THE BACK ROOM or ....
- Thread starter pfcs
- Start date
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
No Jake, that was for ITR only. Not many cars in ITS have DW's. Not sure the situation there but if there is a 50lbs adder in ITS, so be it. I still think it should be by axle.
JeffYoung
New member
If a request is made to do so, we have the ability to "process" cars that were not processed before and/or cars that had errors made during processing.
If you want us to look at a car, write in.
Thanks.
Jeff
If you want us to look at a car, write in.
Thanks.
Jeff
gran racing
Super Moderator
Could a list of what cars actually are on the list to be reviewed be listed? Many coming out with the next month's Fastrack?
JeffYoung
New member
As a present member of the ITAC, I can't tell you how glad I am this thing is finally published, and out there for folks to see and use. I think that this kind of openness is critical to our success as a club, to attracting new members, to attracting new drivers to IT, and to keeping them once they are "in."
I've been racing in IT since 2004, not that long but long enough to remember the "dark ages" of cars being classed curb weight, and huge problems with class killing overdogs.
I was around when folks on IT.com started to talk about a new approach to classing cars, and work started on what is now Version 2 of the Process.
They guys who did a lot of that work deserve the thanks on this, not guys like me. George Roffe, Bill Miller, Darrin Jordan, and of course Kirk, Andy, Jake and Scott. They spent countless hours hashing this stuff out over years, both to make sure it worked across and wide variety of multi-marque cars in IT, and to fight the political battle to get others in the SCCA to accept it.
Josh Sirota, the current ITAC chair, deserves a lot of credit too for actually putting pen to paper and creating this, and having the political smarts to get it approved.
That group of guys have done so much to, in my view, ensure the future health of the category. I'm proud to have played a small role in it.
Great work guys. Much appreciated
I've been racing in IT since 2004, not that long but long enough to remember the "dark ages" of cars being classed curb weight, and huge problems with class killing overdogs.
I was around when folks on IT.com started to talk about a new approach to classing cars, and work started on what is now Version 2 of the Process.
They guys who did a lot of that work deserve the thanks on this, not guys like me. George Roffe, Bill Miller, Darrin Jordan, and of course Kirk, Andy, Jake and Scott. They spent countless hours hashing this stuff out over years, both to make sure it worked across and wide variety of multi-marque cars in IT, and to fight the political battle to get others in the SCCA to accept it.
Josh Sirota, the current ITAC chair, deserves a lot of credit too for actually putting pen to paper and creating this, and having the political smarts to get it approved.
That group of guys have done so much to, in my view, ensure the future health of the category. I'm proud to have played a small role in it.
Great work guys. Much appreciated
What about cars where the process has changed since the last time they were reviewed?
On one hand, it would really be a pain to updated the books when the parameters get tweaked. But on the other, why should existing cars get a penalty (or benefit) just because they've been around longer? That would also serve to give pause to anyone thinking of messing with the formula.
Note that while 'many' cars in ITR are DW front, it is not the majority.
JeffYoung
New member
Off the cuff, I would consider those situations (where an older version was used) to be an "error" we could correct. Others may disagree however.
preparedcivic
New member
Hey Jeff:
Knock knock; 3G Civic Si/1G CRX Si in ITB? The letter Tom Lamb wrote several years ago where it languished at the bottom of conference call agendas never being gotten to until the request "aged out" and was pocket veto'ed?
Even at a magical Honda 35% (91hp x 1.35 = 123hp) (!!!) x 17 lbs/hp = 2088lbs x the 2% front drive deduct, puts it at 2046 (so 2050) vs. current rulebook weight of 2130. This is a strut/beam axle FWD car, so no other adders/subtractors would apply.
123 crank hp x 0.85 = 104hp at the wheels. That would be perfection and maybe slightly beyond in terms of an IT build for an EW4 motor, and obviously with an optimized aftermarket ECU running the injection.
I do understand that is what the ITAC has to assume, but no matter what the car is pushing 100lbs heavy.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Jeff, in thinking more about this,...
I see a couple issues that will rear their head.
1- the 30% factoring for multivalve cars ONLY in ITB...and now ITC!
What is the operative definition of 'multivalve"? I'm assuming it's more than the standard 2. Right?
2- torque and engine size.
A, there is no guideline as to what IS 'very high torque...or even medium high torque, and the wording allows variable weights be set. I see this as troublesome over time. Identical cars will come to be classed but, if done apart, will likely get different weights. I see the need for more structure here. TOO much wiggle room.
B- the 'standard deviation from the average piston engine size in each class" is good...it's a standard. but, the list shows a range, and choosing the middle of that results in a median. It would be helpful to have the average and the std deviation listed. I realize this is a 'living document, to that might need updating yearly. But, since the class is constantly changing that number will too, and that's problematical to a degree as well.
In any case I'd really like to see more structure in that area, which will really pay off down the road. You'll have less people writing in asking why the math doesn't work on their car.
And on that note, I really think that since you have taken the AWESOME step of publishing, that you use 'born on" dates in the GCR for people to see that their car is meeting the current standard. Over time that will reduce the number of requests you get.
Again, thanks to Jeff and Josh and the others on the ITAC for carrying the torch and achieving this milestone.
I see a couple issues that will rear their head.
1- the 30% factoring for multivalve cars ONLY in ITB...and now ITC!
What is the operative definition of 'multivalve"? I'm assuming it's more than the standard 2. Right?
2- torque and engine size.
A, there is no guideline as to what IS 'very high torque...or even medium high torque, and the wording allows variable weights be set. I see this as troublesome over time. Identical cars will come to be classed but, if done apart, will likely get different weights. I see the need for more structure here. TOO much wiggle room.
B- the 'standard deviation from the average piston engine size in each class" is good...it's a standard. but, the list shows a range, and choosing the middle of that results in a median. It would be helpful to have the average and the std deviation listed. I realize this is a 'living document, to that might need updating yearly. But, since the class is constantly changing that number will too, and that's problematical to a degree as well.
In any case I'd really like to see more structure in that area, which will really pay off down the road. You'll have less people writing in asking why the math doesn't work on their car.
And on that note, I really think that since you have taken the AWESOME step of publishing, that you use 'born on" dates in the GCR for people to see that their car is meeting the current standard. Over time that will reduce the number of requests you get.
Again, thanks to Jeff and Josh and the others on the ITAC for carrying the torch and achieving this milestone.
Last edited:
gran racing
Super Moderator
I posted a thread on the rrax forum, but know not everyone goes there so I'll post it here too. I also realize that the first reaction some of the ITAC or CRB members might say is "see, this is one of the reasons why we should have kept this private" which is simply not a valid reason. So here it is:
I'm trying to wrap my head around the ITB ONLY multi-valve factor, which has a pretty significant impact on those said cars. (25% > 30% gain estimates)
The first question is why no other classes in IT have this factor? That's extremely odd to me. Either multi valve makes a difference and it needs to be applied to other classes, or not.
Is there a difference in 3 valve and 4 valve? And/or should there be?
How does SOCH multi valve engines (3 or 4 valve) differ from DOCH multi valve engines?
I have several other related questions, but this is a start.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the ITB ONLY multi-valve factor, which has a pretty significant impact on those said cars. (25% > 30% gain estimates)
The first question is why no other classes in IT have this factor? That's extremely odd to me. Either multi valve makes a difference and it needs to be applied to other classes, or not.
Is there a difference in 3 valve and 4 valve? And/or should there be?
How does SOCH multi valve engines (3 or 4 valve) differ from DOCH multi valve engines?
I have several other related questions, but this is a start.
atleast the car has been shown to be competitive recently. Imagine driving a car that hasn't been competitive i a very long time that as it was classed was some 300lbs over weight using known hp. Know thankfully I am down to 200lbs over a "theoretical" power to weight (not incuding the mid engine adder).
What you can do is gather information and submit it to the ITAC for review. Gather engine build sheets, dyno plots, etc.. and work with them and not against them. They are in place to help you not hurt you. Like I mentioned I drive a car that I know is over weight. Am I mad at the ITAC? no.. Am I kinda let down/confused.. sorta. Am I happy that they rolled out a published rule set OHH HELL YEAH!
Originally Posted by gran racing Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?
It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.
Last edited:
preparedcivic
New member
Nope; that'd be the next gen EF chassis with double wishbones all-around. Classed at basically the same weight, 16 valve head, but TBI so probably 5% less hp.
questions in particular about the subjective rules.
My first one, is one that has been brought up many times before. tq.
how come ITB and ITC don't get a adder for low displacement but they do for high displacment? Does low tq not have much of an effect as having high tq?
second. the rules state tq or displacement.. I would assume they would use a weight/tq value to adjust. Much like how peak hp is treated. Has the ITAC assigned those values?
At first I couldn't figure out where the "normal" displacments came from. then I went through the entire ITCS makign note of over and unders in each catagory. And the numbers are close to being right. If you take the whole ITCS the numbers posted are close to the norm. The reason why at first glance I was congused is that if you look at the cars normally run on the weekends they tend to be on the low range of the spectrum. The honda contigent in ITB is stong, the majority of them are 1.5L Though in ITB there was only 3 cars above the threshold. Teh plymoth fire arrow, the fiero, and a certain model year celica. I would say lower it to 2.0L, but there are a SLEW of cars classed with 2.0L that are not actively raced and probably don't make all that much tq. (One reason why I am not a fan of displacement). compared to the tq that a honda 2.0L or a ford 2.3L make.
any input would be appreciated from the ITAC.
My first one, is one that has been brought up many times before. tq.
how come ITB and ITC don't get a adder for low displacement but they do for high displacment? Does low tq not have much of an effect as having high tq?
second. the rules state tq or displacement.. I would assume they would use a weight/tq value to adjust. Much like how peak hp is treated. Has the ITAC assigned those values?
At first I couldn't figure out where the "normal" displacments came from. then I went through the entire ITCS makign note of over and unders in each catagory. And the numbers are close to being right. If you take the whole ITCS the numbers posted are close to the norm. The reason why at first glance I was congused is that if you look at the cars normally run on the weekends they tend to be on the low range of the spectrum. The honda contigent in ITB is stong, the majority of them are 1.5L Though in ITB there was only 3 cars above the threshold. Teh plymoth fire arrow, the fiero, and a certain model year celica. I would say lower it to 2.0L, but there are a SLEW of cars classed with 2.0L that are not actively raced and probably don't make all that much tq. (One reason why I am not a fan of displacement). compared to the tq that a honda 2.0L or a ford 2.3L make.
any input would be appreciated from the ITAC.
JeffYoung
New member
I'm not entirely sure what your question is (probably my fault), but as to ITB and ITC, I believe the thinking was there really couldn't be a low torque/low displacement car in a class where most motors were in the 1.3 to 1.8 range. Nothing was "abnormally low," while some motors in B were abnormally high.
the posted normal displacment range for ITB is 1.7L to 2.3L. Which according to the ITCS is about right.. not so right from what actively runs however. so while most ITB cars that actually run are between 1.3L and 1.8L, meaning that if there wa a wight break the majority of cars curretly would get one as they are below 1.7L as published in the guidlines.
My question was..
1.) So would you think it would be best to set the norm engine displacment on what is on the ITCS or what actually shows up on track?
2.) has the ITAC determined a low tq, high tq numbers (I assume they are in weight/tq). The rules state they that both tq or displacment would be used.
I agree with what is as currently written I don't think cars in ITB below 1.7L need an adder (subtractor) As this would be the majority of cars run would be entitled to a weight adjsutment. I don't think that is necessary or right. I think lowering upper limit would be more apporiate to reflect what is run.
One idea, (though would totaly change the process). Is something pro racing has done for years.
your weight is set by both your hp and tq. This has been discussed a few times since I have been here and there are some outliners (RX-anything). But beyond that it should work. Maybe that is something Process v.4.2 can use.
My question was..
1.) So would you think it would be best to set the norm engine displacment on what is on the ITCS or what actually shows up on track?
2.) has the ITAC determined a low tq, high tq numbers (I assume they are in weight/tq). The rules state they that both tq or displacment would be used.
I agree with what is as currently written I don't think cars in ITB below 1.7L need an adder (subtractor) As this would be the majority of cars run would be entitled to a weight adjsutment. I don't think that is necessary or right. I think lowering upper limit would be more apporiate to reflect what is run.
One idea, (though would totaly change the process). Is something pro racing has done for years.
your weight is set by both your hp and tq. This has been discussed a few times since I have been here and there are some outliners (RX-anything). But beyond that it should work. Maybe that is something Process v.4.2 can use.
Last edited:
Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?
It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.
It's as official as this kind of thing gets - it's a set of operational guidelines but not a "rule" that can be protested. What more could we realistically want?
And as far as "the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent," everyone is allowed their opinion but I cannot conceive of ANY metric by which that is the case. None. And I'm a curmudgeon.
K