Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

Putting the Audi on the dyno could only hurt it. Makes good power... Oh, all of that with xyz being done. Makes low power... Well duh, no pro motor, and no xyz. Like Andy, I'd be curious how the info could be used productively.
 
JeffYoung said:
And that is exactly what we do. If there is a report of some car performing well, we take a look at it.

But it's crazy to think that one performance on one track by one driver in a car of unknown build development and legality should trump the dyno data we had for the MR2 (more than ANY other car since I've been on the ITAC).

Have you ever competed against an MR2?
Click to expand...

I think it is a stretch to assume a car is illegal, without protesting it.
I don't see any more validity in dyno sheets submitted by people with a vested interest in minimum gains.
The way this happened still creates a perception that there was an agenda to "fix" the MR2 now, rather than get it right. None of us knew that Chip was accusing Engle of cheating until his post yesterday. Perceptions are based on what we know and see happening.
The Honda issue sits the same way with me. We saw Underwood run strongly at the front at the ARRC in a car that he said did not have proper fueling or engine management. Yet weight has been taken off.

It is interesting to hear the double standard professed when Chip points out that an A2 Golf is hard to keep up with in an MR2 of unknown prep and driving level, yet it is inappropriate to point out on track performance of an MR2. I should hope that the car the class was indexed to is competitive - especially one with 25 years of IT specific racing development behind it, like the A2.

Regardless of how or why, the ITAC is changing the performance envelope of the class. At this point, I no longer think the Golf 3 is heavy. In fact it should probably move back to 2330 or wherever it was, or it will not be able to compete. Similarly the Golf 2 was and still is heavy.

The last go around, I felt that the Golf 2 was not treated fairly by the process, but I also felt that with no holds barred development and good driving it could still compete. I stated right here in this forum that I would drop the issue and up my game. I no longer feel that way. I will take the suggestions above and write a letter asking for the A2 VWs to be reprocessed at 25%, and why, because the car is nearly 100# over weight compared to the front running competition. My hope for those still racing A2 VWs in IT is that the ITAC will put them in a position to continue competing at the front. There are a LOT of these cars out there, and those members are important to the long term success of the class.

This is it for me in this thread. Thanks to all of you in the community and on the ITAC that have engaged each other in what I think is a critically important conversation for the future of ITB. I have a really busy week of work and school responsibilities going on, but when I get a chance, I will send in the request.
 
I'm not accusing him, I suspect that there are liberties taken that are questionable at best (i.e. illegal) based on circumstantial evidence. cheating is intentional, thinkning you are following the rules and actually going beyond what they allow may render an illegal car but isn't intentionally cheating. there's a difference. and as others have attested, it's irrelevant because he wasn't that fast anyhow.

there is no double standard. I was making a point re: the SIC race. the ITAC DOES NOT consider on track performance on its own, particularly not 1 or 2 specific events, but If I were to, there's a data point. one that shows a very well built and driven example of a car YOU claim to be not in need of adjustment (weight loss) running tight with another very well built and driven example of a car you DO claim needs one (again, weight loss). I was throwing it into play to get another "hidden piece of data" in the open. also, FWIW, Roebling is a track well suited to the MR2, unlike those tracks which require the ability to accelerate out of slow corners. check the same driver's lap times at sebring or CMP. it's simply less competitive there. "horses for courses". this is one of the MANY reasons we don't look at discrete on track data.

the A2 SHOULD be a great car, and there certainly are a bunch out there. if the classification isn't right, lets fix it. but it will require input as I understand there is knowledge supporitng the current weight. see previous posts from some previous ITAC members as I wans't around then, but some others were. we have a letter, we will be doing research. your help in that matter is appreciated.
 
I've thought about this post for several days so please believe me when I say it's well considered, and take it for what it might be worth.

For the first time in something like a quarter century in the SCCA, I'm seriously considering my primary race car NOT being an IT car.

It's primarily because if I have to put up with crap suggestions like dyno pulls, serious consideration of on-track performance, and competition adjustments (bleah!), I'll rebuild with something I can run Nationals with.

We are ---> this <--- close to effing up the category one final time, perhaps to its death.

PLEASE DO SO KNOWING THAT IT MIGHT WELL BE THE END OF IT.

K
 
JeffYoung said:
Quick suggestion: PMs suggesting that I'm "ignorant," shouldn't be racing, and shouldn't be on the ITAC REALLY don't help you accomplish the goal you are seeking to accomplish.

Really.
Click to expand...

Love it, kinda like the email I got last month that started with “we know you all are stupid but don’t treat us like we are”:shrug:
 
Knestis said:
I've thought about this post for several days so please believe me when I say it's well considered, and take it for what it might be worth.

For the first time in something like a quarter century in the SCCA, I'm seriously considering my primary race car NOT being an IT car.

It's primarily because if I have to put up with crap suggestions like dyno pulls, serious consideration of on-track performance, and competition adjustments (bleah!), I'll rebuild with something I can run Nationals with.

We are ---> this <--- close to effing up the category one final time, perhaps to its death.

PLEASE DO SO KNOWING THAT IT MIGHT WELL BE THE END OF IT.

K
Click to expand...

Well, that is disconcerting but not surprising to hear.

I agree with you fully about on track and comp adjustments.

On dyno data, I hate having to use it but in many cases, on the gain number, I'm not sure what else we are supposed to do. It's the way the Process is set up. The gain number is the critical factor and it's where the human error element comes in. How else do we get it right when there is data out there suggesting a deviation from the 25% default should be employed?

I'm very serious about this -- how else do we do this correctly?
 
Chip42 said:
I'm not accusing him, I suspect that there are liberties taken that are questionable at best (i.e. illegal) based on circumstantial evidence. cheating is intentional, thinkning you are following the rules and actually going beyond what they allow may render an illegal car but isn't intentionally cheating. there's a difference. and as others have attested, it's irrelevant because he wasn't that fast anyhow.


the A2 SHOULD be a great car, and there certainly are a bunch out there. if the classification isn't right, lets fix it. but it will require input as I understand there is knowledge supporitng the current weight. see previous posts from some previous ITAC members as I wans't around then, but some others were. we have a letter, we will be doing research. your help in that matter is appreciated.
Click to expand...

Actually Chip, there isn't a difference. If it's illegal, it's illegal, it doesn't matter if it was done on purpose or not. I agree that how it reflects on the individual involved is different, but not as it pertains to the car.

If there's knowledge/data out there that support the higher weight, then it needs to be produced, if you're going to use it. Isn't that what the ops manual says? I can't believe people are ok with "I know a guy who knew a guy that thought he saw one once"

And the more I think about it, Josh is right on point. Use the set multiplier, and if a different weight is warranted, use the proper mechanism, a PCA. A lot of people put a lot of time, thought, and effort into developing that system for it to be just chucked aside.
 
it's not about what I want. you know that. 25% might fly right through, I don't know, we haven't tried in my time, but it's been suggested by others who know the history and players that there's likely to be some debate about that. and yeah, we SHOULD have data we can point to to backup the non-standard multiplier. no argument. we're working on making that part of the system BETTER moving forward. We can't change the past, but we still have to deal with it sometimes.

re: cheating. I differentiate because I have been told (never seen it personally) that the car in question is a top notch build, but I also know it's showing more speed than other examples by a not small margin (straight line speed is NOT where ANY other current MR2 shines, and they are particularly dull in straight line acceleration). Also, I know a guy who was involved with it who is known to read more into allowances then they state, sometimes WAY more, and I've talked to him about some of his innovations during the last 4 or so years, which I recently learned was the timeframe when Nick was building the car. THAT suggests to me that something on the car is not right. I don't think the guy is "cheating" in a malicious sense by doing something obviously illegal, like the wrong manifold, too much CR, etc... and again, it doesn't matter, because it's not enough faster than expected to scare ME into reexamining the "5% higher than we've actually seen" multiplier the MR2 just got re-run with.

We are discussing a moratoreum on classification changes in ITB to allow a run through of the entire class. that might end up being a blanket reset of everyone to 25%, sans those we have good data on. Though I fear we'll just wind up pissing off a different group of drivers if we do so.
 
Last edited:
JeffYoung said:
On dyno data, I hate having to use it but in many cases, on the gain number, I'm not sure what else we are supposed to do. It's the way the Process is set up. The gain number is the critical factor and it's where the human error element comes in. How else do we get it right when there is data out there suggesting a deviation from the 25% default should be employed?

I'm very serious about this -- how else do we do this correctly?
Click to expand...

You don't. You guys are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and whatever you do is sure to piss someone off. On the one extreme you have those who feel a 100% fixed, formulaic process, with zero allowance for deviation, is the only way to go. At the other extreme you have those who want their cars adjusted because Joe Blow beat their nearly stock Neon last week in his brand new SpeedSource-prepped Meotter. The first group only care about the classification process, and not the outcomes, and are perfectly happy with the inequities that result. The second group only gives a shit about their own little world, and similarly could care less if there is any parity within the classes (as long as their cars are at the top of the heap). It's a no-win situation.

All you can do is try very, very hard to make sure anything you do is thoroughly thought out, and well documented, and supported by as much reliable evidence as is possible.

And oh, BTW, where is the ITAC on my request to drop 100 lbs from my car? I want to go down to Atlanta in a couple of weeks, but at the current weight I have no chance of winning...if you can't help me I'll be forced to go race in World Challenge or something...
 
Ya know, back in the good ol days when the crust was cooling and Opels roamed the earth, the first paragraph of the IT specs said something to the effect that "we don't promise that your car will be competitive". You made your choices and you raced. Some made choices based on wanting to win, some made choices based on what they had in their driveway, some made choices by consulting fortune tellers. The weight of the car was published curb weight. Put a cage in take some shit out, as long as your car weighed what the factory said it should you were good to go.

Trying to make turds shine and be as fast as everyone else's car is just an exercise in frustration, and pisses off most people.

Make the rule as simple as when Andy was in Middle School and let people choose whether they want a chance at winning or driving their favorite (insert car name here)

Just an old farts opinion...get over it! 8^)
 
erlrich said:
You don't. You guys are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and whatever you do is sure to piss someone off. On the one extreme you have those who feel a 100% fixed, formulaic process, with zero allowance for deviation, is the only way to go. At the other extreme you have those who want their cars adjusted because Joe Blow beat their nearly stock Neon last week in his brand new SpeedSource-prepped Meotter. The first group only care about the classification process, and not the outcomes, and are perfectly happy with the inequities that result. The second group only gives a shit about their own little world, and similarly could care less if there is any parity within the classes (as long as their cars are at the top of the heap). It's a no-win situation.

All you can do is try very, very hard to make sure anything you do is thoroughly thought out, and well documented, and supported by as much reliable evidence as is possible.

And oh, BTW, where is the ITAC on my request to drop 100 lbs from my car? I want to go down to Atlanta in a couple of weeks, but at the current weight I have no chance of winning...if you can't help me I'll be forced to go race in World Challenge or something...
Click to expand...

That request was denied. Still waiting on the dyno info. :D

There are two choices here.

A) Run a car through the process without any other consideration with the 25% number and whatever adders/subtractors and call it done. Cars that make more than 25%, good for them. Cars that make less than 25%, too bad. There can be no arguing of the numbers, though.

B] Attempt to modify the process in some fashion to take into account actual data and other info. This is the direction the ITAC has gone and it opens up the door for a lot more discussion on how a car's weight was achieved.

If you pick A, people will probably bitch as much (or even more) *because* the ITAC isn't going deeper than running a car through the formula. I think the ITAC is doing a good job at trying to balance using real data versus the paper process. I don't think it's an even remotely easy job to do and is a pretty thankless task. I think if the ITAC explains their reasoning and documents everything that is the best they can do. That won't be enough for some people, though, and they'll still complain.

David
 
Ed Funk said:
Ya know, back in the good ol days when the crust was cooling and Opels roamed the earth, the first paragraph of the IT specs said something to the effect that "we don't promise that your car will be competitive". You made your choices and you raced. Some made choices based on wanting to win, some made choices based on what they had in their driveway, some made choices by consulting fortune tellers. The weight of the car was published curb weight. Put a cage in take some shit out, as long as your car weighed what the factory said it should you were good to go.

Trying to make turds shine and be as fast as everyone else's car is just an exercise in frustration, and pisses off most people.

Make the rule as simple as when Andy was in Middle School and let people choose whether they want a chance at winning or driving their favorite (insert car name here)

Just an old farts opinion...get over it! 8^)
Click to expand...


That would just be Hondas and VWs then :lol:
 
Here's what I expect from the ITAC, and SCCA as a whole:

Be able to look any member directly in the face and tell them how the car they care about was classified. Explain what data was used, and be honest. Then be open to listening to what they have to say, absorb it, ask for hard proof it need be then give it some thought. As a part of all of this, have it documented so the next round of ITAC or CRB or BOD can refer to. I do not expect perfection, however I and others do expect to be treated fairly.

For years I've heard the ITAC has spend a large percentage of time on ITB. This includes the "re-do" V1 and V2. I totally am not suggesting this isn't the case but have been surprised if with the small number of changes. Now granted I've kinda ignored things lately because I realized it was just frustrating. Before you react, I'm am NOT saying the ITAC isn't working hard. Hell, I went on vaca with Gulick and he just had to find a damn hot spot then attend a lengthy con call while his G/F thought he was insane. Well...

The PM / e-mail? I think the advice I've been told kinda transfers "no one ever made a statue of a critic." No matter how amazing of a job you do, you just can't please everyone.

A total re-do of ITB at just 25%? That scares me. Be open to requests to re-evaluate cars on request? Great! (Again, document findings!!!!)
 
gran racing said:
Here's what I expect from the ITAC, and SCCA as a whole:

Be able to look any member directly in the face and tell them how the car they care about was classified. Explain what data was used, and be honest. Then be open to listening to what they have to say, absorb it, ask for hard proof it need be then give it some thought. As a part of all of this, have it documented so the next round of ITAC or CRB or BOD can refer to. I do not expect perfection, however I and others do expect to be treated fairly.

For years I've heard the ITAC has spend a large percentage of time on ITB. This includes the "re-do" V1 and V2. I totally am not suggesting this isn't the case but have been surprised if with the small number of changes. Now granted I've kinda ignored things lately because I realized it was just frustrating. Before you react, I'm am NOT saying the ITAC isn't working hard. Hell, I went on vaca with Gulick and he just had to find a damn hot spot then attend a lengthy con call while his G/F thought he was insane. Well...

The PM / e-mail? I think the advice I've been told kinda transfers "no one ever made a statue of a critic." No matter how amazing of a job you do, you just can't please everyone.

A total re-do of ITB at just 25%? That scares me. Be open to requests to re-evaluate cars on request? Great! (Again, document findings!!!!)
Click to expand...

I'm not in favor of a redo at just 25%.

I made a point of mentioning the PM just as an example of what is NOT persuasive. In any way, shape or form.

I am serious about this. ITB takes up TOO....MUCH...TIME. As a result, we don't get bigger picture stuff done and don't work on the other classes. R needs some corrections. C needs a hard look. We need to start looking at forced induction.

None of that gets touched because we have to argue about 30 year old Audi microfiches. I suppose it must be done, but I'll be honest -- I think the class as a whole could use with a bit more relaxation, more racing, and less 'weight advocacy.'
 
JeffYoung said:
Well, that is disconcerting but not surprising to hear.

I agree with you fully about on track and comp adjustments.

On dyno data, I hate having to use it but in many cases, on the gain number, I'm not sure what else we are supposed to do. It's the way the Process is set up. The gain number is the critical factor and it's where the human error element comes in. How else do we get it right when there is data out there suggesting a deviation from the 25% default should be employed?

I'm very serious about this -- how else do we do this correctly?
Click to expand...

Quit trying so hard. Seriously. The first step toward failure is trying to "get it right." Get it somewhere sort of, kind of, mostly in the same ballpark and call it good.

When someone gets the idea that y'all are going to strive for the Truth, it sets up completely unrealistic expectations and just encourages bad behavior. It's enabling all of the paddock and board BS.

1. Do B over from scratch.

2. IGNORE all of the things you think you "know" vis-a-vis on-track competitiveness.

3. Set everything at 1.25 unless you're dealing with DIN HP ratings or some systemic crap like that - use the spreadsheet that I spent 100 hours working on as the starting point and you're halfway done. Apply any different math to entire generations/types of car; not individual cases.

4. Sign a pledge that says "on track performance will be considered as a trigger for alternate multipliers when same make/model ITB car wins 80% of the IT races in the nation, if and only if no other example of the same make/model finish anywhere in the lowest 20% of finishers in any same race." We have made "overdog" way low of a bar.

5. Apply the same practices to additions/changes to the other classes.

6. Go racing.

The point is that you do NOT have to go looking for dyno sheets and do all that song and dance unless you have TRULY COMPELLING evidence of a major system failure at the standard multipliers. The Process ALLOWS that; it does not compel you to do it. And we simply don't have the sample size to make any well founded judgments re: specs anyway. I fear that we are chasing compliance with the ITCS weight specs as often as not.

Set IT free.

K
 
Last edited:
Honestly, put my car at 25%, put it at 30%, I am silly enough to think it can be made up at this level by the driver. Like others said get it close. Excuses why we suck... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top