May 2011 Fastrack

[JeffYoung]

You are right, we are not. However we are doing something that involves a fair amount of difficulty -- getting people to volunteer to spend a minimum of 4 and more like 10-15 hours a month on a committee doing fairly thankless work. Adding in "you will get lambasted for anything and everything you say on committee on the internet" to that and you radically reduce the number of good folks who will want to do this.

I am 100% in agreement with you that all data we consider in making decisions on gain, or stock hp, should be open to membership. What I am saying is that some of the discussions, argument, and personal opinions on how to interpret that data should be left to the individual committee member as to whether they want to disclose it or not.

 

[JoshS]

Jeff is spot-on here. Those who think that the calls should be recorded and the transcript published on the internet are living in some kind of fantasy world. The volunteer pool will go to zero.

There is nothing wrong with the current system. The current system is that the committee makes 20 or 30 judgement calls every month. The results of those judgement calls are published, but not all of the deliberations that go into them. Individual committee members might have disagreed but once the judgement call is made, all agree to support the committee decision. It's the nature of committee work (whether it's for a commercial business or a volunteer club, it doesn't matter.)

 

[lateapex911]

Jeff is spot-on here. Those who think that the calls should be recorded and the transcript published on the internet are living in some kind of fantasy world. The volunteer pool will go to zero.

I disagree.
I'd bet that Andy, and kirk would be cool with that.
I know I would.
So three is more than zero.
I'd also bet that Jeff, and you would be fine having everything you've ever said public.
So that's five. And honestly, that's a pretty good bunch of five, (if I do say so myself, LOL)

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

Fair enough, and excellent examples. But these guys run on actual dynos these days, not 'what they think they know from 20 years ago'. The evidence is there with Prod-like mods that can't even make 25%.

It's there, you just have to want to see it.

 

[Matt93SE]

I'm all for more transparency too. I'd love to see exactly why some of these "bad" decisions were made and figure out who I need to lambast and beat some sense into.

i.e. the "no non-UDSM engines in ST because of lack of availability and policability"
you can buy most of the suggested engines on ebay all day long, and how hard is it to provide a factory service manual in english? what else do they need?
Policing another 20 non-US engines is just as easy as policing the 1000 or so ones available in the States. Nobody can be an expert on them all- especially your local tech guy... so what's a couple more engines added to the list?
Just sayin...

 

[JeffYoung]

I've seen a lot of it, and I understand where you are coming from. Some of my thinking on the MR2 is based on the fact that cammed motors, etc. don't seem to make big power either.

But that can be tricky road to go down.

My point is that dyno plots with "Prod like" mods can be deceiving. The L24 is a really good example. If you told most very knowledgeable engine builders without IT experience that the Nissan L24 with stock carbs and cam could make 200 crank hp they'd laugh, even if you had dyno sheets to prove it. And to prove their point, they'd whip out (and do whip out) a dyno sheet showing some car that was "cammed" with a ok exhaust, a sorta sloppy build, stroked and with Webers but tuned poorly making the same power.

An IT build is about precision, and getting very small bit right. I never fully realized this until I started paying attention to the small stuff.

And I've yet to see an MR2 build that -- in my opinion -- approaches the time, level of detail, research, tuning etc. that have gone into the top flight Miata, Z car, RX7, BMW, etc. IT motors.

Fair enough, and excellent examples. But these guys run on actual dynos these days, not 'what they think they know from 20 years ago'. The evidence is there with Prod-like mods that can't even make 25%.

It's there, you just have to want to see it.

 

[tnord]

write the CRB and get me booted off then jake.

then once i'm gone, and you insist on making discussions and voting a matter of public record, have fun finding a replacement that's willing to deal with the likes of blethen, miller, janoska, etc on a daily basis.

 

[jjjanos]

You are right, we are not. However we are doing something that involves a fair amount of difficulty -- getting people to volunteer to spend a minimum of 4 and more like 10-15 hours a month on a committee doing fairly thankless work. Adding in "you will get lambasted for anything and everything you say on committee on the internet" to that and you radically reduce the number of good folks who will want to do this.

If the membership wants to hound these volunteers to the point that there are no more volunteers, it is the membership's own damn fault and that's the type of club the membership wants. Moreover, justified criticism almost certainly would be leveled at only foolish things ("we know a prod motor will get 50% gain, so this motor is capable of that", "it's the same motor in the FBMW!", "all 1.4567 4-cylinder motors are alike in what you can gain in IT-trim") a/o controversial items ("We need to merge IT and Prod into a single category.", "I don't care what the membership wants, the Club needs to do X.").

I am 100% in agreement with you that all data we consider in making decisions on gain, or stock hp, should be open to membership. What I am saying is that some of the discussions, argument, and personal opinions on how to interpret that data should be left to the individual committee member as to whether they want to disclose it or not.

You mean .. We had estimates of stock HP of 82, 85, 86 and 94. We had IT-gains estimates of 1.07, 1.17, 1.18 and 1.23. We picked 94hp and gains of 1.23?

While there is some value in this information, transparency sort of demands that we know who supported 1.23 and 94hp verus 94hp and only a 7% gain and that we know *why*.

There is nothing wrong with the current system. The current system is that the committee makes 20 or 30 judgement calls every month. The results of those judgement calls are published, but not all of the deliberations that go into them. Individual committee members might have disagreed but once the judgement call is made, all agree to support the committee decision. It's the nature of committee work (whether it's for a commercial business or a volunteer club, it doesn't matter.)

And I believe Mr. Young is suggesting (and you are agreeing) that those deliberations should never be revealed, either in an official publication or unofficially. And that's a problem from where I sit. We get crap like the Audi and not knowing why.

As for the group-think.. joining a committee does not mean that one starts to worship Landru and becomes on of the body. It's not the job of the minority to defend the decision of the majority -- that rests with the majority.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

And I've yet to see an MR2 build that -- in my opinion -- approaches the time, level of detail, research, tuning etc. that have gone into the top flight Miata, Z car, RX7, BMW, etc. IT motors.

And I will buy this too. But I bet you haven't seen a 90% build make more than 5-10% gains.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

...and I am not even reading the Travis, JJJ, Jake thing. I fully believe there is a time to be transparent and a time to let other talk for themselves, should they want to. If you have issues with that, you have issues with the people who are totally SILENT, not those who won't speak for others.

 

[JoshS]

And I believe Mr. Young is suggesting (and you are agreeing) that those deliberations should never be revealed, either in an official publication or unofficially. And that's a problem from where I sit. We get crap like the Audi and not knowing why.

No, I don't think either Jeff nor I would agree with that statement. I would always share my own thinking on any topic and will share some of the deliberations. That's why when I was chair I offered for ANYONE to call me to discuss these things at any time. Only a few of you ever took me up on the offer. A live dialogue just works a lot better than an internet discussion, it allows for misunderstandings to be corrected in seconds, which is why I preferred to do it that way.

As chair, what I directed the committee to do was not to share specific other individual's opinions, as they aren't part of the conversation to speak up for their beliefs. That is, I didn't want committee members putting words into other committee member's mouths. It's fine to do what you suggested: "we had information supporting X, Y, or Z, and we chose Z because ...", but it's not okay to say, "That idiot Barney Fife just has his head up his ass and can't understand that the blinker fluid allowance isn't the same conversation that it was 15 years ago". It's not even okay to say that, "I was fully in support of allowing alternate blinker fluid, but Barney Fife just can't be convinced." I'd rather someone just say that, "I was fully in support of alternate blinker fluid, but the majority ruled the other way. Please call the other members to get their take."

 

[lateapex911]

write the CRB and get me booted off then jake.

then once i'm gone, and you insist on making discussions and voting a matter of public record, have fun finding a replacement that's willing to deal with the likes of blethen, miller, janoska, etc on a daily basis.

Really? You sure presented a thicker skin earlier in the game, Trav.

Seriously, not one of the guys that resigned did so because of having to deal with the members. It's just not that hard.

 

[Greg Amy]

I would always share my own thinking on any topic and will share some of the deliberations. That's why when I was chair I offered for ANYONE to call me to discuss these things at any time. Only a few of you ever took me up on the offer. A live dialogue just works a lot better than an internet discussion, it allows for misunderstandings to be corrected in seconds, which is why I preferred to do it that way.

As chair, what I directed the committee to do was not to share specific other individual's opinions, as they aren't part of the conversation to speak up for their beliefs. That is, I didn't want committee members putting words into other committee member's mouths. It's fine to do what you suggested: "we had information supporting X, Y, or Z, and we chose Z because ...", but it's not okay to say, "That idiot Barney Fife just has his head up his ass and can't understand that the blinker fluid allowance isn't the same conversation that it was 15 years ago". It's not even okay to say that, "I was fully in support of allowing alternate blinker fluid, but Barney Fife just can't be convinced." I'd rather someone just say that, "I was fully in support of alternate blinker fluid, but the majority ruled the other way. Please call the other members to get their take."

+1.

Same for me on the STAC: I'll be glad to give you my personal opinion on any matter discussed by the committee, but I'm not going to detail the positions or arguments of any the other individuals. I'll tell you my inference of the substance of the opposing arguments, but if you want to know their individual positions and details, you're free to call them directly.

And that's reasonable.

GA

 

[JeffYoung]

Agreed 100%.

No, I don't think either Jeff nor I would agree with that statement. I would always share my own thinking on any topic and will share some of the deliberations. That's why when I was chair I offered for ANYONE to call me to discuss these things at any time. Only a few of you ever took me up on the offer. A live dialogue just works a lot better than an internet discussion, it allows for misunderstandings to be corrected in seconds, which is why I preferred to do it that way.

As chair, what I directed the committee to do was not to share specific other individual's opinions, as they aren't part of the conversation to speak up for their beliefs. That is, I didn't want committee members putting words into other committee member's mouths. It's fine to do what you suggested: "we had information supporting X, Y, or Z, and we chose Z because ...", but it's not okay to say, "That idiot Barney Fife just has his head up his ass and can't understand that the blinker fluid allowance isn't the same conversation that it was 15 years ago". It's not even okay to say that, "I was fully in support of allowing alternate blinker fluid, but Barney Fife just can't be convinced." I'd rather someone just say that, "I was fully in support of alternate blinker fluid, but the majority ruled the other way. Please call the other members to get their take."

 

[lateapex911]

Jeff, you are the reasonable guy of reasonable guys on this matter.
I appreciate your views on the MR2 thing. Heck I don't give two hoots personally about the car...I don't own one, I don't race against one, and I never plan an ITB effort, so I'm not sure why I should care about it.

But I do. Your view is similar to mine, 15% EXCEEDS the most aggressive builds we've seen. So 15% is a reasonable juncture between accurate and conservative.

But 25%? Ridiculous. Is it POSSIBLE? Well, the ITAC is saying yes, because the public hasn't built 3 or 4 (!!!!) full tilt engines to the ITACs level of satisfaction to prove it's not. (Insert the old proving a negative comment). And guess what, tehy WON'T. because they've been dicked over for so long on this matter, and because they haven't gotten a good reason for the current classification, that tehy have no faith that if they DID spend $10K, that they'd get the result from the ITAC that would make it worth it.

Whoever on the ITAC it is who thinks that's a fair and reasonable plan is somebody who cares nothing about classing the car correctly, or has other motives. Really, when you think about it what's the harm in classing it correctly? The RX8 was handled properly, and last I checked, nobody's ripping it up and dominating in THAT car. Nor is there a land rush to build them!

The 10% represents what, about 10hp? Thats 170 ITB pounds. A pretty significant amount.

And even if the car were to dominate at 15%, ...you have the mechanism to fix it.

So I really don't get it. Makes NO sense why the ITAC is being so stubborn about this. And those who voted against won't stand up and explain themselves.

 

[lateapex911]

+1.

Same for me on the STAC: I'll be glad to give you my personal opinion on any matter discussed by the committee, but I'm not going to detail the positions or arguments of any the other individuals. I'll tell you my inference of the substance of the opposing arguments, but if you want to know their individual positions and details, you're free to call them directly.

And that's reasonable.

GA

Right, I see that. But, in the case of the MR2, who can I call? Nobody's fessin up, LOL, and I don't know who voted what.....
With a system that shields committee members, there's little accountability to the members.

 

[Greg Amy]

With a system that shields committee members, there's little accountability to the members.

That's absolutely correct. If I and every other STAC member chose to clam up, you'd know nothing...

So the Club can handle this one of two ways:

- Change the rules to force release of the minutes (unlikely), or
- Change the committee members to those more likely to lean "our" direction (much easier).

No matter what band of crack criminals you put together, you're always unlikely to be 100% clammed-up; someone eventually breaks ranks and rats out the rest, usually in pursuit of their own self interests. That's when society pounces... - GA

 

[JeffYoung]

I understand where you are coming from.

Let me add this though. I think that there has been something of a shift on the committee and its thinking since you left. I think we are much more willing to stick with the default number, and less likely to move (or move off of it a lot), than in the past. We also, I think -- speaking for me and my perception of the rest of the committee -- require more proof of "what we know" to make that change than we did in the past.

And that is going to make changes on cars that can't get to 25% difficult, I agree, but I think it is the right thing to do.

Here we have 6-8 dyno sheets showing, in my personal opinion, gains in the 12 to (IIRC) 14% range, meaning 15% is "proveable" via dyno data. Having read what little information we have about those builds, I certainly think 20% is possible. Might not be likely, but it is possible.

I don't fully understand the reasons why those who decided on 25% did so. My inference, to use Greg's word, is that they were simply concerned the dyno data was not conclusive (reasonable) and refused to move as much as I did (also reasonable).

I think we have to respect that position, and if you disagre keep submitting information to the contrary.

I think the good news is that we are now arguing/discussing things about how the Process shoudl be applied to a particular car, rather than arguing whether it is a good idea or not at all. That to me is significant progress.

Jeff, you are the reasonable guy of reasonable guys on this matter.
I appreciate your views on the MR2 thing. Heck I don't give two hoots personally about the car...I don't own one, I don't race against one, and I never plan an ITB effort, so I'm not sure why I should care about it.

But I do. Your view is similar to mine, 15% EXCEEDS the most aggressive builds we've seen. So 15% is a reasonable juncture between accurate and conservative.

But 25%? Ridiculous. Is it POSSIBLE? Well, the ITAC is saying yes, because the public hasn't built 3 or 4 (!!!!) full tilt engines to the ITACs level of satisfaction to prove it's not. (Insert the old proving a negative comment). And guess what, tehy WON'T. because they've been dicked over for so long on this matter, and because they haven't gotten a good reason for the current classification, that tehy have no faith that if they DID spend $10K, that they'd get the result from the ITAC that would make it worth it.

Whoever on the ITAC it is who thinks that's a fair and reasonable plan is somebody who cares nothing about classing the car correctly, or has other motives. Really, when you think about it what's the harm in classing it correctly? The RX8 was handled properly, and last I checked, nobody's ripping it up and dominating in THAT car. Nor is there a land rush to build them!

The 10% represents what, about 10hp? Thats 170 ITB pounds. A pretty significant amount.

And even if the car were to dominate at 15%, ...you have the mechanism to fix it.

So I really don't get it. Makes NO sense why the ITAC is being so stubborn about this. And those who voted against won't stand up and explain themselves.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think the good news is that we are now arguing/discussing things about how the Process shoudl be applied to a particular car, rather than arguing whether it is a good idea or not at all. That to me is significant progress.

Or that those that think that you stick to 25% in an overly-blind fashion have just stopped because we are tired of banging our heads against a wall. Couple that with the 30% issue in ITB and it makes my blood boil. You need a act of God to move from 25% yet the other issue sticks. Ugh.

Fine

The MR2 represents, to me, the worst of both issues. Tag that motor at 15% and kill a couple birds.

 

[JeffYoung]

Going to have to agree to disagree here. Requiring dyno sheets, doing research, etc. and being cautious in assessing them I think is the complete opposite of overly blind. And I personally think basing classing decisions on one or two verbal opinions from builders was far more dangerous.

I agree with you on the 30% rule.

But I think tagging the MR2 motor at 15% based on what we know now highlights a big problem with the Process. I still think it is entirely possible that motor can make 20% based on the build specs I've seen, and yet all I've got for "what we know" is a bunch of dyno plots, only one of which is a pretty good IT build, showing 15%. I can't see how that is conclusive in anyway.

Or that those that think that you stick to 25% in an overly-blind fashion have just stopped because we are tired of banging our heads against a wall. Couple that with the 30% issue in ITB and it makes my blood boil. You need a act of God to move from 25% yet the other issue sticks. Ugh.

Fine

The MR2 represents, to me, the worst of both issues. Tag that motor at 15% and kill a couple birds.