May 2011 Fastrack

[quadzjr]

though I only submitted one 10/10ths IT motor sans build. but I know it was tuned on an engine dyno and header built on it. and a few 8/10ths builds.

However I also submitted prod level builds, street motor with head work, big cams, high compression 12:1 pistons, etc.. I would consider these motors to be well in excess of 10/10th.. wouldn't these be considered 12/10ths builds? This was during the 30% and a 12/10ths motors didn't make It process power.

I plan on submitting my plots and engine build sans certain tolerances and specs. Motor was running and running strong untill the oil pump broke and killing my new engine. Getting multiple people to submit 10/10ths build is going to be very hard.. I mean who would want to sink the thousands of dollars when all data shows that they are going to fall short, and now have a motor that is less reliable and still uncompetive?

But going from 9/10ths to 10/10ths is not going to bridge the gap. at that level you are eekign out 1hp here or there, and workign on area under the curve. We are still some 10+hp off which doesn't seem much that is an additional 10-15% gains from going from 9/10ths to 10/10ths..

I can see how someone can say.. well it hasn't been done and been documented.. But thinking from a logical and standpoint.. why are we worried about pinching pennies on on either 9/10ths or 10/10ths.. when the data presented shows we WAY far away from our spec'ed hp goal.

 

[lateapex911]

While I personally feel the MR2 should be classed at a max of 20%, and probably is a 15% car, there is reasonable disagreement over that. We have seen a lot of dyno sheets, but still nothing that definitively is a 100% IT build with full supporting information. I would say that the 25% the car is classed at -- given the 30% default for multivalve motors in ITB/C -- is on the high end of what is reasonble for the car. Again, I disagree with it, but it isn't totally out of line with what could truly be the case for the car and gains in a full IT build.

At this point, my personal opinion is that the car is not going to be looked at again barring something conclusive like 3-4 guys building maxed out IT motors with full discosure on the builds, and submitting dyno sheets at less than 20% gain.

Again, my personal opinion is the car is heavy, and it is a shame because it should be one of the mainstays in ITB. But it is not so out of whack with the "fuzziness" built into the process so as to be totally uncompetitive.

Jeff, thanks for responding and engaging with the members at large.

I understand your point about communication...and too much communication. Dirty laundry as you say. In my view, I feel this is a member owned organization, member owned category and member owned classes. I'd rather err on the side of too MUCh communication. Really, there should be no dirty laundry.
As a committee member, i can't remember saying or proposing anything that I was worried about 'getting out'. People always remarked at how committee members needed to have "thick skins" and "were crazy to post" about things. I disagreed. That's the job...interface with the members, understand the category, the members views and distill those views into actionable items. Can't do that if you aren't communicating.

There has been a definite drop off in communication since the mass exodus, and yes, you're right, many of the guys who comunicated were the ones who left the committee. But I think there was still a significant drop off in open back and forth, even considering the membership change. But you make good points regardless.

Anyway, on the MR2, the post above makes good points, and when I was on the ITAC, nobody ever convinced me that the dyno sheets which showed MAYbe 10% improvement could magically get to 25% with some tweak which took them from a 93% or 95% build to a 100% build.
I mean....c'mon, we all KNOW that is just not going to happen.

So, I remain befuddled as to how anyone can defend a 25% classification, and the fact that who ever it is who stood in the way of common sense won't step up and explain it...well, lets just say it's frustrating.

 

[StephenB]

For the record I thought the thread on the Audi was an example of how they ARE communicating well. They engaged in converstation and explained the reasoning on the decision they made. I really thought they went above and beyond, honestly. I am not sure that other members would have done that in the past. I think the current committee makes decisions based on what they now to the best of their ability and they are willing to explain and defend the decision they made, no excuses. I like how it is going...

Stephen

PS: Never said I agreed but I do support, respect, and accept the decision as it was voted on and passed in the best interest of the class.

 

[tnord]

i don't think anyone has to "step up and explain it" to anyone other than the other ITAC and CRB members on the call.

i can't speak for the entire committee, but if anyone....ITAC or CRB member says something that Jeff or I disagree with, I don't sense any hesitation to voice our opinion and get deeper into the discussion on the call or on the internal forum. THAT is the place to air out conflicts, not with the entire population.

i don't know what type of work environments you guys work in, but when i have a problem with somebody i don't send out a mass e-mail to our entire division of 400 people to try and get them to change. that is NOT going to make your life any easier.

 

[Rabbit05]

Travis,
I have to disagree with your position...first off..this is a club. I am not sure if where you work, but do you PAY $$ to be apart of it....?

and it is called sports car CLUB of america...

.......not sports car WORK of america.

There should be transparency of arguments/issue/whatever to the membership..thats why we pay dues. Not to be left in the dark...and we should have a say/hear about in what happens.Things be discussed behind closed doors (not going to dig up the Audi hp number argument again..restraining) should be aired out to the paying membership.

But I do think there is some good communication between the two: membership and "management"......

Could it need improving ?..sure ..

 

[JeffYoung]

What ECU are you using?

Who designed/built your header adn exhaust?

though I only submitted one 10/10ths IT motor sans build. but I know it was tuned on an engine dyno and header built on it. and a few 8/10ths builds.

However I also submitted prod level builds, street motor with head work, big cams, high compression 12:1 pistons, etc.. I would consider these motors to be well in excess of 10/10th.. wouldn't these be considered 12/10ths builds? This was during the 30% and a 12/10ths motors didn't make It process power.

I plan on submitting my plots and engine build sans certain tolerances and specs. Motor was running and running strong untill the oil pump broke and killing my new engine. Getting multiple people to submit 10/10ths build is going to be very hard.. I mean who would want to sink the thousands of dollars when all data shows that they are going to fall short, and now have a motor that is less reliable and still uncompetive?

But going from 9/10ths to 10/10ths is not going to bridge the gap. at that level you are eekign out 1hp here or there, and workign on area under the curve. We are still some 10+hp off which doesn't seem much that is an additional 10-15% gains from going from 9/10ths to 10/10ths..

I can see how someone can say.. well it hasn't been done and been documented.. But thinking from a logical and standpoint.. why are we worried about pinching pennies on on either 9/10ths or 10/10ths.. when the data presented shows we WAY far away from our spec'ed hp goal.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Communication is excellent, there is no gag-order, this we know.

But tell us what 'evidence' anyone has provided the ITAC to contradict the piles of paperwork and web dyno plots that the ITAC has at their disposal to contradict anything more than a 15% adder.

I have heard 2 things in my day. "It's the motor the Formula Atlantic is based on" and "He said that he thinks he can make that number".

Seriously.

I love the Corolla GTS notch. I would love to have one in ITB but even at 15%, it won't make the power (from my research) and would have to outhandle the Hondas to be a winner at a high level. Not sure that is a good bet.

 

[Knestis]

i don't think anyone has to "step up and explain it" to anyone other than the other ITAC and CRB members on the call.

i can't speak for the entire committee, but if anyone....ITAC or CRB member says something that Jeff or I disagree with, I don't sense any hesitation to voice our opinion and get deeper into the discussion on the call or on the internal forum. THAT is the place to air out conflicts, not with the entire population.

i don't know what type of work environments you guys work in, but when i have a problem with somebody i don't send out a mass e-mail to our entire division of 400 people to try and get them to change. that is NOT going to make your life any easier.

You might be surprised to learn that I *almost* agree with that - on the (huge) assumption that there is then effective, official communication coming out of those bodies, which meets the needs and expectations of the membership. And, it is absolutely necessary that there not be back-channel leaks to FOBM - Friends of Board Members - with the "real inside story."

If we want the membership to buy-in and support the leadership, it's all or nothing: Either open the official channels and don't talk out of school or have an informal public discourse. Problem is that the organizational culture of the Club seems to be inept in this regard, with individuals picking and choosing their channels of communication as suits their individual and/or instantaneous agenda.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

I don't think it is fair to say there are piles of evidence on this car.

For what it is worth, a lot of the "non-evidence" we heard about this motor back when you were on to keep it at 30% was tossed out the window and not used when we went to 25%. We focused solely on the dyno sheets and information we have in front of us.

I've explained this before, but moves off of the 25% and 30% defaults are going to require a lot more evidence than perhaps they did in the past. I know you disagree with that, and that is fine, but I'm comfortable with where we are. Even a few dyno sheets are too easy to miscontrue, or to "game" the system.

We have for the MR2 maybe 6-8 dyno sheets of varying types of builds with varying types of data for what constitutes those builds. My personal conclusion was this is a 15-20% car, and I voted for 20%. Those that voted for 25% did so - in my opinion -- based on the dyno evidence we had in front of us.

Communication is excellent, there is no gag-order, this we know.

But tell us what 'evidence' anyone has provided the ITAC to contradict the piles of paperwork and web dyno plots that the ITAC has at their disposal to contradict anything more than a 15% adder.

I have heard 2 things in my day. "It's the motor the Formula Atlantic is based on" and "He said that he thinks he can make that number".

Seriously.

I love the Corolla GTS notch. I would love to have one in ITB but even at 15%, it won't make the power (from my research) and would have to outhandle the Hondas to be a winner at a high level. Not sure that is a good bet.

 

[jjjanos]

Looking back, I think some of the comments made by ITAC members about others -- and I include myself in that and in particular some of my comments aobut Lee and others -- were not appropriate.

I note the word choice -- not appropriate as opposed to incorrect.

There is a difference between letting our membership know what is going (something we HAVE to do) and airing dirty laundry and disagreements over philosophy on the committee in public (which we should not).

Ummm... no. Ordering a rare steak and ordering the partially raw muscle tissue of a castrated sexual-mature bovine are the same thing.

 

[tnord]

i don't care much what the name of the organization is, if it actually were run more like a business we'd be far better off than we are now. ie....class consolidation. i'm not going to discuss the painful minutae with the public and create infinitely more headaches for myself and make it more difficult for the entire ITAC to operate.

if you guys don't like what i'm doing (or not doing), tell the CRB to kick me off. won't hurt my feelings one bit.

 

[JeffYoung]

Ok, it was INCORRECT.

And YES, those things are two very different things.

Your posted added zero to the conversation.

I note the word choice -- not appropriate as opposed to incorrect.



Ummm... no. Ordering a rare steak and ordering the partially raw muscle tissue of a castrated sexual-mature bovine are the same thing.

 

[jjjanos]

Ok, it was INCORRECT.

Then you are correct. You shouldn't have said them. If, however, they were true, but impolite, then self-imposed gag order is still a gag order.

And YES, those things are two very different things.

Both are the same piece of meat. Airing dirty laundry, as in identifying those with philosophical disagreements or those talking out of three-sides of their mouth, is "letting our membership know what is going."

Seems to me that you might be suggesting that is "appropriate" to let the members know that the issue is being discussed, but "inappropriate" to let the members know the actual discussion and who says what.

Thanks, but that's back to the old days of "Thank you for your input."

Your posted added zero to the conversation.

Must have added something since you felt the need to reply.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

A couple hours on the Toyota boards will net you what you need to know Jeff. These cars can't make 25% with CAMS. In order to get to that number, guys are running big compression, cams and ITB's.

 

[JeffYoung]

Go ask the knowledgeable folk on the Z car boards if a motor with specs like that allowed in IT can make 170 whp, 200 at the crank. They'll laugh at you and tell you you need cams, etc.

Go ask the many bulders of Rover V8s if the old Federal injection system (the one on my car) has any performance potential. They'll laugh at you and tell you to get a four barrell and a cam.

An IT build is a specialized beast. For only a few motors do we truly know what gains can be reailzed. More and more I'm learning that the "knowledge" base on most motors simply doesn't apply to an IT build.

Estimating gains is a hell of a lot harder than I originally thought it was going to be.

A couple hours on the Toyota boards will net you what you need to know Jeff. These cars can't make 25% with CAMS. In order to get to that number, guys are running big compression, cams and ITB's.

 

[JeffYoung]

Aren't you the Pants guy? If so that explains a lot. Thank you for your input, or actually lack of it.

Then you are correct. You shouldn't have said them. If, however, they were true, but impolite, then self-imposed gag order is still a gag order.



Both are the same piece of meat. Airing dirty laundry, as in identifying those with philosophical disagreements or those talking out of three-sides of their mouth, is "letting our membership know what is going."

Seems to me that you might be suggesting that is "appropriate" to let the members know that the issue is being discussed, but "inappropriate" to let the members know the actual discussion and who says what.

Thanks, but that's back to the old days of "Thank you for your input."



Must have added something since you felt the need to reply.

 

[mossaidis]

All is fair in love, war and it.com.

 

[lateapex911]

i don't care much what the [strikeout]name [/strikeout] structure of the organization is, if it actually were run more like a business we'd be far better off than we are now. ie....class consolidation. i'm not going to discuss the painful minutae with the public and create infinitely more headaches for myself and make it more difficult for the entire ITAC to operate.

if you guys don't like what i'm doing (or not doing), tell the CRB to kick me off. won't hurt my feelings one bit.

Travis, it aint a business. It's a CLUB. COMPLETELY different. When I was on the ITAC, my ultimate boss was YOU. And the members. Seriously, lots of committee guys don't get the big picture. They love the back room insulation. The BoD serves the members. And so on down the line.

It isn't about making it easy on yourself.

I am still in favor of publishing the voting records of members on all votes.
Transparency is the best antiseptic, and when that's lacking, assumptions go all haywire.

If you want to be a committee member for a business, well that's fine.

 

[JeffYoung]

I agree we should be as transparent as we can be.

However, there needs to be SOME protection for what is said on the committee. We have to have some ability for some members to feel that they can have frank discussions without fear of getting an internet tar and feathering.

It's my personal approach to try and lay out all of my thinking on a particular issue here or on the Brown Board if so asked. But I also understand that others would rather that just the committee's viewpoint in the aggregate be expressed here and that is fine. That's a personal choice, and I think for the most part it has worked ok (lately).

Travis, it aint a business. It's a CLUB. COMPLETELY different. When I was on the ITAC, my ultimate boss was YOU. And the members. Seriously, lots of committee guys don't get the big picture. They love the back room insulation. The BoD serves the members. And so on down the line.

It isn't about making it easy on yourself.

If you want to be a committee member for a business, well that's fine.

 

[jjjanos]

I agree we should be as transparent as we can be.

However, there needs to be SOME protection for what is said on the committee. We have to have some ability for some members to feel that they can have frank discussions without fear of getting an internet tar and feathering.

Because they are discussing double-super-secret HP gain numbers that they received from someone on pain of death if revealed to the membership? I would be hard-pressed to list any discussion other than those involving proprietary information that warrants embargo.

The committees aren't deciding whether or not we should fund the Manhattan Project to defend us from the tyranny of EMRA.