THE BACK ROOM or ....

[gran racing]

In post # 184, page 10 of this thread I posted what I sent regarding the 30% ITB & ITC multivalve factor and mentioned the Accord Lxi.

Greg, Kirk and Jake have pretty much summed up and my rationale nicely. Best case, the multivalve rule will be reviewed and deemed stupid, then eliminated. My goal writing the letters was not to get a weight increase for the Accord, however, it will force the hand to be played which is a good thing.

If the ITAC deems the multivalve to be this wonderful concept, then isn't is only fair that the Accord AND other multivalve cars are treated that way? You know, that whole parity thing this process was intended for.

We have a slew of ITB cars in line to be run through the process including multivalve cars. There are other cars in ITB (and C) where members will submit requests to have their car or competitors cars reviewed. Then future cars. This needs to be addressed one way or another now, not later. Lets get this right the second time around and not rely on changing the factor, then re-processing cars yet again.

I openly admit that in several ways I feel a bit bad for submitting the Accord request, but it's not because I felt it was truly wrong. Peter is a good guy and has been nice to me. I want politics out of IT classifications which is why I felt it was necessary to do this. Otherwise I'd just be a part of the problem.

 

[JoshS]

Yup^2.

This is a concern for me, about the operations manual. It provides two options for determining the multiplier, without clearly establishing either as the default AND stipulating when Plan B really should be implemented. It leaves the opportunity for talking out of both sides of the collective ITAC mouth, as it were.

K

No Kirk, the "known power" approach does not establish a multiplier. It totally throws out the stock horsepower number and multiplier and simply gets straight to the result.

 

[JeffYoung]

I have to respect what the committee does or I wouldn't stay on it.

I firmly believe the guys who voted for the 30% default for multivalve cars in ITB did so because they know the motors and think that is what they will make. I respect their vote in that regard, even though I disagree with it.

If I didn't respect the other guys on the committee, I wouldn't stay.

Disagree. I would say you have to accept the committee's position, but respecting it is an entirely different kettle of buckets.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

In post # 184, page 10 of this thread I posted what I sent regarding the 30% ITB & ITC multivalve factor and mentioned the Accord Lxi.

Greg, Kirk and Jake have pretty much summed up and my rationale nicely. Best case, the multivalve rule will be reviewed and deemed stupid, then eliminated. My goal writing the letters was not to get a weight increase for the Accord, however, it will force the hand to be played which is a good thing.

Unless it's not the result you were looking for, which is possible.

If the ITAC deems the multivalve to be this wonderful concept, then isn't is only fair that the Accord AND other multivalve cars are treated that way? You know, that whole parity thing this process was intended for.

NO. Because it's the WRONG THING TO DO. You have created 3 possible outcomes, 2 of which are bogus. Treating every multivalve car at 30% and then having to prove a negative to get it back in line is pure crap. The MR2 is the glaring example of this. Not one person on this god-given earth has said that an IT build has ever made more than 15%. Not only that, but some ITAC members simply don't believe a top level build has even happened because they haven't seen decent numbers. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that will render cars unnecessarily heavy.

We have a slew of ITB cars in line to be run through the process including multivalve cars. There are other cars in ITB (and C) where members will submit requests to have their car or competitors cars reviewed. Then future cars. This needs to be addressed one way or another now, not later. Lets get this right the second time around and not rely on changing the factor, then re-processing cars yet again.

Fix the process first, then run the cars. Look back on history, see the double standard, realize there is no logical grounds for such a rule - and just fix it. JUST FIX IT.

I openly admit that in several ways I feel a bit bad for submitting the Accord request, but it's not because I felt it was truly wrong. Peter is a good guy and has been nice to me. I want politics out of IT classifications which is why I felt it was necessary to do this. Otherwise I'd just be a part of the problem.

Again, you have started a ball in motion that COULD end up in the result you want but probably won't. And IF it does (multivalve cars to 25% in ITB and ITC), it will actually LOOK politically motivated because of the appearance of Peter protecting the current weight of his car.

Lose-Lose.

 

[JeffYoung]

Not exactly right. My view was that we didn't know for sure what we were looking at. We had builds with some mods, some IT legal but not 100% and others not IT legal.

The self-fulfiling prophecy part of the problem is one inherent to the system. If a car is "heavy," no one will build a maxed out IT motor and so we won't have the "evidence" necessary to correct it.

The MR2 is the glaring example of this. Not one person on this god-given earth has said that an IT build has ever made more than 15%. Not only that, but some ITAC members simply don't believe a top level build has even happened because they haven't seen decent numbers. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that will render cars unnecessarily heavy.

 

[jjjanos]

And IF it does (multivalve cars to 25% in ITB and ITC), it will actually LOOK politically motivated because of the appearance of Peter protecting the current weight of his car.

Checking the list of CRB members, I see no person named Peter.
Checking the list of ITAC members, I see no person named Peter.

Are you suggesting that a person named Peter is on one of these two bodies and that information is not reflected on the SCCA.Com pages?

More importantly...

The CRB Operations manual specifically says:

"Don’t vote, or even participate in discussions, on matters relating to you personally."
​

 

[gran racing]

Lets get this straight right now, I didn't create anything. Stir the pot which has been brewing, maybe.

Fix the process first, then run the cars.

Isn't that what I said?

it will actually LOOK politically motivated

That's comical. How does it look NOW?

 

[JeffYoung]

I've never known Peter Keane to do anything other than what he thought was right.

The insinuation that his motivation was to protect his car is pretty low in my view.

I also believe he was on the ITAC until the last call or so and now is off, but my memory gets fuzzy on these things.

No black helicopters. Mistakes and imperfection and inelegance and brain farts because we are human? Yes.

Checking the list of CRB members, I see no person named Peter.
Checking the list of ITAC members, I see no person named Peter.

Are you suggesting that a person named Peter is on one of these two bodies and that information is not reflected on the SCCA.Com pages?

More importantly...

The CRB Operations manual specifically says:

"Don’t vote, or even participate in discussions, on matters relating to you personally."
​

 

[Knestis]

No Kirk, the "known power" approach does not establish a multiplier. It totally throws out the stock horsepower number and multiplier and simply gets straight to the result.

Sorry - you're obviously correct, Josh. I was unclear. The two processes for establishing IT-preparation power seem to be treated equally. Or maybe I'm still understanding the subtlety of that.

K

 

[gran racing]

I've never known Peter Keane to do anything other than what he thought was right.

Agreed.

Now I might not agree with what he or others think is right...

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Lets get this straight right now, I didn't create anything. Stir the pot which has been brewing, maybe.

We disagree.

Isn't that what I said?

Not from my seat. You want a car reviewed in order to trigger a fix. I say fix the process first, fix whats wrong after.

That's comical. How does it look NOW?

So two wrongs make a right? Like I said, 3 outcomes from your direct request to recalc the Accord using the new document. 2 of them suck and one looks like a shady move when it's actually doing the right thing.

Sorry Dave, I love ya but this wasn't thought out very well IMHO. But it is what it is I guess.

(edit: I too have never questioned Peter's intentions. He only wants what is right and has put in more time for the SCCA than anyone I know. The issue now is that the ITAC doesn't go by what one guy thinks is right, there has to be way more factual evidence, right or wrong)

(additional edit: I fully understand that we will see this differently and my judgement is probably clouded from having been on the inside thinking that change can happen without this kind of shock-therapy.)

 

[jjjanos]

I've never known Peter Keane to do anything other than what he thought was right.

The insinuation that his motivation was to protect his car is pretty low in my view.

That's not my insinuation. My point is that SCCA policy is that people on the decision making body shouldn't be making decisions that effect them personally. When setting the weight of an ITR/S/A/B/C, those that drive an ITR/S/A/B/C car need to recuse themselves certainly from the actual vote, and possibly from the discussion as well.

 

[Knestis]

Just submitted my letter:

First, thank you for the effort and commitment represented by the recent publication of the ITAC OPERATIONS MANUAL.

This is an important step that will go a long way toward establishing consistent applications of policy in Improved Touring, increasing member confidence in the functioning of the ITAC and CRB. The category will be better because of the decision to adopt this document and make it available to members.

To the substance of this request, please apply the processes described in that manual to reassess, and adjust as deemed appropriate, the race weight of the ITB 1993-1997 VW Golf III (GCR p. 430).

Should an adjustment be warranted, please consider titling the resulting rule change the Dave Gran Can Finally get a Good Night's Sleep Act of 2011.



Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

Kirk Knestis
103210

 

[gran racing]

LMAO ain't even the right words!!! Oh my God, that right there is funny. <yawn> Boy am I feeling tired.

Now onto the Golf IV!!!!

 

[Chip42]

Not exactly right. My view was that we didn't know for sure what we were looking at. We had builds with some mods, some IT legal but not 100% and others not IT legal.

The self-fulfiling prophecy part of the problem is one inherent to the system. If a car is "heavy," no one will build a maxed out IT motor and so we won't have the "evidence" necessary to correct it.

I guess this is the "proving a negative" thing - but the motor is REALLY well known all over the world. people are STILL building all sorts of crazy turbo drag cars and stuff out of it. my local suppliers has 3, 3!! boxes of 16v 4AGE head studs on the shelf, and he only stocks stuff that moves.


Jeff is right though, none of us* want to spend the umpteen thousands of dollars it will take to build a full tilt IT 4AGE to gain that extra 1-2 hp that everyone KNOWS will be the outcome. shit, 5hp more than anyone is getting now would be a coup, and STILL not hit 140crank (120%). and then, WHEN such a build is submitted, all we'll hear is that one isn't enough. no one wants to go into that rabbit hole - thus my excitement about ST of late.

*yes, I include myself despite the fact that my MR2 hasn't turned a wheel on a racetrack since I drove it from a flag station to the pits during lunch break at summit point in the 90's. it's had a cage for 5 years (it's 1.5 x 0.120 because of the 2007 cgae/weight rules)- I've been "working on it".

 

[tom91ita]

Now onto the Golf IV!!!!

i think we need to organize a golf outing at either the IT fest or the ARRC.

even if it is at the local putt-putt.

it can be the Dave Gran Annual Golf Classic

 

[StephenB]

That's not my insinuation. My point is that SCCA policy is that people on the decision making body shouldn't be making decisions that effect them personally. When setting the weight of an ITR/S/A/B/C, those that drive an ITR/S/A/B/C car need to recuse themselves certainly from the actual vote, and possibly from the discussion as well.

They may not vote or make decisions but youu can bet they have an influence. And when powerful enough they can significantly influence the outcome. Usually those that are involved personally are the most knowledgeable and have more convincing evidence/input in the discussion.


Stephen

 

[ajmr2]

Jeff is right though, none of us* want to spend the umpteen thousands of dollars it will take to build a full tilt IT 4AGE to gain that extra 1-2 hp that everyone KNOWS will be the outcome. shit, 5hp more than anyone is getting now would be a coup, and STILL not hit 140crank (120%). and then, WHEN such a build is submitted, all we'll hear is that one isn't enough. no one wants to go into that rabbit hole - thus my excitement about ST of late.

When the MR2 was in ITA it was ultimately dropped to 2270 lbs. Only 1 driver out of 6 or 7 possible in the WDCR was able to reach that number. My car was about 75 lbs over in ITA trim and I could have lost another 30 or so off the car but nothing off the driver. My car dynoed a couple yeras ago at a screaming 105 RWHP, but not a "full build", which I was told by an experienced builder might give me an additional 5-10 HP. Simply not worth the expense. When it was finally moved to ITB in 2009, 255 lbs were added to the ITA weight for the privilege. Same 16V engine, same HP, same everything (different process?). Having raced for 13 years in ITA, and grouped several times with ITB, it seemed to me at the time that a move to ITB should have been made with little or no weight adjustment. We were not going to go into ITB and take over, not by a long shot, even at ITA weight.
My point is that what we're discussing here is that a car should be moved up or down a class to be more competitive, not less, (yeah yeah, no guarantee). The process should allow for these moves to be made without drama as older cars are outpaced by newer cars. That would fit under the SCCA philosophy of keeping current members and encouraging new members to come and play with us. I believe the current ITAC and CRB are trying to make that happen, but steamlining the process to make it fair and transparent across the board should be a top priority.
AJ

 

[RacerBill]

i think we need to organize a golf outing at either the IT fest or the ARRC.

even if it is at the local putt-putt.

it can be the Dave Gran Annual Golf Classic

I believe that there is one at Buck's in Lexington!!!!!

 

[Chip42]

When the MR2 was in ITA it was ultimately dropped to 2270 lbs

Art - thanks for the additional background. I know you and others inthe MARRS have been helping Steven with his efforts.

interestingly, following the current math: ITA to ITB weight would be (2270-50)*17/14.5+50=2653 rounds to 2655. shows you right there how out of line the car was in ITA! solving for "expected" hp from that number gives you 153, ~130whp at 15% loss. yes - I understand that the ITA classification was not done using the Process.

unfortunatley a lot of the older build MR2s have 1.5 OD 0.120 wall cages (or pre-2008 rules equivalent) which are ~70-80#s heavier than the currently allowed 0.95 wall.

15% gain from 116 stock yields a 2270# base weight in ITB, plus driveline layout adders you get:
FX16 = 2225
Corolla = 2270
MR2 = 2320

still heavier than they were in ITA, where they were slower than ITB cars, and now with less tire. how is it that we are still talking about this???