Nov. FasTrack is out [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Speed Raycer

10-04-2005, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by dyoungre@Oct 4 2005, 11:57 AM
This topic has been discussed before, but I'm not sure it was resolved:

A) The definition in the rules for NASCAR-Style Door Bars is simply this:
"If installed, shall consist of one or more sidebars that intrude into the door cavity and connect the main hoop to the front hoop." There is no specifications as to the size or wall thickness of these tubes.

B) The minimum size for reinforcing tubes has been eliminated.

C) Per item 13, both drivers doors and passenger doors can now be gutted where fitted with NASCAR-Style door bars.

SO - what stops anyone from fitting their doors with one 1/2" x 0.029" intruding door bar?

61749

The fact that all required bars must meet the minimum tubing requirement (or if the hoop is upsized-the tubing used in the hoop). If Nascar bars are used, two of the tubes that extend from the hoop to the front downbar must meet the tubing rule.

Now... nothing seems to be stopping someone from using the 1/2"x.029 tube (cringe) if they already have two door bars that meet the requirements.

Hopefully, common sense will prevail and nobody will think that a 1/2"x.029 spear is a good idea.

dyoungre

10-04-2005, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Speed Raycer@Oct 4 2005, 05:49 PM
The fact that all required bars must meet the minimum tubing requirement (or if the hoop is upsized-the tubing used in the hoop). If Nascar bars are used, two of the tubes that extend from the hoop to the front downbar must meet the tubing rule.

Now... nothing seems to be stopping someone from using the 1/2"x.029 tube (cringe) if they already have two door bars that meet the requirements.

Scott, I think you got my point; No where does it say 'either/or'. If you had one diagonal and one horizontal tube, then the NASCAR bars are not required. Therefore, there is nothing in the rules stating that the NASCAR bars have to be of the required size. Also, since the Nascar bar can be ONE bar, it can just be a single piece of conduit, going from main hoop to front hoop, intruding into the door cavity.

I'm not suggesting it is wise - just that I think it meets the rules.

Greg Amy

10-04-2005, 04:05 PM

Re: the door bars. Someone want to explain to me "Effective 1/1/07 and permissible 10/1/05..." means? If I'm correct, it means we *can* do the optional NASCAR bars on the right side now, but *must* do the mandated bar(s) by 1/1/07?

mgyip

10-04-2005, 04:54 PM

The 90-92 GTI/GLI 16v moves to ITA at 2475 lbs!! Ouch - even with my big butt in the car and ALL the undercoating, the General Li only weighed in at 2345 lbs and it's wholly uncompetitive in ITA (no, it's not JUST my lack of ability). I can't imagine that 11 more HP warrants an additional 255 lbs for the 2.0L - the spec weight for the 1.8L cars is "only" 2220 lbs.

I guess this is just another reason to race some other car that has been more favorably "blessed" by the classification fairy... :angry:

tcpip

10-04-2005, 05:17 PM

At the least they gave VWs some love, and fixed the Jetta III problem. They dropped the weight to 2350 lbs and bumped it to ITB. Glad someone realized that Golf III's and Jetta III's are the same car, just like every other generation. ;)

Speed Raycer

10-04-2005, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by GregAmy@Oct 4 2005, 03:05 PM
Re: the door bars. Someone want to explain to me "Effective 1/1/07 and permissible 10/1/05..." means? If I'm correct, it means we *can* do the optional NASCAR bars on the right side now, but *must* do the mandated bar(s) by 1/1/07?

61767

You are correct. Can do either nascar or "straight" bars now, must have 2 bars on the pass. side come 1/1/07. NASCAR bars are optional.

Bildon

10-04-2005, 05:29 PM

x-ring

10-04-2005, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by GregAmy@Oct 4 2005, 02:05 PM
Re: the door bars. Someone want to explain to me "Effective 1/1/07 and permissible 10/1/05..." means? If I'm correct, it means we *can* do the optional NASCAR bars on the right side now, but *must* do the mandated bar(s) by 1/1/07?

61767

That's the way I read it. In the case of my car I must, at least, add another door bar to the right hand side by 1/1/7. I can, right now, add another bar, add one NASCAR bar and 'gut' my door, or remove my existing bar and add a double NASCAR bar and 'gut' my door.

Unless I hear different, that's what I'm going to go with when the next round of annual inspections comes up (usually Friday afternoon before the first race of the season :blink: ).

jhooten

10-04-2005, 07:38 PM

They denied me classification in production because my motor is to big.

Say What?

The Austin Healy has a bigger motor, as does the Jag, Both British cars. It must be anti-Japanese bigotry.

Andy Bettencourt

10-04-2005, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by mgyip@Oct 4 2005, 04:54 PM
The 90-92 GTI/GLI 16v moves to ITA at 2475 lbs!! Ouch - even with my big butt in the car and ALL the undercoating, the General Li only weighed in at 2345 lbs and it's wholly uncompetitive in ITA (no, it's not JUST my lack of ability). I can't imagine that 11 more HP warrants an additional 255 lbs for the 2.0L - the spec weight for the 1.8L cars is "only" 2220 lbs.

I guess this is just another reason to race some other car that has been more favorably "blessed" by the classification fairy... :angry:

61771

I am not going to get into a flame war here but the car was re-classed using the same process as the Neon, SE-R and NX2000. The weight of the 1.8 car is irrelevant because it was classes before the process started getting used. If you think the 1.8 is a better ITA car, so be it! The S5 RX-7 is a better ITS car than the 85 GSL-SE, both Mazdas but one is far superior.

No fairy, just a process.

AB

Banzai240

10-05-2005, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by mgyip@Oct 4 2005, 08:54 PM
The 90-92 GTI/GLI 16v moves to ITA at 2475 lbs!! Ouch - ...

I guess this is just another reason to race some other car that has been more favorably "blessed" by the classification fairy... :angry:

61771

I just re-ran the numbers... It's PERFECTLY classified in ITA now... I can't BELIEVE you are complaining about this... :wacko:

Sit down for a moment and think about it... It might make sense if you look at the bigger picture, as well as think about EVERYTHING we have been telling you guys in that "other" thread... (aka: "the ITAC is out to get the BMW"... thread... ;) )

Go race the darn car for crying out loud... put in a 10/10ths effort and it should work very well for the class...

Oh, and the 1.8L car is pretty close to being classified ideally as well... It's actually about 50lbs lighter than it "should" be...

joeg

10-05-2005, 08:14 AM

I was ready to make my bar additions on 10-01-05, but someone said it was not official.

It looks "official" now, so I could have done it last week.

Oh well...

Bill Miller

10-05-2005, 08:40 AM

Darin,

I don't want to get into anything over this, I'm just trying to understand. Assuming that the Process weight for the 1.8 16v Golf/Jetta is 2270# (adding the 50# that you mentioned), is 12 hp really worth 200#? The 1.8 16v car was rated at 123hp, and the 2.0 16v car was rated at 135hp. Same chassis, suspension, trans, brakes. I'll also submit, that given that the 1.8 16v car is 50# 'light', and is hardly a front-runner, that maybe the process needs some adjustment.

All that being said, it's nice to see some things getting done, keep up the good work! :happy204: :023:

Andy Bettencourt

10-05-2005, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 5 2005, 08:40 AM
Darin,

I don't want to get into anything over this, I'm just trying to understand. Assuming that the Process weight for the 1.8 16v Golf/Jetta is 2270# (adding the 50# that you mentioned), is 12 hp really worth 200#? The 1.8 16v car was rated at 123hp, and the 2.0 16v car was rated at 135hp. Same chassis, suspension, trans, brakes. I'll also submit, that given that the 1.8 16v car is 50# 'light', and is hardly a front-runner, that maybe the process needs some adjustment.

All that being said, it's nice to see some things getting done, keep up the good work! :happy204: :023:

61811

This issue isn't unique to VW's. It is perfectly even across all classes and marques. Let's all keep in mind that sometimes we compare apples to oranges...when I say that, I mean cars that are classed or re-classed using the process then are compared to cars that have been in the books for a while.

ITA example. The Integra vs. the NX2000. The 1.8 Integra was in the class and then the SE-R/NX2000 came in. Using the process, the NX2000 came in heavier than the Integra. Same stock HP, less HP potential, and a less sophiticated suspension...

Seems like a bad move at the outset but the 'process' is the first step. 'Correcting' other classifications within the context of the new, repetable process is the next step - awaiting BoD support.

AB

Knestis

10-05-2005, 09:36 AM

Even if it seems a little porky, I think the 2.0 16v VWs are a good addition to ITA. A full-boat version would be a good car on a grunt track, methinks.

K

mgyip

10-05-2005, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 5 2005, 07:53 AM
Go race the darn car for crying out loud... put in a 10/10ths effort and it should work very well for the class...

Oh, and the 1.8L car is pretty close to being classified ideally as well... It's actually about 50lbs lighter than it "should" be...

61806

I would go race the darn car if I hadn't been "assisted" into a tire wall over Labor Day. 10/10ths effort? For me, that's about 5/10ths effort since I'm mostly DIY and perpetually broke BUT that doesn't stop me from having fun. If I wanted to win, I would have taken the car-whore approach and driven whatever was winning. Since my 1.8 is already way overweight, I'll test your theory that the 1.8L is 50 lbs too light as it's currently classed.

Banzai240

10-05-2005, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by mgyip@Oct 5 2005, 01:56 PM
I would go race the darn car if I hadn't been "assisted" into a tire wall over Labor Day. 10/10ths effort? For me, that's about 5/10ths effort since I'm mostly DIY and perpetually broke BUT that doesn't stop me from having fun. If I wanted to win, I would have taken the car-whore approach and driven whatever was winning. Since my 1.8 is already way overweight, I'll test your theory that the 1.8L is 50 lbs too light as it's currently classed.

61820

DUDE! THAT'S THE SPIRIT!! You go for it!! :happy204:

Me thinkist that your situation is not far removed from many of us out here!

If you are having fun, then you are on the right track...

Banzai240

10-05-2005, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 5 2005, 12:40 PM
Darin,

I don't want to get into anything over this, I'm just trying to understand. Assuming that the Process weight for the 1.8 16v Golf/Jetta is 2270# (adding the 50# that you mentioned), is 12 hp really worth 200#?

61811

Bill, et.al.,

The process works by estimating the "potential" HP based on the factory HP, if no other information is known (i.e.: dyno sheets, previous experience, etc.)...

The way this is done is to estimate potential in terms of a percentage increase over stock hp with IT prep... This seems to yield acceptable results in most cases...

If you have two motors and you multiply each stock hp output by the same percentage, the difference between the two increases...

So, the 12hp difference noted above actually becomes about 15.6 hp difference with IT-Prep, and this is indeed worth at least 200#... According to the process...

Seems reasonable if you consider that extra displacement and torque potential, etc., of the larger motor...

You'll see this same pattern with the Miatas, or just about any other recently classified car...

Hopefully this helps...

Again, the car is right where it needs to be... A very nice addition to ITA I think... B)

dyoungre

10-05-2005, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 5 2005, 01:29 PM
This issue isn't unique to VW's. It is perfectly even across all classes and marques. Let's all keep in mind that sometimes we compare apples to oranges...when I say that, I mean cars that are classed or re-classed using the process then are compared to cars that have been in the books for a while.

ITA example. The Integra vs. the NX2000. The 1.8 Integra was in the class and then the SE-R/NX2000 came in. Using the process, the NX2000 came in heavier than the Integra. Same stock HP, less HP potential, and a less sophiticated suspension...

Seems like a bad move at the outset but the 'process' is the first step. 'Correcting' other classifications within the context of the new, repetable process is the next step - awaiting BoD support.

AB

61816

So if I extrapolate, the 'Formula' was not designed for cars to be competitive with current top dogs, but with today's top dogs being reigned in? It makes sense - first you give the unhappy a place to play by correcting the severe underdogs, then you take on the more controversial - reigning in the happy, potentially making them less happy.

Am I reading in too much?

Andy Bettencourt

10-05-2005, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by dyoungre@Oct 5 2005, 12:50 PM
So if I extrapolate, the 'Formula' was not designed for cars to be competitive with current top dogs, but with today's top dogs being reigned in? It makes sense - first you give the unhappy a place to play by correcting the severe underdogs, then you take on the more controversial - reigning in the happy, potentially making them less happy.

Am I reading in too much?

61834

:happy204:

The targets needed to be slightly south of top guns in each class or else the mid and bottom get further away as new stuff is inserted. If have a chance to put a large sampling through the process, the top cars should come down and the lower cars should come up...assuming everything else being equal. And we ALWAYS have to assume that...

Be glad to talk more about it over a beer at the NARRC!!!

(edit) The top only 'come down' and the bottom only 'come up' if there was a problem with the weight to begin with...

AB

Bill Miller

10-05-2005, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by dyoungre@Oct 5 2005, 12:50 PM
So if I extrapolate, the 'Formula' was not designed for cars to be competitive with current top dogs, but with today's top dogs being reigned in? It makes sense - first you give the unhappy a place to play by correcting the severe underdogs, then you take on the more controversial - reigning in the happy, potentially making them less happy.

Am I reading in too much?

61834

That kinda sounds like what's going on. And you know, that's probably a good thing. Otherwise, makes it too hard to get the bottom of the class closer to the top. Moving things closer to some middle point is a great approach!

I'll give you guys (the ITAC), things are looking good!! Nice job. :happy204: :023:

And I think the cars will be nice in ITA (that's why I asked that they be moved)

benspeed

10-10-2005, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 4 2005, 03:52 PM
http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/05-11-fastrack.pdf

61741

I agree - moving SSB/C to Touring 3/4 would be a fine move.

Z3_GoCar

10-10-2005, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 5 2005, 04:53 AM
I just re-ran the numbers... It's PERFECTLY classified in ITA now... I can't BELIEVE you are complaining about this... :wacko:

61806

I think you know what concerns me.... If you apply the same potential percentage to every car classed, what do you do for one's that don't/can't be upgraded to that percentage? Example... most cars come with horible cast iron exhaust manifolds, part of the upgrade hp that you get in IT is by replacing them. Now along come a car that has a nice tubular equal length manifold, really close to what you could get custom welded up. Great upside, you don't have to spend the money for a manifold. Downside is it's about as optimized as it's going to get, so less power gain for IT tune, and the weights perfectly set based on getting power that's not there :bash_1_: Sure you don't class any class busters, but on the other hand the new guy's now over weight and not competitive with any of the other guys. Call me skeptical, but I don't think there's 160hp in an IT tuned M44. Now how do I prove it... :blink:

James

Banzai240

10-11-2005, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Oct 11 2005, 01:05 AM
If you apply the same potential percentage to every car classed, what do you do for one's that don't/can't be upgraded to that percentage?
62250

The simple answer to this is... "But we don't..."

% increase is applied based on a number of factors:

How optimized from the factory

History

Engine design/style, number of valves, etc.

etc...

Without access to a dyno for every motor, and optimized example of every motor, etc... We have to make some assumptions. We're not... NOT... going to get everyone just right... BUT, EVERYONE will get the same level of consideration and be processed the same, and this should get everyone a lot closer to where they should be...

Honestly... I don't believe for a moment that most of us can drive a car well enough, or have prepped it well enough, to tell the difference in 50, or maybe even in 100lbs... depending on the car... We're doing our best to get things close, and that's about all you can really expect... And, I think that I'd personally rather class a car a little too heavy, then class just ONE too light... We've all seen how much that can upset things...

Knestis

10-11-2005, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 11 2005, 11:44 AM
... I don't believe for a moment that most of us can drive a car well enough, or have prepped it well enough, to tell the difference in 50, or maybe even in 100lbs

That there is as good as it gets and I contintue to be pleased to hear stuff like this. The whole idea of this game - I think - is to get the cars close enough based on mechanical attributes that the deciding factors in any given racer are (1) driver skill, (2) set up ability, (3) car preparation - and other factors in decreasing importance. Car CHOICE should not be at or near the top of that list and that's what the current ITAC seems to be trying to accomplish.

K

Bill Miller

10-11-2005, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 11 2005, 07:44 AM
Honestly... I don't believe for a moment that most of us can drive a car well enough, or have prepped it well enough, to tell the difference in 50, or maybe even in 100lbs... depending on the car... We're doing our best to get things close, and that's about all you can really expect... And, I think that I'd personally rather class a car a little too heavy, then class just ONE too light... We've all seen how much that can upset things...

62263

Interesting, when you put this up against what some of the E36 drivers were saying about adding weight to their cars. I'll have to go back and read the thread, but IIRC, there were claims that 100 or 150 # would make the car a total dog.

For the most part Darin, I think you're right. I do think, that are probably more people that could tell the difference than you think. Certainly fewer w/ 50# than w/ 100#. And the problem w/ looking at specific weight values, is that the next percentage change depends on the starting weight for the car. For example, a 100# change is a 3.33% change for a 3000# car, but a 5% change for a 2000# car. I certainly don't think I'm any great shoe, but I'm pretty certain than I could feel the difference in 100#, in say a Rabbit GTI. And I'm very certain that the lap times would be different, w/ and w/o the weight. Could I do it w/ 50#? Can't really say for sure. I'd like to think so, but only the watch will say for sure.

For a reasonable gauge at the effect of weight changes, I think it's valid to look at the performance of production cars, before and after post-Runoffs' comp. adj. (assuming of course, that they're weight-only adj.).

All that being said, as more data come in, the more the ITAC classification process will get refined, and the better it will be. And that can only mean good things, and better competition (and a wider variety of 'good' cars) in IT. Keep it up guys! :023: :happy204: :smilie_pokal:

JLawton

10-11-2005, 09:17 AM

:happy204: I agree, the direction the board is going is great!!

So.........can we take a look at the early GTis?? :)

R2 Racing

10-11-2005, 09:19 AM

The new ITA VW you guys are talking about = 2.0L, 4 cylinder, 135hp stock, with a 2475lb race weight.
My ITA '92 Integra = 1.8L, 4 cylinder, 140hp stock, with a 2480lb race weight (and actually weighs about 2560 with me in it).

Uhhhmmmm.......I guess VW's must just not have as much potential as those darn Honda's, right? I'll stick with my original opinion; the ITAC is doing a great job!

Bill Miller

10-11-2005, 10:05 AM

Not quite sure what you're saying, but it would seem that the Integra is light. Only 5# extra for 5 hp extra. If you use the the VW 1.8 16v and 2.0 16v numbers, the Acura should probably be closer to 2550#.

turboICE

10-11-2005, 10:09 AM

Good it wasn't just me, because when I read the post I thought the intro was an argument for a heavier Teg as well...

Banzai240

10-11-2005, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 11 2005, 02:05 PM
Not quite sure what you're saying, but it would seem that the Integra is light.
62277

The Integra is light... and, it would seem that the 1.8L Acura motor has more "potential" than the VW with IT prep... You can't always look at just the displacment... I really wish we had the tools to look at things like B/S Ratios, Volumetric Efficiency, etc... but we don't have those kind of resources readily available... So, we'll just keep doing what we are doing, which is the best we can...

Thanks for the support guys... I really hope that all this will be rewarded at the December BoD meetings! Call your local BoD members and tell them to support the ITAC's proposal! :023:

zracre

10-11-2005, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 11 2005, 10:05 AM
Not quite sure what you're saying, but it would seem that the Integra is light. Only 5# extra for 5 hp extra. If you use the the VW 1.8 16v and 2.0 16v numbers, the Acura should probably be closer to 2550#.

62277

how long has the teg been in ITA? It seems to be called an overdog an awful lot...GTI's consistently win ITB so is that an overdog as well? I think time is a factor in the decision as well....there is alot of discussion that "my car is too heavy boo hoo". The teg has been there for years and has not always been a winner. now that people are spending time and money to develop a good car it is now an overdog. There needs to be class standards. The 240sx (160whp??!!) is competitive and fast on the same level as the integra and there are a few more in the pipeline (1.8 miata) that should fill in the blank spaces in the classes. I agree with comp adjustments, but shouldnt we be using the winners of the class as the standard and not the underdogs? I think bringing the weight down on some older developed less competitive cars seems a better choice than penalizing people that spend time and money to reach their goal. I tried to get the weight reduced on my ITB Rabbit GTI to no avail...so I sold it to buy something newer and more competitive...

Banzai240

10-11-2005, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by zracre@Oct 11 2005, 03:07 PM
...but shouldnt we be using the winners of the class as the standard and not the underdogs?
62283

NO! What you are suggesting is to make the maximum amount of adjustments to the class... the maximum disruption to the specifications... and MAXIMUM chance of really screwing things up! We'd especially like to avoid the last one there! :blink:

Look at it this way... PRIOR to the 240SX, the CRX/Hondas, and the Acuras being classified in ITA, there was a different group of cars that would be considered "competitive"... These newer classifications "disrupted" the "competitive balance" of the class...

There are a couple ways to deal with this.

One... you attempt to bring everyone up to the level of those newer classifications...

Two... You pick a "mid-point", and bring the bottom and top towards it...

If you analyze the specs/classifications, you'll see that number two is the option that requires the fewest adjustments to the specs, and therefore, the least amount of disruption for the majority of the competitors... and fewere adjustments mean fewer errors that would further disrupt the competitive balance...

There are cars behind you that have worked just as hard to be competitive, but simply aren't... Just because you run up front, doesn't mean you worked any harder than the guy 5 spots back...

This isn't about "penalizing" anyone or any car... it's about getting the specifications back in line across the board... There are cars classified that, given decent prep, should, and DO, win... and there are those that, given the same level of prep, never will...

Bob Burns

10-11-2005, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 11 2005, 09:32 AM
I really hope that all this will be rewarded at the December BoD meetings! Call your local BoD members and tell them to support the ITAC's proposal!
At least one of whom is listening.

Bob Burns
Area 4 Director (interim)
former Comp Board member
former ITAC chairman
email: area4scca (at) rlburns.net

Knestis

10-11-2005, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Bob Burns@Oct 11 2005, 04:39 PM
At least one of whom is listening. ...

That's kind of cool, huh? Thanks, Bob!

turboICE

10-11-2005, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 11 2005, 10:32 AM
I really hope that all this will be rewarded at the December BoD meetings! Call your local BoD members and tell them to support the ITAC's proposal! :023:

62282
What exactly is the proposal? I generally like to know what I am expressing support for before contacting my local politician oops! :bash_1_: BOD member supporting or against something.

zracre

10-11-2005, 01:23 PM

my point is that the teg has been there for years...

C. Ludwig

10-11-2005, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 11 2005, 12:57 PM
What exactly is the proposal? I generally like to know what I am expressing support for before contacting my local politician oops! :bash_1_: BOD member supporting or against something.

62298

What he said.

Knestis

10-11-2005, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by zracre@Oct 11 2005, 05:23 PM
my point is that the teg has been there for years...

62300

Time moves faster than I do sometimes but I don't think that the 2nd-gen Integra has been listed for very long. 2005 might be the third year?

K

Bill Miller

10-11-2005, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by zracre@Oct 11 2005, 01:23 PM
my point is that the teg has been there for years...

62300

Evan,

I'm not sure how long the 2nd generation Integra has been around, but even if it's only 3 years, what's been around even less than that, is a concerted effort to restore some balance to IT. I would think, that as a former Rabbit GTI owner, you would welcome an objective process, and an active effort to narrow the performance envelopes of the 4 classes. If what's in place today, had been around even 5 years ago, you, I, and many, many others, wouldn't have gotten so frusted w/ the Rabbit GTI (and there are many other cars that were in the same boat).

Bottom line is, people should be able to run the car they want to run, and not feel that they have to run Car X, if they want a chance at being competitive. To me at least, that's where it looks like the ITAC is trying to get us. Heck, if they drop 100 - 150 # off the Rabbit GTI, I might just have to build another one! Lord knows, I've still got plenty of spares.

Doc Bro

10-11-2005, 03:02 PM

Can you say e36 BMW ....all over again? Do I hear 500....550?
:cavallo:
Rob

zracre

10-11-2005, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 11 2005, 01:53 PM
Time moves faster than I do sometimes but I don't think that the 2nd-gen Integra has been listed for very long. 2005 might be the third year?

K

62304

I believe I saw one of the first ones in 1998 or 99 built by Mr Wilding...but I think it hit in 1996 or 1997...not sure but I always admired the cars. I built it because I like it...im happy its not a dog. I just acquired a really cheap 1992 Sentra XE and will probably make that an ITB car because I like them too. I just dont like the idea of having a car classed a certain way for years, build one, then have it re-classed or adjusted in a way that costs lots of money to try and make it at least equal to other well prepped cars out there. my point is that if a car comes to a class and destroys everyone in the first year or 2, then maybe something should be done obviously, but dont penalize a group of people for having spent the time and money. I think if a car comes to the class and is uncompetitive, like the MR2, it should be adjusted or moved down (and adjusted) to keep interest without losing people. There are so many cars in IT keeping parity would be almost impossible without someone building control cars and having controlled tests on all of them. I loved the GTI but when the newer cars came and it seemed to get out gunned, I tried to see what could be done, found nothing then just moved on. If other cars come to ITA and the teg is out gunned, then I will probably move on again...and not be bitter.

Banzai240

10-11-2005, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 11 2005, 04:57 PM
What exactly is the proposal? I generally like to know what I am expressing support for before contacting my local politician oops! :bash_1_: BOD member supporting or against something.

62298

Very good point... Unfortunately, I can't post the exact details of it as of yet, because the CRB is still reviewing it (or has yet to review it... We'll find out on the 24th)... We have to respect the chain of "authority" here and let the process work, so the CRB should be the ones to present this idea to the BoD in exacting detail...

If you've been paying attention, then perhaps a better request would be to ask your local BoD to support the "DIRECTION" the ITAC is trying to go... Which essentially boils down to everything those on the ITAC that post here have been trying to say... Bring the top and bottom toward the middle with a set of "one-time", sensible adjustments to get all the specs in-line with the classification process, which is also defined in all it's detail in the proposal.

The proposal to the CRB includes the following:

1) A DETAILED description of the ITACs process for recommending classification specs, including descriptions of each steps and the thinking/analysis that needs to go into each.

2) An explanation of the changes in specs being proposed that we feel the membership should understand and that should give a clear explanation of WHY this is being recommended... (I cringe at the use of the word "clear" here, but that's the intent...)

3) A list of cars, class-by-class, that the ITAC is recommending for adjustments.

4) Additional details and explanation supporting the adjustments to some specific cars.

I'm sorry I cannot divulge actual details, but it would be inappropriate to do so. What I can tell you is that EVERY recommended adjustment makes "sense", but of course, that may depend on which side of the fence you choose to sit on... I am absolutely certain, however, that EVERY recommendation can be clearly explained! By that I mean that, unlike the mysteries of classifications in the past, If you were to ask us WHY is this car spec'd as it is... we can give you a VERY specific answer and we can discuss it from there...

Our vision is to reduce the error... Given the information we have available, and the granularity at which we must work, I think we are succeding in doing that... Now we just need to fix some of the specs from the past to get them in line and we can move forward from there... It's comforting knowing, as well, that we do have the option of correcting the corrections with PCAs in the future, should that prove necessary... I don't think this will have to happen, not much anyhow, but the mechanism is there should we need it...

The key is going to be to convince the CRB and maybe the BoD that we can indeed do a large "competition adjustment" like this, and NOT have it become precedent that will lead down the road to a "Production" style CA pattern... Number 2 in my list above attempts to put language together that can be printed in Fastrack that should make it clear that this is NOT what is going to happen...

Now, for some of you to support this, it's going to take a big effort to think of IT as a whole, and not just your little piece of it, because there are some cars on the list that need to get weight added... However, the end result should be better competition, and a choice of chassis to race that goes beyond the "car of the month" mentality... We think, if we get this accomplished, that the cars that run up front will be those that are prepared to 10/10ths... Not those that say "XXXX" on the marque...

So, if you can support this thinking, and you trust us and believe that the ITAC has the best interests of IT as a whole in mind, then please let your BoD members, and even any CRB members who you may know, that you support this direction...

If not, then let them know that as well... After all, we're doing all this for you... If it's not what you want, we should know that... (would have been nice to know that BEFORE we went to the last two years worth of work... ;) )

Hope this helps...

turboICE

10-11-2005, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 11 2005, 03:35 PM
Hope this helps...

62316
It does. I have been paying attention but had missed it presented as a comprehensive whole anywhere, if it was. Certainly gives me a single point of reference for any communication of support or otherwise, where I actually have an inkling of what it is I would be commenting on instead of "I support whatever it is the ITAC is trying to do!" ;)

Banzai240

10-11-2005, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 11 2005, 07:42 PM
It does. I have been paying attention but had missed it presented as a comprehensive whole anywhere, if it was.
62320

You didn't miss it... This is the first time I can recall me putting this whole deal in one place, but we've given bits and pieces and expained our thinking many times... Hard to follow it all, I know... so I felt the need to lay it out in one post...

Again, in hopes that this helps everyone understand our message and intent...

R2 Racing

10-11-2005, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 11 2005, 09:05 AM
Not quite sure what you're saying, but it would seem that the Integra is light. Only 5# extra for 5 hp extra. If you use the the VW 1.8 16v and 2.0 16v numbers, the Acura should probably be closer to 2550#.

62277

My point was that the GTI seems to be classed right around where the Integra is. Let me spell this out again and include the torque numbers too:
ITA '92 GTI = 2.0L, 4 cylinder, 16V, 135hp stock, 133lb-ft stock, with a 2475lb race weight.
ITA '92 Integra = 1.8L, 4 cylinder, 16V, 140hp stock, 126lb-ft stock, with a 2480lb race weight.

You guys seriously think that those figures make the Acura look heads and shoulders above the GTI? Seriously? Well, I certainly don't. I don't know when being +5hp, -7lb-ft, and -.2L would make the Integra deserve an additonal 75lbs of weight over the VW (as suggested). If it's a case of "well, the Honda's perform greater then the sum of their parts" than you guys sound just like the SCCA did about two years ago. :rolleyes:

Get at least 3 or 4 years of good, solid development into one of those GTI's and I'd be willing to bet it would be right up there in ITA....right where I fully expect the Miata, SE-R, Civic Si, and Neon to join the CRX's and Integra's here shortly. All it takes is people to prepare one to the level of the best CRX's and Integra's out there. Contrary to popular belief, they don't just make themselves fast like magic. I have two years of pretty much full time development on my Integra and I'm by no means dominating every ITA field I enter. I've had success, yes, but I'm also still busting my ass in order to try and not get it handed to me every time I go out there. It's called competition, try breeding it.

Banzai240

10-11-2005, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by R2 Racing@Oct 11 2005, 08:07 PM
I don't know when being +5hp, -7lb-ft, and -.2L would make the Integra deserve an additonal 75lbs of weight over the VW (as suggested).
62324

You need to get away from focusing on STOCK figures, and start weighing the potential in IT prep...

If they both have the potential for a 30% improvement, then that 5hp difference becomes a 6.5hp difference, and yes, that is worth about 100lbs...

Bob Burns

10-11-2005, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 11 2005, 02:35 PM
Unfortunately, I can't post the exact details of it as of yet, because the CRB is still reviewing it (or has yet to review it... We'll find out on the 24th)...
The BoD is generally reluctant to approve a significant change to our member-oriented competition programs without time for member input. Consequently, the timing of this may become critical.

Assuming the CRB approves the ITAC's proposal on the 24th, it might make the December Fastrack which should be out around the first week of November. The BoD meets the first weekend of December. That means the time for member input will be relatively short.

Bottom line, if you have an opinion on the ITAC's proposal, once it is printed, do not delay in communicating your opinion to your director.

Bob...

Banzai240

10-11-2005, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Bob Burns@Oct 11 2005, 08:45 PM
The BoD is generally reluctant to approve a significant change to our member-oriented competition programs without time for member input. Consequently, the timing of this may become critical.
62328

This might be an issue, but it's one we'll have to deal with...

If this were simply specification changes, I'd question why the BoD would be involved at all, since the CRB does this type of adjustment all the time without taking it to the BoD. However, there are some reclassifications suggested, and this does affect a lot of specs, so it is important that the BoD at least be aware of what is being suggested, so they can clearly see, and hopefully agree with, the direction the ITAC has been proposing we go...

I feel confident that this proposal will show the CRB and BoD that there is indeed a plan for IT... I don't remember exactly what the buzz word was for that a couple of years ago when it was promised that all competition programs would come up with one, but WE have one down in writing... Actually, we've been executing it for the past couple of seasons, and this is the final piece... So, in a big way, the approval of all of our recommendations over the past couple of seasons means that the CRB and BoD already approve of this plan! Now we just need to get the existing cars in line...

I sincerely hope that we at least get a chance to have it considered... That would be disappointing... The IT community deserves for this to happen...

Thanks for speaking up Bob and letting us know what the deal is... I'll make sure to do everything I can to get this through the proper channels...

Bill Miller

10-11-2005, 05:23 PM

Bob,

Thanks for the input, it's sure nice to see decision-makers providing input. And I'll echo your comments, if this is going to happen for the '06 season, it's going to happen fast. If you've got thoughts on it, let the people that make the decsions, know what they are PDQ.

Darin,

Thanks for putting that all together. What you guys are doing, is pretty much what I've supported, and lobbyed for, from the very start. Way to go! :smilie_pokal: :happy204: :023:

lateapex911

10-11-2005, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by zracre@Oct 11 2005, 03:24 PM
........ I just dont like the idea of having a car classed a certain way for years, build one, then have it re-classed or adjusted in a way that costs lots of money to try and make it at least equal to other well prepped cars out there.

Wait.......stop.....the logic is missing here. First, big picture, the idea isn't to take 10/10ths winning cars and make them second string. No, the idea is to take 10/10ths cars that have known qualities and physical properties that make them potential overdogs, and make them contenders with other 10/10ths efforts. If the development has been done on the car, then any additional weight will result in some adjustments, but not a whole house redevelopment effort. Again, the idea isn't to penalize, but create a more level playing field.

my point is that if a car comes to a class and destroys everyone in the first year or 2, then maybe something should be done obviously,

Well, not really....if a car's physical properties are such that it has the potential to kill the class, then yes, adjustments are in order. Actual race results must be examined with extreme care, as they can be very misleading.

but dont penalize a group of people for having spent the time and money.

Again, the idea isn't to penalize...but look at it from the other angle. If a car gets classed, and is later seen to have more potential then originally realized, the entire class suffers. ITA has a number of such cars. They have resulted both from rules changes, such as the ECU relaxation rule, and due to the understandable over acheiving nature of certain models. Dozens of cars have been marginalized due to classing issues. Should the entire class suffer? The ENTIRE class has already spent money, and put forth years of effort, which goes down the tubes when a car comes online and is an overacheiver. Is it fairer to "penalize" the single or the few models that are the overacheivers, or the entire remaining class?

I think if a car comes to the class and is uncompetitive, like the MR2, it should be adjusted or moved down (and adjusted) to keep interest without losing people. .

62315

The problem with adjusting all the underdogs is of course, the sheer numbers of them, but there are additional issues. The RX-7 and the MR2 are good examples. IF it was decided that moving the RX-7 to ITB was a good idea, it would have to move down at it's current weight, as any additional weight adjustment would creat a car in violation of the rollcage requirements. (In this case, cars built to the limit of the tubing thickness rules {.095 tubes} will need recaging as the cutoff is 2200 lbs.) Also, many cars just can't lose any more weight..they are running at or above their minimum weight with all the excess that can be removed legally gone.

So, again, the idea is to bring the bottom up, and the top down, while leaving the vast middle alone. hopefully that yields the fewest changes, and creates less overlaps to the classes above and below.

This entire concept has been in process for years, back when Kirk was promoting his IT2 concept, which itself was a reaction to the issues IT was suffering at the time. The first step, and it was a long and tough road to get there, was the creation of the PCA philosophy, and the required rewriting of the basic premise, (and the rulebook), of IT. Those long termers on this board will remember some heated discussions about it.

Even then the discussions ran tangentally into "Lets just add a class between A and S", to "Lets just send all the carbed cars to vintage", but it seemed to me, at least, that the problems in IT could be traced to a relatively small percentage of individual models. The problem was, how to fix it?

With the PCA foundation created and in the book, the mechanism was in place. The second step was to create and fine tune the "process" used to define the classes. The third step was the application of the process in new car classing. The final major step is the adjustment of the existing cars to create a more level landscape, where more cars have a shot, when well prepped and well driven, at the front spot.

I think this proposal extremely important, and it's the culmination of years of discussion, work and thought, and is the second best thing to hit IT since IT's inception. (PCA is the best, without it, nothing is possible) It has numerous benefits, the most obvious being the leveling of the playing field, but others such as the, (albeit partial) removal of the motive and tempation to cheat, and the restoration of values for marginalized cars.

Of course, it's not nirvana, but in the big picture, it's a great move. The wheels of the SCCA turn slowly....find your local BoD person, or write the CRB and support it if you think it deserves to move forward.

zracre

10-11-2005, 10:20 PM

Jake, thanks that was a well laid out answer to my concerns...however, how is an overdog singled out? When the RX7 came to ITS it basically took over...was that an overdog? not anymore as the BMW took over... If there are 5 crx's, 1 miata, 1 325e, 1 rx3, 1 integra and a few saturns running in a region and the crx's are dominant, how do we judge if the crx's are overdogs? We have a 325e that holds the track record here in daytona...other regions seem to have very few competitive 325e's. Some regions have mostly Integras running...How do we put the driver variable in there too? the ITB Accord got the short end of the stick after randy pobst took one to the ARRC and dominated...is that car an overdog?Dont get me wrong, I think the adjustment process is a good thing even if it affects me (I have been winning alot and have noticed that the Integra is a brilliant platform, but my ass has been handed to me on more than one occasion) but track variables and driver variables play a big role too. If there is a magic formula to make all cars equal, then im all for it but I would like to see how it really works without actually taking cars and testing them in controlled situations.
I race because I enjoy competition and the more the merrier. I just dont want to see a situation where a certain car needs a 20-30k investment to win against an 8/10ths effort car as this is IT...I think there will always be some cars that are more popular than others and some more competitive some cheaper to run some more expensive. I wish more people would list track records and cars achieving them just for fun and reference sake.

Banzai240

10-11-2005, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by zracre@Oct 12 2005, 02:20 AM
the ITB Accord got the short end of the stick after randy pobst took one to the ARRC and dominated...is that car an overdog?Dont get me wrong, I think the adjustment process is a good thing even if it affects me (I have been winning alot and have noticed that the Integra is a brilliant platform, but my ass has been handed to me on more than one occasion) but track variables and driver variables play a big role too. If there is a magic formula to make all cars equal, then im all for it but I would like to see how it really works without actually taking cars and testing them in controlled situations.
62352

OK, I don't have time this evening to address this entire post, but I need to re-emphasise one thing... YOU CAN NOT keep focussing on RESULTS! THEY DO NOT DEFINE AN "OVERDOG"! Not in the ITAC's world, anyhow...

Results can give indications, clues, supporting evidence, etc... but a simple review of the classification specs will SHOW YOU THE OVERDOGs... The cars that win, SHOULD WIN, based on an analyisis of the spec lines...

THAT is what we are working toward changing... If you get the specs in line, then you leave it up to the competitors to define who wins and who doesn't... Personally, I want to see a utopia where the guy who prepares his car to 10/10ths is the one who wins... or at least competes... The situation you describe where you get beat by an 8/10ths car... That should only happen in a situation where the guy/gal can outdrive you or where your car is only 7/10ths...

So, the bottom line is that this is NOT an exercise in "penalizing" the "overdogs"... or helping those who are underprepared get a bone... This is about getting ALL OF THE CARS in the ITCS under the same classification structure, and then leaving it to the racers to decide who comes out on top...

Will this be perfect, Hell no... But I have every confidence that the shortcomings will be few, and even more confidence that something can be done about it should our information and our estimations prove to be incorrect... I also have every confidence that we'll be closer than IT has ever been before to having a level playing field, and it is the ITAC's belief that THIS is something the majority of IT participants want to see happen...

Matt Rowe

10-11-2005, 11:49 PM

First, the general proposal as laid out looks like exactly what IT needs to level the playing field and increase the potential number of competitive makes and models. Bravo! And I will be speaking to my BOD rep next time I see him. :happy204:

Secondly, although a little more detail on the process for classifying would be nice, I think you have provided enough detail for the group at large. Certainly the last thing I would want to see is the detailed list of cars and the changes to be created as that will only serve to confuse the issue as everyone attempts to argue why they don't deserve a penalty or the other guy does. I really hope that portion of the proposal is kept out of our hands until the process is approved.

Finally, the one question I have about reclassification is currently dropping a car from ITA to ITB requires a significant cost due to the purchase of a complete new set of wheels. Is there any plans to address this since it seems like there is the potential for a several car reclassifications?

Thanks to the ITAC for the hard work.

lateapex911

10-12-2005, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Oct 11 2005, 11:49 PM
First, the general proposal as laid out looks like exactly what IT needs to level the playing field and increase the potential number of competitive makes and models. Bravo! And I will be speaking to my BOD rep next time I see him. :happy204:

Secondly, although a little more detail on the process for classifying would be nice, I think you have provided enough detail for the group at large. Certainly the last thing I would want to see is the detailed list of cars and the changes to be created as that will only serve to confuse the issue as everyone attempts to argue why they don't deserve a penalty or the other guy does. I really hope that portion of the proposal is kept out of our hands until the process is approved.

wise words.....

Finally, the one question I have about reclassification is currently dropping a car from ITA to ITB requires a significant cost due to the purchase of a complete new set of wheels. Is there any plans to address this since it seems like there is the potential for a several car reclassifications?

Thanks to the ITAC for the hard work.

62367

Yes, the drop from A to B is fraught with the wheel issue. It has been discssed here before. I mentioned it as a hurdle, but some said it was no biggie, you just sell what you have and find more. In the end it costs some bucks, but not as much as a whole set of new wheels would.

Either way, most who commented thought it was a small price to pay to go from being a dog, to being a dog with a chance at a bone.

if you are refering to possible line item exclusions, I think that is best not done. One of the good things about IT is the lack of per car allowances, such as Prod has.

lateapex911

10-12-2005, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by zracre@Oct 11 2005, 10:20 PM
Jake, thanks that was a well laid out answer to my concerns...however, how is an overdog singled out? When the RX7 came to ITS it basically took over...

Well, not really....it may have dominated from a results standpoint, but a really well developed and driven Z car can run with an equal RX-7. And the identification of overdogs is based on the physical properties of the cars, not the actual results. Results can provide information .....IF the variables are all known, but care needs to be excercised when weighing results, and they should never be taken as the only "proof".

I think the adjustment process is a good thing even if it affects me ..... I just dont want to see a situation where a certain car needs a 20-30k investment to win against an 8/10ths effort car as this is IT...

62352

LOL, well that seems to be EXACTLY what has happened in ITS with the E36. I remember some guys writing, on this site, in reaction to the news that the E36 would be required to run a restrictor, that they would now have to finish the development process if they were to stay at the front. Well, cry us a river, LOL.

Again, the goal is to have the cars properties classed equally so the drivers and crews decide the results, not the badge on the hood.........

Banzai240

10-12-2005, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Oct 12 2005, 03:49 AM
...since it seems like there is the potential for a several car reclassifications?

Thanks to the ITAC for the hard work.

62367

There aren't as many as you might think...

And thanks for the support!

Z3_GoCar

10-12-2005, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Oct 11 2005, 12:02 PM
Can you say e36 BMW ....all over again? Do I hear 500....550?
:cavallo:
Rob

62312

Careful there Rob, they may figure out that the Z3 is really an e-36 and add a couple hundred pounds to it :blink:
But you and I both know that not all e-36's are created equal, like the use of e-30 trailing arms instead of multi-link. BTW, have you got any dyno data yet??

Darin,

I appreciate your responce. All I'd ask for is parity, and I appreciate that you and all on the ITAC are doing a difficult job that WILL make some unhappy. Anything you do that adds parity to all cars and make the competition not dependant on make and model I'm all for. But I beg to differ on the 50lbs not making a difference, or maybe I shouldn't remove my spare tire when I autox; besides the performance difference, there's also the psychological effects. When your car is one of the heaviest in the class do you think you're going to think of it as a front runner, or a mid-pack queen? Especially given cars that are much lighter and have proven more competitive(Miata) history and development. I just have the impression that the M44 is more like the Porsche 911 than the M50, and no matter what money's spent on engine development, thats not been spent before (because it's an orphan engine in the US) won't see a result. Furthermore, this lack of results doesn't prove that it's not possible. Only that either a ) the money was miss-spent or b ) there wasn't enough of it spent. Also, if 50 lbs doesn't make a difference then why not take it off? :happy204:

James

Thanks for the pointer Bill, I might have to parody a writer. ;)

Bill Miller

10-12-2005, 06:50 AM

if you are refering to possible line item exclusions, I think that is best not done. One of the good things about IT is the lack of per car allowances, such as Prod has.

Not entirely Jake, the first one that jumps to mind are the Pontiac/Olds ITS cars w/ the Quad 4, that get to change their rear hubs and convert to rear discs.

James,

I think you mean 'parity'.

Banzai240

10-12-2005, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Oct 12 2005, 07:23 AM
But I beg to differ on the 50lbs not making a difference...
62376

My point on the weight is this...

Let's say I'm feeling pretty good about what I'm able to do with my car... I've got it dialed and have set a new personal best...

THEN... I let Randy Probst or John Norris or someone of that caliber drive the car... When I see their lap times are a second a lap quicker than mine... I realize that that 50lbs isn't what's holding me back...

Until I can find that second myself... 50lbs isn't really an issue...

Perhaps you are one of those top 10%, but I think the rest of us are still leaving time on the track, 50lbs or not...

Also, to ask us to estimate the potential to within 50lbs is asking WAY too much, given the resources and information we have available... That's asking us to estimate the output down to the nearest 5hp... Does it gain 30% or 34%??? Can any of you do that?? Dyno differences can be more than that... You pick the wrong header and it makes that big a difference...

Again, we'll get it close... the rest is up to you... If every car is spec'd with the same process, then I think we'll have a fairly equal and balanced system...

924Guy

10-12-2005, 09:25 AM

Having made the move from A to B I can now say with certainty, as opposed to the previous conjecture, that I'd much rather be in B, with 6's, winning or contending for a podium spot (as I have been all year) than running 7's in A and counting laps till the CRX's come around...

Banzai240

10-12-2005, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by 924Guy@Oct 12 2005, 01:25 PM
Having made the move from A to B I can now say with certainty, as opposed to the previous conjecture, that I'd much rather be in B, with 6's, winning or contending for a podium spot (as I have been all year) than running 7's in A and counting laps till the CRX's come around...

62395

And we'd much rather HAVE you in B, contending! :023:

Matt Rowe

10-12-2005, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by 924Guy@Oct 12 2005, 09:25 AM
Having made the move from A to B I can now say with certainty, as opposed to the previous conjecture, that I'd much rather be in B, with 6's, winning or contending for a podium spot (as I have been all year) than running 7's in A and counting laps till the CRX's come around...

62395

I'm just not thrilled with the idea of having to kiss the money goodbye that I spent on 7" wheels and start shopping for an even less common size. Especially if I have weight added as part of a reclassification to an already heavy car.

BUT, I do think the process that the ITAC has developed is the right way to go and I'm willing to have a little faith that whatever might happen with the car I'm running that the concept is much better for IT in the long run. Now I just feel like a kid at Christmas waiting to see what Santa has brought. The BOD decision can't come soon enough, especially if some people are going to have to make changes for next season.

Andy Bettencourt

10-12-2005, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by R2 Racing@Oct 11 2005, 04:07 PM
My point was that the GTI seems to be classed right around where the Integra is. Let me spell this out again and include the torque numbers too:
ITA '92 GTI = 2.0L, 4 cylinder, 16V, 135hp stock, 133lb-ft stock, with a 2475lb race weight.
ITA '92 Integra = 1.8L, 4 cylinder, 16V, 140hp stock, 126lb-ft stock, with a 2480lb race weight.

You guys seriously think that those figures make the Acura look heads and shoulders above the GTI? Seriously? Well, I certainly don't. I don't know when being +5hp, -7lb-ft, and -.2L would make the Integra deserve an additonal 75lbs of weight over the VW (as suggested). If it's a case of "well, the Honda's perform greater then the sum of their parts" than you guys sound just like the SCCA did about two years ago. :rolleyes:

Get at least 3 or 4 years of good, solid development into one of those GTI's and I'd be willing to bet it would be right up there in ITA....right where I fully expect the Miata, SE-R, Civic Si, and Neon to join the CRX's and Integra's here shortly. All it takes is people to prepare one to the level of the best CRX's and Integra's out there. Contrary to popular belief, they don't just make themselves fast like magic. I have two years of pretty much full time development on my Integra and I'm by no means dominating every ITA field I enter. I've had success, yes, but I'm also still busting my ass in order to try and not get it handed to me every time I go out there. It's called competition, try breeding it.

62324

The figures are just a starting point. Here are some things we do know:

The Teg CAN MAKE 30% more hp in IT trim
The VW will POBABLY make less than 25% more based on current ITS examples built by one of the top VW guys in teh country
The Teg has a double wishbone suspension...the SUM of those parts is superior to the McPersons on the VW.

The NET is a car that should weigh more to be equal. This isn't micro-management either, it's still a guess - but one that is done with information and a repeatable process that can be defended by the Boards for any car in any class...

AB

RSTPerformance

10-12-2005, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 12 2005, 10:33 AM
And we'd much rather HAVE you in B, contending! :023:

62402

This is exactly why the car should then be classified in both classes. Let everycar we "deem" uncompetitive in its original class exactly the way it was classed and then do the "competition adjustments" that we normally would do to drop it down a class.

For example..... Let the honda civic that was reclassed to ITB also run in ITA with the same weights and measures it originally had. This gives people the option to run where they want to and maybe in some areas increase car counts if the 2 groups don't run together.

It takes no extra work to leave a car in its original class. Just an extra line in the GCR. (Obviously this only works when a car is bumped down a class.)

Stephen Blethen

dyoungre

10-12-2005, 12:40 PM

How much weight should be added per horsepower advantage? The math behind the assumptions says: More than you'd imagine, if you are to match acceleration rates (remember, F=ma; that's it - it really is that simple)

Let's use the stock numbers for the integra and GTI, and the weight of 2775 lbs, just to have a starting point (but NOT trying to make a specific case here!)

With 135HP stock and a spec weight of 2475 lbs, you get an as raced ratio of 18.3 lbs per horsepower. The Integra, at 2480 lbs, is only pulling 17.7 lbs per horsepower. Quite a difference in acceleration rate, right? So if you wanted to adjust the Integra, based on peak HP alone, you multiply 140*18.3m, and you get 2567 spec weight - or 87 more lbs for a measely 5 HP gain.

It is tough to compare potential; but if your assumptions are good, you can expect about 75 lbs for 5 HP, with a typical ITA weighted car, and that would be fair (easing up slightly for the impact on braking load, etc). It's hard to argue the math, but VERY easy to argue the assumptions.

I'd say the ITAC is definitely in the ballpark.

robits325is

10-12-2005, 01:24 PM

Does the ITAC actually have formal meetings with minutes? How do members get on this commitee - election - volunteer? Seems to be a potentially powerful group.

Z3_GoCar

10-12-2005, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 12 2005, 08:20 AM
The figures are just a starting point. Here are some things we do know:

The Teg has a double wishbone suspension...the SUM of those parts is superior to the McPersons on the VW.

The NET is a car that should weigh more to be equal. This isn't micro-management either, it's still a guess - but one that is done with information and a repeatable process that can be defended by the Boards for any car in any class...

AB

62411

Wait Double Wishbone is better than McPerson Struts? How about trailing arms to multilink?

James

DavidM

10-12-2005, 01:58 PM

I think I like what I'm hearing (I will reserve my opinion until I actually see the proposal), but I'm wondering if the "We provide you a place to race, but don't guarantee you'll be competitive" statement should be revamped. Because to me this sounds like trying to guarantee all cars will be competitive if equally prepared.

My big concern would be making all these changes at once. It will be very difficult to determine what changes are affecting what if they're all made at once. Seems to me phasing things in over a period of time will allow more careful inspection of changes and allow better tweaking if needed.

Also, the whole adding 50lbs or 100lbs doesn't make a difference argument is lame. The argument being used to argue that adding the weight doesn't make a difference can also be used to argue for NOT adding the weight. I've done a total of 4 races in my entire life and currently suck as a driver. I have an ITA 240SX formerly owned by Bob Stretch that I would guess is pretty close to being 10/10ths prepared. Theoretically this car should be fighting for wins. In my hands, it got lapped by the top two guys last weekend at the SIC. Going by the process that has been described, the car may be 50-100lbs underweight. Did being "underweight" make a damn bit of difference with me driving. Nope. So why does weight need to be added? In the hands of a good driver that 50-100lbs probably does make a difference. If you're going to add weight to a car, fine. Don't go around saying it doesn't make a difference, though.

I like what I'm hearing cause hopefully it'll give me somebody to race. :) Where was everybody at the SIC? There were 6 ITA cars. 5 fast guys (the top 3 SARRC points leaders and a guy who had driven the track for 20 years) and me. I just kinda waved bye-bye to everyone. Talk about a boring race.

David

Banzai240

10-12-2005, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by DavidM@Oct 12 2005, 05:58 PM
I've done a total of 4 races in my entire life and currently suck as a driver. I have an ITA 240SX formerly owned by Bob Stretch that I would guess is pretty close to being 10/10ths prepared. Theoretically this car should be fighting for wins. In my hands, it got lapped by the top two guys last weekend at the SIC. Going by the process that has been described, the car may be 50-100lbs underweight. Did being "underweight" make a damn bit of difference with me driving.
62430

I'm going to answer two things at once here... Both the question of what it takes to get on the ITAC and the immediate question at hand...

To be on the ITAC, you need to either be asked by the CRB, or have your name sumitted to the CRB and they approve you... To actually get selected, you probably better have to have the ability to look beyond your own immediate interests... Be objective... and be reasonable...

I find the comment above about the ITAC being a "powerful group" very interesting... Funny how logic, reason, and simply saying things that make sense can be confused with having "power" or influence... is it the group, or the statement the group is making??

David, you illustrate EXACTLY what I was saying... To you, 50-100lbs doesn't make a damn bit of difference... To Bob Stretch, it will...

We have to classify cars on the notion that they will receive MAXIMUM preparation... that is why we don't use results as a basis of any recommendation or change...

As for making "all the changes at once"... We've been making nickel and dime changes for 2 years... The results thus far have been positive... the rest of the cars in the classes deserve to be considered as well... The time has come and we have the processes in place... It's time...

JLawton

10-12-2005, 04:16 PM

It amazes me how many people will criticize but do nothing to get involved. Just because your car may have adjustments to it doesn't mean the whole system sucks!! Yeah, it may not be perfect but it's sure a whole lot better than it used to be!!

Remember, this is for the over all good of IT racing and not personal agendas.

Bill Miller

10-12-2005, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by JLawton@Oct 12 2005, 04:16 PM
It amazes me how many people will criticize but do nothing to get involved. Just because your car may have adjustments to it doesn't mean the whole system sucks!! Yeah, it may not be perfect but it's sure a whole lot better than it used to be!!

Remember, this is for the over all good of IT racing and not personal agendas.

62452

This deserves repeating! Totally on the money Jeff!

Doc Bro

10-12-2005, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by JLawton@Oct 12 2005, 08:16 PM
It amazes me how many people will criticize but do nothing to get involved. Just because your car may have adjustments to it doesn't mean the whole system sucks!! Yeah, it may not be perfect but it's sure a whole lot better than it used to be!!

Remember, this is for the over all good of IT racing and not personal agendas.

62452

Jeff,
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I would rather win because I have unfair advantage than get anywhere on talent! I'm trying to get my e46M3 classed in ITA next year........ooohhh yeeessss. I'm building a shelf in my house for all the trophies as we speak!!!!

Rob (Sarcastic as Hell) Breault

lateapex911

10-12-2005, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by JLawton@Oct 12 2005, 04:16 PM
It amazes me how many people will criticize but do nothing to get involved. Just because your car may have adjustments to it doesn't mean the whole system sucks!! Yeah, it may not be perfect but it's sure a whole lot better than it used to be!!

Remember, this is for the over all good of IT racing and not personal agendas.

62452

LOL...........let's save this quote for the announcement of changes.

lateapex911

10-12-2005, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 12 2005, 06:50 AM
Not entirely Jake, the first one that jumps to mind are the Pontiac/Olds ITS cars w/ the Quad 4, that get to change their rear hubs and convert to rear discs.

James,

I think you mean 'parity'.

62381

yup, but that was done a long time ago in a land far far away, LOL.

I think that the current and recent boards have been really good about drawing the line on stuff like that. (OK, several large scale rules issues come to mind, but as far as individual alowances, things are pretty under control)

lateapex911

10-12-2005, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by DavidM@Oct 12 2005, 01:58 PM
I think I like what I'm hearing (I will reserve my opinion until I actually see the proposal), but I'm wondering if the "We provide you a place to race, but don't guarantee you'll be competitive" statement should be revamped. Because to me this sounds like trying to guarantee all cars will be competitive if equally prepared.

........David

62430

Well, yes and no.....

I think we could add a phrase to the famous disclaimer, (which actually reads: "Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competiveness of any car....") , but with the added note it could read: "Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competiveness of any car, but we will try harder to get 'em closeer than ever before...."

yea....except it sounds really goofy.

In the end there really can be no guarantee ,so I think it will be left as is.

But hopefully this ITAC, and those to follow, will try to over deliver.

Jake

10-20-2005, 07:22 AM

Sorry for being so late to the party. But somebody help me out on this:

90-92 GTI/GLI 16v moves to ITA at 2475 lbs
For those not keeping track, this car was previously classed at 2220 in ITS.

Why are certain other (ITA) cars stonewalled from moving classes and increasing weight past the magical 2380# (where cages need to get bigger) while this car just sails through? Am I missing something?

Banzai240

10-20-2005, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Jake@Oct 20 2005, 11:22 AM
Sorry for being so late to the party. But somebody help me out on this:

90-92 GTI/GLI 16v moves to ITA at 2475 lbs
For those not keeping track, this car was previously classed at 2220 in ITS.

Why are certain other (ITA) cars stonewalled from moving classes and increasing weight past the magical 2380# (where cages need to get bigger) while this car just sails through? Am I missing something?

63045

That's pretty easy to answer, but you aren't going to LIKE the answer...

From a pure classification standpoint, some cars CLEARLY belong in the lower class... The example car above is one of those cars... Essentially, there is NO QUESTION that it's potential was overestimated when it was originally classified and it had no business being in ITS.

For other cars, it's not so clear. You know who you are...

Now, in the case you note above, I can honestly say that I'm not sure if the ITAC even remembered to consider the cage issue on this one, so, at least for me, this seems to be an oversight... Hey, it happens... Hopefully, this move hasn't rendered anyone illegal... How many of these cars were actually being raced? I can't imagine it being an attractive classification as it was...

Anyhow, there are those of us who believe other cars should be moved, but not enough of us to make it happen. This is mostly based on the "potential" of the car... Let's just say that people disagree on what that actually is, but then, let's face it, some of these cars are both oddballs that don't really fit the mold anyhow. So, we have to deal with it as such...

Also, there are a LOT of RX-7's, for example, out there racing... My guess is that there are only a few of the VWs that were moved out there, so the impact of requiring a tubing update would certainly be less... And, we were directed that we were NOT to make moves that would render someones car illegal in this manner... Hopefully the move noted above didn't do that...

All in all, in my opinion, all of this is just a bunch of excuses for a system that isn't quite correct, but, it's the system we have to work with and we are doing the best that we can...

The bottom line on the MR-2 is this... It makes as much power as the best in ITB, and it'll easily out-brake and out-handle anything in that class... theoretically... And, even though, with weight, it could be made to fit, it doesn't really belong there... BUT, it doesn't fit in ITA either...

Now, depending on what happens with the CRB and BoD later this year, it SHOULD fit there in the future... It's going to take an all-out effort, but it should be possible to make it competitive...

See.... I told you you wouldn't like the answer...

Bill Miller

10-20-2005, 09:34 AM

The bottom line on the MR-2 is this... It makes as much power as the best in ITB, and it'll easily out-brake and out-handle anything in that class... theoretically... And, even though, with weight, it could be made to fit, it doesn't really belong there... BUT, it doesn't fit in ITA either...

Darin,

I used to race an AW11 MR2, and I don't know if I'd agree that it makes as much power as the best in ITB. I seriously doubt that you can get a 4AGE, in IT trim (especially w/ the TVIS still in place), to make as much power as a Volvo 142. The Mk III Golf is starting out 3hp higher, based on stock numbers. Would it be closer to the pointy end of the field? Yep, probably going to be in the top 20%, from a power standpoint. But it won't make as much as the top cars.

Handling and balance are another story. The car is very easy to drive, and has quite a bit of adjustability. Would make a fun ITB car, but they've been trying to get them moved for 10 years now.