWO cars: the RX8 and the V8 ponies in ITR.
Click to expand...

One, yeah, close I think we'll take a car that has a process weight of, say, 2768.4, and call it 2770. I mean, lets not get too crazy, after all.

Yea, the RX-8...I was recently talking to some people about that car. one guy told me I was an idiot, and "That's whats wrong with the SCCA" because it was too heavy. Another guy harassed me a bit and told me it was going to run roughshod all over ITR. "You watch".

I'm one of the harder working guys on the ITAC, but even I shudder to think about every car in the ITCS.
 
Jeff,
How many V8s are actually classed in IT?
Yours and what else?

So maybe there is a V* adder that takes the TQ into account. I dunno.
But using a rare outlier as an example of how things could be dorked up is not really the way things ought to be approached IMO.

And Bob, I wouldn't hesitate to apply for that position you vacate except that my job and crazy work hours would likely make me an absent member of the committee. Don't see how that would do any good.
But I'd be glad, as I mentioned before, to do plenty of research and math. I've done it before, and I personally don't find it to be all that hard or that big of a deal.

300 cars isn't a big deal if you have 20 or 30 people doing the research. I don't see an issue getting that involvement, and multiple people have volunteered in this thread.
Yet... The "we all have day jobs" thing keeps coming up.

Take the help and get the work done, or get the work done without the help. Excuses for not doing the work are NOT serving the membership, and the main goal of the ITAC (or any committee) should be to serve the membership.
 
The ITR ponies are coming.

But it's not just V8s. I see the following issues:

1. ALL low hp/high torque motors create issues with the current process. It's not just my car. 325e in ITA will be a super overdog if "processed." The 3.8 liter GM cars might. The AMC Spirit (there is actually one of those runing here in the SEDiv).

2. All of the subjective factors (torque, suspension, brakes, etc.).

3. The expected % gain in IT trim.

All issues.

I'm not opposed to doing this, I just think it needs to be done carefully or it will screw up something that, whether out of luck or planning, is pretty good right now.

I do think the RX8 and V8 pony debates should be used as case studies on how hard applying the process to a SINGLE car can be, and how much "me" noise you will get from both sides.

Catch22 said:
Jeff,
How many V8s are actually classed in IT?
Yours and what else?

So maybe there is a V* adder that takes the TQ into account. I dunno.
But using a rare outlier as an example of how things could be dorked up is not really the way things ought to be approached IMO.

And Bob, I wouldn't hesitate to apply for that position you vacate except that my job and crazy work hours would likely make me an absent member of the committee. Don't see how that would do any good.
But I'd be glad, as I mentioned before, to do plenty of research and math. I've done it before, and I personally don't find it to be all that hard or that big of a deal.

300 cars isn't a big deal if you have 20 or 30 people doing the research. I don't see an issue getting that involvement, and multiple people have volunteered in this thread.
Yet... The "we all have day jobs" thing keeps coming up.

Take the help and get the work done, or get the work done without the help. Excuses for not doing the work are NOT serving the membership, and the main goal of the ITAC (or any committee) should be to serve the membership.
Click to expand...
 
1stGenBoy said:
I'm against it at this point but IF someone supplies all the "VTS" sheets and factory shop manuals that the GCR requires for all the cars that there are none for I, will change my thinking and we can run the process for all those cars and see where they line up. As was pointed out earlier there are way to many cars that we have limited information on. Many of these were classed long before any of us were involved.
I'm quite comfortable with the 100lb issue as are others on the ITAC.
Just remember we ADVISE and do not make the rules. That is the CRB's job. Yes, they take our imput and usally go along with our line of thinking. One example of when they did not was the BMW restrictor. The ITAC was against it but the CRB went ahead with it.
As was pointed out before we, are volunteers with day jobs and race also. Not everyone can be and expert on every make and model car. The ITAC has a very good mix of people that each know a lot about certain car makes and have a good general knowledge also. The committee is very evenly balanced out in this respect.
Another point to think about is that I have personally asked several people that post here if they would be interested in taking over for me when I step down. Not one has said they would. Just my 2 cents worth and I'm sure I'll regret even posting this. I gave up on posting awhile ago after getting flamed way too many times... Will see what happens here......

Bob Clark
SCCA IT Advisorary Committee
Click to expand...

I have found the same reality you have Bob with a thankless job in SCCA as Asst. RE and race chair. I got over the personal part and realized it makes no difference who is in the position, it comes with the terretory.:D I was one of the loudest and most vocal about the RX8 and the E36 in ITS. I can not argue that IT is better now than I can remember for the past 10 years. We forget how far we have come from the old attitude of "shut up and race, you should be glad we let you on track" to actually having a group working to make our racing fair.

That said it is reasonable to ask that we run the cars currently raced at the very least through the process. You have the adders and subs, as well as percent gain to use common sense to deal with the oddballs. Skip the #100 pound is close enough deal. If you wasted the time to run the car through the process than fix it. Round to the nearest 5 and be done with it. If the ITAC is confident of a 35% gain then so be it. If 10% or 15% was used great. If the CRB is the problem then we can go to the source and put pressure on them to allow it to happen.

Thanks for doing a thankless job to all on the ITAC.:023:
 
Catch22 said:
Jeff,
How many V8s are actually classed in IT?
Yours and what else?

So maybe there is a V* adder that takes the TQ into account. I dunno.
But using a rare outlier as an example of how things could be dorked up is not really the way things ought to be approached IMO.

And Bob, I wouldn't hesitate to apply for that position you vacate except that my job and crazy work hours would likely make me an absent member of the committee. Don't see how that would do any good.
But I'd be glad, as I mentioned before, to do plenty of research and math. I've done it before, and I personally don't find it to be all that hard or that big of a deal.

300 cars isn't a big deal if you have 20 or 30 people doing the research. I don't see an issue getting that involvement, and multiple people have volunteered in this thread.
Yet... The "we all have day jobs" thing keeps coming up.

Take the help and get the work done, or get the work done without the help. Excuses for not doing the work are NOT serving the membership, and the main goal of the ITAC (or any committee) should be to serve the membership.
Click to expand...

Scott,
You have helped the ITAC many times before and we do appreciate it. I work crazy hours too and so do many others along with racing. It just comes down to commitment and if somebody really wants to help better the club or not and if so find a way to do it. This is not an excuse on why not to run all the cars it just the facts is all. Yes 300 hundred cars is not a big deal IF all the information is avavialble!! If we have VTS sheets and the factory shop manual if makes things MUCH easier. Usually we could do 4 or 5 per call plus deal with all the other letters.
Believe me no one is not doing the work on the committee. We all spend hours every month doing research and getting feedback, posting to the ITAC site to hash out issues and preparing for our monthly conference call. I think we do a very good job of serving the members. IT is much better off than many of the other classes in SCCA. Look at all the issues in Prod,S2000,FC,SS and Sports racing. We don't have nearly any of those issues. The rules are stable. That is a Big, big plus.

Bob Clark
 
JeffYoung said:
I would say that (start with top 5 in each class) is effectively what was done, just what, 2 years ago?

Maybe it's time to move to the next five and do it as you suggest, in small steps.

It is my understanding that all new cars are not classed at a +/- 5 lbs level of accuracy, they are classed at a 100% by the process level of accuracy. To the extent an equation that has as many subjective factors as the process can be said to be 100% accurate.

I do think focusing on a few cars at a time might address my biggest concern. If we do ALL at once, we are going to make more mistakes because a lot of people are going to be arguing for expected hp gain percentages and subjective adders/subtractors solely out of self interest.

Example? Look how hard it was and how long it took to class TWO cars: the RX8 and the V8 ponies in ITR.
Click to expand...
No. They were all run through the process with a 200# window at the end. That is exactly the correction that I am suggesting, rather than trying to make the whole process more accurate (which we should continue to do), why not just throw away the added variable that only ADDS to how far off we can end up.
 
Chris, that is not correct. And that's part of the problem (not pointing fingers, I'm just saying that there is a lot of incorrect information out there about what happened with the Great Realignment).

There was no "200 lb window" at the end. SOME cars that appeared to be within 100 lbs of the process weight either way were left as is, and the process was not applied to them.

We keep hearing about a "margin of error" in the process. There (supposedly) isn't one, although Scott correctly points out the math does appear wrong on a few cars. Either the car was within the 100 lb window and the process was not applied, or it was outside the window and it was and its weight corrected in accordance with the process.

No one ran the process on a car and then "fudged" the number 200 lbs either way on top of the weight the process already determined.
 
First a short answer: My preference would be to re-process cars only by member request, and to leave the output at the nearest 5 pounds. I'd further document the assumptions with which the process was applied (e.g., engine power multiplier) and make those figures available to the membership.

I honestly think that the current process (more on that word in a separate post) is pretty damned close. Most of my questions about it are academic (i.e., probably unhelpful) rather than intended to fix some major problem.

K
 
Knestis said:
First a short answer: My preference would be to re-process cars only by member request, and to leave the output at the nearest 5 pounds. I'd further document the assumptions with which the process was applied (e.g., engine power multiplier) and make those figures available to the membership.

I honestly think that the current process (more on that word in a separate post) is pretty damned close. Most of my questions about it are academic (i.e., probably unhelpful) rather than intended to fix some major problem.

K
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the ITAC only running cars that are requested thru the process I just want somewhere I can look at see if a car has been ran thru it. (and if it has I really would like to have access to the math)

That way if I am looking at car A and car B and they both have almost the exact same specs I don't get upset that the weights are different because I know that car A has been processed and car B has not so instead of getting upset about how it is not fair I would simply send in a letter for car B to be ran thru the process if that was a car I was interesting in racing.

I still think a dedicated website is the only proper way to make all of this available to the membership. But would be happy if there was a PDF I could download for each IT class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top