July FasTrack posted

[Andy Bettencourt]

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/07-f...-full-final.pdf (http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/07-fastrack-july-full-final.pdf)[/b]</div>
</span>

[Gregg]

Andy-

Any idea on how many letters for and against the BoD/CRB/ITAC received on this issue?

[spnkzss]

It also looks like the NASCAR bars don&#39;t necessarily have to protrude into the doors anymroe for you to remove the glass.

[Speed Raycer]

C. Mounting Plates
a. Mounting plates welded to the structure of the car shall not be less than .080 inches thick. The maximum
area of each mounting plate in the American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and
Touring classes shall be 144 square inches. Plates may be on multiple planes.

Wow! 44 sq inches more to play with. No more triple calculations when I get to 98 sq. inches!

Let&#39;s hope they update the ITCS ;)

[Joe Moser]

At first glance, this FasTrack appears to modify IT Roll Cage Requirements (Weight categories are modified).

Previously, an IT car at 2,200 lbs. + required a 1.500 x .120 DOM cage, and an IT car under 2,200 lbs. required a 1.500 x .095 DOM cage.

After this rules change, an IT car from 1,701 lbs. to 2,699 lbs. can have a 1.500 x .095 DOM cage?

If this is indeed the case, the 1.8L Miata can now be CORRECTLY classified in ITA at it&#39;s proper weight, according to the "process", no? Previously, it was not classified correctly due to IT Roll Cage Requirements, correct?

Andy, is this how you read this FasTrack? I could be reading it wrong....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy-

Any idea on how many letters for and against the BoD/CRB/ITAC received on this issue? [/b]

The ITAC proactively went back and rehashed the issue. We unanimously recommended it get pulled. Up until today, there were 2-3 for and 10 against. They started coming in as soon as the topic hit this BB but it was on our agenda before the letters started to acummulate. Most echoed the sentiments here, one was complaining that they get beaten &#39;Nationally prepped&#39; big-money SM&#39;s and actually suggestion that ALL SM&#39;s be required to run a restrictor to slow them to "Regional pace" but more importantly to discourage dual entries alltogether. (This letter was VERY well written and done with lots of respect. It just differed from all the others in its fundamental positon on the matter)

It&#39;s done. In the end the ITAC did decide that the integrity of IT was more important than the potential upside of a change. It can be handled on a regional level if there is a problem.

[Andy Bettencourt]

At first glance, this FasTrack appears to modify IT Roll Cage Requirements (Weight categories are modified).

Previously, an IT car at 2,200 lbs. + required a 1.500 x .120 DOM cage, and an IT car under 2,200 lbs. required a 1.500 x .095 DOM cage.

After this rules change, an IT car from 1,701 lbs. to 2,699 lbs. can have a 1.500 x .095 DOM cage?

If this is indeed the case, the 1.8L Miata can now be CORRECTLY classified in ITA at it&#39;s proper weight, according to the "process", no? Previously, it was not classified correctly due to IT Roll Cage Requirements, correct?

Andy, is this how you read this FasTrack? I could be reading it wrong....


[/b]

I haven&#39;t had the opportunity to run over the cage stuff yet. That is a CRB inclusion that never ran by the ITAC. The 1.8 Miata is actually classed a few pounds HEAVIER than it&#39;s process weight. There was a though to throw in some extra weight for fear it would be more than the sum of its parts. When that &#39;fudge-factor weight&#39; was added, it did put it outside the cage requirements for a 2380 lbs car so it was pulled back enough to allow it to fit. So again, it is heavier (by 10lbs IIRC) than it&#39;s process weight. HOWEVER, I am on file as having asked the CRB if this car proved to be an overdog that was upsetting the balance of ITA, could there be a min weight increase (based on new info like crazy power increases not predicted in the Process) and still have the cages remain. Jeremy T. told me there was precident for allowing such a thing. So that may be a moot request if you are correct on the new cage rules. EIther way, the Miata&#39;s, both 1.8 and 1.6 sit at or above Process weight.

[RSTPerformance]

My observations/questions...

You can be 14 and get a competition licence now?

Spanky... In Improved Touring if it doesn&#39;t say you can then you can&#39;t... The entire section that allowed you to remove door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism was deleted from the ITCS thus you cant remove any of it... Unless however it is to facilitate the instalation of side protection bars as stated in the "new" rules:

9.4. ROLL CAGES FOR GT AND PRODUCTION BASED CARS

D. SIDE PROTECTION
Two side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. NASCAR-style side protection or one bar bisecting another to form an “X” is permitted. Door side tubes may extend into the door. In American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection. The stock side impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified unless specifically authorized in the category rules.

Raymond

[dickita15]

I applaud the CRB for taking a shot at consistent cage rules for different classes. Remember when looking at tubing sizes it looks like they took away the 180 pound driver deduction.

[Z3_GoCar]

Great, my cars no longer going to be legal in what&#39;s it called (used to be DP) becaus it&#39;s susposed to weigh 2700lbs and it&#39;s got 1.5" diameter tubing in the cage. Oh, happy day I get a new cage :bash_1_:

James

[JoshS]

Great, my cars no longer going to be legal in what&#39;s it called (used to be DP) becaus it&#39;s susposed to weigh 2700lbs and it&#39;s got 1.5" diameter tubing in the cage. Oh, happy day I get a new cage :bash_1_:

James
[/b]
James, not to worry. Right at the top of the new 9.4:

"All cars must utilize a roll cage compliant with the following specifications. These specifications apply to all vehicles registered (issued an SCCA logbook) after 1/1/08. Cars registered before 1/1/08 may continue to compete with their previous roll cage as specified in the 2007 GCR."

[Knestis]

At first glance, the revised cage rules (hooray for greater consistency among categories!) would seem to eliminate barriers to addressing some of the &#39;tweener cases, where individual makes/models can&#39;t be reclassified downward without exceeding the maximum weight allowed for a given roll cage tubing size.

I might be wrong but someone with a vested interest should look at it closely and see. I&#39;ll be Dave G. makes a pitch to get the MkIII Golf adjusted upward if this proves to be the case, since it may have benefited form a lower minimum because of the cap when it was moved from ITA.** :)

K

** Doesn&#39;t that seem amazingly stupid and ancient-history now, that this car was stuck in A for years??

[Andy Bettencourt]

** Doesn&#39;t that seem amazingly stupid and ancient-history now, that this car was stuck in A for years?? [/b]

Yes!

[Greg Amy]

The 1.8 Miata is actually classed a few pounds HEAVIER than it&#39;s process weight...[/b]

Uh, close, but not exactly.

"Close" as long as the 128hp of the &#39;94-&#39;95 is used for the formula. "Not exactly" if the 133hp of the &#39;96-&#39;97 - same spec line in the IT rules - is used; at that point the car is 105 pounds underweight.

Per our private conversations (late &#39;05 or early &#39;06, IIRC), you revealed that the process weight of the &#39;94-&#39;95 would be 2395#, but that it was placed at 2380# so that the SM cages would be legal. Fine, I won&#39;t dither over 15 pounds. However, when ones takes into consideration that the cars - with legal swaps - can start with 133 ponies as a base, then I&#39;ve got a problem shoe-horning them in at that weight, just as I would with any other car - mine included, if applicable - not subjected to the same weight/process classification process.

So, in that respect, Joe&#39;s correct.

I understand what you&#39;re saying in total in that post, Andy, and normally I wouldn&#39;t call you out on this, but I cannot stand for public repetition of such memes as given fact... - GA

[IPRESS]

Check out Mazda&#39;s history.... they always overstate HP by 10 or so.

[Conover]

It&#39;s done. In the end the ITAC did decide that the integrity of IT was more important than the potential upside of a change. It can be handled on a regional level if there is a problem.
[/b]

Bravo!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Uh, close, but not exactly.

"Close" as long as the 128hp of the &#39;94-&#39;95 is used for the formula. "Not exactly" if the 133hp of the &#39;96-&#39;97 - same spec line in the IT rules - is used; at that point the car is 105 pounds underweight.

Per our private conversations (late &#39;05 or early &#39;06, IIRC), you revealed that the process weight of the &#39;94-&#39;95 would be 2395#, but that it was placed at 2380# so that the SM cages would be legal. Fine, I won&#39;t dither over 15 pounds. However, when ones takes into consideration that the cars - with legal swaps - can start with 133 ponies as a base, then I&#39;ve got a problem shoe-horning them in at that weight, just as I would with any other car - mine included, if applicable - not subjected to the same weight/process classification process.

So, in that respect, Joe&#39;s correct.

I understand what you&#39;re saying in total in that post, Andy, and normally I wouldn&#39;t call you out on this, but I cannot stand for public repetition of such memes as given fact... - GA
[/b] And, as you know, the 128hp was used during the classification because that was the version that was requested. The 133hp version was not classed until another letter came in asking for that car to be included. And as you also know, the 128hp and 133hp cars are identical mechanically except for the OBD-1 to OBD-2 ECU swap that resulted in the extra 5hp. Since ECU rules are open, there is no difference in the cars in IT trim, hence the 133hp car appearing on the same line at the 128hp car. I won&#39;t get into this again. I understand you have a fundamantal issue with that, but the ITAC and CRB didn&#39;t. It would be applied the same to any car given the same circumstances (and probably is with some Honda varients).

The real question is whether or not the 94-95 and the 96-97 should be on different spec lines given the 5hp difference attributed to the ECU. Since I have a 1994, it doesn&#39;t affect me.

[spnkzss]

My observations/questions...

You can be 14 and get a competition licence now?

Spanky... In Improved Touring if it doesn&#39;t say you can then you can&#39;t... The entire section that allowed you to remove door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism was deleted from the ITCS thus you cant remove any of it... Unless however it is to facilitate the instalation of side protection bars as stated in the "new" rules:

9.4. ROLL CAGES FOR GT AND PRODUCTION BASED CARS

D. SIDE PROTECTION
Two side tubes connecting the front and rear hoops across both door openings are mandatory. NASCAR-style side protection or one bar bisecting another to form an “X” is permitted. Door side tubes may extend into the door. In American Sedan, Improved Touring, Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, and Touring the door window glass, window operating mechanism, inner door trim panel, armrest, map pockets, and inside door latch/lock operating mechanism may be removed and the inner door structural panel may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection. The stock side impact beam and the outside door latch/lock operating mechanism shall not be removed or modified unless specifically authorized in the category rules.

Raymond
[/b]

Thank you sir. I apparently missed the may be modified, but not removed to facilitate this type of side protection

[Greg Amy]

And, as you know, the 128hp was used during the classification because that was the version that was requested.[/b]

And, "as you know", that in itself was not without controversy. Witness not only the nod towards letting the car run slightly light to allow Spec Miatas to compete (deja vu) - we can dig up the old threads on this board if you&#39;ve forgotten - but months before it was officially announced in the October 2005 Fastrack I had numerous discussion with you (and other ITAC members) that the car&#39;s classification weight was far too light given its historical outstanding characteristics.


Since ECU rules are open, there is no difference in the cars in IT trim...[/b]
OK, well except for 5hp and potential 105 pounds, you&#39;re right: they&#39;re exactly the same car.


It would be applied the same to any car given the same circumstances (and probably is with some Honda varients).[/b]
If you can support that statement with examples, it would be enlightening to compare those circumstances and their resulting outcomes.


The real question is wheather or not the 94-95 and the 96-97 should be on different spec lines given the 5hp difference attributed to the ECU.[/b]
My suggestion is that they should. Why? Because what I predict would happen would be:

- the 105-pound-heavier &#39;96/97 would be found to be a very good round-a-bout fit into the existing ITA structure
- the &#39;94/95 would be found to produce identical output in terms of horsepower
- the cars would eventually be classified on the same line, using the heavier weight of the &#39;96/97

Instead, what happened was the ITAC/CRB - who you indicate does not "have a fundamental issue with that" - decided to classify both cars using the lower of the two available horsepower ratings, rather than taking the conservative tact of using the higher of the two.

This is the same "fundamental issue" I&#39;ve been describing to you for approximately two years now. I seem to recall getting a phone call on the pending re-classification in mid-July when I was vacationing in California -- exactly two weeks after I had sold my 1.8L SM. I also remembering being pretty pissed off that I had not kept that car for another two weeks, as I knew right then and there it was to eventually be the car for the class...


Since I have a 1994, it doesn&#39;t affect me.[/b]
It ain&#39;t all about you, Andy...it&#39;s about a car. Same as it was before you built the car. My tune has been consistent...

You can blow off these concerns with a wave of your hand; doesn&#39;t mean they go away or are magically resolved. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

And while everyones concernes are welcomed, the ITAC/CRB doesn&#39;t agree with all of them. Until the &#39;destrcution&#39; of ITA is upon us because of this decision, that&#39;s all they are - concerns that have yet to be validated. Could they be? Sure - but we don&#39;t think so. Given the info and knowledge the ITAC and CRB had, we tried to go conservative on the 94-95 car (ended up only being 10lbs) but not ultra-conservative (by classing both cars 105 lbs over based on an item that was &#39;free&#39; anyway.

(On edit - it doesn&#39;t run slightly light. It just doesn&#39;t run all the &#39;fudge factor weight&#39; we were considering putting on it. Fudge factor weight is something I am SURE people here would have had a problem with - including you - should it have been a different car. &#39;Equality for all&#39; chants heard round the world. We WERE trying to be conservative, but the cage rules mitigated that. We do what we think is right, it may not always be the same - ala a formula, but it is consistant - ala a process.)

YMMV, and obvisouly does. Many see the logic in the classification. I am done.

[gran racing]

I might be wrong but someone with a vested interest should look at it closely and see. I&#39;ll be Dave G. makes a pitch to get the MkIII Golf adjusted upward if this proves to be the case, since it may have benefited form a lower minimum because of the cap when it was moved from ITA.**[/b]

You know, this didn&#39;t even cross my mind. Good idea! :D LOL

[RSTPerformance]

You know, this didn&#39;t even cross my mind. Good idea! :D LOL
[/b]


Dave I will sign the letter as well... but don&#39;t think your car wont get added to that list!!! :birra:

Raymond

[tnord]

there is very valid data and logic for the 96/7 to run the same restrictor as the 94/5 in SM.

it would be even more valid for them to be the same in IT, since as we all know, ECU rules are effectively open.

you&#39;ve got your feathers all ruffled over nothing imo Greg. the miata is anything but an overdog. how much hp are you making again? :P

[Joe Harlan]

there is very valid data and logic for the 96/7 to run the same restrictor as the 94/5 in SM.

it would be even more valid for them to be the same in IT, since as we all know, ECU rules are effectively open.

you&#39;ve got your feathers all ruffled over nothing imo Greg. the miata is anything but an overdog. how much hp are you making again? :P
[/b]


Travis, I may be mistaken here But I don&#39;t believe it is just about the car. It is about the process being properly applied to the car (any car) WHile it maybe true that the ECU rules are effectively open the base HP numbers are what is being worked from. If the OBD2 car made more HP stock then that is the number the process should have been worked from if all else is the same. I believe Greg would feel the same way if the Nissan he is driving had the same issue. It is about the integrity of the process and a fair application of it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Travis, I may be mistaken here But I don&#39;t believe it is just about the car. It is about the process being properly applied to the car (any car) WHile it maybe true that the ECU rules are effectively open the base HP numbers are what is being worked from. If the OBD2 car made more HP stock then that is the number the process should have been worked from if all else is the same. I believe Greg would feel the same way if the Nissan he is driving had the same issue. It is about the integrity of the process and a fair application of it. [/b]

Joe,

I agree with you from a fundamental standpoint. These car COULD have been seperated. 2370 (minus fudge factor) for the 128hp car and 2460 for the 133hp car. But given the infomation that we have (mechanically identical other than ECU), it was decided to add the 96-97 at the time of its request to the already-classed 94-95. That IS a fair application as the ITAC and CRB saw, as there is NO DIFFERNCE in the cars in IT-trim. It can be argued either way what is the appropriate weight but I belive the application is fair. To have two different weights for identical cars in IT trim doesn&#39;t make sense IMHO. I liken it to being able to update/backdate an already &#39;free&#39; part. Again, you can argue what weight is &#39;correct&#39; based on your perception but stock dyno data more than supports the lower weight (not that it was considered at the time of classification because it was done at two seperate times).

I don&#39;t believe the integrity was breached, just a fair and sensible application of the process given info we had. Obviously some people disagree based on their rules-integrity questions as well as perceived performance potential.

[Greg Amy]

...you&#39;ve got your feathers all ruffled over nothing imo Greg. the miata is anything but an overdog. how much hp are you making again? :P[/b]
Travis, this really has nothing to do with results. Truly. As I&#39;ve said before, it&#39;s all about the process and its perception. I&#39;m saying the same things I said well before any were competitive, and well before I had the successes I had last year. Nothing&#39;s changed in that regard.

HOWEVER, given that, "there is very valid data and logic" illustrating that my mid-2005 predictions on the Miata are coming true. Bob Stretch was by no means a walk at the ARRC (you may recall he finished third); I saw a TON of potential in that car. Watch for future iterations when the package is complete. And, of course, Mr. Bettencourt in his car has walked the field at every track in the Northeast this year - slow, medium, and fast - winning by margins I could only have dreamed of last year, running impressive lap times, either well below or right at lap records, many of them mine, many of those laps faster than I&#39;ve ever gone. This is his second year of development; I&#39;ve been working on my car for seven years.

As for the NX power, I&#39;m making about 153 wheel horsepower on average (156 peak on a single pull). However, when I&#39;m allowed to ditch the 65/35 F/R weight bias, McPherson strut suspension, 2500+ pounds, smallish brakes, and front-wheel drive, then we can talk about how I&#39;m making &#39;too many ponies&#39;... :023:

Again: I AGREE WITH ANDY that on-track performance should not be used for competition adjustments over and above the process, unless the performance is dramatically and significantly heads-and-shoulders above the rest. However, I also insist that everyone be placed on a level field to begin with, something that I&#39;ve now said for two years has not happened with the Mazda Miata. I use the on-track performance simply as an illustration of this.

Rear-wheel-drive, finely balanced chassis, excellent brakes, excellent handling, small aero package, lightweight, competitive power. Short track handling, medium track compromises, and fast track performance: it&#39;s got it all. "You" (collective) truly do not understand - or care to admit publicly - that the Mazda Miata is a car that is greater than the sum of its specs...

But, I feel like I&#39;m pissing against a wall, so I&#39;ll quit. "The truth will out", especially if a few of these packages make it to the IT Fest and the ARRC. You&#39;ll find out soon enough...

[Knestis]

What Joe said. If the process gets reapplied to the MkIII Golf and it&#39;s supposed to be heavier, it should be. I&#39;m NOT going to get in the business of advocating particular treatment for my car. (see also, "Saving Production)

K

[tnord]

Travis, this really has nothing to do with results. Truly. As I&#39;ve said before, it&#39;s all about the process and its perception. I&#39;m saying the same things I said well before any were competitive, and well before I had the successes I had last year. Nothing&#39;s changed in that regard.

HOWEVER, given that, "there is very valid data and logic" illustrating that my mid-2005 predictions on the Miata are coming true. Bob Stretch was by no means a walk at the ARRC (you may recall he finished third); I saw a TON of potential in that car. Watch for future iterations when the package is complete. And, of course, Mr. Bettencourt in his car has walked the field at every track in the Northeast this year - slow, medium, and fast - winning by margins I could only have dreamed of last year, running impressive lap times, either well below or right at lap records, many of them mine, many of those laps faster than I&#39;ve ever gone. This is his second year of development; I&#39;ve been working on my car for seven years.

[/b]

so it isn&#39;t about the results.....but then again, since people are going faster than you did, it is about results? the point about him only having two years of development is all smoke and mirrors, hiding the fact that the car has had who know how many years of development with support from Mazda in SS, and now more development than any car has ever seen in 6 years (especially the last 2) from SM. you are one person greg. it shouldn&#39;t surprise you that it&#39;s very easy to get an IT miata up to speed very quickly.



Again: I AGREE WITH ANDY that on-track performance should not be used for competition adjustments over and above the process, unless the performance is dramatically and significantly heads-and-shoulders above the rest. However, I also insist that everyone be placed on a level field to begin with, something that I&#39;ve now said for two years has not happened with the Mazda Miata. I use the on-track performance simply as an illustration of this.
[/b]

andy, how much faster are you than the TOP SMs in the NE?
greg...please elaborate on what "head and shoulders above the rest" performance really means. this seems subjective to me. i&#39;m sure plenty look at 155whp and would say the same thing. i don&#39;t necessarily, but a legitimate argument could be presented, especially at a place like RA.



Rear-wheel-drive, finely balanced chassis, excellent brakes, excellent handling, small aero package, lightweight, competitive power. Short track handling, medium track compromises, and fast track performance: it&#39;s got it all. "You" (collective) truly do not understand - or care to admit publicly - that the Mazda Miata is a car that is greater than the sum of its specs...
[/b]

subjective. you can&#39;t fly the "follow the process 100% of the time exactly as it&#39;s written" flag to argue the 96/7 should be on a separate line, but then ignore the process and say the miata is more than the sum of its parts and we should ignore the process and spec it at 2850 or whatever rediculous number you&#39;re pushing for.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So Greg, if you were to write a letter today, what would you wish for? Here is what I think you are saying:

1. Seperate the 94/95 and 96/97.

2. Class them at 2370 and 2460 respectively.

3. Develop an adder for cars &#39;greater than the sum of their parts&#39; and apply it to both

My only issue with this is the double standard. In one breath many cite integrity of the IT rules when questioning the subjective application of &#39;adders&#39; - and what could be more subjective than #3? How much is enough? Is ANY fair?

The process was followed for the 94-95 car and common sense was applied for the 96-97. If the car ruins ITA, which it won&#39;t, PCA&#39;s can be invoked.

Oh ya, if Bob Stretch wins the ARRC in his 1.8 Miata, by how much will be acceptable and attributable to his skill, his track knowledge, his prep level, a damn good race, etc. Will the car ever be able to win and not be considered an overdog? I have argued with many people about your car citing those same factors. "It ran through the process and it is what it is" and "The process will never be perfect, the cream will always get to the top" and "All we can do is max out our efforts and driving skill and chase him down"

To the results you posted: 1.6 seconds between you and Bob in Qualifying, Bob came in 4th, not 3rd - and should have been 5th if young Moser didn&#39;t break. What was your overall time difference between you and Bob as you "knew the victory was ours and we cruised to the finish while managing the gap we had built up."? And of the races I &#39;ran away with&#39; - how many were you entered? None.

We are both pissing against the same wall...just opposite sides. :D




What Joe said. If the process gets reapplied to the MkIII Golf and it&#39;s supposed to be heavier, it should be. I&#39;m NOT going to get in the business of advocating particular treatment for my car. (see also, "Saving Production)

K [/b]

It wouldn&#39;t. It&#39;s where it should be at 2350.




andy, how much faster are you than the TOP SMs in the NE?

[/b]

Depends on the track. 1 second at LRP, 2 seconds at NHIS, and 3 seconds at Pocono.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

I agree with you from a fundamental standpoint. These car COULD have been seperated. 2370 (minus fudge factor) for the 128hp car and 2460 for the 133hp car. But given the infomation that we have (mechanically identical other than ECU), it was decided to add the 96-97 at the time of its request to the already-classed 94-95. That IS a fair application as the ITAC and CRB saw, as there is NO DIFFERNCE in the cars in IT-trim. It can be argued either way what is the appropriate weight but I belive the application is fair. To have two different weights for identical cars in IT trim doesn&#39;t make sense IMHO. I liken it to being able to update/backdate an already &#39;free&#39; part. Again, you can argue what weight is &#39;correct&#39; based on your perception but stock dyno data more than supports the lower weight (not that it was considered at the time of classification because it was done at two seperate times).

I don&#39;t believe the integrity was breached, just a fair and sensible application of the process given info we had. Obviously some people disagree based on their rules-integrity questions as well as perceived performance potential.
[/b]


Andy, The fair application would have been to error on the side of the higher HP number which is what would be done in every other case and I believe is the proper application of the rule. I don&#39;t have the time in my life to research the 5 hp but you clearly know where the gain came from so why not share?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, The fair application would have been to error on the side of the higher HP number which is what would be done in every other case and I believe is the proper application of the rule. I don&#39;t have the time in my life to research the 5 hp but you clearly know where the gain came from some why not share? [/b]

Joe - we already said it. From the OBD-1 to OBD-II ECU swap. The same head, cams, pistons (actually the 94&#39;s are said to be better by SM guys) bottom end, TB, intake, injectors, exhaust, etc. EVERYTHING.

Your application is subjective first off, and second, the 94-95 was classed already. We would have had to change the weight we already published on the 94-95. So again, using what we considered to be common sense, we combined them seeing as the would be identical in IT trim.

You may disagree on the common sense piece and that is fair, but this is no anomoly in application or special treatment. If it ever comes up again, I would vote the same way given the info we had. I believe we did it with a Honda in ITA as well but can&#39;t remember as there are so many iterations of the dang things.

If you have a problem with the 96-97 being &#39;light&#39;, I can at least see where you stand. But don&#39;t you think we would look foolish if they were on different spec lines given the fact they are the same car in IT trim?

I would argue that putting the 94-95 car in at the higher weight would be &#39;not following the process&#39; because it would be 90 lbs over...for what? Fear?

[tnord]

here&#39;s why there&#39;s no reason for them NOT to be on the same spec line. argue process weight all you want.

from a letter written to SMAC, and posted on sm.com



Calling all 1996-1997 owners and all competitors interested in increased parity: Please review the letter written to the CRB below. If you agree with it, please write your own to the CRB in support of the 96-97 cars sharing the same restrictor as the 94-95 model. This was emailed to [email protected] today:

CRB:
Thank you for your service to the club, and particularly Spec Miata.

Please review competition results and the rules that restrict airflow in the 1996 and 1997 Spec Miata. When compared with the 1994-1995 Miata, less airflow is allowed at the throttle body for the 1996 and 1997 models which has a dramatic effect on their power curves and is inconsistent with GCR rules that otherwise equalize the 94-95 to the later models.

The later models (96-97) should be allowed to run the same restrictor as the 94-95 models to make them competitive. The proof is in the competition results, but the technical reason lies in the fact that the 96-97 share the SAME computer as 1995 models build after March 1995. Further, the 94-95 originally had lower compression than the late 95, and 96-97 cars. Since 9.0:1 compression is allowed per the GCR and factory specs, 94-95 cars can be brought up to the 96-97 specification, legally.

Specifically:

Starting with the 3/95 start of the ODB-II implementation (VIN 14193) the pistons were changed with a slight dome to increase the compression ratio to an actual 9.0:1. The &#39;94-3/95 pistons were factory rated at 9.0:1 but actually was around 8.8.

I own both a 1996 and an early 1995 car (pre-computer change/compression increase). Both have been dyno&#39;d extensively with several engines. Mazdaspeed supplies the same crate engine to all cars from 1994-1997. The 1996 consistently lags in power to the 94 and 95 cars by approximately 2-3 horsepower, presumably because of the smaller restricted inlet. Most 94-95 cars in SM have been legally modified, or have replaced motors, to meet the factory (and GCR) specification for 9.0 compression, so true differences between the engines 94-97 do not exist.

Please allow the 96-97 Spec Miata to share the 47 mm restrictor with the 94-95 cars, as the current 45 mm restrictor is unfair due to GCR allowed compression increases in the 94-95 and fact that 95-97 cars share ODB-II computers (the 94 ODB-I computer is not slouch either).

Thank you for considering these changes.
[/b]

[Greg Amy]

Look, you guys can attack me all you want. The sole reason I&#39;ve kept "my mouth shut" on the forums on this issue and tried to keep it in private is because I knew (collective) you would call me out as a hypocrite: "Greg&#39;s won and he has a lot of horsepower so he has no credibility for criticizing others". Yah, fine.

I guess it goes the other way, too: "anyone that drives a Miata has no standing to defend this classification", right? Problem is, I see no one but Miata drivers defending it, and if you think I&#39;m the sole person believing this way, well, time to re-think...

Like I said: "the truth will out." You can argue all you want (I simply don&#39;t have the time, patient, or fortitude for it any more) but I will not stand by and allow memes to be constantly stated until accepted as fact.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe - we already said it. From the OBD-1 to OBD-II ECU swap. The same head, cams, pistons (actually the 94&#39;s are said to be better by SM guys) bottom end, TB, intake, injectors, exhaust, etc. EVERYTHING.

Your application is subjective first off, and second, the 94-95 was classed already. We would have had to change the weight we already published on the 94-95. So again, using what we considered to be common sense, we combined them seeing as the would be identical in IT trim.

You may disagree on the common sense piece and that is fair, but this is no anomoly in application or special treatment. If it ever comes up again, I would vote the same way given the info we had. I believe we did it with a Honda in ITA as well but can&#39;t remember as there are so many iterations of the dang things.

If you have a problem with the 96-97 being &#39;light&#39;, I can at least see where you stand. But don&#39;t you think we would look foolish if they were on different spec lines given the fact they are the same car in IT trim?

edit: after reading travis&#39;s post it would appear the engine internals are not all the same and you gave the early cars a compression boost to add to it....

I would argue that putting the 94-95 car in at the higher weight would be &#39;not following the process&#39; because it would be 90 lbs over...for what? Fear?
[/b]


Andy here is where you step on yourself, The OBD2 car is a different engine management system than the OBd 1 car so up date back date does not apply. ECU internals are free true but my money says that the early cars are replacing complete boxes and harnesses based on the loophole you provided. In a sense the CRB has given the early car a complete up grade in computer and harness at the early weight. The correct thing to do would be to list them on the same spec line but have a weight for OBD1 and a weight for OBD2. Again if the rules had been followed then the early car could have used an OBD2 Board in there OBD1 ECU case but guess what! the harnesses are different and that would have prevented them from doing so.

edit: From Travis&#39;s post it would appear that not all the internals are the same, It looks like you guys gave the early cars a compression boost at the same time and did all that at the lighter weight.....Me thinks the process has been dooped.

[tnord]

Look, you guys can attack me all you want. The sole reason I&#39;ve kept "my mouth shut" on the forums on this issue and tried to keep it in private is because I knew (collective) you would call me out as a hypocrite: "Greg&#39;s won and he has a lot of horsepower so he has no credibility for criticizing others". Yah, fine.
[/b]

you opened the door for that one when you used the "Andy in his 1.8 is faster than me" arguement for adding weight to the car. i don&#39;t know much about your car, or even what&#39;s it weight is, all i&#39;m saying is that Bob Stretch could probably make the same arguement against your car being an overdog (based on your 15+hp advantage and better aero) that you&#39;re making against Andy.



I guess it goes the other way, too: "anyone that drives a Miata has no standing to defend this classification", right? Problem is, I see no one but Miata drivers defending it, and if you think I&#39;m the sole person believing this way, well, time to re-think...

Like I said: "the truth will out." You can argue all you want (I simply don&#39;t have the time, patient, or fortitude for it any more) but I will not stand by and allow memes to be constantly stated until accepted as fact.
[/b]

perhaps the miata drivers are defending it because the miata drivers are the ones who know there is NO difference from the 94-97 cars.

[Doc Bro]

I would argue that putting the 94-95 car in at the higher weight would be &#39;not following the process&#39; because it would be 90 lbs over...for what? Fear?
[/b]


And the Z3 at 135hp and 2600 was not classed out of fear??? God, the car even LOOKS like a Miata!!!

Back to your debate.

R

[Joe Harlan]

you opened the door for that one when you used the "Andy in his 1.8 is faster than me" arguement for adding weight to the car. i don&#39;t know much about your car, or even what&#39;s it weight is, all i&#39;m saying is that Bob Stretch could probably make the same arguement against your car being an overdog (based on your 15+hp advantage and better aero) that you&#39;re making against Andy.
perhaps the miata drivers are defending it because the miata drivers are the ones who know there is NO difference from the 94-97 cars.
[/b]

No difference?


Please review competition results and the rules that restrict airflow in the 1996 and 1997 Spec Miata. When compared with the 1994-1995 Miata, less airflow is allowed at the throttle body for the 1996 and 1997 models which has a dramatic effect on their power curves and is inconsistent with GCR rules that otherwise equalize the 94-95 to the later models.

The later models (96-97) should be allowed to run the same restrictor as the 94-95 models to make them competitive. The proof is in the competition results, but the technical reason lies in the fact that the 96-97 share the SAME computer as 1995 models build after March 1995. Further, the 94-95 originally had lower compression than the late 95, and 96-97 cars. Since 9.0:1 compression is allowed per the GCR and factory specs, 94-95 cars can be brought up to the 96-97 specification, legally. [/b]

May have been legal in SM but not legal in IT.

[tnord]

edit: From Travis&#39;s post it would appear that not all the internals are the same, It looks like you guys gave the early cars a compression boost at the same time and did all that at the lighter weight.....Me thinks the process has been dooped.
[/b]

except the post March built 95s had the OBD II and the compression boost making them the same as the 96/7.

apparantly you stopped reading before this part -


Mazdaspeed supplies the same crate engine to all cars from 1994-1997. The 1996 consistently lags in power to the 94 and 95 cars by approximately 2-3 horsepower, presumably because of the smaller restricted inlet. Most 94-95 cars in SM have been legally modified, or have replaced motors, to meet the factory (and GCR) specification for 9.0 compression, so true differences between the engines 94-97 do not exist.
[/b]

[Greg Amy]

...you opened the door for that one when you used the "Andy in his 1.8 is faster than me" arguement for adding weight to the car.[/b]
Travis, "you ain&#39;t readin&#39; very well". As I said, I offer those comparisons simply to illustrate that my predictions of 2005 are coming true, not to use as a value for relative competition adjustments. If that&#39;s not clear, then I can&#39;t make it any more so.


(based on your 15+hp advantage and better aero)[/b]
GawDAMMIT, another one of those stupid Miata memes that always suck me in.

"Better aero"??? Where in the WORLD are you guys getting that the aerodynamics of a Miata are poor and the NX are good? All "you guys" claim the aero on a Miata is poor, yet it&#39;s a small, round package, smaller and more aerodynamic than just about anything out there. Have you actually SEEN this size and shape of my car (or its brother, the Sentra SE-R)? You actually think the aerodynamics on my car are "good"?

I suspect "you got this from looking at Road and Track Cd results on the original car, when it was tested using a soft top. Clue: Cd is a relative term, and is not a direct indication of the amount of pounds-force of total aerodynamic drag (what REALLY is important here). And, last I heard, you&#39;re allowed to use a hardtop, making it an even nicer aero package.

I&#39;d LOVE to see some data on this supposed Miata "aero" disadvantage.

And the NX better have more than a 15hp advantage, otherwise the Miata is VASTLY mis-classified given all its other advantages.

Any other relative characteristics you&#39;d like to compare, vis-a-vis Miata versus NX2000? If you really want to travel down this road, where shall we start?


perhaps the miata drivers are defending it because the miata drivers are the ones who know there is NO difference from the 94-97 cars.[/b]
"Miata drivers" have a long history of getting in groupthink, creating "common knowledge", and not looking at things objectively.

Like Miata aerodynamics, for example.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Like Miata aerodynamics, for example. [/b]

And your data to support that they are "more aerodynamic than just about anything out there" is where?

[Joe Harlan]

No I did not stop read travis. Once the car went OBD2 my money says it had a different production cod which made it a different model. I can show you S13 nissans that came out in 6 of 90 that were 91 models does that mean i can now race the early 91 in ITA with aa 4 valve motor because it was produced in 90? get real.

[Doc Bro]

Joe,

2370 (minus fudge factor) for the 128hp car and 2460 for the 133hp car. [/b]


Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the Z3 was ORIGINALLY clased at 2675....the adjusted to 2600....

Still doesn&#39;t seem remarkably different from a Miata to me....except the weight :023:


Back to your debate.

[tnord]

never been in the draft of one have you?

if the miata aero is so good....why is bumpdrafting so easy/important? why can i run at about 80% throttle in the draft? have you looked under the rear bumper of these things? it&#39;s a big parachute. have you looked at how much the wheels stick out beyond the front bumper? have you calculated it&#39;s frontal area?

your using results to try and support your claim that the car needs weight, regardless of what is typed.

[Greg Amy]

And your data to support that they are "more aerodynamic than just about anything out there" is where?
[/b]
Andy, back at you: *I&#39;m* not the one making the initial claim.

So, if you want to get into a semantics pissing match let&#39;s handle it this way: I rescind my statement that the Miata is aerodynamic, compared to other vehicles. Ergo, we are left with the original claim that the Miata has poor aerodynamics.

Prove it.

You guys just can&#39;t seem to accept that the world doesn&#39;t revolve around you...

[tnord]

You guys just can&#39;t seem to accept that the world doesn&#39;t revolve around you...
[/b]

...says the guy who&#39;s bitching because someone is faster than he is.


hey, you made it personal.


since this has quickly rescinded in to unquantifiable speculation and scare tactics....i&#39;ll take the express train back to rr-ax.com, and maybe stop at the vinyl shop to get some new "SM" markings on the way.

[Joe Harlan]

never been in the draft of one have you?

if the miata aero is so good....why is bumpdrafting so easy/important? why can i run at about 80% throttle in the draft? have you looked under the rear bumper of these things? it&#39;s a big parachute. have you looked at how much the wheels stick out beyond the front bumper? have you calculated it&#39;s frontal area?

your using results to try and support your claim that the car needs weight, regardless of what is typed.
[/b]


Travis, Please. ANy car will draft. That is a dumb ass statment on the aero advantage or disadvantages of any car. A freaking champ are will draft. Facts are facts and under the IMPROVED TOURING RULES the late car has been given a set of rules that it should not have. Or the Early car is getting the benefit of late parts that are NOT the same....The ITAC screwed this one up and the CRB whiffed at the curve ball. It should be fixed because if I vin a 94 car with an OBD2 system in it then we created a model that did not exist!

[Greg Amy]

never been in the draft of one have you?[/b]
Not lately, no... ;)


if the miata aero is so good....why is bumpdrafting so easy/important?[/b]
1) Because in Spec Miata they&#39;re identical cars, and
2) In other categories they have a power disadvantage


...why can i run at about 80% throttle in the draft?[/b]
That&#39;s how "a draft" works, Travis.


...have you looked under the rear bumper of these things? it&#39;s a big parachute.[/b]
As it is very just about EVERY other production vehicle with a rear bumper, Travis. Including the supposedly "aerodynamic" NX2000.


...have you looked at how much the wheels stick out beyond the front bumper?[/b]
As it does on most other IT cars, Travis. Aren&#39;t you allowed a front spoiler/airdam? "Disadvantage" - if it exists - nullified. Aren&#39;t all Spec Miatas equipped the same? "Disadvantage" nullified.


...have you calculated it&#39;s frontal area?[/b]
Nope. Have you (remember, you&#39;re making the claim here)?

The question - that you have yet to answer - still stands, Travis: where is the data supporting the long-standing meme of the Miata as not aerodynamic?

You can keep trying to turn it back on me, but I&#39;m not the one making the claim...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, back at you: *I&#39;m* not the one making the initial claim.

So, if you want to get into a semantics pissing match let&#39;s handle it this way: I rescind my statement that the Miata is aerodynamic, compared to other vehicles. Ergo, we are left with the original claim that the Miata has poor aerodynamics.

Prove it.

You guys just can&#39;t seem to accept that the world doesn&#39;t revolve around you...
[/b]

Actually Greg, I quoted YOU, remember. YOU said they were one of the best. Called out, you recind. If the common knowledge that the Miata has poor aero is what you dispute, what type of info would be acceptable since published Cd&#39;s seemingly aren&#39;t.

It cetainly isn&#39;t UN aerodynamic enough to be an &#39;adder&#39;. I will try and dig up the info you request.

[Greg Amy]

...what type of info would be acceptable since published Cd&#39;s seemingly aren&#39;t.[/b]
A reasonable request. Find for me the measured Cd of a Mazda Miata - with the hardtop attached - and we can discuss the relative aerodynamics of the stock M1 (but, debating the relative merits of stock vehicle aerodynamics in the context of a spec category is nothing short of stupid silly.)

We&#39;ll then debate the IT-allowed aerodynamic devices and how they affect and/or negate any perceived or actual aerodynamic disadvantage of the Miata in relation to other classified vehicles.

I think we&#39;ve set a new forum record for the number of topic drifts in one 24-hour period... - GA

[gran racing]

Dave I will sign the letter as well... but don&#39;t think your car wont get added to that list!!! [/b]

Right back at ya. :P

Golf III
Honda Prelude si
5 cyl. Audi

Kirk, just as a fyi, while I personally think the Golf III is too light, I have a hard time forgetting my previous discussions with the powers that be and the reasoning I received for a descrepency in weight between that car and others. "It was classed by the previous regiume and sure, it is underweight compared to how other cars were classed."

Would it be possible to put the cars through the new process even if it&#39;s only to shut me up if I were to write in a request? LOL

[Eagle7]

86-88 RX-7 - 146 HP

89-91 RX-7 - 160 HP

I want a weight break! :cavallo:

Oh, forgot I&#39;m not at minimum weight anyway. Forget it. <_<

[Andy Bettencourt]

86-88 RX-7 - 146 HP

89-91 RX-7 - 160 HP

I want a weight break! :cavallo:

Oh, forgot I&#39;m not at minimum weight anyway. Forget it. <_<

[/b]

Marty, you know as well as anyone that there are a TON of mechanical differences that make up that 16hp. Intake, AFM/MAF, compression bump, injectors, etc.

[Andy Bettencourt]

A reasonable request. Find for me the measured Cd of a Mazda Miata - with the hardtop attached [/b]

Here is what I came up with:

While maybe not applicable to the M1, the new MX-5 in soft-top form is a .38 while the hardtop version is a .37. We might be able to extrapolate those numbers to the M1 since it too has a CD of .38. CD of the NX2000 is a .32. So we could resonably say that the coefficinet of drag on the stock NX2000 is .32 and an M1 with a hardtop is .37. Seems significant to me.

Comparision:

Volkswagen Beetle - .38

McLaren F1 - .32

[Greg Amy]

You almost had me, right up to the point you inferred the Nissan NX2000&#39;s aerodynamics were comparable to the Gordon Murray-designed McLaren F1...

:)

I personally believe the M1 is not the aero slug that everyone thinks it is. Nope, I&#39;ve got no engineering data to support that, only a keen eye, some aero/mechE training, and experience in watching them. In addition, in the context of Improved Touring, any of the perceived aero problems (e.g., the ones Travis listed) are cured with the allowable IT mods, making the point moot. I&#39;d suggest that if the M1 is truly a slug, it has a lot more to gain with the allowed IT mods than most other cars. Again, personal opinion.

However, how about you use that nifty DL-1 you have and do the coast-down data calculator? Yes, it&#39;ll derive a sum of both aero and rolling friction, but it&#39;s useful comparative info...plus, it will take in account the lowering of the car as well as any comparative disadvantages such as the front wheels sticking out and the rear valence.

Back to arguing why the 1.8L should have more weight. ;)

[spnkzss]

You almost had me, right up to the point you inferred the Nissan NX2000&#39;s aerodynamics were comparable to the Gordon Murray-designed McLaren F1...

:)

I personally believe the M1 is not the aero slug that everyone thinks it is. Nope, I&#39;ve got no engineering data to support that, only a keen eye, some aero/mechE training, and experience in watching them. In addition, in the context of Improved Touring, any of the perceived aero problems (e.g., the ones Travis listed) are cured with the allowable IT mods, making the point moot. I&#39;d suggest that if the M1 is truly a slug, it has a lot more to gain with the allowed IT mods than most other cars. Again, personal opinion.

However, how about you use that nifty DL-1 you have and do the coast-down data calculator? Yes, it&#39;ll derive a sum of both aero and rolling friction, but it&#39;s useful comparative info...plus, it will take in account the lowering of the car as well as any comparative disadvantages such as the front wheels sticking out and the rear valence.

Back to arguing why the 1.8L should have more weight. ;)
[/b]

It could be true. The 1988 CRX HF had a cd of .29 while the F40 had a .34

[Andy Bettencourt]

Prove it.

You guys just can&#39;t seem to accept that the world doesn&#39;t revolve around you...[/b]



Ok, so the data is there that you asked for. Now it&#39;s your &#39;gut&#39; that is telling you otherwise. No sweat, it&#39;s that same &#39;gut&#39; that is telling you the Miata will wreck ITA...I&#39;ll take my chances with those odds. :birra:










It could be true. The 1988 CRX HF had a cd of .29 while the F40 had a .34 [/b]

...and a huge rear wing. That&#39;s why I though the F1 was an interesting comparison. Numers are numbers.

[spnkzss]

...and a huge rear wing. That&#39;s why I though the F1 was an interesting comparison. Numers are numbers.
[/b]

It all that air that gets sucked into that BMW V12... :P~~~~~~~

[Greg Amy]

Ok, so the data is there that you asked for. Now it&#39;s your &#39;gut&#39; that is telling you otherwise. No sweat, it&#39;s that same &#39;gut&#39; that is telling you the Miata will wreck ITA...I&#39;ll take my chances with those odds.[/b]
OK, you want to go back to arguing, Andy? Fine.

You did NOT give me the info I was looking for. You presented information for a TOTALLY DIFFERENT car by the same manufacturer, that does not even have the same model name, and tried to imply it was the same.

Well, it&#39;s not, babe. Not even close (at least, not any closer than my NX2000 is to a McLaren F1! :birra: ) So, again, I ask you: what is the official Cd of the Mazda M1 Miata with the hardtop installed? Your implied answer thus far: "I have no effing clue."


That&#39;s why I though the F1 was an interesting comparison. Numers are numbers.[/b]
And you would think that that "interesting comparison" - that the Nissan NX2000 econo-coupe happens to have the same coefficient of drag as the million-dollar McLaren F1, a car designed in a God-knows-how-expensive wind tunnel by a race team - would be a clue as to the futility of using that unitless number for determining total aerodynamic drag. No, instead of coming to that logical conclusion, we simply ignore it and say "but...this one goes to ELEVEN!"

Enlightening, to say the least.


BTW, congratulations on doing your best to avoid the original debates on the classified weight of the M1 in ITA. Don&#39;t think we&#39;re not seeing right through it...

[Racerlinn]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Beer_mug.svg/45px-Beer_mug.svg.pnghttp://www.all-model-railroading.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg,

What I want you to do is admit you were wrong. You came out gangbusters claiming something wasn&#39;t true. You throw categorical generalizations around then recant. With no data, you ask US to disprove YOUR statement. With a reasonable effort, I did. Then you want to ignore the numbers I provide and go by your gut feel. It&#39;s a joke really.

(I see no reason why, for the sake of arguement, you can&#39;t take real data from an MX-5 and apply it to the M1 Miata...unless it doesn&#39;t work for your arguement. If the new Miata goes from .38 to .37 with the hardtop on, I would love to know how the M1 gets any more benefit. No, it&#39;s not the exact data you were looking for but it&#39;s CERTAINLY close enough to prove that your NX has a significantly lower CD than the Miata with a hardtop. I think you probably knew no data existed for an M1 with a hardtop when you asked for it, making it impossible to disprove the statement you made with no data to back it up)

Doing my best to avoid the original debate? Are you serious? I post TOO much. I explain everything. The only one avoiding questions is you. Maybe the entire post #29.

If you want to seperate the 94/95 from the 96/97, so be it but lets not claim the 94/95 didn&#39;t go through the Process, it did - just like the NX2000.

[shwah]

Some related bits...

Mazda Miata
Cd ~ .37 (as noted above)
FA ~ 16.5ft^2 (one interweb source, not verified)
Height = 48.2" (edmunds 1994 Miata)
Width = 65.9"

NX2000
Cd ~ .32 (as noted above, and elsewhere on interweb)
FA ~ ?
Height = 51.4" (edmunds 1992 NX 2000)
Width = 66.1"

[Joe Harlan]

Greg,

What I want you to do is admit you were wrong. You came out gangbusters claiming something wasn&#39;t true. You throw categorical generalizations around then recant. With no data, you ask US to disprove YOUR statement. With a reasonable effort, I did. Then you want to ignore the numbers I provide and go by your gut feel. It&#39;s a joke really.

(I see no reason why, for the sake of arguement, you can&#39;t take real data from an MX-5 and apply it to the M1 Miata...unless it doesn&#39;t work for your arguement. If the new Miata goes from .38 to .37 with the hardtop on, I would love to know how the M1 gets any more benefit. No, it&#39;s not the exact data you were looking for but it&#39;s CERTAINLY close enough to prove that your NX has a significantly lower CD than the Miata with a hardtop. I think you probably knew no data existed for an M1 with a hardtop when you asked for it, making it impossible to disprove the statement you made with no data to back it up)

Doing my best to avoid the original debate? Are you serious? I post TOO much. I explain everything. The only one avoiding questions is you. Maybe the entire post #29.

If you want to seperate the 94/95 from the 96/97, so be it but lets not claim the 94/95 didn&#39;t go through the Process, it did - just like the NX2000.
[/b]

So Andy, What year is your car and what system are you running? Second you have not addressed the fact that you guys have created a model based on info provided here?

[Andy Bettencourt]

So Andy, What year is your car and what system are you running? Second you have not addressed the fact that you guys have created a model based on info provided here?
[/b]

Joe, read the posts. I have a 1994 R Model with the original harness. Did we create a model if when you UD/BD, you have to change out the whole harness? If you try to go to the OBD-2 system in an OBD-1 car, the result is the later car that already exists.

Sling the BS all you want boys, I stand by the statement it was a logical move. If, in the interest of the &#39;integrity of the IT rules&#39;, you want the early cars seperated from the later cars, fine. I&#39;ll support it at the expense of common sense. I am done. Don&#39;t mistake my silence for any type of agreement. My position is clear, right or wrong.

[Greg Amy]

What I want you to do is admit you were wrong.[/b]
I know that, Andy; that&#39;s what this is all about for you. It really has virtually nothing to do with the technical arguments at hand.


I see no reason why, for the sake of arguement, you can&#39;t take real data from an MX-5 and apply it to the M1 Miata...[/b]
I understand that, Andy, which is exactly why it&#39;s like pissing against a wall having a technical argument with you.

You. Just. Don&#39;t Get. It. And I&#39;m going to quit trying to spoon-feed it to you.

Ignorance=Bliss; Andy=Happy.

When you get the REAL numbers, we can talk. Otherwise, I&#39;m going to jump in my McLaren F1 this weekend and take it to ELEVEN!!!

[Joe Harlan]

So Andy using the obd1 stuff which pistons are you using? Early compression or late compression?

I ain&#39;t slinging shit here....I want clear answers.

[JeffYoung]

There are some valid points being thrown out here by Greg and Joe, but great Hay-Soos! Does anyone think that Andy is really trying to stack the deck in favor of a car he drives?

All I have ever seen Andy do is devote a boatload of time to making IT better; just don&#39;t buy that this is some inside job to help the Miatas.

I suspect that a LOT of cars had some fudge factor applied to them, and we are focusing on the ITA Miatas because we have an ITAC member who drives one. I also suspect the magnitude of the fudge factor is no greater than that on the other cars.

That is specualtion; I have no concrete examples.

I will say this though -- my experience in SMs is that aero is POOR. Most ITB cars seemed significantly faster at the end of the long straight at VIR than our SMs. Just a "gut" feeling though, no data to back it up.

On the flip side, Greg is correct that the Miata CLEARLY is better than the sum of its parts. I know we hate referring back to on track data, but the times that SMs run at 115 to 120 whp are nothing short of incredible.

[IPRESS]

Greg:"I personally believe the M1 is not the aero slug that everyone thinks it is."

No, it seems you think the little girls car is the devil!

I have never seen so much "car hate". If Stretch had smoked your butt at ARRC I could understand, but you smoked EVERYBODIES BUTT.

You guys can change the the 96s and 97s to their own line or whatever it is called and I will suppor t it, I think if I read this long hate letter right, it will make my weight go down by 10 lbs. If so thanks.

As far as aero, as usual I don&#39;t know one way or the other. I would think that aero would be a bigger factor at someplace like RAtlanta then some other places. If that is a correct assumption, then a miata probably sucks in that area.

So that the MKKK doesn&#39;t bring a rope and torches to ARRC I will try to talk Bob into just running SM so he won&#39;t get the rest of us LYNCHED!

Actually this thread could be considered a preamble to a hate crime as my miata donor had a rainbow sticker on the rear bumper when I bought it! :D

You guys may need to pick on another model just so the feds won&#39;t put two & two together. :P

Mac (hoping for 2370) the "female-car" racer

[Joe Harlan]

There are some valid points being thrown out here by Greg and Joe, but great Hay-Soos! Does anyone think that Andy is really trying to stack the deck in favor of a car he drives?

All I have ever seen Andy do is devote a boatload of time to making IT better; just don&#39;t buy that this is some inside job to help the Miatas.

I suspect that a LOT of cars had some fudge factor applied to them, and we are focusing on the ITA Miatas because we have an ITAC member who drives one. I also suspect the magnitude of the fudge factor is no greater than that on the other cars.

That is specualtion; I have no concrete examples.

I will say this though -- my experience in SMs is that aero is POOR. Most ITB cars seemed significantly faster at the end of the long straight at VIR than our SMs. Just a "gut" feeling though, no data to back it up.

On the flip side, Greg is correct that the Miata CLEARLY is better than the sum of its parts. I know we hate referring back to on track data, but the times that SMs run at 115 to 120 whp are nothing short of incredible.
[/b]
Woa Jeff, That is not what I am saying and lets be clear I believe Andy has enough integrity that even given a rule to do so he would not cheat the spirit of the IT rules. The issue is that by combining the cars. The early car was used for the process, The late car was assed at that weight making 5 more HP. My guess is the 5 HP has more to do with the compression bump than the ECU. Now under the update back date rule the OBD1 car get the compression bump and runs at the lighter weight. Now we have given a compression bump to a car that was used to class the car using the process. The process needs to be re-run on the early after the compression bump and my money says the weight goes up. Again I don&#39;t care what car it is. If Amy&#39;s NX got a compression bump from an error in the manualof VTS then I would expect the ITAC to re-run Amy&#39;s car also.

[shwah]

Joe - the specified compression ratio did not change. The actual factory compression ratio did. It is common, VW is a prime example, for the actual CR on a new car to be below the specified number. What I am reading here is that Mazda simply made the actual match their spec with an updated piston.

What does this mean? Well both cars can run a 9.5:1 motor. However one of them is gaining more than .5, and a hair more power than the other. In the end they both have the same power potential since they have the same intake, valves, bore, stroke, compression, and ability to run any ecu programming.

Using the higher compression piston does not increase the maximum allowable CR. Also, I don&#39;t know this, but it may be a superceded factory replacement at this point (I don&#39;t care what Mazda ships you in a crate motor, what do they sell you at the parts counter zoomers?), in which case the point is even more moot.

[dazzlesa]

forget about championships, trophys, and points. lets do some weight adjusting and have great races. minus andys miata we are running against each other at higher weights. why? it plain costs more and for what? the integras in the east should run IT integra at 2450lbs or anybody else can join in. they started SSM in the east because the rules were loose. so lets start ITT or what ever you want to call it.leave the rules for the ARRC and the IT festivals. we can adjust weight per votes. maybe we can really get the other cars closer?

[IPRESS]

If I get this right we are talking about a 94 / 95 & a 96 / 97 group of Miatas with stock crate engines, Right? If so none of them get 128 OR 133 HP. That is marketing BS and I think Mazda has been sued before about this type of HP claim. Now I know you constitutional lawyer types will say that you can only go by what is on the "line&#39;" in the manual, but in reality your dealing with false numbers to start with.
OBVIOUSLY AS WE SAY DOWN HERE: Andy must be the best racer to take a dump between a pair of boots, because he has singlehandily started a Miata reign of terror. You guys need to warn the drag racers that they might be next. The awsome power of ZOOM ZOOM may come after them too. :happy204:

[JeffYoung]

The 94-95 had a lower compression ratio than the 96-97?

[Andy Bettencourt]

The 94-95 had a lower compression ratio than the 96-97? [/b]

No. They were both listed at 9.0:1. The early (pre Feb 1994) 94 car was rumored to have a softer set-up @ 8.8:1. When the specs came out in 1995 and they had the &#39;current&#39; pistons, the hp rating stayed at 128hp. The published CR was 9.0:1 for the entire life of the M1 1.8 (94-97). The HP bump didn&#39;t come until the OBD-1 to OBD-II swap.

[Doc Bro]

Ipress I think your missing the points. I personally don&#39;t care what AB or GA&#39;s cars weigh or how much HP they make. GOOD FOR THEM!!! The only thing that I (we) care about is parity amongst the field. The problem is that once something is on paper the reversal of it is nearly impossible, or is soo expensive to prove that it&#39;s simply not worth it. The Miata thing is already written, therefore some will defend it to the end (AB) or will argue it&#39;s validity (GA) to the end. Simple politics, a la debate club in school. I get my feathers ruffled when I think about how my 2600# (originally 2675) pound 135hp "monster" is classed with parity, especially when compared to the 2600# e36 318is, and the 2480# 140 hp miata. It&#39;s the gliches in the system that upset people. Besides AB&#39;s a big boy, he&#39;s smart, and he&#39;s winning...he expects this and can take it. Anyone on this BB would gladly trade for his "problems".

R

[tnord]

Joe - the specified compression ratio did not change. The actual factory compression ratio did. It is common, VW is a prime example, for the actual CR on a new car to be below the specified number. What I am reading here is that Mazda simply made the actual match their spec with an updated piston.

What does this mean? Well both cars can run a 9.5:1 motor. However one of them is gaining more than .5, and a hair more power than the other. In the end they both have the same power potential since they have the same intake, valves, bore, stroke, compression, and ability to run any ecu programming.

Using the higher compression piston does not increase the maximum allowable CR. Also, I don&#39;t know this, but it may be a superceded factory replacement at this point (I don&#39;t care what Mazda ships you in a crate motor, what do they sell you at the parts counter zoomers?), in which case the point is even more moot.
[/b]

finally....someone not drinking the kool-aid of miata fear.

to the best of my knowledge, if you buy pistons from mazda, you get the same piston you&#39;d get in a crate, the same piston that came in any 1995 and up car produced post 3/95.




No. They were both listed at 9.0:1. The early (pre Feb 1994) 94 car was rumored to have a softer set-up @ 8.8:1. When the specs came out in 1995 and they had the &#39;current&#39; pistons, the hp rating stayed at 128hp. The published CR was 9.0:1 for the entire life of the M1 1.8 (94-97). The HP bump didn&#39;t come until the OBD-1 to OBD-II swap.
[/b]

well, actually it came after, as some of the later run of 95s actually had OBDII and the updated pistons. but it didn&#39;t make a damn bit of difference, as the SM crowd has proven, or else that small window in time of miata production would be selling for huge premiums.




On the flip side, Greg is correct that the Miata CLEARLY is better than the sum of its parts. I know we hate referring back to on track data, but the times that SMs run at 115 to 120 whp are nothing short of incredible.
[/b]

more like 120-125 to be perfectly proper.....and in the draft pushing each other.

[lateapex911]

Ipress I think your missing the points. I personally don&#39;t care what AB or GA&#39;s cars weigh or how much HP they make. GOOD FOR THEM!!! The only thing that I (we) care about is parity amongst the field. The problem is that once something is on paper the reversal of it is nearly impossible, or is soo expensive to prove that it&#39;s simply not worth it. The Miata thing is already written, therefore some will defend it to the end (AB) or will argue it&#39;s validity (GA) to the end. Simple politics, a la debate club in school. I get my feathers ruffled when I think about how my 2600# (originally 2675) pound 135hp "monster" is classed with parity, especially when compared to the 2600# e36 318is, and the 2480# 140 hp miata. It&#39;s the gliches in the system that upset people. Besides AB&#39;s a big boy, he&#39;s smart, and he&#39;s winning...he expects this and can take it. Anyone on this BB would gladly trade for his "problems".

R [/b]

Rob, I hear you, but keep a candle burning for other cars too. Some run ITA at about 2300 with 125 Whp and 105 ft lbs of tq.

It has been an interesting discussion, although it&#39;s like picking diamonds...tough work with few hits..but there have been a few.

[Rud]

Rob, I hear you, but keep a candle burning for other cars too. Some run ITA at about 2300 with 125 Whp and 105 ft lbs of tq.
[/b]

Would the new cage rules make it more or less likely that the 1st Gen RX-7s get moved to ITB at a slightly higher weight?

[Eagle7]

Marty, you know as well as anyone that there are a TON of mechanical differences that make up that 16hp. Intake, AFM/MAF, compression bump, injectors, etc.
[/b]

Of course I do (well, except the injectors - those look equivalent to me). Tongue firmly placed in cheek, Andy.

Two different manufacturers published specs on the same spec line. Sounds like the issue that&#39;s being debated. Just thought I&#39;d make the point that putting cars with different capabilities on the same spec line is nothing new.

[Joe Harlan]

finally....someone not drinking the kool-aid of miata fear.

to the best of my knowledge, if you buy pistons from mazda, you get the same piston you&#39;d get in a crate, the same piston that came in any 1995 and up car produced post 3/95.
well, actually it came after, as some of the later run of 95s actually had OBDII and the updated pistons. but it didn&#39;t make a damn bit of difference, as the SM crowd has proven, or else that small window in time of miata production would be selling for huge premiums.
more like 120-125 to be perfectly proper.....and in the draft pushing each other.
[/b]


Travis, You dont have to be a dick....I don&#39;t hate Miata&#39;s I hate rules that are not consistently applied....Stuff your mazda hate shit right in your ass....Your own posting says there is a difference in compression....


Starting with the 3/95 start of the ODB-II implementation (VIN 14193) the pistons were changed with a slight dome to increase the compression ratio to an actual 9.0:1. The &#39;94-3/95 pistons were factory rated at 9.0:1 but actually was around 8.8.[/b]

It is really not a problem and I am done posting on this thread. I will follow the process to get this car relooked at by the CRB. You guys go ahead and have at it from here. But to try to convinc anyone that the process applied at 128 is fairly reapplied to 133 iss full of crap.

[tnord]

Travis, You dont have to be a dick....I don&#39;t hate Miata&#39;s I hate rules that are not consistently applied....Stuff your mazda hate shit right in your ass....Your own posting says there is a difference in compression....
It is really not a problem and I am done posting on this thread. I will follow the process to get this car relooked at by the CRB. You guys go ahead and have at it from here. But to try to convinc anyone that the process applied at 128 is fairly reapplied to 133 iss full of crap.
[/b]

way to keep it classy.

once again....there is NO mechanical difference between the cars as of today. would you rather the ITAC and CRB deal in actuals, or printed media fluff from a historicaly unreliable mfg?

the redcoats are coming! the red.....i mean the miatas are coming! the MIATAS ARE COMING!

wheeeee!!!!

[seckerich]

Of course I do (well, except the injectors - those look equivalent to me). Tongue firmly placed in cheek, Andy.

Two different manufacturers published specs on the same spec line. Sounds like the issue that&#39;s being debated. Just thought I&#39;d make the point that putting cars with different capabilities on the same spec line is nothing new.
[/b]

Just dont forget Marty that all the RX7&#39;s were processed at the higher of the 2 specs as they could be updated. The arguement here is that the Miata was processed with the lower of the 2 numbers and still allowed to update. Big difference. Regardless of published compression numbers the different piston was in the early car and it should have to keep it at the lower weight. The later cars did get the compression bump and should be run through properly. Does it make a difference in IT trim?? Could not tell you but the case sounds valid. The fact Mazda now sends you the late piston has nothing to do with what came in the car from the dealer.

[tnord]

that&#39;s the thing. both pistons came from the dealer for 1995 model year, just depends on if the car was produced before or after March 1995. the late 95s also had OBDII, but the advertised power didn&#39;t change until 96....this basically tells me that the 133 advertised hp was a bunch of hogwash.

i don&#39;t think "we" adhere 100% to the process as much as people may think. if mfg advertised hp is all the information there is, then the process will get you close, but are "we" not allowed to make adjustments if better information should come along?

what was the CRX Si advertised at? 108hp? good one. :lol:

[Knestis]

It&#39;s NOT about which pistons, OBDI vs. OBDII, or any other technical detail, people. As Steve so correctly points out it&#39;s about the process. There are always going to be marginal winners and losers with any system but the best thing going right now is IT because there is a repeatable system in place to specify the weights.

Is it perfect? No. Are there some instances of &#39;adders&#39; and &#39;subtractors&#39; being applied that smell a lot like subjective competition adjustments? Yes. But go visit the Prod site and partake of the "Why is Production Dying?" conversation and you&#39;ll see over and over again that the politiking, smoke-filled room, perceptions-of-favoritism, moving target specification crap that dominates that game is a prime disincentive to a lot of people getting involved.

Yeah - Greg got baited into something like on-track comparisons but the primary issue there is that he has enough experience to pretty accurately predict what lap times (as an output measure of the process) are likely to look like, for the cars in question. He can&#39;t unlearn what he knows, even if he should try really hard to keep the conversation on the topic that really matters.

Travis - seriously. It gets personal because you want it to be. The view from here is that you&#39;d stand on "black is white" if you thought it was in defense against Miata Haters.

The process was bypassed, probably in an effort to be expeditious and NOT because Andy&#39;s got some sneaky agenda, and now it&#39;s being defended pretty much out of stubborness. That&#39;s not right and the worst part is that it opens the entire system to question. My memory is always suspect but I seem to remember well-considered math telling me that the MkIII Golf should be heavier than it is. I think that Andy&#39;s response that it&#39;s fine at 2350 is influenced by the same temptation to think of it as "close enough," to not make waves. Waves be damned. Jake - do the math and tell me what it says...?

K

[tnord]

so do we put our blinders on and assume the CRX has 108hp?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I guess I am just missing the beef. I can understand the questions - but once you understand the circumstances and facts...the 128hp car was classed and a weight was set. Then the 133hp car came up for re-classification (remember, these were ITS cars). You could have put the 133hp on a different line at 2460, but upon a close look, they are the same car with the exception of the ECU - an &#39;open&#39; item. The cars have the exact same capability. Nothing sneaky, nothing backdoor, just a simple application of logic IMHO.

Lets say an early TR8&#39;s came with 130hp. That one gets classed. Later, a request for a &#39;later one&#39; come through. Mechnically identical excelt for a &#39;better&#39; carb that adds 5hp to the rating. But wait! The TR8 can upgrade to one of 5 different Weber varients that are vastly superior to either stock carb per the GCR. What do you do? Seperate the cars and list them at different weights, combine them at the first weight - or increase the weight of the first car, already classed - by around 100 lbs because you just allowed it to UD/BD to something that will have NO effect on performance in IT trim.

JEFF, would you think its the &#39;right&#39; thing to do to add weight to the first car based on something that has no affect on performance?

Again, I see it as a common sense move. Each classification is different - and should be addressed as such. If this was a straight formula, the ITA CRX would weigh 1957lbs, the ITA 12A RX7 would be in ITB at 2146 etc. Sometimes you have to take what you know and use it in good faith. I believe that 100%. If we don&#39;t believe there is integrity in the system - or with the people, we need new people and/or a new system. I am not sure IT has ever been better in terms of cars, classifications, transparancy, equality, forward thinking (ITR), etc.

[JeffYoung]

Actually, something very similar happend with my car. The carb&#39;ed version allegedly makes 133 hp, the FI one 138.

I see your point that the early cars could use the new ECU and get the HP bump, so no real difference. I see their point that well, then all cars should have been classed at the "higher" weight that the process would have generated for the "higher" hp car.

What I think is this. I think a 5 hp differnce is within the "frudge fractor" range of "we shouldn&#39;t care about it." Am I correct that when you were making weight adjustments to the cars before, if the "process" weight was within I think 75 lbs of the already spec&#39;ed weight, you didn&#39;t make the change?

Much ado about nothing. I understand the adherence to process, and think it a necessary part of the IT ruleset. But I also think we are kidding ourselves tremendously if we think practicality, common sense, and SOME subjective factors are not included in that process. I mean, do we TRULY think a 50 lb adder for IRS is a PRECISE adjustment? Hell no.

This is going to sound overly lawyer, but we are people after all, not robots, and there is no way to make this 100% objective. If we weren&#39;t arguing about this, we would be arguing over our "subjective" decision to give 4 wheel disc brakes a 25 lb adder over rear drums.

I respect everyone on this thread, but I really think this one got out of whack. If we are worried about 5 hp or 50 or 75 lbs, then I think we have, in our pursuit of objectivity, made the process itself unworkable.

[Knestis]

I guess I am just missing the beef. ...[/b]

The

RACE

weight

for

the

higher

power

car

was

established

based

on

the

lower

power

car.

The fact that both the original, older version and the newer version have the same POWER POTENTIAL (as the NEW ONE), should be blinding evidence that the race weight of the older one should have been increased, just as soon as the newer one got listed. You tell us all the time Andy (and rightfully so) that the process presumes that someone will build a 10/10ths car. That&#39;s not just about practical issues like wiring harnesses - it&#39;s about setting the weight in the first place.

OF COURSE I am assuming that the "process" was applied to the first listing - Yes - No

Further, I assume that collectively agree that 5 ponies makes enough of a difference in spec weight, so as to be "significant" - Yes - No

And of course, I ASSUME that we are actually USING the process, rather than just making stuff up and SAYING we&#39;re using the process - Yes - No

Again, it IS pretty academic. In the real world, the differences are going to be lost to other variables that make a bigger difference in competitiveness. But why start down the Prod path if we can avoid it?

K

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, for me that is the rub. The 5 hp difference is not significant. I agree this one is now easy to "correct", but my point is there are probably MANY of these fudge factors where race weights are 25, 50, 75 lbs off.

Are we going to go through the ITCS again and make sure that the process weights aren&#39;t off by the 25, 50 or 75 lbs that they were "allowed" to be?

This just seems like a practical problem to me. Why bother?

Jake, what would 5 hp add to this car in "base" weight?

[planet6racing]

Andy:

Having read only the first 40 responses and these last few, I have but one question for you:

Are you going to be an ITAC member next year? You sure have seemed to take a beating recently...

[dickita15]

While I enjoy seeing Andy abused (about everything except self interest). I think I must be missing the point with regard to the different ecus. The IT classification process is not a formula, it is a process. One of the subjective parts of the process is the expected power gains in IT trim. Some cars are known to respond better to allowed modifications. Isn’t that why the RX7 is stuck at the back of ITA. If the only real difference in the 1.8’s is the OBD2 optimizes the power better than it follows that less gain will be had on the OBD2 cars in IT trim. I do not see why then they would not be at the same weight, the power potential is the same in IT trim for all 4 years.

[JeffYoung]

Dick, good point, but if I recall the process correctly "power potential" is derived by using the stock reported flywheel hp and then applying a multiplier to it. So, stock reported hp does impact the process weight.

And I have to note, here is yet another subjective factor in our "objective" process -- my understanding is that the multiplier used on some cars (the 325 for example) is higher than on others.

Given the amount of fudge and subjectivity that already exists in teh process, I just don&#39;t see why 5 hp here really makes any difference.

[spnkzss]

Isn&#39;t this the same thing as the ITA Integra. 90(I think)-93 are on the same line. 93 has 10 more hp then the previous years. I&#39;m pretty sure that is an ECU and harness difference also. Everything else is the same. Maybe the difference is the Integra added weight last year now at 2595.

[Joe Harlan]

The difference is more than just the ecu&#39;s and the wool is being pulled firmly over everyones eyes. the 94 to 3/95 cars were OBD1 and from what I have found so far may have used a different piston at a lower compression number. The 5 HP gain may not have been just in the ECU. Once the parts and part numbers are established I will send the informatoin to the CRB fro reveiw. IN 3/95 the model changed to OBD2 and I believe even Mazda&#39;s parts book recognize these as 96 model cars. So the update back date gets slid in under a year deal not a model year. My guess is that since I have not had a hard time finding this information that the ITAC knows all of this and decided to ignore it and just let all these cars swap parts. I would really have not issue with this other than the weight should be applied to the higher HP. Finally Jeff, It does not matter that we can&#39;t refine the car down to the level of sand but we can fairly apply the process to be sure we tried. I will bet in some cases 5 hp base could be the difference between what class the car gets put in. Remember the late car was classed in S originally.

[Greg Amy]

...what would 5 hp add to this car in "base" weight?[/b]
Using the formulaic process? 105 pounds on a 2380# car. I&#39;d hesitate to call that "insignificant".



so do we put our blinders on and assume the CRX has 108hp?[/b]

YES.

Let me tell you a story, Travis: after last year&#39;s ARRC, Andy and the other ITAC guys got a lot of flack about the power of the NX2000, how it was moved down to A from S at only 25 more pounds, and how many of the Honda products got lead added earlier that year when they were tossed through the same process mine was during the move (IIRC, my car was the very first one run through that process). Fair enough; King of the Hill is a target, it&#39;s the Way Things Should Be (hint, hint).

In private discussions, I had no problems with their arguments, as I fully accept that my car gets what it gets in terms of torque and power, and has its warts along with advantages. But, more importantly, I understood that my car and its competition went through a fair and objective classification process, one that I supported and "cheerleaded" for many years, one that would produce objective classification based on the car&#39;s physical characteristics.

In exchange of that conversation, I wrote something to that person that I had written on this board numerous times (and I paraphrase): "...besides, virtually every car - certainly each of the pointy-end cars - has gone through this objective formulaic process, and every car was adjusted accordingly to this process." I was confident we were on a level playing field and we should continue to be so.

The response I got to that was (again, paraphrasing), "well, what about the CRX? we added additional &#39;fudge factor&#39; to that car because it makes significantly more than the process horsepower."

When I read that I was livid. I had NO IDEA that there were cars that were getting weight based on on-track performance. I swallowed the "this is a process, track performance doesn&#39;t matter" bait hook, line, and sinker. Whereas I thought I had won the ARRC on a straight-up, level playing field, I found out afterwards that the field was tilted. This is NOT what I was led to believe, and *I* felt cheated.

In response to my anger, I was told "the process has ALWAYS taken into account known hp numbers - when known...I submit this is EXACTLY WHY there is so much parity in IT right now" (that&#39;s a direct quote). I was so pissed off about it that I threatened to write an email to the CRB insisting that all cars go through the same formulaic process and let the cards fall where they may; I was told in response "[w]rite the letter. You will blow IT up into little pieces." (again, a direct quote).

For once in my recent history, I was virtually speechless.

Until that point, I believed in that process; today I&#39;m as cynical about it as I was with the prior situation, which was a bunch of guys sitting around subjectively deciding what the weights of the cars "should" be, based on their own subjective judgment (that old Dionne Warwick song has been haunting me lately...) What we have here today is NOT a fully-objective formulaic process; what we have is a formula that baselines the discussion, and a set of guys of guys deciding "what&#39;s best" based on on-track performance.

So, in direct answer to your question, Travis: Abosfreakinglutely yes. If that results in more weight for my car, then bring it. If that results in less weight for the CRX, bring it. And if it results in certain cars weighing differently - despite significantly confusing situation of compression ratio/pistons installations and engine managements systems - then bring it.

But if we&#39;re going down the road of adjustments based on on-track performance and/or resulting dyno testing, then let the games begin.

So, all you "you&#39;re a Miata hater" guys can kiss my rear bumper...

[tnord]

Using the formulaic process? 105 pounds on a 2380# car. I&#39;d hesitate to call that "insignificant".
YES.


[/b]

sorry to make all your effort for naught....but i quit reading after this.

[JeffYoung]

Greg, and I don&#39;t mean this in a disrespectful way, but in my view, there is absolutely no way to remove some subjectivity from the process. You can just run straight numbers on horsepower and weight, but that would be unfair to cars like yours, and mine, that have decent numbers and other huge handicaps (drum brakes, live rears, struts, etc.)

Once you agree that a straight hp/weight calculation (using ONLY stock hp and ONLY stock weight, and not "expected IT gains" or "expected IT weight" which woudl again involve subjective evaluations) won&#39;t work, then you can&#39;t get around having some fudge factors involved.

To me, what we have now is the lesser of many evils. We have as formulaic of a process AS IS POSSIBLE and a decent and well meaning group of guys trying to defend it. There will always be "fudge" decisions that not everyone agrees with, but that is the nature of having a group of human beings make decisions.

[tnord]

have fun with this one fellas....i&#39;m off to work on my letter to remove 100lbs from the CRX, and a couple hundred from the BMW 325 and let it run unrestricted in ITS because that&#39;s what the process calls for.

:wacko:

[IPRESS]

If this is such a big deal get ready to go through EVERY one of these OLD cars and research what OEM parts are now available. You guys are on the wrong BB. The one that links from the Colorado board is where you should be. Those guys have beat there whole set of classes to death all by themselves.

[Joe Harlan]

If this is such a big deal get ready to go through EVERY one of these OLD cars and research what OEM parts are now available. You guys are on the wrong BB. The one that links from the Colorado board is where you should be. Those guys have beat there whole set of classes to death all by themselves.
[/b]


Mac, they beat themselfs out of their classes by not havign a plan or a way to balance competitioin based on the cars ability. Prod, like GT has always penalized winners and given welfare to the backmarkers. That is exactly why IT works and the current process works even better. But the issue is the process has to be followed. Travis, again your wrong the BMW would have been well over 3200lbs had the process been followed and the car run unrestricted. As far as the Honda goes if the process was followed and the need for a PCA happened then thats the way it should be. If the Honda was handled based on track performanc then that was wrong and should be corrected also. The guys in the 240sx camp took the weight penalty and did not say a word one about it believing the process was to be followed by everyone.

[JeffYoung]

Actually, the "process" weight for the BMW at 189 stock flywheel hp would have been lower than 2800 lbs if I recall correctly.

What got the BMW to a process weight of 3100-3200 lbs was......drum roll...a subjective fudge factor based on the real world reality that this motor made significant gains in IT trim.

So, if we use a straight "stock hp" calculation and that ONLY, then you rpobably end up with a BMW at a weight at which it is back to being a class killing overdog.

[Andy Bettencourt]

First off, Greg is not correct in his statements on the conversation we had. Car were not being adjusted based on on-track performance. We did not add any &#39;fudge-factor&#39;. That term is one I have used for the first time here in this thread.

Some cars make more power in IT trim than others. Some are horribly underated from the factory. We take knowledge we have and we apply it to the best of our ability. If we used a strict formula, the seperation between the haves and the have-nots would be huge. It takes away all the &#39;good&#39; that has happened to IT over the past 3 years. I buy into the belief that &#39;everything should be the same for everyone&#39; but in practical application, we have to do our best - and that means deviating from a &#39;formula&#39; and using some subjective factors and real data when we know them to be true. I realize that some of you think that is stupid, opens us up for judgement and critisism - but that is the way the current ITAC/CRB think - and we take our licks for it. For Joe to say the &#39;wool is being pulled over our eyes&#39; is just foolish. I can&#39;t see how he can claim he doesn&#39;t question the integrity of the group and say that at the same time.

Kirk, you have to understand that the lower power car was classed first. Then a real-world look was taken on the second car. What say you to the TR8 example I described? If you say that the first car should gain weight - then I repect the fundamental position, but I think it&#39;s wrong. Common sense must prevail - and I think it did.

Whatever side you fall on, it&#39;s one of fundamental beliefs - and I think the success of IT has to do with the ones the ITAC and CRB currently hold. If we were to go by a formula, each IT class would be a one-trick pony. No debate.

The ITS RX-7 would be 2580 lbs
The ITA CRX would be 1957 lbs
ITB would be dominated by the 12A RX-7 at 2146 lbs

Sound good to everyone? :bleh: At what point do you apply something you know in an effort to make things fair?

[Joe Harlan]

Actually, the "process" weight for the BMW at 189 stock flywheel hp would have been lower than 2800 lbs if I recall correctly.

What got the BMW to a process weight of 3100-3200 lbs was......drum roll...a subjective fudge factor based on the real world reality that this motor made significant gains in IT trim.

So, if we use a straight "stock hp" calculation and that ONLY, then you rpobably end up with a BMW at a weight at which it is back to being a class killing overdog.
[/b]

Wrong again Jeff.

[JeffYoung]

How so? I know for a fact that expected hp gains on the BMW are what put its process weight at 3100 lbs +

What I don&#39;t know for a fact is what its process weight would be running a straight calculation of the stock reported hp (which was low in and of itself by the way, BMW is notorious for that)

[spnkzss]

I am not trying to add to the fire, I am truly curious. How else would you do it if it weren&#39;t for some "fudge" factor, or more importantly on track performance. You can&#39;t base things purely on hp/tq numbers. Double wishbones, disc vs drum, better aero. Things liek that will always come into play and some of that stuff won&#39;t be seen until the car is built at 10/10ths. The 90 CRX is identical to the 90 Civic except the CRX can add rear discs, and has better aero. Yet they both weight the same. Their may be a base to allow the Civic to drop some weight, but until you see it on track, how will you know for sure. You can theorize all day long, but until something is tested you won&#39;t know for sure. By they way, the added weight the the CRX didn&#39;t seem to hurt it much. Especially in the WDCR.

Then again SCCA said that they wanted to give everybody a place to race. They didn&#39;t say they wanted to give everybody a place to win. Some cars are just going to be better then others and I guess that is just the fact of the matter. I dunno.

[dj10]

and a couple hundred from the BMW 325 and let it run unrestricted in ITS because that&#39;s what the process calls for.

:wacko: [/b]



Oh Gheez!!!!!!!! Have I been running in the wrong class (ITR) this year? :D

[JeffYoung]

Dan, I think all BMWs make 100hp more than stock, and should run in GT1 only.

I&#39;m kidding.....

How are the racing efforts going this year?

[Joe Harlan]

How so? I know for a fact that expected hp gains on the BMW are what put its process weight at 3100 lbs +

What I don&#39;t know for a fact is what its process weight would be running a straight calculation of the stock reported hp (which was low in and of itself by the way, BMW is notorious for that)
[/b]What you are missing is there is more than one divider and has to be. gains for vtec and vanos are going to be different than the gains for FI v Carb in and 2 valve v 4 valve. Known issues do have to be considered and I agree with that. I don&#39;t have a problem considering all those things. My issue in this case is that those things were not properly factored when when squeezing two different models into one classification. ANd if they were then the ITAC should have errored on the conservative side and based the new classification on the NEW KNOWN base HP number.

[JeffYoung]

Joe, I think we fundamentally agree but I don&#39;t think you understand my point. I think we both agree that the "process" cannot be entirely objective due to the factors you mention.

I was using the 325 to illustrate this. If you just used a straight "stock" BMW hp number to calculate the BMW&#39;s weight -- AND NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT VANOS, EXPECTED IT GAINS, ETC. -- you get a much lower weight than is "fair" for that car and the class. I agree with you that you have to take those things inot account, and when you do the process weight is 3100 lbs + (or something like that).

I guess where we disagree is on this point. I do agree that in a perfect world, the 94 Miatas should have been run through at 133 hp, instead of 128. I just don&#39;t think that the 5 hp difference matters that much and in my view (at least until I saw Greg&#39;s post about this maybe equaling 100 lbs or so, which is right on the border of what I - subjectively - consider signficant) is within the range of background noise for the process.

Hope that is clearer.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, I think we fundamentally agree but I don&#39;t think you understand my point. I think we both agree that the "process" cannot be entirely objective due to the factors you mention.

I was using the 325 to illustrate this. If you just used a straight "stock" BMW hp number to calculate the BMW&#39;s weight -- AND NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT VANOS, EXPECTED IT GAINS, ETC. -- you get a much lower weight than is "fair" for that car and the class. I agree with you that you have to take those things inot account, and when you do the process weight is 3100 lbs + (or something like that).

I guess where we disagree is on this point. I do agree that in a perfect world, the 94 Miatas should have been run through at 133 hp, instead of 128. I just don&#39;t think that the 5 hp difference matters that much and in my view (at least until I saw Greg&#39;s post about this maybe equaling 100 lbs or so, which is right on the border of what I - subjectively - consider signficant) is within the range of background noise for the process.

Hope that is clearer.
[/b]

Much clearer. Think about the fact that in a low HP car that is a 4% difference in models. At what percentage do we pay attention? Again even that is not enough to get me wound up. I am of the belief that the 94/to 3 of 95 model had lower compression and that is how the lighter weight was calculated. I am working on those answers today.

[JeffYoung]

Good points, and sorry I was not clear before.

Let me know what you find out about the hp issue. 5 hp could be significant, I frankly just don&#39;t have enough race experience to say whether it is or isn&#39;t. Open to hearing more on this. We do a need a "line" fo what is objectively significant.

Of course, drawing that line is subjective......

[seckerich]

Oh Gheez!!!!!!!! Have I been running in the wrong class (ITR) this year? :D
[/b]
Quit lurking and go back to sleep. :D

[Chris Wire]

Greg, and I don&#39;t mean this in a disrespectful way, but in my view, there is absolutely no way to remove some subjectivity from the process. You can just run straight numbers on horsepower and weight, but that would be unfair to cars like yours, and mine, that have decent numbers and other huge handicaps (drum brakes, live rears, struts, etc.)

Once you agree that a straight hp/weight calculation (using ONLY stock hp and ONLY stock weight, and not "expected IT gains" or "expected IT weight" which woudl again involve subjective evaluations) won&#39;t work, then you can&#39;t get around having some fudge factors involved.

To me, what we have now is the lesser of many evils. We have as formulaic of a process AS IS POSSIBLE and a decent and well meaning group of guys trying to defend it. There will always be "fudge" decisions that not everyone agrees with, but that is the nature of having a group of human beings make decisions.
[/b]

Agreed 100% :OLA:

Could not have said it better myself.

But I can see the GA/JH point, I just don&#39;t think it will be the gun that kills the golden goose.

See if I have this right:

ITS RX7
Early car - 146 hp
Late car - 160 hp
Weight using process based on 160 hp.

ITA Miata
Early car - 128 hp
Late car - 133 hp
Weight using process based on 128 hp

That&#39;s the argument right? The Miata received something that other cars in the process didn&#39;t? OK. I can appreciate that argument. However, given that there are "adders" and "hp gains in IT trim", and that both of those are subjective assumptions based on the best available information, do we really think that it&#39;s possible to balance the IT field using a TOTALLY objective formula (as opposed to a "process")? Or that we would even want what that would result in?

I don&#39;t believe so. And I thank Andy, Jake, and everyone else for putting in the time to get it as right as I currently believe it to be.

And BTW, I always understood that the restructuring would be a "process", rather than a strict "formula".

[Knestis]

To clarify something, Jeff - I don&#39;t think anyone is proposing using JUST stock published HP to determine race weights.

I also (personally) have no objection to the concept of "adders" or "subtractors" based on physical attributes of the car - IRS, rear discs, aero drag (NOT just Cd, which is a dimensionless derived factor and means NOTHING without considering frontal or other area measurements), variable valve optimization systems, six-speed gearboxes, flux capacitors, or any number of other substantive, observable characteristic of the car.


The ITS RX-7 would be 2580 lbs
The ITA CRX would be 1957 lbs
ITB would be dominated by the 12A RX-7 at 2146 lbs[/b]

...and to trot out rotaries as examples of how "a formula won&#39;t work" is disingenuous in the extreme. That&#39;s an entirely different type of powerplant, about which a good body of knowledge HAS been accumulated. But there&#39;s a world of difference between "rotaries gain XX% in IT trim" and "the Protege is known to have particularly lousy exhaust port configurations" (or whatever). The NX reportedly gets VERY lucky in this particular respect, and gains from the allowable porting but that doesn&#39;t mean that it should have a different power-making multiplier applied for the purposes of defining race weights.

Because the point at which the unit of granularity for adjusting factors used in the "process" becomes individual make/model examples, we are headed right down the path after Production."

I just threw out an old email exchange w/Andy ("So you call it a competition adjustment?" I think it was titled) in which I made exactly the same argument. The point at which our "knowledge" about things like how much power a car makes or how good it handles, is in terms of what has been demonstrated on the track, setting weights based on that information proactively is functionally no difference than post-hoc adjustments based on winners and losers.

Spanky - there&#39;s a ton of history here but you need to buy a beer for some folks who have been around long enough to watch what that does to a category over time. The short version is that driver skill, budget, testing, engineering development, and time spent have a much greater impact on competitiveness than do the mechanical attributes of a given car. If you want to get lead on your Borgward because someone somewhere has built a really good one and kicked someone else&#39;s butts with HIS Borgward, that&#39;s great. Particularly if you don&#39;t know if his Borgward is even legal. But I&#39;ve watched that work and do NOT want to have any part of it in IT.

K

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, as always, good points.

To clarify mine - once you agree that we can&#39;t exclusively use objective numbers (and stock hp and weight aren&#39;t even that really, since we can argue about BMW reporting low hp numbers) we have acknowledged that there has to be some subjectivity in the process. We then end up with arguments like this -- how much fudge is ok? is a 5 hp difference significant? what cars have demonstrably better hp reactions to IT gains than others, etc.?

These arguments are in my view necessary evils. I will debate with folks over WHAT subjective factors should be used (as few as possible) and WHEN (as infrequently as possible), but to say that the system needs to be 100% objectice is (in my view, subjectively..lol) asking for something that is impossible to achieve.

I agree with Chris. RIGHT NOW, our system is been run in a way that for me anyway, works. ITS in the SEDiv is booming. Cars are equal, and competitive. I&#39;ve seen fast Z cars, fast RX7s, fast Acuras, fast Miatas, even fast BMWs, and I like it.

If we went to a purely objective system, we&#39;d have a class killer in every class, and that would not be healthy.

I do fully admit and agree that this system is open to corruption.

[Knestis]

What you are calling "fudge" (I think), is what evaluation geeks like me think of as "error." That&#39;s the slop in a measurement (plus or minus) around some value, that we just can&#39;t chase out. It&#39;s the "plus or minus 3%" that you hear about when survey results are cited on the news, or the tolerances that represent "close enough" when we take a part to the machine shop.

If that&#39;s the case, then YES - there is a point at which the weight (it&#39;s the output of the formula) is "close enough," too. To my mind, 50# is pretty damned close - 2% on a 2500# car? Heck yeah. Upwards of 5% starts to get "real" in a hurry though, I think.

And I don&#39;t give a damn (Scarlett) about individual car&#39;s "hp reactions to IT gains." If it&#39;s the difference between rotary and piston pumps - significant mechanical attributes? Sure. Years ago when I started agitating for a "formula," I argued for using displacement as the input, rather than stated HP, perhaps with considerations for technology (e.g., EFI vs carb vs those crappy hybrids in between).

I think the "killer in every class" is more of a fear than a demonstrated reality but I sure do appreciate how we want to avoid that. Problem is, subjectivity brings its own set of evils and i worry more about the power of that to mess things up.

BUT to be clear - right NOW, things are better than they&#39;ve ever been. All the better reason to try to keep it that way.

K

[JeffYoung]

A healthy debate, Rhett....or is it Ashley? That&#39;s a joke......sorry, a bad one.

Just three quick things to clarify my thoughts here:

1. When I say "fudge" I perhaps mean it in a sloppy way that encompasses two ideas: (a) the natural error that occurs in processes that you mention AND (B) the subjective factors that the ITAC used in adjusting weights on IT cars. I think both are necessary parts of the process. You can&#39;t ever entirely get rid of (a) fudge. You have to have (B) fudge to smooth out any obvious inequities that the system/process can&#39;t account for objectively.

2. And one of the key ones there is the gains a motor realizes in IT trim. My car is a prime example. If you took my stock power (133), and ran the process, you&#39;d get some ludicurously low weight that would (as my car becomes increasingly competitive) not be fair to the rest of IT. I think my weight is fair as is, but it is WAY higher than what the process would generate at 133 hp. E36 also had gains like this. So too do rotaries. All of these cars need to have a mechanism that reigns them in some, otherwise you&#39;d have, as Andy notes, ITB RX7s running all over the class...or a return to the 210 whp E36s that almost killed my class.

This to me is a necessary, and subjective (although I think the present ITAC has done a great job in using documented examples only) factor that must be concerend.

3. Class killers from the objective process. It&#39;s real. I was in a class that had one. If you use BMW&#39;s stock hp of 189 crank (instead of documented 205-215 whp) to get to a process weight for the E36 of 2850 lbs then we have a big problem.

We agree on your last point. IT is ROCKIN&#39;. In no small part due to the stuff that gets thrashed around on this board. So many thanks to the guys who participate in the civil debate here.

You going to hillclimb in Banner Elk in August or is Pablo now afraid of la montangas grande?

[WillM]

GawDAMMIT, another one of those stupid Miata memes that always suck me in.

"Better aero"??? Where in the WORLD are you guys getting that the aerodynamics of a Miata are poor and the NX are good? All "you guys" claim the aero on a Miata is poor, yet it&#39;s a small, round package, smaller and more aerodynamic than just about anything out there. Have you actually SEEN this size and shape of my car (or its brother, the Sentra SE-R)? You actually think the aerodynamics on my car are "good"?

I suspect "you got this from looking at Road and Track Cd results on the original car, when it was tested using a soft top. Clue: Cd is a relative term, and is not a direct indication of the amount of pounds-force of total aerodynamic drag (what REALLY is important here). And, last I heard, you&#39;re allowed to use a hardtop, making it an even nicer aero package.

I&#39;d LOVE to see some data on this supposed Miata "aero" disadvantage.[/b]



So, if you want to get into a semantics pissing match let&#39;s handle it this way: I rescind my statement that the Miata is aerodynamic, compared to other vehicles. Ergo, we are left with the original claim that the Miata has poor aerodynamics.

Prove it.

You guys just can&#39;t seem to accept that the world doesn&#39;t revolve around you...
[/b]

The real Cd of a 1990-1997 Miata, with top, is 0.38, which agrees with my gut feeling that the aerodynamics "suck". Topless, the Cd is 0.44, which also agrees with my gut feeling that the top-down aerodynamics "really suck".

The 0.38 and 0.44 numbers were provided by Bob Hall "The Father of the Miata", from Mazda&#39;s California design studio.

[Knestis]

Argh.

Cd is NOT aero drag. Read up before you make statements about something.

K

[Jake]

... seem to eliminate barriers to addressing some of the &#39;tweener cases, where individual makes/models can&#39;t be reclassified downward without exceeding the maximum weight allowed for a given roll cage tubing size.

[/b]

:rolleyes: Perhaps we should.... :unsure: oh nevermind...

[Z3_GoCar]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the Z3 was ORIGINALLY clased at 2675....the adjusted to 2600....

Still doesn&#39;t seem remarkably different from a Miata to me....except the weight :023:
Back to your debate.
[/b]

Not to mention mac struts in the front and antique trailing arms in the rear. You&#39;d think that at the weight they classed it at you&#39;d be seeing 160hp at the wheels on your dyno-pac.

Kessler built and 135hp 136tq?? sounds like you&#39;ve got big gains there class killer :P

[77ITA]

one was complaining that they get beaten by &#39;Nationally prepped&#39; big-money SM&#39;s and actually suggested that ALL SM&#39;s be required to run a restrictor [in ITA] to slow them to "Regional pace" but more importantly to discourage dual entries alltogether. (This letter was VERY well written and done with lots of respect.)

[/b]

Thank you, this was my letter.

*edit, see my next post*

[tnord]

so jeff....

if a car that is inherantly disadvantaged by the rules it adheres to, but yet manages to be faster than you, you think that&#39;s unfair and want to regulate them out of existance?

[77ITA]

so jeff....

if a car that is inherantly disadvantaged by the rules it adheres to, but yet manages to be faster than you, you think that&#39;s unfair and want to regulate them out of existance?
[/b]

I would like to politely explain that you have missed my point entirely and the best way I can think to do that is by posting the e-mail I sent to the CRB. This is not about one car being better than another.


Hello,

My name is Jeff and I am an ITA competitor in Midiv. I&#39;m writing today to share my opinions regarding spec Miata prepared cars competing in ITA. I would appreciate your full consideration of my input as I feel representative of many in my opinion.

I&#39;m sure you are all well aware of the increasing popularity of spec Miata. The class really is a great thing for the SCCA and has created an overwhelming surge of excitement in club racing. As a licensed driver, I fully recognize and appreciate this benefit while maintaining an understanding of how delicate the BoD is when making changes that effect the class.

The above being said, I am starting to recognize a conceptual issue. As with any spec class, cubic dollars win races. While a large percentage of spec Miatas seem to be cheater cars, it&#39;s the legal ones that bother me. Like it or not, there are $30,000 spec Miatas being built, bought, and sold as if trading cards. I fully respect and admire the preparation and craftsmanship of the fastest national-level cars, but this brings me to the conceptual issue. There are national level cars being run in a regional class.

At any given weekend within Midiv, the IT race becomes the playground of spec Miata drivers looking for a quick trophy and/or additional track time. Most of the cars being raced are significantly under-prepared for the class (running only in spec miata trim) yet still seem to run away from the regional level cars in the class. It&#39;s almost as if there are two separate races going on at the same time... regional IT racers in the back fighting for positions amongst themselves, and the national level spec Miatas with a merely a piece of tape covering the "SM" having their own race amongst themselves.

I&#39;d like to pause here to mention that this is not a vendetta against the Miata in ITA. This is not a complaint because there are cars faster than mine. This is a disgusting observation of national level cars and big-budget spec class drivers using ITA as a playground for additional track time and a quick trophy or points victory.

I&#39;m sure the BoD gets letters all the time that complain about this and that, but offer no suggestions. You&#39;ll all be happy to hear that my letter doesn&#39;t leave you empty handed like others may.

I propose a solution to this problem by supporting the idea of a required restrictor plate on any spec Miata prepared car choosing to run an ITA race. This plate is to be designed to slow the cars to the pace of regional level cars, but more importantly to discourage the dual entry in the first place.

Percentage wise, regional level blue collar drivers make up the majority of this club and there is a reason that National classes exist separately. If there is much worry of angering the spec Miata drivers by taking away their extra track time, please create a "spec Miata #2" so they can have more time to play with their cubic dollars.

thank you all for your time and I look forward to some changes in the future.

Your&#39;s truely,

-Jeff, whom can finish 4th behind three national level spec Miatas and still feel like the winner

[tnord]

Jeff as someone who competes in the same division, with a miata, in ITA, i know that what you believe to be true is not actually the case.

i looked back through every result i could find for you in mylaps, and the schiefflers are the only two people i can find who run ITA with any regularity at all and have "national" level cars, and they are officially members of CenDiv.

it&#39;s ironic that in your letter you mention that the level of spending of national SM drivers is so absurd that they shouldn&#39;t even have the right to compete in whatever class their car fits, because the only guy that i know of in MiDiv that competes in a real ITA Miata probably has at least as much in it as any of the SMs.

the guys who regularly run MiDiv with SMs do not have &#39;national&#39; level cars in the least. Todd Prather, Ed Mabry, Bill Pemberton, Steve Eberman, Steve/Theresa Pistora, Roman Kickirillo, Casey Zandbergen, and myself all have legitimate regional level cars. I can only speak for myself, but I don&#39;t think any of these guys have much more invested than I do, and I&#39;ve got less than $15k in it. I don&#39;t know Roman at all, but just from the fact that he doesn&#39;t run many races leads me to believe it&#39;s not one of "those 30k cars."

i am probably one of the poorest guys at the track, and spend less than $700/weekend.....a texas mile away from "cubic dollars." the reason i started running IT last year was becuase with the spec toyo rule in SM, i had access to tons of very cheap tires not legal for SM. NOT because i was looking for a &#39;quick trophy.&#39;

[Bill Miller]

BRB, need a new bucked of popcorn!

Kirk,

I can&#39;t believe you&#39;re actually involved in this discussion. :dead_horse:

[Jake]

There are national level cars being run in a regional class.
[/b]


I can appreciate your letter. But Jeff, it&#39;s not just the Miaters!

Jake No-stranger-to-racing-$30K-IT-cars Fisher

[charrbq]

Jeff, you shot yourself in the foot when you stated that most Miatas are cheaters. Even if you were right, no one making or associated with making the rules wants to hear that from anyone wanting a favor from them. I doubt that your letter made it much farther than the shredder.

[Knestis]

Sorry (ITA) Jeff. You are off-base in several really important ways.

1. There is no such thing as "regional" and "national" levels of preparation. You just happen to race in a small pond where (absent your problem with the Miatas) it seems ITA drivers can run for trophies with sub-par equipment.

2. If SM&#39;s are beating up on your ITA cars, it&#39;s not the SMs that are the problem.

3. I&#39;m not the biggest SM fan in the world but by the same token, I recognize that the guys who run up front do so because the Miata is a fundamentally excellent platform that responds to nth-degree tweaking, the drivers can drive, they test and race a LOT, and ... see #2.

It is NOT the CRB&#39;s job to protect your regional competitiveness. If you get beat and think those beating you are cheated up, protest. If you get beat and don&#39;t think they are illegal, get faster. Particularly if we&#39;re talking about cars that are at a much lower specification than the category allows.

There&#39;s another factor, too - I daresay that it&#39;s awfully tempting for one to think that he&#39;s getting everything out of the equipment but I&#39;ll tell you that having a string of guys like Jeff Lawton, Greg Amy, Phil Phillips, and Jon Kofod share my ride reminds me of the realities involved in that dilusion.

K

[lateapex911]

Sorry to have not responded to some queries...been at work.

I see some misconceptions regarding the process.

Generally, the process seeks to class cars into four performance envelopes It uses factory hp ratings, and applies gains that are expected from IT prep. Now, as there are different architectures of engines out there, and we class cars from the 70s thru the 2000s, we deal with a wide range of potential, and we choose from a range of potential gains. Obviously, different architectures get treated differently. We use a framework to choose the gain, then draw on the collective knowledge of the 9 ITAC members and the CRB liasions (when asked) to run "sanity checks".

Also, we apply adders and subtractors to account for a cars mechanical makeup....killer brakes, IRS, etc. Sometimes those stack up, sometimes they cancel out.

Finally, we consider if the weight makes sense. Does it fit the class? Can the car get to the weight?

In the end, it is realized that no formula or process will ever be absolutely perfect, and the system has methods of dealing with gross mistakes.

Ideally, we see some cars that excel on some tracks when prepped to the nines and driven by Gods, but are merely adequate on others...and vice versa, but it&#39;s impossible to draw super fine conclusions about the math from on track erformances as the variables are just too great.

The amount of weight that would result from a 5 hp "misclass" varies depending on the class of course. In this case, it&#39;s well below the 105 number that was suggested.

One other point....IF there was a misclass, was it really 5 hp? I see some opinions here that the ECU issue is responsible, if so, it&#39;s a moot point...but I also see opinions that a late year compression bump is responsible. I&#39;d think that in reality, IF those numbers are accurate, it&#39;s a combination, so we&#39;re really talking about a possible 2 - 2.5 hp misclass. Which is a weight misclass, off the top of my head, in the 25 -35 pound range, give or take a pound or two.

[Joe Harlan]

So why is it so hard to admit that the process was not applied to this car the same as all the others? It has been shown time and time again that other models have been run through the process at the higher number. Why not just admit you stepped on it, fix it and we can all move on.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So why is it so hard to admit that the process was not applied to this car the same as all the others? It has been shown time and time again that other models have been run through the process at the higher number. Why not just admit you stepped on it, fix it and we can all move on. [/b]

What other time was the same situation as this again Joe? Seriously, just stop it. The timeframes and the logic have been explained. I would do the same for any car if the same information was applicable. If you want to argue what the &#39;right&#39; weight is, fine - but we are at a dead end in terms of the application of the process. Nobody seems to want to comment on my TR8 example.

I counter with - why is it so hard to undertand that we do what we think is right, within the framework of a process, with over 15 individuals used as a check and balance. It IS the reason IT is where it is today. Darin started it, we carry the torch.

[Z3_GoCar]

.....The amount of weight that would result from a 5 hp "misclass" varies depending on the class of course. In this case, it&#39;s well below the 105 number that was suggested.

One other point....IF there was a misclass, was it really 5 hp? I see some opinions here that the ECU issue is responsible, if so, it&#39;s a moot point...but I also see opinions that a late year compression bump is responsible. I&#39;d think that in reality, IF those numbers are accurate, it&#39;s a combination, so we&#39;re really talking about a possible 2 - 2.5 hp misclass. Which is a weight misclass, off the top of my head, in the 25 -35 pound range, give or take a pound or two.
[/b]

Jake,

If 5hp is that small of a difference then why would the Z3 be classed at 2600lbs when it starts at 7hp more. Seems to me the weight should even be less than the miata, after all it has the suspension of a super-bettle. Either the 1.8l Miata should be at least 2575lbs, or the Z3 should be at a maximum of 2400lbs. There&#39;s not more than 50cc that seperates them in displacement 1839->1895, 133hp->140hp, 2380lbs->2600lbs, seems to me someones been hosed. 220lbs for a 7hp difference doesn&#39;t equate with a 25-35lb range for a 2-2.5 hp difference. By that factor it should be within 75-125lbs and probably even less than that given the suspension factors and the frontal area. Just admit the MX-5 has been given a special pass to get the SM&#39;ers to participate.

James

[Joe Harlan]

What other time was the same situation as this again Joe? Seriously, just stop it. The timeframes and the logic have been explained. I would do the same for any car if the same information was applicable. If you want to argue what the &#39;right&#39; weight is, fine - but we are at a dead end in terms of the application of the process. Nobody seems to want to comment on my TR8 example.

I counter with - why is it so hard to undertand that we do what we think is right, within the framework of a process, with over 15 individuals used as a check and balance. It IS the reason IT is where it is today. Darin started it, we carry the torch.
[/b]

Andy, Please do not jerk me off. Do you think Darin created the process in a box? Do you think it was anyones intent to apply the said process differently on the same car? The TR8 is a piss poor example considering that its 100year old technology but yes the FI model should be what the weight is based from since the car can actually use either.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let&#39;s just end this unproductive bickering. The initial classification was made at the process weight. The request for the &#39;uprated&#39; car was made, and instead of creating two spec lines, we combined them knowing what we knew. I would do it again for any car. If you don&#39;t like that kind of philosophy, write it and ask for the general &#39;thinking&#39; to be reviewed. It is an exceptional circumstance, one of which certainly doesn&#39;t employ a &#39;special pass&#39; but one that would be taken for any car. Done.

[Knestis]

Lets say an early TR8&#39;s came with 130hp. That one gets classed. Later, a request for a &#39;later one&#39; come through. Mechnically identical excelt for a &#39;better&#39; carb that adds 5hp to the rating. But wait! The TR8 can upgrade to one of 5 different Weber varients that are vastly superior to either stock carb per the GCR. [/b]
Sorry - I thought my case was clear and didn&#39;t know that not responding to this specific example would be put forth as evidence that my argument was weak.

In this case, I presume that the weight of the TR8 was set taking into consideration the alternate carb options. Or more accurately, that the alternate carbs were allowed only in keeping with the fact that the weight had been established with the better of the two OE options, and that the allowance wouldn&#39;t give the car a signficant advantage OVER either of those options.

(I need to interject - again - that I am totally OK with the idea that an &#39;80s generation V8 is going to realize different gains in IT trim than, say a 1999 VTEC Honda Civic, and that it&#39;s appropriate to take that generalization into account when the weights are set.)

All that said, this example case is NOT the same as what we are talking about here.

In the real case in question, there are only two induction systems in question. Both of them are OE systems, both are available on cars listed on the applicable spec line, and one of them makes more power in stock form than the other. The process considers stock power SO, to the degree that 5hp makes a difference in the outcome race weight, AND because the up- and back-date rule allows an entrant to use either system, the higher power figure should have been used to establish the race weight.

If you ran the two cars through the process separately, and did NOT want to allow up- and back-dating (say they were different body styles, so thought of as different cars on separate spec lines), then they&#39;d be listed at different weights, right?

K

[Z3_GoCar]

The fact still remains that you can&#39;t explain a 220lb weight difference based on only a 7hp difference, if that was so, then add 180lbs to the &#39;95-&#39;97 1.8l miata or add 180lbs to all of them and keep them on the same line. If you feel the 1.8l Miata is correctly classed then you should lower the weight of the Z3 to 2400lbs, and move the rest of the e-36 chassis to ITB as they&#39;re not able to get down to weight as it is.

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

In the real case in question, there are only two induction systems in question. Both of them are OE systems, both are available on cars listed on the applicable spec line, and one of them makes more power in stock form than the other. The process considers stock power SO, to the degree that 5hp makes a difference in the outcome race weight, AND because the up- and back-date rule allows an entrant to use either system, the higher power figure should have been used to establish the race weight.

If you ran the two cars through the process separately, and did NOT want to allow up- and back-dating (say they were different body styles, so thought of as different cars on separate spec lines), then they&#39;d be listed at different weights, right?

K [/b]

One induction system Kirk. Identical pieces except for the ECU and harness.

Yes they would be at different weights - just like I have said all along. AND like I have said, the listing would look STUPID and make NO sense as the cars would be 100% identical in IT trip. SO to have a 90lb difference seems a little silly. So the question then becomes, what number do you use. Since the early car was classed already, and the hp bump was due to an improvement in a &#39;free&#39; item, the 128hp number was deemed satisfactory for a combination of the cars. The only issue to think about in terms of this weight being &#39;soft&#39; is if the car made more like 133 or 128. It&#39;s a fact that the stock numbers are high for their actual output. My SM dyno&#39;d at 105hp without restrictor plate...but that type of info isn&#39;t what anyone wants to hear.

Again, we did what we thought was logical and resonable. I am done defending it.

[Z3_GoCar]

...My SM dyno&#39;d at 105hp without restrictor plate...but that type of info isn&#39;t what anyone wants to hear.

Again, we did what we thought was logical and resonable. I am done defending it.
[/b]

Precisely where it should have 1.22x105 = 128. You did say yours is a &#39;94....

James

[Knestis]

One induction system Kirk. Identical pieces except for the ECU and harness.

Yes they would be at different weights ... SO to have a 90lb difference seems a little silly. So the question then becomes, what number do you use. Since the early car was classed already, and the hp bump was due to an improvement in a &#39;free&#39; item, the 128hp number was deemed satisfactory for a combination of the cars. ...[/b]
Got it. I&#39;m confident that I understand what happened, the key being the bit I bolded.

I&#39;ll continue to be worried (the new Z3 question being an example) that by diddling with the system in this case, in the interest of symmetry and expediency, we&#39;ve opened the barn door just a little further. Ultimately, I don&#39;t think races are going to be won or lost strictly because of that 90 pounds but the more instances of this kind of practice we see, the shakier the ground becomes under the positive changes of the last couple years.

I don&#39;t know if this is ITAC practice or not, but it might be a VERY good idea to document the thought processes, adders, tweaks, and other considerations (per the above) for prosperity and future ITACs.** When Andy gets tired of people beating him up and someone else inherits the torch, things could get ugly fast and some institutional knowledge of what has gone before would help damp out impending craziness.

K

** EDIT - I mean for each car listed. Establish a file of sorts that explains how each race weight was arrived at, to contribute to consistency in the future.

[Greg Amy]

You know, it&#39;s AMAZING how walking away from the keyboard for three days, and actually going racing, can go a long way towards making you simply NOT CARE about this drivel. Truly.

But, at the risk of stirring it up again - I REALLY do not intend to - I have an honest series of questions. No hidden agenda, no attacks, no ulterior intent. I&#39;m truly curious.

Andy, you state the reason we got the weights with the Miata was because the &#39;94 was classified first and the &#39;96+ followed. Yo comprendez. However - and think about this and answer me honestly - in YOUR OPINION:

- If the &#39;96/97 had been classified first in the vacuum - as the &#39;94/95 was apparently done - Would the weight of the cars still be the same, or would they be ~105# heavier?
- If they would be heavier, why hold out that reasoning as to why they&#39;re at the lower weight (or why they haven&#39;t been changed)?
- If they would still be at the lighter weight, why the inconsistency?
- What if they were classified at the same exact time; what would you have used as the base hp?

Note that "I dunno" is a perfect answer to this hypothetical question. What I&#39;m looking for here is consistency of your thought process or to determine if I&#39;m misunderstanding. - Greg

[Andy Bettencourt]

You know, it&#39;s AMAZING how walking away from the keyboard for three days, and actually going racing, can go a long way towards making you simply NOT CARE about this drivel. Truly.

But, at the risk of stirring it up again - I REALLY do not intend to - I have an honest series of questions. No hidden agenda, no attacks, no ulterior intent. I&#39;m truly curious.

Andy, you state the reason we got the weights with the Miata was because the &#39;94 was classified first and the &#39;96+ followed. Yo comprendez. However - and think about this and answer me honestly - in YOUR OPINION:

1. If the &#39;96/97 had been classified first in the vacuum - as the &#39;94/95 was apparently done - Would the weight of the cars still be the same, or would they be ~105# heavier?
2. If not, why the inconsistency?
3. If so, why hold out the above as the reason they&#39;re at the lower weight?
4. What if they were classified at the same exact time; what would you have used as the base hp?

Note that "I dunno" is a perfect answer to this hypothetical question. What I&#39;m looking for here is consistency of your thought process or to determine if I&#39;m misunderstanding. - Greg
[/b]

I numbered your questions for reference...all IMHO.

1. If the 96/97 were classified first, I am confident that it would have been done at the 133hp level, then the decision would have to have been made whether to seperate the 128hp car into it&#39;s own spec line - or to combine it. Citing the same &#39;the classifications would look stupid because the cars are the same in IT prep&#39;, I would have voted to combine them at the first classification weight (the higher) becasue it would have been already in the books. Knowing what I know about the power levels of the motors and why they got there, the classification would be a bit heavy but that is a sacrifice I think we have to make given the granularity of the process - and in the name of trying to make the GCR make sense.

2. Not applicable

3. I am not sure I understand what you are asking. As has been stated ad-nauseum, the classification was done on the 128hp car. When the 133hp car was requested, we looked at the cars and knew that the only difference was a free item per the rules. In the same thought process, it was voted to combine at the lower weight because that one was already done. Frankly, people who know these motors will tell you that using the 128 number is a much better representation of a proper classification than a hp rating from ECU tuning. But that is just mental suport for a decision that made sense to us. Like I said in many posts, I would do it for any car where the situation was similar. I still feel my TR8 example is VERY valid. Early car comes in at X and gets classed, later car gets requested at 5 more hp because of a different carb - which will be eliminated anywany under the allowances, it is logical to me...just as if the reverse happened and it turned out &#39;heavy&#39;.

4. If they were classed at the same time I would have voted for the 133hp number to be used. &#39;Local knowledge&#39; of the motors aside, the groups shouldn&#39;t be proactively nit-picking IMHO. But since this was a done deal on the lower side, we applied what we thought was common sense. You may not agree with the result, but I do feel the &#39;thought&#39; process is consistant. It&#39;s a rare situation for sure but as stated if it came up again with any other car, I would go that way.

So in the end, if you look at this with all the facts, I feel the resultant combination doesn&#39;t ACTUALLY put the 1.8 Miata light, it nails it per the process. If it were classed using later numbers, it would have been heavy - but the timing was the main factor dictating that decision now that you have made me play it out in my head. The result is not a &#39;soft&#39; classification but an accurate one based on timing and the knowledge that forced us to draw upon. Could we be wrong? You bet. But we stand by our decision.

That is the best I can explain it.

In addition, I communicated through official channels to the CRB last year about the car and my build. SInce the cars was RIGHT ON it&#39;s weight limit for the cage rules, I asked if the car could be increased in weight should the car enter consideration for a PCA. The official reply was &#39;yes, there is precident for that&#39;.

[tnord]

i have never wanted to start writing 5 figure checks to buy the needed equipment to make my car fast so bad as i do right now. i just may even fly down for the ARRC, and do my best to help out every miata i can find in hopes of one winning and consequently kicking huge wads of sand in everyones already irritable vagina.

:114:

[Greg Amy]

That is the best I can explain it.[/b]
I sincerely appreciate your honesty and consistency. At least we disagree for the right reasons. - GA

[ddewhurst]

Racerlinn, I got plenty of beer but more nuts are required.

[Knestis]

...and it reinforces what I had already come to think - that expediency was the ultimate factor.

Since the weight was already set for some of the cars that would end up on that spec line, it was decided to not stir up a hornets&#39; nest by appearing to add weight to existing cars, to make the system work based on the later ones.

I can completely see how that would have been badly received - there would have been a lot of shrieking from people who had just committed to the ITA Miata - but ultimately, I submit that the downside of this kind of decision eventually outweighs the immediate bitching that would probably have resulted, and then subsided.

At the end of the day CONSISTENCY of application of the process is going to be of more value to the category than will any number of instances of "being right" that might arise from diddling with it. Next time this choice comes up, maybe the ITAC can jam through the option that seems harder at the time.

K