PDA

View Full Version : Class restructure proposal



Jake
06-16-2004, 12:47 PM
By using the hp/weight ratios, here are a list of vehicles that should be considered for the next lower class. The first number is spec weight, followed by hp.

ITS -> ITA

2555 / 142 AcuraIntegra(3 door)(94-95)
2780 / 154 Alfa Romeo Milano 2.5L (87-89)
2600 / 134 BMW 318i/is Twin Cam (90-91)
3100 / 145 Ford Mustang LX V-6 (94-95)
2305 / 127 Honda Civic EX Coupe VTEC (94-95)
2330 / 125 Honda Civic Si (92-94)
2305 / 127 Honda Civic Si VTEC (94-96)
2550 / 140 Honda Prelude Si (88-91)
2510 / 130 Mazda MX-3 V-6
2530 / 135 Mazda RX-7 (13B) (84-85)
2625 / 140 Nissan 200-SX SE-R (95-97)
2885 / 150 Nissan 200-SX V-6 (1987)
2865 / 160 Nissan 300-ZX (84-88)
2490 / 140 Nissan NX-2000 (90-92)
2610 / 139 Nissan/Datsun 260-Z (73-74)
2770 / 150 Nissan/Datsun 280-ZX (79-83)
2820 / 150 Nissan/Datsun 280-ZX 2+2 (79-83)
2590 / 135 Toyota Celica GT Coupe & Liftback (89-93)
2545 / 130 Toyota MR-2 (91-92)
2890 / 161 Toyota Supra (82-85)
2610 / 137 Triumph TR8 (80-82)
2530 / 134 Volkswagen Jetta GLI (1991)

ITA -> ITB

2380 / 118 AcuraIntegra 1.6(86-89)
2730 / 115 AMCSpirit(79-83)
2490 / 110 AudiGT Coupe(1987)
2310 / 100 BMW2002tii(71-74)
2840 / 138 BMW318 (E36)(92-94)
2750 / 129 BMW325e/es(2 & 4 door)(84-87)
2810 / 115 BuickSkyhawk V-6(75-80)
2480 / 120 ChevroletCavalier Z-24(86-87)
2810 / 115 ChevroletMonza V-6(78-80)
3000 / 132 Dodge Stratus
2620 / 100 DodgeDaytona (1986)
2350 / 110 DodgeOmni GLH2.2
2430 / 110 DodgeShelbyCharger (83-84)
2840 / 119 FordMustang II V-6(74-78)
3000 / 119 FordMustang V-6(1979)
2550 / 120 HondaAccord Lxi12V Coupe &HB (86-88)
2140 / 102 HondaCivic Del Sol S(1993)
2330 / 102 HondaCivic DX(3 & 4 door)(92-95)
2225 / 92 HondaCivic DX(sedan & HB)(88-91)
2040 / 91 HondaCivic Si(86-87)
2105 / 92 HondaCRX 1.5L(standard)(88-91)
1980 / 91 HondaCRX Si(84-87)
2450 / 110 HondaPrelude Si(1987)
2855 / 90 IsuzuImpulse(83-87)
2550 / 110 Mazda RX-4(74-78)
2780 / 110 MazdaCosmo(76-78)
2300 / 102 MazdaRX-2(71-74)
2280 / 100 MazdaRX-3 / 3SP(72-78)
2380 / 101 MazdaRX-7 (12A)(79-85)
2730 / 130 Mercedes-Benz190E 2.3L 8V
2670 / 110 MercuryCapri II V-6(76-77)
2440 / 116 MercuryCapri(91-94)
2250 / 110 Nissan SentraE/XE/CXE/SL (1991)
2755 / 135 Plymouth Laser / Eagle Talon / Mitsubishi Eclipse 2.0L
2780 / 135 Pontiac Fiero GT &Formula V-6 2.8 (1988)
2230 / 91 Porsche 914-4 2.0L (73-76)
2480 / 86 Porsche912-E (1976)
2600 / 115 Porsche924 & Sebring(77-82)
2930 / 116 Toyota Celica Supra (79-81)
2445 / 112 Toyota FX-16 (1987)
2370 / 112 Toyota MR-2 1.6L(85-89)
2410 / 112 ToyotaCorolla GTS (86-89)
2005 / 96 Triumph GT-6 Mk.III (70-74)
2480 / 115 Volkswagen Jetta III (1993)

ITB-> ITC

2630 / 96 Dodge Daytona 2.2 (84-89)
2680 / 100 Dodge Shadow (89-91)
2640 / 89 Ford Mustang 2.3 (79-93)
2830 / 102 Ford Mustang II 2.3 (74-78)
2270 / 75 Honda Accord 1.7L (79-83)
2030 / 62 Honda CRX HF 1.5L (88-91)
2190 / 82 Mazda 323 1.6 (1989)
2830 / 110 Mazda MX-6 (88-91)
2705 / 102 Nissan/Datsun 200-SX / S11 (Z22) (82-83)
2230 / 75 Opel Manta 1.9 (71-75)
2280 / 75 Plymouth Horizon 1.7 (78-79)
2320 / 75 Plymouth Horizon TC3 1.7 (79-80)
2320 / 90 Plymouth TC3 / Turismo 2.2 (81-85)
2550 / 98 Pontiac Fiero 2.5 (1988)
2550 / 92 Pontiac Fiero 2.5 (84-87)
2080 / 72.5 Porsche 914-4 1.8 (74-75)
2510 / 86 Toyota Celica I 2.2 (74-77)
2310 / 75 Toyota Corolla 1.8 (80-82)
2440 (CP)2420 (Conv.) / 90 Triumph TR-7 2.0 (76-81)
2080 / 76 Volkswagen Jetta 1.7 (82-84)
2050 / 76 Volkswagen Rabbit 1.7 (81-84)
2110 / 76 Volkswagen Scirocco I 1.7 (1981)
2110 / 76 Volkswagen Scirocco II 1.7 (82-84)
2780 / 98 Volvo 242 / 244 2.0 (1975)
2780 / 105 Volvo 242 / 244 2.1 (76-81)

Knestis
06-16-2004, 01:30 PM
I must say that I'm surprised at what appears to be groundswell support for the idea of formulaic classifications in IT. I'm not sure what it means but...

K

Jake
06-16-2004, 04:01 PM
Kirk, I think most of us agree that hp/spec weight may be the best predictor – but other things should be considered as well and, of course, no formula is perfect. When I look at the above list, I think that most of those changes would do a LOT of good for IT. I know those pesky 12a rotaries are going to bring on an argument – perhaps the best bet for them would be to leave them in ITA and allow the 13B at a slightly higher weight.

Anyway, what do others think? Kirk, what’s your opinion?

Jake
06-16-2004, 04:08 PM
BTW - if you want to know the calcs for these proposals, they’re on the "Sorted" worksheet on the “IT Class spreadsheet” on www.racerjake.com (http://www.racerjake.com)
The following criteria were used for the lists.

ITS->ITA cars with (spec wt)/(stock hp) > ITA 90-93 Acura Integra
ITA->ITB cars with (spec wt)/(stock hp) > ITA 88-91 Civic Si
ITB->ITC cars with (spec wt)/(stock hp) > ITC 84-87 CRX 1.5


[This message has been edited by Jake (edited June 22, 2004).]

Banzai240
06-16-2004, 04:46 PM
Interesting method, but doesn't allow real world "knowledge"/"biases/whatever to be factored in.

It's well know that some models "gain" more than others with IT prep, and that some engine types "gain" more than others with IT prep, etc... Some cars just aren't as simple as summing up their parts...

Now, this IS a good start, but here's what IS being done currently to recommend weights for cars:

Estimated HP = Advertised HP + (Advertised HP * Est. % gained with IT prep)

Initial weight = Estimated HP * Class wt/hp factor

Final weight = Initial weight +/- (weight for brakes, tranny, suspension, etc.)

Break down the Neon weights, or the recommended weights for the Sentra, Z3, etc., and you'll see that there is a level of consistency to how this has been applied. Some cars, which have proven to be more than a sum of their parts are weighted a little cautiously, but I think you'll find that the weight of EVERY car recently recommended for classification or reclassification can be reasonably explained. I'd be happy to try to do that if you have any specific questions. Most of the attention has been applied to ITS and ITA, with some in ITB.

Only time will tell if this method will work out, and adjustments will certainly be needed. I think you will see, upon analysis, that the attempt here is to equate the mechanical/physical properties of these cars as closely as possible, using real world experience as a way of asking ourselves "does this result make sense", and adjusting accordingly if it doesn't (i.e.: weight for better brakes, tranny ratios, superious supensions, etc...)

Thank you Jake for putting this database together. When you are done updating it, I definately plan to import it to our ITAC site as a tool we can refer to.



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Bill Miller
06-16-2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I must say that I'm surprised at what appears to be groundswell support for the idea of formulaic classifications in IT. I'm not sure what it means but...

K

Funny how that's working out, isn't it? What's even more surprising is the people now embracing formulaic classification, that had previously said that a formula would never work. Things that make you go hmmm.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
06-16-2004, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
What's even more surprising is the people now embracing formulaic classification, that had previously said that a formula would never work.

Well, it depends on how you define a "formula"... What I described is NOT a formula, it's a process. The difference, as I see it, is that a formula leaves NO room for subjectivity.... It's cut and dried, plug in the numbers and take what you get. The process we are trying currently allows for real-world experience to be considered.

So, more accurately stated, those of us against a "formula" were/are against a PURE formulatic approach... We never said that Math would not be involved to some degree...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

RSTPerformance
06-16-2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
By using the hp/weight ratios, here are a list of vehicles that should be considered for the next lower class. The first number is spec weight, followed by hp.

ITA -> ITB


2490 / 110 AudiGT Coupe(1987)


This is how things get ugly when doing reclassifying.... misinformation or poor information.

Not to pick on you Jake because I know you are doing this for a good cause.

The 1987 Audi Coupe GT listed in ITA is a 2.3 not a 2.2 it has disc brakes and more HP. probably closer to 130 than the 110 that ITB 2.2 has. I would hope that most of the other cars do not have errors and things like this that could slip through the cracks. I am already winning several ITB races and with another 15HP and 4 wheel disk brakes I hope I could win more because you can bet on it that if the 1987 moves to ITB I will be doing some mods to my car http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

One other thing to consider is that the update backdate rules will need to be modified because if you did move this Audi to ITB it would be very unfair to the earlier models that have the exact same shells to get out-classified.

Stephen

Hotshoe
06-16-2004, 07:29 PM
I know those pesky 12a rotaries are going to bring on an argument – perhaps the best bet for them would be to leave them in ITA and allow the 13B at a slightly higher weight.

I second it...........

Knestis
06-16-2004, 07:46 PM
What do I think? I think that the most valuable thing to come out of the last 24 months of wrangling with formulas, IT2, PCAs, et al. is an official recognition that weights are actively being used to manipulate competitive potential from the very outset of the car classification process. I use the term "manipulate" in the good way...

K

Super Swift
06-16-2004, 08:54 PM
Jake, Kirt, Bill

Formulas flat don’t work.

1st show me all important data on these cars.
-Coefficient of Drag
-frontal area
-gearing
-suspension factors
-breaking ability
-% improvement over factory specs in all areas
-motor location
-FWD or RWD
-tire sizes able to fit under
-weight distribution (after cage and gutting)
-other

Jake your having trouble finding the correct starting HP on all the cars how are you going to find the other factors? Or how about end legal HP? illegal HP?

2nd how do you rate this data in importance. Dang, how do you get the data to relate to each other once you do rank it.

There are almost an infant number of things to research. Then once you do the research your still going to have the human factor of ranking them. That’s not gong to have any biases. The maker of the formula will make the formula to show their personal slants. Don’t believe me? Why did some cars make the grade and others not in Jake’s hp to weight move down list? Why was the line drawn where it was?

Jake I don’t want you to feel that I am calling you an idiot for trying to rate the cars. Your not. Asking to move cars just because the HP/W doesn't meet your goals for the class before you know all other important data is premature.

Formulas are a tool. I think the tool should be purely used for picking a car not classification of the car.

Bill, Kirt

I am still standing where I always have. Just because I gave data to someone I disagree with does not mean my viewpoint has changed. I helped Jake as much as I did simply because I could.

lateapex911
06-16-2004, 09:04 PM
Wow...Darin.....how about adding some numbers to the variables??

Well, this is interesting, although its not new news as far as the manipulation of weight during the initial classification goes. I guess the admission of that fact is, but ....

I like this as a start, but I am conscious of the fact that the numbers are not representative of what can happen in the real world...and that is where PCS come in.

I need to look at the scope of the proposed reclassed cars...thats a BIG list!

Question, is the spec weight the current spec weight? (it looks like thats the case)Or is it your proposed new spec weight for the lower class?

If current, do you propose just moving all the cars to the new class without weight adjustments?

I am confused (I assume I am missing something) by the criteria you have listed, as two of the "bogeys" (?) are ITA cars. Can you help me here?

And I won't bother discussing the rotarys here, as this is more of a global thread, so lets not get bogged down.

And no Bill, I am no more a fan of a formula only sytem that I ever have been. As I have droned on about before, it is one tool, and an important one, but creating a formula, and relying on it soley, that could create four classes with parity from the hundreds of models we have running would be a herculean effort, and doomed to failure without a great safety net.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Mike Guenther
06-16-2004, 09:13 PM
Interesting that you should suggest the BMW e30, 325e go from ITA to ITB. We have a couple in ITA that consistantly run with the top ITS cars. All of the e30 325's (c, e,i & iS) cars in should be classed together in my opinion. The differences originally from the factory seem to be easily overcome to make them equal after they are sorted out properly. I'd like my 325iS to be in ITA and I'd kick some asphalt.

Likewise the 84 & 85 first gen RX-7s with 13b motors are still competitive in ITS although they're not winning. The 13b would also kick asphalt in ITA.

Something is always going to be better than something else and it is always going to change over time. I can't afford to keep up with the car of the month. I'm happy just being close to the front and getting that adrenilene rush going door to door with my friends. But I do appreciate you guys that try to keep the classes somewhat aligned.

Thanks. Be safe and have fun.

Knestis
06-16-2004, 10:19 PM
For the record, I've said everything I have to say about this option and have nothing new to add beyond the observations that I've made above. I don't think I count as an advocate for formulaic classifications anymore - because I don't believe that a wholesale effort will fly. Still.

K

Jake
06-16-2004, 10:44 PM
Whao Nelly!!! First off, I agree with most of what you all are saying. I am throwing this out as a start. The data we have compiled IS incomplete and has many errors. If you know of some errors, I beg you to use the other thread so I can correct them. Even with perfect data, I fully understand the shortcomings of this method! There are many pages of threads of me arguing with Kirk about how any formula can never be perfect. I still feel that way. Most of you are preaching to the choir. This is just a compilation of cars that came out when I drew some somewhat arbitrary lines in the sand. I think these may be the vehicles that we should scrutinize and see if a class change should be in their future. I don’t think the wholesale effort should be written off so quick because A) it rewards more than just the squeaky wheels, and B) it’s precisely what the SCCA did a few years back in Solo II

Geo
06-17-2004, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Wow...Darin.....how about adding some numbers to the variables??

Something between -1000 and +1000.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Bill Miller
06-17-2004, 01:49 AM
Darin,

I'm not going to get into word games w/ you again. Call it what you want, but
Estimated HP = Advertised HP + (Advertised HP * Est. % gained with IT prep)

Initial weight = Estimated HP * Class wt/hp factor

Final weight = Initial weight +/- (weight for brakes, tranny, suspension, etc.)

is a formula.

Also, if you look back, I've never believed that a purely mathematical model would work. What I've always said, was that it would be a good approximation, and should only require minor adjusstments. What I advocate, and have all along, is that some kind of objective, standardized process be used for all cars, not the current subjective, case-by-case way things are done.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
06-17-2004, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Also, if you look back, I've never believed that a purely mathematical model would work. What I've always said, was that it would be a good approximation, and should only require minor adjusstments. What I advocate, and have all along, is that some kind of objective, standardized process be used for all cars, not the current subjective, case-by-case way things are done.

I think Darin's point is that it's still often pretty subjective by many people's standards.

The first two items only get you in the ballpark. Now this in itself is certainly an improvement. It really helps to make sure a car doesn't end up in the wrong class. I won't say it will always work, but it will help.

The last item is pretty broad and we can and do make use of this. There is no single figure for any factor and sometimes a lot of factors are all thrown in the caldron and stirred up until we reach a consensus on what the adjustment should be.

The danger here is what we are seeing in this thread. First we will make arguments about reclassifications based upon power to weight. Then we'll see people asking what the specifics are regarding the adjustments. Then we'll have a pissing contest over the adjustments. We've had the first two already. The third is probably due in the next 12 hours or so I'd guess. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

[edit for spelling]
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited June 17, 2004).]

Bill Miller
06-17-2004, 07:30 AM
George,

I'll suggest that if you start seeing the 3rd term add/subtract more than 100 - 150 lbs, the car probably should be in a different class. BTW, it does make for an interesting excercise, if you start looking at what the weight would be if a car were in one class vs. the other.

BTW, IIRC, didn't Kirk coin the term "Miller Ratio" for the class hp/wt factor, almost three years ago?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

jhooten
06-17-2004, 09:19 AM
How does actual measured perfomance on the track fit into the formula/class placement?

Although my car does break down often on the track I am still planning to put better brakes on it.

its66
06-17-2004, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Mike Guenther:
Interesting that you should suggest the BMW e30, 325e go from ITA to ITB. We have a couple in ITA that consistantly run with the top ITS cars. .... and have fun.

Mike, I'm glad I'm not the only one to catch that. Either of those cars/drivers are almost 5 seconds faster on short courses, and over6 seconds on long ones.

Jim

Banzai240
06-17-2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

I'll suggest that if you start seeing the 3rd term add/subtract more than 100 - 150 lbs, the car probably should be in a different class.

I find it interesting that you guys seem to focus on that last "term" so much, when there is a TON of subjectivity in the initial estimation of IT-Prepped HP to start things off... Does it gain 20%??? 25%??? 30%??? 15%??? That's one of a couple of areas where real-world experience is put into play to help answer the question 'Is this car REALLY capable of producing this much HP??' (don't laugh... It's one of the VERY first questions that I ask when we are discussing these matters on our ITAC conference calls...)


Hey Bill... How about we compromise and call it a "Formulary Process"...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Geo
06-17-2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Hey Bill... How about we compromise and call it a "Formulary Process"...

I prefer "The Caldron." http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
06-17-2004, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'll suggest that if you start seeing the 3rd term add/subtract more than 100 - 150 lbs, the car probably should be in a different class.

Well, that is something we would take a look at. Some cars are kind of in between and the class becomes a subject for debate as well.

Again, this is subjective. It can't help but be. I don't know about any hard and fast numbers, but you're right, if the adjustment is overly large, chances are good the car is going into the wrong class.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

924Guy
06-17-2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
I prefer "The Cauldron." http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


Uhhh... OK! Sounds more impressive than "The Dartboard"!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

...nyuk nyuk


------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

Bill Miller
06-17-2004, 06:57 PM
Hey Jake, I meant to ask you, w/ all the cars that you propose to 'move down', do you have weight adjustments for the cars that aren't moving?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Quickshoe
06-17-2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
...there is a TON of subjectivity in the initial estimation of IT-Prepped HP to start things off... Does it gain 20%??? 25%??? 30%??? 15%???

I think that is worth stating again.

Many have pointed out in the past the many other variables that need to be considered in 'calculating' the performance potential of a given vehicle. However, these 3rd, 4th and 5th, etc. approximations don't sway the numbers as much as the original guesstimate as to the power potential.

Assume a car with 150 stock Hp and a target WT/HP range near 20:1. The difference between a 15% increase and a 30% increase is 22.5 HP or 450#. That's right 450 POUNDS, so isn't it much more critical that the HP number be closer to real world than worrying about drag, frontal area, unsprung mass, etc.? Even at that the HP numbers are peak, an RPM that we probably spend less than 10% of the time at or near. The area under the curve is much more important and what kind of rpm drops are those stock trans ratios going to dictate?

I applaud the efforts, believe that formulas can work, we just don't have the resources to get it exact. So they do the best they can and when they miss, they just may have the tools to fix it.

I just may wait until the dust settles and go from there.

Banzai240
06-17-2004, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
However, these 3rd, 4th and 5th, etc. approximations don't sway the numbers as much as the original guesstimate as to the power potential.

I'm telling you... if there were just a few simple values available across the board for all cars classified, mainly the actual camshaft specs, I believe I could use my Desktop Dyno II software and get within 5% of the actual values. The problem is that the full cam specs are just NOT that easy to get ahold of...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Jake
06-17-2004, 10:35 PM
Bill,

1. First, I apologize for the name of this thread. I didn’t mean for everyone to get the impression that these are the changes I am proposing. If you read my posts you’ll see a smattering of “we should look at” and “most of these seem” etc.

2. Again, the lists of vehicles are some of the ones that, using a certain metric, we might want to scrutinize and see if they would make more sense in the next lower class. If some of them seem to make sense (I personally believe many of them should drop a class) then we should start talking about if they should add a few pounds or what not.

3. The reason I am doing this is to try to look at IT as whole and not just pick and choose cars. I believe it was you who was whining about this 1.7L VW moving, but some other 1.7L VW not moving, or something like that. That’s actually what I would like to address. Big picture – lets look at the whole group, not just the ones that are owned by people who write the best letters.

Bill Miller
06-17-2004, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
The problem is that the full cam specs are just NOT that easy to get ahold of...



Darin, if that's the case, how do you determine if someone is running an illegal cam? I can't believe the data aren't out there. They should be available from the factory service manual, or from the dealer.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

lateapex911
06-17-2004, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin, if that's the case, how do you determine if someone is running an illegal cam? I can't believe the data aren't out there.




Bill, that's the number one reason IT as it is now will never go National....there just isn't the required documentation on certain cars.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Knestis
06-17-2004, 11:07 PM
Sorry. I lied above when I said I was done because this confuses me. A lot.

Is this to suggest that there is more documentation avaiable on the Healey 3000 MkI, Jag XK120, Elva Courier, Lotus MkVII, Volvo P1800, Turner 1500, and Sunbeam Alpine than is available for even the rarest IT car?

Why do I think this is a red herring?

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 17, 2004).]

lateapex911
06-18-2004, 12:02 AM
I should add some further info, I guess. I was suggesting that as it stands, IT, with all it's models, couldn't be considered for a National class, and inclusion in the Runoffs, due to the incomplete documentaion on many models.

Thats not to say those models couldn't be excluded.

Now, am I right in understanding that the models you refer to are in the Production category? I am not as complete in my knowledge of the Prod category, but it was my understanding that the rules allowed significant deviation from stock, and therefor the rendering of many specs as unecessary.

Of course, the beginings of Prod were a long time ago, and I'm sure there was a bit of "look the other way" (and so on...) at the time when certain documentaion items were needed.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Quickshoe
06-18-2004, 12:21 AM
Darin,

I agree that the more information you have the closer you can get.

I am not familiar with the software you have, (I am aware of it, just not familiar). Do you enter the cam lift, duration and overlap or do you have to enter profiles, like the lift every degree of rotation?

Further, does the software give you a max hp and torque along with the rpm that they would occur at, based on the theoretical best BMEP possible with a given set of physical attributes? Or does it plot a torque curve?

What can the software do with VTEC or VANOS- type abilities, or rotaries for that matter?

Please don't take these as critisims of the softwares' abilities. Even with its' limitations I'm pretty sure it will do a better job than our somewhere between 15-30% guesses.

Why don't we just go back to the dartboard routine? If a big mistake is made one way or the other it just makes our choices that much easier!

Geo
06-18-2004, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin, if that's the case, how do you determine if someone is running an illegal cam? I can't believe the data aren't out there. They should be available from the factory service manual, or from the dealer.

The problem Bill is lift and duration do not a cam make. None of the 5 different FSMs I own give the full spec of the cam profile.

Now, truth be told, I think we are headed for trouble with cams. Since the full profile is rearely (if ever) available, how do we determine a legal cam? Yes, where factory cams are still available, a cam doctor can compare a new factory cam with a used cam in a competitor's car. What is the tolerance that will be allowed? I have no idea. It's certainly not in the rule book that I've seen.

So, indeed, the question you ask of how do you tell if a cam is legal or not, well, that is a very good question.

We've determeined the PL510 SSS cam is illegal for IT. But if the factory cam is NLA from the factory, just what do we do? And don't look at me. I don't have an answer right now.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

itmanta
06-18-2004, 12:56 AM
The more I read about different ideas for car classification the more I like competition adjustments. Sure a "procedure" can be used for the starting point. But until you can compare developed examples of each model car (the fastest "legal" ones) you are just speculating. there are just too many factors that can make a car fast around a racetrack and even then some tracks will favor some cars. The IT classifications are not that far off and if a system for realistic competition adjustments can be made I would be all for it.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITE Volvo 740 Turbo
ITB Opel Manta
Oregon Region

CaptainWho
06-18-2004, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by itmanta:
... until you can compare developed examples of each model car (the fastest "legal" ones) you are just speculating. ...

And you are assuming that we can determine the "legal" cars. At the moment, I don't believe we are making much of an attempt at that. That's a whole different argument, though. But the "legality issue" must be resolved before we can even address competition adjustments, because, until we can assure legality, we won't know what we're comparing to what.

------------------
Doug "Lefty" Franklin
NutDriver Racing (http://www.nutdriver.org)

Banzai240
06-18-2004, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
They should be available from the factory service manual, or from the dealer.


Just as an example... Both of my FSMs (1995 and 1998 240SX) list IVO, IVC, EVO, EVC, and there is enough information in there to also determine the lift (obviously, the above also gives One the duration and overlap...) One would think that is enough... HOWEVER... NOWHERE in either manual does it specify at what LIFT these specs are measured... Is it .050", 1mm? 2mm? 0mm??? The software I have requires that you enter specs for either .050" or for .000" lift (0-lash)... and switching between the two, all else being equal, makes a significant change to the curves...

The bottom line is that there aren't that many FSMs out there that list the cam specs in enough detail to accuratly use this software. If everyone had a "cam-card" for their cars... like the ones that come with a new aftermarket cam from Crane or ???, then it would be a piece of cake to predict the potential of these engines, in MANY different forms of prep... It's just NOT that readily available.

Additionally... You guys see how many mistakes and misinformation ends up being put in the specs now... can you IMAGINE the problems with trying to keep track of cam specs for all these different cars as well? Until we go to a World Challenge style "Vehicle Specification sheet" instead of the current "spec lines", I'm afraid we are just going to be a little bit limited. But then Hey... there IS no guarantees of competitiveness... and we ARE giving you a place to race. (albiet, some of us are trying to give you all a little more competitive place to race... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

dave parker
06-18-2004, 11:24 AM
Jake
In your plan what happens to the currently classed ITC cars? Where do they end up? ITD?
dave parker
wdcr #97 ITC

[This message has been edited by dave parker (edited June 18, 2004).]

Jake
06-18-2004, 11:39 AM
Will some of you please drop the “all or nothing” approach!

First off, I do NOT believe that any formula is going to be perfect. And (stock hp)/(spec wt) has ALL of the shortcomings listed. I also understand the MANY reasons why you can’t look at finishing positions. But just because data has shortcomings doesn’t mean you should ignore it!! Some find flaws with a certain metrics and you say we should ignore it just use a dart board? Or we need to use a formula and follow it blindly no matter what so our evil biases don’t come through. Come on!!! Let’s use the formulas to provide a starting point, then refine from there.

I’m just trying to look at the whole picture. To illustrate my point, look at these three, SOHC FWD ITA cars:

Wt / hp / car
2855 / 90 / Isuzu Impulse (83-87)
2480 / 115 / VW Jetta III (93)
2350 / 115 / Golf III (93-97)

The SCCA moved the Golf III to ITB and left the others in ITA. I’m simply saying that a broader look is needed with reclassifications.

Banzai240
06-18-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Jake:
I’m simply saying that a broader look is needed with reclassifications.

You are ABSOLUTELY Correct! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Jake
06-18-2004, 11:50 AM
Dave, to answer your question, I don't think that ITD is needed if we do this right. I don't believe that the ITB cars on the list are necessarily going to be front runners in ITC. In fact, most probably couldn't keep up with ITC Fiesta's, Rabbits, CRX's, or Scirrocos. If you have reason to believe that they would, that should be analysed and then we could adding weight to them as they drop into ITC.

As for the currently outclassed ITC cars, I personally haven't seen any of them run or heard any interest in anyone building them. I think we're talking about stuff like an ITC Beetle, Yugo, Starlet, LeCar. Also, ITC probably runs the smallest numbers on most tracks, so it probably wouldn't make much sence in splitting them into ITC and ITD.

Quickshoe
06-18-2004, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Some find flaws with a certain metrics and you say we should ignore it just use a dart board?

My comment was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
It would be that much easier for me to choose a car to build. Not because that method would be more accurate.

Even if a formula was developed which was super accurate and we were able to equalize ALL cars within a class, not all those cars will be able to legally make that weight. So there is no need to perfect a formula.

lateapex911
06-18-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:

Even if a formula was developed which was super accurate and we were able to equalize ALL cars within a class, not all those cars will be able to legally make that weight. So there is no need to perfect a formula.

So..... the needs (or restrictions) of one or two outweigh the needs of the many?

There ARE a ton of variables, and even more unknowns, but it is still better to try...

And any formula needs a back up, and thats where PCAs come in to fine tune.

But there is no doubt, if the powers that be are willing, that IT needs restructuring. For whatever reason, certain classes have morphed (speedwise) into the class above, and there are a lot of inequities. A big picture rethink is a great way to go.

Barring that, if the CRB, et al, finds it too much to attempt, then the same concept on a smaller scale, hitting the big problems is still a good idea.

The Impulse above is a great example. The CRB might, for example, say, "Who cares? Nobody runs or is going to run that car..not worth the work to move it and adjust the weight." Or, on the other hand, hey, nobody runs the car anyway, why not move it take the best shot (a basic formula) and not worry? IF it is suddenly found to be THE hot car for the class, use PCAs to correct the weight...

A system that begins as a formula is fine, but it needs to allow for other inputs to get the best result, and a form of post classification adjustment.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Jake
06-18-2004, 03:47 PM
Well said Jake!!

I for one, say we should move cars like the Impulse. Perhaps the reason nobody drives it is because it is so poorly classed. This rings true even better for many other examples. I've never seen a Neon run in ITS, but I bet there will be some soon running in ITA. I think many people have cars that they would love to take racing (some ex SS cars, some solo II cars) but don't bother due to the classifications.

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited June 18, 2004).]

gran racing
06-18-2004, 05:08 PM
One of my concerns with what has been said is how a car may be adjusted due to its performance / how well it has done in the events it is raced. Even though some believe that this is a hard number, it simply is not true. There are several cars that have many people driving them, but are not fully prepared or the drivers themselves are not the fastest ones out there. I can think of a few off the top of my head pretty easily.

Unfortunately there has to be some estimates of the cars capabilities with equal drivers and preparation. The formula idea is a great beginning for several reasons. It gives a starting point for the car. It also takes some of the subjectivity away and hopefully some of the potential politics.

[This message has been edited by gran racing (edited June 18, 2004).]

Bill Miller
06-18-2004, 06:13 PM
why not move it take the best shot (a basic formula) and not worry? IF it is suddenly found to be THE hot car for the class, use PCAs to correct the weight...

A system that begins as a formula is fine, but it needs to allow for other inputs to get the best result, and a form of post classification adjustment.



These are some of the wisest words I've seen on this board in a long time. Not to mention that it's pretty much what I've been saying for about three years now.

Jake, next time we're "under the bridge", I'm gonna buy you a beer!!!


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
06-18-2004, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
These are some of the wisest words I've seen on this board in a long time. Not to mention that it's pretty much what I've been saying for about three years now.

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

I'm starting to think you have split-personalities Bill... Andy, Geo, and I have been saying this the entire time we've been on the ITAC and you've been arguing with us for the whole time! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

I hope this means you are getting happier with what we are doing, because pretty much every one of these classifications/reclassifications that we have "recommended" to this point has been done precisely this way, which is why you see the "pending PCAs" clause at the tail end of Fastrack announcements like the Neon, Sentra, etc... (though, those were put in there by the CRB...)

Again, thanks Jake for putting this list together... I can assure you it's going to be put to good use! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Knestis
06-18-2004, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
... Now, am I right in understanding that the models you refer to are in the Production category? I am not as complete in my knowledge of the Prod category, but it was my understanding that the rules allowed significant deviation from stock, and therefor the rendering of many specs as unecessary. ...

Yeah - all Production cars. My first reaction was one of, "if we don't know what parts they were supposed to start with, then..." Oh, never mind. You make a pretty good point that the Prod category is in such a muddled state at this point, it makes NO difference what the OE specs are. Touche.

K

Bill Miller
06-19-2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

I'm starting to think you have split-personalities Bill... Andy, Geo, and I have been saying this the entire time we've been on the ITAC and you've been arguing with us for the whole time! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

I hope this means you are getting happier with what we are doing, because pretty much every one of these classifications/reclassifications that we have "recommended" to this point has been done precisely this way, which is why you see the "pending PCAs" clause at the tail end of Fastrack announcements like the Neon, Sentra, etc... (though, those were put in there by the CRB...)

Again, thanks Jake for putting this list together... I can assure you it's going to be put to good use! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif




Darin,

I'm not going to go round-and-round w/ you again on this. Until recently, I've never seen you support or advocate using any kind of published formula. Or maybe that's it, you want to use a formula, you just don't want anyone to know what it is and you don't want them to know you're using a formula. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

ITSRX7
06-20-2004, 12:15 AM
Bill,

Jake never said 'published' in his post. I haven't until now seen you support PCA's...maybe I missed it too. It's possible.

I have gone on record as stating why I don't think a published formula is a good idea, please let's not go over that. We will agree to disagree - again.

We NEED PCA's if any changes are to be made. Errors need a method of correction. That is, and has been, the whole reason for PCA's.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Geo
06-20-2004, 02:16 PM
Further, there really isn't a forumla.

Looking at power to weight puts you in the ballpark and, we think, the correct class. But beyond that it still requires subjective input. There is no formula that says plus this, minus that, etc. We have to look at the whole package and make a guess regarding its performance potential.

Is our crystal ball the clearest? <shrug> We think it's better than it was in the past.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Bill Miller
06-20-2004, 10:17 PM
Andy,

I still don't support PCA's, so there's nothing new there. But, you're right, we'll agree to disagree.

George,


There is no formula that says plus this, minus that, etc. We have to look at the whole package and make a guess regarding its performance potential.


That's just plain scary. Do I understand you correctly, in that you're not going to try and quantify the performance contribution a certain technology makes (e.g. double wishbone suspension, VVT, etc.)?

To me, guessing at performance potential is not much better than the dartboard apporach.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

ITSRX7
06-20-2004, 10:37 PM
Bill,

When the Prophet Gulik writes:


why not move it take the best shot (a basic formula) and not worry? IF it is suddenly found to be THE hot car for the class, use PCAs to correct the weight...

A system that begins as a formula is fine, but it needs to allow for other inputs to get the best result, and a form of post classification adjustment.

And you write:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">These are some of the wisest words I've seen on this board in a long time. Not to mention that it's pretty much what I've been saying for about three years now.</font>

Why do you say you don't support PCA's? He mentions PCA's SPECIFICALLY, then talks about post-classification adjustments (PCA's) to keep things in check...so you agree with about 33% of his post, when he says a formula would be ok? Help me understand.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Banzai240
06-21-2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
post-classification adjustments (PCA's)

HEY... I like that better!! Post Classification Adjustments... PCAs I think that may be better than "Performance Compensation Adjustments"!

I move to.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

lateapex911
06-21-2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
HEY... I like that better!! Post Classification Adjustments... PCAs I think that may be better than "Performance Compensation Adjustments"!

I move to.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



Hold on there, my friend...lets quote the guy who came up with it first, eh??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> by lateapex911: A system that begins as a formula is fine, but it needs to allow for other inputs to get the best result, and a form of post classification adjustment. </font>

Jake
06-21-2004, 02:07 PM
I like it!

>Group hug<

ITSRX7
06-21-2004, 03:06 PM
...and I didn't event mean to quote it like that!!!!!

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
FLATOUT Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bill Miller
06-21-2004, 07:49 PM
edit/ duplicate post

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited June 21, 2004).]

Bill Miller
06-21-2004, 07:49 PM
Andy,

What he said was to use PCA's to adjust weight. If you go back, you'll find that I've only ever advocated adjusting the weight of cars. I never advocated Prod-style comp. adjustments, or the use of intake restrictors (as the PCA proposal has in it).

The PCA proposal language is largely devoted to new car classifications. Very little applies to currently classified cars. I don't support, nor do I see the need for all the rhetoric about 2nd year, 3rd year, etc. IMHO, the whole thing could have been streamlined by simply changing the ITCS PP&I to indicate that in addition to reclassification, a car's spec weight may be changed (up or down) after it has initially been classified. There's no need to add anything about changing the weight when a car is reclassified, because that's already in there.

To me, the fact that a whole other euphamism (sp?) for comp. adjustments had to be coined, is pretty funny. You know the old story, if it looks like dog crap, and smells like dog crap, there's a good chance that it is dog crap.

BTW, still haven't heard anything about what's going to happen w/ the 100# ballast limit.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

ITSRX7
06-21-2004, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

What he said was to use PCA's to adjust weight. If you go back, you'll find that I've only ever advocated adjusting the weight of cars. I never advocated Prod-style comp. adjustments, or the use of intake restrictors (as the PCA proposal has in it).

The PCA proposal language is largely devoted to new car classifications. Very little applies to currently classified cars. I don't support, nor do I see the need for all the rhetoric about 2nd year, 3rd year, etc. IMHO, the whole thing could have been streamlined by simply changing the ITCS PP&I to indicate that in addition to reclassification, a car's spec weight may be changed (up or down) after it has initially been classified. There's no need to add anything about changing the weight when a car is reclassified, because that's already in there.

To me, the fact that a whole other euphamism (sp?) for comp. adjustments had to be coined, is pretty funny. You know the old story, if it looks like dog crap, and smells like dog crap, there's a good chance that it [b]is]/b] dog crap.

BTW, still haven't heard anything about what's going to happen w/ the 100# ballast limit.



The restrictor plate piece is a small piece that was added by the CRB, after the ITAC submitted thier wording. I think it can be done with weight, and if it can't, there is a classing issue to deal with. Other than the mention of RP's, there is NOTHING to lead anyone to believe Prod-style adjustments are going to happen - frankly, we have been howling that this is exactly what PCA's ARE NOT.

I hate to say this Bill, but if that info wasn't in there about the 2nd / 3rd year, etc, I'm willing to bet you would have been the FIRST one to post that the rule was written too openly, giving the CRB way to much 'power' to be used at their discretion, with political motives. I truly believe you wouldn't have been happy either way. Sorry, but that is my perception.

The rule is written for both new classifications and old. Frankly, it is there to fix problems with the new, and have a mechanism to make changes to the old. What do you currently consider the E36 BMW to be - new or old?

The CRB wanted a new name, and they got it. Who cares?

We have asked the CRB to look at the ballest rule in conjunction with PCA's - and PCA's won't officially go before the BoD until August, so what's your beef there?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
FLATOUT Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bill Miller
06-21-2004, 08:06 PM
Hey Jake, I have a question for you. Why did you pick the car you did for the ITA->ITB move? The 2nd gen. CRX Si would have the 8th or 9th lowest lp/hp number out of the entire ITB class.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

lateapex911
06-21-2004, 09:58 PM
When I first started posting about weight changes in IT, the reactions were, "Oh no, we don't do that...this is IT!".... or....Well, that sounds scary, look at Prod".... or..."How can we control that? Too much chance for back room politics...we need a formula".

So, when I drafted my proposal to the boards, I put in limiting factors, both in weight amounts and in time limits, all to allay fears that the changes weren't going to become Prod style adjustments. My proposal was all about control, transparency and limits, and was intended to control the overdogs, because thats where I felt that 75% of ITs classing problems were.

Many people were against the idea at the start, but the "limtied concept" gained followers. Bill was against it, (huge concerns about the procedure and the lack of stability) but had some positive comments regarding the suggested controls as we progressed, and Geo went from totally against the idea to being a supporter when the specifics were fleshed out.

I think that your point, Andy, is very accurate about Bill objecting more to no limits that to the current proposal, if his past comments (described above) are any indication.

But I think he wasn't commenting on the CRBs name change, but the calling the concept PCAs, instead of the Prod usage of "Comp adjustments"....

He's right in a way, as the changes, while more limited, will be largely a reaction to a cars on track performance, just as it is in Prod. Hopefully we'll take the same idea and make it fly, and all the Prod guys will be jealous! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

ITSRX7
06-21-2004, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
But I think he wasn't commenting on the CRBs name change, but the calling the concept PCAs, instead of the Prod usage of "Comp adjustments"....


Yup, that I knew. I still fail to see why anyone would complain about a name change - and it actually isn't one since CA's was never a term associated with IT. PCA's is a new concept to the class and is different in scope to CA's, so why NOT the new name?

It's just complaining for complainings sake. Let's focus on making PCA's work.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Jake
06-21-2004, 10:19 PM
Bill, take another look at my spreadsheet that lists all IT vehicles sorted in order of the (spec wt)/(stock hp). In yellow, you'll see my "lines in the sand". ITA cars that wound up below Honda Civic Si, I put in the ITA->ITB list. There wasn't a magic formual of where I put that line - but if you think it belongs higher or lower, I'd love to hear your opinion. Maybe the right place is the ITB Mercury Capri at a nice round ratio of "20". I don't mean this to be hard and fast, but I do think this method does let many of the cars that should change classes float to the top. I also don't think that we can go through classes and adjust weight so everything is perfect. I just think we can put more cars in the right classes.

Bill Miller
06-21-2004, 11:37 PM
Andy,

You've obviously made up your mind that it's complaining just for the sake of complaining. So, that's the way you're going to see it. And, while there's no way to prove it, you're wrong about what I would have said. I've supported the use of a formula w/ the ability to adjust the weight post-classification, from the beginning. I believe I was one of the first to talk about a class-specific power/weight multiplier (Kirk's term "Miller Ratio"). Why would I be against that being implenented? Seems like you're malaigning me just for the sake of malaigning me.

As far as the whole 'new term' goes, it does provide a convenient way to keep the 'no guarantee' clause, yet be able to adjust cars. Like I said, no new term needed, just change the IT PP&I as I suggested above.

Jake,

I don't know what the right number is. Should it be the median value for the class? The 2nd gen. CRX Si just seemed to be a bit high in the ITA 'pecking order'. I did copy the data and sort it by class and then by lb/hp. While it doesn't tell the whole story, it sure does match w/ the trend of which cars are at the front. I think one of the things it does say, is that there are a lot of cars that need to be looked at for reclassification/weight adjustment.

Maybe the 1st gen. CRX Si is a better place to start. Or maybe one of the top ITB cars

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Jake
06-22-2004, 08:47 AM
Bill, if we draw the line at the CRX Si, you then include these ITA cars in the ITA->ITB list. IMHO, I wouldn't move the Prelude-S, BMW 318ti, and Civic Si. But that's just one man's opinion. As I said before, we do this just as a guideline.


130 / 2580 ChevroletCosworthVega TwinCam (75-76)
135 / 2680 HondaPrelude-S(1992)
135 / 2680 Toyota Celica GTS (86-88)
113 / 2250 Nissan Pulsar NX (87-91)
138 / 2750 BMW 318ti
125 / 2510 MazdaProtege LX(90-93)
119 / 2390 MercuryCapri I V-6(72-74)
108 / 2175 HondaCivic Si(89-91)

ITSRX7
06-22-2004, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

You've obviously made up your mind that it's complaining just for the sake of complaining. So, that's the way you're going to see it. And, while there's no way to prove it, you're wrong about what I would have said. I've supported the use of a formula w/ the ability to adjust the weight post-classification, from the beginning. I believe I was one of the first to talk about a class-specific power/weight multiplier (Kirk's term "Miller Ratio"). Why would I be against that being implenented? Seems like you're malaigning me just for the sake of malaigning me.

As far as the whole 'new term' goes, it does provide a convenient way to keep the 'no guarantee' clause, yet be able to adjust cars. Like I said, no new term needed, just change the IT PP&I as I suggested above.



Well then, I am wrong about your position if you say so. Your historical position comes off as 'WE MUST HAVE A FORMULA - AND IT MUST BE PUBLISHED'. I don't recall you ever supporting PCA's in any way - and I've looked. Multupliers or the 'Miller Ratio' is again, a formula-based system. Trying to find where you said post classification changes were ok...and I can't.

Do you know why it is a convienent way to keep the NG clause? Because we want the NG clause to stay. That was a stipulation ALL ALONG. I have debated with others before that selective use of PCA's to adjust older cars is the smart thing to do. Adjusting older, rare and undesireable cars is wasted effort and can cause many problems.

I apologize to you if I have your position wrong but your history and stances on this board have created the perception - accurate or not.

AB


------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Knestis
06-22-2004, 10:03 AM
A couple of thoughts from someone who's done a lot of thinking down this line...?

First, remember that the current spec weights were defined by different people, at different times, for different reasons. They may or may not have anything to do with what the car or should actually weigh. For example, if the original spec weight was set artificially high as a handicapping exercise, use of that weight to determine reclassification is a little confusing. Try starting with the OE weight, considering how much a car can actually be lightened under IT rules.

Second, I'd respectfully suggest that any time the conversation shifts from the substance of the topic to what someone did or didn't say in the past, it might be that it isn't furthering any cause - pro or con.

FWIW.

K

cherokee
06-22-2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:

Because we want the NG clause to stay. That was a stipulation ALL ALONG. I have debated with others before that selective use of PCA's to adjust older cars is the smart thing to do. Adjusting older, rare and undesireable cars is wasted effort and can cause many problems.



I just do not see the logic of having a NG clause and be talking about PCA's, on one hand you say no guarantee and on the other you say you will, that is what PCA's are all about make you competive, right?

Another thing that worries me is this attitude, "Adjusting older, rare and undesireable cars is wasted effort..." So every member will not have the rules applied to him in every way when it comes to PCA's, Who decides if the car is too old or rare? If you are going to do PCA's it would seem that you would want to take care of all the members but that is not what I read here.

Banzai240
06-22-2004, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by cherokee:
I just do not see the logic of having a NG clause and be talking about PCA's, on one hand you say no guarantee and on the other you say you will, that is what PCA's are all about make you competive, right?


NO... NO ONE can "make you competitive"... The NG clause is redundant really, because WHO can "guarantee" your competitiveness in the first place...

PCAs are NOT designed to "make you competitive"... They are designed to allow the CRB to correct for incorrect estimations of performance potential of a car. That has little to do with "competitiveness", and everything to do with making some kind of attempt to match the mechanical properties of vehicles in the same class as much as possible without the use of a Formula 1 style computer system...

The end result, obviously, is that the CARS in each class should have some reasonable amount of parity between them. Making them "competitive" is then up to you guys.


Originally posted by Knestis:
Try starting with the OE weight, considering how much a car can actually be lightened under IT rules.

Or, how about starting with estimating power potential, then using the weight that you estimate for that power to help determine whether or not a class makes sense for the car? Calculate it for two potential classes and pick the one that makes the most sense... (meaning, which class the car can go into and actually achieve it's recommended weight.)


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited June 22, 2004).]

cherokee
06-22-2004, 11:35 AM
Perhaps I should have said make the car competive. You could have the best driver in the world in a mis-classed car and HE will still not do very well.

I thaught that the NG clause was that no car was guaranteed to be competive, PCA's will change all that, but I guess if you keep the NG clause you can say sorry buddy you car is not popular or too old or whatever...there is no guarantee, but hay if you where driving a chosen car we could help you out.

"The end result, obviously, is that the CARS in each class should have some reasonable amount of parity between them."
If they where put in the correct class in the first place this would not be a problem.
As for the older cars in classes that are getting new blood...move them down slow them down, adjust the car when it has to move classes.

I am just not sold on the PCA argument, more so with comments that would exclude some cars from getting an adjustment, but keep talking you might change my mind.

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited June 22, 2004).]

ITSRX7
06-22-2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by cherokee:


Another thing that worries me is this attitude, "Adjusting older, rare and undesireable cars is wasted effort..." So every member will not have the rules applied to him in every way when it comes to PCA's, Who decides if the car is too old or rare? If you are going to do PCA's it would seem that you would want to take care of all the members but that is not what I read here.



Cherokee,

First, let me say this: we are not far enough along in the PCA process so that I know the OFFICIAL stance of the entire ITAC on this...I will lay out *my* position. This is a topic that I knew would have to get hashed out.

There are cars out there right now that are too rare and/or too old to be placed at the 'top' of a race class. When I say this, I mean that everyone needs to have the same kind of chance to build one, and race one competitively, safely - AND legally. I guess I see most of the potential for my issue is in ITB/ITC. Cars similar to the Dastun 510 come to mind. Parts are ultra-rare, some critical ones not even manufactured anymore, buildable (read: mostly rust-free) donor cars are non-existant in 95% of the country...

Is this the type of car you want to have as 'the car' in a class (actual or perceived)? Please don't harp on the 510, use the symptoms as the issue in any debate. We WANT to take care of all the members but would you say it makes sense to try and get some cars closer to the brass ring than others - in the interest of common sense? I know this is a hard question and my position may make some uneasy but I think it makes sense in the overall scheme.

I am open for all discussion.

AB


------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

ITSRX7
06-22-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
I thaught that the NG clause was that no car was guaranteed to be competive, PCA's will change all that, but I guess if you keep the NG clause you can say sorry buddy you car is not popular or too old or whatever...there is no guarantee, but hay if you where driving a chosen car we could help you out.

"The end result, obviously, is that the CARS in each class should have some reasonable amount of parity between them."
If they where put in the correct class in the first place this would not be a problem.


We have always said that PCA's were to fix problems and the NG clause would never come out. It isn't meant to be political, it's just there to keep us from getting trapped in the 'production world' we all so want to avoid.

Cars can be in the correct class and have no chance of winning given equal prep and equal drivers. The E36 BMW 325 and the 944 8V comes to mind. *I* think (Geo will disagree but...) that the 944 8V car is not an ITA car but it certainly isn't the class of ITS right now. Without PCA's, we can't shrink that gap.

Picture a wheel with a 70-series tire on it. The rubber sidewall area represents the mass of cars that COULD be closer in cmpetitive potential to the 'wheel'. The wheel is the core of top cars in each class. PCA's goal would be to shrink the tire from say, a 70 series, to a 30 series - or something like that. To bring cars closer to the goal - but not in a micro, Production type of way...

Am I making ANY sense??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

cherokee
06-22-2004, 12:55 PM
Andy, I understand your position but all cars should be treated the same across the board. I also understand that the process is just starting out. I just worry about opening Pandoras Box. At first we it was only weight, then we heard of air restrictors, what next? and there will be a next. All of these changes will be little one time for one little thing and it will get all out of hand before you know it....they always said that I was a glass is half empty kind of guy.

I just wanted to add with you BMW and Porsche example everyone seems to agree that the BMW is too fast, it goes back to my comment that it was not classified correctly in the first place. Use the PCA's to slow down the newly placed (less then 5 yrs) overdogs and not mess with the class vetran cars.

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited June 22, 2004).]

Knestis
06-22-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Or, how about starting with estimating power potential, then using the weight that you estimate for that power to help determine whether or not a class makes sense for the car? ...


That's kind of what I did with all of my figures. If a car needed an unreasonable amount of ballast or had to be way below the OE curb weight, it got moved.

That's why that online weight calculator that I created allowed you to pick what class your car would be figured for. The same car in ITC would not weigh what it was spec'd at in ITB - hypothetically speaking, of course. When we were playing with it, several people indicated that they would rather be in a lower class at a more realistic weight...

K

EDIT - http://www.it2.evaluand.com/wtform.php3

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 22, 2004).]

Banzai240
06-22-2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
Use the PCA's to slow down the newly placed (less then 5 yrs) overdogs and not mess with the class vetran cars.

Does anyone else see the converging of thought going on here??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Cherokee et. al.,

That's EXACTLY why the language says "on rare occasion", when referring to anything other than the newly classified stuff... the main purpose of this exercise is to give the CRB the tools to get these initial classification correct. The rest of the stuff CAN be adjusted, but only after a careful review of all pertinenet information.

What you have seen thus far is an initial influx of adjustments to existing cars, and you may see some more of this, but as time progresses, IT will still be IT, and change isn't one of the things IT is known for.

If we can get some of this "realignement" done, and done correctly, PCAs should only need to be employed on those occasions where we simply miss the mark on initial classifications, or as classficiations mature to the point where we have a REALLY good measure of the performance of the car.



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Geo
06-22-2004, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Does anyone else see the converging of thought going on here??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Cherokee et. al.,

That's EXACTLY why the language says "on rare occasion", when referring to anything other than the newly classified stuff... the main purpose of this exercise is to give the CRB the tools to get these initial classification correct. The rest of the stuff CAN be adjusted, but only after a careful review of all pertinenet information.

What you have seen thus far is an initial influx of adjustments to existing cars, and you may see some more of this, but as time progresses, IT will still be IT, and change isn't one of the things IT is known for.

If we can get some of this "realignement" done, and done correctly, PCAs should only need to be employed on those occasions where we simply miss the mark on initial classifications, or as classficiations mature to the point where we have a REALLY good measure of the performance of the car.



I think Darin hit the nail square on the head here.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Jake
06-22-2004, 10:08 PM
The August fastrack looks great! I can check off several from the list now. I really like the Porsche moves. I have a but that's all set to build a 1.7L ITC! 914. However (just to rub it in):

5. Reclassify the Toyota MR2. (Scott) The Toyota MR2 is correctly classified and does not share the same platform as the Toyota FX16.

Hmmm, so for any car now to move a class it needs to share a platform with the FX16? :P

Bill Miller
06-22-2004, 10:45 PM
Andy,

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how PCA's can be consistent w/ the NG clause. Essentially what you're saying is that the NG clause still applies, but instead of just providing a place to race, it now says that maybe we'll adjust your car if it's too slow or too fast.

Darin,

Please explain to me how Prod-style comp. adjustments make cars competitive.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
06-22-2004, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

Please explain to me how Prod-style comp. adjustments make cars competitive.



Bill,
You're in Production... wouldn't you be better equiped to expain this to me??

Here's my stab at it... If driver A shows up to the Runoffs with car X, and dominates the show... CAs will be applied to ALL car X's in an attempt to make the other cars competitive with car X, or vise-versa, without much thought as to just how well driven, or how well prepped Car W, Y, and Z were... CAs are applied based solely on how well the car performs at the top level in a few select events...

PCAs take the opposite approach, really...

We've gone over this a hundred times... PCAs, whether you call them "Performance Compensation Adjustments", or you call them "Post-Classification Adjustments", they give the CRB the ability to adjust the weight to cars that prove, over time, to be classed at an advantage, (or potentially at a dis-advantage)...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

oanglade
06-23-2004, 11:34 AM
So, the '99 Miata gets classed in ITS (which I expected), but at a portly 2400 pounds. Am I to think that the powers that be feel that the car can be competitive at 2400 pounds?

This happens to be the same weight/stock hp ratio as the '94-'95 Miata, also in ITS. Hardly what anyone would call a competitive car in ITS.

So, what happened here? Was there any attempt to look at the car and give it a chance or was it simply a matter of making it fit with the other ITS Miata and be done with it?

There is no way (in my opinion) that it can legally make the power to compete with, say the RX-7 at that weight. It can easily lose 100 pounds and maybe it will be able to show. I'm ignoring the BMW because, as classified, the car is in ITR (a whole different class), not ITS.

Look at the cars moving from ITS to ITA. Say, the Nissan SER, for example. It was classed in ITS at 45 pounds more than the miata (same stock hp). Yeah, it is FWD and the Miata is RWD, but the Sentra gets moved to ITA because it has no chance at all to compete in ITS. Is the Miata THAT much better? Does RWD and 45 pounds make a difference between "move to ITA" and "have a chance in ITS"?
Look at the DOHC Neon! Classed in ITS at 2400 (same as the Miata), with 10 more stock hp. It had so little chance in ITS that it is being moved to ITA. Did it being FWD vs. the Miata being RWD at 10 less hp the difference between "move to ITA" and "have a chance in ITS"?


So, in short, can anyone maybe help me understand the process a little better? Is it that there are plans to slow down ITS as a whole?


By the way, that 1.8 V6 Mazda MX3 has no reason to be in ITS either, especially if cars like the SER and the Prelude are going to ITA.

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

Geo
06-23-2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by oanglade:
Is it that there are plans to slow down ITS as a whole?

Without PCAs being approved, the only way to slow down ITS is to issue laser guided missles to the non-Bimmer drivers. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Bill Miller
06-23-2004, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Bill,
You're in Production... wouldn't you be better equiped to expain this to me??

Here's my stab at it... If driver A shows up to the Runoffs with car X, and dominates the show... CAs will be applied to ALL car X's in an attempt to make the other cars competitive with car X, or vise-versa, without much thought as to just how well driven, or how well prepped Car W, Y, and Z were... CAs are applied based solely on how well the car performs at the top level in a few select events...

PCAs take the opposite approach, really...

We've gone over this a hundred times... PCAs, whether you call them "Performance Compensation Adjustments", or you call them "Post-Classification Adjustments", they give the CRB the ability to adjust the weight to cars that prove, over time, to be classed at an advantage, (or potentially at a dis-advantage)...



I don't know Darin, you spend as much (more?) time on the Prod site as you do here, you tell me. You've talked about negative comp. adj. in Prod, but not about the positive ones. That's not to say that I agree w/ your assesment of why/how comp. adj. are handed out in Prod. I've got thoughts on the whole thing, but don't have time to write it all down right now.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608