ITB - what a bunch of crap

looong story with the A car. the integra's motor is broken in and it should be seen next season.
ITB is a great class and is easier on the wallet. just comenting that running with ITS is a down side to the class in the north east.
re the golf i was pointing out the good points of the car, not trying to get adjustments made to it.
 
Hey boys, this is Improved Touring. All the cars are different. Some cars HAVE TO out-handle and out-brake that 'horsepower'. It's what makes the class diverse, interesting and popular.

I contend that the Golf III is SPOT ON per the process. Maybe the latest developmental dollars are just headed to newer machines as Rick eluded too.

AND - the fact that ITB does run with ITS here in the NE, DOES influence decisions of what class to pick.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Hey boys, this is Improved Touring. All the cars are different. Some cars HAVE TO out-handle and out-brake that 'horsepower'. It's what makes the class diverse, interesting and popular.
Click to expand...

I think when you look at ITB you see that SCCA has done the best (when compaired to any class in any road racing series) at making a diverse and competitive class... ITA is a close second IMO.

Andy Bettencourt said:
I contend that the Golf III is SPOT ON per the process. Maybe the latest developmental dollars are just headed to newer machines as Rick eluded too.
Click to expand...

Rick has stated a good point... I think that we can respectfully disagree with the car being classed spot on however run all the cars in the front through the same process (my understanding is that this has not been done) and prove it. Andy and K, without looking into the GCR could you run rough numbers on the cars we have discussed here as being at the front of the pack and report back what weights you come up with? My understanding is that if it is +/- 50 lbs not much will be done, however in reality that is a 100lb difference.

Andy Bettencourt said:
AND - the fact that ITB does run with ITS here in the NE, DOES influence decisions of what class to pick.
Click to expand...

I think that is why Dad built the Porche... because he couldn't beat us in another ITB car!!! :D (Dad I know your reading this, next year the Blethen race is on!!!)

Raymond
 
Since we should not really look at single race results I decided to look at series championships to see if there is an ITB overdog. Take a look below and feel free to correct what you see here if you know differently. No names are reported as thy are irrelevant (except for one person I cannot match to a car).

NARRC 2008 Final ITB

Volvo 142 / VW Golf 3 ;-)
BMW 2002
Honda Civic
Honda Civic
VW Golf 3
Volvo 142
VW Golf 3 / Audi Coupe
VW Golf 2
VW Golf 2
VW Golf 3

MARRS 2008 Final ITB

BMW 2002
Alfa GTV
BMW 2002
BMW 2002
Volvo 142E
BMW 2002
Volvo 242
VW Rabbit GTI
Honda CRX Si
Plymouth Arrow

SARRC 2008 Final ITB

Toyota Celica
VW Golf 3
Volvo 142
Honda CRX Si
VW Rabbit GTI
Honda Accord
NORMAN FULLER ????
VW GTI
VW GTI
VW Golf

If anyone has other series or regional championships to report, please do.

Here is a helpful place to go to review results of all SCCA regional races (required to be submitted for 2008)
 
Last edited:
Dave, you just make Kirk get an ulser. :) We simply can't use results to determine if a make / model is an overdog or not. My beliefs about the Golf III are not because of that.

The challenge with the Golf is not only does it have the power, it also handles extremely well. Maybe part of the issue is the process doesn't take into consideration torque enough? Compared to its counterparts in ITB, the Golf has bigger brakes, more baseline HP, and more torque. Yeah, the rear suspension is "worse" but the fwd cars are just dragging that end along for the ride. I'm sorry Andy, but you're just not going to convince me that it's not 75 lbs light. It makes it even tougher for me to swallow when other Golf III owners such as Kirk agree that the weight relative to other ITB cars is off, not to mention many other knowledgeable individuals. For the record, I did not bring up the Golf's weight in this thread. LOL

But you know what, you now think it's spot on so it probably won't get corrected. Again, maybe there's a flaw in the process being used and it does truly fit the results of other ITB cars. Just like how cars have been classed in the past, I'm sure this process will be tweeked along the way.

Like Ray mentioned, I am concerned about the Golf III becoming the new ITB benchmark and worry about what happened in ITA ala CRX / Integra happening in ITB. I know, I know. The "process" won't allow that. We'll see.
 
Last edited:
Dave certainly interesting.... The BMW 2002's are also one of those top dogs that I think can beat anything that shows up.

Do we have a database with the track records? Although this also probably would not support our thoughts that the GOLF III is the car to have!!! lol

NHMS: Opal GT?
Lime Rock: Alfa Spyder
Pocono: Audi Coupe
Watkins Glenn: Golf III
NJMP Lightning: Golf III
Road Atlanta: Golf III
Mid Ohio: Porche 924
Nelson Ledges: ?
Summit Point: ?
Beaver Run: ?
 
Do you guys think that 50 to 75 lbs makes a difference -- more so than driver -- between winning and 2nd place?

Do you think that in the IT milieu that we should have "management" concerned about 50/75/100 lb weight "inaccuracies?"

My answers: No and no.
 
Yup, even IF a car is 50 or 100 light, we (the ITAC) can't do anything about it. And the same goes if a car is 50 or 100 heavy. To my eyes, that means there's a theoretical delta of 198 between models. That restriction on noodling with weights is great for stability, unless you run a car that's 99 pounds heavy, and race against a guy who is equally prepped, and drives equally well, but is 99 pounds light.

When we have weights under 2000 pounds in ITB and ITC, that 198 pound delta equates to over 10% difference. I think that's significant. And I'm not a fan of it.

As they say, write your congressman.....

* And Jeff, yes, I DO think significant weight differences make a difference, when equal shoes and equal prep is in the equation. I just got done watching Tim Klavana's video of him spinning on the first lap at NJMP (In the NE section), and watched his drive up through the ranks, and yeah, I was a little surprised at some of the stuff I saw. Miatas..the easiest car in SCCA to drive.... missing turn in by 2 feet, the apex by 2 feet and track out by 2 feet, then the immediately following turn in, apex and track out by 2 feet. SHEESH! THREE hundred pounds wouldn't help that, LOL. But, that's not the concern. I think we need to get them spot on on paper, and let the chips fall where they may on the track.
 
Last edited:
Dave Zaslow said:
Since we should not really look at single race results I decided to look at series championships to see ...........
Click to expand...

What Dave, "I wrote the book" Gran said...

I see the angle here, Dave, looking at large groups of data to toss out the outlier bad bits of data, but....

Series championships are often won by cars that never win a race, they just show up more, finishing 2nd or 3rd every time, or play the points game, going to the unpopular tracks for the extra bonus points. OR, the series results can demonstrate the same issues that individual race results can, comparing dissimilar programs. A series can be won by guys with the budgets to be on fresh rubber, or recover more quickly when things go wrong, when their superior competition misses a race due to budgetary issues in replacing the blown equipment.

They also reflect our typical habit of being copy cats, where we see the other guy winning in a Borgward, so WE get a Borgward, not knowing that there might be better choices around. Who knows, maybe some guy from the Ice Region could take his '97 Ascari Dingbot down to the Lava Region and slap those 10 guys around who all think the '78 Borgward is the pinnacle of ITB.

(Of course, they'd either assume he was a cheatin' bastard, or they'd all run out and get themselves Ascari's the next year...)

Point being that even large samples don't always tell the truth in things such as this.
 
Last edited:
Jake, I of course agree, significant weight makes a difference.

My point -- and it has of course been debated before -- is (a) how much weight makes a difference and (b) given that, at what point should the ITAC be worried that a car is, for whatever reason, off.
 
JeffYoung said:
...(a) how much weight makes a difference and (b) given that, at what point should the ITAC be worried that a car is, for whatever reason, off.
Click to expand...
A) One pound makes a difference.

B) Identical to the amount they think is "acceptable" to run under classified weight.

Remember, if we start playing this game of "good enough" - or worse, supporting or codifying the attitude of "well, it doesn't make a performance difference" - that that game extends far beyond the ITAC's actions, actions which set the tone for everything following.

You're either legal, or you're not. You're either accurate, or you're not.
 
Last edited:
If you are talking a 3000 pound car 50 - 100# is not a big deal. Do that to a 2000# car and it is big. Comes down to the percentage difference overall and it is worth getting right. The Gulf is another one of those cars that get high torque overlooked because we only use hp. Instead of using a set number for FWD adder use a percentage of classed weight. In ITC it is probably %1.5, ITA 2.0%, ITS 4%, and ITR about 5%. Equates to anywhere from 35-150 pounds across the spread and takes power into the equation by the classified weight before adders and subtractors. I drive a rear drive and think the front drive cars need more help. The tires are just not up to the task by the end of the race and it just gets worse as they get heavier.
 
gran racing said:
Dave, you just make Kirk get an ulser. :) We simply can't use results to determine if a make / model is an overdog or not. My beliefs about the Golf III are not because of that.
Click to expand...

The lap record at Summit is held by a Suzuki Swift. THAT'S the hot ticket. :smilie_pokal:

The challenge with the Golf is not only does it have the power, it also handles extremely well. Maybe part of the issue is the process doesn't take into consideration torque enough? Compared to its counterparts in ITB, the Golf has bigger brakes, more baseline HP, and more torque. Yeah, the rear suspension is "worse" but the fwd cars are just dragging that end along for the ride. I'm sorry Andy, but you're just not going to convince me that it's not 75 lbs light. It makes it even tougher for me to swallow when other Golf III owners such as Kirk agree that the weight relative to other ITB cars is off, not to mention many other knowledgeable individuals. For the record, I did not bring up the Golf's weight in this thread. LOL
Click to expand...

LOL - Yeah, that strut front end is pretty much regarded as state-of-the art. You've never actually DRIVEN one, have you? My car is GREAT in big fast corners but sucks in anything that changes direction more than 90*. I'll grant you the brakes but I don't think there's an ITB car out there that's brake-limited in sprint races. I WILL agree - and it's been a topic of ITAC conversations - that we don't consider torque to the degree that maybe we should. I've been asking for someone more clever than I am - anyone - to help me understand how we might do that.

But you know what, you now think it's spot on so it probably won't get corrected. Again, maybe there's a flaw in the process being used and it does truly fit the results of other ITB cars. Just like how cars have been classed in the past, I'm sure this process will be tweeked along the way.
Click to expand...

Read what Jake wrote carefully: There's a world of difference between "spot on" and what's within the operating tolerances applied. ...

K
 
RSTPerformance said:
Dave certainly interesting.... The BMW 2002's are also one of those top dogs that I think can beat anything that shows up.

Do we have a database with the track records? Although this also probably would not support our thoughts that the GOLF III is the car to have!!! lol ...
Click to expand...

Track records are particularly suspect, in my opinion. They are just one TINY little datum and there's absolutely NO guarantee that those numbers were generated by a legal car.

K
 
JeffYoung said:
Do you guys think that 50 to 75 lbs makes a difference -- more so than driver -- between winning and 2nd place?

Do you think that in the IT milieu that we should have "management" concerned about 50/75/100 lb weight "inaccuracies?"

My answers: No and no.
Click to expand...

I'll be careful how I answer this, to be as clear as possible...

** Do think that, in absolute terms, 75 pounds makes a theoretically measurable difference in lap time for a car with ITB-like performance? Yes. No question.

** Do I think that for the "milieu," that is a repeatable difference that will stand out among the typical variability due to other factors? No.

** Do I think that management (the ITAC or more generally, the membership) should care about 50-100 pound weight differences? It depends what the question is.

- If we are asking if we're smart enough to actually "know" enough to make subjective decisions about setting weights? Hell, no.

- If we are applying a formulaic process from scratch, say for a new listing? Hell, yes - since there's no cost associated with "getting it right."

- If we are asked to change a car for which a weight specification as already been set? Hmm. I can see some shades of gray here, and this is the place where we currently have the biggest challenges. There are going to be SOME costs associated with any change, even if it's just angst. I personally think that can be mitigated through a repeatable, transparent process.

K
 
Worship?? Hell, I'm not good enough to kiss the ground he walks on!:cool: I'd like him to have my baby!:D Oh! Maybe not, she's 30!:happy204:
 
lateapex911 said:
Thanks Ed, just what we need, more tGA worship!
Click to expand...
Methinks Mr. Ed was being "sarcastic"... :)

seckerich said:
If you are talking a 3000 pound car 50 - 100# is not a big deal.
Click to expand...
For those of you in the "50 pounds is not a big deal" mindset, let me ask you this:

Let's say you had just gotten done with a hard-fought tooth-and-nail battle with someone and you lost, but when they went across the scales Tech found them 5 pounds light. But, Tech decides that they're not going to do anything about it because "5 pounds is not a big deal".

How would you feel about that? Would you agree with Tech and say "you know, you're right, let's just forget about it"? Or would you believe you'd been robbed of a win because that 5 pounds "could have" made a difference?

What if it was 10 pounds? 25? 50? 100? At what point are you satisfied to get beat by someone running lighter than they're supposed to? Does it make you less happy that it's a smaller percentage of your car's weight, versus a hard number like 5 pounds (i.e., are you less unhappy if that happened in ITR versus ITC?)

"Well, that's not going to happen!" you say. "That's against the rules!" Sure it is. But does it make you feel any better when the rules are adjusted such that you have to weigh 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 pounds more than the "process weight" as compared to your competitor's car, when their car went through the same process as you did?

Really, legal or illegal, what's the difference in the end result?

The point I'm trying to make is that it's real nice and easy when you're sitting on an ivory tower making the rules, and you see no problem waving away pounds as applied to someone else. But it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish when you're on the losing end of that 5 pounds... Waving the backs of our hands at a 5 pound discrepancy in process weight is no different than ignoring a competitor running 5 pounds lighter than the classified weight.

In the end, it's all the same.

Just sayin'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top