May 2011 Fastrack

[JeffYoung]

I'm not missing the point. I'm trying to make the right decision for a class, not just "ITB at Summit Point."

17:1 has been used since 2007. All new cars have been classed using it. Some of the older ones -- primarily the cars running at the front of ITB at the time of the Realignment -- were processed using it. Most of the old ones can drop a reasonable amount of weight and still "make" 17:1. This includes all or almost all of the cars presently being run and competitive in ITB.

The problem children that can't make 17:1 at a reasonable weight are old legacy curb weight classed cars that got dumped in B for God knows what reason. Those cars (in my view) should and need to go to C if they can't make ITB weight. Hell, a 2600 lb curb weight Dodge Daytona would have weighed like 1800 lbs at its process weight in B.

In my view, doing the above -- keepign 17:1 and moving the outliers to C -- impacts fewer of the competitive cars currently running in B, and none of the already processed new cars currently running in ITB. It has the least amount of affect on existing cars and drivers, which is why it makes sense (to me).

 

[gran racing]

There are no ITB cars outside of Summit Point and we should change those based upon results. Gesh, get with it Jeff.

I think if we replaced ITS going to ITA we wouldn't be having the same discussion. A bit part of this issue (IMO) is that ITC has such small fields.

An issue that has hurt the 2002 and a few other cars is that in the past there have been some cheater cars (or so it's believed) which produced more than enough power. Heck, I know that a couple of 2002s I've raced against destroyed me on a straight and I didn't exactly feel bad about their lack of power. Legal car, fair assumptions being made, and so forth?

 

[Chip42]

Also,there is no wheel size problem moving from B to C, so it's easy to do.

The positive knock on effect is improving ITC car counts and diversity, and improved competitiveness for everything classified.

From the standpoint of making things as level (thus competitive) as possible, moving cars up and down classes in order to keep them at the correct process weight and not unachievably light or overly heavy makes sense. Everyone in IT should support this objective, even if you do not support "the process" or some component of it. Why does it matter if a "staple" ITB car turned out to be a heavily cheated up ITB car that, when prepared within the rules, cant make the needed power and, when readjusted by the process, needs to go on a diet or move to ITC in order to do so? changing the whole process multiplier isn't the answer, it's not the fault of any ITAC past or current that cheating was so widespread at the time that the power/weight figures were determined.

If you want to run what you brung where you are used to running it, I undersdtand why you might be frustrated by a reclassification. But it is "not in keeping with class[ification] philosphy", which assumes a desire to race competitively over a desire to race within a given group.

 

[gran racing]

Yet another nice reason for dual classing vehicles being moved to another class.

Interesting how we can have SM, SSM, SM2, and so forth yet not that. I know, it's about car counts.

 

[Ron Earp]

Interesting how we can have SM, SSM, SM2, and so forth yet not that. I know, it's about car counts.

Bundle those up and put them in IT classes, along with IT7 into ITB, and things would get cleaned up quite a bit.

 

[jjjanos]

I'm not missing the point. I'm trying to make the right decision for a class, not just "ITB at Summit Point."

Because the general mix of cars at Summit Point is so far off from the class in whole? Scanning a handful of 2011 regional results sheets, when one can find an ITB car, the faces may change, but the cars don't appear to - BMWs, Volvos, Hondas and VWs... with an oddball Audi or Mazda thrown in for spice.

And let's put things in perspective, shall we...

206 ITB entries through the end of June.
17 of them were at Summit Point alone... and we've had 1 race. That's 8% of the total or enough to rank as the 3rd largest division.
At least 31 of those entries are from Summit Point and its regular drivers. Thats' 15% of the total and nearly as large as the rest of NEDIV combined.

So, if you are actually are surprised that those drivers are all over this, you probably should do a little community outreach... cause the guy who runs in a field of 2 ITBs probably isn't going to give a crap about what happens.

17:1 has been used since 2007. All new cars have been classed using it. Some of the older ones -- primarily the cars running at the front of ITB at the time of the Realignment -- were processed using it.

You mean this? Cause I see 6 cars that got realigned in ITB and I believe former members of the ITAC said that ITB was, for the most part, left alone because it was both a cluster and deemed, a-priori, not out of whack. So, I don't see a large number of cars that were realigned.

As for its use since 2007.. is there a point there? I.e. How many cars have been classified since 2007 and how many have been built?

Most of the old ones can drop a reasonable amount of weight and still "make" 17:1. This includes all or almost all of the cars presently being run and competitive in ITB.

Is this simply an assertion or has the ITAC asked those losing weight how much ballast they carry? I'm assuming that if you think this, the new process weights on those cars have been computed (when will we see them become official?) and there is some sense of the dead weight on them. I know my car carried a boatload of ballast and I'm glad it's gone, but I don't know if that's the case for everyone.

In my view, doing the above -- keepign 17:1 and moving the outliers to C -- impacts fewer of the competitive cars currently running in B, and none of the already processed new cars currently running in ITB. It has the least amount of affect on existing cars and drivers, which is why it makes sense (to me).

Which is a reasonable opinion, if backed with evidence.

My view is that ITB had a good competitive balance until the cars classified under the 17:1 regime started appearing and then the apple cart was overturned.

I guess I thought the point of any classification process (not THE PROCESS) was to attempt rough equalization across cars in that class -- something the old ITB seemed to have. Under such a regime, using a 17:1 ratio would be a by-product of the main goal.

Now it seems that the primary goal of THE PROCESS is ensuring that a specific formula be used and the actual outcome/results are viewed as unimportant.

 

[Chip42]

I guess I thought the point of any classification process (not THE PROCESS) was to attempt rough equalization across cars in that class -- something the old ITB seemed to have.

Is it possible that "the old ITB" had this balance because only the good cars were being run? I'll agree that it sucks when a new car comes in and is not a perfect match to the existing set, but new blood is vital, particularly when the strong cars in the class are 30+ years old. The process is suppsoed to rouhgly equalize everyone, but hasn't been applied accross the board for all of the reasons specified by Jeff etc... so ITB looks a mess.

my thinking is that it's poised to be the strongest class in the category once everything shakes out.

 

[JeffYoung]

The problem with focusing solely on ITB at Summit Point is not the mix of cars, or even the number.

It is the difference in prep levels, and driver skill and suitability of cars to that track.

From the perspective of someone who doesn't go there, the 4-5 letters (that was it, maybe a few more) that we got from the ITB "old guard" at Summit that in most cases just blatantl asked for weight to be put on the "new" ITA cars in ITB seemed to be pretty misguided.

They mostly turned on the fact that -- no reason not to be specific -- Tristan Herbert showed up in a top notch build A3 Golf, and drove the wheels off of it to track records. Jeff Underwood then did the same in a Civic.

Even then, the older cars weren't that far behind.

I've got no idea of the prep levels of all of the cars in B at Summit, but I'm not afraid to disclose that when I asked hard questions of Charlie as to whether he had data acquisition, or when the last time he had done spring rate testing, or what shocks he was running, I didn't get very good answers.

My personal opinion is that the above just reinforces the need to turn a blind eye to track specific performance and focus on power to weight. It was probably just a matter of luck that ITB had a "good competitive balance" before 17:1, and that view is also rather myopic. I can tell you a guy driving a Dodge Daytona in ITB at 2600 lbs didn't feel that way.

I really have a hard time understanding why anyone would legitimately say a curb weight based system is better than getting all cars close to 17:1 (those that can make it, and moving those that can't down) and letting them have at it -- unless the curb weight system unfairly benefitted them.

Actual fair results flow from correct use of the Process. We try to get the power/weights as close as we can and then let people run.

Perceived "fair" results can be colored and bent and biased by driver skill, prep, track suitability, etc.

If you are really saying that we should model ITB after "relative" competitiveness at Summitt, there's not much I can do to help you understand how we do things now and why it is the correct way to do them.

 

[JeffYoung]

And before we continue with this, I'd really like to know one thing JJ/Pants:

What exactly is it you are advocating for, other than "just take issue with everything everyone else says?" What is your idea of a "fix?" Are you suggesting we push the class p/w multiplier back up? Meaning your car and others get as much as a couple of hundred lbs of weight?

 

[jjjanos]

What exactly is it you are advocating for, other than "just take issue with everything everyone else says?" What is your idea of a "fix?" Are you suggesting we push the class p/w multiplier back up? Meaning your car and others get as much as a couple of hundred lbs of weight?

What does it matter? The CRB isn't going to let the ITAC change the process again, now is it? And it's hardly likely than there will be a New NEW process during the lifetime of most of the cars currently running, but if we could rewind the clock...

- Remember what the point of the process is -- a mix of good competition within the class. If we're going to go with the fixed HP ratio, then, the imposed ratio, since we are imposing it on an existing group of cars, should be pretty close to what the cars already were running from the slipshod method.
- If the HP ratio is going to jack around the weights, then before implementing it, know what the impacts will be BEFORE changing it. These are the cars being run. If we don't move their IT-gain number, what will happen to their weight. Can these cars MAKE that weight?

Curb-weight, some magical process... who cares as long as the method gets it correct and has a means for correcting it when it doesn't.

It was pretty damn clear to me when the newer cars appeared at Summit that they were classified incorrect when compared to the old regime cars.

Now, some of those cars haven't had the development they've needed and until they do, they don't have much cause to bitch... but I saw what the newer cars did to some of the top-notch cars in the class. Cars that had fresh motors and well-developed, Cars driven by someone who had thousands of miles at Summit and who couldn't keep up with the newer cars for long.

They mostly turned on the fact that -- no reason not to be specific -- Tristan Herbert showed up in a top notch build A3 Golf, and drove the wheels off of it to track records. Jeff Underwood then did the same in a Civic.

Because there is strong belief and plenty of circumstantial evidence that the old record was set by a car with an illegal cam. And yes, they did throw paper and the Stewards. I believe the stewards not only refused to hear it, but threated their own vexious protest if the drivers made noise (I believe it was one of many mechanical protests against that car that year). I do know that, off-season, the method suggested for testing the cam became part of the GCR and, lo and behold, the record setting car went off to run FP with his car.

So, yeah, when someone pounds that record, it's going to turn noses towards Denmark.

As far as the weight... I'm on the fence. I like less wear on consumables, but if it upsets the balance in ITB... what's the point?

 

[JeffYoung]

Fair points, and I appreciate the thoughts.

Maybe not surprising but I think your two bullet points are exactly what the ITAC did during the Great Realignment.

As far as the track record getting lowered, it was going to happen. Classes get faster. Tires are better. Brake pads better. Shocks better. Data acquisition is available now to the "masses." Engine management better. Suspension development better.

This is where I had some frustration with the "old guard" ITB crowd at Summit who were upset that Tristan and Jeff had done so well there. It seemed to me a lot of their development was frozen in time. They had no need to get faster for a long time, until the newer cars showed up.

At the end of the day, for me, if the "old" and "new" cars can make Process weight at 17:1, that is the end of story. It will result in less apple cart unsettling, less disruption and hopefully good close racing.

 

[ajmr2]

I have to come to the defense of Tristan Herbert, the ITB VW driver at Summit Point. He is an excellent driver and an up front guy, so I flatly reject any cheater accusations. My understanding about the Honda was that it was found to have an illegal gear ratio and was DQd earlier this year.
I'd also like to caution everyone that Jeff doesn't have to answer ANY questions that are raised on this forum. He could just monitor it like many people probably do and do what he can in his official capacity. Whether you agree with him or not, he deserves our appreciation and respect for putting his neck on the block for us week after week, post after post, answering the same questions sometimes several times as other people jump in on the last page. I believe he and the other former and current members of the ITAC are trying their best to answer our questions, doubts, concerns, obsessions, etc, etc. So please, let's keep it civilized, OK?

 

[JeffYoung]

I agree with this, with the following qualification.

I think 25% default is no more accurate and I don't think I ever said it was. That I agree with. But it is more consistent and repeatable, and sets a rule that is easier to follow. We go with 25% unless and until we see pretty convincing data to the contrary.

I agree that it was "harder" to do this at class start up for ITR than for a class with existing builds.

And this is simply committee to committee change. No problem. The ITR stuff we could debate all day. 25% on everything is no more 'accurate' than a smattering of educated guessing based on internet dyno sheets, builder calls and architechure. Let's not call a firmer 25% more accurate, let's call it more consistant. When ITR was created, data was collected, checked for making sense, and published. If eveything was put at 25%, you would have no 968's, no S2000's, no ITR's and some stuff that could - and WILL make more than PP...you WILL see that.

Again, reasonable minds will disagree. I know this as FACT, you are doing what you think is best for the class and that is a bullseye. Not everyone is going to agree on everything, anytime.

 

[JeffYoung]

I can't say. Each committee member votes his confidence level.

But I hope you would agree that the good thing now is that in all cases, we'd be using the Process to do the weight and arguing about gain, rather than eyeballing a weight we all thought was competitive -- subjectively.

This is where everyone owes a ton of thanks to you guys -- Jake, Andy, Kirk in particular. You got us to where we are using the Process smoothly and efficiently in committee. You should have been allowed to see the "pay off" on this, and I'm sorry you were not.

One more time: What would the committee class the RX-8 at today?

 

[jjjanos]

Fair points, and I appreciate the thoughts.

Thank you.

Maybe not surprising but I think your two bullet points are exactly what the ITAC did during the Great Realignment.

I recognize the above. The problem is that for ITB, it seems to be a case of GIGO and then an almost religious adherence to the number that came out. Wasn't the ITB multiplier based on a type of car that almost everyone admits was of questionable legality? Even with that admission, it was as if 17 was the eleventh commandment.

And when ITC is looked at, it certainly seems as if all the cars that are popular (if not all the cars that weren't processed with THE PROCESS) will lose weight with the 18.84 ratio.

 

[jjjanos]

I have to come to the defense of Tristan Herbert, the ITB VW driver at Summit Point. He is an excellent driver and an up front guy, so I flatly reject any cheater accusations. My understanding about the Honda was that it was found to have an illegal gear ratio and was DQd earlier this year.

I don't think anyone is accusing Tristan of being illegal. It was the car that set the record broken by Tristan that was seen as fishy.

 

[JeffYoung]

I don't think anyone was "stuck" on 17:1. The problem is once it was used for a while -- and it was -- before the issue with the 142 "target" and it is legality became apparent, we'd already classed a lot of cars with it (and the six you mention in the GR were all very popular cars).

So the issue then became, how do we do the least amount of damage to the class in "fixing" the problem? Do we reprocess the 142, or do we readjust the whole class to a new power/weight?

For the reasons I set forth above, I still firmly believe staying with 17:1 does the least amount of damage to the class.

Although, it does not address the fundamental complaint we got from some of the old car drivers in WDC that the "new cars are too fast" and the "old cars need help." Well, it does address -- it sets the power/weight the same for everyone once all cars are processed -- just not the way those guys wanted it addressed (which is was "add weight to new cars" and "subtract weight from old").

Thank you.



I recognize the above. The problem is that for ITB, it seems to be a case of GIGO and then an almost religious adherence to the number that came out. Wasn't the ITB multiplier based on a type of car that almost everyone admits was of questionable legality? Even with that admission, it was as if 17 was the eleventh commandment.

And when ITC is looked at, it certainly seems as if all the cars that are popular (if not all the cars that weren't processed with THE PROCESS) will lose weight with the 18.84 ratio.

 

[gran racing]

We go with 25% unless and until we see pretty convincing data to the contrary.

Unless it has the magic B or C in the class and is a "multivalve" because it has no effect in any other class. Total crap. If a car is deemed to make 30% based on good information, fine. Sucks to be forced to start with an illogical assumption which isn't even equally applied.

It was pretty damn clear to me when the newer cars appeared at Summit that they were classified incorrect when compared to the old regime cars.

Each time I've been at Summit I've received some crap from a couple of drivers. When I ask how many heat cycles they have on their tires, when their car was last on they dyno, how well built the package is, how much they continue working on the driver, I can't help but shake my head. Oh, no, that can't be it.


Admittedly I'm starting to care less about this game and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the IT category.

 

[jjjanos]

Is it possible that "the old ITB" had this balance because only the good cars were being run? I'll agree that it sucks when a new car comes in and is not a perfect match to the existing set, but new blood is vital, particularly when the strong cars in the class are 30+ years old. The process is suppsoed to rouhgly equalize everyone, but hasn't been applied accross the board for all of the reasons specified by Jeff etc... so ITB looks a mess.

And those newer cars could have been brought into the class with an HP ratio consistent with the one already established in the class... a ratio somewhere in the range of 18-19.

And conveniently overlooked in the discussion of ITB are specifics as to what this does to ITC.... some of the popular cars are going to lose as much as 25% (!) of their weight and other than the ITC cars classified using the 18.84, I have yet to find a classified car that isn't going to lose at least 100lbs.

 

[JeffYoung]

You have no idea what you are talking about when you say "conveniently overlooked." I suppose you are suggesting we are choosing to ignore it.

However, that issue - the appropriate power to weight in ITC -- has been discussed at length and is the one problem that Charlie highlighted that I think has some real issues behind it.

Could have? I guess they could have. But they weren't, primarily (apparently) because cheated up Volvo dyno plots were submitted as legitimate. So it is now water under the bridge and the correct step here is, again, to do the least damage as possible. For me, it's pretty clear that (a) adding potentially hundreds of pounds to all of the newer cars running in B would be disruptive and damaging especially when (b) the key old cars would lose weight, but not enough to make their race weights at 17:1 unacheivable.

ITB has consumed an enormous amount of the ITAC's time over the last two or three years due to the Audi, the MR2, the 30% adder, and now this problem a few of the Volvo and 2002 drivers in WDCR have with the 17:1 ratio. Again, we are back to the fundamental concept of we are getting all cars close to an equal power to weight ratio. Time to move on, go develop your cars and your driving, and race.

And those newer cars could have been brought into the class with an HP ratio consistent with the one already established in the class... a ratio somewhere in the range of 18-19.

And conveniently overlooked in the discussion of ITB are specifics as to what this does to ITC.... some of the popular cars are going to lose as much as 25% (!) of their weight and other than the ITC cars classified using the 18.84, I have yet to find a classified car that isn't going to lose at least 100lbs.