September Fastrack
- Thread starter JoshS
- Start date
spawpoet
New member
1. #1767 (CR
Rule changes to authorize weight changes for old listings
The IT Advisory Committee has recommended to the CRB certain changes and additions to 9.1.3.C. These are intended to
accomplish the following goals:
1. Reinforce the idea that there is a “process weight” based on physical attributes of the vehicle, as well as possible
performance-based adjustments. It is only the performance-based part of the weight that can be manipulated as time
goes on.
2. Specifically allow changes to listings made before the last large scale (“Great”) realignment. However, since these
listings have been around for some time and there may be some racing history (something not possible with new
listings) consideration of that history is permissible and an adjustment could be assessed with a restart of the
adjustment period.
3. Make it clear that errors may be corrected even when the normal adjustment period has expired. Examples of errors
are if a car is known to make much more than expected horsepower or perhaps a math error was made during the
initial classification.
4. Maintain the “no guarantee of competitiveness” clause. During the first four years of a listing, there is a reasonable
attempt to make sure it is reasonably competitive. But after that, other than in the case of an error, the escape
clause which follows this text in the rules would be the only way to change that weight, and that clause is only likely
to be exercised in the case of an over-dog. It is not the intent to use such adjustments at this time, however, it is
understood that it might be necessary in some rare cases.
5. The effect of all of these changes would be that some old listings (cars not changed during the last realignment and
that haven’t been changed since) can now have the same new-car process applied to them. This would not require
the adjustment of all cars at once. The determination of the most recent weight-assignment date can be easily
determined by searching Fastrack. Any such adjustments restart the adjustment period so there would be 4+ years to
make additional adjustments it if it turned out that the process doesn’t properly estimate their potential.
In 9.1.3.C, replace the third paragraph with the following:
“During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as – but not limited
to – manufacturer’s published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake
type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based only on such clearly measurable physical factors, a
minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth full years of classification, the
vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall may be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the
interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such
a reclassification shall may be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision
in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a “performance compensation adjustment” shall may be made. Any
performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the
end of a vehicle’s fourth full year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the
vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established.
SCCA FasTrack News September 2010 Page 11
Cars with weights assigned prior to 1/1/2005 may have their weights reassigned using the same process that is used for new
listings. Should this occur, the assessment clock will start anew. Racing history of this particular model may be considered
at this time and an adjustment may be included in the new minimum weight, and the adjustment may be reconsidered at the
end of any of the first four full years of competition.
If at any time an error is discovered in the physical factors used to assess a vehicle’s weight or an error was made
during the application of the weight-assignment process, the error may be corrected. Should such an error correction
occur, the assessment clock will start anew. Racing history of this particular model may be considered at this time and a
performance compensation adjustment may be included in the new minimum weight, and the racing history of this model
may be evaluated for an adjustment at the end of any of the first four full years of competition after the correction is made.”
Looks like a step in the right direction. I guess you guys have been busy.
Rule changes to authorize weight changes for old listingsThe IT Advisory Committee has recommended to the CRB certain changes and additions to 9.1.3.C. These are intended to
accomplish the following goals:
1. Reinforce the idea that there is a “process weight” based on physical attributes of the vehicle, as well as possible
performance-based adjustments. It is only the performance-based part of the weight that can be manipulated as time
goes on.
2. Specifically allow changes to listings made before the last large scale (“Great”) realignment. However, since these
listings have been around for some time and there may be some racing history (something not possible with new
listings) consideration of that history is permissible and an adjustment could be assessed with a restart of the
adjustment period.
3. Make it clear that errors may be corrected even when the normal adjustment period has expired. Examples of errors
are if a car is known to make much more than expected horsepower or perhaps a math error was made during the
initial classification.
4. Maintain the “no guarantee of competitiveness” clause. During the first four years of a listing, there is a reasonable
attempt to make sure it is reasonably competitive. But after that, other than in the case of an error, the escape
clause which follows this text in the rules would be the only way to change that weight, and that clause is only likely
to be exercised in the case of an over-dog. It is not the intent to use such adjustments at this time, however, it is
understood that it might be necessary in some rare cases.
5. The effect of all of these changes would be that some old listings (cars not changed during the last realignment and
that haven’t been changed since) can now have the same new-car process applied to them. This would not require
the adjustment of all cars at once. The determination of the most recent weight-assignment date can be easily
determined by searching Fastrack. Any such adjustments restart the adjustment period so there would be 4+ years to
make additional adjustments it if it turned out that the process doesn’t properly estimate their potential.
In 9.1.3.C, replace the third paragraph with the following:
“During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as – but not limited
to – manufacturer’s published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake
type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based only on such clearly measurable physical factors, a
minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth full years of classification, the
vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall may be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the
interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such
a reclassification shall may be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision
in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a “performance compensation adjustment” shall may be made. Any
performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the
end of a vehicle’s fourth full year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the
vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established.
SCCA FasTrack News September 2010 Page 11
Cars with weights assigned prior to 1/1/2005 may have their weights reassigned using the same process that is used for new
listings. Should this occur, the assessment clock will start anew. Racing history of this particular model may be considered
at this time and an adjustment may be included in the new minimum weight, and the adjustment may be reconsidered at the
end of any of the first four full years of competition.
If at any time an error is discovered in the physical factors used to assess a vehicle’s weight or an error was made
during the application of the weight-assignment process, the error may be corrected. Should such an error correction
occur, the assessment clock will start anew. Racing history of this particular model may be considered at this time and a
performance compensation adjustment may be included in the new minimum weight, and the racing history of this model
may be evaluated for an adjustment at the end of any of the first four full years of competition after the correction is made.”
Looks like a step in the right direction. I guess you guys have been busy.
spawpoet
New member
I wish those three were still on the ITAC. They seemed ideal for the board, they knew what they were doing, were methodical, and really had IT's best interest at heart. That said Josh seems to handle communication, and the political game very well. You too Jeff. Do you guys have an idea on what the CRB's disposition might be towards the changes?
<cautiously optimistic>
For what it might be worth...
If "aerodynamic efficiency" is going to be part of the process, it will never be a "clearly measurable physical factor." It's an outcome of design factors. I suspect that it's not the intent of the current ITAC to include aero qualities in the process. If that's true, it shouldn't be mentioned as a possible factor.
I am *very* scared (for what is probably obvious reasons to the oldsters here) of "a vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall may be evaluated" and "racing history of this particular model may be considered." If this section is going to be revised, it should be TRULY revised to get rid of language that leaves the door open for true "performance adjustments" (bleah!). In fact, putting "racing history" and "performance compensation adjustment" in the same sentence like that essentially codifies the latter term as traditional adjustments based on on-track performance.
This is extremely dangerous.
Pretty much nobody worries about it.
I'm going to try like hell to not say it over and over again.
The "physical characteristics" language has been added but it needs to completely displace the above crap. Fewer words is always better. Is it possible to make the clause in question say what you want it to say by starting from scratch, rather than by adding more verbiage...?
Keep up the pressure, guys.
K
For what it might be worth...
If "aerodynamic efficiency" is going to be part of the process, it will never be a "clearly measurable physical factor." It's an outcome of design factors. I suspect that it's not the intent of the current ITAC to include aero qualities in the process. If that's true, it shouldn't be mentioned as a possible factor.
I am *very* scared (for what is probably obvious reasons to the oldsters here) of "a vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall may be evaluated" and "racing history of this particular model may be considered." If this section is going to be revised, it should be TRULY revised to get rid of language that leaves the door open for true "performance adjustments" (bleah!). In fact, putting "racing history" and "performance compensation adjustment" in the same sentence like that essentially codifies the latter term as traditional adjustments based on on-track performance.
This is extremely dangerous.
Pretty much nobody worries about it.
I'm going to try like hell to not say it over and over again.
The "physical characteristics" language has been added but it needs to completely displace the above crap. Fewer words is always better. Is it possible to make the clause in question say what you want it to say by starting from scratch, rather than by adding more verbiage...?
Keep up the pressure, guys.
K
JeffYoung
New member
Kirk, what makes me feel "better" about that language is that we are working on (Josh drafted it and it is is GOOD) an "Operations Manual" essentially codifying much of the Process V2.0 close to as it stood back when you left.
With that in place, that will be THE WAY any of the above changes are made, so long as the Ops Manual stays in place.
Again, I'm optimistic. We'll see how it turns out.
With that in place, that will be THE WAY any of the above changes are made, so long as the Ops Manual stays in place.
Again, I'm optimistic. We'll see how it turns out.
I like the general idea of the language above, and will write in support of it. this will certainly help to break the dam that keeps many old classifications from being relevant in the category, right now it seems as if having been around a while deserves some sort of penalty.
BUT, at the end of the day it's all CRB decision making as to what and how a car is actually (re)classified and they have preconcieved notions that have shown themselves time and again to be based on race-bred rather than street-bred potential. dispacement and valve count being 2 such characteristics that they seem to think directly influence power potential - even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Until they understand the non-uniform, stock-based restrictions on IT power potential, many potentially good cars will still be languishing in the back while they could be fighting for positions.
the CRB needs a SKITA. Only then will the changes proposed, while good and necessary in their own right, allow the ITAC to do all that is needed. baby steps?
BUT, at the end of the day it's all CRB decision making as to what and how a car is actually (re)classified and they have preconcieved notions that have shown themselves time and again to be based on race-bred rather than street-bred potential. dispacement and valve count being 2 such characteristics that they seem to think directly influence power potential - even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Until they understand the non-uniform, stock-based restrictions on IT power potential, many potentially good cars will still be languishing in the back while they could be fighting for positions.
the CRB needs a SKITA. Only then will the changes proposed, while good and necessary in their own right, allow the ITAC to do all that is needed. baby steps?
gran racing
Super Moderator
What Kirk said. This leaves the door wide open for backroom politics and not providing membership a clear view of how cars are classed. Even IF the current group won't abuse it (sorry, I am no longer trusting of the CRB to say the least), write it so future boards can't. We've been through this a million times but there are too many factors that impact on track performance. An indicator to do more research and obtain FACTS is all that on track performance should be used for.
If we're going to do this, lets do it right.
If we're going to do this, lets do it right.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Keep on truckin' guys.
RSTPerformance
New member
I agree... While this is a step in the right direction we will always have people such as Chris Albin that abuse the power for thier own agenda or people like Bob Dowie who simply don't understand the classes, don't understand how performance is gained or limited by the rules and just don't understand the competition to base "history" into the classification process. It is not always the fault of the members like those I mentioned on the CRB... It is vertually impossible for them to understand all cars in every class. Unfortunatly they will base the decisions on who they trust and it will not always be who you want it to be.
The process needs to be simple and easy to repeat. The Members should be the ONLY people that have the power to suggest a change from the norm. This process could be I itiated by the ITAC or CRB by asking for do umented member feedback but the members should be the ones making the decision to alter the process for a specific car based on it's history or on track performance.
Raymond "History doesn't always reflect our current situation" Blethen
The process needs to be simple and easy to repeat. The Members should be the ONLY people that have the power to suggest a change from the norm. This process could be I itiated by the ITAC or CRB by asking for do umented member feedback but the members should be the ones making the decision to alter the process for a specific car based on it's history or on track performance.
Raymond "History doesn't always reflect our current situation" Blethen
Gary L
New member
Raymond - Where DO you come up with this crap? I'm betting it's not based on first hand information.
The appearance of shenanigans is often times as damaging as actual shenanigans. The most important point behind Raymond's post is that we shouldn't have a system that encourages folks to believe that there's manipulation of specifications going on - and if there is, to believe that those adjustments are motivated by efforts to gain (or keep) an advantage.
To be crystal clear on this, my take is that at some key points in time, Albin and Keane were key controllers of information between the ITAC and CRB, and they wielded a lot of influence on IT decisions with the CRB. (EDIT - I wasn't privy to CRB conversations, obviously, but I can envision a situation where IT questions were essentially deferred to them, as the category experts. It became apparent to me, late in my tenure, that some members of the CRB didn't appear to really know what was going on with IT as a category. That's suggestive of what I describe.) I have every confidence that they steered some decisions in directions that they felt were best for the class, "knowing what they know." They INCIDENTALLY have a vested interest in ITB, and many of the biggest glitches we've had in the past 2 years were in that class...
It's not hard to put two and two together and get five, but again - we shouldn't be allowed to.
I'll speak from what I know: During discussions about the Golf III being reweighted, I contributed but recused myself from the ITAC vote. In votes about other ITB matters during the time when we were using the process in its most mature form, it was possible to see in the record who voted for what, and numbers and the "confidence vote" process would have made it very difficult for me to drag the committee to a particular decision. That's how they are supposed to work.
I understand that the liaisons to the ad hoc committees are now required to be a CRB member NOT affiliated with that category. If that's happened, it's a very good idea. It's also something that the CRB should be crowing about to the membership, as evidence that they are getting their house systematically in order.
K
To be crystal clear on this, my take is that at some key points in time, Albin and Keane were key controllers of information between the ITAC and CRB, and they wielded a lot of influence on IT decisions with the CRB. (EDIT - I wasn't privy to CRB conversations, obviously, but I can envision a situation where IT questions were essentially deferred to them, as the category experts. It became apparent to me, late in my tenure, that some members of the CRB didn't appear to really know what was going on with IT as a category. That's suggestive of what I describe.) I have every confidence that they steered some decisions in directions that they felt were best for the class, "knowing what they know." They INCIDENTALLY have a vested interest in ITB, and many of the biggest glitches we've had in the past 2 years were in that class...
It's not hard to put two and two together and get five, but again - we shouldn't be allowed to.
I'll speak from what I know: During discussions about the Golf III being reweighted, I contributed but recused myself from the ITAC vote. In votes about other ITB matters during the time when we were using the process in its most mature form, it was possible to see in the record who voted for what, and numbers and the "confidence vote" process would have made it very difficult for me to drag the committee to a particular decision. That's how they are supposed to work.
I understand that the liaisons to the ad hoc committees are now required to be a CRB member NOT affiliated with that category. If that's happened, it's a very good idea. It's also something that the CRB should be crowing about to the membership, as evidence that they are getting their house systematically in order.
K
Last edited:
If the above is true, I credit the firestorm that was created because of the resignations and the attention given to CRB operations because of it.
The big question, however, is if CRB members involved in a particular class completely recuse themselves from any discussion impacting that class. I.e. If a guy drives an ITW Nash Rambler, then their operations manual requires that CRB member to recuse himself from any ITW-specific issues.
I really hope the CRB pulls through with the proposed changes from the ITAC.
In reference to the MR-S classification. Just wondering did you guys have any supporting evidence to the engines ability to make power? A full IT build, with programmable ECU, full exhaust, CAI, etc.. puts the car around 125-130 whp. In stock form they are roughly around 106whp.
The two most powerful NA builds to date on a 1ZZ engine (custom everything) come in at 158whp and 166whp that I am aware of. To be at roughly the same weight/hp ratio as similar cars classed in ITS (Acura, Miata, RX-7 all around 14.5 to 15 lbs to whp). The MR-S would have to be making 151whp at it's current weight to be on par with the weight to hp of the top cars in ITS, which it doesn't come close. Yes the handling can make up for some of it, but not all, eventually you are going to have to get on a straight and watch people drive around you. Then try to pass back around in the corners where line stealing and blocking becomes all to easy.
If you would be interested in seeing documentation let me know. There are a few to be had online, about the 1ZZ-FE engine.
I can understand if people don't believe me, I find it hard to believe myself. It is depressing to say but at the current classed weight in ITS and a reasonable IT build would still put it behind the goal ratio in ITA.
edit: BTW I don't have a dog in the fight, just figured somebody should know.
In reference to the MR-S classification. Just wondering did you guys have any supporting evidence to the engines ability to make power? A full IT build, with programmable ECU, full exhaust, CAI, etc.. puts the car around 125-130 whp. In stock form they are roughly around 106whp.
The two most powerful NA builds to date on a 1ZZ engine (custom everything) come in at 158whp and 166whp that I am aware of. To be at roughly the same weight/hp ratio as similar cars classed in ITS (Acura, Miata, RX-7 all around 14.5 to 15 lbs to whp). The MR-S would have to be making 151whp at it's current weight to be on par with the weight to hp of the top cars in ITS, which it doesn't come close. Yes the handling can make up for some of it, but not all, eventually you are going to have to get on a straight and watch people drive around you. Then try to pass back around in the corners where line stealing and blocking becomes all to easy.
If you would be interested in seeing documentation let me know. There are a few to be had online, about the 1ZZ-FE engine.
I can understand if people don't believe me, I find it hard to believe myself. It is depressing to say but at the current classed weight in ITS and a reasonable IT build would still put it behind the goal ratio in ITA.
edit: BTW I don't have a dog in the fight, just figured somebody should know.
Last edited:
seckerich
New member
Looks like a start in the right direction with some key points:
1. List the weight of the car with the process.
2. List the percent gain number used (even if you back in off known power)
3. List any weight added/deducted for X (be ready to back it up)
4. Then quit screwing with it and let us go race.
Thanks for the hard work guys.
1. List the weight of the car with the process.
2. List the percent gain number used (even if you back in off known power)
3. List any weight added/deducted for X (be ready to back it up)
4. Then quit screwing with it and let us go race.
Thanks for the hard work guys.
with regards to the MR2 spyder: it's a 1ZZ-FED.
otherwise everythign Steve said above is true. The same motor is in the 00-04 Celica GT (not sure if it's 1ZZ-FE or -FED, difference is basically in the rod weight and strength), it's in A at 2490 - too heavy but just sayin.
and for what it's worth - the 1ZZ-FE motors were downrated along with a host of other motors built by toyota and others when the SAE "certified horsepower" standard was released. turns out they used to use thinner oils, modified calibrations, basically anythign they could to make an otherwise as-delivered motor produce more power. this was not the "stock" configuration, though, and certified hp requires that.
the 1zz with VVT-i was at some point rated 138-140 hp peak, others at 130 (matrix etc..). the final version for sale here dropped 4 hp in one year from testing - to 126 (2006 matrix). the big brother 2zz dropped from 180 to 164. absolutely nothing changed except the test method. obviously, toyota did not make a lot of noise about this. point is, the HP numbers from the OEM are inflated, and there is evidence of that. the car belongs in ITA at roughly the same weight, and the celica (ZZT231) GT deserves a weight break.
once again - it appears that sporty looking cars go faster on paper.
otherwise everythign Steve said above is true. The same motor is in the 00-04 Celica GT (not sure if it's 1ZZ-FE or -FED, difference is basically in the rod weight and strength), it's in A at 2490 - too heavy but just sayin.
and for what it's worth - the 1ZZ-FE motors were downrated along with a host of other motors built by toyota and others when the SAE "certified horsepower" standard was released. turns out they used to use thinner oils, modified calibrations, basically anythign they could to make an otherwise as-delivered motor produce more power. this was not the "stock" configuration, though, and certified hp requires that.
the 1zz with VVT-i was at some point rated 138-140 hp peak, others at 130 (matrix etc..). the final version for sale here dropped 4 hp in one year from testing - to 126 (2006 matrix). the big brother 2zz dropped from 180 to 164. absolutely nothing changed except the test method. obviously, toyota did not make a lot of noise about this. point is, the HP numbers from the OEM are inflated, and there is evidence of that. the car belongs in ITA at roughly the same weight, and the celica (ZZT231) GT deserves a weight break.
once again - it appears that sporty looking cars go faster on paper.
Last edited:
Bill Miller
New member
First off, a big round of applause for Josh, Jeff, et. al. as well as guys like Andy, Kirk, and Jake. It's a huge step in the right direction. Nicely done.
That being said, I have to echo Kirk's concerns regarding the wiggle room and opportunity for weaseling things around. I like Steve's idea of publishing the information. If you're going to make a change that goes against the objective process numbers, you better have some solid info to back it up with. Sadly, I think the way the language is now, you still have the opportunity for cases like the Audi GT.
Gary,
Raymond made that comment because guys like Chris Albin and Peter Keane have put themselves in the position to make it look like there are shenanigans going on. Re-read Kirk's comments. Peter Keane actually went so far as to single me out and use a totally unsubstantiated analysis about my position and motivation. When called on it, he didn't have the sack to respond and back up what he said. And when you have guys make unsubstantiated claims about "what they've seen" that lead to additional weight, above process weight, on cars that are in their class, how do you interpret it as anything but shenanigans?
On a totally different note, it looked like the BoD was trying to renew the 'cream of the crop' concept of the runoffs. It looked good until they added the 2nd and 3rd alternate qualification criteria. Top 50% of your class, across the country for either the current or the previous year. How is that 'cream of the crop'? All it says is that you were better than half the people.
I also noticed that they dropped the qualifying 'envelope' from 120% of pole to 115% of pole. Let's see if they enforce it.
That being said, I have to echo Kirk's concerns regarding the wiggle room and opportunity for weaseling things around. I like Steve's idea of publishing the information. If you're going to make a change that goes against the objective process numbers, you better have some solid info to back it up with. Sadly, I think the way the language is now, you still have the opportunity for cases like the Audi GT.
Gary,
Raymond made that comment because guys like Chris Albin and Peter Keane have put themselves in the position to make it look like there are shenanigans going on. Re-read Kirk's comments. Peter Keane actually went so far as to single me out and use a totally unsubstantiated analysis about my position and motivation. When called on it, he didn't have the sack to respond and back up what he said. And when you have guys make unsubstantiated claims about "what they've seen" that lead to additional weight, above process weight, on cars that are in their class, how do you interpret it as anything but shenanigans?
On a totally different note, it looked like the BoD was trying to renew the 'cream of the crop' concept of the runoffs. It looked good until they added the 2nd and 3rd alternate qualification criteria. Top 50% of your class, across the country for either the current or the previous year. How is that 'cream of the crop'? All it says is that you were better than half the people.
I also noticed that they dropped the qualifying 'envelope' from 120% of pole to 115% of pole. Let's see if they enforce it.