May 2011 Fastrack

[lateapex911]

think bigger picture kirk.

i admit i don't know the details of every listing that has/should have/should not have 30% applied to it currently, but i see a pretty good, competitive environment in ITB right now as is. sure a couple little things need to be tweaked like adding the 50lbs to the golf, sorting out the volvo, and putting some weight on the accord......but none of those changes fly in the face of what i've seen on track. so it "makes sense."

taking off the 30% and lowering the weight of *i think* vehicles like the underwood and ruck civic....that's tougher to swallow.

as always, things like this have to be thought about in the context of every vehicle, .....which hardly anyone ever does.

Chip hit the nail on the head regarding the knowh hp aspects of the Civics. leave 'em alone. problem solved there.

But I LOVE the fact that YOU are telling Kirk, the KING of the big picture thinking society that he needs to be more broad minded, and THEN you use "Looks good to me on track, just needs a tweak here and there" as your justification.
An all time classic post there, LOL.

 

[Knestis]

EDIT - Thanks, Jake.

The Ruck ('92-95) and Underwood ('88-91) generations of Civic were run through the process applying ITAC members' confidence on an alternate (OTHER THAN 1.25) power multiplier, based on evidence collected - both at 1.35, accounting for rounding in the Chipster's math. They were done in June 2009 and November 2008, respectively, so are "current" per the Process v.2 (or very near thereabouts, given when the earlier one was done). In fact, the '88-91 DX was the poster child for "how crappy back-room deals work," so was the catalyst for busting the internal jam in the ITAC's application of a consistent system so we could re-do it.

It's SUPER important to refer to the internal documentation of when listings were made before considering changes, Travis. You're making broad policy decisions on specific examples about which you do not understand the history.

And so far as I know, the ONLY "multivalve" ITB car that's had the "standard" 1.3 multiplier applied as a default is the Toyota. Any car that has been done per the actual Process since January 2008 should be as right as they are going to get. And before anyone squawks, the Toyota siblings were NOT done to the Process as it was codified internally by the ITAC. The 1.3 thing was imposed from the outside.

K

 

[tnord]

and thanks for illustrating exactly why my communication is limited these days.

if you actually were on the call, you'd know that it was ME grilling everyone else as to how the 30% came to be. it was ME who kept asking questions until i got an answer.

so i got the answer i expected.....but now what do you do? competition ON THE WHOLE in ITB is pretty damn good. so how do you go about fixing it? as long as the accord eventually gets the 30%, you add the weight onto the golf, and go through some of the older listings does that do it? do you get rid of it expecting a pile of letters requesting reprocessing? do you reprocess everything ahead of time? you can't just run through every listing at 25% blindly.....so now do you have to go gather a pile of data to justify changing what is already a pretty level playing field? or does the 30% work based on pure coincidence and timing of the evolution of multivalve cars and emissions equipment within a small window of model years that happen to fall into ITB?

i don't know what the answer is. but i know jeff wasn't on the call when it was discussed, and i don't think Josh was either. at that time all i lobbied for was that i wasn't comfortable coming to a conclusion on that big of an issue given the limited attendance.

so give me some credit. i DO know the history, i DO consider the big picture, i DO consider every solution i can think of regardless of my personal opinion, i DO use caution to not completely fuck up what we have, and i DO know what i'm doing.

 

[Knestis]

To clarify my "imposed from the outside" comment.

** The 1.3-multiplier-for-multivalve-B-and-C clause first appears in the ITAC Process appendix to the ITAC ops manual as a revision added in November 2010: "Specifically, all cars should be assumed to gain 25% above stock horsepower in IT trim, except that multivalve engines in ITB and ITC should be assumed to gain 30%."

** Process v.2 (published, internal ITAC documentation c.2009) does not include that language or anything like it, as it defaults to 1.25 unless the committee "confidence" process is invoked.

** The published internal "v.2007" Process does not codify the 1.3 multiplier for multivalve B and C cars, although it does say that the Committee should use "1.30 or 30% for V-Tech, Vanos/Double Vanos, or other engine designs known to have higher potential/gains."

** My copy of Darrin Jordan's "2005 Letter to the Board" that documents the (not-so) Great Realignment describes the following:

Multiply stock HP by the estimated percentage of HP gained with IT-prep.
ex: 1.20 or 20% for 2V Carbureted
1.25 or 25% for 2V FI cars or older ECU cars
1.30 or 30% for Multi-Valve FI cars or Modern ECU cars
1.35+ or 35%+ for V-Tech, Vanos/Double Vanos, or other engine designs known to have higher potential/gains

There was talk on at least one con call that a "deal" that multivalve engines would only be allowed in ITB if they were spec'd using 1.3 instead of the default, but that was a discussion of PRE-PROCESS practices.

To suggest that RE-imposing the intent of a 1.3 default for ITB and ITC cars based on architecture is going back to some official way that things were being done, is simply revisionist history to rationalize something that someone now wants to defend. I think, most likely, the MR2 spec weight.

Those of you who are new on the committee need to know if you are being played. SOMEONE needs to go back to the source of this addition - help, Josh? - and figure out where it came from and why.

Kirk (aka your friendly local IT historian)

EDIT for Travis - So what IS the answer?

 

[tnord]

no one is selling any revisionist history.

 

[JeffYoung]

To throw some of the "blame" back on the old ITAC (me included), when I first started I would say record keeping was spotty at best -- record keeping that might have helped keep shenanigans down. For example, I think some of the confidence decisions on the FWD deduct, and the use of Lapsim, were things that should have gotten just as much scrutiny outside the committee as the 30% "default" in B. But I'm just rehashing old ground and that's not productive.

My recollection is that pretty much from the start, there was a fear of multi-valve engines in ITB from some of the committee members. To be fair, I think there was also irrational "fear" of (a) the Renesis; (b) V8s; (c) in line sixes in general; (d) BMW in line sixes in particular and (e) anything with a Honda or Acura logo on the valve cover.

We worked through most of that but one thing that stuck and seemed to morph from a gut feeling about architecture into the Ops Manual was the 30% default in ITB.

I don't think anyone was being gamed when that happened. I just think there was a perception that multi valve architecture in ITB was unusual and would result in higher gains than non multivalve. My perception -- as someone who is not nearly as familiar with these cars as you guys -- was that this perception stemmed mainly from some of the gains seen on the 1.6 Honda motor in the ITA CRX, and in the "Giles" ITB Honda.

So it got codified, and now as Travis says - and he absolutely has, at least to me and from what I recall on the committee, been opposed to the 30% default -- we seem to be stuck with it.

And the decission is, what do we do that is best for the class? IF we consistently continue to process cars with it, and if we correctly apply the confidence factor, we should get most things right. I agree the MR2 is an exception, in my personal opinion, but that's the result the committee, using the process and the confidence analysis based on the data we had, reached.

 

[lateapex911]

and thanks for illustrating exactly why my communication is limited these days.

LOL, this is nothing compared to the shitstorm some of us (esp Andy ) took in the past over things like the ITS E36....I know you can handle it.

if you actually were on the call, you'd know that it was ME grilling everyone else as to how the 30% came to be. it was ME who kept asking questions until i got an answer.

so i got the answer i expected.....

Excellent.
So, what WAS the answer?

but now what do you do? competition ON THE WHOLE in ITB is pretty damn good.

Be careful....you're invoking "on track performance", and you've criticized jjjjanos, et al for same....

so how do you go about fixing it? as long as the accord eventually gets the 30%, you add the weight onto the golf, and go through some of the older listings does that do it? do you get rid of it expecting a pile of letters requesting reprocessing? do you reprocess everything ahead of time? ....

As I said on the con calls discussing this years ago, it's gonna take some work, and contrary to what some of the guys felt, that's the job of the ITAC. Kirk went to a lot of trouble and compiled a ton of data...I made calls on certain cars and engines...it can be done.

Best method:
List the cars thought not to be raced in Fastrack and de-list them.
Do research on known problem children still racing.
Reprocess correctly, or move them to appropriate classes. Some will complain about regional "I don't like ITA in my under prepped Bammo Special, because the ITA guys are fast" issues, but se la vie.
Re-list (after reprocessing) any de-listed cars that come in with requests.

In the mean time, run the Process on whatever you get requests on.

i don't know what the answer is. but i know jeff wasn't on the call when it was discussed, and i don't think Josh was either. at that time all i lobbied for was that i wasn't comfortable coming to a conclusion on that big of an issue given the limited attendance.

Thats fine. Appropriate attendance is key.

so give me some credit. i DO know the history, i DO consider the big picture, i DO consider every solution i can think of regardless of my personal opinion, i DO use caution to not completely fuck up what we have, and i DO know what i'm doing.

The irony was you threw Kirk under the bus, LOL.

 

[tnord]

sure, i can handle it jake.....but it's not worth it.

 

[lateapex911]

My recollection is that pretty much from the start, there was a fear of multi-valve engines in ITB from some of the committee members. To be fair, I think there was also irrational "fear" of (a) the Renesis; (b) V8s; (c) in line sixes in general; (d) BMW in line sixes in particular and (e) anything with a Honda or Acura logo on the valve cover.

We worked through most of that but one thing that stuck and seemed to morph from a gut feeling about architecture into the Ops Manual was the 30% default in ITB.

I don't think anyone was being gamed when that happened.

You probably weren't on the con call (either you were traveling and in a spotty zone and had fallen off, or hadn't joined the ITAC yet, I can't remember), when some car was being processed for ITB, and the 30% reared it's head, and when questioned on the veracity of the factor, the answer was "Because thats the deal we made to allow multivalve cars into ITB!!!!!". Following conversation was heated, and I distinctly remember being surprised and asking about "The deal". And the answer was that back in the day (I guess just before my time or somehow I missed it originally) that some factions of the ITAC (and CRB?) didn't want multvalve cars in ITB because they didn't fit the nature of the class, and they were thought to be overdogs.

I just think there was a perception that multi valve architecture in ITB was unusual and would result in higher gains than non multivalve. My perception -- as someone who is not nearly as familiar with these cars as you guys -- was that this perception stemmed mainly from some of the gains seen on the 1.6 Honda motor in the ITA CRX, and in the "Giles" ITB Honda.

Right, but ...and I said this at the time, it's ridiculous to assume that ALL multivalve cars will see the same gains...regardless of manufacturer, date produced, intake manifold, throttle body, etc, AND that they will ONLY see those gains when there is an ITB sticker on the side of them.

So it got codified, and now as Travis says - and he absolutely has, at least to me and from what I recall on the committee, been opposed to the 30% default -- we seem to be stuck with it.

And the decission is, what do we do that is best for the class? IF we consistently continue to process cars with it, and if we correctly apply the confidence factor, we should get most things right. I agree the MR2 is an exception, in my personal opinion, but that's the result the committee, using the process and the confidence analysis based on the data we had, reached.

If the MR2 is an example of the committee using the PRocess and the confidence window, then I worry about: "IF we consistently continue to process cars with it, and if we correctly apply the confidence factor, we should get most things right."....because that car is the poster child for getting a raw deal....so, if that's the way the committee works I can't see other cars getting a better deal. Unless there is some interal bias about the MR2....

 

[Knestis]

To throw some of the "blame" back on the old ITAC (me included), when I first started I would say record keeping was spotty at best -- record keeping that might have helped keep shenanigans down. For example, I think some of the confidence decisions on the FWD deduct, and the use of Lapsim, were things that should have gotten just as much scrutiny outside the committee as the 30% "default" in B. ...

Before this misinformation grows legs, I've got a complete record of every recommendation and the math that led to it, from Feb 2008 to the end of my tenure on the committee. During the period of Version 2, between its documentation and the schism, records were even kept re: individual members' call and confidence on non-standard factors (e.g., the RX8).

There is no such thing as a "confidence decision" on the FWD deduction. We used Lapsim to arrive at our best assessments of what that deduction should be, based on anecdotal observations that lower-hp cars suffer less from FWD syndrome than do higher-hp cars. The resulting numbers are applied without judgement.

Beyond those minor issues, I think you're spot-on with your observations and inferences, Jeff. However, regarding...

...we seem to be stuck with it.

... the ITAC is only as stuck with it as they want to be. If a majority of that committee's members think it's the right thing to do, just say so. You all have the right - and the responsibility - to do what you think is best. However, nobody seems to be saying that. "Stuck with it" is not a ringing endorsement.

If on the other hand you are being told by someone else that it's non-negotiable, well - they are wrong because you all, again, are empowered to make whatever recommendations you think are best for the category. And if it's going to be an issue, those member-thingies out there deserve the right to know who's pushing the agenda so they can direct their lobbying power correctly.

On a different issue, thinking back I can recall conversation when I first started of the 1.3 multiplier, although on reflection I do NOT think it was in the context of application to only two classes, however.

K

 

[Chip42]

And so far as I know, the ONLY "multivalve" ITB car that's had the "standard" 1.3 multiplier applied as a default is the Toyota. Any car that has been done per the actual Process since January 2008 should be as right as they are going to get. And before anyone squawks, the Toyota siblings were NOT done to the Process as it was codified internally by the ITAC. The 1.3 thing was imposed from the outside.

K

Kirk - 130% car added after January 2008:
99-2000 Mazda Protege ES, (FP-DE) 122hp@6000
122*1.3*.98*17=2642.3 lbs., GCR 2645, added via Fastrack tech bulletin June 08. interestingly, the same issue has the MR2 move to ITB @ 2525# (130% weight) as a proposed change effective 1/1/09.
I can't think of any other new entries brought in under the 130% adder, but just to have all of the recent mentions in context, the 88-91 Civic DX ("Underwood" type) lost 130# 1/09 and the 92-95 ("Ruck" type) was moved from A to B 10/09 at its still current weight.

And in case its read that way, I was not trying to drag Travis or anyone else from the ITAC past/present/future into a fight. I just wanted to set the facts strait about the 2 cars Travis used in his example.

 

[JeffYoung]

I have to respectfully disagree with some of this. I'm sure you kept excellent notes, and I know that after a while Jake was appointed secretary to do so as well.

But all of that information is 'lost" as far as the current ITAC is concerned. It's not documented anywhere on our site, and we can't go and easily get any information about why anything was done in the past. And that hurts us honestly (and not blaming anyone). If you have that information and would be willing to share it so I can put it up on the board as a historical "look" at how cars were classed over time that would be a tremendous help.

I still personally have issues with how the FWD deduction was done, and absolutely believe we engaged in a "confidence type" vote on it. IN my opinion, we did very little investigation into how Lapsim worked and how it calculated a FWD penalty on lap times and then esentially voted our confidence on that numbers it spit out which became the basis for the FWD deduction. I'm not saying revisit that, but I am going to use it as an example of the slippery slope that adders and deducts can be.

When I say stuck with the 1.30 default, what I mean is we have it, it was agreed to, it's in the Ops Manual and we've been using it. Changing it now might be worse than just sticking with it. No one is forcing us to do anything at this point.

Before this misinformation grows legs, I've got a complete record of every recommendation and the math that led to it, from Feb 2008 to the end of my tenure on the committee. During the period of Version 2, between its documentation and the schism, records were even kept re: individual members' call and confidence on non-standard factors (e.g., the RX8).

There is no such thing as a "confidence decision" on the FWD deduction. We used Lapsim to arrive at our best assessments of what that deduction should be, based on anecdotal observations that lower-hp cars suffer less from FWD syndrome than do higher-hp cars. The resulting numbers are applied without judgement.

Beyond those minor issues, I think you're spot-on with your observations and inferences, Jeff. However, regarding...



... the ITAC is only as stuck with it as they want to be. If a majority of that committee's members think it's the right thing to do, just say so. You all have the right - and the responsibility - to do what you think is best. However, nobody seems to be saying that. "Stuck with it" is not a ringing endorsement.

If on the other hand you are being told by someone else that it's non-negotiable, well - they are wrong because you all, again, are empowered to make whatever recommendations you think are best for the category. And if it's going to be an issue, those member-thingies out there deserve the right to know who's pushing the agenda so they can direct their lobbying power correctly.

On a different issue, thinking back I can recall conversation when I first started of the 1.3 multiplier, although on reflection I do NOT think it was in the context of application to only two classes, however.

K

 

[Knestis]

Kirk - 130% car added after January 2008:
99-2000 Mazda Protege ES, (FP-DE) 122hp@6000
122*1.3*.98*17=2642.3 lbs., GCR 2645, added via Fastrack tech bulletin June 08. interestingly, the same issue has the MR2 move to ITB @ 2525# (130% weight) as a proposed change effective 1/1/09.
I can't think of any other new entries brought in under the 130% adder, but just to have all of the recent mentions in context, the 88-91 Civic DX ("Underwood" type) lost 130# 1/09 and the 92-95 ("Ruck" type) was moved from A to B 10/09 at its still current weight.

And in case its read that way, I was not trying to drag Travis or anyone else from the ITAC past/present/future into a fight. I just wanted to set the facts strait about the 2 cars Travis used in his example.

Sorry - I thought that situation had been well documented here.

We INCORRECTLY - as in, dumb-ass Kirk brainfarted the wrong number into the spreadsheet - specs on four cars on a con call. (Don't blame Andy - it was, I think, the only call he ever missed.). We used 1.3 instead of 1.25 on four cars:

Neon SE, ES, SXT
Toyota MR2
Mazda Protégé
Neon R/T & ACR

We realized the error and I started agitating about getting OUR MISTAKE corrected, but there seemed to be some collective reluctance about getting it done. It took long enough that the fix for the Protege and MR2 got caught up in the "Do B over?" conversation, which led to the spreadsheet JJJ shared being provided to the CRB, which led to their seizure. (My understanding and interpretation of events.)

Regardless, my emphasis was in the wrong place. We didn't do ANY B cars at 1.3 as a DEFAULT. We did some (notably the re-run of the MkII Golf and Jetta) using the "confidence" process.

K

 

[Knestis]

I have to respectfully disagree with some of this. I'm sure you kept excellent notes, and I know that after a while Jake was appointed secretary to do so as well.

But all of that information is 'lost" as far as the current ITAC is concerned. It's not documented anywhere on our site, and we can't go and easily get any information about why anything was done in the past. And that hurts us honestly (and not blaming anyone). If you have that information and would be willing to share it so I can put it up on the board as a historical "look" at how cars were classed over time that would be a tremendous help. ...

When I say stuck with the 1.30 default, what I mean is we have it, it was agreed to, it's in the Ops Manual and we've been using it. Changing it now might be worse than just sticking with it. No one is forcing us to do anything at this point.

I uploaded the then-most-current spreadsheet into the discussion board when I "retired," so I know it's there, but I'll email you a copy as well.

On the 1.3 issue, it appears that the ITAC supports it so as far as I'm concerned, further conversation isn't necessary. We need to trust that they know best.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

Thanks Kirk.

That probably is on the "old board" and I'm not facile enough with the SCCA website to get to it. If you could send me that, I'd really appreciate it and I'll put it up in our documentation section.

On 1.3, as a group, yes, we do support it (as a group). But I remain open to debate/discussion about it.

I uploaded the then-most-current spreadsheet into the discussion board when I "retired," so I know it's there, but I'll email you a copy as well.

On the 1.3 issue, it appears that the ITAC supports it so as far as I'm concerned, further conversation isn't necessary. We need to trust that they know best.

K

 

[Knestis]

Thanks Kirk.

That probably is on the "old board" and I'm not facile enough with the SCCA website to get to it. If you could send me that, I'd really appreciate it and I'll put it up in our documentation section.

On 1.3, as a group, yes, we do support it (as a group). But I remain open to debate/discussion about it.

...so all of the history documented in the "old" discussion board is lost to the current members...? That sucks. Nobody should be allowed to even BE on the committee without understanding all of the skeletons in that closet.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

It may be available, but I don't know of an easy way to get to it. I agree it should be available.

...so all of the history documented in the "old" discussion board is lost to the current members...? That sucks. Nobody should be allowed to even BE on the committee without understanding all of the skeletons in that closet.

K

 

[lateapex911]

Really!?!?!
the forum with 7 YEARS of data is "unavailable"?????
And i took notes for two years.....yet i havent heard a peep about needing the notes...

And nobody thinks thats a problem?? Kirks right...Scca has awful institutional memory.

 

[JoshS]

Really!?!?!
the forum with 7 YEARS of data is "unavailable"?????
And i took notes for two years.....yet i havent heard a peep about needing the notes...

And nobody thinks thats a problem?? Kirks right...Scca has awful institutional memory.

It's not unavailable, it's right where it always was: http://www.sccabb.com/sccabc

 

[Greg Amy]

It's not unavailable, it's right where it always was: http://www.sccabb.com/sccabc

I knew SCCA has been around for a while, but I guess I didn't realize how long...

"Last Post on December.30.1899 at 12:00am By"