Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[JeffYoung]

Chip, I’m not naïve enough to think that politics in racing are ever-present, sadly even on our level. This is the exact reason why I followed up my original request to eliminate the default multi-valve with the request to have the Accord reviewed. I know you were against the adder and truly do appreciate the work that members on the ITAC do. Sometimes it's out of your hands.

Request to eliminate multi-valve request gets shot down.
Accord gains weight based on multi-valve default.
Multi-valve default magically gets eliminated.
Accord weight is reduced. For those not in the know, an influential person (not on the ITAC) has strong ties to the Accord.

While the end result is good and I’m pleased, what it took to get there is very disappointing. A big part of me wonders if the multi-valve default would still exist without the Accord request. I am not asking you or any other ITAC member to answer that. I also know the ITAC was against the adder and tried to eliminate it.

I will say that an old thread about “|the back room or” and the discussion about the multi-valve default / Accord review makes for an interesting read (especially pages 10 – 12).

All I can tell you is that it "wasn't that way." The Accord, the MR2 and the default all got looked at, and we ended up where we are now.

-no default
-MR2 at 20%
-Accord at 25%

Which I think is as close to correct as we are going to get.

 

[Harvey]

I shared numbers last time too.
I gained 22% between a stock long block with header and correct fueling and a full tilt IT build.

But the problem is bigger than this one car. You don't have an effective process to determine what a car is capable of. You rely on competitors to send you dyno sheets, and they have a vested interest in what those sheets show. There was a huge ruckus about "getting away from arbitrarily changing weights" in the classification process, but now we are IMO arbitrarily setting HP in the classification process, and getting it wrong by 5 = 85lbs. Getting it wrong by 10 is 170lbs. The reason it was named a process, rather than a formula, is that it was always intended to include subjective evaluation by educated stakeholders to set final weights. We are where we are because we tried to turn this into a spreadsheet, with only one dependent variable that is very difficult to nail down, and has a multiplicative impact on the final weight. Thus we have a lot more volatility in the outcome.

If someone wants to influence the classification of a given car or group of cars, they could write letters and create dyno sheets, or even join the ITAC and lobby for changes that suit their agenda - because the dependent variable is nearly impossible to objectively confirm. Whenever someone floats the idea of power to weight classing, a chorus of replies points out how easy it is to manipulate dyno results if tested at the track. Well how much easier is it to do that when you are doing the testing in private?

There needs to be some level of control added to the system. Maybe - if a recommendation is to change a cars weight by 100 or more within a 2 year period, that the cars need to be independently verified (not sure what that looks like - independent dynos, data boxes in the cars, something), because we are rarely going to go back and put weight back on them from what I have seen. Something to slow the pace of change, and make sure we catch mistakes while we make them or before we make them worse.

Look at what just happened:
MR2 -
2011 GCR = ITB at 2525#
Many MR2 drivers complain that they cannot be competitive at this weight
Feb 2011 FastTrack = ITB at 2430#, a 95# reduction
More MR2 cars start racing
Summer 2012, we see a competitive example that is making a run at the 2012 ITNT. By all accounts it is a car that is built right, and legal, and it is competitive with the class.
Nov 2012 FastTrack = ITB at 2335, a 95# reduction

This car lost 190# in less than 2 years, with very little feedback on how effective the first 95# move was. Seeing the 2nd move made after a front running car showed up indicates little consideration for the existing balance of the class, or possibility that there was some amount of missing or inaccurate information from the ITAC perspective. Yet it was more important to get this done now than to get it right.

Sorry guys. I was patient. I was patient for a few years waiting for the A2 to be reviewed last time. I was patient for a few years while the A3 was finally moved about halfway from where it was to where it should be. I was worried when the Hondas were moved in, were competitive out of the box, yet were not running 'cleanly' coming off many corners. Now when I see more weight coming off competitive cars that were not raced in the previous configuration very long, I get it. The class will cater to a different group of cars. Just try to put in some processes that keep things more stable for this group - IT was attractive for stability, and it is not stable any more.

It is easy for me to move for a lot of reasons - HP and FP are much better subscribed in my area. I will no longer have to drive across the country to find more than one strong competitor.
My car is competitive in HP, and I think will be in FP. I also have a network of knowledge around this car and those classes from helping others run there for a long time.
The landscape of club racing may well be changing, but I still don't see IT being allowed at the grown up table any time soon, and I do want to go and race for a national championship.

I was always going to make this move, but I had planned on making another run at the ARRC and the ITNT first. No reason to spend that money if the car won't be competitive right now, so I am just pulling the trigger sooner. I don't have the bandwidth to keep a foot in each community, so I probably won't be around this board as often going forward.

All of that said, I still think that IT in concept is the best rule set in club racing, and I hope that it regains the reputation for stability that attracted so many of us to it in the first place.

Chris very nice post and unfortunately correct on a LOT of points, come on over to Prod it certainly ain't perfect but I find I like it much better now.

 

[Chip42]

what the process does well is make reasonably balanced fields when the cars respond like we expect them to. that's laregly the cas ein ITA and ITS. There's data on a bunch of the key players in each class which sets their weights, and mostly everythign else just works well at defaults.

ITB has more technology levels which do not respond equally to IT mods, was bogeyed on proportedly cheated up cars which ended up hurting same when they were run legally, and was never re-processed thuroughly. Chris is right, though, that we rely on data and that data is subjective and comes from parties with skin in the game. so we don't often see high numbers. the choice then is to leave everythign at the default values and let it shake out, or to freewheel it and pick weights that feel right, effectively abandoning the process all together, even if we call it a PCA.

Long term I like the process.

also, yeah, the accord was one of the cars with data that helped break the 30% rule, so was the MR2 (and siblings, they will get re-run soon). both are still 5% or more over what dydno data we have seen, though. because there's still fears about their potential performance.

and a personal oppinion, I know MR2s and 4AGEs pretty damn well, and I know some people invovled in the the ITNT running MR2. that car is a no holds barred build, but I have serious reservations believing it to be fully legal. which is a shame, because a build of that level could have been the touchstone car for the MR2 crowd, instead it's seen as a question mark or worse.

 

[Rabbit05]

"But I do think it is overstated. It's related primarily to ITB, which is our problem child class for a lot of reasons. It takes up something like 75% of our time on our calls. And the changes you see are simply efforts to review and revise old weights using the Process since the whole class was never run through it.
I disagree with you on not having an effective means of determining the horsepower function of the process. I think we do. We have seven individuals reviewing data to determine what appears to be possible with a required level of confidence before a chance is made. "

Really ?? I have submitted several factory documents on the Audi's HP ?(pics somewhere on this web site) I was told that the ITAC has ONE document that disputes this..which this document still remains UNDISCLOSED ... In fact I know that a ITAC member has the Audi Factory Manual . So I disagree completely here....



"The MR2 example you raise is a red herring frankly. The car should have been in ITB where it is now from the start. And the on track evidence we have seen is that the car is just barely competitive against top flight A3s and Hondas."

Like everyone else in ITB now...



"I do agree with you that 5 hp errors in ITB are a big deal. But the only way to correct that is to send us information. Send your dyno sheets in and give us the information we need to correct this. If the A2 Rabbit/Jetta/Golf shouldn't be at 30%, do what the MR2 guys did."

I am glad we agree on this point ....as the Audi is 170 lbs overweight....(10 hp)

With the Scirocco , and the MKII Golf thing and the Audi HP "fear" , you can plainly see that something is amiss here.

Esp when the Toyota lose 190 lbs ??? And the magically reversal on the Honda Prelude ???

WOW...Really ??

 

[JeffYoung]

"But I do think it is overstated. It's related primarily to ITB, which is our problem child class for a lot of reasons. It takes up something like 75% of our time on our calls. And the changes you see are simply efforts to review and revise old weights using the Process since the whole class was never run through it.
I disagree with you on not having an effective means of determining the horsepower function of the process. I think we do. We have seven individuals reviewing data to determine what appears to be possible with a required level of confidence before a chance is made. "

Really ?? I have submitted several factory documents on the Audi's HP ?(pics somewhere on this web site) I was told that the ITAC has ONE document that disputes this..which this document still remains UNDISCLOSED ... In fact I know that a ITAC member has the Audi Factory Manual . So I disagree completely here....



"The MR2 example you raise is a red herring frankly. The car should have been in ITB where it is now from the start. And the on track evidence we have seen is that the car is just barely competitive against top flight A3s and Hondas."

Like everyone else in ITB now...



"I do agree with you that 5 hp errors in ITB are a big deal. But the only way to correct that is to send us information. Send your dyno sheets in and give us the information we need to correct this. If the A2 Rabbit/Jetta/Golf shouldn't be at 30%, do what the MR2 guys did."

I am glad we agree on this point ....as the Audi is 170 lbs overweight....(10 hp)

With the Scirocco , and the MKII Golf thing and the Audi HP "fear" , you can plainly see that something is amiss here.

Esp when the Toyota lose 190 lbs ??? And the magically reversal on the Honda Prelude ???

WOW...Really ??

You're getting borderline offensive.

You've been told many times (I'm the guy with the Audi manual by the way, I'm looking at it right now) what happened with the Audi. There is conflicting data on teh stock hp number. There is a microfiche that I've seen that says 120. The manual says 110. I don't have the microfiche. If I did, I'd give it to you.

You're fairly new right? There have been several competitive Audis over the years. Until you spend the time and money necessary to develop your program and your driving skills, you simply can't expect to compete against a top flight ITB program.

I will say this. All of this discussion over ITB -- to the EXCLUSION of spending needed time on other IT classes -- is really, really frustrating. Some of it is certainly the historical classing issues in the class, but quite frankly, I don't think I've seen another group of drivers so virulent in "weight advocacy" as the ITB group.

Our goal is to get you guys close and let you race. If you want true micromanagement of your weights, well, I agree: go to Prod.

EDIT: Yes, really on teh MR2. It's now at a weigth still higher than what the dyno data shows for it.

 

[gran racing]

Our goal is to get you guys close and let you race.

Great! Just treat them the same along the way and we're good.

It was an Accord John.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I wish the ITAC could just sweep through ITB with the Process and be done, but we have to realize that its a class with so many different technologies and frankly, multiple stock HP rating methods because it spans 40 years worth of classifications. Crazy.

 

[JeffYoung]

I wish the ITAC could just sweep through ITB with the Process and be done, but we have to realize that its a class with so many different technologies and frankly, multiple stock HP rating methods because it spans 40 years worth of classifications. Crazy.

We were back to that debate last night -- should we do a complete sweep and how long would it take?

I think we are leaning that way though.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

We were back to that debate last night -- should we do a complete sweep and how long would it take?

I think we are leaning that way though.

Oh, it can be done. Just need to set a goal and invest the time. If it were me, I would first agree on a conversion factor for the different HP ratings, then have 1 member run a spreadsheet with the core process results. Then over 3-4 con-calls you review the results and click them off ending with a final sheet to submit to the CRB. I would be sure to include notes on all cars that were outside the 25% and why.

 

[jjjanos]

You're getting borderline offensive.

You've been told many times (I'm the guy with the Audi manual by the way, I'm looking at it right now) what happened with the Audi. There is conflicting data on teh stock hp number. There is a microfiche that I've seen that says 120. The manual says 110. I don't have the microfiche. If I did, I'd give it to you.

To refresh everyone....
What we have is a case of multiple (and findable) sources that list 110 and a microfiche (and unfindable) source that lists 120, correct?
- Is the microfiche for an unmodified US car as sold in the US?
- What is the source of the microfiche (factory publication? trade magazine?)
- What is the citation for the microfiche so that those with an axe to grind can go to a research library and do some digging?
- Was the 120 BHP, SAE Gross, SAE Net or SAE certified?

I will say this. All of this discussion over ITB -- to the EXCLUSION of spending needed time on other IT classes -- is really, really frustrating. Some of it is certainly the historical classing issues in the class, but quite frankly, I don't think I've seen another group of drivers so virulent in "weight advocacy" as the ITB group.

It's because no consistent method has been used to classify the cars. Newer classifications have received unfair advantages and older classifications have to jump through hoops to be given the same set of assumptions used by newer cars. Nor does the appearance of a conflict of interest does not assist in finding harmony.

You are on record supporting rules stabilization. That would pretty much mean that task for the ITAC would be the classification of unclassified vehicles and the reclassification of older cars in Accord with the process. ITB and ITC are the places you will find a massive GF of a mess, courtesy of the process. The ITAC has taken ITC off the table pending something, so that leaves ITB as the 600-lb white gorilla. It's also a very popular class.

Our goal is to get you guys close and let you race. If you want true micromanagement of your weights, well, I agree: go to Prod.

If that were true, you would set weights based on published HP #s and to hell with RWD/strut/FWD modifiers and to hell with whether the car is a smogged out POS or a lean, mean fighting machine as it rolled out of the factory.

 

[Rabbit05]

No Jeff I am not new ...

I have been racing in SCCA for over 10 years now....with a short break inbetween .


I just dont post on forums that often...only once in a great while.That is why you may think I am new, but since this is a public forum...and I have seen what has been written in this thread. I decided to voice my opinion ...for what that is worth


I dont like to "toot my own horn" . But I think I am a decent driver. (see : ITC Lime Rock track record ..also had Watkins Glen (LC) track record at one time too)


And I didnt want to say "Jeff has the Book !!".. but now the cat's out of the bag. Fine if you dont have the micofiche , that's cool.

Could you please tell me who does ? I would like to contact this person and request a copy .

 

[JeffYoung]

R/S/A? No issues and some of the same problems. Reason? Because the drivers in those classes for the most part realize that "50 lbs" does NOT equal a second a lap or some such nonsense, and actually work on and develop their cars rather than claim "new cars get advantages older ones don't." That mantra from the WDCR ITB crowd (well, some of them anyway) is pretty much nonsensical.

Since the Process came on line, the ITAC has done nothing but class cars via the Process.

THe Audi "issue" is straightforward. All shopmanuals and online sources say 110 hp. An internal Audi service microfiche says 120 for that same motor.

I believe 110 should be used. Others disagreed.

We've asked MANY MANY times for Audi drivers to send dyno sheets. THe Blethans have not and neither has John. If they did, this whole issue could possibly go away.

 

[JeffYoung]

No Jeff I am not new ...

I have been racing in SCCA for over 10 years now....with a short break inbetween .


I just dont post on forums that often...only once in a great while.That is why you may think I am new, but since this is a public forum...and I have seen what has been written in this thread. I decided to voice my opinion ...for what that is worth


I dont like to "toot my own horn" . But I think I am a decent driver. (see : ITC Lime Rock track record ..also had Watkins Glen (LC) track record at one time too)


And I didnt want to say "Jeff has the Book !!".. but now the cat's out of the bag. Fine if you dont have the micofiche , that's cool.

Could you please tell me who does ? I would like to contact this person and request a copy .

Either Peter Keane or Chris Albin (I believe) had the microfiche).

 

[ajmr2]

The MR2 example you raise is a red herring frankly. The car should have been in ITB where it is now from the start.

FWIW, coming from ITA to ITB at the weight we are finally at would not have produced a sudden ringer in ITB. And it won't now. We fought hard for years in ITA to get a fair shake on ther 85-89 MR2, and it went through a couple weight loss adjustments while in ITA. Once we moved to ITB we were awarded 255# for the privilege. The car was a pig and we went through hubs and brakes like you wouldn't believe. After several years of endless debate, personal positions taken while seemingly ignoring dyno sheet evidence, and a few guys determned to keep the MR2 on the radar, we finally got what I consider fair treatment, NOT special treatment. And we had a lot of support from non MR2 racers who saw we were getting screwed for years.
So if you have a gripe, write you letters and ask for what you think is fair. Gather your buddies who run the same car and twist their arms to send in letters of support. Take the time to submit your dyno sheets and stay after it.
One thing I learned in this process is that most of guys on the ITAC and CRB want to do the right thing. It did take a long time, but I know from personal experience that the current ITAC is eager to help make thing fair. Remember, this is a club made up of volunteers with a passion for cars. Preparing for conference calls, debating the issues presented and making informed decisions is not an easy job and it's extremely time consuming.
I've been quilty of venting on his forum from time to time, but it doesn't help to sling mud or insult anyone. Just take a deep breath and start planning your strategy. Or not!

 

[jjjanos]

R/S/A? No issues and some of the same problems. Reason? Because the drivers in those classes for the most part realize that "50 lbs" does NOT equal a second a lap or some such nonsense

With all do respect... 50 lbs on ITC > 50 lbs on ITB > 50 lbs on ITA > 50 lbs ITS > 50 lbs on ITR. I hope I don't have to explain why.

..and actually work on and develop their cars rather than claim "new cars get advantages older ones don't." That mantra from the WDCR ITB crowd (well, some of them anyway) is pretty much nonsensical.

Perhaps I have not understood correctly. A never-before classified 2005 Nash Rambler (will fit in IT with a multi-valve engine comes before you. There is no dyno sheet (the car has never been built to IT standards). It is FWD and rated at 100HP. The default HP multiplier is what?

An already-classified multi-valve Stutz Bearclaw GT (ITB car) has come before your august selves requesting reclassification. Reverse math gives the HP multiplier at 1.4. The competitor does not submit a dyno sheet. It is FWD and rated at 100HP. The default multiplier is identical to the one used above?

Y'all know NOTHING about either car other than the published information (and you have some really uncompetitive lap times for the Bearclaw). Both cars get identical weights without requesting additional information from the submitters?

THe Audi "issue" is straightforward. All shopmanuals and online sources say 110 hp. An internal Audi service microfiche says 120 for that same motor.

And a little internet search shows that Audi had 5 "different" motors in the Audi and they seem to have different BHP ratings. (Yes, I used Wiki). So knowing that the document came from Audi doesn't help.

Was it for the stock US-legal motor and not a motor from a different English-language country? (Did the document have rhyming slang in it? Did it say in God We Trust or crikey or future home of the Lord of the Rings or wear a tuque?)

We've asked MANY MANY times for Audi drivers to send dyno sheets. THe Blethans have not and neither has John. If they did, this whole issue could possibly go away.

It could, but I bet it wouldn't. I bet some fleet-rank officers would claim the dynos were manipulated downwards.

 

[ShelbyRacer]

But the last word is that, if we'd run all of the really viable ITB cars through the process back when we proposed that to the CRB, without screwing around too much with "what we know," we wouldn't still be in this mess.
K

Interesting that you bring this up, as it was discussed at length last night. I don't know where that conversation we eventually lead us, but it is nice to hear that first-hand from someone else who was involved.

 

[ShelbyRacer]

Oh, it can be done. Just need to set a goal and invest the time. If it were me, I would first agree on a conversion factor for the different HP ratings, then have 1 member run a spreadsheet with the core process results. Then over 3-4 con-calls you review the results and click them off ending with a final sheet to submit to the CRB. I would be sure to include notes on all cars that were outside the 25% and why.

This sounds amazingly similar to what we discussed. I've volunteered to step up and begin to wade through things, though this is certainly a learning process for me. I know that the others on the committee will be right there too, so this is a task I'm looking forward to in many ways. The issue becomes the conflicting information, which I/we intend to document thoroughly for posterity. My simple goal is- I want to be able to look a competitor in the eye and explain what we did (or what we didn't do) and why. It still ain't going to make everyone happy, but I know that the ITAC as a whole wants to do The Right Thing (TM). Problem is, I sincerely believe that the guys who came before wanted to do The Right Thing too, and I'd like to figure out where that went awry and deal with those issues.

I can also tell you that if you take the time to request, we will take the time to give all requests consideration and discussion. In the end, you may not get what you want, but we should be able to explain whatever result was handed down. Already I've come to understand that the phrase "This should be a clear-cut one," means that the serious discussion will last about 15-20 minutes, while we weigh all the options and the ramifications of each. The last thing I (or I think any other ITAC member) want to see is someone take something we didn't do as a result of complacency, and turn that into a policy statement.

A momentary rant though-

Coming on these boards just to say that you're going to Prod/NASA/Lemons/F1 because of something that got screwed up is not the way to entice others to join your battle. Sending a letter that spells out the issue and asks for a specific result will do a heck of a lot more for your chances. You may have "done that a while back", but things could be different now. At the same time, I will say that I don't want IT to ever become a class that varies year-to-year based on the whims of the powers that be. We have to justify EVERY decision we make, positive or negative, action or no action, to the CRB. We look at every request and make decisions based on every piece of info we can find. We don't, however, act on forum suggestions or personal gripes. I don't want to see ANY driver/competitor leave this class because they didn't feel like they got a fair shake, but telling us the problem as you walk out the door doesn't give us much chance to address things.

That said, I'll tell you that I sent in my resume not because I had a problem with something that's happening, but because I think we have a pretty damn good thing going here, thanks in large part to the hard work of the guys who came before me. I'm glad to have the chance to *continue* to hone and improve things, in a way that leads to better racing for everyone. (and if you read this far, you're as persistent as I am, and thanks for hearing me out!)

 

[shwah]

and a personal oppinion, I know MR2s and 4AGEs pretty damn well, and I know some people invovled in the the ITNT running MR2. that car is a no holds barred build, but I have serious reservations believing it to be fully legal. which is a shame, because a build of that level could have been the touchstone car for the MR2 crowd, instead it's seen as a question mark or worse.

The car was fast enough at Road America that other competitors called me and asked about it on Saturday morning. They also talked to the driver. He described a very thorough build process that included flow testing of multiple intakes and heads along the way, and an intention to run at the ARRC. That passes my snif test, and I expect we may get to find out next month.

The very point that this car is out there and appropriately competitive, yet you chose to act regardless definitely sent me a message about desire to get it right vs. desire to "fix" the MR2. It hurts perception regardless of any legitimate motivations.

 

[JeffYoung]

The car was fast enough at Road America that other competitors called me and asked about it on Saturday morning. They also talked to the driver. He described a very thorough build process that included flow testing of multiple intakes and heads along the way, and an intention to run at the ARRC. That passes my snif test, and I expect we may get to find out next month.

The very point that this car is out there and appropriately competitive, yet you chose to act regardless definitely sent me a message about desire to get it right vs. desire to "fix" the MR2. It hurts perception regardless of any legitimate motivations.

Huh? The fact that we adjusted the car via the Process regardless of what ONE car did at ONE track should give you more comfort that this is far more objective than what we had before.

I really don't understand your position here. Are you saying we shouldn't have dropped the weight off the MR2 to get it "correct" under the Process vis a vis the dyno sheets we have because one MR2 ran well at Road America?

 

[JoshS]

And a little internet search shows that Audi had 5 "different" motors in the Audi and they seem to have different BHP ratings. (Yes, I used Wiki). So knowing that the document came from Audi doesn't help.

Was it for the stock US-legal motor and not a motor from a different English-language country? (Did the document have rhyming slang in it? Did it say in God We Trust or crikey or future home of the Lord of the Rings or wear a tuque?)

Yes, it's a US-spec sheet.