May 2011 Fastrack

Wait, so Eric was in on this too? Bastard! lol He would have put on a show and I was practicing my best blocking moves to keep him behind for at least a lap or two.

For those who aren't aware, typical front running ITB times at LRP are low 1:04s to mid 1:03s. The long standing track record set in 1996 is a 1:03.314. The day that Eric did the 1:02.7 with the 1971 Volvo was not an ideal cool power, grippy track day.
 
lateapex911 said:
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.........
Click to expand...

I haven't said they need to be taken as Gospel. I said they need to be considered. The tone of those who sit in judgement has implied that they simply dismissed the comments.

I'm sorry, but by the very formula the ITAC uses, the newer cars were unquestionably overdogs. As someone who helped set some of these weights, you already should have been aware of that. When some cars use a multiplier of 17 and the existing cars are higher and, in some instances, as high as the low 20s, there's a problem. But hey, who gives a shit what 1 out of 7 ITB drivers might say.


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 ...blah...blah...blah...blah....blah...
Click to expand...

Oh... gee... I guess just because it's hard to get a precise factor for something omitted, that means not including it doesn't mean there is an omitted variable bias...

Oh, wait a minute... actually it still is an omitted variable bias.

If the goal is to have an exact factor, then yes, it is an insurmountable task. If the goal is to have a reasonable approximation that allows for some correction, then it is doable.

The new process is heralded at some bolt from heaven that gives the perfect weight for each car in each class --- well, bullshit. It gives an approximate weight if the definition of perfect is carrying a set amount of weight per unit of power. Nevermind that the unit of power is some estimate that, ultimately, is no different than just saying "this car needs to weigh 2250lbs because it has an advanced warp drive coil in it." THE PROCESS is still car classification by the Oracle at Delphi. The only difference is that the new priests have a set of tools to measure what the Oracle says and the old priests went by the seat of the pants.

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

Thanks for your input.
 
The ITAC opted for repeatable and imperfect, rather than easy-to-diddle, smoke-filled-room-friendly and imperfect, Jeff. EVERY SINGLE RESEARCH STUDY IN THE WORLD suffers from "omitted variable bias" because it's impossible to account for them all. We define our theory-to-be-tested, deal with the variables we think matter most to the outcome, state our assumptions about those we don't, and describe limitations to accompany our findings.

The signal-to-noise ratio gets completely unreasonable as more factors get considered, and ultimately the aero difference (for example) between a CRX and a Civic with the same engine is less than any of a huge number of factors that DRIVERS control, that contribute to the observed "measures" that you are using as output measures to judge how close the system got to "perfect competitive balance." Again - since you seem to have missed it - if Tristan and Jeff U. hadn't brought talent and preparation along with new cars to MARRS, it would look a hell of lot like perfect parity had been established. Lord knows the mystical MkIII Golf didn't automagically make me any lap records.

That some ITB cars are currently at 20:1 IS A HUGE PROBLEM, but it's solved by revisiting and re-specifying those cars. The (not so) Great Realignment only attended to cars that were thought to be popular AND out of whack relative to the "bogie" models in the class. A huge majority of ITB cars were not touched, and certainly should be.

K
 
jjjanos said:
The new process is heralded at some bolt from heaven that gives the perfect weight for each car in each class --- well, bullshit. .
Click to expand...

Ummm, bullshit right back atcha.

Clearly, you've chosen to ignore the millions of times Andy (not to mention myself, Kirk, Jeff, and Josh ) have gone on and on and on about how it's NOT perfect, and that it's NOT about balancing cars on the head of a pin.
It IS about (as Kirk states) removing the back room diddling, creating consistency, and regulating the subjective aspects.

But, given 300 plus cars, NOBODY on the ITAC has EVER said it was a bolt from heaven and resulted in perfect weight for every (or ANY car).

You may have your points, but putting words in others mouths and fabricating ideas and positions isn't a great way to get them across.
 
the newer cars were unquestionably overdogs.
Click to expand...

Just so I'm not missing something here, what are these newer cars you're talking about?

The Golf III & Iv - agreed that was an intersting classification but Kirk worked to get weight added to the car he drives. I think it's pretty close now.

The Accord - lets not forget this was an ITB car until Randy Pobst drove the snot out of it and on track performance was used to push it into ITA. The stupid arse multivalve BS factor wasn't taken into consideration for that car (which is crap anyways) but ITCS request # 4245 is pending on that. Along with request # 4429 specific to the whole B & C multivalve auto 30% adder.
 
You're not missing anything, but Pants is.

Those cars were brought into the class at 17:1 which was the accepted power to weight multiplier for ITB -- a power to weight multiplier derived from the front running ITB car at the time.

Come to find out, that car -- the Volvo -- may have been cheated up.

But the fact remains that even the old cars when processed under 17:1 all seem to either be close to their spec weight already, or loss some weight (but not enough to make race weigh unacheivable -- see Gary L.'s post above).
 
Knestis said:
That some ITB cars are currently at 20:1 IS A HUGE PROBLEM, but it's solved by revisiting and re-specifying those cars. The (not so) Great Realignment only attended to cars that were thought to be popular AND out of whack relative to the "bogie" models in the class. A huge majority of ITB cars were not touched, and certainly should be.

K
Click to expand...

ITB talk has seemingly monopolized the ITAC for years. Wouldn't it be a simple spreadsheet exercise to run all the ITB cars through the current process and put the weights in the GCR, done deal? Seems like that would solve all the problems and level ITB once and for all.
 
Ron, the variety of tech and ages of the cars mean that reliable, equated, published information for them is not as easily available as would be needed to run a simple spreadsheet analysis. SAE gross, SAE net, DIN, SAE certified, pre and post clean air act and various other emissions laws coming into play, a more significant impact of "california emissions" creating oddball parts that meet the ITCS production requirements, with leaded fuel and without, carbs, multiport and throttle body injection, both batch and sequential, 2/3/4 valve designs (which matters more to some than to others) RWD beam, RWD indi, FWD, mid engined, and manufacturers from at least 6 different countries.

it's a more diverse class than anything else in the ITCS. add in the stupid 30% BS, the great realignment being mostly an ITA/S thing and leaving the bulk of ITB as pre-process classifications, later-revealed cheaters used to establish bogey numbers resulting in some existing cars becoming overweight by process, and the number of years many "established" cars have been running in the class who feel liek they got the short end, and you have a lot to deal with on the political side, too.

I think a spreadsheet SHOULD be run, but I think verfiable stock numbers and mixed perceptions of a full IT build effort to define "known power potential" will still create unrest.

fun!

oh and we should totally fix the damned MR2!!! :p:dead_horse:
 
It would be tough, no doubt.

I always favored the Josh solution. We process those cars we know are popular and running. We remove the listed weight from a lot of the old oddballs, and only process them if someone asks that a weight be assigned.

And then we dig into the issues Chip lists above.....

While ITB is a very diverse class in the rulebook, with lots of old and new cars, on track it's not that different from A or S. There's probably 5-6 chassis that run up front right now, and maybe 15-20 total actually being run.
 
I know that ITB has received a large amount of attention by the ITAC. It is tough to comprehend this though since few changes in ITB have been actually made. I also recognize the concern with not screwing up the class (minus Charlie and jjjanos' perception on that).

With the many cars that were previously looked at and put through the process, do you foresee many being announced in the near future?

Is that 30% multivalve deal going to remain in effect for B & C?

I'd be curious to hear some updates on what's been going on and future plans for the ITAC.
 
Sure. Since Josh left, we've not been as good with posting updates as we should be (my fault).

I'd say in general my perception of where we ar is:

1. Trying to correct some of the problem children in B primarily, and other classes. I can tell you the Volvos have taken an inordinate amount of time because of the fact that models were collapsed on lines that shouldn't have been, the sketchy information on actual legal builds, etc.

I actually think we've made a lot of progress on this, and have classed/reclassed a ton of cars in the last few months.

2. Work through a variety of rules requests.

3. Start initial discussions on "what is next for IT." A new class about ITR? Turbos? Etc.

But the for the most part, I think you are going to see (I hope) a period of rules stability after a lot of change. I think (personally) we need the cooling off period in that regard.

The 30% issue probably will not change. I personally disagree with it, but others do not and I understand the premise behind their position -- that multi-valve architecture in ITB means those engines are more likely to see more gains.

I think it is less of an issue though than it appears to be. We have the ability to move off of the 30% if we have enough evidence to the contrary, like we did with the MR2. I know there is disagreement over the fact that we only moved 5%, but we did move.
gran racing said:
I know that ITB has received a large amount of attention by the ITAC. It is tough to comprehend this though since few changes in ITB have been actually made. I also recognize the concern with not screwing up the class (minus Charlie and jjjanos' perception on that).

With the many cars that were previously looked at and put through the process, do you foresee many being announced in the near future?

Is that 30% multivalve deal going to remain in effect for B & C?

I'd be curious to hear some updates on what's been going on and future plans for the ITAC.
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
3. Start initial discussions on "what is next for IT." A new class about ITR? Turbos? Etc.
Click to expand...

NO NO NO,

Lets fix our current classes before adding more workload to the ITAC. Lets fix ITB (and possibly ITC) then look at adding classes. This ITB issue has been going on for years and should be put to bed once and for all. Come out with a solid plan and make it happen. If your going to reclass them all then do it, if your going to take the weights out of the GCR until someone submits a request lets do it. Tell us all what the exact plan is through fasttrack, stick to it, and lets move on.

I personally still have a perfectly good ITB Audi in the trailer waiting for an engine which depends on what the new weights will be on the other Audi Engines that didn't get the weight brake a few months ago. I submitted a letter back then.

Stephen
 
Ron Earp said:
ITB talk has seemingly monopolized the ITAC for years. Wouldn't it be a simple spreadsheet exercise to run all the ITB cars through the current process and put the weights in the GCR, done deal? Seems like that would solve all the problems and level ITB once and for all.
Click to expand...

For historical perspective, the ITAC was asked by our CRB liaison about the viability of an ITB do-over, and to share the spreadsheet that I worked on (and sent to a couple of you).

That was immediately before the Last Great Schism and in hindsight, I have a sneaky suspicion that the message that went with it - that it was *NOT* a formulaic, "this is the weights we'll recommend" thing - was lost in translation; someone looked at the big changes resulting from the default power multiplier; and it contributed to the seizing up of the system.

On reflection, I favor the "do what needs doing first" model of tackling the problem, as Jeff defines it. It should just get done and I agree with Stephen that we shouldn't get distracted by shiny new toys until the homework is done on B.

KK
 
the work on IT*next* has been 100% done by me on my own time outside of normal ITAC operation.

ITB has seen more movement than you think....or care to see. CRX/like was fixed, VW solid axle issue was fixed, volvo is nearly done, 30% has been discussed, we waded through the charlie muck about redoing the whole damn thing, accord issue is out there.....

really....in my 6mos, i bet 80% of the discussion on calls is around ITB, so everybody just calm down about nothing happening.
 
Knestis said:
The ITAC opted for repeatable and imperfect, rather than easy-to-diddle, smoke-filled-room-friendly and imperfect, Jeff. EVERY SINGLE RESEARCH STUDY IN THE WORLD suffers from "omitted variable bias" because it's impossible to account for them all. We define our theory-to-be-tested, deal with the variables we think matter most to the outcome, state our assumptions about those we don't, and describe limitations to accompany our findings.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that. When forecasting the probability of rain, there is a difference, however, between omitting the butterfly in India and omitting a falling barometer. Nor does one need to resort to quantum mechanics when Copernican equations work well for most applications.

I would dispute that in all instances, aero differences are simply noise. There are 50 lb adjusters that, for the most part, are for observable attributes of cars. The weight adjustment for moving from a 1.25 to 1.2 gain on a 100HP car is 85 pounds and the trigger on that switch is subjective. I fail to see why no allowance is made for a similarly subjective determination regarding a car that is a brick or one that creates a vacuum beneath it.

Moreover, if the IT-goes-National faction gets its way, there will be people doing those mental adjustments. There will be a car that has such an advantage, despite Jehovah coming down and saying "yep, you got the HP correct on that engine." The process has no method of correcting "the car to have" problem. Then, some might not see that as a problem as long as the HP:weight ratio is correct.
 
jjjanos said:
I would dispute that in all instances, aero differences are simply noise. There are 50 lb adjusters that, for the most part, are for observable attributes of cars. The weight adjustment for moving from a 1.25 to 1.2 gain on a 100HP car is 85 pounds and the trigger on that switch is subjective. I fail to see why no allowance is made for a similarly subjective determination regarding a car that is a brick or one that creates a vacuum beneath it.
Click to expand...
Back in the day ...on this site, we were all bitching about the whole classign structure (or lack thereof) in IT. And we came up with solutions. The things we noodled here eventually became the methods that currently are in place. There were discussions and even arguments but the direction was positive and productive.
So, in the same vein, I'd suggest that you flesh out your aero policy. How will that 50lbs be doled out?
You are the guy on the ITAC who has been charged with studying the aero aspect and recommending a procedure that will become part of the Process.
Show us....

Moreover, if the IT-goes-National faction gets its way, there will be people doing those mental adjustments.
Click to expand...

There are people doing those adjustments NOW, LOL. But IT aint going national anytime soon.....
That load got put in the STO, STU and STL boats and has left the dock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top