ITR PRoposal

Could someone please explain to me why SCCA doesn't just use power/weight ratio to class cars? I really want to build an IT car and am trying to learn as much as I can. It seems to me most threads on IT.com always end up in a car classing debate. This thread is trying to go there as well.

I'm a novice, my question is not loaded. Power/weight seems very logical with a few controlled parameters (tire widths for example). What are the drawbacks of this approach? I've looked at CMC and AI and those rules make a ton of sense to me. Am I over simplifying it?

Thanks,
Scott
 
Could someone please explain to me why SCCA doesn't just use power/weight ratio to class cars? I really want to build an IT car and am trying to learn as much as I can. It seems to me most threads on IT.com always end up in a car classing debate. This thread is trying to go there as well.

I'm a novice, my question is not loaded. Power/weight seems very logical with a few controlled parameters (tire widths for example). What are the drawbacks of this approach? I've looked at CMC and AI and those rules make a ton of sense to me. Am I over simplifying it?

Thanks,
Scott

[/b]
Click to expand...

Power to weight ratio is a HUGE part of the classification process for IT. It's not a straight formula as we take into account things like suspension design, drivetrain layout, tranny ratios, brake size, balance, etc.

It isn't perfect but it seemingly is working in most areas.

AB
 
As usual I did not make myself clear and it is something done too often. I did not while it was forming and still do not support open debate on the ITR class proposal (or the same for F1000 occurring at this time). If anyone felt left out, or if they cared to, let them write their own proposal.

You all did a great job of doing nothing except allowing wider rims and beefier roll cages into the class if I recall correctly. Addressing the obvious concerns with introducing a new class and the justifications based on tangible merit were spot on. But these portions of the process are over and not open to debate unless someone else wants to take another crack at it.

My remark about the limited access forum and the responsibility with being involved with it THEN was made to suggest that NOW may be the time to show all the cards. Maybe some of the people directly affected by "your" spreadsheet wouldn't mind having a peek at it. Just as in search engines and databases, filters do not always produce the best results, and additional input is necessary. If there is a fear that it can not pass their scrutiny than maybe the job is not finished and the situation could jeopardize the future of the class.

Tom "just stirring up $h!t" Sprecher :lol:

PS - we desperately need 15 corner workers this weekend at Road Atlanta for the Panoz Track Day. No experience other than flag recognition is needed. Contact me or Sandy Pence.
 
Tom's point is completely valid from a buy-in generating point of view but I have to agree with Scott that the best way to actually move forward at this point is to avoid getting bogged down in minutiae. The one thing that I think can pretty much be counted on is that everyone will have SOME opinion about why Model X is too heavy and Model Y is too light - regardless of WHAT weight specs are published. That's minutiae.

Besides - the weights are/will be spec'd by the same basic process already in place with the ITAC. We didn't really sit down and decide what each make/model should weigh. If when it comes out, you see something that you think doesn't make sense, you'll need to address the inputs that were used in the math, rather than whether or not you think a particular model is going to be competitive, too competitive, or whatever.

The question at hand is how many people support the broad concept, as it's been framed here?

Remember that, even though this proposal isn't being put forth as representative of the collective desires of this entire community, it IS helpful to speak up on the big points.

K
 
Power to weight ratio is a HUGE part of the classification process for IT. It's not a straight formula as we take into account things like suspension design, drivetrain layout, tranny ratios, brake size, balance, etc.

It isn't perfect but it seemingly is working in most areas.

AB
[/b]
Click to expand...

Andy,

I'm sure it is. My original post wasn't very clear. I apologize. I realize that power and weight are important to the classification process. What I meant to say is; why isn't it the ONLY criteria? Why specify restrictor plates, or porting, or compression ratios, or this or that? Whay not just say "we don't care what you run as long as the P/W ration is between 13:1 and 15:1?" Trying to spec all of the possible configurations and what not seems a total waste to me. It always ends up in splitting hairs, at least that's what I gather from lurking on these forums.

Scott
 
Tom, the fear is not that the spreadsheet will not pass scrutiny. The fear is HOW the scrutiny will be applied. The question is not whether the spreadsheet will (or should) be released -- I absolutely believe it should. The question is HOW -- do we just dump it out here and let everyone have at it?

I'm open to anything that constructively moves the ball forward.
 
First and formost I want to congradulate all that where involved. Its a very well thought out and foward proposal with great intentions and I think its time and the CRB knows it.

As for release of the spreadsheet, I would say that releasing it when the whole group feels that they numbers are proper is the best chance. But confur with ITAC and anyone else involved, if you dont think it being released now that a draft is together then have at it. But I would add the caviet that first ITR in general must be approved before people start tearing CBR apart on the proposed weights and cars classified.
 
Scott,

The P/W is controled based on what someone can get our of the stock cams, intake manifold, and only a moderate rise in compression (.5 points from stock). The real question in how cars are classed is how much hp is avalible from a fully blueprinted and tuned engine, for example maybe the cams are the real limiting factor then trying to get the assumed 25% increase in hp is virtually impossible. Or, if the restriction is all in the exhaust manifold then maybe there might be 30%-35% gains availble. For an example look over the trials of building and running a TR-8 in the other models forum, lurking can be quite educational. Great question.

James
 
I agree that we should get the class created before any debate, but does it make sense to just list the cars in the class and not include any weights?
 
I think that Scott is making reference to systems like NASA's GTS challenge, wherein you actually declare your HP and weight, supported by a dyno sheet, and there are then periodic checks with a dyno and scales to keep people honest.

It's not wrong. It's just different.

IT moves from the proposition that performance is the product (an output) of a set of mechanical specs (inputs), and monitors the inputs with the rules and compliance checking. GTS (and some other NASA classes) monitor the output that they think is most important, letting the other variables influencing overall on-track performance shake out where they may. Interestingly, the next logical step is bracket racing where the ultimate output is monitored. It's been suggested over the years that a similar approach could be applied to road racing: bust a 2:30 lap at VIR and you're DQ'd. Or you're no longer in ITC, you're in ITB. Again - not wrong, just a different approach.

Changing a fundamental precept of the category would be very hard, even if you could get most of the players thinking it's a good idea.

K
 
Jeremy, I support releasing them sooner rather then later. However, I think note that these are the final draft and that CRB has not even published it for comment should be made now. I think the focus should be getting over the first hurdle rather then fighting over weights.
 
Just a few comments.

First, for those who might not know, "Stan" who has begun posting here is Stan Clayton, of the CRB. Together with Bob Dowie, and Peter Keane, who are also CRB guys, Stan has been very helpful and attentive through the process. I'd like to point out that both Stan and Peter are IT guys as well, and that Peter was recently appointed to the CRB after serving the ITAC for awhile. I think that's an important point, in that Peter is known as a progressive thinking IT guy, but one with experence and history. The fact that he was appointed shows that the CRB is looking for new and progressive ideas. We should feel fortunate to have guys like these on the CRB. When we have our Con calls, these three are alwyas there as CRB liasons, and I'm really glad. I think the system works well. They listen, and advise, but allow us to mold IT as we see fit, with just enough guidance and information to help move things quickly. Having Bob stop in here occasionally, and now Stan, who has been rather prolific, is great!!

Bob owns a repair/race shop, drives a GT car, and has been in the SCCA for a long time...he's one step away for the head of the CRB on the chart. Stan is from the San Fran area, and has a very diverse background having served on a Formula car ad hoc, (I think!). He's sharp, doesn't miss much. Both he and Peter are recent adds to the CRB. Peter is from Fla, and is pretty involved in Rolex Prototype racing too. Last year he drove two cars at the ARRC, and ITB Honda (fastest ITB lap, I think) and a Spec Miata.

Secondly, the proposal and list have gone to the ITAC for discussion. THey will confer, and run the cars through the process, with checks and balances, to set weights. Then it will go to the CRB formally. That ITAC call is next Monday. I think a list of the cars under consideration could be posted, but the final version hasn't been created yet.
 
I wouldn't mind posting them now, sans all the data, just the list of the cars. Any opposition? If not I'll put them up.
 
Just thinking out loud - would it help the effort to try and generate some significant support from our members outside of this forum? Maybe bring it up as a quickie announcement at upcoming events, during the driver's meetings? Or are we fairly confident that the CRB will put it out for comment without a huge push from the members first?

Oh, btw, great job guys :023:
 
What's the latest on the ITR proposal? When will the decision be made to make this a reality? I have a good lead on a Z32 :D
 
In regards to talking it up at drivers meetings, by all means! A word of caution though...don't expect automatic approval form everyone. There are those in the club that drive cars in classes that are on "life support" shall we say. They may not like anything that they feel threatened by.

On the other hand, all response will be read, and of course, the reders are smart enough to read between the lines. And also, enourage writers to list who they are, what they drive, and any other thoughts they might have. (Make it faster, slower, include this, or that, make it National, don't make it National, whatever,,,,)

Timing? Tough to say!!!!!!! It's in the CRBs hands right now....and it will go to the August BoD meeting if all goes well. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a member comment period, but maybe not...thats for top brass to decide.

(So far, the unofficial response I have seen roll through the ITAC/CRB mailbox has been very positive, about 10 to 1 for.)
 
I was thinking while reading the thread about the announcements of the proposed new classes on SpeedTV.com, that if the new ITR class does go through (and it certainly looks like it will), what will it mean for ITS? Was there ever any discussion about this during the ITR committee meetings? With the BMW effectively out of ITS, are we starting to see a resurgence of entries from other makes (I know it may still be a little early to tell)? Looking at this year's MARRS entries, it's hard to tell. Will the new class steal some of those ITS entries? It seems to me that with the costs involved in running a top ITS car many guys will just throw $XXXX more into the pot to be able to run one of the really cool ITR cars. I know I would.

What do you guys think? Is this the beginning of the end for ITS?

edit: and oh, btw, it was Jake's comment about being careful what you wish for that started me thinking about this, so if you're going to yell, yell at Jake :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top