May 2011 Fastrack

[rsportvolvo]

Seems that my Volvo 240 reclassification is right at the center of several ITB issues debated here. Unfortunately the CRB is sitting on the ITAC's recommendation. Is the outcome of the Volvo 240 going to set the precedent for reclassifications? dual classification (same chassis, different driveline)? moving down to ITC for weight reasons? Any hints from the ITAC folks?

 

[Knestis]

...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. ...

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. ...

The key here - and a crucial aspect of the argument for not changing the base weight ratio in B - is that YOU ARE CORRECT with your second assertion.

The Process is designed to be as blind as possible to observed performance because that is way more "faulty" than the error introduced by judicious, repeatable application of the math used by the ITAC. What if slower guys (aka not Tristan and Jeff; me) had been the only ones to build said "new cars?"

Based on Summit lap times, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, even with the cars in question at their current weights. I KNOW that I'm still about 1.5 seconds slower than Tristan at Summit, when I really put my head down. I was surrounded by 2002s (and Charlie) at last year's MARRS 10. If Jeff, Dave, and Tristan were racing SM rather than ITB, it would have LOOKED as though we had perfect "competitive balance" even with weights at their then-current spec.

K

 

[erlrich]

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.

Jeff - as I understand it that has always been the goal of The Process. It took me a while to grasp the concept that outcomes are unimportant, and once I did I decided I'm really not a big fan of it. I am of the opinion (stop reading here Dr. K) that a group of intelligent, objective, dedicated people (like Josh, Andy, Jeff, Kirk, Jake, etc.) could use a hp/wt formula as a base, and then adjust weights based on observation & knowledge of each car's quirks, and get competition that is just as close (IMO closer) than The Process does. (Sorry again K - I told you to stop reading...).

I realize that would take a lot more work, and obviously would not be as blindly objective as The Process, so I can see where there is the attraction for the later. I've come to the conclusion, though, that it is impossible to develop a strictly formulaic process for classing cars that produces parity within the class.

 

[jjjanos]

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.

I am not privy to the ITAC discussions, but in regards to this discussion, which has focused on ITB, it seems that references to the mess the 18.84 makes of ITC has simply be given lip service.

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.

Oh no... we have a ratio. It's 18.84. There are new cars that have been classified under it. The ITB ratio might have been the 11th Commandment, but that makes the ITC ratio the 12th Commandment.

Or is setting the ratio into stone dependent on which cars got reclassified?

(b) the key old cars would lose weight, but not enough to make their race weights at 17:1 unacheivable.

I keep hearing that, but it isn't clear that this is an assertion or based on empirical data from the drivers impacted.

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.

If the same number and mix of drivers came from NEDIV and SoWDiv it would make a difference? I would hope not. You're hearing grousing from DC region drivers because they have one of, if not the, strongest ITB fields. Maybe instead of dismissing their comments with "it's a DC Region problem", you should consider the possibility that since they regular race with 15 or more ITB cars, (as compared to places where a 15 car run group of multiple classes is viewed as huge), they might have a sense of what this could do to the class.

Perhaps you overlooked this --

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.

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 to hell with what it might do to the class.

Is the outcome of the Volvo 240 going to set the precedent for reclassifications? dual classification (same chassis, different driveline)? moving down to ITC for weight reasons? Any hints from the ITAC folks?

As an ITB car, I think the 240 is going to lose somewhere between 300-400 pounds and, as an ITC car, it's still going to lose around 100 lbs from its ITB weight.

But hey, we've got numbers set in stone.

The key here - and a crucial aspect of the argument for not changing the base weight ratio in B - is that YOU ARE CORRECT with your second assertion.

Yep, to hell with what it might do to the class.

The Process is designed to be as blind as possible to observed performance because that is way more "faulty" than the error introduced by judicious, repeatable application of the math used by the ITAC. What if slower guys (aka not Tristan and Jeff; me) had been the only ones to build said "new cars?"

Then the problem in THE PROCESS would not have been discovered as quickly. Once THE PROCESS was set in stone and someone with a spreadsheet started crunching numbers, everyone would get what the Emperor was wearing. There are plenty of guys who only care about winning and who don't care whether it is done with a car that is carrying less weight per HP than everyone else.

The starting point of THE PROCESS is the problem -- equating HP:lb ratios. There's omitted variable problems all over the place... aero is omitted. Tire/wheel size is omitted. The actual performance gains from an IT build are too simplistic and changing it is too dependent on the better nature of man.

Look at the ITC CRX and Civic - identical weights. Yet one has a drag coefficient of around 0 and the other punches a hole so big that a T-72 could get a tow. Clearly, the 2 cars are not the same.

The idea of "having a place to race" was fine when folks were just looking for a cheap way to do W2W and didn't have the cash to convert the old SS car to a Prod or GT, but that's not IT anymore. THE PROCESS runs a significant risk of creating THE CAR and, if the assumed HP gain is correct, there's no way to fix it within the rules. It's already happening in A IT class and if IT every gets a shot at the Runoffs, it'll be a done-deal by the second year. There will be one or two cars capable of winning and everyone else will be grid fill.

WTF is the ITAC going to do when someone asks for an ITC car to get reweighted? I ran the CRX and it loses only 100 lbs. There's one car I've done that loses close to 500 pounds.

I suppose the one good thing is that it will strengthen ITC because it'll be so cheap to run an ITC car. You'll only have to change the brake pads and tires when it's time to do an engine rebuild.

 

[rcc85]

I think the problem is that there are cars in ITB that have had their weights set by a variety of methods (curb weight, The Process, drawing numbers out of hat, etc). That has resulted in some inequities, especially as some cars have lost weight (or new cars have entered the category) and some legacy cars have not be adjusted.

We know that there are still some cars that are way too heavy (Mustangs come to mind) and there may be some that are too light (Geos, perhaps?).

I don't have my copy of the GCR handy. How many cars are listed in ITB? Out of those, how many have not had their weight set by the process? If we narrow that down to cars that have actually entered a race in the last 2 years, is that a practical number to reprocess? Would there need to be individual requests for each of those cars?

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

 

[JeffYoung]

Pantsguy, if you truly think we are doing things just to do them and "to hell with the rest of the class" then there is no point discussing this further.

We looked at this in detail and I personally decided (and I think the rest of the committee other than Charlie who quit when he didn't get his way agreed) that changing the power to weight ratio now would cause the most damage to the class by requiring the "new" cars that had run for 3-4 years under 17:1 to gain as much as several hundred pounds, while at the same time processing the "old" cars at that power/weight would not result in much change. Charlie has the spreadsheet. I'm sure you've seen it.

I agree the problem with the power/weight ratio is worse in ITC. Instead of trying to work through that problem with us, Charlie quit.

You are now to the point where you just want to argue for argument's sake without even a hint of doing anything constructive.

And no, the ITB world does not revolve around Summit Point.

 

[quadzjr]

I think the problem is that there are cars in ITB that have had their weights set by a variety of methods (curb weight, The Process, drawing numbers out of hat, etc). That has resulted in some inequities, especially as some cars have lost weight (or new cars have entered the category) and some legacy cars have not be adjusted.

We know that there are still some cars that are way too heavy (Mustangs come to mind) and there may be some that are too light (Geos, perhaps?).

I don't have my copy of the GCR handy. How many cars are listed in ITB? Out of those, how many have not had their weight set by the process? If we narrow that down to cars that have actually entered a race in the last 2 years, is that a practical number to reprocess? Would there need to be individual requests for each of those cars?

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

If you would like to see a car reclassed using hte process.. aren't you allowed to asked it be run through it? though while runnign a car in teh process you also need (or atleast it would be nice) to give information about expected output. In the ITB mustang example I know what a full preped and well developed ITB Mustang does. There is a good example down here in the SE. Ron has done an excellent job with his car. I do not beleve we should use on track results but some tracks work in favor of the high tq/hp and relatively poor handling car and other tracks vice-versa.

 

[gran racing]

dismissing their comments with "it's a DC Region problem"

The issue most mentioned from a few folks who run at Summit use performance as an indicator to how a car should be classed. There are more tracks out there than Summit and a large variation in car prep and driver levels. Not a bad thing and in fact it's great. Fine, remove the locals who run there often (Tristian and Beth). Now is ITB o.k. at Summit?

If you would like to see a car reclassed using hte process.. aren't you allowed to asked it be run through it?

You can ask and hopefully it will happen eventually. Things in our club take a looooong time. While I don't want to see rash decisions, there were enough requests made a while ago which are (?) on the list to be discussed when the use of the process was approved. When that happened, there were requests made to make that list of cars to be reviewed published even if just here.

 

[JeffYoung]

Not to quibble but I don't think it is fair to say outcomes are unimportant. We use them as a gut check to make sure something is not off (a motor making more power than expected, generally speaking).

I can tell you that I find the Process a relief. It allows us to get cars "close" on power to weight and then let folks have at it. I really don't want to, nor do I think the ITAC actually can, use things like aero, and gear ratios, etc. to balance cars.

In my view we are really in a sweet spot where a lot of chassis can win in R, S, A, B and C. And I think Jake, Kirk and Andy are the ones you really need to thank for that.

Jeff - as I understand it that has always been the goal of The Process. It took me a while to grasp the concept that outcomes are unimportant, and once I did I decided I'm really not a big fan of it. I am of the opinion (stop reading here Dr. K) that a group of intelligent, objective, dedicated people (like Josh, Andy, Jeff, Kirk, Jake, etc.) could use a hp/wt formula as a base, and then adjust weights based on observation & knowledge of each car's quirks, and get competition that is just as close (IMO closer) than The Process does. (Sorry again K - I told you to stop reading...).

I realize that would take a lot more work, and obviously would not be as blindly objective as The Process, so I can see where there is the attraction for the later. I've come to the conclusion, though, that it is impossible to develop a strictly formulaic process for classing cars that produces parity within the class.

 

[jjjanos]

Pantsguy, if you truly think we are doing things just to do them and "to hell with the rest of the class" then there is no point discussing this further.

What other conclusion should I draw? I'm told that even though the multiplier was known to be wrong, it's the multiplier - get over it. The biggest zealot for the weight-hp hard constraint says...

The key here - and a crucial aspect of the argument for not changing the base weight ratio in B - is that YOU ARE CORRECT with your second assertion.

to the assertion that meeting the ratio is the goal and the actual outcomes don't matter.

Do I think the ITAC thinks imposing the incorrect ratio is good for the class? I certainly hope so. Do I think they'll do a thing about it if it turns out they are wrong? Nope -- both because nothing will move them off the holy ratio and because they won't be allowed to do it.

You are now to the point where you just want to argue for argument's sake without even a hint of doing anything constructive.

Well, I've been pretty consistent that IMO, the use of the 17 multiplier should be revisited. Just because you don't like my solution doesn't mean it isn't constructive. If it makes you happy, I accept that we've got our multipliers that have been written in stone. We're stuck with 17 for ITB and 18.84 for ITC. (And consistency says that, even as stupid as the 18.84 is, it needs to be used because new cars have been classified and some of them have been built.)

And no, the ITB world does not revolve around Summit Point.

Didn't say that, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I implied that one out of every seven ITB entrants (so-far this year) makes it an important part of the ITB world.

The issue most mentioned from a few folks who run at Summit use performance as an indicator to how a car should be classed. There are more tracks out there than Summit and a large variation in car prep and driver levels. Not a bad thing and in fact it's great. Fine, remove the locals who run there often (Tristian and Beth). Now is ITB o.k. at Summit?

Apparently the train has left the station for the multipliers. I've been told that it is better to assume that all of the old regime cars in existence can lose weight than it is to add weights to the fewer number of new cars in existence.

Since the train has left the station, if the Eurotanks want to get their problem fixed and, most importantly are able to lose the weight, it's up to them.

Though, I think I will be looking at the ITB weights to see if anyone is underweight and needs to go up.

 

[JLawton]

“People can be divided into two classes: those who go ahead and do something, and those people who sit still and inquire, why wasn’t it done the other way?” Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Let me start by saying this isn’t pointed at a specific person or persons……. If you are offended by this post than it probably means it is directed at you!!

Bettencourt and I have this discussion all the time. I think 80% of the drivers at our level have no clue what it truly means to run a 10/10ths program. These people all think that they are the next Mario Andretti and think that if they’re not winning it’s because A) the other guy is cheating, or B ) their car is classed/speced wrong. Wake up and smell reality. Just because you rebuilt your engine doesn’t mean you deserve to win. Just because you’ve been racing for 5 years doesn’t mean you should be winning. Just because you bought the hot car that won last years ARRC doesn’t mean that you will.

Most people are fooling themselves. Like Dr Phil says, “Get real”.
- Do you really think because you built the engine that someone else who knows what they’re doing couldn’t get more power??
- Do you use a tire other than a Hoosier?
- Do you run your Hoosiers for more than 5 heat cycles? If you’re one of these that says you can get 10 before they fall off it’s because you’re not good enough to know when they fall off at 5. Then you need to work on your driving!!!!
- Do you rotate your tires after EVERY session.
- Do you take the tires off and bag them after every race?
- Do you dyno and tune your engine every year?
- If you’re running a stock ECU don’t even THINK about getting into this discussion.
- How many test days have you done this year?
- Do you run data acquisition?
- Do you nut and bolt the whole car after every race?
- Swap out parts before they break?
- Carry a butt load of spares to the track?
- Did I mention multiple test days??
- Are you running at the minimum weight?
- Have you received any personal coaching
- Are you lucky? Yes, luck does come into play. But the harder you work, the luckier you will get.
- Did I mention test days?? With new tires? ‘Cause you can’t test on crap tires…

And if you REALLY have done all the above things and are still not winning? Get another freakin’ car!!!!


And anyone that has been racing IT for more than 8 years knows that the equality of the competition is so much better than it was.

Over the years the ITAC members invested a lot of blood sweat and tears into the process. They truly have no ulterior motives so why are “we” so quick to criticize the work they do? Instead of criticizing, why not help out?

I know this won’t sink in with most of the people that this is pointed at………………. Whatever……….

<hopping off the soap box>


.

 

[JeffYoung]

Jeff, thank you.

Because what you post above is really what is driving this, in my personal opinion. This isn't about a power to weight multiplier.

What it is about is newer cars coming into a class with "new" technologies and levels of driver prep and skill, and the old guard not liking that.

So instead of looking at themselves, and their programs, they blame the system, or the Process or the set in stone power/weight number, or whatever.

And there is no real way to correct that. At all. Newer cars driven by younger driers with World Challenge level talent willing to spend money on new tires, and test days and ECU tuning and Data Acquisition are not things we can or should (in my opinion) be trying to balance on the ITAC.

I drive an old tech car. Yeah, it's got FI, but it has drum brakes and a live rear axle. Eventually, it will not be a front running car. I accept that. And the folks with ITB Volvos and 2002s from the 60s need to accept the same thing. You'll still have a place to race, and you'll still probably be somewhat competitive. But the day in the sun for TR8s and 240zs and Volvos and 2002s is rapidly coming to a close.

As it should be.

IT is not Prod. We don't want, I think, to look like Prod does with a bunch of fifties sports car still winning national championships. We are not a vintage class. We are a class for mostly modern cars.

I'm not in favoring of delisting or purposefully disadvantaging older cars, but the minute we become focused on ensuring that a 1970 Volvo 142 is 100% equal to a new Civic or Golf, we have lost. Unless you want IT to look like Prod does now. A valid viewpoint, just different than most membership I think.

Instead, we just need to get the power to weights close and let people race.

 

[gran racing]

We are a class for mostly modern cars.

Sorry but I couldn't help but chuckle as I peer over at a picture full of IT cars. (I'm not saying we should place emphasis on keeping old cars competitive at all costs.)

 

[rcc85]

We are not a vintage class. We are a class for mostly modern cars.

I'm not sure I agree with that, Jeff. My last race (Pocono Double in May) had 8 ITB cars. They were a 1971 Volvo, 1969 Volvo, 1995 VW, 1973 BMW 2002, 1984 BMW 320i, 1986 VW, 1985 Dodge and a 1987 Honda CRX. The newest car was 16 years old! Take out the 1995 Golf and the next newest car is 24 years old!! Also, there is a 26 years spread between the oldest and newest cars in the field (part of the problem of trying to keep a level playing field).

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB 1985 Dodge Daytona

 

[rcc85]

Instead, we just need to get the power to weights close and let people race.

That, however, I agree with 100%

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

 

[JeffYoung]

While I want to do nothing to "hurt" older cars (like mine), I'm not sure we want to do anything special to accomodate them. That was the point of my comment. I am 100% opposed to any delisting of cars, or moving the IT cutoff date (presently 1968) forward (even though over 20 years have passed since that date was set).

But I guess my more fundamental point is that tech has moved on. A drum braked, 4- speed, live rear axle, leaf spring car is going to have a hard time in IT no matter what we do. And I think that is fine.

Right now, the "majority" of cars in IT I would say have four wheel disc brakes, EFI and a five speed. That stretches a pretty good chunk of time, from around 1980 until the present.

The next tech leap, if we chose to take it, will be to allow performance enhancing ABS systems, traction control, turbos, AWD (in now already), superchargers, etc.

Eventualy, an 80s car with discs, a five speed and Bosch L-Jetronic is going to look pretty antiquated.

And that is in my opinion the way it should be.

I'm not sure I agree with that, Jeff. My last race (Pocono Double in May) had 8 ITB cars. They were a 1971 Volvo, 1969 Volvo, 1995 VW, 1973 BMW 2002, 1984 BMW 320i, 1986 VW, 1985 Dodge and a 1987 Honda CRX. The newest car was 16 years old! Take out the 1995 Golf and the next newest car is 24 years old!! Also, there is a 26 years spread between the oldest and newest cars in the field (part of the problem of trying to keep a level playing field).

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB 1985 Dodge Daytona

 

[Knestis]

I'll gladly send my spreadsheet with 80+ ITB cars in it to anyone who PMs me their email.

And please, people - do not use the 1.3 multivalve B power multiplier as a stick to hit the Process with. It's political by-catch that has nothing to do with the way the most recent ITAC-developed Process is supposed to work.

Steve - I did read on and honestly, I totally understand. The irony is that the best outcome for the class is most likely to result from a system that doesn't use outcomes as input data. Where the "intelligent, objective, dedicated people" [sic] come to bear in the Process (as actually described in v.2.) is in the application of the factors that ARE variable. It is NOT as formulaic as some people think, even if it's more formulaic than some people want.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

This whole exercise should prove Kirk's point. We are being asked to look at relative competitiveness at a single track amongst a small subset of drivers -- and the quagmire of different prep levels and driver skill that entials -- and use those outcomes to influence how we set weights for the class as a whole.

I couldn't disagree with that approach more.

 

[lateapex911]

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.....

....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.

I have to jump on this "proof of theory" statement. (I don't post this to brag, but to make a point)

I came to Summit having never been there before in an IT7 car. IT7 has been around at Summit for far longer than it has in New Negland, and a top rotary performance shop, complete with dyno, is on the same site. In fact, i heard rotaries running on the dyno the day I arrived.

So, it's safe to say that many many IT7 cars have run down that track over the years, and that there is certainly tuning talent RIGHT THERE.

I hoped to be respectable. I bought an assortment of good fresh tires, a data aq system, and a crew guy and went to work finding speed. (Dave Gran ran for the first time there that weekend and was doing the same thing as I as well)

I got a clean lap in qualifying and scored the pole, and was fortunate enough over the weekend to snag wins and a new track record.

But here's the thing: I did it in not a new model car introduced into the class, but the same model car...and did it over cars assumed to be top notch and driven well by guys with thousands of miles at the track.
And you know what? I KNOW I can go faster, with more testing and engineering.

I was there three weeks ago. i watched the ITB cars closely. I looked over the prep of them. Sorry to say, but the "old guard" cars looked to be (one broke down on grid) less than top notch. And the new guard, well, they looked clean and well prepped. yes, looks can be deceiving.

Then there's the Curran factor. Last weekend Eric Curran and I played a joke on Dave Gran. Eric had brought a big 'ole Vette to run on one of his non Pro weekend dates, but it failed sound miserably, so I told Dave he was going to jump in his Dads Volvo in ITB and start from the back for old times sake. Dave smiled, then frowned then feigned indifference.
Backstory: Dave runs right up front in ITB. Eric once jumped in his Dads car on a test and tune day at LRP and run a 1:02.7. (Solidly under the track record). In 5 or so laps. Seems like Eric in the Volvo is a rather stout combination.

Moral of the story: Claims of classes that need complete rejiggering because certain guys have troubles at one track should be taken with a shaker of salt.........

 

[lateapex911]

You're hearing grousing from DC region drivers because they have one of, if not the, strongest ITB fields. Maybe instead of dismissing their comments with "it's a DC Region problem", you should consider the possibility that since they regular race with 15 or more ITB cars, (as compared to places where a 15 car run group of multiple classes is viewed as huge), they might have a sense of what this could do to the class.

Sp what...there are a bunch of ITB cars. Whoopie.
it's ONE track, and a bunch of cars that used to all run together well, until some new folks came in with some pretty well sorted cars and upset the apple cart. (ITB track record got broken twice one weekend I was there by some guys who are pretty dedicated to their driving and builds) Happens all the time.
Time to do the homework and up the game.

The starting point of THE PROCESS is the problem -- equating HP:lb ratios. There's omitted variable problems all over the place... aero is omitted. Tire/wheel size is omitted. The actual performance gains from an IT build are too simplistic and changing it is too dependent on the better nature of man.


.

Dude, you want to talk about omitted stuff? We went on for hours...no...DAYS on the ITAC calls discussing those, and many more items.....
Tell you what.
Send me a spreadsheet describing the frontal sizes and cd ratios for all the 300 PLUS cars in the ITCS.
Now, add to that the differences caused by the differing wheels and tire combinations used in racing.
Then, please adjust those numbers to factor in the effects of airdams and splitters for each of the spec lines.

Now, once you've done that, can you describe a factor that should be applied to each model that can be used to add or subtract actual weight (in pounds, pleas), and keep in mind the ITAC will need to have that factor be derived from the long track and short track differences each model will produce.

Call us when you've done that, and you can then jump onto the tire/wheel numbers, the trans ratio numbers, and all the other stuff you have issues with.

Honestly, after reading your posts, it's pretty obvious that Improved Touring might not be the best place for you to play....