How does 7hp=220lbs??

[Z3_GoCar]

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's a moot point...but I also see opinions that a late year compression bump is responsible. I'd think that in reality, IF those numbers are accurate, it's a combination, so we'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]
The facts:

the '94 miata 1839cc motor originally came out with 128hp and was classed at 2380lbs

the '95-'97 miata 1839cc motor was improved and uprated to 133hp, an increase of 5hp, and was added as is no additional weight.

the '96-'98 Z3 1895cc motor was rated at 140hp was originally classed at 2675lbs and has been brought down to 2600lbs

I think that Jakes states pretty clearly here that 2.5hp -> in a 25-35lbs of weight so by this we get 7hp -> in 75-120lbs of weight. So how does 133hp -> 140hp equate to 220lbs?? If on the other hand 7hp does infact justify 220lbs, then 1hp -> 31lbs and the 1.8l Miata should gain 150lbs at a minimum. If on the other hand the Miata is correctly classed the the Z3 should drop at least 150lbs. Seems pretty simple to me.


James

[JeffYoung]

Now we are really starting to sound like the production board.

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey Jeff,

I thought this line deserved a new topic rather than carry on the back of the last Fastrak. If anything Rob's shown that the car doesn't make the expected gain. Not only that, the fact that let's just slip the Miata in at the same weight.... Doesn't that run counter to how every other cars has been classed?

If it sounds like Prod, then there must be funny business going on.

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

James,

Take look at everything in ITA with 140hp. 240SX - Integra - all at or around 2600lbs. SE-R and NX are less but 'benefit' from an 'adder' for being both FWD and having front struts. The difference in weight (if you are following this thread at all) is actually 12hp as the 94-95 was classed usiing it's stock number because that was the years that were requested for classification. 12hp stock is assumed to be 15hp in IT trim and in ITA that is approximately 217.5lbs.

[Z3_GoCar]

James,

Take look at everything in ITA with 140hp. 240SX - Integra - all at or around 2600lbs. SE-R and NX are less but 'benefit' from an 'adder' for being both FWD and having front struts. The difference in weight (if you are following this thread at all) is actually 12hp as the 94-95 was classed usiing it's stock number because that was the years that were requested for classification. 12hp stock is assumed to be 15hp in IT trim and in ITA that is approximately 217.5lbs.
[/b]

The 240SX is a red herring, because it's making 140hp from a 2389cc's and has a fully independant double a-arm rear suspension, just like the miata.

The Integra makes it's 140hp from only 1835cc, four less than the 1839cc's of the miata. The fact remains that there's no reason why the miata was classed at 128hp, when it makes 133hp and is of a displacement that it should be making 140hp. The reality is that the miata and the Z3 should be really close in weight, if that's about 2600lbs then so be it, but you can't defend the miata at 2380, that's just ludicrous.

James

[JeffYoung]

James, there are probably hundreds of examples of such "inequities" in the ITCS. Part of buying in to the ITAC's process is understanding that it is not perfect. We can't have absolute parity nor is that the intent. When we think that we can, and try to achieve, we end up arguing using analogies like your above.

We are getting all bunched up over a 5 hp difference between the 94-5 and later Miatas that in my view just doesn't matter. Like I said, there are probably hundreds of these and there is just no way to correct them all.

If you think your car is classed at the wrong weight, don't argue that it should be changed by making comparisons to another car. Ask Jake and/or Andy or anyone on the ITAC to show you how they arrived at the weight in question using the process.

What the Miata weighs vis a vis your car really has nothing to do with what your car should weigh. Use the process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

While I appreciate Jeff's comments (he has working knowledge of the process as he was on the sub-committee that created ITR, and the weights), I don't think that 5hp is insignificant. It means 90lbs in ITA. It means 80lbs in ITS. It means something like 117lbs in ITC. It IS significant to some. Me included.

What I just want people to be comfortable with is that we did what we thought was right. I am confident that we would do it again in a heartbeat should the sutuation arise again - any make and model in the universe. We believe 100% that ALL the 94-97 Miata's are exactly the same in IT trim. If the classification requests came down at the same time, I believe 100% that the higher number would have been used - not because I think it is any more or less accurate, but just because of the timing. As it was, since one was already classed, it was decided that since the piece of equipment responsible for the hp bump was free in IT, that it was ok to combine them at the already published weight.

(edit: The 240SX is NOT like the Miata suspension. It has a very different upper link-based design that does not react well to lowering without special bushings, Joe knows the details and can fill us in if he chooses)

[Z3_GoCar]

Alright then let's look at the numbers for a percentage point of view:

you started out with 105 at the wheel -> 128hp at the crank
now you see 140 at the wheel -> 171hp at the crank a gain of 43hp or 33.6%

Rob started out with 140 at the crank -> 115 at the wheel
now he's got 135 at the wheel -> 165 at the crank a gain of 25hp or 17.6%

From these numbers who belongs at 2600lbs and who belongs at 2500lbs?? One's an over achiever...

and this is from a pure hp perspective not taking into account the mac-struts and trailing arms vs four wheel double a-arm

James

[JeffYoung]

1996 Z3:

Standard equipment included cast alloy wheels, leatherette upholstery and a manual top. Featured a 1.9-liter DOHC 16-valve inline 4-cylinder with 138hp @ 6,000 rpm and 133 lb-ft of torque @ 4,300 rpm and a 5-speed manual transmission.

1996 Mazda Miata M Edition:

1996 Mazda MX-5 Miata M Edition
Engine Type dual overhead cam, 16-valve inline 4-cylinder
Engine Size 1.8 liters / 110 cu. in.
Horsepower 133 @ 6500
Torque (lb-ft) 114 @ 5500

What's 19 ft lbs of torque and an apparently much flatter torque curve (peak is at 4300 rpm) worth?

James, not trying to be rude, but we could play these comparo games all day -- that's what they do on the prod board.

Ask Andy to run the 1.9 Z3 through the process and see what numbers it generates. That is what you should be asking about.

[Z3_GoCar]

Ben, I can give you the skinny on my Z3 (M44) which is the same as the 318is powerplant wise.

135hp (dynopak)136 tq. Kessler built motor, 3 different header configurations- 2 custom. Chipped ECU. Blah, blah, blah....you know the "IT" package.

The 318/z3 are no threat at 2600.

Build it!! I'd eat yellow snow for 165 tq
[/b]

Jeff, I was once told by Darrin that the Z3 was perfectly classed when it was at 2675. Well I guess he was wrong, and the current weight is still wrong. Now we've got data that says the gains are much less than the average. We've also got a car that's got gains way over the average and is under weight. When is it time to call a spade a spade?

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff, I was once told by Darrin that the Z3 was perfectly classed when it was at 2675. Well I guess he was wrong, and the current weight is still wrong. Now we've got data that says the gains are much less than the average. We've also got a car that's got gains way over the average and is under weight. When is it time to call a spade a spade?

James
[/b]

The Z3 in question has no programmable fuel system. It is not representative yet of a 'I have maxed out my power'. The Process is just an estimate. This IS IT and not Prod so the micro-managing of weights just isn't in the cards. Take the NX2000. It makes 156ish on a DynaPak. Extrapolate that to DynoJet numbers and it falls well outside it's original estimate. MUCH more so than other cars. It's not an exact science. We take the good with the bad. It has always been stated as such. One of the reasons Greg chose that car IIRC was because he thought it had 'above average' power potential. I have no issues with that as it also has 'below average handling potential' which he mitigates through development and excellent driving.

In this imperfect process, the cream will still rise to the top, we just hope it's not one car in each category like it has been in the past.

[Z3_GoCar]

....Secondly, if an engine is an airpump and it comes from the factory ALMOST fully optimized than it's naive at best to think that the gains other less optimized engines have seen will apply universally. Kessler's computer projection based on CC's, combustion chamber size and all the other inputs he used to do his calculations put the motor at EXACTLY where it dynos. Coincidence....???

.....
R
[/b]

If Kessler's done the math, and the fuel mixture is adjusted with the IT approved fuel regulator, then how can he find more power with an optimized mangement?? The truth is he's got as much as he can out of the head, valves, intake as he can. If standalone's were the end all and be all then I could dial my TEC-II for 210-220hp at the wheels, but no, I'm getting what I can get and the TEC has nothing to do with what I'm getting or Rob's getting.

James

[JeffYoung]

In regards to Andy's post above, when I say "we" I mean the royal we as in all in the IT community. I am not on the ITAC and I don't speak for it. Just wanted to be clear about that.

James, I appreciate your posts and your thoughts, but in arguing for a weight reduction on the Z3, reference to the Miata is irrelevant. Show Andy/Jake/the ITAC that the process weight for the car is wrong and you might get somewhere.

Again, what's a nearly 20 ft lbs of torque advantage worth weight wise? You dodged that one.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If Kessler's done the math, and the fuel mixture is adjusted with the IT approved fuel regulator, then how can he find more power with an optimized mangement?? [/b]

Talk with Bimmerworld on that one. Do we really have to get into this?

[Z3_GoCar]

....
1.8 Miata 2380/140 = 17.0 2380/130ft/lbs = 18.31

[/b]

Hey Jeff,

Not to dodge it but it looks to me more like a 6ft/lb advantage vs a 4hp disavantage.

James

[JeffYoung]

I'm talking stock numbers at the CRANK. See post above. That's what is used for the process with (per Jake's post) 4 levels of expected gain for the motor. The numbers you quote from Andy are (I think, post IT prep AT THE WHEEL).

Stock numbers were 133 ft. lbs for the Z3, 114 for the Miata. That's a fairly large difference adn the best "apples to apples" comparison we have before we start arguing about whether particular numbers come from a dynojet or a pack, or arguing about levels of prep for the motor, etc. Stock, the Z3 has a definite torque advantage over the Miata.

But I'm just pointing this out to highlight the fact that you can nit pick any classification you want. I can make plenty of arguments that the Z3 is heavy and others can argue it is light (decent aero with top, great brakes, good torque, the trailer arm suspension is not the disadvantage that people claim -- hell, it came off the E30 M3).

Given the numbers I've seen for the Z3, the 240SX, the Integra and the NX2000, it looks to me that the Z3 is within the 100 lb ballpark where (to me anyway) it really comes down to driver and car prep that makes the difference.

[Knestis]

I defended its honor in the other thread and I'll do it here - if the process puts the Z3 where it's currently spec'd, and the process has been followed, then that's where it should be.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Kirk,

Darrin told me that the process put the Z3 at 2675, then it got changed to 2600, it doesn't sound like the process is as concrete as it's advertized. Then you have the fact that the cars are processed at a x% hp gain and a y% torque gain. What happens when you have a car like Andy's that gains 1.5x the hp gain and 2x the torque, compaired to a car like the Z3 where we see 3/4 of the predicted hp gain and 3ft/lbs of torque, that's like less than a 2.5% increase. Maybe I need a new tact, class the Z3 in ITB at it's current weight.

James

[Z3_GoCar]

....Stock numbers were 133 ft. lbs for the Z3, 114 for the Miata. That's a fairly large difference adn the best "apples to apples" comparison we have before we start arguing about whether particular numbers come from a dynojet or a pack, or arguing about levels of prep for the motor, etc. Stock, the Z3 has a definite torque advantage over the Miata.

But I'm just pointing this out to highlight the fact that you can nit pick any classification you want. I can make plenty of arguments that the Z3 is heavy and others can argue it is light (decent aero with top, great brakes, good torque, the trailer arm suspension is not the disadvantage that people claim -- hell, it came off the E30 M3)....

Given the numbers I've seen for the Z3, the 240SX, the Integra and the NX2000, it looks to me that the Z3 is within the 100 lb ballpark where (to me anyway) it really comes down to driver and car prep that makes the difference.
[/b]

And what do we do for a car that doesn't make those precient predictions?? After Rob sunk the money for a pro build and he's only getting 3ft-lbs more torque, that winds up being a 2.2554% gain. How about on track performance to say when a car doesn't fit the curve. How about a lap at NHIS? that's right Andy Lapped Rob there, pretty good for a handeling car at a power car track. On to the other extreme LRP Rob was down 3 seccond on his best lap from Andy and finished 8.5 seconds back.

As for the trailing arms, they're a known defficiency, especially when compaired to the double a-arms that miata's and the 240sx have. Also, what happens when you bend a sub-frame and get toe out, round you go all the time. To fix it you've got to resort to welding on "reinforcing" adjustors that are definetly in the grey.

James

[JeffYoung]

You are saying that an IT build on a Z3 1.9 only gets you 3 ft lbs at the wheels?? If so, I'd be talking to my builder.

James, at this point, just have to say you and I come at classing cars for IT from two different planets. I'm comfortable that the process is presently as fair as it can get. You can argue an inequity for ANY car on the ITCS if you only focus on this factor, or that number. I won't even open the on track performance can of worms.

Just have to leave it at that.

[Z3_GoCar]

In regards to Andy's post above, when I say "we" I mean the royal we as in all in the IT community. I am not on the ITAC and I don't speak for it. Just wanted to be clear about that.

James, I appreciate your posts and your thoughts, but in arguing for a weight reduction on the Z3, reference to the Miata is irrelevant. Show Andy/Jake/the ITAC that the process weight for the car is wrong and you might get somewhere.

Again, what's a nearly 20 ft lbs of torque advantage worth weight wise? You dodged that one.
[/b]

Jeff,

One point I think you're missing is not only am I looking for a weight break for the Z3, I'm looking for weight to be added to the Miata as well, as the classing was incorrectly performed and has proven to exceed it's performance estimate by a very large margin, with more than a 33% gain in hp and a 17% torque gain.

James

[Doc Bro]

The Z3 in question has no programmable fuel system. It is not representative yet of a 'I have maxed out my power'. The Process is just an estimate. This IS IT and not Prod so the micro-managing of weights just isn't in the cards. [/b]


Wow, I missed a lot in 2 days. Sorry, I've been away from the topic.

Andy,

You know I respect you and your knowledge. But, PLEEEEAAASSE tell me how my programmable fuel system will do so much more than my AFPR to getting me 150ish hp let alone 160 ish to make 2600 look better.

It won't.

(Did you honestly think we'd overlook AFR????)

Just please someone admit the adders for the Z3 where based on the roundel on the hood, and I'll go away. :happy204: I could care less what James Clay at Bimmerworld says, he's NEVER built an ITA legal Z3. Besides there are much more knowledgeable shops out there. (sorry Mr Clay, but its truth)


Andy,

You don't know the level of prep of the car. Be careful. It dyno's at 135 on a Dpak. Period. Are you questioning Matt's talents....does Greg need the trophy brought over? :D

If you are so convinced that your right than how do you explain the e36 318is at 2600 also???? Will someone PLEASE, (PRETTY PLEASE WITH SUGAR ON TOP) address that question for me!!!!


Or we can stop arguing and just put the Z3 on the e36 318is spec line......vented rotors e36 rear set-up.

Oh and Jeff (Young)- I totally agree the Z3 has a torque advantage over the Miata, however, I think the 200ish pounds of fat completely mutes that arguement several times over. Nice try.



R

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey Rob,

I've been thinking about how I could fit a Z-axle under the rear of my car, especially as Prepared allows us to dump the trailing arms, but the amount of effort and cutting out the trunk... Plus it wouldn't help you as I'm sure you're still not allowed to cut a big hole in your trunk to mount an alternate rear suspension.

Yeah, Mr Clay sure knows how to prep an e-46, but I bet he's never had his hands on any part of a M-44. You should have heard them laugh when I showed up at Laguna-Seca. "I guess Z3's are getting cheap now that there are two here!"

James

[Knestis]

Oh, I KNOW how concrete the process isn't. I've been pretty intimately involved in the whole "formula" movement, going back 7-8 years now and have kept close track of how we got where we are.

That's why I worry so much.

I'm going to sound like I'm arguing two sides here but the primary issue to my mind is repeatability - an aspect of how reliable the system is. Whether it is RIGHT is a separate issue and frankly, I think that's less important, but multiple people on the ITAC running the car through the same process should get the "same" result.

The question then becomes what does "same" mean. That's where acceptable error comes into the equation and frankly, there's no way that we can expect closer than +/- 75#. So the difference between Darin's 2675 and someone else's 2600 is essentially no difference.

You've got no standing in the rules or processes in use to request a move to ITB at the same weight. The system just doesn't accommodate that. Or you CAN ask but the response is guaranteed.

Part of the reason I wrestle with the validity of using "known gains" is that we pretty much never know what we know. When you say, "...compaired to a car like the Z3 where we see 3/4 of the predicted hp gain and 3ft/lbs of torque, that's like less than a 2.5% increase" that carries exactly no weight to others, regardless of how confident YOU are in the figures. We chuck around percentages, Dynojets, other stuff - lap times - but unless someone can demonstrate their methodology, it's noise.' Andy says he got 108 whp with his SM. He might have all the confidence in the world about what that means but it doesn't mean diddly if we think critically about it.

Regardless, power is an OUTCOME or OUTPUT VARIABLE - a result of what we do, rather than something we control directly. You can't just "make horsepower:" if you figured out a way to do that, you'd be a rich man. :) We change things and expect power as an outcome. It's a first assumption of the IT ruleset that we try to control INPUTS - limiting what we are and are not allowed to do to the car - and that competitiveness and racing happen out of those affordances and constraints.

If we want to start down the path of making classing decisions based on outputs, the logical extreme is to skip straight to a bracket racing model, where we enter a laptime class and if you exceed your index, you break out.

K

[JeffYoung]

Actually Rob, I would consider a 20 ft lb torque advantage to be pretty close to the equivalent to a fairly large amount of weight. Point is what I subjectively consider to be significant doesn't matter.

Neither one of you guys have asked Andy or Jake to explain the 2600 process weight for the Z3 was derived. Ask them for that, and if there is obvious error, point it out. Most of the rest of what you guys are arguing is, and I don't mean this with disrepect, irrelevant for what the ITAC is trying to accomplish.

[Z3_GoCar]

Oh, I KNOW how concrete the process isn't. I've been pretty intimately involved in the whole "formula" movement, going back 7-8 years now and have kept close track of how we got where we are.

That's why I worry so much.

I'm going to sound like I'm arguing two sides here but the primary issue to my mind is repeatability - an aspect of how reliable the system is. Whether it is RIGHT is a separate issue and frankly, I think that's less important, but multiple people on the ITAC running the car through the same process should get the "same" result.

The question then becomes what does "same" mean. That's where acceptable error comes into the equation and frankly, there's no way that we can expect closer than +/- 75#. So the difference between Darin's 2675 and someone else's 2600 is essentially no difference.

You've got no standing in the rules or processes in use to request a move to ITB at the same weight. The system just doesn't accommodate that. Or you CAN ask but the response is guaranteed.

Part of the reason I wrestle with the validity of using "known gains" is that we pretty much never know what we know. When you say, "...compaired to a car like the Z3 where we see 3/4 of the predicted hp gain and 3ft/lbs of torque, that's like less than a 2.5% increase" that carries exactly no weight to others, regardless of how confident YOU are in the figures. We chuck around percentages, Dynojets, other stuff - lap times - but unless someone can demonstrate their methodology, it's noise.' Andy says he got 108 whp with his SM. He might have all the confidence in the world about what that means but it doesn't mean diddly if we think critically about it.

Regardless, power is an OUTCOME or OUTPUT VARIABLE - a result of what we do, rather than something we control directly. You can't just "make horsepower:" if you figured out a way to do that, you'd be a rich man. :) We change things and expect power as an outcome. It's a first assumption of the IT ruleset that we try to control INPUTS - limiting what we are and are not allowed to do to the car - and that competitiveness and racing happen out of those affordances and constraints.

If we want to start down the path of making classing decisions based on outputs, the logical extreme is to skip straight to a bracket racing model, where we enter a laptime class and if you exceed your index, you break out.

K
[/b]

If it is as you say Kirk, the Z3 is doomed to be a tweener never to have a win to it, ever to be relagated as an also-ran.... :bash_1_: because the process doesn't take into account the fact that different factories prepare their motors to different levels. As Rob and I have accerted from the very beginning, when BMW built the M-44 they didn't leave many stones unturned, so that building a race motor to IT spec just doesn't result in the same potential as the "formula" predicts, it's just not there! I'm not talking about just 50-75lbs, the Z3 should probably drop 150lbs to be on par with the rest of the field. In addition, the Miata being classed at the earlier cars 128hp neglected the fact that there's a lot more to be had out of it, so much more that just a year and a half latter they could up the hp by 5 easily. This coincides with SM having a weight preassigned to it that gets carried over to ITA. In this way the Miata actually by-passed the process and was classed at it weight way light and probably needs to add 150lbs. So in effect this is what should probably happen:

Z3 looses 150lbs -> 2450lbs

Miata gains 150lbs -> 2530lbs

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob,

First off, your 135whp is a DynaPak number. This is one reason I am suggesting that we all hit the same dyno on the same day. People with many years of dyno experience have pegged DP numbers to be 10% lower than DJ numbers. That COULD bring your number to the 148+ range in apples to apples comparisons. Again we will never know until we all get together. When I told Kessler that I got to 140whp, he eyeballed me. I said DynoJet and he said that would have been mid to high 120's on a Pak.

As far as AFR, I guess your car is more optimized than many. One of the reasons the Miata's make 5 more hp with the OBD-II ECU is that they suffer from WAY to much fuel at high RPM. They don't benefit much from bolt ons, but from a tight AFR tune, they do. I would love to see your AFR plots with just adjusting the linear values an FPR can provide you. In order to fatten up a torque curve and see real USABLE gains, I truly believe a programmable unit is the way you need to go. I adjusted to optimum AFR EVERY 100 RPM from 4000rpm to 7500RPM. It was worth every minute. Maybe your car doesn't need it. Mine sure as heck did. The point about Bimmerworld is that he has experience with both BMW's and MoTec systems.

I am not questioning Matt's talents but when you make more ponies than me on the same dyno on the same day without PFI, you can expect an 'I told you so from me'. Remember how much lower Paks are supposed to read than Jets. Have Matt confirm that for you as well.

The 318is and the Z3 1.9 have the same motor. They both have the same front suspension and are RWD. The rear suspension difference was not significant enough to have the weight any different in the eyes of the ITAC at the time of classification. If you want to split those hairs, the daily grind of Production comp adjustments may be the place for you because it shouldn't happen in IT.

The Process can only get so granular. The problem with that is that some cars will be better than others even inside an attempt at equity. No way to fix that. The process numbers we apply for adders may be 'off' but I beleive they are close enough to foster more great choices in every class than ever. There are some cars I would NEVER build because I KNOW they couldn't cut the Mustard unless you continued to dumb them down using on-track performance, which we know will never happen in IT. Look at other cars with similar stock HP to yours in ITA, they are right there in terms of weight too. Thats the Process working to it's fullest - and admittably flawed capability.

[Doc Bro]

Kirk,

I have much respect for you POV and admire your tenure. I do raise one minor counterpoint though. You said +/-75 means little. Sounds good to me. Z3 1.9 2525#. Done.

Jeff,

Maybe I was too subtle in my last post when I BEGGED the 2600# for the 318is explained to us. So I'll do it again. HOW IN THE ITAC'S "FORMULAIC PROCESS" ARE THE 318is AND THE 1.9 Z3 CONSIDERED TO BE THE SAME CAR. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ADDERS USED FOR BOTH BECAUSE TO ANY CASUAL OBSERVER THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE.

Jeff,
I'll go one further....


WHAT CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE e36 318is IN REGARDS TO AERO, BRAKES, AND REAR SUSPENSION.


Jeff,

even further.....


I'll answer.....

Those qualities weren't given consideration otherwise the cars would have very different weights relative to one another. The only "subjective" adders used were the propeller on the hood and the expected HP gain. If I am wrong PLEASE enlighten me.

The basis of my contention with these facts is precisely the HP gain, as it is not what was predicted.



R


Jeff,

I'll let Mr. Amy defend "our" engine builders reputation......


R

[Andy Bettencourt]

This coincides with SM having a weight preassigned to it that gets carried over to ITA. In this way the Miata actually by-passed the process and was classed at it weight way light and probably needs to add 150lbs.
[/b]

What they heck are you talking about? Please explain so I can help you understand.

[JeffYoung]

ROB -- ASK THE ITAC TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS TO YOU FOR THE 318IS AND THE Z3. THEY WILL DO IT. PLEASE ASK THEM. NOT ME.

ROB -- BEFORE WE GO "SLAMMING" YOUR ENGINE BUILDER, IS WHAT JAMES SAID CORRECT? YOU ONLY GOT A 2 FT. LBS TORQUE GAIN FROM AN IT BUILD? IS THAT TRUE? MY COMMENT WAS DIRECTED AT THE VERACITY OF JAMES' STATEMENT BECAUSE I THINK HE GOT HIS NUMBERS SCREWED UP.

Do you really believe that the Z3 got an adder because it is a BMW? If so, it's hopeless having a discussion with you. THat just means you not only don't trust the process, you don't trust the people who are operating it. If that is the case, then no discussion or explanation will ever satisfy you.

I'm off to work on my 133 STOCK HP ITS car. Have fun with your cars!

[Joe Harlan]

http://www.racdyn-usa.com/lit/eprom/96_98318i.jpg

James, I don't have the time to explain to you all the things you don't know about racecars. But I will say this. If the Process is to be credible then every car that is classed or moved should be correctly run through it at the highest factory HP number available. On a reclassification that allows up date and back date the current HP numbers must be used as the baseline. I feel in the case of the Miata the process was cheated out of this. I also feel that the BMW is correctly classed based on Proven IT type gains and understanding the +'s and -'s of the car. You can claim the cars suspension sucks all day long but so does the 240sx in OE trim. The fact that one car has what he considers is a fully developed package does not make it so. I will say this. The system is being cheated by not being fairly applied to one car and that will cause the system to be questioned on every classification that is out there and not winning. WHile I don't agree that the Z3 is an underdog I also struggle to defend a system that I believe in so much and actually had a hand in developing and getting going back just a few years ago.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Kirk,

WHAT CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE e36 318is IN REGARDS TO AERO, BRAKES, AND REAR SUSPENSION.

I'll answer.....

Those qualities weren't given consideration otherwise the cars would have very different weights relative to one another. The only "subjective" adders used were the propeller on the hood and the expected HP gain. If I am wrong PLEASE enlighten me.

R [/b]

Your right Rob. 'Adders' aren't looked at in a car to car scenario. They are looked at as a difference to the 'base' platform for the class. Significant differences get consideration. To the Process, and it's current granularity, the 1.9 Z3 and the 318is E36 are the same car. You know they are different but for us to assign weight numbers at that level is too much. Anything else would be a black hole into oblivion IMHO. I would think Kirk would agree.

And Rob can correct me if I am wrong but he could be comparing his current IT build to a full-prep SS build of unknown legality. I don't think he has any stock dyno sheets. I could be wrong and I know he will correct me. His comparisons would be like me comparing my motor to an unrestricted full blown SM motor - which are rumored to make ~ 125whp - about 15 more than stock.

[Z3_GoCar]

Actually Rob, I would consider a 20 ft lb torque advantage to be pretty close to the equivalent to a fairly large amount of torque weight. Point is what I subjectively consider to be significant doesn't matter.

Neither one of you guys have asked Andy or Jake to explain the 2600 process weight for the Z3 was derived. Ask them for that, and if there is obvious error, point it out. Most of the rest of what you guys are arguing is, and I don't mean this with disrepect, irrelevant for what the ITAC is trying to accomplish.
[/b]

Actually Jeff,

I think Andy did give it on the last page....

When he mentioned the 240SX (2.4ltr engine) and the Integra (1835cc engine).

But the Nissan has a much larger engine that anything else, and the Miata actually has a larger engine that the Integra. The fact remains that the assumed gains are just that assumed, as long as the Z3 is classed as it is it will never be competitive, never.

Ever wonder why GRM always puts a supercharger on the 4 cylinder BMW's? It's because there's no other way for them to make any significant power gains without going to a full build, IT type mod's just don't cut it, lets face it the motors a slug.


James

[JeffYoung]

Joe, is that flywheel torque? Looks like it but still impressive.

[Doc Bro]

Jeff,

With all do respect save it. My basis has nothing to do with fear mongering or distrust for the ITAC. The sky is not falling in my world.

I asked you (singular and plural) because of your vehement defensive that the car is classed properly, and the adders were applied properly.

You questioned the talents of the engine builder by saying "I'd be having a talk with my engine builder"....remember?

Yes the torque gain was minimal.

I have every desire to engage in meaningful debate. I am seeking enlightenment and knowledge. I also take the stance that I know more about my car than the ITAC does. I think we can all safely say that unless you drive what they drive. The position I take is not based on futility or hostility. It is based on the premise that if your going to take a stance pro or con on my car you'd better have done your homework. To this point I've seen few Deans' list arguements, except for most of James' points.

R

[Joe Harlan]

James, As I have stated many times before. The 240sx breaths through 1.75 intake hole in the MAF sensor. Should the MAF ever be a free part then the 240sx would need to move to ITS. The fact is that the 240sx was run through the exact process and gained weight and not one 240sx guy complained believing thatif the process was run equally across the board that they were getting a fair shake. Now it does not look like that is happening in all cases.

[JeffYoung]

Guys, last post. Please ask Andy/Jake to lay out the actual process - which is a formula -- for you on how the weights for the 318 and the Z3 were reached. If you see an obvious error, point it out.

The rest of the "Dean's List" arguments are frankly irrelevant to classing a car in IT.

[Doc Bro]

Joe,
Is it safe to assume that that's crank? (It is)

165 tq- 17% drive line loss (28 ft lbs) = 137.

That is almost exactly what I'm seeing. Am I missing your point?


R

[Andy Bettencourt]

At what point can we agree that there will be cars that just make better track cars than others? To what level of granularity do you want to go to try and make everything equal? We certainly go way further than ever before - too far for some actually.

[Joe Harlan]

Rob, I have no idea, go to their site and figure it out. my guess is chassis dyno since they are advertising reprograming values.

[Z3_GoCar]

Their baseline run is well over 150ft-lbs.... wouldn't seem like the wheel torque to me.

James




1996 Z3:

Standard equipment included cast alloy wheels, leatherette upholstery and a manual top. Featured a 1.9-liter DOHC 16-valve inline 4-cylinder with 138hp @ 6,000 rpm and 133 lb-ft of torque @ 4,300 rpm and a 5-speed manual transmission.
....
[/b]

This is where I got 133 lb-ft as the starting number for torque. This seems to blow your graph out of the water Joe, as the base line's way above the stated torque.

James

[Doc Bro]

At what point can we agree that there will be cars that just make better track cars than others? To what level of granularity do you want to go to try and make everything equal? We certainly go way further than ever before - too far for some actually.
[/b]


Andy,

Isn't that so easy to say when your sitting on that many victories and have NEVER been lapped in a race. Must be nice. The Z3 could be a "better" track car IF it were classed at a slightly lighter weight. You've NEVER heard me ask for a 200# pound reduction. That WOULD NOT BE FAIR; and I've too much integrity for that. While I have NO desire to take away from you or your program, I do KNOW for a fact that you've NEVER walked in my shoes. It is an uphill battle with you, the ITAC and the politics of the SCCA. Why is it so hard for a man (or group of men) to admit he made a mistake???? The car doesn't make the power it was estimated to make IMO. I'm trying to prove it to you (as a gentleman), your disputing it. Where is your (or any other) 165hp Z3? Show me one (without a supercharger) and I'll buy it for you. Is it that hard for you to trust?

R



I'm done............................

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob,

The point is that it isn't a mistake. It's all that the process will allow for in it's current form. Does the process do justice to cars that are 'less than the sum of their parts'? I don't hesitate to say no - but what is the solution? Pure Comp Adjustments? How much? Based on what - on track performance?

[Joe Harlan]

Their baseline run is well over 150ft-lbs.... wouldn't seem like the wheel torque to me.

James
This is where I got 133 lb-ft as the starting number for torque. This seems to blow your graph out of the water Joe, as the base line's way above the stated torque.

James
[/b]

But BMW would never underate their torque ot HP numbers now would they. It was a piece of data found on the web and nothing more....You guys really need to chill. As stated I feel the process is not being applied apples to apples but I also feel that no one has developed this car to the level of the Miata or the 240sx just in raw numbers.

[Z3_GoCar]

James, As I have stated many times before. The 240sx breaths through 1.75 intake hole in the MAF sensor. Should the MAF ever be a free part then the 240sx would need to move to ITS. The fact is that the 240sx was run through the exact process and gained weight and not one 240sx guy complained believing thatif the process was run equally across the board that they were getting a fair shake. Now it does not look like that is happening in all cases.
[/b]

1.75 inches is 44.4mm. If that was a SIR you'd be good for well over 250hp, plus you've got 500cc more displacement to pull the air through that hole. As it is I do agree that the process wasn't correctly run.

James

[Doc Bro]

Rob,

The point is that it isn't a mistake. It's all that the process will allow for in it's current form. Does the process do justice to cars that are 'less than the sum of their parts'? I don't hesitate to say no - but what is the solution? Pure Comp Adjustments? How much? Based on what - on track performance?
[/b]


Well I guess i'm not done :024: ....yet,

I guess the best thing for you to do for me Andy, is explain exactly how the Z3 came to 2675 and then 2600.... then I'll let it rest. If you'd like to be a really stand up guy, then do it for the 318is and Miata too. It's not that I've got it in for the Miata, in fact that couldn't be further from the truth, it's just that the 318is and the Miata are the 2 benchmarks I'm using based on (obvious) similarities

No smoke, no mirrors.....just the honest, truthful facts. Do that one favor for me, publicly.....

R

[Joe Harlan]

1.75 inches is 44.4mm. If that was a SIR you'd be good for well over 250hp, plus you've got 500cc more displacement to pull the air through that hole. As it is I do agree that the process wasn't correctly run.

James
[/b]

James, stop. Yes you could make 250hp through a 29mm intake if you have compression and cams to do it. But we don't . We get 9.5:1 I think the BMW 1.9 gets 10.5:1 if I am not mistaken...You really need to quit while I am agreeing that the process has been given a blackeye. But I can tell you I build many many IT engines a year. I know exaclty what the best 240sx engines get I know I am still a couple of ponies short of that and still working. I also know that the BMW is more than the sum of the numbers put out by BMW but even then the process should be run the same. I will bet the brakes and suspension have as much to do with the adders as anything.

[Z3_GoCar]

But BMW would never underate their torque ot HP numbers now would they. It was a piece of data found on the web and nothing more....You guys really need to chill. As stated I feel the process is not being applied apples to apples but I also feel that no one has developed this car to the level of the Miata or the 240sx just in raw numbers.
[/b]
You're right about that only TC Kline has done any development work on these cars, as a matter of fact my car, Rob's car, Noem's car, and the majority of roadsters running have come from TC's shop. TC ran these cars in Grand-Am and I'm sure finished well, but the only win's I know of came in the Z4. When you go look for performance parts you'll find all kinds for the 6cylinder cars but hardly anything for the M-44. I know that Rob's found the best engine builder in his area, just ask Greg Amy, to build his engine for no excuses. If Rob and his car is getting lapped at NHIS, then something is wrong with how the car is classed. If he's loosing 3 seconds per lap at LRP to Andy, then something's not right. The fact is the ITAC already fudges these things, how do they deal with rotary output gains? Gains from fuel injected 2-valve motors?

Jeff's right this car's part e-30 and part e-36. Chassis and suspension wise everythings out there and reletively easy to get. If we want info we just call Pete at TC's. He's got us covered for chassis set up.

James

[Joe Harlan]

You're right about that only TC Kline has done any development work on these cars, as a matter of fact my car, Rob's car, Noem's car, and the majority of roadsters running have come from TC's shop. TC ran these cars in Grand-Am and I'm sure finished well, but the only win's I know of came in the Z4. When you go look for performance parts you'll find all kinds for the 6cylinder cars but hardly anything for the M-44. I know that Rob's found the best engine builder in his area, just ask Greg Amy, to build his engine for no excuses. If Rob and his car is getting lapped at NHIS, then something is wrong with how the car is classed. If he's loosing 3 seconds per lap at LRP to Andy, then something's not right. The fact is the ITAC already fudges these things, how do they deal with rotary output gains? Gains from fuel injected 2-valve motors?

Jeff's right this car's part e-30 and part e-36. Chassis and suspension wise everythings out there and reletively easy to get. If we want info we just call Pete at TC's. He's got us covered for chassis set up.

James
[/b]

James, having met and shared a lot of information with TC on the 350z program I will say this. UNLESS TC IS RACING ONE IN ITA then nobody has doen the development work on these cars for IT. A grandam cup setup ain't gonna cut it at the ARRC. I honestly do not know Rob so I can't comment on anything about is prep or driving ability but if I were getting lapped in a class I think I would be looking hard at myself and my own abilities to prep and drive before I would be screaming the car is mis-classed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Smoke and mirrors, like we have been anything but transparant....come on. It's either a poor choice of words or you don't respect the effort.

Again without my checks and balances:

I do not know how the Z3 ever got classed at 2675. I believe that was pre-process. Even people who were classing pre-process can't tell us how cars got to their weights. 2850 for an ITS E36? 3050lbs before any adders on that one...just no sense to the history.

140hp is assumed to make 175 crank hp in IT trim. This gives it a base weight of 2540lbs. A 50lb adder for large brakes (16% larger than the Integra, 13% larger than the SE-R, 12% larger than the 240SX, etc). That brings it to 2590...not sure about that extra 10lbs. It might have been set at 2600 to make cohesive sense of all the 140hp RWD BMW 4 cyl cars in ITA. You will notice there are 6 of them.

When we did the 'correction' in Feb of 05, as a rule, we didn't change anything under 100lbs inside of it's process weight. It was considered 'static' for the purposes of the process and IT as a whole.

As stated in a previous post, the E36 318is is effectively the same car according to the process.

The Miata was classed first using the 128hp 94-95 car (as has been beaten to death in the other thread). 128 is assumed to get to 160 crank. This gives it a base weight of 2320. 50 lbs for double wishbones for a total of 2370. An additional 'fudge factor' of 50lbs was considered as the car is certainly a great platform but that weight would have brought it over the 2380lb cage-limitation so only 10lbs was able to be added given that barrier. We did.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If Rob and his car is getting lapped at NHIS, then something is wrong with how the car is classed. If he's loosing 3 seconds per lap at LRP to Andy, then something's not right. James
[/b]

Rob can speak to his trials this season because he is throwing everything up against the to see what sticks in order to go faster. But PLEASE lets not use laps times as our guide here. A proper corner weighting and set-up gained him 4.8 seconds at Lime Rock THIS YEAR between May and June. If he finds even 2 seconds at NHIS, he finishes second. If he finds the same 4, he wins. It's just not right to use these items as foundation arguments.

[IPRESS]

You guys that have been doing this a lot longer may know , but do most mfgs. published HP numbers pan out as REAL?
The only ones I have personal knowledge of are crate 1.8s for the miata. The best of three that we dynoed without the restrictor plate was at 119. I think the same engine with the plate was 114. This was done in 04 if my memory is correct. This same thing may be similar with other mfgs. Maybe some of you guys know.

[Doc Bro]

The smoke and mirrors comment was specifically that you sometimes get off topic.....that's all. I never question a person's integrity.

What are the 140 HP BMW's?
You do mean 138?

I will do the math on all of this tomorrow (I'm tired).

It's interesting though....I've never brought up lap times or on track (other than saying it stinks to get lapped) performance because it doesn't matter. I find it curious though, that you just did, was that fear preventing you from looking at this objectively?

Andy, you're the first guy to say ontrack performance doesn't matter. Why'd you go there in regards to my lap times. Fair is fair. Are we not playing by the same rules in this debate? Do I need to pull up all your whoa's me posts about being underpowered while you set lap records and successfully navigate your way to the championship? Let's stick to the facts my friend.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's interesting though....I've never brought up lap times or on track (other than saying it stinks to get lapped) performance because it doesn't matter. I find it curious though, that you just did, was that fear preventing you from looking at this objectively?

Andy, you're the first guy to say ontrack performance doesn't matter. Why'd you go there in regards to my lap times. Fair is fair. Are we not playing by the same rules in this debate? Do I need to pull up all your whoa's me posts about being underpowered while you set lap records and successfully navigate your way to the championship? Let's stick to the facts my friend.

R
[/b]

Rob, please read all the posts. My comments were in response to James' use of YOUR comparitive lap times (in his post #48) to prove something is wrong within the process. Also read my SPECIFIC point that lap times do NOT tell the story we are trying to learn and that we should NOT use them. If you want to use lap times for me, go ahead. Just make sure you apply weather conditions, heat cycles of my tires, my relative driving ability +/- compared to those on grid with us, prep level +/- of my car compared to those on grid with us and any number of other items un-quantifiable.

[Joe Harlan]

The smoke and mirrors comment was specifically that you sometimes get off topic.....that's all. I never question a person's integrity.

What are the 140 HP BMW's?
You do mean 138?

I will do the math on all of this tomorrow (I'm tired).

It's interesting though....I've never brought up lap times or on track (other than saying it stinks to get lapped) performance because it doesn't matter. I find it curious though, that you just did, was that fear preventing you from looking at this objectively?

Andy, you're the first guy to say ontrack performance doesn't matter. Why'd you go there in regards to my lap times. Fair is fair. Are we not playing by the same rules in this debate? Do I need to pull up all your whoa's me posts about being underpowered while you set lap records and successfully navigate your way to the championship? Let's stick to the facts my friend.


R
[/b]
Rob to be fair to ANdy, it was James that brought up your lap times,

I do find this statement curious and an admission of what really went on.



An additional 'fudge factor' of 50lbs was considered as the car is certainly a great platform but that weight would have brought it over the 2380lb cage-limitation so only 10lbs was able to be added given that barrier. We did.[/b]

So if we went with the 133hp the weight would have made the car stay in ITS.....Simple case closed it was a clear cut case of trying to be fair to a tweener but we have not given that same consideration to other tweeners RX7, MR2 ect.....Done with this but at least we now understand.

So given that set of facts the Miata should be 2457 using the correct process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So if we went with the 133hp the weight would have made the car stay in ITS.....Simple case closed it was a clear cut case of trying to be fair to a tweener but we have not given that same consideration to other tweeners RX7, MR2 ect.....Done with this but at least we now understand. [/b]

What? I don't get how you make that statement. The car would be 2195 in ITS - an unattainable weight by an easy 150lbs.

Half the ITAC would love to class the MR2 and RX-7 in ITB at an appropriate weight. There is no concensus. The CONSIDERATION is there, it just hasn't happened. If it did, I would build an MR2 for ITB.

[Joe Harlan]

What? I don't get how you make that statement. The car would be 2195 in ITS - an unattainable weight by an easy 150lbs.

Half the ITAC would love to class the MR2 and RX-7 in ITB at an appropriate weight. There is no concensus. The CONSIDERATION is there, it just hasn't happened. If it did, I would build an MR2 for ITB.
[/b]


Because using the 133hp number puts the cage out of spec in ITA at 2457.....

[Doc Bro]

A proper corner weighting and set-up gained him 4.8 seconds at Lime Rock THIS YEAR between May and June. If he finds even 2 seconds at NHIS, he finishes second. If he finds the same 4, he wins. It's just not right to use these items as foundation arguments.
[/b]



What?? How did I missquote you? You went there not me........

Did you take into consideration MY prep level+/-, my heat cycles, etc., etc......you went there not me....

James had nothing to do with it.............

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Because using the 133hp number puts the cage out of spec in ITA at 2457..... [/b]

Phew, I at least understand what you are saying now! Late here ya know...

Again, the issue was that the car already classed and this car are the same car in IT trim. I can't stress this enough. Support the logic or not, it's how it was done.

[Doc Bro]

I do find this statement curious and an admission of what really went on.[/b]

Joe,

Was that to me or AB? What were you getting at? Sorry it went over my head....I'm tired I guess

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Come on Rob, FOCUS. I never said you went there. I said James brought it up as EVIDENCE that the process was bogus. Here is his quote in post 48:


If Rob and his car is getting lapped at NHIS, then something is wrong with how the car is classed. If he's loosing 3 seconds per lap at LRP to Andy, then something's not right. [/b]

I used my post to show him how USELESS on track data is. I never used the on-track to prove anything - on the contrary, I used it to show how stupid it is to use it.

[Doc Bro]

I'm sorry Andy, I'll reread all of this tomorrow out of fairness. I'm pretty drained. I'm signing off. I really enjoyed your company this evening and I appreciate you honoring me with your time. We'll continue this tomorrow. Joe, thanks for all of your input, I always listen very closely to what you've got to say, but I've got to say goodnight for now...


R

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm sorry Andy, I'll reread all of this tomorrow out of fairness. I'm pretty drained. I'm signing off. I really enjoyed your company this evening and I appreciate you honoring me with your time. We'll continue this tomorrow. Joe, thanks for all of your input, I always listen very closely to what you've got to say, but I've got to say goodnight for now...


R [/b]

Make sure you brush your teeth... :P

[Joe Harlan]

Andy, if the car were a new classification (which it actually was given the model change) you would have based the weight off of the 133hp number.......There is no simple logic to how you claim that all the other classifcations were based on a standard and then not use the same standard on the miata?

I look at the 240sx 140 x 125% = 175 X 14.5 =2537 + 50 for rear suspension 2587 Old weight was 2530 new weight 2630 where did we get the additional if not on track history?

Z3 138HP x 125%=172.5 = 14.5 = 2501 + 50 IRS 2551+ 50 for good brakes 2601.....

Miata 133hp x 125%= 166.2 * 14.5 =2410 + 50 for IRS 2460 + 10 for good package 2470

Not sure you can justify it any other way than to say the cars did not have enough cage to put all the weight on them that they should have gotten if the process was followed....Sorry my friend but facts is facts

[Andy Bettencourt]

Joe, I have explained it 1000 different ways. Like Rob, I am done. He and I will share a beer at a race and talk it through. This interweb stuff ain't cuttin it.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, I have explained it 1000 different ways. Like Rob, I am done. He and I will share a beer at a race and talk it through. This interweb stuff ain't cuttin it.
[/b]


find me something to drive and I will join you but it has to be a non alcohol beer....:) but 1000 times don't changes the facts...;)

[Knestis]

Mitch Wright was a frontrunner 20+ years ago when he ran the Renault Cup, and ran head-to-head with guys who went on to pro careers and club racing championships. A couple years ago, as series manager for WCTouring, he was getting pressured to give the VW Jettas a weight break because "they were just never going to be competitive."

So, out comes the Nomex and Wright makes the car in question go a chunk faster than its regular driver ever had, in his first session on the track. Denied.

I'm just sayin'...

The problem here is that, whether the lap times are trotted out directly in discussion or not, they are fundamental to the thinking behind ANY argument that ANY car is mis-classed or mis-specified. Just like, if the car in question were running up front, it would be presumed to be correctly spec'd. Both are faulty positions if the greater issues are paramount. And the greater issue here is the longterm health of the IT category, which trumps any individual driver's or car's "right" to be competitive. Club Racing doesn't owe you that, can't guarantee that, and can fark up entire programs by trying to achieve it.

As for, "If 75# is nothing, just give it to me." That's (put bluntly) crapola. What I said was that if the process is run and we get repeatability within 75#, that's pretty damned good - good enough, in fact.

I guess it's just a good mood - getting caught up with life - that's got me back into this conversation but the earlier point that maybe the Production wars (in the meeting room, not on track) would be a better place for anyone who believes that they have a fundamental right to lobby for their own competitiveness, or for weight to be stacked on the competition, based on on-track evidence.

Another way to look at this situation? If in fact the M44 engine gains nothing from an IT build, leave it untouched freeing up a huge chunk of dough to do other things that will likely make the package faster - suspension engineering, engine management, dyno time, driver coaching, tires, and testing.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Come on Rob, FOCUS. I never said you went there. I said James brought it up as EVIDENCE that the process was bogus. Here is his quote in post 48:
I used my post to show him how USELESS on track data is. I never used the on-track to prove anything - on the contrary, I used it to show how stupid it is to use it.
[/b]

I still stand by my statement. Even God driving this car on the right track couldn't make it competitive at it's current weight.





Andy, if the car were a new classification (which it actually was given the model change) you would have based the weight off of the 133hp number.......There is no simple logic to how you claim that all the other classifcations were based on a standard and then not use the same standard on the miata?

I look at the 240sx 140 x 125% = 175 X 14.5 =2537 + 50 for rear suspension 2587 Old weight was 2530 new weight 2630 where did we get the additional if not on track history?

Z3 138HP x 125%=172.5 = 14.5 = 2501 + 50 IRS 2551+ 50 for good brakes 2601.....

Miata 133hp x 125%= 166.2 * 14.5 =2410 + 50 for IRS 2460 + 10 for good package 2470

Not sure you can justify it any other way than to say the cars did not have enough cage to put all the weight on them that they should have gotten if the process was followed....Sorry my friend but facts is facts
[/b]

Joe,

Those numbers should be reversed. Andy has clearly shown that his car went from 128hp at the crank to 171 at the crank for a gain of over 33%. If his car were to maintain the p/w ratio you'd have to start with 2480+ 50lbs+10lbs for a total of 2540lbs.

The Z3 on the other hand has demonstrated a crank hp of 165hp then to maintain the p/w ratio you have to start with 2392lbs + 100lbs = 2500lbs.

So you see the Miata needs to gain 150lbs and the Z3 needs to loose 100lbs. and this isn't even based on the lack of torque gain. If we took that into account we'd see that the Z3 could probably stand to loose at least another 50lbs.





....Another way to look at this situation? If in fact the M44 engine gains nothing from an IT build, leave it untouched freeing up a huge chunk of dough to do other things that will likely make the package faster - suspension engineering, engine management, dyno time, driver coaching, tires, and testing.

K
[/b]

Sure Kirk,

What do you suggest for suspention engineering? Moton Club Sports? Fabricated Arms? Reengineered goemetry? Rob's already got the coil-overs, sway bars, and the bushings? These cars don't like a lot of spring, unlike the sedans. The suspension setup is well know to us who race them and there's not a lot we can do with it. The simple fact is the car's over weight because it just doesn't respond to the IT build.

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

James,

When you work with an imperfect system that limits the granularity of the microscope, you will end up with cars that make slightly more and cars that make slightly less. IT is NOT the class that will ever correct for that, at least not without a strong NO vote from me.

I also stand by my statement that Rob's power levels are not 100% developed without PFI. Maybe Kessler can convince me over a hamburger at Lime Rock on the 4th of July. AND PLEASE REMEMBER - his numbers are from a DynaPak. Add 10% to get DynoJet numbers, easy.

The process has been shown and the cars are what they are. Understanding the limitations of IT and the process is key to being happy in the car we all chose. Would I like to have Greg's power? You bet. Would he like to have my handling? Bet he would. Do the cars provide good racing action against one another - you bet. The Z3 has more power than my Miata but not as much handling - and less power then the NX but more handling. A decent compromise car I would think.

As far as your speculation on competitiveness, that's all it is. Speculation. We all speculate when we think about building cars.

[Z3_GoCar]

Andy,

Rob and I've shown, pretty conclusively, that not only does the Z3 not have the handeling on the Miata, it doesn't have the power either. At a minimum they should be the same weight, and the Z3 should probably even be lighter.

James

[Joe Harlan]

Andy,

Rob and I've shown, pretty conclusively, that not only does the Z3 not have the handeling on the Miata, it doesn't have the power either. At a minimum they should be the same weight, and the Z3 should probably even be lighter.

James
[/b]


James, How many laps do you have in an ITA Z3? I don't believe you have proved anything conclusive. Fact is with the math the car belongs at the weight it is and if the miata was run through the same process it woul get weight. Thats the argument and nothing more. Once a fully developed Z3 shows up and gets spanked I will listen but IT still makes no promise of the competitive ability of any car so your constant whining is a waste of time at this point. I provided math reverse engineered from what ANDY posted and the deal is the Miata got special treatment. I don't car that a car may make a little more than the target number from time to time as long as the process is correctly applied to the base unit. IN the case of the Z3 it has been, In the case of the Miata it has not been. Andy still has not responded to the question of what other adders were put ont the 240sx to put 100 extra pounds on it? But even with the 100 extra pounds on the 240sx I am ok with it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Rob and I've shown, pretty conclusively, that not only does the Z3 not have the handeling on the Miata, it doesn't have the power either. At a minimum they should be the same weight, and the Z3 should probably even be lighter.

James
[/b]

No, he has not. He is working feverishly to develop the car but as far as I know has yet to land on anything close to a 'final' set-up. He can comment on this year but it has been a real tester for his patience.

[Z3_GoCar]

Joe,

I'm talking about a variance of 16% in the final output of a IT built motors. Andy's has shown that his gain was 33% thats 8% above your estimate and 5hp more than you predicted.

Rob's on the other hand only gained 17% that's 8% less than estimated and 7hp under predicted. Rob's motor is fully built to the maximum of IT rules. So in the end the numbers tell ME that were talking of the relative weight differential between these two cars is 12hp or 12x14.5 = 175 lbs to start with before the adders, before we even take the torque gains or lack there of into account. These numbers are much larger than what you'd expect from the granularity of the classification "formula." If you want to trot out the old "Doesn't garentee competitiveness" fine, then let's just take another 100lbs off the Miata and declare it the ITA overdog, and be done with it.

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob's on the other hand only gained 17% that's 8% less than estimated and 7hp under predicted. Rob's motor is fully built to the maximum of IT rules. So in the end the numbers tell ME that were talking of the relative weight differential between these two cars is 12hp or 12x14.5 = 175 lbs to start with before the adders, before we even take the torque gains or lack there of into account. These numbers are much larger than what you'd expect from the granularity of the classification "formula." If you want to trot out the old "Doesn't garentee competitiveness" fine, then let's just take another 100lbs off the Miata and declare it the ITA overdog, and be done with it.

James
[/b]

James,

Without Rob hitting a DynoJet, you can NOT throw around these numbers (which is why we all need to hit the same dyno the same day which I am ALL for). You continue to ignore that his numbers are from a DynaPak which has been said to read 10-13% LOWER than a Jet. Run your numbers again at 149whp. That is about 179 crank - OVER the predicted amount of 175....hmmmm. Also, why you even say that his power program is built to the maximum without a programmable computer is just beyond me. Until you see what one can do, you can't discount their potential. The Miata does not respond 'typically' to bolt ons, overbores, port matching and B&B. It DOES respond well to correcting a horrible A/F ratio (again supporting the 5hp gain from 95 to 96 was ECU related). Rob and Matt may be able to prove to us that the 1.9 doesn't need any A/F help but it would be a rarity.

No offense to Rob here. He is busting his nuts to get this thing going. Without any type of aftermarket support or knowledge base to run with. I would never had started with a platform like that (or the SE-R or NX2000 because I don't have the patience) I will talk with Matt in a couple weeks and get his thoughts.

Miata's must be winning all over the country because apperantly you can just jump in one and hit the cruise control. HA! Borrow one or build one, please.

[Joe Harlan]

James you are missing the point that i am making. If a 25% gain is what is expected and all piston engine 4 vlave cars are run through that process then the no promise of comptetive applys even if its a nissan product I am fine with that. But the formula has to be run from the highest claimed number available. Fact is the later car should have been used and the early car could have had weight based on the higher based number. That would be the proper approach. I am done talking about the BMW because as I have said I don't think anyone has done the deal 100% on this car yet. Also having been on the Dynojet many times and comparing it to a superflow I will take the super flow numbers anyday. The Dynapac is a great unit but you have to take the 3rd pass and then let it cool for a short period of time to stay consistant in the readings. 1st pass numbers on the dynapac are always low.

Rather than complaining that the Z3 is an underdog i would be way more concerned that current and future cars are being run correctly through the process.
Nobody has answered why the 240sx is 100 lbs heavier than its process weight. I can guess and I would be OK with my guess as long as it is stated.

[lateapex911]

Wow...a guy actually goes to work, and misses 4 pages of...

A couple points.

one- I'm really sorry, but you can't trot out one guys lap times and his power results and call the deal done. No offense to Rob, but he's only one guy. And Kessler? Ditto. One of his motors won the ARRC? Umm, so what? I don't know the NX2000 motor history by serial number, but I'm willing to bet that that motor wasn't his first crack at a NX2000 motor, and we all know I'm right. Do we all think we should base this sort of discussion on ONE driver, ONE car, and ONE motor builder??

(Especially when we consider that the development isn't complete! In talks with Rob, (and correct me please Rob, if I am mistating) he told me of his ECU woes, and how that particular ECu uses a number of variables to dial back the timing...and that he can't acheive correct spark timing. Seems to me there might be some ponies there....)

But, even if he DID have a different ECu, I'd stll be leery. One data sample is just that. And...the process is not a competition adjustment system.

Two- And as for trotting out lap times, like Rob being 3 seconds a lap slower here, or getting lapped there, well, thats not even pertinent, as I think those numbers are invalid to begin with, (IIRC, The fastest ITA cars at LRP recently ran 1:02s and Rob was in the 1:04s. and lets give poor Rob a break a well, he's not got a million miles of testing and racing under his, or the cars belt!) ....and again, that is just a single data sample without the required backgound to understand it..

[Knestis]

...What do you suggest for suspention engineering? Moton Club Sports? Fabricated Arms? Reengineered goemetry? ...[/b]
With respect, this is a window into the root of the problem in my opinion. "Engineering" is NOT buying parts. I'm going to suggest that the difference between being out there and being up front isn't writing checks and bolting on pieces.

Suspension engineering means instrumenting, testing, tweaking, gathering and analyzing data, making changes, and documenting the process to increase one's knowledge base.

Andy's alluded to this but the same thing goes for engines. I've got all of the right bits in my Conover Golf engine but I haven't followed through with the budget expenditures to optimize the AFR, with the requisite dyno time to support development. We have a nice safe tune on the chip. I am NOT going to blame the car for my being off the pace at sprint races.

The same goes for the driver. I'm not so impressed frankly with God's racing record. Do you REALLY think that a Randy Pobst quality shoe wouldn't make the car faster...?

This is where the real money gets spent and the real time gets found.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

With respect, this is a window into the root of the problem in my opinion. "Engineering" is NOT buying parts. I'm going to suggest that the difference between being out there and being up front isn't writing checks and bolting on pieces.

Suspension engineering means instrumenting, testing, tweaking, gathering and analyzing data, making changes, and documenting the process to increase one's knowledge base.

Andy's alluded to this but the same thing goes for engines. I've got all of the right bits in my Conover Golf engine but I haven't followed through with the budget expenditures to optimize the AFR, with the requisite dyno time to support development. We have a nice safe tune on the chip. I am NOT going to blame the car for my being off the pace at sprint races.

The same goes for the driver. I'm not so impressed frankly with God's racing record. Do you REALLY think that a Randy Pobst quality shoe wouldn't make the car faster...?

This is where the real money gets spent and the real time gets found.

K [/b]

http://northwestrockford.org/bingo/imagesbingo/Bingo.jpg

[JeffYoung]

Go back and dig up Keith Thomas (Chet Whittel's crew chief on the ARRC winning ITS BMW and 240z) posts on finding horsepower in handling. He seemed to think it was more critical initially than a maxed out engine program (by the way, the finished 2nd at the ARRC in ITS with 170 crank hp, or about what Rob's Z is making) and my experience has been the same. Getting the power DOWN is as important as getting the power.

A couple years back I was in "my car sucks and is misclassed" mode and could dream up all kinds of reasons why that was the case. A lot of engine development, suspension work and TEST TEST TEST has gotten me and the car competitive. And STILL a long way to go.

Until you fully understand the testing and development that goes into winning IT programs in a competitive division, it's really difficult to have a conversation that focuses solely on the factors that you are bringing up.

Based on the raw numbers I see for the Z3, the car looks like it has a chance, but may not be "the" car to have in ITA. That doesn't mean it can't win if prepped and driven to the max. But I suspect that even if you got your weight break you wouldn't see the gains you expect.

My car is also viewed as, hell laughed at by some, a car that doesn't really have a chance in S. I'm getting to where I'm starting to prove people wrong. If I may make a suggestion, focus on the cars strengths and finding ways to maximize them. It seems you have quite a bit more torque than the Miatas and CRXs (and maybe the Integras?), plus what appear to be great brakes. Work on maximizing those advantages.

[Z3_GoCar]

Alright, so YOU think these cars are properly classed. Then why doesn't anyone run one?? If they were truly competitve and right there you'd see just as many of the four cylinder BMW's as you'd see of any of the other cars. Don't tell me about suspension tweeking, the knowledge base is there from the six-cylinder cars that are raced all the time, the parts are there and the knowledge is there too, they're just not that different. The fact is that the four-cylinder BMW's have always been over weight and they continue to be over weight to this day. Plus the fact that now the sedans can't even make minimum weight as it is. Engine size wise it's only got 55cc on the 2380lb(sorry should be 2540lbs) Miata :D There just shouldn't be this 220lb difference, if anything the Z3 should be lighter than the Miata.

James

[JeffYoung]

Until recently, even a shell was rather expensive. From there, I think there is a perception that (a) it is not THE car to have and (B) development of a BMW, and repairs (panels, etc.) are not cheap. I think that probably explains a lot about why you don't see many Z3s out there.

But the fundamental point is that just because there aren't a lot of people running a car doesn't mean it is misclassed. I can throw back 100 examples from you from the ITCS of properly classed cars that people don't CHOOSE to run.

[Z3_GoCar]

Go back and dig up Keith Thomas (Chet Whittel's crew chief on the ARRC winning ITS BMW and 240z) posts on finding horsepower in handling. He seemed to think it was more critical initially than a maxed out engine program (by the way, the finished 2nd at the ARRC in ITS with 170 crank hp, or about what Rob's Z is making) and my experience has been the same. Getting the power DOWN is as important as getting the power.

A couple years back I was in "my car sucks and is misclassed" mode and could dream up all kinds of reasons why that was the case. A lot of engine development, suspension work and TEST TEST TEST has gotten me and the car competitive. And STILL a long way to go.

Until you fully understand the testing and development that goes into winning IT programs in a competitive division, it's really difficult to have a conversation that focuses solely on the factors that you are bringing up.

Based on the raw numbers I see for the Z3, the car looks like it has a chance, but may not be "the" car to have in ITA. That doesn't mean it can't win if prepped and driven to the max. But I suspect that even if you got your weight break you wouldn't see the gains you expect.

My car is also viewed as, hell laughed at by some, a car that doesn't really have a chance in S. I'm getting to where I'm starting to prove people wrong. If I may make a suggestion, focus on the cars strengths and finding ways to maximize them. It seems you have quite a bit more torque than the Miatas and CRXs (and maybe the Integras?), plus what appear to be great brakes. Work on maximizing those advantages.
[/b]

Kieth's car has the newer Z-axle that all the e-36 sedans have. He has the ability to tweek the rear suspension. The Z3's tailing arms are non-adjustable, you have to weld on the sub-frame to add adjustors which is truly questionable legality. No really, Jeff I'm telling you it does suck and needs help.

James





Until recently, even a shell was rather expensive. From there, I think there is a perception that (a) it is not THE car to have and (B) development of a BMW, and repairs (panels, etc.) are not cheap. I think that probably explains a lot about why you don't see many Z3s out there.

But the fundamental point is that just because there aren't a lot of people running a car doesn't mean it is misclassed. I can throw back 100 examples from you from the ITCS of properly classed cars that people don't CHOOSE to run.
[/b]

In this case Jeff, I'm including all the four cylinder BMW's in ITA, not just the Z3, but it's the only one to have a chance at making weight.

James

[Knestis]

I'm WITH YOU on the Miata (James) - I think it's wrong but that's another topic.

Out of curiousity, how many days of testing has the car seen since it was built? Not race weekends or track days - its REALLY slow going to learn anything in those settings.

How many dyno pulls?

K

[lateapex911]

The same goes for the driver. I'm not so impressed frankly with God's racing record. Do you REALLY think that a Randy Pobst quality shoe wouldn't make the car faster...?
[/b]

I was discussing this aspect with another racer recently, and the point of Randy Pobst came up...heck would Randy make my car shine ??? (Well, no, I doubt he' even get IN it, LOL...) but if he did, you betcha ....he'd smoke me!

But wait...that's not the entire point! Ever really watch a season of WC (Randy's series) with a critical eye? If you have, you know he's not that fast every time he gets in the same car for the same team!!! And it's not just because of reward weight either. Plain and simple, some days he's not God...some days the cars not right for that track, some days the setups not , well, set up!



This is where the real money gets spent and the real time gets found.

K [/b]

Also known as the "last second"!


People often come up to me and say something like, "IT is great, but you guys really ought to allow_____" (Fill in the blank, cams, big brakes, alternate heads, etc.)

I smile, and say someting like, "Are you sure?? You want to go to the dyno and test cams?? Remember...it's not JUST cams..it's the cam, and the different exhaust that might be better with THAT cam, and the dfferent ECU tunes you'll be dynoing. Change just that ONE part, and you'll cube the number of dyno runs you'll need to find if you're REALLY getting the absolute most from your package......right??"

Thats the point...there are so many variables.....and really nailing them is the key. Andy has a team that rents Spec Miatas. Given a good driver, those things will set track records...and they do it with not big HP, but with lots of testing and track specific setups. But it didn't happen overnight.

[JeffYoung]

No really James, you are not listening. I'm talking about the 240Z with drum brakes, and carbs, all that dinosaur stuff that ran about the same lap times as their E36. Keith will tell you over and over that there is horsepower in handling.

We're coming at this from two different planets. You want a quick fix for a car you want to be competitive, using dubious numbers and -- really -- class killing methods to get there. Arguing about weights and competitiveness THIS WAY is exactly what guys like Kirk were (apparently rightfully so) worried about when necessary subjective factors were added to the classing process.

You guys have yet to even respond to Andy's post on how the Z3 (IGNORE THE MIATA FOR THE MOMENT) weight was developed. There are no obvious errors in it. If I am wrong, show me where they are.

Here's two things I'd like to see:

1. Rob turn some laps in his Z3 at 100 lbs less. I suspect the gains you think will see just won't be there.

2. Have Greg/Andy et. al turn some laps in the Z3 and see if there is an improvement.

I had a fast friend run the Triumph two years ago. Embarassed the hell out of me, and opened my eyes to my own shortcomings. And stopped a lot of my internal "my car is being screwed!" stuff.

And you know what? If at the end of the day, the car is NOT competitive at its process weight...well, that's IT for you. If you build a Z3 because you like the cars, like I built a TR8 cause I liked it (for some ungodly reason), and it is not fast when developed to the max, then, well, the choice you have is to run it as best you can, or go build something faster.

[Z3_GoCar]

I'm WITH YOU on the Miata (James) - I think it's wrong but that's another topic.

Out of curiousity, how many days of testing has the car seen since it was built? Not race weekends or track days - its REALLY slow going to learn anything in those settings.

How many dyno pulls?

K
[/b]

Actually Kirk, that's half of my topic. When it's making 5hp more than the predicted based on the highest of the initial factory numbers, the Miata is seeing a gain higher than the norm, that's statistically significant. Andy may protest this, but I think his Dynojet is probably really close to the actual number if he pulled 105hp on it initially, that means he was getting close to the 128hp that his car was classed on, then he pulls 140.7hp -> 171hp at the crank. This would indicate to me given all the adders from Joe that the Miata should weight 2540lbs.

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's obvious James doesn't respond to anything that doesn't fit his issues. DynaPak to DynoJet. Do the research. I GUARANTEE 135 DP's are more than 140 DJ's...all before 100% optimization. Nobody will convince me a AFPR is as good a PFI. THOSE are the facts.

You don't BACK into minimum weights from singular dyno numbers. You can use them to trend to see if something is REALLY amiss (like the 108hp CRX or the 101hp RX-7, or the 189hp 325 at 2850 etc, etc) and a PCA might be looming - but like I said before, some will make more, some less. Should we back Greg's car through the process with his 165+ dynojets? No. It's been through the process. Did the process fail ITA on his car? Maybe. He won two series, set 3 track records and won the ARRC. Did he do it overnight with less than stellar equipment, prep and driving? No. All that had to come together, and until the SE-R/NX proves to be ruining ITA, it won't get a second look or consideration for a PCA. Something has to be proven - yes, PROVEN to be CRITICALLY wrong with the process numbers in order to move forward with that. It is what it is. I welcome all ya'll to build one of those beauties if you think it's the killer.

I can uderstand the arguements for the 2460 on the Miata. I have stated why it's 2380. But to start throwing around retrocative weights based on one dyno sheet is foolish at best and the day it happens to IT is the day they find a whole 'nother set of ITAC guys.

[Z3_GoCar]

..You guys have yet to even respond to Andy's post on how the Z3 (IGNORE THE MIATA FOR THE MOMENT) weight was developed. There are no obvious errors in it. If I am wrong, show me where they are.

Here's two things I'd like to see:

1. Rob turn some laps in his Z3 at 100 lbs less. I suspect the gains you think will see just won't be there.

2. Have Greg/Andy et. al turn some laps in the Z3 and see if there is an improvement.

I had a fast friend run the Triumph two years ago. Embarassed the hell out of me, and opened my eyes to my own shortcomings. And stopped a lot of my internal "my car is being screwed!" stuff.

And you know what? If at the end of the day, the car is NOT competitive at its process weight...well, that's IT for you. If you build a Z3 because you like the cars, like I built a TR8 cause I liked it (for some ungodly reason), and it is not fast when developed to the max, then, well, the choice you have is to run it as best you can, or go build something faster.
[/b]

Jeff,

I uderstand what you're saying. But, here's the error in how the Z3 and all the four cylinder BMW's are classed. They don't make the gains that is predicted by the "formula" What if all cars were assumed to gain the same as the rotary's?? The M-44's come with a nitrided crank, tubular stainless steel headers, and roller rocker arms. You think that by going to a custom header, you're going to see the same gain as going from a cast iron manifold to a custom tube header? As for the rear suspension, we shouldn't be getting the same adder as the sedans with the Z-axle or the Miata for that matter, not when it's non-adjustable and you get the kind of changes in camber and toe that we get. You can set it up hard, but then you loose the rear grip, or you can set it up softer and have it wallow on entry. It's just not as big an advantage as a true double a-arm. Why does Prepared allow trailing arms and solid axles to be replaced by custom fab'ed units?? Because, neither can cut the mustard with a true double a-arm. In reality we shouldn't get the 50lbs adder for IRS either.

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

As for the rear suspension, we shouldn't be getting the same adder as the sedans with the Z-axle or the Miata for that matter, not when it's non-adjustable and you get the kind of changes in camber and toe that we get. You can set it up hard, but then you loose the rear grip, or you can set it up softer and have it wallow on entry. It's just not as big an advantage as a true double a-arm. Why does Prepared allow trailing arms and solid axles to be replaced by custom fab'ed units?? Because, neither can cut the mustard with a true double a-arm. In reality we shouldn't get the 50lbs adder for IRS either.

James
[/b]

James,

Please read my posts. It's like you glaze over everything. I have no problem expalining decisions or thought processes but if you aren't going to even think about them or read them, then I have to stop.

1. There is no 'adder' for either your suspension or the E36 318. The process is NOT GRANULAR enough to differentiate. They are considered the same. Strut-based RWD platforms.

2. The Miata takes a 50lb adder for it's Double Wishbone set up.

3. You do NOT get an adder for IRS. No car does. The Z3 50 adders is for big brakes - as I have explained.

The process is not perfect. Maybe 50 lbs is too little for double wishbones. Maybe 50 lbs is too much for big brakes, maybe 50lbs is to little for FWD, who knows but it is what it is - and is the reason there are so many different cars that now feel they have a shot.

[JeffYoung]

James, look at Andy's post on Rob's power and Dynapak v. Dynojet. It looks to me that the Z3 is seeing a pretty normal gain from an IT build.

[lateapex911]

I REALLY don't want to get into the Miata issue on this thread, b ut there's an obvious parallel... how do any of us know (sorry Andy) that his 140 hp on a DJ is even legal??

It's just ONE example!

[Andy Bettencourt]

I REALLY don't want to get into the Miata issue on this thread, b ut there's an obvious parallel... how do any of us know (sorry Andy) that his 140 hp on a DJ is even legal??

It's just ONE example!

[/b]

:) It's easy to cheat when everyone assumes you are legal!!! :birra:

[Z3_GoCar]

....
Z3 138HP x 125%=172.5 = 14.5 = 2501 + 50 IRS 2551+ 50 for good brakes 2601.....

Miata 133hp x 125%= 166.2 * 14.5 =2410 + 50 for IRS 2460 + 10 for good package 2470

Not sure you can justify it any other way than to say the cars did not have enough cage to put all the weight on them that they should have gotten if the process was followed....Sorry my friend but facts is facts
[/b]

This is where I got a 50lb adder for IRS.

James

[JeffYoung]

Exactly. Which is why we are putting a small block Ferd 289 in the Jensen. It will be one HELL of a lap or two.....

[Z3_GoCar]

I REALLY don't want to get into the Miata issue on this thread, b ut there's an obvious parallel... how do any of us know (sorry Andy) that his 140 hp on a DJ is even legal??

It's just ONE example!
[/b]

Jake, that's 50% of this thread :lol:

James

[Ron Earp]

So on your IT Z3 motor you’ve done the following:

*10.5 : 1 compression (yes, it’ll run on 93 octane, just watch your A/F and timing)
*1mm, 0.040” overbore
*Block bored with torque plate to make sure bores are straight - skip this step and you've lost some power
*Some high quality rings, Total Seal etc. to make the most of the engine specs
*Best aftermarket pistonreplacements for better sealing and construction
*Fabricated oil pan with integrated crank scraper
*Check over the oiling system to see what can be gained there through careful analysis and book adjustments
*Rocker geometry maxed out to get every last 0.001” of valve lift
*Valve job to the max allowable according to BMW’s build specs
*Valve springs selected from a large number to get the highest spec springs in the bunch
*Head port matched, intake port matched
*Stepped header design, multiple configurations tested to get max power/torque in the racing range
*A/F adjustments made with stand alone ECU to make absolutely sure at every RPM point you’re on the money for max power/torque
*Lightest legal flywheel you can do, even a surface skim helps on the weigh
*Lightest aluminum pressure plate you can have made, small light clutch, open and free, lose the weight
*Light damper, under drive pulleys, light pulleys
*Lots of dyno time with your ECU adjusting fuel and timing

And I'm sure some other things that people more learned than I can comment on. I'd say until you've done all of this then you don't have a 100% maxed out IT build. I know I'm not there.

Ron

[JeffYoung]

Damn, now I am depressed....

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is where I got a 50lb adder for IRS.

James
[/b]

Except that while Joe helped develop the process, he is not on the ITAC and is not 100% in tune with it obviously. I gave you what you needed in post #50.








So on your IT Z3 motor you’ve done the following:

*10.5 : 1 compression (yes, it’ll run on 93 octane, just watch your A/F and timing)
*1mm, 0.040” overbore
*Block bored with torque plate to make sure bores are straight - skip this step and you've lost some power
*Some high quality rings, Total Seal etc. to make the most of the engine specs
*Best aftermarket pistonreplacements for better sealing and construction
*Fabricated oil pan with integrated crank scraper
*Check over the oiling system to see what can be gained there through careful analysis and book adjustments
*Rocker geometry maxed out to get every last 0.001” of valve lift
*Valve job to the max allowable according to BMW’s build specs
*Valve springs selected from a large number to get the highest spec springs in the bunch
*Head port matched, intake port matched
*Stepped header design, multiple configurations tested to get max power/torque in the racing range
*A/F adjustments made with stand alone ECU to make absolutely sure at every RPM point you’re on the money for max power/torque
*Lightest legal flywheel you can do, even a surface skim helps on the weigh
*Lightest aluminum pressure plate you can have made, small light clutch, open and free, lose the weight
*Light damper, under drive pulleys, light pulleys
*Lots of dyno time with your ECU adjusting fuel and timing

And I'm sure some other things that people more learned than I can comment on. I'd say until you've done all of this then you don't have a 100% maxed out IT build. I know I'm not there.

Ron [/b]

And again, I am not questioning most of this stuff. Kessler builds some top-quality sh!t we all know. I have to question the lack of PFI if we are going to say it's 100% and should be used at THE benchmark.

ALSO - the Pak to Jet issue is real and unacknowledged.

[Ron Earp]

And again, I am not questioning most of this stuff. Kessler builds some top-quality sh!t we all know. I have to question the lack of PFI if we are going to say it's 100% and should be used at THE benchmark.

[/b]

Sorry, I must have missed that. I'm just asking an honest question no offense to Kessler (I assume the builder). Just that if you haven't done all that, and some other stuff too I'm not aware of, then you don't have a flat out build.

Be worth doing a lot of other things too like looking at variances in stock cam shafts and getting the best ones, ditto heads as for sure there are some variations there like any other cast and machined part.

I know I've got a long way to go.....

R

[Joe Harlan]

James, The only issue with the miata weight is that it was based on the wrong weight. If the car makes a little more BFD it is just like weight if its done inside the process we did our best. I am sorry to say this James but you will always be a back marker with a looser attitude that you have. You were beat before you ever bought a car because you didn't want to play by an existing set of rules. Now you would like the process tailored to fit your car because you have not done the work or likely have the skill set to get it to the front. 5 pages of trying to reason and show you that you have work to do is enough. I showed you the math on how the car get to where it is. The is based on predicted not actual numbers. Actual numbers can only come to play in a big error as far as I am concerned. YOu just need to get off the net and go do about 30 driving schools and pay a professional to do your development work and one day you may find yourself at the pointy end of the stick but unfortunately I doubt because I believe you have lost before you even got started....

And Andy is correcrt I am not completely in tune with how the process is being applied, Obvious since I am asking questions about it. But if your not giving 50 for IRS then the z3 comes out at 2551 where does the extra 50 come from. Just like the 240sx where does the extra weight come from?

[robits325is]

Maybe Rob and Andy should swap cars for the July 4th race at Lime Rock.


See what happens.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Maybe Rob and Andy should swap cars for the July 4th race at Lime Rock.


See what happens. [/b]

If you give me the same development and seat time I have in my Miata, no sweat. I would love to have at it for a test day however...

Then I will choose who Rob gets to switch his Bimmer with... :)

[Z3_GoCar]

James, The only issue with the miata weight is that it was based on the wrong weight. If the car makes a little more BFD it is just like weight if its done inside the process we did our best. I am sorry to say this James but you will always be a back marker with a looser attitude that you have. You were beat before you ever bought a car because you didn't want to play by an existing set of rules. Now you would like the process tailored to fit your car because you have not done the work or likely have the skill set to get it to the front. 5 pages of trying to reason and show you that you have work to do is enough. I showed you the math on how the car get to where it is. The is based on predicted not actual numbers. Actual numbers can only come to play in a big error as far as I am concerned. YOu just need to get off the net and go do about 30 driving schools and pay a professional to do your development work and one day you may find yourself at the pointy end of the stick but unfortunately I doubt because I believe you have lost before you even got started....

And Andy is correcrt I am not completely in tune with how the process is being applied, Obvious since I am asking questions about it. But if your not giving 50 for IRS then the z3 comes out at 2551 where does the extra 50 come from. Just like the 240sx where does the extra weight come from?
[/b]
Joe,

I don't need you to insult me. I've kept this thread impersonal and presented evidence both factual and circumstantial to support my case that the "formula" doesn't provide the correct answer to the case of 4 cylinder BMW's in ITA, the Z3 being the poster child for this since it's weight is actually attainable where the sedans can't make current weight so any further weight reduction is meaningless. I've also presented data to back up my claim that the "formula" underpredicts the weight of the Miata also by a significant margin outside the error of probablility. The M-44 is also the poster child for the closed non-programable ecu. This is my last post on this topic, expect to read my letter to the ITAC and CRB on these matters. Good Night!

James

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

I don't need you to insult me. I've kept this thread impersonal and presented evidence both factual and circumstantial to support my case that the "formula" doesn't provide the correct answer to the case of 4 cylinder BMW's in ITA, the Z3 being the poster child for this since it's weight is actually attainable where the sedans can't make current weight so any further weight reduction is meaningless. I've also presented data to back up my claim that the "formula" underpredicts the weight of the Miata also by a significant margin outside the error of probablility. The M-44 is also the poster child for the closed non-programable ecu. This is my last post on this topic, expect to read my letter to the ITAC and CRB on these matters. Good Night!

James
[/b]

James, Sorry but you are just dense. The process is not designed to hit the nail right on the head. It is designed to have a gudieline to classify cars closer than they have ever had a chance in past. I would not support a change in the process for the BMW or the Nissan. I do suport having the process re-run on the miata and the proper weight placed based on the 133HP number. If somebody gains more than the 25% expected then good for them but at least the process was applied properly. If you or anyone else is not able to make estimated HP gains you will get close and enjoy driving the car or you will sell the BMW and buy a car that can run up front with development and a good driver. THE PROCESS WAS NEVER MEANT TO TURN IT INTO PRODUCTION OR GT AS FAR AS TRYING TO PIN THE DICK ON MOVING TICK, so if your not happy that we are playing horseshoes then build a prod or a gt car cause thats the only two places they try to pin the dick on a tick. The process is getting things much closer than an uncorked E36 VS A dodge neon of the past. Goodluck with your deal

OH and if I didn't make my point it does not matter factual or circumstantial cause the process was never intended to fully consider real world data unless so extreme that a PCA was warranted. In this cause there is NO WAY a PCA is warranted. But a mistake was made with the base HP number on the miata and that should be fixed.

[dickita15]

3. You do NOT get an adder for IRS. No car does.
[/b]

I was surprised to read this. Is there a subtracter for live axel or is this not used as a data point at all.

[steve s]

first of let me say i did not read all the post so far i got to andy's with the explantion of the process.
ok then IMO if a car would be over the weight for the cage then the process needs to be worked in reverse by starting with the weight then limiting HP [SIR] as was done to other cars.i think this would be fair for all competitors.
next point an 11" brakes [just pulling fictitous numbers ] may be considered big on a 1500lbs car hence the 50lb adder i agree, but on a 3000lbs car may not be considered big. so we should figure out a formula for weight to brake size ratio .like we do now with the HP to weight ratio.
in closing i would like to say thanks to all for the good job you're doing on all the various SCCA comittees .but if we listen to our members objectively and admit when we're wrong then we'll have an excellent club to race with.
i am not choosing sides just trying to be fair to everyone concern.

[tnord]

I do suport having the process re-run on the miata and the proper weight placed based on the 133HP number.
[/b]

i look forward to seeing your letter in fastrack for the removal of 200+lbs on the CRX as well.

[Joe Harlan]

i look forward to seeing your letter in fastrack for the removal of 200+lbs on the CRX as well.
[/b]


You won't see it Travis. The CRX in my opinion does not add up to the sum of all its parts, I believe in this case there was a proper PCA applied to that car but Andy or Darin would know better than I on that one.

[tnord]

by strictly following the process (which you INSIST MUST be done to the miata) the CRX would lose hundreds of pounds, and we'd have ITCRX. and while you're at it, go ahead and remove a few bricks from the 325 in S as well so we can go back to $60,000 ITBMW. that was fun.

[Joe Moser]

i look forward to seeing your letter in fastrack for the removal of 200+lbs on the CRX as well.
[/b]

Travis, All,

This is where my issue is with the "Process".

The ITAC is deciding on a case-by-case basis whether to use PREDICTED HP OUTPUT (Based on 25% Improvement in IT Trim) or ACTUAL HP OUTPUT (Based on Dyno #'s).

Cars like the 1.8L Miata and the NX2000 were run, correctly, through the process using PREDICTED HP OUTPUT. Their weights are correct, and I have no issue with them (ok, maybe a little issue with the funny business in the 1.8L Miata classification, but I'll omit for this argument). This is an "open-loop classification".

Cars like the 1.6L Honda CRX and 1.8L Integra are run through using ACTUAL HP OUTPUT. This is a "closed-loop classification". These cars are being classified using HP numbers attained through many, many years of development.

Now you have a DUAL classification system.

For example, a new car is classified in ITA, the "Nissan Charger". The car is classified using PREDICTED HP OUTPUT. The car happens to make more ACTUAL HP in IT trim than PREDICTED HP. Because the car is classified new and without data for ACTUAL, it is classified very favorably. How then, would the CRX, or Integra have even a chance against it? Would the car be re-run through the process after known HP is obtained? If so, should the Miata and NX2000 be re-run through the process? If not, are we deciding now that the CRX and Integra are classified differently than the Miata and NX2000?

I am asking for CONSISTENCY!!!!!!!!!!!! Either ALL cars are based on ACTUAL or ALL cars are based on PREDICTED. Otherwise, we are implimenting performance adjustments, which don't fit in with IT class philosophy.



Joe Moser

[lateapex911]

Which brings us back to Travis' post....

So, you'd be in favor of an "estimated and live with the screw up system?" Thats what we had for years...What if you owned a car on the other side of that coin, instead of the CRX? The CRX was clearly a screw up, and was the absolute no brainer car to have in the class for years. Heck, it rewrote the performance envelope for the class, and relegated dozens of cars to backmarker status.

It's easy to ask for things when it benefits you, but think hard about the flipside and the damage that gets done to a class, even a category. when mistakes like that are allowed to proliferate.

[Joe Harlan]

Travis, All,

This is where my issue is with the "Process".

The ITAC is deciding on a case-by-case basis whether to use PREDICTED HP OUTPUT (Based on 25% Improvement in IT Trim) or ACTUAL HP OUTPUT (Based on Dyno #'s).

Cars like the 1.8L Miata and the NX2000 were run, correctly, through the process using PREDICTED HP OUTPUT. Their weights are correct, and I have no issue with them (ok, maybe a little issue with the funny business in the 1.8L Miata classification, but I'll omit for this argument). This is an "open-loop classification".

Cars like the 1.6L Honda CRX and 1.8L Integra are run through using ACTUAL HP OUTPUT. This is a "closed-loop classification". These cars are being classified using HP numbers attained through many, many years of development.

Now you have a DUAL classification system.

For example, a new car is classified in ITA, the "Nissan Charger". The car is classified using PREDICTED HP OUTPUT. The car happens to make more ACTUAL HP in IT trim than PREDICTED HP. Because the car is classified new and without data for ACTUAL, it is classified very favorably. How then, would the CRX, or Integra have even a chance against it? Would the car be re-run through the process after known HP is obtained? If so, should the Miata and NX2000 be re-run through the process? If not, are we deciding now that the CRX and Integra are classified differently than the Miata and NX2000?

I am asking for CONSISTENCY!!!!!!!!!!!! Either ALL cars are based on ACTUAL or ALL cars are based on PREDICTED. Otherwise, we are implimenting performance adjustments, which don't fit in with IT class philosophy.
Joe Moser
[/b]

Joe, I almost agree but there has to be a way to handle cars that don't add up. Otherwise we end up with the car of the year deal and that hurts the participation numbers. I am all for fully trusting the process at the point of classification but when a car clearly become too much for the class it needs to be looked at hard for PCA. We just cannot let a run away happen again as it hurt the numbers in ITS all over the country for several years.

[tnord]

unrealistic Joe.

too many cars, too little time.

actual output > predicted output.

on cars that are known factors, like the well developed CRX, integra, 325, RX7, miata, etc., using known output is perfectly reasonable and a better measure to class with than what is nothing more than an educated guess. remember, mfg listed HP is a joke mostly, especially in the case of the CRX/325 and various Mazdas.

for new classification of cars for the most part all you can really do is use predicted output, because nobody has really built one to the nine's yet, and the ITAC/CRB certainly doesn't have the resources to do this before giving it a weight.

if a new car came into a class and turned out to be an overdog, i have every bit of faith in the ITAC that the car would be brought down within the performance envelope of the class (ie BMW). that's really all you can do is have faith that they'll get it right, and write your letters.

hell, there isn't even consistency in SM, how do you expect it in IT. :P

[Joe Moser]

So, you'd be in favor of an "estimated and live with the screw up system?" Thats what we had for years...What if you owned a car on the other side of that coin, instead of the CRX? The CRX was clearly a screw up, and was the absolute no brainer car to have in the class for years. Heck, it rewrote the performance envelope for the class, and relegated dozens of cars to backmarker status.

It's easy to ask for things when it benefits you, but think hard about the flipside and the damage that gets done to a class, even a category. when mistakes like that are allowed to proliferate.
[/b]

Jake,

This is not about ME or about the CRX (and by the way, we chose to invest our money in a capable platform, we were playing the game, just like anybody else when they chose the car that they chose... It's not like we are in love with the F'in things, they were the car to have, I understand that).

I'm not advocating the CRX go to it's 2007 lbs. classification, it would definitely blow away the field. Hell, I'm not even asking that the CRX gets a weight adjustment!

What I'm asking is, At what point will the ITAC realize a car is exceeding its PREDICTED HP and re-run it through the process using ACTUAL HP? If it requires more than 1 car to be kicking ass out there, than how many? Do I have to wait until an entire fleet of Miata's or NX2000's are blowing me away before the ITAC will re-adjust the weights? If somebody chooses to go out and build a new "Toyota Whatever", and nobody else runs one, but I'm getting my ass kicked every race by it, do they do anything about it? At what point do they do it? Maybe I should start looking for the "Toyota Whatever"???

I know there is no good answer, and it is VERY difficult to appease everybody. I'm not stupid, I know all of this. It's also GREAT to know that there are such dedicated people on both sides of the issue to keep everything in check (Kirk, Greg Amy, Joe Harlan, Bettencourt...etc)

Joe

[Knestis]

Ah - I get what Joe is asking. The answer might be in the business of "counterfactuals." Let's see if I can make sense of this...

It is easier to demonstrate with a dyno that a car has made TOO MUCH power, relative to its predicted IT output than it is to demonstrate that a car has come up short of what was expected. Examples:

1. 1995 Blenheim Blaster GT - predicted to reach 145whp as an ITA car, weight is established using that value. It's popular, a lot of people build them, and a body of knowledge grows up around the engine. Bunches of dyno sheets circulate that show 154-159whp. Entrants of Blasters are happy, other cars are not and agitate for a weight change.

2. 1995 Trotski Turdler LS - predicted to reach 145whp in ITA, race weight is the same as the Blaster. For whatever reason, the Turdler never catches on in big numbers but is raced by a couple of stalwart TOoA (Turdler Owners of America) members. Owners of Turdlers complain that the car can't be competitive because it just doesn't make the kind of power that it should with IT preparation, sharing a dyno sheet with an indicated 132whp. Most other ITA entrants just don't notice very much.

Discuss.

What arguments can be used to justify changing the weight in each case?
What criticisms can be appropriately leveled at those arguments?
What assumptions have to be made in each example? That might be applicable to both examples?

I've made these examples a little less complicated than real life but they are still illustrative. One uses data to try to 'prove' that something has happened - that a car has (at least) met its expected power output - whereas the other tries to 'prove' that the same thing has NOT happened. The latter is a much tougher prospect.

K

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, this is good.

The obvious reasons here are:

1. It is easier to "change" the faster car's weight because you have a body of data showing that a process assumption -- actual IT prep hp -- is higher than the assumption.

2. For the slower car, it is just too easy to say "not fully prepped." And this is somewhat self-perpuating because once the car gets a reputation for being a turd, it is going to take one dedicated Turdiafoso to build one to the max.

Probably the only example I have seen come close to example no. 2 is the 8v Porsche 944, which doesn't appear to make its expected IT prep gains and remains (although I believe it belongs there) in ITS.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Isn't one of the challenges of IT racing to find a car that you believe has potential, build it and reap the benefits of it?

Greg believed in the MR2 and the Egg, that there was more HP than the process decided and he felt it was a good choice. He is now reaping that benefit.

If you use actual HP numbers aren't you doing competition adjustments?

[Joe Moser]

Isn't one of the challenges of IT racing to find a car that you believe has potential, build it and reap the benefits of it?

Greg believed in the MR2 and the Egg, that there was more HP than the process decided and he felt it was a good choice. He is now reaping that benefit.

If you use actual HP numbers aren't you doing competition adjustments?
[/b]

This is 100% EXACTLY my point! Greg believed in the Egg, there was more HP than the process decided, and he is now reaping that benefit.

We believed in the CRX, there was more HP than the process decided, HOWEVER, we are now run through the process AT THAT ADDITIONAL HP, while Greg (Sorry to single you out Greg, it's just relevant!) is NOT.

THIS IS NOT CONSISTENT. We are penalized for having a well-developed, responsive to IT mods car, while other cars are not penalized.

SO YES, THIS IS COMPETITION ADJUSTMENT. Do we need to bring a dyno to the big races and use the data from the top prepared cars of a certain model to be able and set the weight correctly? Isn't ACTUAL HP numbers from 1 car better than NO ACTUAL HP numbers?

I really hate to have to use Greg in this example, I know how much development and work he has done to that Egg, and he's a hell of a competitor. We just feel that we've done the same development, and we drive hard too, and we have interest in protecting the competitiveness of our rides! It sucks to become irrelevent by a rules process that isn't consistently applied! :)

[Greg Amy]

Not offense taken, Joe.

In fact, as I posted in the other thread, I agree with you. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am going to post this one more time and then take a long break from this BB. At some point the access and transparancy is going to burn me out. Maybe that is a good thing for some! :)

I have had some nice private exchanges with Joe on this topic. We are trying to get cars close, by using knowledge that we have, in a consistant and fair manner. This will NEVER be Prod. Under my watch, you will never see 25lb changes to any car in the interest of changing the cars competitiveness. Can't do it right, can't do it well, just can't do it. See Prod.

IF it were a straight formula, the 'equity' we see now in IT would vanish. Greg complains that he feels 'cheated' about his ARRC win as he thought everyone was on the same playing field. I submit that his win was as equitable as possible given the current system because the deck wasn't stacked against him. Here are some cars that would make waves unless practical application and common sense were not used (eliminating all rotories because people seem to accept you have to make a concession there - which certainly opens the barn door - if you are going to go off a knowledge bases, then use it!).

ITA CRX: Currently at 2250. Would be at 2007lbs in ITA using stock hp rating of 108.

ITS TR8: 137 stock hp. Boom - ITA. 2483lbs before adder for torque.

ITA Chevy Monza 3.8: 115 stock HP. Boom - ITB. 2337 before adders.

I could go on. The point is that until a knoweldge base is built, you have to go with your estimates. And even then, the resultant 'issue' has to be so far out of whack that a PCA should be invoked. Greg's car is fast, we all know that. But even though he is outside his process power estimate, his car is not such that it is ruining ITA - according to the rules in the ITCS, the purpose is to restore the equity within the vehicles class. That is when you turn to on-track results. Not SINGULAR results but mounds and mounds of results that establish trends. Car counts dwindling, letters of complaints, submitted dyno sheets, track records falling for multiple drivers driving said model in differnet parts of the country with varied levels of prep etc. It's all put together to trigger a second look - and if that second look uncovers new information that shows the car is outside the 'noise' of 100lbs...a weight change could be considered.

I was with Joe all the way up until he said his car is now 'irrelevant'. I have a hard time understanding that choice of words. And for every car that gains a little 'extra' in the power department, there is another that can't make the gains. We aren't trying to balance the classes on the head of a pin, just get them close. Some say the process is applied inconsistantly and isn't fair. I say it is applied consistantly, with slop built in to keep overdogs and underdogs from becoming a problem. "The best we can do in good faith".

In closing, the Process is not perfect, we all know it. It does as good of a job, for as many people, as it can without entering the world of monthly reviews of performance - which history has shown is IMPOSSIBLE to do. Again, see Prod. Without using the info we have, we are right back were we started from. I refuse to agree that would be better than the current system. YMMV. I am out. Keep the shiny side up.

[dominojd]

:) It's easy to cheat when everyone assumes you are legal!!! :birra:
[/b]

He finally admitted it publicly. :P

[Knestis]

There are soom "yeah, buts" to be considered here however, Jeff...

** In both cases, we are assuming that the cars from which data were collected are legal. Since the presumption is innocent until proven guilty by protest, the temptation is to assume they are all OK. However, protests are frankly rare enough that popular opinion in the culture is that "everyone cheats - it's just a question of how much." This alone makes the entire question of using "real data" suspect.

** It is fundamentally hard to prove that something does not exist. Nobody has proven that there's NOT intelligent life on other planets and that they've been probing Earthings' anuses for thousands of years - therefore, I believe that they exist. You can argue all day about this but ultimately, I can't be proven wrong. However, I could be proven right - supporting my contention that They Are Out There, proving the naysayers wrong - with the release of just one body from Area 51. The Turdler example is even worse than this because the outcome measure of the effectiveness of a "full build" is power. The absence of power could be evidence of (1) lack of a full build, or (2) lack of the desired outcome, as assessed by that measure - there's NO way to tell just from looking at the evidence from a distance. It requires very systematic definition of what the INPUTS might be and the documentation thereof. And it isn't just about receipts since the real returns on an engine build come from tuning. PLUS there are a huge number of variables that influence the greater outcome that we all tend to see - on-track performance. Arguments about a lack of POWER are supported with evidence about LAP TIMES, compounding the problem.

** Jeff makes a good point about the self-fulfilling prophecy issue! But there are other organizationa/social/cultural influences that confound things. Consider for a moment, example 3:

3. 1995 Elron Scientolo G - listed in ITA based on a predicted 145whp as an ITA car. Problem is, there's no aftermarket for the car, the suspension is a cheap knock-off of the early swing-axle Corvair, and it's as attractive as the backend of an overweight female gibbon in heat. Only one has ever been raced but it kicked everyone's butts. The car has survived a major protest tear-down so accusations of cheating have diminished, but other ITA entrants are sharpening their pitchforks.

Hmm?

Andy's out but I still think it's convenient that the outlier examples that keep coming up tend to be oddballs in terms of their specific layout. In his most recent post, we have two pollution-choked V layouts, of greater displacement than we typically deal with in a given class. Apply "local knowledge" to the general attribute? Not so awful, probably. But yeah - sometimes we get to attributes specific enough that they define a single instance...

K

[lateapex911]

What arguments can be used to justify changing the weight in each case?
What criticisms can be appropriately leveled at those arguments?
What assumptions have to be made in each example? That might be applicable to both examples?

I've made these examples a little less complicated than real life but they are still illustrative. One uses data to try to 'prove' that something has happened - that a car has (at least) met its expected power output - whereas the other tries to 'prove' that the same thing has NOT happened. The latter is a much tougher prospect.

K [/b]

EDIT: Of course, Kirk posts while I typed away, making mine rather redundant, but I'll leave it anyway...

Ah Kirk, I'm such a sucker.

1- In the case of the overdog, an examination needs to be made as to how those numbers are being made. Lots of data...the more the better. Pro builders would be consulted. Data can be gotten in many ways. As many know, we've been down that road in the past.

2- Obviously, in the case of the underacheiver, it's a much more difficult task. Proving a negative. But again, the more data, the better. Eventually, some peice of information might yeild not just the true situation, but, more importantly to me, the "why" behind it.

In both cases of course, you need to examine the data with a very critical eye. Is the data acheived consistently? In a scientific manner? Is it comparable? And...the biggest one of all...is it real?

Considering the source is paramount.

In the end, there may, or may not be enough data to make a call.

I feel that the ITAC needs to be consistant, of course. I also think it needs to keep scrupulous notes so that future versions of the ITAC can operate in the same manner.

But...and while I understand the arguement of those who cry that such things as the Feb addendum are unfair penalties, I really feel that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

It's ironic that the CRX was trotted out in this case, because that one car ...or should I say...that one classification...singlehandedly put more cars on blocks than any other in ITA. When it was classsified, people were amazed at how fast they actually went. Cries of protest and suspicions of cheating were common. But, back then the weight was cast in stone. So, in order to avoid a one car class, they added other cars at weights they though would be competitive against the new king.

I talked to the then head of the CRB about it, and explained to him the unrest I was hearing. People were pissed that what was once a class where several models had a legit shot at a win was now an entirely different class! And all the once competitive cars were essentially backmarkers. He agreed with the analysis, but his response was, essentially, "too bad" make those cars faster, or get a new car. "Thats racing"....

But why!? Why does it have to be that way??? How wasteful! No system is perfect...thats obvious, but with the old way, if somebody made one little error in estimation..(And why do people expect estimates to always be perfect??... they are ESTIMATES, LOL), and hundreds of cars were screwed.

The new way seeks to use a careful and repeatable estimate process, and, where clear real world evidence exists, it is used to acheive parity.

Fortunaltley, estimation mistakes are pretty few and far between, but there have been some blunders, and as we all remember, the E36 qualified in that department. I took much crap, spent many days off, and spent much of my own money on that car to try and right the wrong, and I was only one of the people on the case. When the evidence was gathered, the answer was obvious.

Unfortunatley, in the case of one off cars, compiling the needed data takes longer.

In any case, I feel strongly that our system, while not perfect, is better than any I have seen that is charged with creating parity amongst such a large group and variety of cars.

[Tristan Smith]

"I still stand by my statement. Even God driving this car on the right track couldn't make it competitive at it's current weight."



Thats just silly. Bob Stretch drove the same car I do, and I would say at the time, that my Sunbelt Motor was probably not too far off his Rebello motor in terms of horsepower. The car preps were pretty similar. BUT, he always spanked me at my home track, Road Atlanta.
The reason was simple. He was a better driver. He was able to race almost every weekend in one type of car or another, and it showed. There is no substitution for seat time. Clearly I am a mediocre driver, but even I get better during a season where I race often and consistently. So don't be so sure that someone else couldn't make your car more competitive.

Even the 100lbs they added to the 240sx really hasn't dramatically change my lap times. Granted, in my case it really only added about 30lbs, because I couldn't/didn't get in down to min. weight anyway, and I don't know of many of the 240sx guys that could.

[Banzai240]

Well.... It's nice to know that after a year away... I could jump right back into these discussions as if I had never left... :014:

It's always good for a chuckle when people take the driver out of the equation... :eclipsee_steering:

:blink:

[Z3_GoCar]

That's exactly my point! I would think that you would NOT want a rule that does this...
[/b]

Hey Darin,

Welcome Back. I hope you've been having fun :eclipsee_steering:

James

[Chris Wire]

Well.... It's nice to know that after a year away... I could jump right back into these discussions as if I had never left...
[/b]

Darin, welcome back! You probably started this whole thing, and we just don't know it yet!

As for the rest of you guys......

I love you all, but you guys could over analyze a dog crapping in the backyard!

Why did he crap there?
Was it time for him to crap?
Is his crap output reasonable considering his intake in the past 12 hours?
Is there a way to calculate the flow rate of crap given specific repeatable data?
Is it 'cheater' crap or can it be presumed to be legal?
How is his crap output compared to other dogs in the neighborhood?
Is there special treatment involved given his diet?
Can his diet be altered to bring his crap inline with others in the neighborhood?
Or should we even endeavor to do so?


...or is it just crap in the backyard someone has to clean up? And on and on and on.....

Let's not get ourselves to the point of ruining the best racing class (and racing) in the club with this excercise.

[DavidM]

Andy still has not responded to the question of what other adders were put ont the 240sx to put 100 extra pounds on it? But even with the 100 extra pounds on the 240sx I am ok with it.
[/b]

I thought adding 100 lbs sucked. My car was pretty close to min weight at 2530. I have two 45 lb weights on my floor pan (with probably 10 lbs in mounting hardware) and weighed 2660 after a race, which I started with a full tank. I could easily start with a little less gas and be at 2630. My driving sucks so it's hard to say how much time 100 lbs cost. I'd be curious what sort of times Bob could run in it.

I think the 240SX got adders for rear wheel drive and engine displacement. Maybe something else? I have a dyno sheet showing 144 hp, which is pretty much right at process gain. A Miata made 140? The 240 has a big torque advantage, but the 240 is classed at 2630 lbs and the Miata at 2380. One of those numbers would seem to be a little off. I'd love to unbolt one of the weights I have or maybe the Miata needs some. There didn't seem to be any issues adding weight back in the grand re-weighting. Why is there now? Supposedly the cage issue is no longer a problem as it could be grandfathered for existing cars.

I didn't bitch about having to add 100 lbs as I thought the whole process by which it was done was a good thing. I think the 240 got somewhat screwed, but I'm biased. I will definitely bitch about the process not being applied equally to other cars resulting in a good deal less weight, however.

I'll go back to lurking now.

David

[stevel]

I have a dyno sheet showing 144 hp, which is pretty much right at process gain.
[/b]

Which is pretty much 10hp less than what a full build would get you. And you forget to mention that the torque was probably north of 150 ft/lbs also. Huge difference!! If you're going to throw numbers out there and argue them, don't leave out the key ones. What's your point?


s

[JeffYoung]

Uh...Steve, he mentioned the torque advantage.

David's point is the correct one. Yeah, we are all biased and we can construct arguments that our cars, relative to others, have been treated unfairly. David admits that (hell, we all do it).

But he concludes by saying what concerned us all at the start of this -- why was the later Miata run through the process differently than all other cars? I'm satisfied with the explanation, but others are not, for a variety of reasons that have validity.

[DavidM]

Which is pretty much 10hp less than what a full build would get you. And you forget to mention that the torque was probably north of 150 ft/lbs also. Huge difference!! If you're going to throw numbers out there and argue them, don't leave out the key ones. What's your point?
s
[/b]
This is a dyno sheet that I got with the car from Bob for a tuning session he did. I'm just reporting the numbers. Are you saying Bob didn't have a full build and didn't know how to tune a 240SX? If you have a dyno sheet for an ITA 240SX showing 150+ HP I'd love to see it as I may just give that engine builder a call. And yes, the torque was above 150.

Back to your regularly scheduled program.

David

[kevin22]

I also just lurk and read, I have always been interested in ITA, I race SM now but would consider ITA if I lost interest in SM. But this post has really pointed out something that is very troubling. Is there a formula that is applied evenly? doesn't seem to be. And I beleive most people agree that the current weights for several cars are unfair, yet seems like nothing can be done. Are the guys on the ITAC board also racers in ITA? if so, seems like a big conflict of interest.

[JLawton]

I also just lurk and read, I have always been interested in ITA, I race SM now but would consider ITA if I lost interest in SM. [/b]


Don't let this thread scare you off..........

Hey, I have the biggest disadvantage of anyone, I drive a GM for Christ sake!! I should should get a 200lbs break just for that!!

But I still have blast and wouldn't go anywhere else!! :023:

[lateapex911]

I. Are the guys on the ITAC board also racers in ITA? if so, seems like a big conflict of interest.

[/b]

Not to be a wise ass, but would it be better if the guys on the ITAc were Prod racers?

The ITAC is made up of a variety of members, both geographically, and racingwise. In an effort to be open, they are: (in no particular order)

Bob Stretch- (SWest)former ITA Nissan racer, current ITA Miata driver, plus a gazillion other things, including a succesful stint on World Challenge.
Andy Bettencourt. (NewEng)Regular poster....Former ITS racer, current ITAC chair and ITA Miata driver.
George Roffe(Swest) occasional poster here. ITS 944, multi year karting, and also races a Nissan Se-r
Lee Graser- (Midwest) Honestly, I'm not sure what lees racing these days
Les Chaney- (Mid Atlantic coast) ITB Volvo driver, alos FP driver
Josh Sirota (Nor Cal) Also posts here, BWM ITR driver
Marshall Lytle (DC area) Posts here too. BMW ITS and ITR racer
Bob Clarke (Upper Mid west) Posts here as well. ITB Honda guy, also GTlite? Or GT3? Honda racer
Jake Gulick (thats me)(New Eng) ITA and IT7 racer.

As you can see, its a varied group, with nearly every class covered, and the country well represented. Some guys have great in depth car knowledge, others really know the ways to wrench and get a car faster, others just know the racing business, and some have great policy skills and can wrote rules. Even more unusual, more ITACers post on fowums like this in an effort to communicate and keep abreast of the siiituations. I don't think the SCCA member has ever seen such an open window into the workings of his club, as they do now, and I'd venture the ITAC has probably been the most proactive in that area..

With 9 guys, conflicts of interest are quickly erased, and when it comes time for a vote on something that affects a person directly, that person will recuse himself.

On top of that, there are always two..and sometimes 3 CRB members listening in and discussing things. As a matter of fact, what was once considered SCCAs redheaded stepchild category, (IT) has produced a pretty fair number of CRB members, most recently Chris Albin (ITB and GP) as well as Peter Keane (ITB, and various other pro racing) have been plucked from our committee to serve on the CRB.

The entire point of the Advisory committees was to get guys who were "in the trenches" so to speak, to bring forth real world knowledge and expertise. The CRB can not possibly have the intimate knowledge needed to guide each category at a micro level. I thiink that the IT world is now, compared to as few as two or three years ago, a massively improved place.