June 2012 Fastrack

[Xian]

This may or may not be the right place for this question but here it goes.

I have been out of ITA for awhile so go easy on me.

If we are "sorta" "kinda" using published crank HP #'s with a 25%(1.25)HP increase assumption and 14.5lbs/HP multiplier and then adding or subtracting another arbitrary weight to equalize based on a "some of the parts" argument, can someone explain some of the other weights in the class?

ITA 1.6L Miata 116HP @ crank. Current Weight- 2255, Calculated weight(116*1.25*14.5=2102.5lbs)
Not that a 1.6 miata could get there but I guess the 1.6 miata gets 150lbs of "some of the parts" weight

ITA CRX 105HP @ crank. Current Weight-2250, Calculated weight(105*1.25*14.5=1903lbs or 105*1.30*14.5=1979)

As others have referenced, there's a "process" with adders and subtractors for stuff like FWD/struts/DW's/etc. IIRC, the 1.6 Miata comes out about where it should weight wise under the process.

The CRX (as I posted earlier in this thread) was a result of "what we know" where the weight was adjusted on real-world, IT legal, verified HP. It got 110# back in 05 as a result of this.

then they followed me into STL....NEMESIS!!!!

No escaping them!

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

You left because the system wasn't working the way you wanted. Now you're crying and stomping your feet because the system is not working the way you wanted.



This is how committees, and Congress, democracy, and politics in general works. Or doesn't.

Do you expect that all my vision and work that I'm putting into Super Touring will be followed religiously once I leave the committee? I certainly don't. The best I can hope for - HOPE for - is that I present a vision that stands through time. But once I'm gone it's all fair game.

And for me to sit there and cry about it is pointless.

Well there are some grey area's there. STL has a vision, not an Ops manual. Visions can drift, I get that. Hell I was part of that in the pre-document days of IT. I get it and it's a fact of life.

I am complaining because the CRB has allowed the ITAC to develop a document outlining how things work, and then are ignoring it. I stand by that 100%. See it how you will.

 

[Xian]

Do we really know that? Were there back to back sessions run with, without and with the weight to confirm?
I remember getting a scathing letter from Robert Moser who was not happy and felt the cars were worthless after the weight addition. And calls from his crew chief. (Ear is still ringing, LOL) But, King built new engines, intakes were changed, ignitions were changed, and I think they clawed back lap time.

But, I think it was bit by bit. I suspect, if they were allowed to remove the weight, and they developed for that setup, they'd be faster over the course of a race.

I don't disagree... you also have changes to track surface, weather differences from ARRC to ARRC, tire compound/construction changes, etc. My point was that a well-sorted and driven CRX was at the front of the pack before the weight and still is/can be with the weight. Would it be theoretically faster without the weight? Probably... but the weight didn't relegate them non-competitive or really impact their on-track performance/finishes.

Do I think that an equally well-driven/prepped Miata is the better car? Sure do. If for no other reason than weight distribution and consumables. It's less likely to break/burn-up stuff during a race than the FWD cars are.

PS
The intake/ignition stuff was, IIRC, b/c of legality rulings... again, they made the power back via different, legal methods.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

The CRX (as I posted earlier in this thread) was a result of "what we know" where the weight was adjusted on real-world, IT legal, verified HP. It got 110# back in 05 as a result of this.

And for the record, changes were only made to cars that needed +/- 100lbs because anything less was deemed at the time (by the majority of the ITAC) as noise.

 

[Xian]

And for the record, changes were only made to cars that needed +/- 100lbs because anything less was deemed at the time (by the majority of the ITAC) as noise.

You sure? I thought the ITA Integra's got something like 70-80 #'s? I could be mis-remembering though...

 

[Kyle Freiheit]

Andy,
I actually think I get where you are coming from but it seems to me the OPS manual(finally read it) still leaves a bunch of room for fudge factors(on purpose?). Whether we fudge the weight with "known HP vs theorhetical gain HP" is semantics, no?

Kyle

 

[marka]

Howdy,

I think they do. Let's say someone manufactures a perfectly optimized-IT trim car. It isn't going to be classified with a 0% HP gain multiplier. The car is going to get the default multiplier unless and until there is sufficient evidence to show that the default is in error.

...unless its a Neon. In which case FUCK YOU.



Mark

(don't bother to reply, I'm joking.)

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,
I actually think I get where you are coming from but it seems to me the OPS manual(finally read it) still leaves a bunch of room for fudge factors(on purpose?). Whether we fudge the weight with "known HP vs theorhetical gain HP" is semantics, no?

Kyle

Good document huh? Josh and team did a nice job on it.

I am not sure there is much fudge room in there but feel free to call me out on that. 25% multiplier if you don't have solid info, actual power if you do. Firm adders for physical properties, etc. The only thing with a heavy level of subjectivity would be the torque adders IIRC.

I am sure I am missing something. Maybe your definition of fudge is different than mine. I consider fudge to be a change for changes sake and not with documentation.

 

[Kyle Freiheit]

Andy,
Yep, I think the OPS manual is well written. I like that there are firm numbers in place to show how a min weight can be established but lets be honest, its still not fully transparent as to why a GCR min weight is what it is.
What I mean, is that if you take every car and backtrack the math on every IT car you should basically come up with a HP number that the ITAC thinks a car should reach or has published numbers for, right? Are they going to tell us which is the case? Should they?

Kyle

 

[lateapex911]

Andy,
I actually think I get where you are coming from but it seems to me the OPS manual(finally read it) still leaves a bunch of room for fudge factors(on purpose?). Whether we fudge the weight with "known HP vs theorhetical gain HP" is semantics, no?

Kyle

It's all fudging, to a degree. I mean cars are being manipulated to create a fair race. But the ops manual was done to make it consistent. IF > then logic. So that two cars that came in 6 years apart would get the same weight with the same inputs. So that committee members wouldn't argue that they just 'know' that car will clean up so it HAS to get more weight. The whole 'what we know' thing gets to be stacked errors and things go AWOL quickly. Even if the classing system isn't perfect, it makes the mistakes in a consistent and repeatable manner, and the end result is fair to all.

Another important factor was the quantification of standards of evidence. ONE dyno sheet from an unknown source is not 'known hp'. Multiple dyno sheets from multiple sources on engines built to IT specs but run in a different series that are under 1% apart in numbers IS 'known hp'.

When I was on the ITAC, and we had evidence, we listened to the presentation of evidence, had some questions and answers and discussions, then I polled the members and each one gave a confidence factor from 0% to 100%. IIRC if the average wasn't 75% or higher the evidence wasn't accepted. A case like the second one above would get an average vote of over 90%. (there's always one guy who's skeptical and gives a low percentage just because he doesn't know the source of the evidence first hand.....)

I was a proponent of having a dedicated website where the ITAC minutes and voting records were 'published' for the public to see. My thinking was that the members are the ultimate bosses, and there should be nothing happening in a meeting that should be hidden from the membership. And publishing voting records is a great way to show the members that people are voting responsibly. It would help eliminate suspicions of self serving behavior and would involve the membership in the process. I'm not pleased to say this, but I heard things on committee that, if the person saying them knew would be part of a public record, would never have been said or pursued.

As far as I was concerned, a major factor in the club is transparency and avoiding even the appearance of hanky panky. Sunshine is the best cleanser.

 

[Kyle Freiheit]

Jake,
Thanks for the insight. I feel as Andy does that the way they increased the weight wasn't consistent with how weights are made and therefore a bad precedent. That being said, the end weight is probably not to far off.

Kyle

 

[lateapex911]

Agreed Kyle.
IT should be noted that IT is the only category in the club with such a system in place. Most other categories are 'actively managed'. In other words, a weight is set for a car in X Prod, and then the letters come form the competition saying it's too light, or from the models owners saying it's too heavy. Both sides make cases. The Prod comittee and the CRB 'observe' and then manage the weight if they think a car is going to win too often or by too much or whatever. Obviously, if you have the appropriate dictator this can work, and work well, but also, its a system ripe with ways to go off track. It's much better when the number of cars is small.
ST does is in a hybrid manner. You choose an engine, and them multiply by a weight factor. Trouble is, the engines are stock based and intake and head components are stock, which will affect power and could result in a 'one horse show'. Too early to tell, and it's a great ruleset and an interesting approach.
In IT, we use the Process in an attempt to remove human elements. There are more than 300 cars classed in 5 classes, so managing all of them and setting weights with a volunteer committee that changes over the years created some issues. Remember too, that it had been cast in some ancient stone rulebook that once set IT weights could not be changed, only the car could be reclassed. Documentation through the years was essentially non existent, and the 'systems used' were not documented either. Having a repeatable Process for such a large category where cars are 'plug and play' was seen as a way to get things in order, and by large it's been pretty successful.
But getting it instituted was a uphill battle as the club and CRB culture was 180 degrees opposite: Set weights, see what happens, watch on track, and adjust. Kudos to the members of the CRB who were forward thinking and let the 'experiemnt' happen. And the culture of SCCA though the years has been loath to set things in writing for all to see. HUGE props to the ITAC and CRB for getting the Ops Manual published.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,
Yep, I think the OPS manual is well written. I like that there are firm numbers in place to show how a min weight can be established but lets be honest, its still not fully transparent as to why a GCR min weight is what it is.
What I mean, is that if you take every car and backtrack the math on every IT car you should basically come up with a HP number that the ITAC thinks a car should reach or has published numbers for, right? Are they going to tell us which is the case? Should they?

Kyle

Jake explained well. As to your second question, yes and no. Unfortunately, there are 3 'kinds' or classifications out there.

1. Cars that were never run through the process. Mostly older cars nobody runs and has no interest in. These cars tend to be pre-SAE Hp cars where using the pulbished HP number would result in a much-to-high weight.

2. Process V.1 classifications. Cars that were run through the grinder with a process that was written as a guideline using much of what you see in the Ops Manual.

3. Process V.2 classifications. Cars that are being run through via Ops Manual. Things like a change from a fixed weight by class to a % for FWD and the elimination of some of the more subjective adders. Also the implementation of a 'confidence factor' like Jake described that we developed when I was there too. IMHO it has the ability to be nice and tidy when used.

All involved know it is not a perfect scenario. Estimations on HP in IT prep can be off, who knows how accurate compensations for suspension, layout, torque, etc are. The idea is to create a set of classes based on a target power to weight for each and then make fixed compensations based on physical properties...all to try and get 'close', but to do it the same way every time so even though we can agree nothing is 'right', it's all 'wrong' the same way, each time.

 

[JeffYoung]

Yes, I initially opposed this change because we had already hashed out and voted on once the issue driving it (low/high stock hp). I still don't like the fact we changed the weight on this car after having discussed this issue to death and voted on it internally over a year ago, and that is exactly what I said on our internal board.

It's not fair at all to say we are ignoring the Ops Manual. It does not say we MUST use the low stock hp on a spec line. It says we are supposed to look at it and decide if there is enough evidence to establish that the change was due to something that was 'free" under the IT rules. Then we are allowed to use the low stock hp.

We choose not too. Andy disagrees. But we are NOT ignoring the Ops Manual. It has some flexibility in it, on this issue and others.

I agree with Greg pretty much 100%, which as most know is rare. I am tired -- very tired - of exITAC folks leading the charge on nitpicking every decision we make going forward. We operate as a committee. We have different viewpoints on things. That means our decisions on policy issues are not going to line up 100% with everyone's grand view for IT. And this committee is different and has different views from the past ones.

I personally HATE the FWD modifier and the way it was implemented. And yet I dutifully apply it every time we class a FWD car and -- guess what? -- IT hasn't died because my vision of integrity and consistency and logic wasn't followed.

Probably 99% of what we do follows the Process and the Ops Manual. And on the very rare occasion where there is an issue, EVERY TIME it gets trotted out as end of the world, sky is falling, Chicken Little nonsense.

This is the stuff that wears out and burns out committee members. It's not the hours we spend on committee, or on our own doing research, it's getting flambed here and other places over TWENTY POUNDS.

Or because we chose to add weight one way rather than another.

I was almost a casaulty of the ITAC purge back in early 2010. Josh asked me to stay, as did Dick, and I think probably went to bat to kept me with folks who didn't want me on. In the course of discussions with Josh and Dick, they made me realize something -- we had a lot of ideologues on that committee, my self included. And maybe that was what was needed at the time to get something as radical as the process through.

But being an ideologue is dangerous because it really limits your ability to see other view points and work on a committee.

The Miata is not a sky is falling issue. The Accord might be. Why one is getting the attention it is and the other not so much is telling.

 

[lateapex911]

Yes, I initially opposed this change because we had already hashed out and voted on once the issue driving it (low/high stock hp). I still don't like the fact we changed the weight on this car after having discussed this issue to death and voted on it internally over a year ago, and that is exactly what I said on our internal board.

It's not fair at all to say we are ignoring the Ops Manual. It does not say we MUST use the low stock hp on a spec line. It says we are supposed to look at it and decide if there is enough evidence to establish that the change was due to something that was 'free" under the IT rules. Then we are allowed to use the low stock hp.

We choose not too. Andy disagrees. But we are NOT ignoring the Ops Manual. It has some flexibility in it, on this issue and others.

I agree with Greg pretty much 100%, which as most know is rare. I am tired -- very tired - of exITAC folks leading the charge on nitpicking every decision we make going forward. We operate as a committee. We have different viewpoints on things. That means our decisions on policy issues are not going to line up 100% with everyone's grand view for IT. And this committee is different and has different views from the past ones.

I personally HATE the FWD modifier and the way it was implemented. And yet I dutifully apply it every time we class a FWD car and -- guess what? -- IT hasn't died because my vision of integrity and consistency and logic wasn't followed.

Probably 99% of what we do follows the Process and the Ops Manual. And on the very rare occasion where there is an issue, EVERY TIME it gets trotted out as end of the world, sky is falling, Chicken Little nonsense.

This is the stuff that wears out and burns out committee members. It's not the hours we spend on committee, or on our own doing research, it's getting flambed here and other places over TWENTY POUNDS.

Or because we chose to add weight one way rather than another.

I was almost a casaulty of the ITAC purge back in early 2010. Josh asked me to stay, as did Dick, and I think probably went to bat to kept me with folks who didn't want me on. In the course of discussions with Josh and Dick, they made me realize something -- we had a lot of ideologues on that committee, my self included. And maybe that was what was needed at the time to get something as radical as the process through.

But being an ideologue is dangerous because it really limits your ability to see other view points and work on a committee.

The Miata is not a sky is falling issue. The Accord might be. Why one is getting the attention it is and the other not so much is telling.

Good points all, Jeff.

At the time of the 'purge', I could see you leaving, but I'm glad you stayed. You've been a key member of the ITAC, and you are an active racer who travels a bit, so your views aren't one track.
Anyway, regarding the Accord. Not a big thing...yet. I think the reason nobody is saying anything is that it's not really 'out'. Nobody really knows whats going on.
I've gleaned together this:
Peter Keane was on the ITAC, then the CRB. Then he joined the ITAC again. Now he's back on the CRB. He raced Acccords in ITB for several years with his brother, who won the ARRC, IIRC. He has since sold his but his brother still races his Accord. When he was on the ITAC he was the guy who championed 'the deal' to allow multivalve cars into ITB, IF they were factored at 30%, not the standard 25% as they would if they were classed in ITA, or ITS.
Peters car had been processed previously. Recently, somebody requested that the Accord be run through again, and that the 'proper' factor be applied, and it was done.
Now, I understand that Peter has requested that the car be RE classified at a lower weight, and has submitted dyno sheets to prove the engine doesn't make the 30% the Process predicts such a multivalve engine will make...(.but only in ITB.)

Thats my background based on what I have inferred from my reading of the two boards.
To my eyes, it's an ironic and troubling development, if I'm to be honest, as Peter was a staunch defender of the 30% factor and has argued heavily against the MR2s being given any break on their weight which was set at 30% until just recently when it was lowered to 25%.
My knowledge is that the ITAC has received reams of information showing that car makes MAYbe 12%, from multiple sources and credible ones at that, as well as having Chip, an MR2 expert on the board, but Peter has insisted on con calls that, 'Its a Formula Atlantic motor", and rejects the claims that it can't make power.

In my eyes, if the MR2 is denied being adjusted to 'known hp' or run at 15%, then the Accord better be rejected too.
If the Accord is reclassified at a lower weight reflecting the data presented, then the MR2 better be adjusted as well.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I'm troubled by the appearance of a CRB member who seems to protect his turf a bit too aggressively.

I am reacting to the information as I have gleaned it, but that information could be wrong, and my reactions could be off base. So I'd appreciate any filling in or corrections to my admittedly third hand info. (in some cases, in other cases I've been on the con calls and heard things first hand)

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

It says we are supposed to look at it and decide if there is enough evidence to establish that the change was due to something that was 'free" under the IT rules. Then we are allowed to use the low stock hp.

We choose not too. Andy disagrees. But we are NOT ignoring the Ops Manual. It has some flexibility in it, on this issue and others.

Ok, fine. Can you tell us why you chose not to? One would think that the facts are there and it would be a no-brainer. Your insight as to why would help us all.

And it's ok to say 'We rejected the letter to add weight and the CRB asked us to reconsider. They then suggested we run it through the process at the higher stock HP "just like every other car in the ITCS". Maybe it's just a case of the CRB forcing you to do something and you finding a way to get it done.

The Miata is not a sky is falling issue. The Accord might be. Why one is getting the attention it is and the other not so much is telling.

First off, nobody knows about the Accord issue. It's not telling at all. If you want it to get attention, trot out the facts on this board and see what happens.

As has been said before, this was an issue of an apparent end-around on the Ops Manual. Based on your answer to the question above, people can make their own decision. The Miata may be a crack in the dam, people are just trying to stand up for what's right before the crack gets bigger.

On edit: Lets be clear on what happened when I was on the committee. We didn't have nearly the level of recording and standards as we did toward the end of my tenure. So I have seen both sides and how much better it is now. The influence 'experts' had on decisions and how we took them as gospel wasn't great for the class - it was way better than nothing, but still not great. IT was the 'it's good enough with no backup' era before the process.

 

[tom91ita]

RE: Accord issue?

did it gain 100#'s by getting the ITB 1.3 factor?

when i used it in my comparisons for the crx si, i think it was at 2550. and then it appeared to be right at a 1.25 factor

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27792

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

RE: Accord issue?

did it gain 100#'s by getting the ITB 1.3 factor?

when i used it in my comparisons for the crx si, i think it was at 2550. and then it appeared to be right at a 1.25 factor

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27792

Yes. It was classed at 25% and I think that number is very accurate based on what I have HEARD they make. When the 30% multi-valve rule was put in ITB, it got re-done at 30% per the Ops Manual.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think we are pretty much hashed out on the Miata weight and it's validity. Smart people will disagree.

I will be running the new weight on Memorial Day weekend for fun against the class at 2380. It will help my Goodyears heat up faster.

 

[JeffYoung]

For me, you are going to have to have rock solid 100% proof that a change in hp was due to something that is free in IT.

There is a lot of information out there on the 128 to 133 jump and in my mind it's not crystal clear. To you it is. We disagree. The Ops Manual allows us the flexbility to do that without one side screaming that the other is ignoring the rules.

Ok, fine. Can you tell us why you chose not to? One would think that the facts are there and it would be a no-brainer. Your insight as to why would help us all.

And it's ok to say 'We rejected the letter to add weight and the CRB asked us to reconsider. They then suggested we run it through the process at the higher stock HP "just like every other car in the ITCS". Maybe it's just a case of the CRB forcing you to do something and you finding a way to get it done.


First off, nobody knows about the Accord issue. It's not telling at all. If you want it to get attention, trot out the facts on this board and see what happens.

As has been said before, this was an issue of an apparent end-around on the Ops Manual. Based on your answer to the question above, people can make their own decision. The Miata may be a crack in the dam, people are just trying to stand up for what's right before the crack gets bigger.

On edit: Lets be clear on what happened when I was on the committee. We didn't have nearly the level of recording and standards as we did toward the end of my tenure. So I have seen both sides and how much better it is now. The influence 'experts' had on decisions and how we took them as gospel wasn't great for the class - it was way better than nothing, but still not great. IT was the 'it's good enough with no backup' era before the process.