THE BACK ROOM or ....

We should all be THRILLED with this. I'd suggest that having this in writing will do the category nothing but good. Big round of applause for the ITAC!

K
 
Good to see that is in existence. Not sure it was intended for public consumption, however.

It is, by and large, a very close representation of the SOP when Andy, Kirk and I were on board last.
There are some interesting differences.
One, (Andy, correct me if i'm wrong) adders:
ITS strut cars got -50, right?(wasn't a 'sophisticated suspension' considered 'the norm" for ITS?)*
Live axle ITR cars getting 50 is new. I think that means all the pony car weights will need to be adjusted.
*I'd need to check my notes which I don't have handy.

An interesting aspect is the ITB and now ITC multivalve engines using a standard of 30%. While this was discussed previously, it was based on 'a deal'...and I think ITB was the only class involved. By multivalve, is that 3 and 4? or just 4? Personally, I'd like to see the actual math that leads to the conclusion that all engines with multivalves make 30%. yet those in other classes do not. I assume it is a result of SOME classifications where that is used, and now ALL must match. I see this as an error repeating itself. I also remember certain ITB cars (multivalve?) being classed on 'what we knew", so again, I find those cars are an exception and should not fall under the 30% guideline..

The item on the known horsepower is interesting as well. In general it reflects what was SOP when I was on board, but a recent classification change to the MR2 shows that indeed an incredible amount of data is needed to budge the ITAC from the assumed gains of 30%. All the dyno sheets for IT builds on MR2 motors have indicated that 10-15% max were the actual real world gains. Yet those sheets were evidently not impressive because the car got weighted using 25% factoring.

Good to see the level of detail that has been put into this, and I'm glad that it is reflective, essentially (with caveats over adders) of the Process V2. I would LOVE to have seen this from the actual source, though, not leaked as it appears to be.
 
Last edited:
I would LOVE to have seen this from the actual source, though, not leaked as it appears to be.
Click to expand...

Agreed and a part of me wanted to delete this thread not because it should be a secret, but those involved should of had the honor to post it.
 
...a recent classification change to the MR2 shows that indeed an incredible amount of data is needed to budge the ITAC from the assumed gains of 30%.
Click to expand...

There's two issues there. On the one hand, it SHOULD require a really compelling stack of evidence to deviate from standard practices - hence the 75% confidence expectation. On the other, standard practice for ITB multivalve cars should *not* be 30%.

If that's the biggest glitch in how the ITAC is currently doing business, I'll take it.

K
 
I do not believe it is leaked I believe it is in the file cabinet with the rest of the manuals on the SCCA web site. If you believe that this document should be publicly available so people can read it and understand the process then thank the brave folks of the ITAC and CRB who are trusting you with this knowledge. Use this knowledge wisely for it could be the first step of a revolution of attitude in the way rule processes are done. Misuse this tool and we will enter another thousand years of darkness.
 
Last edited:
dickita15 said:
I do not believe it is leaked I believe it is in the file cabinet with the rest of the manuals on the SCCA web site. If you believe that this document should be publicly available so people can read it and understand the process then thank the brave folks of the ITAC and CRB who are trusting you with this knowledge. Use this knowledge wisely for it could be the first step of a revolution of attitude in the way rule processes are done. Misuse this tool and we will enter another thousand years of darkness.
Click to expand...

That's excellent Dick. I looked everywhere I could, and logged in, wen to the file cabinet and looked at every category, opening several in the Club Racing category, but didn't find it.
I assume it's on it's way.
Either way, good job to the ITAC for staying the course, and it's great news to hear that it is intended for public consumption.
As soon as it's posted officially, one of us mods will sticky a post here with a link.
 
So let's do some math....

Formula: HP * P2WRatio*FWD*ITGain +/- Adders = minimum weight?

A mid-1980s FWD Studebaker with factory-rated HP of 91 in ITB.

91 * 17 * .98 * 1.3 = 1971 rounded to nearest 5-pound increment of 1970?

Anything wrong with that math?

If said car is currently classified at 2200lbs, then it "should" be run through the "process" and lose over 200 pounds of ballast?

Am I understanding this correctly or is this car forever doomed to carry the excess weight but similar cars will get classified at the lower weight?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top