lateapex911
Super Moderator
Andy, you're using the 'generic' "you" right? because Jeff isn't making that point...he's saying OTHERS use that logic/reasoning.
January Fastrack
- Thread starter Tristan Smith
- Start date
Bzzt. Wrong. The 2.0 Golf III is an 8-valve four.
First - "What Jake said," re: the deal for allowing 16v cars in B.
Beyond that, when I say "shenanigans," Jeff, I include folks who perpetuate incorrect information absent - or ignoring - any basis in evidence, without "weighting" in any way how evil their intentions might be.
Yeah, it's qualitatively worse if I'm spreading inaccurate information in order to protect my immediate competitive position, than if I do the same thing simply because I think the MR2 is an Atlantic car in sheep's clothing, but functionally it's all just degrees of gray.
And it does NOT matter if I myself recognize that I'm fibbing. I might absolutely believe that those extra valves cannot help but make more HP when we bolt on a header. That changes the tenor of the conversation but doesn't change the substance.
As is typical, Andy's gotten to the nut of the issue. This is all about generalizing what amounts to a single case - the Atlantic engine - to the entire class.
...but write a letter? WHAT IN BLAZES am I proposing? There's no official publication that I can cite. There's no rule I can propose we change. Is the "1.3 multiplier for multivalve cars in B" rule actually codified even in the ITAC's internal practices?
K
lateapex911
Super Moderator
And they disagree based on what? So far, NOBODY has produced ANY evidence even close to 20%. Nevermind 25 or 30%.
...but it's actually WORSE than that.
It wouldn't matter if the "default" gain used in the Process were 20%, 25%, 30%, or 35%. They key is that the first assumption for all cars would all be the same unless compelling evidence made it clear that a different % should be applied to a particular case.
Proponents of the "16v 30% in B" practice aren't changing the applicable "rules of evidence." They are changing the first assumption - the default % - for some cars, as an act of faith, so they don't even HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.
Wrong.
Very wrong.
The Process already accommodates any special case. If all of these mystery motors DO make unusual, beyond-IT-standard gains, the system will handle it. To preempt even asking that question is...
SHENANIGANS.
K
JoshS
New member
Wow. I have a busy day at work and I see all sorts of yelling and screaming going on over 3 pages.
Stop, just stop.
First of all, yes, the ITAC internal practices are codified, including a 30% standard multiplier in ITB and ITC. Specifically that has nothing to do with the MR2. 30% has been the standard multiplier in ITB for multivalve engines since I joined the ITAC years ago, well before the MR2 was moved in. Don't confuse the issues. The 30% apparently started with the first introduction of those cars into ITB (during the great realignment, maybe?). In any case there are not very many multivalve cars in ITB, and as far as I know, all of them that had their weights assigned since the great realignment were done with 30%. So, 30% is at least consistent with the (post realignment, pre-MR2) past!
The MR2 is one of the many cars still on the list to be reevaluated. It is a long list. The answer there, as Andy said, is to use evidence to argue for a non-standard multiplier (and there's a process for that, mostly of Kirk's invention) -- not necessarily to change the multiplier. Changing the standard multiplier would be a different issue.
Now, in my PERSONAL OPINION: 30% is acceptable to me, for now, because it's consistent with past practice and hasn't appeared to do any harm to anything other than perhaps the MR2 -- and there's a SEPARATE way to handle that car. This "it's just like an Atlantic" thing is a red herring -- I don't tihnk anyone really believes THAT anymore, although I'm not sure. If that was the case, it would be assumed to make at least 100hp more than it does. So drop it. The MR2 still needs to be evaluated. Please be patient. There is so much to do.
Why has 30% been okay for the other multivalves in ITB? Well, my guess is that it compensates for some other advantage that late-'80s/early-'90s Japanese ITB cars tend to have over the rest of ITB that we don't normally pay attention to. Does that mean we should use 30% as a standard? No, of course not, not if that "some other advantage" isn't horsepower. But again, it's what we've been doing for at least 5 years, since before my time. If it's really wrong (again, ignoring the MR2), we'll adjust it. Maybe after we exhaust this huge list of cars to be looked at, and get caught up on the constant list of incoming letters. (At this moment there are 27 letters on our agenda for next week's meeting.)
Stop, just stop.
First of all, yes, the ITAC internal practices are codified, including a 30% standard multiplier in ITB and ITC. Specifically that has nothing to do with the MR2. 30% has been the standard multiplier in ITB for multivalve engines since I joined the ITAC years ago, well before the MR2 was moved in. Don't confuse the issues. The 30% apparently started with the first introduction of those cars into ITB (during the great realignment, maybe?). In any case there are not very many multivalve cars in ITB, and as far as I know, all of them that had their weights assigned since the great realignment were done with 30%. So, 30% is at least consistent with the (post realignment, pre-MR2) past!
The MR2 is one of the many cars still on the list to be reevaluated. It is a long list. The answer there, as Andy said, is to use evidence to argue for a non-standard multiplier (and there's a process for that, mostly of Kirk's invention) -- not necessarily to change the multiplier. Changing the standard multiplier would be a different issue.
Now, in my PERSONAL OPINION: 30% is acceptable to me, for now, because it's consistent with past practice and hasn't appeared to do any harm to anything other than perhaps the MR2 -- and there's a SEPARATE way to handle that car. This "it's just like an Atlantic" thing is a red herring -- I don't tihnk anyone really believes THAT anymore, although I'm not sure. If that was the case, it would be assumed to make at least 100hp more than it does. So drop it. The MR2 still needs to be evaluated. Please be patient. There is so much to do.
Why has 30% been okay for the other multivalves in ITB? Well, my guess is that it compensates for some other advantage that late-'80s/early-'90s Japanese ITB cars tend to have over the rest of ITB that we don't normally pay attention to. Does that mean we should use 30% as a standard? No, of course not, not if that "some other advantage" isn't horsepower. But again, it's what we've been doing for at least 5 years, since before my time. If it's really wrong (again, ignoring the MR2), we'll adjust it. Maybe after we exhaust this huge list of cars to be looked at, and get caught up on the constant list of incoming letters. (At this moment there are 27 letters on our agenda for next week's meeting.)
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
For the record Josh, this is how it happened:
In Darrin's first cut at writing the Process down in order to present it to the BoD for approval (the great re-alignment) it was written as a guideline that ALL multi-valve cars and cars with electronically controlled cam timing be classed using 30%. In application, it never happened and was not used because in the end not everyone bought into it as a 'rule'.
Take a look at the MYRIAD of multi-valve cars in ITR, ITS, and ITA that were classed in that time frame as proof - all classed using 25% unless there was 'known' info.
Why this IS an MR2 issue is that when it came time to re-process it to ITB, and I was unfortunatley not on that call, it went through as 30%. So, it in fact is NOT consistant with past practice in application, and when we re-wrote V.2 and cleaned up all the crap from that initial outline, it was eliminated.
Hasn't caused any harm? What other cars in ITB have been classed at 30% under this guideline? I can't think of any - and if there are, of course it isn't going to hurt ITB - EXACTLY THE INTENT of those who stand by it with pitchforks. Can you actually justify the concept as it realtes to JUST ITB? I can't even wrap my arms around the arguement for it.
And to close on this because my position is well know by now - MR2 guys have been told to 'hang on' for YEARS.
Ugh. I have the same feeling in my stomach as I did this last year when I submitted my resignation.
In Darrin's first cut at writing the Process down in order to present it to the BoD for approval (the great re-alignment) it was written as a guideline that ALL multi-valve cars and cars with electronically controlled cam timing be classed using 30%. In application, it never happened and was not used because in the end not everyone bought into it as a 'rule'.
Take a look at the MYRIAD of multi-valve cars in ITR, ITS, and ITA that were classed in that time frame as proof - all classed using 25% unless there was 'known' info.
Why this IS an MR2 issue is that when it came time to re-process it to ITB, and I was unfortunatley not on that call, it went through as 30%. So, it in fact is NOT consistant with past practice in application, and when we re-wrote V.2 and cleaned up all the crap from that initial outline, it was eliminated.
Hasn't caused any harm? What other cars in ITB have been classed at 30% under this guideline? I can't think of any - and if there are, of course it isn't going to hurt ITB - EXACTLY THE INTENT of those who stand by it with pitchforks. Can you actually justify the concept as it realtes to JUST ITB? I can't even wrap my arms around the arguement for it.
And to close on this because my position is well know by now - MR2 guys have been told to 'hang on' for YEARS.
Ugh. I have the same feeling in my stomach as I did this last year when I submitted my resignation.
I stand corrected. (do germans hate valves?)
can someone just explain to me, in simple terms, what's so modern and advanced and scary about a 27 year old toyota engine? or any 4v/cyl motor for that matter? the big gainers I'm aware of are, by and large, BMWs and Hondas of the multivalve configuration.
You can see that STL is the creation of the same minds who perpetrated the above.
who wants to start ITOFV (old four valvers)?
Ron Earp
Administrator
You ITB guys should get together and create a regional rule to allow you to run as you see fit. Or a gentleman's agreement. I'd bet that the majority of the ITB competitors would be fine with it and know it is the right thing to do. This ITB MR2 thing has been going on seemingly forever with little end in sight.
JoshS
New member
Andy, you are placing the blame in the wrong place. The fact is, and you just stated them, that a process was codified. That the ITAC deviated from its own practices (and promises to the CRB/BOD) without changing what was codified, was the problem.
We are now doing things right, by writing down how we want to operate, getting it approved, and following through with those plans. We can't make wholesale changes, the changes have to be evolutionary and we need to get buy-in for changes we make.
You may be right that the MR2 and Protege were the first multivalve cars classed in ITB (and there were certainly none in ITC) since the 12V Hondas were done back before my time, I'm not sure. But as for going forward, this is not one of the battles I'm choosing to fight, at least not in the very short term. There are few of these cars and in the specific case of the MR2, we have enough evidence, in my opinion, to fix that by using a non-standard multiplier.
gran racing
Super Moderator
Ron, you've got to be joking right? A gentleman's agreement would just hurt the MR2 drivers in the long run. Hey, weren't you guys just talking something about cheated up Volvos hurting legit cars now? Yeah, how's that doing. I honestly don't know if that's true but easily can picturing it happen to cars. Then you're hurting the drivers who run legally.
Well I've seen Gulick run his IT7 car down south where there are gentleman's rules. Ask him if Jake if he enjoyed that?
I don't know all of the information related to the MR2, but it does seem a bit heavy based on what knowledge I have. How much heavy I really don't know. If it is truly assigned the weight it has now because of an error, that's too bad. Btw Jake, do NOT beat yourself up on that. There's a reason why minutes need to be reviewed and you have a committee.
I sympathise where the MR2 owners are coming from. It's beyond frustrating especially when that cookie keeps getting dangled in front of you then quickly taken away. Trust me, I get it and many others do as well.
Well I've seen Gulick run his IT7 car down south where there are gentleman's rules. Ask him if Jake if he enjoyed that?
I don't know all of the information related to the MR2, but it does seem a bit heavy based on what knowledge I have. How much heavy I really don't know. If it is truly assigned the weight it has now because of an error, that's too bad. Btw Jake, do NOT beat yourself up on that. There's a reason why minutes need to be reviewed and you have a committee.
I sympathise where the MR2 owners are coming from. It's beyond frustrating especially when that cookie keeps getting dangled in front of you then quickly taken away. Trust me, I get it and many others do as well.
Okay...
So what you're saying, Josh, is that you've reverted back to the OLD "codified" version of the Process. Fair enough.
I find it interesting that THAT version of the Process has been enshrined as the Final Word, when the "deviant practices" of the ITAC during - at least during my tenure - were happening with the tacit approval of the CRB, and given the fact that those guidelines have never actually seen the light of day as far as the membership is concerned.
My objections here are based on the fact that I *never* understood that we should use 30% on these cars. When we made the "MR2 mistake" (the fateful call Andy missed), I started making noise about correcting that screw up the very next month. We talked about it repeatedly and at NO TIME do I recall anyone saying, "That's against the deal." Internally, the rationale for NOT fixing it immediately was that we wanted to tackle ITB in a strategic way, and that our blunder would get tidied up with the bigger mess.
Or maybe I'm just confused.
But that's academic. You're moving forward and managing all of the aspects of the ITAC including the organizational concerns, and that's what really matters. I'm trusting at this point that if the evidence to use an alternate (i.e., not 30%) multiplier on the poor Toyotas - all of them, MR2, FX16, and Corolla - you will go through the process.
I fear that the fact that ITAC members are using their assumptions to drive defending the default suggests that they will ignore even a preponderance of evidence but run the system and we'll see...
How about at least putting this issue at the front of the queue?
K
EDIT - Hey, wait a minute. How can you even USE the "non-standard multiplier" decision-making system developed for v.2...? It's not allowed in the "codified" version of the Process.
So what you're saying, Josh, is that you've reverted back to the OLD "codified" version of the Process. Fair enough.
I find it interesting that THAT version of the Process has been enshrined as the Final Word, when the "deviant practices" of the ITAC during - at least during my tenure - were happening with the tacit approval of the CRB, and given the fact that those guidelines have never actually seen the light of day as far as the membership is concerned.
My objections here are based on the fact that I *never* understood that we should use 30% on these cars. When we made the "MR2 mistake" (the fateful call Andy missed), I started making noise about correcting that screw up the very next month. We talked about it repeatedly and at NO TIME do I recall anyone saying, "That's against the deal." Internally, the rationale for NOT fixing it immediately was that we wanted to tackle ITB in a strategic way, and that our blunder would get tidied up with the bigger mess.
Or maybe I'm just confused.
But that's academic. You're moving forward and managing all of the aspects of the ITAC including the organizational concerns, and that's what really matters. I'm trusting at this point that if the evidence to use an alternate (i.e., not 30%) multiplier on the poor Toyotas - all of them, MR2, FX16, and Corolla - you will go through the process.
I fear that the fact that ITAC members are using their assumptions to drive defending the default suggests that they will ignore even a preponderance of evidence but run the system and we'll see...
How about at least putting this issue at the front of the queue?
K
EDIT - Hey, wait a minute. How can you even USE the "non-standard multiplier" decision-making system developed for v.2...? It's not allowed in the "codified" version of the Process.
Josh and Jeff I appreciate your work. I remember when Andy was the ITAC chair and I was under the impression that it was going to get fixed. Then shit hit the fan. and now Josh take the head seat in a position that many would not want. I asked Josh then if he was going to push through and work on the MR2 issue. I was told that it is best not to fight that fight now. So I didn't, Finally a process get's aproved that I fully support. I once again supply as much information as I can find assuming that it was going to be talked about. From what I hear it has to some great extent. This has all been years and the car is still some 300lbs over weight!
I can build a motor that makes 130 to the wheels.. it will however not be legal. I have consulted everyone from Randy Pobst (old firehawk MR2 racer) to engineers at Toyota, and TA engine builders. 30% is not possible period, nor is 25 or 20, or 15 hasn't been achieved yet. I do believe that is someone spent even more dyno time they coudl get to 15%... maybe.
Josh/Jeff though I am hesitant to do so (trade secrets and all that) I can submit a build sheet to the ITAC of my engine that made just under what the highest I have seen if you think that will make a difference. total cost in machining and parts (I researched, set chose cleranaces, assembled, called manufacturers for custom parts) was in excess of 5,500 dollars. If someone were to build this engine for me and done the leg work, I imagine it woudl cost alot more. I have a spread sheet detailing the cost (I share the car with my dad so we split cost 50/50 and actually have cost of entire car build)
If people are interested in seeing the paper I wrote to see if there was any exageration someone can setup a file sharing site that we can put it on. It is a pdf file that isn't too large.
-lastly.. Sadly some MR2 owners are doing just what was mentioned above. Some are running at lower weights under "gentalmen agreements" and forefit there points. I tried telling them just wait, have faith. Some have got tired of breaking hubs every weekend (summit point) and plan on running light next year to just cut down on saftey issue. I don't plan on doing the same, however depending how long it is delayed I will probably play somewhere else. Not that it affects IT at all, and there are so few MR2 drivers.
I can build a motor that makes 130 to the wheels.. it will however not be legal. I have consulted everyone from Randy Pobst (old firehawk MR2 racer) to engineers at Toyota, and TA engine builders. 30% is not possible period, nor is 25 or 20, or 15 hasn't been achieved yet. I do believe that is someone spent even more dyno time they coudl get to 15%... maybe.
Josh/Jeff though I am hesitant to do so (trade secrets and all that) I can submit a build sheet to the ITAC of my engine that made just under what the highest I have seen if you think that will make a difference. total cost in machining and parts (I researched, set chose cleranaces, assembled, called manufacturers for custom parts) was in excess of 5,500 dollars. If someone were to build this engine for me and done the leg work, I imagine it woudl cost alot more. I have a spread sheet detailing the cost (I share the car with my dad so we split cost 50/50 and actually have cost of entire car build)
If people are interested in seeing the paper I wrote to see if there was any exageration someone can setup a file sharing site that we can put it on. It is a pdf file that isn't too large.
-lastly.. Sadly some MR2 owners are doing just what was mentioned above. Some are running at lower weights under "gentalmen agreements" and forefit there points. I tried telling them just wait, have faith. Some have got tired of breaking hubs every weekend (summit point) and plan on running light next year to just cut down on saftey issue. I don't plan on doing the same, however depending how long it is delayed I will probably play somewhere else. Not that it affects IT at all, and there are so few MR2 drivers.
Last edited:
rcc85
New member
WOW!!! is right!! There is a Santa Claus!! Looking at this as objectively as I can, I think this is fair. The car would never make process weight in ITB, and ITC needs more cars. As the car is now, I've been racing with the slower ITC cars anyway (and having a good time). Now I need to find 250 lbs to take out of the car...
Bob Clifton
#05 ITB (for now) Dodge Daytona
Ron Earp
Administrator
Partially, yes I am.
I'm just a bit saddened by the situation. I'm not an ITB driver so I don't have a dog in the hunt. But I respect all the folks that have weighed in on the thread and what gets my goat is all the man hours that have gone into discussing, debating, and arguing over such a simple little thing.
A lot of intelligent people are spending a hell of a lot of time on this one car in ITB. It seems the general concensus is that the car needs to be adjusted so why can't it just be done? We're not going to the moon or planning for war, we're adjusting the weight on a car in an amateur racing club. A club, by the way, which is supposedly for racers by racers and it seems like it'd be a simple thing to get this resolved. But, then again I thought the proposed motor mount rule was for sure to be adopted given the overwhelming member support and it was shot down.
I know this has to be unbelievably frustrating for those ITB drivers racing MR2s. I feel for you and you've got my respect. I think I'd have voted with my feet and raced elsewhere or threw in the towel and quit the MR2. I hope that the situation gets fixed quickly, although with as long of a wait as you've already had six months might be deemed "quick" in the current climate.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I'm not going to debate history as it is just one persons recollection vs. anothers (because we didn't have the record keeping the iTAC started a couple years ago). But I will tell you that the 'codification' you speak of was VERY loose. Meaning it was a guideline, not a written rule. Unfortunately, some keep pointing to that 'draft' that Darin used during a presentation as the 'law' and it simply wasn't - as is evident in ALL the ITR, ITS and ITA cars classed and reclassed since the Process was allowed - voted on and agreed to by those same members that are claiming it was 'like that all along'. That is just simple fact, not opinion. The classifications are in black and white in the ITCS.
My beef if with the 30% rule as it isn't based in any reasonable arguement. And I submit it SHOULD be a fight you want to fight as it speaks to so many things that are still broken at the core level. Set the Process FIRST, and get to your requests. You shouldn't be acting on requests knowing there is an issue with the way you classify cars.
I know you and your team will eventually get things ironed out but geez.
Squeeky wheel - OUT.
JeffYoung
New member
The people who told you it would be fixed meant it. They thought it would. I did too. You did an outstanding job supplying information and it was discussed at length. Frankly, I failed you. I didn't do as good a job advocating for what I thought was right -- a max of a 20% gain on this car -- as I should have.
I believe the car can't make more than 20%. A full tilt IT build sheet might help me convince others I am right, but it might not, so it is your call if you wish to submit it. If you do, I'll use it as best I can.
Honestly, if I were an ITB MR2 driver, and I wanted to be competitive, I would have bailed on SCCA by now. And that is sad really, the car should be one of teh "core" cars in ITB.
I believe the car can't make more than 20%. A full tilt IT build sheet might help me convince others I am right, but it might not, so it is your call if you wish to submit it. If you do, I'll use it as best I can.
Honestly, if I were an ITB MR2 driver, and I wanted to be competitive, I would have bailed on SCCA by now. And that is sad really, the car should be one of teh "core" cars in ITB.
JeffYoung
New member
Bob, I did the analysis on the 2.2 Mopars and I'm glad you agree. I really should have asked you if you wanted your car in ITC before I recommended the move to the committee, but I frankly didn't see any other option. THat car has NO chance of making weight in ITB, not even close. It was something like 600 lbs over versus Process weight.
Let me know how it goes. I had an 84 Laser back in the day, and kinda sorta know what you are up against...lol.....
Let me know how it goes. I had an 84 Laser back in the day, and kinda sorta know what you are up against...lol.....
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
And when I was there, we were in position to get it voted on when the CRB put the brakes on the whole thing, not just this request.
It HAS been years on this, but I believe that you are in a better place for a result you think is fair than you were a year ago. It will be over soon.
JeffYoung
New member
I'm a believer in the Process, obivously.
We do realize however that people can disagree with the Process, or want different inputs or standard defaults, etc. without being bad people who are out to destroy IT and turn weight setting into all back room deals right?
I lose sight of that sometimes myself. I get far too dogmatic about the Process, and forget that criticism of it, and debate over it, is a good thing.
Need to remember that. I've yet to encounter anyone in the SCCA, and in particular in regards to IT, that has assumed a leadership role with anything other than a desire to improve the club and category. I may disagree with them, or some of the decisions of the committee on which I serve, but that doesn't make folks I disagree with bad people.
I need to work hard to remember that going forward, because I am absolutely convinced it is true.
We do realize however that people can disagree with the Process, or want different inputs or standard defaults, etc. without being bad people who are out to destroy IT and turn weight setting into all back room deals right?
I lose sight of that sometimes myself. I get far too dogmatic about the Process, and forget that criticism of it, and debate over it, is a good thing.
Need to remember that. I've yet to encounter anyone in the SCCA, and in particular in regards to IT, that has assumed a leadership role with anything other than a desire to improve the club and category. I may disagree with them, or some of the decisions of the committee on which I serve, but that doesn't make folks I disagree with bad people.
I need to work hard to remember that going forward, because I am absolutely convinced it is true.