September fastrack

[dickita15]

http://scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/07-fastrack-sept.pdf

slow month but:
Improved Touring
1. ITA – Reclassify the SOHC Neon in ITB (Pritchett). The car is classified appropriately.
2. ITA – Reclassify the MK1 MR2 to ITB (5 letters). The car is classified appropriately.

not moving the MR2 makes no sense to me. we have a procees to get the wieght right so why not

[77ITA]

The SOHC Neon is definitely too fast to be an ITB car.

On another note, I was very surprised to see only two people besides myself wrote letters in protest of the suggested "open engine management rules". I've heard a lot of negative opinions on this topic, so don't forget to put your pens to paper if you have strong opinions on the topic.

SM guys, what is the story with the '94 flywheel?

[Bill Miller]

Another item that was clarified is the p/s NASCAR bars and subsequent gutting of the door. The way the proposed change reads, all the bars have to do is protrude into the door cavity to remove all items that are allowed to be removed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

SM guys, what is the story with the '94 flywheel? [/b]

The 94 flywheel is slightly heavier than the 95-97. There is an allowance in SM for the 94's to run the later flywheel. The later flywheel is all that is produced now and has superceeded the early one. That request baffled the SMAC because essentially, the requestor was asking for it to be made legal for teh later cars to be able to run the heavier, rarer, and out of production flywheel. Why would anyone want that? We think it was a confusion in what is currently legal.

[Andy Bettencourt]

not moving the MR2 makes no sense to me. we have a procees to get the wieght right so why not [/b]

Given the information we have from people doing full builds using the right year tub, the weight in ITA has been deemed acheiveable for the foreseable future unless some new information comes out. Similar situation to the 944 8V in ITS.

The vote was not unanimous.

[benspeed]

Here's a question for some of the rules experts. I am interested in getting some opinion on the liklihood of having my SPO stock car classed in GT2 to compete in some national races where there will hopefully be more cars to compete against. It is 2750 with driver and makes 435 HP. Curious about what is the best approach to drafting my letter, providng any supporting evidence etc.

On paper it looks like it would fit well in that class when compared to the Panoz Esperante GTS and the Porsche 911 GT3.

The car will not be competetive in GT1 but if I couldn't get GT2 I'd settle for GT1. The only thing holding that back is the aluminum block LS1 - gotta be iron. I'm in no mood to drop $15K for a GT1 motor.

Down south they are classifying this car regionally as GTA. These late model cars with sealed motors ran in the last year of the Trans Am series classed as GTA to fill in space. There are no GTA cars in the NE besides mine that I'm aware of. Before Trans AM went bust my hope was to run in a few pro races.

The car is an ASA national touring series car and still has the sealed motor tags etc. to demonstrate it has not been modified. Any shot at GT2?

[MMiskoe]

Why won't they publish the weight process. I understand there may be some 'subjective' parts to it, but cripe, there should be more non-subjective data going into it. Someone must have a list of all the IT cars, their OE HP, their IT expected HP and the weight their IT minimum weight. Then another checklist of stuff like FWD vrs RWD, carbs/FI, rear drums/disks etc. About half of it they publish in the GCR every year, why not just hand out the rest of it.

The only excuse would be that it is not in a format that they can easily distribute, but if that is the case, how do 'they' sit around and make decisions about cars as a group?

Seems odd to me.

[Greg Amy]

The 94 flywheel is slightly heavier than the 95-97.[/b]
It just gets betterer 'n betterer...

[Joe Harlan]

:eclipsee_steering:

It just gets betterer 'n betterer...
[/b] :eclipsee_steering:

[mlytle]

Why won't they publish the weight process. I understand there may be some 'subjective' parts to it, but cripe, there should be more non-subjective data going into it. Someone must have a list of all the IT cars, their OE HP, their IT expected HP and the weight their IT minimum weight. Then another checklist of stuff like FWD vrs RWD, carbs/FI, rear drums/disks etc. About half of it they publish in the GCR every year, why not just hand out the rest of it.

The only excuse would be that it is not in a format that they can easily distribute, but if that is the case, how do 'they' sit around and make decisions about cars as a group?

Seems odd to me.
[/b]

you a fan of the original snl seasons? remember the fake ads? picture the one for the "bass-o-matic". we on the itac call the process the "class-o-matic". put in basic ingredients, add a few odd items that change regularly, blend well, and presto! the cars get classed appropriately. :D

kidding of course....

marshall
itac newbie

[Gregg]

Given the information we have from people doing full builds using the right year tub, the weight in ITA has been deemed acheiveable for the foreseable future unless some new information comes out. Similar situation to the 944 8V in ITS.

The vote was not unanimous.
[/b]
I never knew that the weight being achievable or not was actually the issue at hand. I (and most MR2 drivers, I'm sure) would love to know how these "full builds" do in the heat of battle, even though we all know that classing is never based on on-track performance. :wacko:

[dickita15]

Given the information we have from people doing full builds using the right year tub, the weight in ITA has been deemed acheiveable for the foreseable future unless some new information comes out. Similar situation to the 944 8V in ITS.

The vote was not unanimous.
[/b]
Cars that fit the process can have some expectation of being competitive.
So if you get the exact right tub and do an expensive, time consuming build they can probably make a weight in ITA that fits the process.
Or you can build a car that meets the process weight in ITB without all the extra effort.
I though the idea behind Improved Touring was to take a stock car and change the thing that are required to turn it into an effective race car, not to have to be required to do a complicated, expensive build in order to make weight.
If the car can race at process weight in either class, why in the world do we make harder than it has to be.

[nip_mr2]

Yes the weight is acheivable in ITA for an MR2. I currently went acroos the scales at Summit during MARRS 7. The car was 2293, 23 pounds over weight. I ran my ass off During the race. Finished 6th in class. ( thanks to alot of other driver's at the IT Fest. ) Going to ITB the weight was 2540. Gee sounds like fun. Look at the time sheets for ITB at Summit, then look at mine. I'm within the top 4 in ITB. Add the weight and GEE, I go right back to the same finishing postion. The weight and power have a lot to do with these cars. I just so sick of trying to inform the people who are not informed about the car, I'm thinking of perposing a spec class for the car. SPEC MR2 or ITMR2. Hey the RX7's got the wish.

[gran racing]

I just so sick of trying to inform the people who are not informed about the car, I'm thinking of perposing a spec class for the car. [/b]

Umm, some of us are informed about the car Doug. Peter Doane probably had the best preped MR2 that I've seen.

Your ontrack performance really isn't relivant but if you must, bring the car to the the NARRC at LRP or the ARRC if you really want to compare how it fairs. Put it next to a Moser ITA CRX, a Greg Amy NX2000, or Bettencourt's Miata. The MR2 doesn't have a chance.

Dick, I totally agree with what you are saying. I just don't get this one.

[RSTPerformance]

I think I like the idea of Dual Classing on this one.... It actually would be a fun car dual classed to purchase with a friend. I bet it would be a front runner in ITB, and even at the higher weight for ITB trim it would still be fun in ITA with so many people in that class these days.

Raymond "Thinking outside the box again :wacko: " blethen

[JamesB]

Doug - Not to put your boxers in a bunch, and you do have a well prepared tub, but how much have you done in engine prep, final drive gearing, and tuning? Process weight has to take into account a full It legal engine build. If you can prove to ITAC that a fully IT prepared motor cannot make the power they are averaging on then maybe the process weight for ITB would change.

[Rabbit07]

The SOHC Neon is definitely too fast to be an ITB car.

[/b]

I think that after I went from 12th to 6th in the Sunday IT Fest race, there isn't going to be much happening for Neons in the near future. I believe that I have finally shown that it can be competitive. B)

[Doc Bro]

If you can prove to ITAC that a fully IT prepared motor cannot make the power they are averaging on then maybe the process weight for ITB would change.
[/b]



UHHh yeah, good luck proving that one. Where can I get a set of them rosy colored glasses??


R

[DavidM]

Why won't they publish the weight process. I understand there may be some 'subjective' parts to it, but cripe, there should be more non-subjective data going into it. Someone must have a list of all the IT cars, their OE HP, their IT expected HP and the weight their IT minimum weight. Then another checklist of stuff like FWD vrs RWD, carbs/FI, rear drums/disks etc. About half of it they publish in the GCR every year, why not just hand out the rest of it.

The only excuse would be that it is not in a format that they can easily distribute, but if that is the case, how do 'they' sit around and make decisions about cars as a group?

Seems odd to me.
[/b]

Heh. That was my letter. I requested that the ITAC publish *exactly* how each car's weight is derived and even suggested it go in the GCR. I think that info should be publicly published. The ITAC doesn't. I'll leave it at that and you can ask yourself why they wouldn't want to publish that info. I've already been back and forth with Andy privately on it.

I also sent in a letter opposing the new ECU rule. 5 letters total (for/against) is pretty pathetic considering how much debate was had just on this forum.

David

[gran racing]

David,
I think part of the problem is that many people are a bit uncertain the true ramifications of the ECU rule, I know that I am.

[JamesB]

UHHh yeah, good luck proving that one. Where can I get a set of them rosy colored glasses??
R
[/b]

Doug is a great driver, his car is a great build, his motor has 100k+ miles on it and its not an IT build. Yet he is still pulling off a good race. So when a full tilt IT motor proves he has no chance in hell at the current weight, he might be able to justify the best weight and a reason to move to ITB. end of story.

And I dont like rose color glasses, they skew your vision.

[Doc Bro]

Doug is a great driver, his car is a great build, his motor has 100k+ miles on it and its not an IT build. Yet he is still pulling off a good race. So when a full tilt IT motor proves he has no chance in hell at the current weight, he might be able to justify the best weight and a reason to move to ITB. end of story.

And I dont like rose color glasses, they skew your vision.
[/b]


James, Sarcasm's not lost on you.

R

[JamesB]

It usually is....

[Tkczecheredflag]

Heh. That was my letter. I requested that the ITAC publish *exactly* how each car's weight is derived and even suggested it go in the GCR. I think that info should be publicly published. The ITAC doesn't. I'll leave it at that and you can ask yourself why they wouldn't want to publish that info. I've already been back and forth with Andy privately on it.

I also sent in a letter opposing the new ECU rule. 5 letters total (for/against) is pretty pathetic considering how much debate was had just on this forum.

David
[/b]
David - I have to tell you, I am pretty ignorant to the procees for all proposed rule changes - My own fault, I know I should know - I plead guilty as charged.

Would someone be interested in starting a thread that explains the process and how we are supposed to act and react to proposed changes. What is the role of the CRB and ITAC - who gets selected and how? I've been around for a while but I don't know the policies and procedures. Heck - I'm looking up what ITAC stands for right now.

[dominojd]

. Heck - I'm looking up what ITAC stands for right now.
[/b]

Jeez Timmy I even know that one Improved Touring Advisory Commity. :)

You must have been the kid that sat in the back of the class room and paid attention even less than I did. :D

[Chris Wire]

I also sent in a letter opposing the new ECU rule. 5 letters total (for/against) is pretty pathetic considering how much debate was had just on this forum.

David
[/b]

You're right, David. I just sent my letter.

[planet6racing]

I also sent in a letter opposing the new ECU rule. 5 letters total (for/against) is pretty pathetic considering how much debate was had just on this forum.

David
[/b]

I think there are more letters. These notes are from the meeting held on August 7th, 2007. I'm pretty certain that is on or about when I sent my letter. Wait, check that. I sent my letter 7/25/07. So, I guess I'm one of the 5! That doesn't make me feel so good... :eclipsee_steering:

[BlueStreak]

I think I like the idea of Dual Classing on this one.... It actually would be a fun car dual classed to purchase with a friend. I bet it would be a front runner in ITB, and even at the higher weight for ITB trim it would still be fun in ITA with so many people in that class these days.

Raymond "Thinking outside the box again :wacko: " blethen
[/b]

I would love dual classing via weight adjustments. The weight on my car has been adjusted down (as it was needed in ITB) to 2080. Problem is, the driver is 250lbs, and it is MUCH easier to bolt in weight and change classes than it is for me to start amputating body parts :blink: :D :lol:

Seriously, with suit, gloves, boots, helmet, and me, I bet I'm ~265, that means the car has to make 1815. Then if I want on board water, coolsuit, camcorder, radio, all that has to come off the 1815.

The only thing left to do is rebuild the cage to save weight, and I ain't gonna.......OK I'll shut up now

[erlrich]

David,
I think part of the problem is that many people are a bit uncertain the true ramifications of the ECU rule, I know that I am. [/b] That, and maybe there are a few guys out there who wrote letters the first time around, and have figured out that this was a done deal a long time ago.

Geez, I'm starting to sound like...naw, let's not go there.

[lateapex911]

Regarding the ECU letters, we have, I think, a dozen or so.

Timmy, read Fastrack. You can get an email informing you that it's been released every month by going to SCCA and setting it up in the "Garage" section, I think. Or just go there every month around the 20th. you can read what the ITAC is discussiong, has rejected, or proposed.

Or, if you feel something needs fixing, feel free to write a letter to the ITA or the CRB, and we'll discuss it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

To clarify Jake's note - a dozen since the rule recommendation came out in FT. Most people weighed in when the CRB asked for input - and probably don't feel the need to.

[lateapex911]

Right, if I recall, we had over 50 letters about it the first time around, which makes it the most highly responded to item in memory.

[nip_mr2]

Grand Racing,

I was not trying to inform people of my car! Just the MR2 in general for compition. My on track performance as nothing to do with thread, or me coming to race in the NARRC.

[benspeed]

OK - taking my GT2 question to another forum - if I can find one that applies. On edit - what the heck - I sent my letter.

My letter in favor of the ECU rule change has been sent.

[gran racing]

Well Doug, re-read you original post and it sure sounds like it. But anyway... It's just too bad the MR2 will be dieing a slow death in ITA.

[Tkczecheredflag]

Jeez Timmy I even know that one Improved Touring Advisory Commity. :)

You must have been the kid that sat in the back of the class room and paid attention even less than I did. :D
[/b]
Joe - Maybe it was just easier for me to follow and understand Fastrack when I could bring a copy of SportsCar in the can with me to read the insert. Honestly though - I think had a senior moment regarding ITAC - ya think? :rolleyes:

[nip_mr2]

Grand Racing,

Maybe I should have been more clear on my 1st post. I was just trying to say the car is under powered in ITA and will be over weight and under powered if it got moved to ITB. I was just trying to use my little expirence on the track as an example.

Look, I'm not out to cut anyone down or to make people think I some God behind the wheel of a race car. I'm not. I enjoy racing and trying to be competitive within the group. I don't have a lot of money or time to put into the car I'm driving. Believe me I would love to, but I'm doing the best I can with what I have. Brian Duka build my car about 6 years ago. I bought it off of him last this year. I would have never been able to drive if I had to build a car. As far as competing with front running cars In MARRS and any other series even if the car is built to IT specs. I know it will not perform. Yes the car will die a slow death in ITA, along with getting run over by the second gen MR2.


Thank you JamesB. I understand fully what you are saying about my car.

Sorry again and thank you.

Doug

[Rabbit07]

Doesn't the early MR2 have the same drivetrain as the GEO Prism GSI that is in ITB? Seems strange to me that the car is in ITA. I have been on track with these cars and they are not ITA competitive.

just my $.02

[Chris Wire]

Doesn't the early MR2 have the same drivetrain as the GEO Prism GSI that is in ITB? Seems strange to me that the car is in ITA. I have been on track with these cars and they are not ITA competitive.
[/b]

Yes, and the same powertrain as the Corolla GTS, which is also an underdog in ITA. I raced a Corolla GTS at the ARRC in '00 and it is clearly outclassed against the current front runners, 240SX, CRX, Integra, and probably the Miata as well (although I never raced head to head against one).

[dominojd]

Joe - Maybe it was just easier for me to follow and understand Fastrack when I could bring a copy of SportsCar in the can with me to read the insert. Honestly though - I think had a senior moment regarding ITAC - ya think? :rolleyes:
[/b]

I also enjoyed Fasttrack that way too. :D Now I don't even read it. I get the abridged version here.

Come on Timmy your not that old, 60 right? :P

[shwah]

I think there are a number of letters that did not make this fast-trac, and expect to see them in the next. I know neither of the items I wrote about were noted. There is enough lead time on the document that I always assume letters will be addressed in the 2nd or 3rd issue after I send them.

[tnord]

Doesn't the early MR2 have the same drivetrain as the GEO Prism GSI that is in ITB? Seems strange to me that the car is in ITA. I have been on track with these cars and they are not ITA competitive.

just my $.02
[/b]

riiiiiggghhhhttt..............because motor type is the only consideration we need when classing cars. :rolleyes:

PS - i didn't bother writing another letter against the ECU. I wrote one the first time around when it really mattered and i was in the overwhelming minority. The ITAC thinks it's good for the class, the majority of those writing letters thinks it's a good thing, i'm conceding the fight.

[cmaclean]

Guys, it's pointless sending the letters to the CRB in support/opposition to the ECU rule. The CRB already made their recommendation to the BOD who's job it is to make the final decision. Write your local BOD member if you feel strongly on this issue. I did.

[Chris Wire]

Guys, it's pointless sending the letters to the CRB in support/opposition to the ECU rule. The CRB already made their recommendation to the BOD who's job it is to make the final decision. Write your local BOD member if you feel strongly on this issue. I did.
[/b]

That's what people say about the gov't......and I would respond by pointing out the recently defeated "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007". :happy204: :happy204: :happy204:

Good idea on writing the local BOD members, I just sent mine. I know that they probably get them anyway through other channels, but sometimes a direct contact has more effect. And keep writing anyway; it's often the one really good letter and arguement that starts the tipping point one way or another. You never know until you scream!

[DavidM]

My ECU letter went to the BoD. I figure they wind up getting sent to the ITAC as well.

David

[steve b]

Doug - Not to put your boxers in a bunch, and you do have a well prepared tub, but how much have you done in engine prep, final drive gearing, and tuning? Process weight has to take into account a full It legal engine build. If you can prove to ITAC that a fully IT prepared motor cannot make the power they are averaging on then maybe the process weight for ITB would change.
[/b]

I bought Peter Doane's (previously referred to in this post) ITA MR2. Would it help if I show the $6k bill from TED that came with the car and my dyno sheet?

[gran racing]

Steve,
I'd love to see it. Knowing just how much work Peter did to that car, it would be interesting.

[dickita15]

actually that would be of value. if I am not mistaken one of the issues withthe Mr2 is the power potential. after all it's a formula atlatic motor right. :D
can one of the ITAC guys comment on if the MR2 had a higher that average power % expected or am I remebering it wrong.

[steve b]

Jake,
I'll try to remember to take the sheet to work Monday and I'll scan it and email it to you.

[JeffYoung]

Steve, this is Jeff Young, met you up at Summit at your school (I was crewing on the silver Z). Shoot me an email at [email protected] and let me know how your first season went.

[Andy Bettencourt]

:D
can one of the ITAC guys comment on if the MR2 had a higher that average power % expected or am I remebering it wrong.

[/b]

You are remembering it wrong Dick. Standard % applies/applied. The arguement has always been that these motors CAN'T make even average power increases in IT legal trim.

[drgoodwrench]

Do we have a new ECU rule for sure? I spent many hours putting a programmable unit into the stock box, was that now a waste of time? Personally I think allowing full engine management add ons is best reserved for GT and Production budgets.

[dickita15]

You are remembering it wrong Dick. Standard % applies/applied. The arguement has always been that these motors CAN'T make even average power increases in IT legal trim.
[/b]
Then Dyno sheet from a well prepared car woudl be a useful data point, yes?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Then Dyno sheet from a well prepared car woudl be a useful data point, yes? [/b]

Sure. But one data point is just that. Dyno data is questionable in it's singularity. It is most persuasive when multiples can add up to make a documentable 'trend'.

When submitting dyno data (as a reason for a request), please make sure you provide every piece of info possible:

Build date vs. dyno date
All internal engine mods
All external engine mods
Type of ECU
Type of dyno
HP and Torque curves

[JamesB]

I bought Peter Doane's (previously referred to in this post) ITA MR2. Would it help if I show the $6k bill from TED that came with the car and my dyno sheet?
[/b]

Steve I was replying to Doug with my message. I dont know your cars build, so if you can prove the power a full IT trim motor can make then send it over to ITAC with the information above. My bunching boxers comment was at Doug who is running quiet well for a motor that is not an all out IT engine.

[gran racing]

Standard % applies/applied. [/b]

Just out of curosity, what made this an ITA car vs. moving it to ITB with the appropriate weight? Is it primarily because the engine is in the rear / RWD?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just out of curosity, what made this an ITA car vs. moving it to ITB with the appropriate weight? Is it primarily because the engine is in the rear / RWD? [/b]

Can we agree that given the same engine and suspension - a car with FWD should weigh less than a car with RWD/mid engine? How much is subjective and will never be perfect but the Geo Prism is at 2455. How much do you want this thing to weigh in ITB? Since it can make process weight in ITA, it was voted to 'fit'.

Yes, you can bump cars down any number of classes to make them fit - like a 3015lbs ITS 13B RX-7 in ITA or a 2975lb ITA SE-R in ITB...but it seems like the 'highest' possible class at the lowest possible weight is what makes sense.

You want a 2550lb MK1 MR-2 in ITB on 6" wheels? 250lbs of ballast sound like something you want to add?

Is it possible that there are just 'tweener' cars that, under the current structure, aren't 'great' for either the upper or lower class?

Understand this is Devil's Advocate stuff. Questions you should ask yourself.

[gran racing]

Yes I would agree that a FWD car should weigh less than a RWD car. Using you logic, one could also argue that the MR2 should be in ITS at 2,000 lbs or ITR at 1,700 lbs. Come on Andy, stop with the BS. I was simply trying to understand the logic behind this decision. In IT, I would rather see people / cars not to struggle (assuming it could even make weight legally) to get down to a minimum weight. Going back to what Dick said, it sure is easier to add lead to a car than spend a ton of money trying to figure out ways to get down to min. weight. I know with my car I'd much rather struggle to get upto 2,450 in ITB than down to 2,250 in ITA.

Interesting answer, although I could have skipped through some of the fluff to attain the real answer. Sounds like a big portion of the decision is based upon RWD, and the opinion that it can realistically get down to the ITA min. weight.

[JoshS]

In IT, I would rather see people / cars not to struggle (assuming it could even make weight legally) to get down to a minimum weight. Going back to what Dick said, it sure is easier to add lead to a car than spend a ton of money trying to figure out ways to get down to min. weight.
[/b]
There really are two schools of thought here. One says that it can be expensive to get down to minimum weight, even if it's well within the rules to do so. So people don't want to spend money there. Just as people might not want to spend money on headers, even though they will make their car go faster.

The other is that people don't want to add weight to a car that is a race car. Race car people like having light cars. People want their race car to be lighter in race trim than in street trim. It's not a race car if it's got 300 lbs or more of lead bolted to the floor. Or if it's still got its interior in place. Etc.

Most people seem to be in the former camp. Sounds like you are in the latter.

If it's clearly demonstrated that a car cannot legally make its minimum weight, then that would be a very good argument to reclass it. But it seems like most of the requests to reclass are not based on "it can't get there," but rather, "I don't want to have to spend money to get there." There is a difference.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes I would agree that a FWD car should weigh less than a RWD car. Using you logic, one could also argue that the MR2 should be in ITS at 2,000 lbs or ITR at 1,700 lbs. Come on Andy, stop with the BS. I was simply trying to understand the logic behind this decision. [/b]

Dave, it would seem you are too close to this situation to discuss it rationally. The point I was clearly making is that you can move ANY car DOWN and make it weigh more. Not up, at an unattainable weight, which nobody suggested or implied. Sure you could CLASS cars that way, but it would be stupid to do so.




In IT, I would rather see people / cars not to struggle (assuming it could even make weight legally) to get down to a minimum weight.[/b]

Neither would I. But I would also argue that most people would rather bust a nut to get down to a possible minimum weight than have to add 250+lbs of lead to a car - and deal with all the associated headaches that brings upon you (hubs, rotors, pads, spindles, insert increased wear item here). Like I said, cars should be classed in the highest (fastest) class they can fit while acheiveing min weight.




Going back to what Dick said, it sure is easier to add lead to a car than spend a ton of money trying to figure out ways to get down to min. weight. I know with my car I'd much rather struggle to get upto 2,450 in ITB than down to 2,250 in ITA.[/b]

For sure. But what if there was a 300lb difference in weight? How about 350? How much weight do you want to add? What is safe? The MR2 can make it from what we have learned.


Interesting answer, although I could have skipped through some of the fluff to attain the real answer. Sounds like a big portion of the decision is based upon RWD, and the opinion that it can realistically get down to the ITA min. weight. [/b]

Guys, its a tweener car. It has been determined that the ITA weight that fits the process is obtainable and that the weight in ITB it must run at is too much to ask people to add. It's too bad becasue its a cool car, but no matter how you design the class structure, there will be cars that fall in between.

[Devils Advocate hat off]

[JLawton]

Dave, it would seem you are too close to this situation to discuss it rationally. [/b]



Now THAT'S funny!! Do you need a mirror Andy?? :lol:

[planet6racing]

Neither would I. But I would also argue that most people would rather bust a nut to get down to a possible minimum weight than have to add 250+lbs of lead to a car - and deal with all the associated headaches that brings upon you (hubs, rotors, pads, spindles, insert increased wear item here). Like I said, cars should be classed in the highest (fastest) class they can fit while acheiveing min weight.
[/b]

Not to mention that, by adding that much lead, the roll cage (if built to the limit of ITA rules) would need to be ripped out and changed, as the 250 pounds would most likely put it out of regulations.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Now THAT'S funny!! Do you need a mirror Andy?? :lol:
[/b]

Come on Jeff. Dave's comments were out of line - because he isn't reading the explanation well enough. Nobody has to AGREE, but to make logic jumps when none were implied and call out BS is just foolish given what was written. That's it.

Back to not posting in this section. :bash_1_:

[dickita15]

There really are two schools of thought here. One says that it can be expensive to get down to minimum weight, even if it's well within the rules to do so. So people don't want to spend money there. Just as people might not want to spend money on headers, even though they will make their car go faster.

The other is that people don't want to add weight to a car that is a race car. Race car people like having light cars. People want their race car to be lighter in race trim than in street trim. It's not a race car if it's got 300 lbs or more of lead bolted to the floor. Or if it's still got its interior in place. Etc.

[/b]
Then of course we could allow dual classification for tweeners and no one would have a bitch.

[Dave Ebersole]

Yeah, they'll still complain about whatever weight they get assigned.

[gran racing]

I understand not wanting people to bolt in 250 lbs of ballast, but as you said I'm close enough to know the car don't believe that would have been necessary. Off the top of my head, I can't remember what the original ITA weight was but at that weight, no additional ballast was used on Jake's car to reach the old ITA weight.


to make logic jumps when none were implied [/b]

Yeah well, the RX7 in ITA and SE-R in B comment...gee, wonder why I thought that part of your post was full of fluff. :rolleyes: I was just trying to understand the rationale used and maybe see if there was some inaccurate information supplied by an outside source.

Hey, if I want to beat up on Jake I can always use the Neon.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yeah well, the RX7 in ITA and SE-R in B comment...gee, wonder why I thought that part of your post was full of fluff. :rolleyes: [/b]

Except the point eluded you. You can ALWAYS move a car 'down' and assign it a new process weight. Just like the examples I gave you. In those examples, crazy amounts of ballast would have to be installed to make them tip the scales appropriately. Some would argue the MR2 is in the exact same situation. I believe that the right class for each car is the 'highest' it can fit into while making minimum weight.

Dick - everyone would be happy in THOSE cars. Then the flood of letters come in for people who THINK they have a tweener car...do those get approved? Where is the line? Dual classification is not something the CRB is looking at right now as a rule. The concept does intrigue me however. We have a few exceptions out there in ITS/ITR - but that was predicated by a new class being formed. Some want to sunset those DC's as well.

[erlrich]

Just to further this pointless argument, would any of our resident ITAC'ers be willing to run some numbers and post the ballpark process weights of some of these 'tweener' ITA cars if they were in ITB? I'm thinking maybe the MR2, RX7, Neon, GTI, and Pulsar...

Then maybe the guys actually racing those models could chime in and let us know what their cars actually weigh now, as raced, and we could see how the change would impact the real cars and real drivers, and not just the theoretical cars and drivers. I know this would prove nothing - in which case it would fit right in with most of the other posts in this thread - but it might add some fuel to the fire and kick this pissing match up to the next level, and draw some of the big guns into the fracas :D

[JamesB]

Earl the Gti is in ITB, thats what I race. If you mean the 16v, god it would be one heavy pig that would likely have to brake the the 500 marker at SP. The 8v is competitive in ITB.

[erlrich]

Earl the Gti is in ITB, thats what I race. If you mean the 16v, god it would be one heavy pig that would likely have to brake the the 500 marker at SP. The 8v is competitive in ITB.[/b] James - Yes, I was thinking about the General Li ('87 16V) when I wrote that. Yes, it might end up being too heavy to be worth it, but at 2220 lbs. it isn't exactly 'the car to have' in ITA right now, is it (hoping Matt isn't reading this thread...)?

[JamesB]

Yes but even with his car 2-300# overweight as built today he runs me down on the front straight even if I exit turn 10 six car lengths ahead of him. Sure I could probably be faster through 10, but his top speed is way higher then my car by a long shot and my 8v min weight is 2280 and im using fuel to stay just above min weight.

[steve b]

I'm a beginner here so bare with me. I gather there is some formula that is used based on obtainable HP and obtainable weight that is used to class a car, correct?

My car is 2350 with me (210) in the car. So a very light driver can make weight. Even though I look at my car and don't see many options for losing more weight, I don't see the error in classifying the MR2 as being based on weight. I see it as based on the obtainable HP.

What is the assumed obtainable HP? If it is much over 110 RWHP, I would be willing to say the assumption is inaccurate.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just to further this pointless argument, would any of our resident ITAC'ers be willing to run some numbers and post the ballpark process weights of some of these 'tweener' ITA cars if they were in ITB? I'm thinking maybe the MR2, RX7, Neon, GTI, and Pulsar...

[/b]

Ballparked

The MR2 and RX7 would both be around 2550 in ITB.

The GTI would be around 2500-2550 as well.

The Neon is ITA to the bone.

Pulsar? That looks and smells like a B car to me if it is 113hp.




B)--><div class=&#39;quotetop&#39;>QUOTE(steve b @ Aug 28 2007, 01:20 PM) 121885<div class=&#39;quotemain&#39;> I&#39;m a beginner here so bare with me. I gather there is some formula that is used based on obtainable HP and obtainable weight that is used to class a car, correct?

My car is 2350 with me (210) in the car. So a very light driver can make weight. Even though I look at my car and don&#39;t see many options for losing more weight, I don&#39;t see the error in classifying the MR2 as being based on weight. I see it as based on the obtainable HP.

What is the assumed obtainable HP? If it is much over 110 RWHP, I would be willing to say the assumption is inaccurate. [/b][/quote]

And you may be right. A 25% increase in IT trim is assumed and used in the process unless actual (and significantly different - by 5% +/-) numbers are known.

[steve b]

Okay, so the stock engine is rated at 116 HP. What % loss is estimated to the wheels for a M/R?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don&#39;t know but 145 crank hp is what is being used for that car.

18% loss is common for RWD. 119rwhp?

15% loss is common for FWD. 123rwhp?

I would think it would act more like a FWDer on the dyno but 120whp is a good target to feel REAL comfortable you are inside the target envelope.

[steve b]

okay, so the 116 crank HP with a 25% gain in IT trim give you the 145 crank HP. I agree that the loss is probably around the 15% range. But let&#39;s just say it&#39;s 18%, that would be a loss of 26 HP giving you a RWHP of 119.

Mine just dynoed at 109 which is actually 1 better than the 108 it dynoed fresh. That&#39;s 7.5% under the theoretical 25% gain.

[Rabbit07]

okay, so the 116 crank HP with a 25% gain in IT trim give you the 145 crank HP. I agree that the loss is probably around the 15% range. But let&#39;s just say it&#39;s 18%, that would be a loss of 26 HP giving you a RWHP of 119.

Mine just dynoed at 109 which is actually 1 better than the 108 it dynoed fresh. That&#39;s 7.5% under the theoretical 25% gain.
[/b]

108 sounds like ITB to me.

[JoshS]

B)--><div class=&#39;quotetop&#39;>QUOTE(steve b @ Aug 28 2007, 12:36 PM) 121901</div><div class=&#39;quotemain&#39;>
Mine just dynoed at 109 which is actually 1 better than the 108 it dynoed fresh. That&#39;s 7.5% under the theoretical 25% gain.
[/quote]
But what&#39;s the level of your build? How much tuning have you done with intakes, headers, mufflers, exhaust pipe sizing, and ECUs? How big an overbore? Compression increase? Balanced and ported? Etc, etc ...

Just asking. The number is meaningless without context.

[Andy Bettencourt]

+1 to what Josh said. Please use post #54 as a template.

[JamesB]

now thats getting somewhere. I wonder if I put 200# more into matts car if he would still run by me like I was in the wrong gear.

[JLawton]

I find a lot of people talk about needing weight breaks or being reclassed that don&#39;t have 10/10ths cars. You can&#39;t guess where your car should be unless it&#39;s got a pro built. Unfortunately the rules weren&#39;t made based on what the majority of the engines can get for power or what most people can afford........Remember, there are guys out there who are spending $6-$10K (and up to $25K for a Jon Millage 944 engine) for there engines. These engines are the bench marks.

It sucks but that&#39;s reality............... :(

[Rabbit07]

I find a lot of people talk about needing weight breaks or being reclassed that don&#39;t have 10/10ths cars. You can&#39;t guess where your car should be unless it&#39;s got a pro built. Unfortunately the rules weren&#39;t made based on what the majority of the engines can get for power or what most people can afford........Remember, there are guys out there who are spending $6-$10K (and up to $25K for a Jon Millage 944 engine) for there engines. These engines are the bench marks.

It sucks but that&#39;s reality............... :(
[/b]

I would say that this is the reason why some cars are more popular in IT than others. There are some cars that seem to be competitive without spending lots of $ and others that are equally competitive, you just have to spend the big bucks.

Spec Miata seems to be loosing its appeal due to the rising costs of staying competitive.

The longer a car is classed and being raced the faster they seem to get. People figure out what it makes them go.

[Bill Miller]

You want a 2550lb MK1 MR-2 in ITB on 6" wheels? 250lbs of ballast sound like something you want to add?
[/b]

Andy,

What about that pig of an ITC car on 6" wheels (VW NB)? Has anyone built one of these things? Give the cars dual classification and be done with it. Let the people choose where they want to race the car (and at the corresponding weight).

And if a 113hp stock Pulsar looks like an ITB car, a 90hp stock Rabbit GTI should look like an ITC car. IIRC, you (the ITAC folks) said that the process weight for a Rabbit GTI in ITC was ~2250#. That&#39;s 70# over the old, pre-process ITB weight. Sure wouldn&#39;t have taken a ton of ballast to get it to ITC.

The AW11 MR2 belongs in ITB, and has for quite some time. With the TVIS in place (which I don&#39;t think you&#39;re allowed to remove, although, I&#39;ve heard some argue it&#39;s part of the emission control system), you&#39;re just not going to make that much power. How much more does RWD get you over the FWD FX16 w/ the same motor?

And really Andy, you&#39;ve got some nerve telling people they&#39;re too close to issues.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And really Andy, you&#39;ve got some nerve telling people they&#39;re too close to issues. [/b]

Well Bill, if you had any clue about this specific situation, you wouldn&#39;t have said that. But you don&#39;t, and you couldn&#39;t help yourself. [Sigh]

[Andy Bettencourt]

What about that pig of an ITC car on 6" wheels (VW NB)? Has anyone built one of these things? Give the cars dual classification and be done with it. Let the people choose where they want to race the car (and at the corresponding weight).[/b]

Did you know that the NB is classed just below it&#39;s curb weight? The CRB isn&#39;t into dual classifications yet.


The AW11 MR2 belongs in ITB, and has for quite some time. With the TVIS in place (which I don&#39;t think you&#39;re allowed to remove, although, I&#39;ve heard some argue it&#39;s part of the emission control system), you&#39;re just not going to make that much power. How much more does RWD get you over the FWD FX16 w/ the same motor? [/b]

Show us some data.

Look, it&#39;s close. Damn close. Some think it should move, some don&#39;t. It &#39;fits&#39; in ITA under the current structure. It could &#39;fit&#39; in ITB at 2500+ lbs. The decision was made to hold it in A due to the ability to make its ITA weight and a consideration that 250+lbs of ballast just isn&#39;t a great idea.

Like it or not, right or wrong, I hope we can all see the logic behind the decision.

[Jake]

The MR2 can make it from what we have learned.
[Devils Advocate hat off]
[/b]

I hate logging on from vacation - but wifi seems to me in every hotel lately. I need to make 2 points, and I will try to make the respectfully.

1. You are wrong here. The MR2 cannot make the weight set in ITA. Show me one LEGAL car that makes 2270 with a 180lbs driver and I&#39;ll shut up. It just can&#39;t. My car sits at 2430lbs with me in it, and I would LOVE to put some more bracing in the cage. Don&#39;t tell me I need to put 300lbs in it. Ask MR2 owners - the vast majority are ready to bolt the lead in. Many have cars heavier than mine. I took a LOT out to make the weight I&#39;m at.

2. Your FX16 argument makes the assumption that the Corolla with the 4AGE is properly calssed at 2455. While I agree that that&#39;s probably perfect process weight - the 4AGE does NOT make any power with a IT build. I have seen data from multiple 4AGE&#39;s that were built by reputable IT builders (ones that also make forumula atlantic motors) and they do not get anywhere near the power gains that larger VW/Honda/Nissan motors can get.

The fact is that the cars have been around for 20 years now. If someone could have figured out how to make more than 110hp at the wheels by now, they would have. If someone could have figured out how to make the car better than midpack in ITA, they would have. Why else would nobody drive them anymore?

It&#39;s a complete shame that these cars are nearly absent from IT racing these days. I&#39;ll argue that no car is easier on tires and more reliable - but because of incorrect classing, they&#39;re not even considered as a race car.


<--- back to vacationing with the family.

[JeffYoung]

Jake, not quibbling, but see Steve B&#39;s post above. He appears to be able to make weight in Peter Doane&#39;s old car, with a 205 lb driver.

I do agree the issue here appears to be horsepower, or the lack thereof. While I also agree that you would think someone would have attempted a full on 100% IT build (ECU, compression, port matching, dyno workon the exhaust, etc.) on the motor, I&#39;ve still yet to see anyone say definitively that it HAS been done. Has it? If so, and if the result is still 110 at the wheels, then you have a car that is on the border between A/B and any move to B needs to be CAREFULLY monitored to avoid dumping an overdog into B. Some of the recent moves between S and A, and A and B, have created "instant winners" which is not necessarily a good thing.

[Greg Amy]

Riddle me this: why is it that the ITAC, and by extension the CRB, require people to prove a negative before making changes? Yet, when positives are proven nothing is done? Anyone, with any modicum of commonly-available (yet rarely-used) logic, knows that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Take this MR2 example: EVERY time someone (usually people intimately familiar with the car) says "the car can&#39;t make the power" or "we can&#39;t make the weight" &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; come back and say "prove it." In other words, YOU spend the exorbitant amount of money to prove it cannot be done before we&#39;ll even consider changes. Of course, what if someone was STOOPID enough to spend that money, what&#39;s to keep &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; from coming back and saying &#39;no, you didn&#39;t prove to us you did EVERYTHING, we still don&#39;t believe your demonstrated power is all that can be done you need to spend more money and you&#39;ve not done everything you can to remove the weight&#39;? Or worse, they say "you&#39;re right, but the car is properly classified as-is"? Then, all that money that was spent to try and prove this negative will have been totally and completely WASTED.

Which idiot among us is willing to take on THAT risk? I think the odds are better at the casino dollar slots...

Yet, when there are other proven cases that a car makes much more power than the process indicates, with the same amount of resulting conflict, thus a proven positive, nothing is done to change it?

It&#39;s these kind of arguments that frustrate &#39;the masses&#39; and make &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; look really, really silly...as long as the process is written (or enforced) such that negatives must be proven before changes are made - and proven positives are not addressed - no one will be satisfied and &#39;they&#39; will continue to look stonewalling and stubborn.

"Hey, I&#39;m not sayin&#39;, I&#39;m just sayin&#39;..." (copyright 2007, Scott Giles)

[Rabbit07]

Riddle me this: why is it that the ITAC, and by extension the CRB, require people to prove a negative before making changes? Yet, when positives are proven nothing is done? Anyone, with any modicum of commonly-available (yet rarely-used) logic, knows that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Take this MR2 example: EVERY time someone (usually people intimately familiar with the car) says "the car can&#39;t make the power" or "we can&#39;t make the weight" &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; come back and say "prove it." In other words, YOU spend the exorbitant amount of money to prove it cannot be done before we&#39;ll even consider changes. Of course, what if someone was STOOPID enough to spend that money, what&#39;s to keep &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; from coming back and saying &#39;no, you didn&#39;t prove to us you did EVERYTHING, we still don&#39;t believe your demonstrated power is all that can be done you need to spend more money and that you&#39;ve done everything you can to remove the weight&#39;? Then, all that money that was spent to try and prove this negative will have been totally and completely WASTED.

Which idiot among us is willing to take on THAT risk? I think the odds are better at the casino dollar slots...

Yet, when there are other proven cases that a car makes much more power than the process indicates, with the same amount of resulting conflict, thus a proven positive, nothing is done to change it?

It&#39;s these kind of arguments that frustrate &#39;the masses&#39; and make &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; look really, really silly...as long as the process is written (or enforced) such that negatives must be proven before changes are made - and proven positives are not addressed - no one will be satisfied and &#39;they&#39; will continue to look stonewalling and stubborn.

"Hey, I&#39;m not sayin&#39;, I&#39;m just sayin&#39;..." (copyright 2007, Scott Giles)
[/b]


Well put :happy204:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Riddle me this: why is it that the ITAC, and by extension the CRB, require people to prove a negative before making changes? Yet, when positives are proven nothing is done? Anyone, with any modicum of commonly-available (yet rarely-used) logic, knows that it is impossible to prove a negative.[/b]

Yes, you have to prove a negative - but how else do you do it? As to the &#39;nothing is done when a positive is proven&#39;, I submit you are wrong.


Take this MR2 example: EVERY time someone (usually people intimately familiar with the car) says "the car can&#39;t make the power" or "we can&#39;t make the weight" &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; come back and say "prove it." In other words, YOU spend the exorbitant amount of money to prove it cannot be done before we&#39;ll even consider changes. Of course, what if someone was STOOPID enough to spend that money, what&#39;s to keep &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; from coming back and saying &#39;no, you didn&#39;t prove to us you did EVERYTHING, we still don&#39;t believe your demonstrated power is all that can be done you need to spend more money and you&#39;ve not done everything you can to remove the weight&#39;? Or worse, they say "you&#39;re right, but the car is properly classified as-is"? Then, all that money that was spent to try and prove this negative will have been totally and completely WASTED.[/b]

I would love to hear your ideas for improvement on the situation - given the fact that we DON&#39;T DO comp adjustments. The simple fact is that in other forms of racing, they inch toward parity using on-track data and political posturing. I fail to see how we can do this without incorporation CA&#39;s in some way.

The classification process makes some assumptions. We CAN NOT just take peoples word for these things. We need to see proof. Using your example: One MR2 CAN make weight and the owner says that isn&#39;t the issue. One says it&#39;s impossible. What is your move now? Who do you believe? It&#39;s a tough situation. I don&#39;t know Jake all that well but I know that he classes his car in PTF when he runs NASA. That means it basically has nothing done to it except tires, shocks, springs and bars. It&#39;s very hard for me (personally) to take his comments with 100% acceptance when another guy, who HAS a full build, says it can be done.

One other point. If the situation is that you do have to prove a negative (because we don&#39;t want to get into CA&#39;s and constant tweaking), and you haven&#39;t sunk the money in yet - THEN DON&#39;T. If you think you know the answer before the question is asked, save your money. If the car was popular enough to actually have some data that could be considered a trend (like the 9448V), then steps can be taken...but until a pile starts forming, we aren&#39;t set up to use ONE GUYS dyno sheets to make a change. It&#39;s not right to do so. Some amount of verification and checks/balances must be used. Inside this framework, the assumptions must be stuck to until they are proven otherwise, no?


Yet, when there are other proven cases that a car makes much more power than the process indicates, with the same amount of resulting conflict, thus a proven positive, nothing is done to change it?[/b]

Nothing is done? What examples are you talking about? Like the BMW? Poorly excecuted but the effort was there and the final product turned out well. Now that most cars have been run through the process, we shouldn&#39;t have the problem...and if we do, PCA&#39;s can (and will) be used.


It&#39;s these kind of arguments that frustrate &#39;the masses&#39; and make &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; look really, really silly...as long as the process is written (or enforced) such that negatives must be proven before changes are made - and proven positives are not addressed - no one will be satisfied and &#39;they&#39; will continue to look stonewalling and stubborn.

[/b]

Hogwash. Take the lead and lay out a plan for us here that doesn&#39;t include comp adjustments on the negative side - and show me some examples of proven positives that have developed conflict.

These parameters CAN be changed if they burn people up - but the core philosophy of the class would have to be revamped - no? I think THAT would wreck the class.

Actually, the more that I think of it, in NASCAR, GAC, SWC - they ALL have to prove a negative before the sanctioning body makes a change. The difference is that they are more willing to make small changes because they are making an effort to balance everything on the head of a pin. Here, we aren&#39;t shooting for that kind of parity (because we can&#39;t give individual cars special allowances) so change needs more data to support it.

[Doc Bro]

Riddle me this: why is it that the ITAC, and by extension the CRB, require people to prove a negative before making changes? Yet, when positives are proven nothing is done? Anyone, with any modicum of commonly-available (yet rarely-used) logic, knows that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Take this MR2 example: EVERY time someone (usually people intimately familiar with the car) says "the car can&#39;t make the power" or "we can&#39;t make the weight" &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; come back and say "prove it." In other words, YOU spend the exorbitant amount of money to prove it cannot be done before we&#39;ll even consider changes. Of course, what if someone was STOOPID enough to spend that money, what&#39;s to keep &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; from coming back and saying &#39;no, you didn&#39;t prove to us you did EVERYTHING, we still don&#39;t believe your demonstrated power is all that can be done you need to spend more money and you&#39;ve not done everything you can to remove the weight&#39;? Or worse, they say "you&#39;re right, but the car is properly classified as-is"? Then, all that money that was spent to try and prove this negative will have been totally and completely WASTED.

Which idiot among us is willing to take on THAT risk? I think the odds are better at the casino dollar slots...

Yet, when there are other proven cases that a car makes much more power than the process indicates, with the same amount of resulting conflict, thus a proven positive, nothing is done to change it?

It&#39;s these kind of arguments that frustrate &#39;the masses&#39; and make &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; look really, really silly...as long as the process is written (or enforced) such that negatives must be proven before changes are made - and proven positives are not addressed - no one will be satisfied and &#39;they&#39; will continue to look stonewalling and stubborn.

"Hey, I&#39;m not sayin&#39;, I&#39;m just sayin&#39;..." (copyright 2007, Scott Giles)
[/b]


Greg,

This has been something I&#39;ve been griping about for sometime. The problem is that it takes exponential volumes of money to prove a negative. I&#39;ll hijack to the Z. Wrote the letter, response....tabled for further research, YET, I&#39;ve never been contacted, my data point has not been studied and to my knowledge the only thing the Z has received is passification. We&#39;re not talking about an old car here, in fact it&#39;s one of the more recent cars classed, from a traditionally strong manufacturer. However there aren&#39;t a lot of data points on the car (I&#39;m the only dumb one...even with all that schooling...sorry Mom) and that works AGAINST me. Now if I were breaking records right out of the box would the car have been scrutinized more?...you bettcha. Why was the car originally classed (through the process) at 2675 then lowered to 2600 without provocation? Did the "process" change? If "no" then what in the original classification was arbitrary?

The issue with the MR.2 is interesting because there are many more data points than the Z3 however, there is ONE data point showing it&#39;s possible to hit weight and that works AGAINST the car. How is this possible??? One data point hurts me (because it&#39;s not statistically significant) and one data point hurts the MR2? (equally not statistically significant) AB says some amount of verification needs to be done...well where is it? Where is the verification of the one "light" MR2. Where is the verification of the "185 HP M44 engine"? As I said I&#39;ve gone through the process for the Z3 and the "verification" that the ITAC speaks of has not occurrred, no contact, no request for build sheets (as mentioned higher up on the thread) no request for dyno sheets....no contact by the ITAC at all.....NONE? This is verification and checks and balances???

Yet we give the Fiero the option of swapping out entire subframe assemblies......where was the verification on that one??? (I&#39;m sorry Ben, it&#39;s not a personal attack)


FLAME AWAY, I CAN TAKE IT :D !!!!


R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob,

What about when you and I have talked SPECIFICALLY about your car and your build? Do you want something on ITAC letterhead? Your car still doesn&#39;t have a programmable ECU so I fail to see how it is held up as &#39;all that can be done&#39;. We also haven&#39;t done a dyno day so you can understand that your 135whp on a DynaPak is SIGNIFICANTLY higher on a DynoJet. I will load my car and drag it to CT to show you the difference. 145whp on a DJ can easily be extrapolated to 175+ crank for a RWD car.

As to the &#39;breaking records&#39; out of the box comment...while not out of the box, Greg&#39;s NX went through the process and was developed well. 3 track records and an ARRC win later - is it being scrutinized at all? Nope. It is what it is. Strong some places, not so much in others.

AGAIN, the process uses ASSUMPTIONS and averages. It&#39;s a flawed process, we all know that. But until information comes down to prove otherwise, our hands are tied - unless we want to totally revamp and go the way of comp adjustments.

And THAT my friends, is the REAL way to Prod-like problems.

[Doc Bro]

Andy,

No selective memory here. I live with my state of affairs, I also live with the notion that people make mistakes including, and especially, me. I also specifically use that filter to evaluate others. The fact that you and I have had conversations about my ECU, while you have a yet unsolidifed ECU rule in front of you (for how many months now?) is pointless. Then you use that against me, (and by the way totally avoid THE POINT that I was making in that post) to further your stance that my car is underdeveloped. Who is developing an ECU program (with so many variables undefined) right now????? But, to remain on the Z3 (instead of the data point issue) we all know of a well developed m44 with a well done ECU....is that data point being looked at?? I think the dyno day statement is also garbage... I mean seriously, is that your (collectively) response to any competitor who questions the ITAC.....are you offering to dyno the Miata at a "dyno day" to anyone, anywhere? If (obviously) No, then enough&#39;s enough with that line.

I know your job is thankless and I&#39;m sorry to get in on this BUT, the inconsistencies in the message KILL me.

R

[Greg Amy]

Andy, not a personal attack, but I believe your base logic is flawed. Allow me some leeway here without getting offended.


...given the fact that we DON&#39;T DO comp adjustments.[/b]
Let&#39;s start a little out of order here and address this one. A big one.

This statement is out-and-out false. The elephant in the room here is the Honda CRX: you have decisively comp-adjusted this car. Ergo, the process is in place for it to be done for other cars. Horse out of the barn, cat out of the bag, Pandora&#39;s box, whatever allusion/metaphor you want to use. It&#39;s already a done deal.

Please don&#39;t counter that it&#39;s a "unique" situation and &#39;that car would be over-dominant at 1100 pounds&#39; or "how&#39;d you like to race against that car". I agree with you there, that it would be dominant, but that&#39;s not the point. The POINT is that comp adjustments ARE done, and this is the one big example that I&#39;m currently aware of.

So, since it&#39;s already happening, there&#39;s nothing - other than ITAC and CRB backbone in willing to be honest with the membership - to keep it from being hard-codified.


Yes, you have to prove a negative - but how else do you do it?[/b]
Through a continuation of the comp adjustments process that&#39;s already in place.

In order to encourage competition of specific vehicles, such as the AW11, you need to offer them a carrot, an incentive. Most cars that are in ITA today showed flashes of brilliance even before full prep, such as the handling potential of the CRX and Miata, the power potential of the NX2000, and the overall goodness of the Integra. Each of these examples showed promise prior to someone sinking in a sheizhole of money. As of right now, the MR2 does not have that.

So, toss them a carrot, see what happens, with the listed caveat that if shown to be excessive it will be dialed back in the future. Ergo, instead of asking them to prove their negative, you&#39;re giving them the opportunity to prove your positive.

No one is going to reasonably spend money to prove a negative, but many, many folks have illustrated they&#39;re willing to sink family fortunes to prove a positive.


We CAN NOT just take peoples word for these things. We need to see proof.[/b]
Wait a sec: you do this already, but only on the positive side! How do you know my NX2000 can&#39;t actually put out 175 horsepower? Have you actually seen my car get dyno&#39;d? Were you there when Kessler was building the engine and potentially chose to leave out some mods for fear of getting one of those non-existent comp adjustments? Have you actually seen my suspension design in detail, and verified I can&#39;t do more? Were you present at all test days to ensure I can&#39;t significantly run faster than I already am?

Of course not. So, why is it you&#39;re so willing to accept positives, yet so loathe to accept negatives?

Bottom line: you (ITAC/CRB) don&#39;t have the resources to verify all claims. You just can&#39;t do it. Therefore, you should be as willing to accept negative comments as positive ones, yet you choose to cherry-pick what you wish to accept/believe.


One MR2 CAN make weight and the owner says that isn&#39;t the issue.[/b]

And you&#39;ve personally reviewed all aspects of that car to ensure it&#39;s 100% completely and totally legal? You know for a fact that this one single example is truly an all-out 100% legal possibility, with no illegal removal of any weight? (No insult intended to Peter, I&#39;m simply using it as an example.)

Of course not. Yet you are quick to accept this example as "proof" of possibility while ignoring numerous other claims of impossibility. What&#39;s up wid dat?


I don&#39;t know Jake all that well but I know that he classes his car in PTF when he runs NASA. That means it basically has nothing done to it except...[/b]
I understand that, but doesn&#39;t that prove my point? Why would Jake spend the money to try and do an all-out IT effort - and thus get moved to PTE or D - when 1) there&#39;s no reason to believe the end result would change in ITA and 2) he doesn&#39;t need to make those changes to compete effectively in NASA PTF?

Toss him a carrot, Andy, and you might get your answer.


If the car was popular enough to actually have some data that could be considered a trend (like the 9448V)...[/b]
Yet another poor example. Both NASA and PCA tossed that car a bone with their spec series, encouraging people to do 100% builds on the car. With that encouragement, you have hard data to use for deciding who well the car will perform.

With the AW11 you gots squat. Rumor, innuendo, expectations, cold formulas. But really no hard data.

Carrot.


...we aren&#39;t set up to use ONE GUYS dyno sheets to make a change.[/b]
But, yet, you&#39;re willing - indignant, even - to use "one guy&#39;s data" to stand pat on weight...?


...in NASCAR, GAC, SWC - they ALL have to prove a negative before the sanctioning body makes a change.[/b]
A HORRID, HORRID - and terribly insulting - example, Andy. In "NASCAR, GAC, SWC" the competitors are being PAID BY MANUFACTURERS to prove that negative.

You get me sponsorship from Toyota and I&#39;ll have your AW11 data for you in about 4-6 months, Andy. Until then I encourage you to remember we&#39;re amateur club racing and, unlike most, not in this with a profit motive...

Greg

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

No selective memory here. I live with my state of affairs, I also live with the notion that people make mistakes including, and especially, me. I also specifically use that filter to evaluate others. The fact that you and I have had conversations about my ECU, while you have a yet unsolidifed ECU rule in front of you (for how many months now?) is pointless. Then you use that against me, (and by the way totally avoid THE POINT that I was making in that post) to further your stance that my car is underdeveloped. Who is developing an ECU program (with so many variables undefined) right now????? But, to remain on the Z3 (instead of the data point issue) we all know of a well developed m44 with a well done ECU....is that data point being looked at?? I think the dyno day statement is also garbage... I mean seriously, is that your (collectively) response to any competitor who questions the ITAC.....are you offering to dyno the Miata at a "dyno day" to anyone, anywhere? If (obviously) No, then enough&#39;s enough with that line.

I know your job is thankless and I&#39;m sorry to get in on this BUT, the inconsistencies in the message KILL me.

R [/b]

The point Rob, is that you claim your car can&#39;t make the power, yet you haven&#39;t gone all the way. Simple. That supports Greg&#39;s issue with proving a negative for sure, but I just don&#39;t know of any other way right now to do it within IT.

As I have explained, the assumptions set a baseline which is used to wet weight. We don&#39;t HAVE data points that prove the assumption is accurate, that is why it IS an assumption. It&#39;s not an inconsistancy, it&#39;s a FLAW - but a neccasary flaw given our contraints as a category.

The dyno day thing is FOR YOU. You talk about your 135whp and the lofty and impossible &#39;175hp&#39; M44. My point is to show you that comparing a Pak to a Jet foolish...and I will show you that with a side-by-side comparison. Dollars to donuts your car out performs mine on the same dyno on the same day - even in it&#39;s current configuration. THEN, when you run around 145whp on a Jet - it can be reasonably said that your motor makes &#39;process power&#39;. No?

I would love to hash around a better way to class cars. But when you (a collective you) design it, remember that we don&#39;t do CA&#39;s. If there is a better way, let&#39;s get it done. Who is first?

[Doc Bro]

Dollars to donuts your car out performs mine on the same dyno on the same day - even in it&#39;s current configuration.
[/b]


Ya think???? You also get the weight break that goes with that..............

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

No problems, it&#39;s going to turn into a philisophical debate.



Let&#39;s start a little out of order here and address this one. A big one.

This statement is out-and-out false. The elephant in the room here is the Honda CRX: you have decisively comp-adjusted this car. Ergo, the process is in place for it to be done for other cars. Horse out of the barn, cat out of the bag, Pandora&#39;s box, whatever allusion/metaphor you want to use. It&#39;s already a done deal.

Please don&#39;t counter that it&#39;s a "unique" situation and &#39;that car would be over-dominant at 1100 pounds&#39; or "how&#39;d you like to race against that car". I agree with you there, that it would be dominant, but that&#39;s not the point. The POINT is that comp adjustments ARE done, and this is the one big example that I&#39;m currently aware of.

Sorry, you are wrong. Just plain wrong. Or maybe your definition of a comp adjustment is different than mine. When the CRX&#39;s weight got changed, it was one of 16 cars. Those 16 were a result of a myriad of cars that HADN&#39;T been run through the process, getting run through the process. It was all done in an effort to set the bar back to zero. To be fair to those cars like your that were getting classed using a process and getting weight set. Neon, SE-R, NX2000 were among the first IIRC. Well low and behold, when the process was used - as it is used for everyone - some cars popped up real light and some popped up real heavy. Those cars were reset to their process weight. You say a comp adjustment, I say a re-evaluation using newly set standards to be used going forward. But this has been explained many times before.


So, since it&#39;s already happening, there&#39;s nothing - other than ITAC and CRB backbone in willing to be honest with the membership - to keep it from being hard-codified.

Sorry, disagree. It was a one-time &#39;reset&#39; that was done when a classification process was FINALLY developed. No preceident setter IMHO.


In order to encourage competition of specific vehicles, such as the AW11, you need to offer them a carrot, an incentive. Most cars that are in ITA today showed flashes of brilliance even before full prep, such as the handling potential of the CRX and Miata, the power potential of the NX2000, and the overall goodness of the Integra. Each of these examples showed promise prior to someone sinking in a sheizhole of money. As of right now, the MR2 does not have that.

and...


So, toss them a carrot, see what happens, with the listed caveat that if shown to be excessive it will be dialed back in the future. Ergo, instead of asking them to prove their negative, you&#39;re giving them the opportunity to prove your positive.

Here is where we come together - sort of. Excluding our polar opposites on whether comp adjustments are being used now, this is something the membership should consider and weigh in on. DO WE WANT TO OFFER CARROTS to certain cars in order to incent people to develop them? I could be on board with this, in theory, but we would also have to agree that should that carrot prove to create an overdog, it has to be taken away as you have stated.


Wait a sec: you do this already, but only on the positive side! How do you know my NX2000 can&#39;t actually put out 175 horsepower? Have you actually seen my car get dyno&#39;d? Were you there when Kessler was building the engine and potentially chose to leave out some mods for fear of getting one of those non-existent comp adjustments? Have you actually seen my suspension design in detail, and verified I can&#39;t do more? Were you present at all test days to ensure I can&#39;t significantly run faster than I already am?

Nope - you are wrong. What example do you have where we have made a change without a pile of evidence from multiple sources all verifying each other? Do I believe your car makes a ton of power? Sure but I refuse to recommend a change to it based on one claim. I can&#39;t verify you aren&#39;t cheating or haven&#39;t fudged the numbers...so why would I accept a positive. Do I believe your car is out of process WRT power? You bet...but that means NOTHING when trying to validate it.


Of course not. So, why is it you&#39;re so willing to accept positives, yet so loathe to accept negatives?

Not sure you have given an example of an out of order willingness to accept a positive and not a negative. So far, we have been talking about three cars that only singular data points exist. The BMW, the MR2 and your car. All that have not had changes made.


Bottom line: you (ITAC/CRB) don&#39;t have the resources to verify all claims. You just can&#39;t do it. Therefore, you should be as willing to accept negative comments as positive ones, yet you choose to cherry-pick what you wish to accept/believe.

See above.


And you&#39;ve personally reviewed all aspects of that car to ensure it&#39;s 100% completely and totally legal? You know for a fact that this one single example is truly an all-out 100% legal possibility, with no illegal removal of any weight? (No insult intended to Peter, I&#39;m simply using it as an example.)

Of course not. Yet you are quick to accept this example as "proof" of possibility while ignoring numerous other claims of impossibility. What&#39;s up wid dat?

The point is (and again it&#39;s a flaw) that we don&#39;t make a move until we have enough evidence. Unfortunatly, the &#39;non&#39; move is also a &#39;no&#39; - which is a move in reality. So it&#39;s not so much acceptance of one over the other, its that there are two conflicting data points - so you stick with your assumptions until you have enough data to feel like you can make the right choice. Seems very logical to me.


I understand that, but doesn&#39;t that prove my point? Why would Jake spend the money to try and do an all-out IT effort - and thus get moved to PTE or D - when 1) there&#39;s no reason to believe the end result would change in ITA and 2) he doesn&#39;t need to make those changes to compete effectively in NASA PTF?

Toss him a carrot, Andy, and you might get your answer.

And this is where we are looking at a philisophical change in direction. How do we decide what cars get the carrot? Outline that in writing for me so I can forward it to the people who we tell their cars are hitting the Bullseye of the class they are in now...like the guys who just sent us a letter asking us to move the ITA Neon to ITB with just 100 more lbs @ 2550 because he hasn&#39;t seen any win yet.


Yet another poor example. Both NASA and PCA tossed that car a bone with their spec series, encouraging people to do 100% builds on the car. With that encouragement, you have hard data to use for deciding who well the car will perform.

Actually no. If you were familiar with the rules you would know that these classes are much more restictive than IT in terms of engine prep. There are many Porsche guys who have sent in data for IT builds.


With the AW11 you gots squat. Rumor, innuendo, expectations, cold formulas. But really no hard data.

Carrot.

No argument there...that is why we go with the assumption. You wanna start throwing carrots? Fine, lets debate the parameters on who, what, and when.




But, yet, you&#39;re willing - indignant, even - to use "one guy&#39;s data" to stand pat on weight...?

Sorry you see it that way. Explanation above. Two conflicting data points does not a change make.


A HORRID, HORRID - and terribly insulting - example, Andy. In "NASCAR, GAC, SWC" the competitors are being PAID BY MANUFACTURERS to prove that negative.

Easy on the drama. Insulting? No. It&#39;s just how others do it. Even the other classes within the SCCA do it. IT just happens to be a harder ship to turn in that regard - and I would submit that is a large portion of the stability and popularity of the class.

So - do we want to start throwing carrots? Bones? Incentives? Maybe another thread is in order.

(Edit - sorry for the formatting - I am trying to track down the error - bolded to make it easier.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ya think???? You also get the weight break that goes with that..............

R
[/b]

The point Rob is that we will prove that your car can - and even DOES make &#39;process power&#39;. 145whp on a DynoJet ~ 175crank hp.

Unless I am mistaken, you have been claiming that it is impossible. It sems pretty dang possible to me.

[Doc Bro]

The point Rob is that we will prove that your car can - and even DOES make &#39;process power&#39;. 145whp on a DynoJet ~ 175crank hp.

Unless I am mistaken, you have been claiming that it is impossible. It sems pretty dang possible to me.
[/b]


Let&#39;s just cut to the chase.

Using the formula as explained to me:

138 (stock hp) *1.25 (estimated IT gain)=172.5 hp

172.5 hp * 14.5 = 2501.25 (weight)

2501.25 -50 lbs (for struts) = 2451.25 class weight......

even if I add 50 back for brakes that&#39;s 2500....even if I go even farther and add another 50 for RWD that&#39;s still only 2551.

Car is 2600. Are you telling me my car gets 150 for brakes and RWD to make it 2600 and gets NO deductions for that rear suspension design (or aero)? Car should be 2450-2500 using YOUR formula.

R

[924Guy]

I will answer to one and only one item in this thread - should "carrots" be thrown out there to encourage development of certain cars.

Why should they? What would be the reasons/justifications? Shouldn&#39;t the process work well enough (and personally, I think it&#39;s more functional than broken these days - will never be 100% regardless, that&#39;s not a realistic target) that there will always be more than one choice of winning car per class? Then it&#39;s down to personality quirks if you choose to pursue one over another - and that&#39;s essentially how it&#39;s always been, even in Solo, right?

And if you choose to develop something, out of sheer personal perversion, that is not likely to be a class-leader - you are left to your own devices. FURTHERMORE, if you are so dedicated to that specific car - like, say, a 924 - that you&#39;re willing to put all the time, money, and effort into it to build just the perfect 10/10ths build with no promise of reward, then it would seem like the ITAC would then be able to use your progress/results as a strong indication that perhaps that car is misclassed, or at the wrong weight, etc.

If you want someone to pay you, figuratively, for developing a given car... well, then, talk to the manufacturer. Seems to work with Mazda, definitely don&#39;t waste your breath with Porsche though... beyond that, you&#39;re on your own! :birra:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob, you don&#39;t get &#39;credit&#39; for struts. Weight gets added for double wishbones.

Brakes yes, and IIRC torque. 100 in adders.

No areo or suspension credit. Not granular enough for that as discussed in other threads.

For some, the process isn&#39;t &#39;exact&#39; enough. I think everyone is willing to listen on how to improve it if we can.

[Greg Amy]

>>>...maybe your definition of a comp adjustment is different than mine.
My definition of a "comp adjustment" is setting any car&#39;s weight significantly different - high or low - than the weight derived from using the formulaic process developed. I understand there are some "subjective adders and subtracters" in there, but - as I understand it - most, if not all, are based on physical characteristics of the car (RWD v. FWD, strut suspension, etc).

>>>When the CRX&#39;s weight got changed, it was one of 16 cars. Those 16 were a result of a myriad of cars that HADN&#39;T been run through the process...
C&#39;mon, Andy: you know I&#39;m not talking about the re-org through the formula process in early &#39;06. I fully understand that all these cars went through the same formula my car did and were thus re-adjusted accordingly.

What I am talking about is the fact that the Honda CRX had approximately 300 pounds added to it over and above the standard formuliac process - even after the adders and subtracters - because otherwise it would have been "an overdog" and because of &#39;known&#39; horsepower numbers.

THAT, my friend, is most decisively a competition adjustment.

Ergo, comp adjustments are already in place. If you disagree, then explain to us how the Honda CRX actually comes out when run through the process using manufacturer&#39;s published data? If you disagree that this is a comp adjustment, then you truly diverge from most folks&#39; basis for philosophical and spirit-of-the-rules discussion...

>>>DO WE WANT TO OFFER CARROTS to certain cars in order to incent people to develop them?
Yes. Absolutely. Without a doubt.

The whole basis for the big re-org of the last fews years was to minimize - if not outright eliminate - the subjectivity of the weight-setting process, and, in theory, give each and every car a shot at the brass ring. Theoretically speaking, any and all cars should have equal opportunity at being able to prepare a winning car. Unfortunately, while this process has produced some downright wicked cool competition between varying cars, there are still some folks out there that believe they were short-changed by the process.

By dangling a carrot in front of these folks we&#39;re encouraging them to "put up or shut up"; prove or disprove what they believe is correct. Best case we see some new chassis developed and running towards the fore; worst case we end up with an overdog that has to be addressed. Neither will happen immediately and/or overnight.

>>>...we would also have to agree that should that carrot prove to create an overdog, it has to be taken away as you have stated.
Of course. That&#39;s part of this idea(l).

Unfortunately, it could lead to a lot of "keeping your cards close" and outright lying about potential (like that doesn&#39;t happen now!), but in the end "the truth will out". It&#39;s completely impossible, long-term, to have an unfair advantage and keep it to yourself forever; eventually you have to show your cards to win the game.

>>>Not sure you have given an example of an out of order willingness to accept a positive and not a negative.
One example I&#39;ve given is that you&#39;ve accepted that the AW11 "can" make process weight due to one example, yet ignore numerous other owners that disagree, all without direct verification of that one example.

>>>...so you stick with your assumptions until you have enough data to feel like you can make the right choice. Seems very logical to me.
It always seems to be, as long as you&#39;re not on the opposing side. you&#39;d feel differently if your position conflicted with the status quo instead of governing it.

Logic is not dependent on viewpoint; it&#39;s either logical or it&#39;s not. If your belief in the "logic" changes with your point of view, then it&#39;s not logical...

>>>How do we decide what cars get the carrot?
A fine question, one that I will leave as rhetorical for discussion.

However, one easy way to do it is to take advantage of existing rules and use them as necessary. If the vast majority of AW11 users would rather run fat in ITB, then let &#39;em try it. Alternatively, given dual-classification is already a fact in IT, try that tactic, see what happens.

In the end, all cards will be shown...

>>>...happens to be a harder ship to turn in that regard - and I would submit that is a large portion of the stability and popularity of the class.
Well, the class has been popular for decades, with or without the stability, and declaring the class is stable &#39;cause it&#39;s stable is making my head "asplode"... ;)

>>>So - do we want to start throwing carrots? Bones? Incentives? Maybe another thread is in order.
Maybe. I&#39;d be interested in varying viewpoints on the matter...


On edit: I think you only get so many quotes before the system screams "uncle"...

[Rabbit07]

What I am talking about is the fact that the Honda CRX had approximately 300 pounds added to it over and above the standard formuliac process - even after the adders and subtracters - because otherwise it would have been "an overdog" and because of &#39;known&#39; horsepower numbers.

[/b]

I am going to catch a lot of s^!$ for this one. However, is it possible that the CRX is really an ITS car? They seem to run very close times to most of the front ITS cars that I have seen? Maybe give them a weight break and let them run in ITS.

OK, I am ducking now.

[steve b]

Jake, not quibbling, but see Steve B&#39;s post above. He appears to be able to make weight in Peter Doane&#39;s old car, with a 205 lb driver.

I do agree the issue here appears to be horsepower, or the lack thereof. While I also agree that you would think someone would have attempted a full on 100% IT build (ECU, compression, port matching, dyno workon the exhaust, etc.) on the motor, I&#39;ve still yet to see anyone say definitively that it HAS been done. Has it? If so, and if the result is still 110 at the wheels, then you have a car that is on the border between A/B and any move to B needs to be CAREFULLY monitored to avoid dumping an overdog into B. Some of the recent moves between S and A, and A and B, have created "instant winners" which is not necessarily a good thing.
[/b]

Hold on, I didn&#39;t say I could make weight with a 205# driver. I&#39;m 210 lbs. With me in the car, I&#39;m at 2350. That&#39;s 80 over weight, so the driver would have to be 130#. I&#39;m just saying that I&#39;m not willing to argue over 80 lbs. even though I&#39;m confident that the 80 pounds CAN NOT be found on my car.

I&#39;m saying that the flaw in the classification must be coming from the assumed obtainable HP. So everyone who has quoting me as making weight, please refrain.

I see this is an emossional issue. I guess fighting the same fight for years will do that to you. I&#39;m just starting so I&#39;m not there yet.

No competition adjustments, that&#39;s good to know. But can&#39;t competion results be used to spot a flaw in classing assumptions. I&#39;m not knowledgable enough about cars (even my car, yes, I don&#39;t know exactly what I bought) to run through the engine build on my car. I&#39;ve emailed Peter and asked him to chime in, hopefully he will.

[Andy Bettencourt]

]>>>...maybe your definition of a comp adjustment is different than mine.
My definition of a "comp adjustment" is setting any car&#39;s weight significantly different - high or low - than the weight derived from using the formulaic process developed. I understand there are some "subjective adders and subtracters" in there, but - as I understand it - most, if not all, are based on physical characteristics of the car (RWD v. FWD, strut suspension, etc).

>>>When the CRX&#39;s weight got changed, it was one of 16 cars. Those 16 were a result of a myriad of cars that HADN&#39;T been run through the process...
C&#39;mon, Andy: you know I&#39;m not talking about the re-org through the formula process in early &#39;06. I fully understand that all these cars went through the same formula my car did and were thus re-adjusted accordingly.

What I am talking about is the fact that the Honda CRX had approximately 300 pounds added to it over and above the standard formuliac process - even after the adders and subtracters - because otherwise it would have been "an overdog" and because of &#39;known&#39; horsepower numbers.

THAT, my friend, is most decisively a competition adjustment.

I am not sure how many different ways to say this...but just because everyone goes through the process doesn&#39;t mean they are treated the EXACT same way. Since we use PUBLISHED stock HP numbers as the base, and then derive another crank hp number as the target hp based on gains in IT trim, we have to be careful with BOTH numbers. The stock numbers can be low or high and the gains in IT trim can be low or high.

There are PLENTY of cars in the ITCS that are not classed on 25%. They are classed at known increases based on PILES of data. Trending if you will. Not lows, not highs, but documentable averages. Some Hondas, some BMWs, some Nissans some Datsuns, some Mazdas...some of these cars make significantly more than 25% and those numbers are used in the process. Some make less and they are used. Again, piles of data - averaged out.

Maybe you think the CRX went through the process and an arbatrary number was added - it wasn&#39;t. Known crank numbers were used INSIDE the process and sent on through. Nothing out of thin air.

Yes, I am fully aware you don&#39;t agree with this philosophy. But I think you HAVE TO do it like this (use what you KNOW) or else you get a class of overdogs. The BMW runs roughshot over ITS, the CRX runs roughshot over ITA, etc. So instead of letting it happen, and ruining a class for 2-3 years and then invoking a PCA, the &#39;proper&#39; classification is done PROCATIVELY to make an effort to try and keep the road level.

A comp adjustment? Only if you are mistaken in your thinking that the &#39;process&#39; is a formula. It&#39;s not. I would LOVE to have a formula - but nobody has shown me one I couldn&#39;t blow up. I hope the day comes when we can develop one.

[benspeed]

This is a great thread - I&#39;ve now got some ammo to write another letter looking for the ITA Fiero weight at 2,450 using the formula Rob put together. :P (plus the car has a Chevette front end and cannot run coil overs in the front-but I know that wouldn&#39;t factor for a weight adjustment, would it?).

87 ITA Fiero
135 (stock hp) *1.25 (estimated IT gain)=168.75 hp (crank right?)

168.75 hp * 14.5 = 2,446.8 (weight)


"Yet we give the Fiero the option of swapping out entire subframe assemblies......where was the verification on that one??? (I&#39;m sorry Ben, it&#39;s not a personal attack)"

No offense at all. I think the subframe stuff on the front is questionable - way to much hacking up and fabbing is not consistant with the rules. The back should be doable but would receive some scrutinizing - there is some spindle adjustment I&#39;ve learned. Hey, were running at the higher weight of 2600 so we should get the same suspension benefit. Cost to convert is about $700 with me doing the work. No plans to do this now, but its on the budget line.

Still looking for that magic 140HP at the wheels. Sounds like that wouldn&#39;t be a front running car based on some of the numbers getting thrown out. (please tell me otherwise, cause I am still slowly putting this together - if 150 hp or above is the goal then this thing is stillborn.)

[Doc Bro]

[quote]


Brakes yes, and IIRC torque. 100 in adders.



So, you get an adder for torque??? So does Greg get an adder for high HP?? Does Ben get an adder for high (outrageous) torque???

How much of an adder is double wishbone???


R

[DavidM]

This thread got interesting all of a sudden....





I am not sure how many different ways to say this...but just because everyone goes through the process doesn&#39;t mean they are treated the EXACT same way. Since we use PUBLISHED stock HP numbers as the base, and then derive another crank hp number as the target hp based on gains in IT trim, we have to be careful with BOTH numbers. The stock numbers can be low or high and the gains in IT trim can be low or high.

There are PLENTY of cars in the ITCS that are not classed on 25%. They are classed at known increases based on PILES of data. Trending if you will. Not lows, not highs, but documentable averages. Some Hondas, some BMWs, some Nissans some Datsuns, some Mazdas...some of these cars make significantly more than 25% and those numbers are used in the process. Some make less and they are used. Again, piles of data - averaged out.

Maybe you think the CRX went through the process and an arbatrary number was added - it wasn&#39;t. Known crank numbers were used INSIDE the process and sent on through. Nothing out of thin air.

Yes, I am fully aware you don&#39;t agree with this philosophy. But I think you HAVE TO do it like this (use what you KNOW) or else you get a class of overdogs. The BMW runs roughshot over ITS, the CRX runs roughshot over ITA, etc. So instead of letting it happen, and ruining a class for 2-3 years and then invoking a PCA, the &#39;proper&#39; classification is done PROCATIVELY to make an effort to try and keep the road level.

A comp adjustment? Only if you are mistaken in your thinking that the &#39;process&#39; is a formula. It&#39;s not. I would LOVE to have a formula - but nobody has shown me one I couldn&#39;t blow up. I hope the day comes when we can develop one.
[/b]


Ok. So for those that didn&#39;t catch this, there are several cars that were re-weighted using something other than the much posted 25% horsepower gain in IT trim. I happen to know that my car was one of them and I guess the CRX as well. I would suspect the Integra falls into this category too. Not surprisingly, these were the cars people were complaining about before the re-weight.

How was the new % horsepower gain computed you ask? Well, it was reverse engineered from known horsepower/torque numbers. Take the known WHP and subtract the stock WHP, divide the result by the stock WHP and you get the % gain used. The reason a different number was used for these cars is because it was known that they were making more than the 25%.

If there were no max prep&#39;ed cars out there that were making more than the expected 25% then the cars would have been weighted using the "normal" (I use that very loosely) formula. These cars got extra weight because they were making more than expected power. Sure sounds like a competition adjustment to me. You can try to hide it in the re-weighting, but if it smells like a competition adjustment then that&#39;s what it is.

It just so happens that the cars that were making big power were the cars that had a lot development put into them. These cars had been developed over many years by people who knew what they were doing. How many examples of full, balls-to-the-wall builds were there out there other than the CRX, Intergra, and 240SX? They were making big power because people had done lots of research and spent lots of money to get to that point (i.e. the Bob Stretch custom header for the 240SX).

This leads me to this question: "Does the ITAC plan on re-evaluating all the IT cars at the end of each year to determine which cars are making more than the expected 25% power gain?" That&#39;s what should happen to be fair to the cars that had a higher number used during the re-weighting. As other cars are developed to the extent those cars were developed then I would expect that numbers higher than 25% will be attained. When that happens a car should be re-weighted to match the known numbers. PCA? You bet. [Note: This obviously leads to people not revealing or giving out false numbers for their horsepower and torque. I now understand why people are reluctant to give out that info. ]

To tie this back into the FasTrack, I wrote my letter because I frankly have no idea how the weight for most cars was achieved. I didn&#39;t even know how the weight for my own car was achieved - it was much different than I thought. The supposed formula is really nothing more than a guideline and there is much more subjectivity in the "process". We called this hand waving in my algorithm classes in college. You input some numbers, wave your hand, and majically some numbers appear out the other side. I wanted the ITAC to explain exactly how each car&#39;s weight was derived. They declined. "Trust us" doesn&#39;t cut it anymore for me. The honeymoon is over.

David

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually, nothing has been typed here that hasn&#39;t been said a million times before. Maybe a billion.

...and if you take a good look at all the cars that had weight changes, you will see a few that have just as many - or more years of development - than the 240SX etc - that LOST weight.

Over and out - again. It just ain&#39;t worth it.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Still looking for that magic 140HP at the wheels. Sounds like that wouldn&#39;t be a front running car based on some of the numbers getting thrown out. (please tell me otherwise, cause I am still slowly putting this together - if 150 hp or above is the goal then this thing is stillborn.)
[/b]

Ben - At 2600 lbs, you will need more than 140hp at the wheels to be a front running car. You will need closer to 150 hp.

[Jake]

Andy - NOBODY can LEGALLY make the 2270lb weight with a 180lb driver. No car, no amount of money, can&#39;t be done. PERIOD!

Carrot or not - the PROCESS puts the car squarely into ITB. It is NOT a tweener.

Back to vacation.

[JeffYoung]

David, there is subjectivity in the process; there has to be. A hard and fast, unwavering equation isn&#39;t going to result in a fair car class set either. My car becomes the perfect example of that. If you run the numbers "straight" you get a V8 ITA car.

My view on this is that we have as intellectually honest of a process as possible. It was used once to fix a bunch of weights that were out of whack or just set by ad hoc means. It fixed at least two, serious, class crippling problems -- the CRX in ITA and the E36 325 in ITS. It made other corrections (lightening the 260/280z, and the 944, putting some weight on the Integra and the 240sx) that in my view have resulted in last, and this, year&#39;s ITA and ITS racing being some of the closest, most competitive we have seen in years. Instead of guys bitching about 325s winning races by 20 seconds, we now have (admittedly in some cases legitimate) complaints about 100 lbs or 50 lbs on a particular car.

I think we might all benefit if we stepped back from nitpicking the process for a year, and watch how this plays out. The bigger picture to me is that everything is working, and working well. In S, we have Z cars, Integras, 944s, 325s and RX7s running up front. In A, we have CRXs, 240sxs, NX2000s/SE-Rs, Miatas and Integras running up front. Given the inherent differences in these cars, and the incredibly difficult task it is to "balance" them under the current IT ruleset, I honestly do not think the ITAC could have done a better job.

Anyone disagree?

[Matt Rowe]

So let me summarize the choice for the MR2 just to see if I have this right. Either it stays in ITA where it already has a following and those drivers continue to run mid pack or you reclassify the car to ITB. In which case the thinking is you will gain more drivers who think the car might now stand a chance than you lose when you force them to add lead and make other changes?

Now I don&#39;t own one although my own car is in a similar situation, it just doesn&#39;t have the large following the MR2 has so the ITAC has spent a lot more time on the MR2 than several other borderline cars. So forgive me if I am a little less than wholly sympathetic for a car that has gotten more than it&#39;s share of attention and yet nobody seems satisifed.

Are we all forgetting the basic philosophy of the category, not every car is going to be able to win. Even within this topic people have made comparisons to the miata, crx, 240 and integra. Yep that&#39;s pretty much it, if you want to win in ITA in a division with a strong ITA class you pretty much have to have one of those cars. Notice the MR2 isn&#39;t on that list as are a few dozen other cars. It is still better than it was a couple years ago.

Hey, I&#39;m a big fan of "the process" and what was stated ever since it was first discussed is the process will take some of the peaks and valleys out of the playing field but it isn&#39;t going to make every car equal. When the process is applied to the MR2 apparently mid pack is the best you are going to get, just like a lot of other ITA cars. Does that mean it is misclassed? I don&#39;t know but it seems like there is resistance to moving to ITB with the process dictated weight also. It has been suggested that the MR2 does not respond well to IT engine prep which again would mean that it probably won&#39;t be the car to have no matter what class it is in. Does that mean the process is flawed or predictable?

Personally, I don&#39;t know where the car belongs but whether it is in ITB or ITA it must either run at the weight the process says. Otherwise we are tossing the last several years of class realignment out the window and starting over. Now I think this has already been done but why not ask the membership if they want to run their MR2 in ITA at XXXX lbs or ITB at XXXX lbs based on what is predicted. That is it. It doesn&#39;t require changes to the class philosphy or set any new precedents outside of giving the membership the option of deciding which weight they would rather race at.

[seckerich]

Just sitting on the sidelines watching this one but some of these last assumptions drug me in. :blink: Do any of you expect the ITAC to ignore known HP numbers and percent gains in classing? It sucks to have a very well developed car with widely known and published numbers but those are the breaks. Some of these new classifications are making better than 25% gains and will need some looking at in time as well. Call it a PCA or just common sense but do it! If the MR2 lacks 150 # of making weight and does not respond well to IT mods then it won&#39;t need the 300+ to make ITB weight. Sounds like it is half way there already. Take some pictures of your cage and give some very detailed accounts of your build and weight reduction work and send it in. Yes--you should have to prove it can not make weight. Take it to a respected builder and get their opinion on your work--might be surprised what can be legally done. I think any IT car that has to push every loophole in the rules to make weight is poorly classed and is at a disadvantage to begin with. No room for accusump, cool suit, or any other conveniences that the target cars get. In the end we want more cars on track with a reasonable chance to win. The personal attacks have no place in this process and are way out of line. Work with the drivers (insert CUSTOMERS) and lets get fields in IT full again. :023:

[mustanghammer]

Ballparked

The MR2 and RX7 would both be around 2550 in ITB.

The GTI would be around 2500-2550 as well.

The Neon is ITA to the bone.

Pulsar? That looks and smells like a B car to me if it is 113hp.


And you may be right. A 25% increase in IT trim is assumed and used in the process unless actual (and significantly different - by 5% +/-) numbers are known.
[/b]


2550 and 6" wheels? I&#39;ll take it! My car weighs 2500 now with me in it immediately after a race. The best that I could do with my car is some where around 2420 - me on a diet and a few more light weight parts.

I do have another car to work with (non-sunroof 85 GS) but to meet weight with me in it I would have to get it to 2050lbs w/o driver. Anybody think that is possible or will I have to look for a 79-80 model car?

[Jake]

So let me summarize the choice for the MR2 just to see if I have this right. Either it stays in ITA where it already has a following and those drivers continue to run mid pack...
[/b]

That&#39;s the problem. That USED to be the case. I run the ONLY MR2 in NER - a huge region. In Mid-Atlantic there used to be a following, but many of those drivers have sold their cars or stopped running IT. The few that are left are mostly lap traffic - back of the pack. The car was on life support - the CB just pulled the plug. Of the 5 ITA MR2 drivers that I keep in touch with, 4 have left IT in the last 2 years. (peter, dave, coty, norm, for those in the know) And at least two of those had FULLY built cars.

IT has gotten faster with cars moving from ITS to ITA and ITA to ITB. The only "attention" the MR2 got was a 100lb weight break that was just an insult. There were VERY few MR2&#39;s that got to the old weight of 2370 - and those had to be shells from certain years. You might as well have kept 1.8 Miatas in ITS at a weight of 1950lbs!

My &#39;87 may not be a full built, but it has been lightened extensively and legally. (scraped sound deadening, no e-brake, no cooling fans or shroud, etc., etc.) I&#39;m still 150lbs overweight. (I weight 190lbs) I would have to add about 100lbs after putting the passenger seat back in to make 2550.

[gran racing]

Now I don&#39;t own one although my own car is in a similar situation, it just doesn&#39;t have the large following the MR2 has so the ITAC has spent a lot more time on the MR2 than several other borderline cars.[/b]

I’m not so sure the MR2 has a large following (especially right now) in IT. I also submitted my Prelude through the process a couple of years ago and at the time I was the only or close to it second gen Prelude racing in IT, and it still was looked at throughly. I am convinced that if you send a letter in, it will receive attention.


I don&#39;t know where the car belongs but whether it is in ITB or ITA it must either run at the weight the process says.[/b]

The process can yield two different weights depending upon if it is considered in ITB or ITA. The debate is which class it should fit into best and if it would be possible to reach the min. spec weight in ITA.

Adding weight to a car sure is a heck of a lot easier than losing weight.

Jeff, I do agree with you that the ITAC has done a fantastic job in turning around IT. The joke I hear numerous times a few years ago was it wasn’t ITA but rather Spec CRX / Integra. Without the changes that were made, ITA would be no where near what it is today. That doesn’t mean to say that there are not some items which can be talked through even if that means in the end, both parties still disagree.

[mattbatson]

Been reading this since the start....and I still cannot see a valid, logical reason why we just cannot dual classify these cars.

Let the MR2 owners who want to stay in A...stay. They can spend thousands of dollars (where do you people get this extra disposable income anyways) to get to an almost unobtainable weight...and STILL run midpack :D

Let the more financially budget minded MR2 owners move to B. Most of them are probably very close to the weight mandated for that class anyways...Like Steve said, this will also enable them to put in cool suits and such.

I think a lot of cars are placed at weights that are very expensive to reach. I&#39;ve done just about everything to mine (except for very expensive wheels...mine are 13lbs), and I&#39;m still over a 100lbs heavy.

what ever happened to making this an affordable, regional class for those who dont have the money?

Like dave said, it is a lot cheaper to put in some lead than to spend 1500 on light wheels....or to put in a passenger seat, or cool suit, or whatever.

I really dont think there is really even a discussion anymore as to the Mr2 being competitive in A...is there?

Just look around. How many do you see running a the pointy end of the field?

I&#39;m in a midpack B car, and the only MR2 I&#39;ve ever seen was one that I was lapping at Lowes one year... :bash_1_:

The MR2 is a durable (toyota) and cheap (donors can be bought easily for 1500 or so) car that is basically being run out of IT.

Why?

[benspeed]

Given the inherent differences in these cars, and the incredibly difficult task it is to "balance" them under the current IT ruleset, I honestly do not think the ITAC could have done a better job.

Anyone disagree?
[/b]

Well said, Jeff. I think some great progress was made to eliminate the overdog cars. Without that, classes will become one marque races. The ITAC has done a fine job. There is no secret formula and if one was ever created it would be picked over for poor design. I imagine the ITAC has guidelines which need to be objectively tweaked based on hard data available on cars in each class. The objectivity is necessary because no forumula will ever apply to all cars. Big distinction between subjective and objective thinking and the ITAC has demonstrated the latter.

I know my ITA project is likely not going to win any races but I will wangle the best rules outcome I can by using the system as it was designed. Be a squeaky wheel with the best empiracal evidence and get the rules changed to your advantage - that&#39;s part of racin&#39;. If you write the same letter every month, read Andy&#39;s signature line.

And I will be wangling for less weight. And tormenting the ITAC. B)

[benspeed]

Ahhhh - thanks to the Bettencourt meister&#39;s desktop gearing application - top speed on an ITA Fieo - 150 mph. And the torque to push it....

The ITAC said it was all but a done deal that the car would be re-adjusted to 2,450 lbs ....... :unsure:

[PDoane]

Sorry I didn&#39;t chime in sooner Steve, but I&#39;ve been away on business and testing the Rolex car in preparation for the Utah race next week.

Let me give a little history on the ITA MR2 that folks are saying can make weight (or at least get close). I did not build it. Mark Chaplin (was running a CRX in Production last I talked with him and qualified for the Runoffs once with it) did. The cage was custom built by Mark and was "ahead of it&#39;s time" with door bars and the rear strut tubes (unique to MR2s and Del Sols last time I checked the ITCS). I happen to believe that removing/running without the factory glass (driver and rear) for both those cage items is much lighter. I did have to add another short harness bar when the shoulder harness angle rule changed a bit. The only things I did to lighten the car was to remove all the undercoating and remove the passenger seat (when that rule change kicked in). That being said, the only legal way I know of to make Steve&#39;s car lighter is to remove what is left of the factory wiring harness that is not necessary. I have read in more than one place that the 1985 AW11 chassis were the only ones that could get close to min weight. I don&#39;t know any specific reasons for the later years to be heavier. Steve&#39;s car/my former car is an &#39;85.

As for the prep of the motor currently in Steve&#39;s car and making 109 rwhp, it was done at great expense by a professional builder in Ontario (TED). He did not fill me in on all the details of the build (most pro engine builders won&#39;t), but emphasized that he would keep it legal and push it to the max that the rules allowed. The only thing I think on that motor that has not been done/explored for more power is the ECU. It has been re-flashed/re-worked for a higher rpm limiter, but no fuel/ignition map changes. I did get access to a factory Firehawk ECU once (before the TED build) and the rev limit change was the only noticable difference, but I did not get a chance to dyno the Firehawk ECU. I would also point out that Steve&#39;s car is one of the few ITA MR2s I&#39;ve seen that did not bend the "no mods to the intake downstream of the AFM". Most have changed the tubing just upstream of the throttle body so as to fit the AFM at the throtle body and a free-flow cone filter to the AFM. I found the only way to retain the factory tubing between the AFM and the TB, was to use a short HKS mushroom free-flow filter.

If I still had the car, I&#39;d happily add some weight to get into ITB (which was being tried when I bought the car in 1997). I will say, however, that the single biggest lap time gain I made with the car was switching from the 14X6 rims I got with the car, to 14X7 rims and a slightly wider rear tire (same front tire size).

[JeffYoung]

Well, then, if every ITA MR2 driver would prefer to have the car in B at a higher weight, and it fits there using the process, then if I were you guys I&#39;d get all of you together as a group and write the ITAC first.

[Hahn63]

I normally don&#39;t jump into this type of conversation but as a driver of a 1st gen RX7 (ITA) I have a dog in this hunt. :dead_horse: My car is definitely a &#39;tweener&#39;. It wasn&#39;t that way a few years ago but has now become one. With the Acura being moved from ITS and the Hondas getting faster the car has been moved down the field in ITA. Despite trying to get my car to go faster (spending $$$$), losing part of the extra 100 lbs that it has been given (thanks but we can&#39;t make the weight legally) and learning to drive even better; it is still losing ground. I&#39;m not surprised this has happened as the car is now 25 years old and running against new technology. I have great races with the ITB cars (upper mid pack) in sprint races and the only way I can win in ITA is by running 12 hour enduro&#39;s waiting for the others to break. Make no mistake the car is very well developed and we continue to improve it every week. Now as no surprise either Mazda has discontinued the 12a engine parts. Unlike piston engines we can not legally under IT rules repair our housings unlike piston engines can with a reboring of the cylinders. I bring this fact up as future options for this car will be for me to run a 13b engine and change to ITS. At this point the 1st gen ITS car is out classed just like the ITA car in the field. I&#39;m now at the point of: Do I continue to try and develop this car and change classes down the road just to be in the same position I&#39;m in now? Not very good incentive, so I would like to have some options of classes available to me, adding weight is indeed easier and cheaper in the long run. This also allows us older and over weight drivers to continue to eat and drink beer. :birra: I don&#39;t expect to be up front but I would like to have a choice to drink real beer rather than light beer ....that would definitely change my perspective on continuing to wrench on my elderly car. My vote for the future would be to let us make the choice on weight. I see nothing wrong with the formula; cars just naturally become slower to the field with time. I would also suggest that from time to time (if this isn&#39;t already being done) for the ITAC to look at the potential &#39;tweeners&#39; and see if it&#39;s time for them to move.

Roland

[Andy Bettencourt]

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=12640 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12640)

[Jake]

Well, then, if every ITA MR2 driver would prefer to have the car in B at a higher weight, and it fits there using the process, then if I were you guys I&#39;d get all of you together as a group and write the ITAC first.
[/b]

We have several times, however there aren&#39;t many of us left. All ITA MR2 drivers want to make this change. No MR2 can make the spec weight legally. The CB doesn&#39;t care. I don&#39;t know what else we can do.

[lateapex911]

We have several times, however there aren&#39;t many of us left. All ITA MR2 drivers want to make this change. No MR2 can make the spec weight legally. The CB doesn&#39;t care. I don&#39;t know what else we can do. [/b]

First, read the post by Peter Doane. I can&#39;t determine from his post how close he can come on weight. But, he did make a good point about lap times and wheel widths.

Second, read my recent post(s) in Andy&#39;s thread, (linked above). Claiming that the CRB "doesn&#39;t care" is an assumption, and an unfair one at that. You know better than to make such statements. The issue is rather complex, and the CRB has responsibilities to more than any one individual, or any one model of car.

[ddewhurst]

***The issue is rather complex, and the CRB has responsibilities to more than any one individual, or any one model of car.***

They sure do, maybe that&#39;s why the G Production class quit sucking air & is flopping around in the bottom of the boat. :o Yes, I crossed the line but the line is SO close to the ITA MR2. Not said with a :P , said with a :D .

[Jake]

First, read the post by Peter Doane. I can&#39;t determine from his post how close he can come on weight. But, he did make a good point about lap times and wheel widths.

Second, read my recent post(s) in Andy&#39;s thread, (linked above). Claiming that the CRB "doesn&#39;t care" is an assumption, and an unfair one at that. You know better than to make such statements. The issue is rather complex, and the CRB has responsibilities to more than any one individual, or any one model of car.
[/b]

"Car is classed appropriately" - doesn&#39;t care is being nice. Telling us to F off is more like it.

It&#39;s not complex, and I have no idea who in the club would be harmed by putting the car where it belongs. Top B drivers want it there, and MR2 drivers want it there too. There&#39;s no way it would be a threat at the proposed weight. As for responsibilities to more than one individual, I have no idea who in the club it pleases to keep the car misclassed other than Chris Albin.

The new owner of Peter&#39;s car is still 80lbs overweight. Sorry Jake, I know I am close to the subject - but this is really black and white. And one where facts are being overlooked. Car can fit in one of two classes. One it can make weight - one it can&#39;t. Build a car on a rotisserie with a cage made of unobtainium - and it still can&#39;t. People have tried.

I&#39;m done. Off to working on the drift car where I don&#39;t have to play silly politics....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUGZVUjPuMA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well Jake, it&#39;s not REALLY black and white. 80lbs is within our &#39;statistical noise&#39; figure of 100lbs when we ran most everything through the process in Feb of 2006. If it was under 100lbs &#39;off, it was considered close enough. It could be argued that it could be applied here too.

And please stop with the Chris Albin nonsense. Not only is he not on the ITAC anymore, he is a fair and impartial member of the CRB.

There are two issues at hand here. First, it COULD be considered to be classified &#39;close enough&#39; in ITA as has been explained above. Some cars just aren&#39;t what they add up to on paper. This seems to be one. The categories rules don&#39;t allow for (and shouldn&#39;t allow for) a crazy amount of granularity where we force cars into competitive (and potentially over competitive) situations.

Second, there is a current split on the committee about dual calssifications. Tweeners only (hopefully we can define that term) and let the market decide. RX-7 and MR-2 come to mind immediately. Not really sure any others pop into my head. It would be a philisophical change, one that some are in favor of trying.

So, to sum up - it&#39;s not as black and white as you might want it to be and there are members of the ITAC who are interested in the DC idea, just not enough.

[PDoane]

Even if weight for the MR2 isn&#39;t so "black and white", I thought only 109 rwhp with a professionally prepped motor (assuming the shop has done all/many of the trials looking for the best combination) was for ITA. I can&#39;t rattle off all the specs on the build because the shop wouldn&#39;t provide them. I do know the overbore was only to 0.020" (vice 0.040"), but I agreed with that because I have seen 0.040" over 4AGE motors overheat too regularly. I also know he took the compression increase to the max allowed. I also know he ground his own cams (to factory tolerances) and valve clearance shims to get right where he knew it would max out. This is the same engine builder that SCCA offical Norm Floyd had the motor for his "no holds barred" AW11 built. Why is it so hard to accept that some motors just don&#39;t take/hold to the 25% increase rule because the manufacturer did a pretty darn good job in the beginning.

The combination (overweight and under powered) is overwhelming for the MKI MR2 in ITA.

I like the idea of giving it a try in ITB and either reversing the downclass or adding some other comp adj if it winds up being the overdog.

The only other opinion/thought I&#39;d like to offer is how many times have requests for changes to IT class cars (parts to be used, not classification) been rejected and "Not in line with the class philosophy" has been used as the rationale. If the class philosphy is limited mods to a production car for "inexpensive" racing, why do you force someone to show you 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars of develoment work (prove the negative case) before you&#39;ll believe the car is in the wrong class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Even if weight for the MR2 isn&#39;t so "black and white", I thought only 109 rwhp with a professionally prepped motor (assuming the shop has done all/many of the trials looking for the best combination) was for ITA. I can&#39;t rattle off all the specs on the build because the shop wouldn&#39;t provide them. I do know the overbore was only to 0.020" (vice 0.040"), but I agreed with that because I have seen 0.040" over 4AGE motors overheat too regularly. I also know he took the compression increase to the max allowed. I also know he ground his own cams (to factory tolerances) and valve clearance shims to get right where he knew it would max out. This is the same engine builder that SCCA offical Norm Floyd had the motor for his "no holds barred" AW11 built. Why is it so hard to accept that some motors just don&#39;t take/hold to the 25% increase rule because the manufacturer did a pretty darn good job in the beginning.

The combination (overweight and under powered) is overwhelming for the MKI MR2 in ITA.

I like the idea of giving it a try in ITB and either reversing the downclass or adding some other comp adj if it winds up being the overdog.

The only other opinion/thought I&#39;d like to offer is how many times have requests for changes to IT class cars (parts to be used, not classification) been rejected and "Not in line with the class philosophy" has been used as the rationale. If the class philosphy is limited mods to a production car for "inexpensive" racing, why do you force someone to show you 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars of develoment work (prove the negative case) before you&#39;ll believe the car is in the wrong class. [/b]



Peter,

Because we have to class cars based on 100% prep. Your car has no programmable FI. Do you know what effect that would have? What are the stock A/F ratios? Some cars take very well to this type of tuning (like the Miata which does not respond well to bolt ons - like the MR2 I guess). Again, it would be nice to actually HAVE someone send in some data with a ton of info. The fact your engine builder didn&#39;t disclose everything is a concern for me.

We can, and do, understand some cars make less than estimated but so far other than your case without PFI, it&#39;s all been &#39;commonly accepted&#39; claims. I am not saying I don&#39;t believe the claims but we have nothing firm to see. And even at that, one set of dyno sheets can&#39;t be considered proof as has been explained. They may be accurate but a decent sample size would be nice to validate claims.

*I* think the MR2 can work in ITB but understand the hesitation is because it can reasonably fit in ITA on paper and there is no documentation of full builds (ironically, many hold your car up as one yet it has no PFI) to work with. I think a change can be made but it won&#39;t be on anything less than 25% increase until we KNOW otherwise.

[Knestis]

...I like the idea of giving it a try in ITB and either reversing the downclass or adding some other comp adj if it winds up being the overdog.
[/b]
This makes that vein in my forehead pulse.

IF we were making decisions based on on-track performance, that would be a fine idea but the most basic assumption of the current IT process still needs to be that the adjustments get made based on the physical attributes, and performance is an OUTCOME of those decisions - not an INPUT variable.

Kirk (who would love to see the MR2 listed competitively in B, but isn&#39;t willing to see the system get farked up to make that happen, and - dammit - is getting sucked into giving a crap)

[dickita15]

This makes that vein in my forehead pulse.

Kirk is getting sucked into giving a crap
[/b]

I knew it, I knew it, did I win the pool. :D
cha cha cha

[Andy Bettencourt]

Mr. Process says ~2550 in ITB for the RX-7 and the MR2 on 6" wheels.

Send in your letters if you drive one.






I knew it, I knew it, did I win the pool. :D
cha cha cha [/b]

Only if the vein pops.

[gran racing]

The fact your engine builder didn&#39;t disclose everything is a concern for me.[/b]

That&#39;s not so abnormal for engine builders not to disclose everything. When Matt (Kessler Engineering) built mine, we discussed what I was looking for with the engine build. I wanted a full, legal build. He explained the basics of what he was going to do, he was in full agreement with it being legit, and is very familiar with the IT rules. We didn&#39;t get into everything related to the build as there are some things which builders would rather keep proprietary, and I respect that.


80lbs is within our &#39;statistical noise&#39; figure of 100lbs when we ran most everything through the process in Feb of 2006. If it was under 100lbs &#39;off, it was considered close enough. It could be argued that it could be applied here too.[/b]

Is that 80lb &#39;statistical noise&#39; based on the current ITA weight that was fairly recently adjusted down or the original ITA weight? It&#39;s really too bad that it wasn&#39;t possible within the given contraints at the time to move the car into ITB versus lowering the spec weight ITA. It still seems to me that it would be possible to make an adjustment to the car even if a bit higher weight were used to provide people some additional comfort level due to the perceived (valid or not) abilities of the car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

That&#39;s not so abnormal for engine builders not to disclose everything. When Matt (Kessler Engineering) built mine, we discussed what I was looking for with the engine build. I wanted a full, legal build. He explained the basics of what he was going to do, he was in full agreement with it being legit, and is very familiar with the IT rules. We didn&#39;t get into everything related to the build as there are some things which builders would rather keep proprietary, and I respect that.



Is that 80lb &#39;statistical noise&#39; based on the current ITA weight that was fairly recently adjusted down or the original ITA weight? It&#39;s really too bad that it wasn&#39;t possible within the given contraints at the time to move the car into ITB versus lowering the spec weight ITA. It still seems to me that it would be possible to make an adjustment to the car even if a bit higher weight were used to provide people some additional comfort level due to the perceived (valid or not) abilities of the car.
[/b]

I am not saying it isn&#39;t common, I am saying that holding it up as the benchmark without full knowledge is dangerous - especially in it&#39;s singularity.

The ITA weight currently is the process weight. If it&#39;s within 80Lbs of &#39;attainable&#39;, then it could be argued that it is close enough based on what we have done, or NOT done for other cars in the past.

If the car gets moved to ITB - or dual classed, it should be at process weight for that class, no more, no less.

[Greg Amy]

...is within our &#39;statistical noise&#39; figure of 100lbs...[/b]
Weight adjustments are based on ratios of power to weight. Ergo, your "noise factor" - should there even be one - should be based on that same ratio, if it were to be truly "statistical". Otherwise, it&#39;s just fudge.

Make your "noise factor" based upon a ratio to either power or process weight to make it statistically significant (and relevant), or I suggest you stop using the "s-word". 100 pounds in a 165-horsepower (or 2515-pound) car is a whole &#39;nother bottle of ketchup than 100 pounds on a 135hp (or 2380 pound) car...

[Doc Bro]

Again, it would be nice to actually HAVE someone send in some data with a ton of info. The fact your engine builder didn&#39;t disclose everything is a concern for me.

[/b]


Andy,

Dude, your like a brotha from anotha motha but seriously, man....it burns my buscuits when you say that. I get your point you don&#39;t need to explain it again, but do you REALLY (really, really,really) REALLY, expect someone to show you their buildsheet without any (intellectual property) omissions? Why do we have patents? Does a coach show the other coach his playbook for the sake of a better "competition"? Why do people pad their resume? Why do poker players wear dark glasses?? With the competitive nature of this venture you have to see the trace amounts of DA-DA-ism in that statement. When I was asking you for help with my custom header you were reluctant to give me the name of your guy (and ultimately didn&#39;t) and I was left to find my own. I certainly understand and don&#39;t fault you or mean disrespect, BUT, same thing, NO? With fellow IT competitors sitting on the ITAC I just don&#39;t see how the conveyance of unfiltered, unmanipulated information can flow with sincerity.


(Andy, I&#39;m not trying to attack here, just trying to keep it fair, and point out a flaw inherent in the system.)


.02

R

[Knestis]

But Rob - the Bruins aren&#39;t asking for allowances to help them compete on a level playing field with the Colts.

And Capt. Panties (MBA) beat me to posting about the acceptable error issue, that I was thinking about last night after logging off. The point at which we start talking about 300 pounds added to a 2200 pound car, the percentages (ratios) get important. That would be a great point even if I HADN&#39;T thought of it, too. :)

K

[lateapex911]

Guys, think what you would do if YOU were on the ITAC....

Last batch of letters we got on this, that prompted the "Classed appropriately" response....3. Two were from MR2 owners, and one supporting.

One letter requested the move because his lap times were poor related to his competition. He admitted it was his first year racing. He stated the car was well prepped, and that the previous owner was a good driver, now gone off to bigger things, and he couldn&#39;t run at the front of ITA either.

From that letter we have:
No idea of the build level, at all. Not even the previous owner! We have no empirical evidence other than rough lap times at one track.....

The supporting letter was good, but again, no real data.

And the third letter was better, in terms of real hard data, (At least in terms of comparing specs to other ITA cars) but didn&#39;t speak to output other than to say the engine doesn&#39;t respond like others to prep. The minimum acheivable weight was stated at a little over 2400 pounds, about 150 over the min weight.

All letters were reasonable, and were even fine with the new ITB weight being slightly higher, or "conservative".

Again, if you are on the ITAC, how would you go about justifying and determining that the car does not meet process weight or power??

Remeber, in order to even discuss a break from from process standards, (XX% power increase for Y engine type,) we need to really know whats going on.

Ws that info present in the input we received?

For example, recently there was a rather heated debate about moving another car from S to A. Supporters said it couldn&#39;t make weight, and that the process power was unacheivable. It turns out that actually, yes, it can make weight, and then some, and independent calls to two very well known premier builders netted the exact same answer on power. Now, the action for a commitee is much clearer...and it can make it&#39;s recommendation with backing evidence.

In this case, only now...post request...is a lot of the info coming to light. We find the car is actually closer to 80 pounds over, and that one car is making 110 hp at the wheels (dyno type unknown), on a full mechanical build.

(And, remember, the process states that type of engine is going to make XX% increase. If we modify the process we&#39;re gonna hear it from Kirk, and if we modify it with less than very defendable data, he&#39;s gonna burst a vein!)

Again, *I* might know in my gut the car is better in B, but, any move the committee makes needs to be defendable to the CRB, the BoD and the IT community at large.

[shwah]

The more I think about it, the less I like the Dual Class idea. The cars that the ITAC can convince themselves fall into this category - unreachable weight - should be moved. I don&#39;t see a good argument to have cars in two classes, other than the ones we have now (car in existing top class gets moved to new top class, lives in both classes during transition).

If a car truely cannot get to weight in ITA, why even leave it on the books there. Move them all.



"There&#39;s no way it would be a threat at the proposed weight. As for responsibilities to more than one individual, I have no idea who in the club it pleases to keep the car misclassed other than Chris Albin.
[/b]

Wow Jake. Your posts have not exactly driven towards any point other than one beneficial to you personally, yet you have the lack of class to question the integrity of someone that you obviously don&#39;t even know. :rolleyes:

I say move the MR2 into B, unless the driver is named Jake, move those to S at current weight. :P

[Doc Bro]

Again, *I* might know in my gut the car is better in B, but, any move the committee makes needs to be defendable to the CRB, the BoD and the IT community at large.
[/b]


Jake,

I commend the members of the ITAC, many do- and are thankful for the efforts to make the club great. [Those efforts are LARGELY thankless- and for my part of that thanklessness I&#39;m sorry to everyone on the ITAC]. The problem lies with inconsistencies in the messages. Why does something like the MR 2 or build level questionability etc(....basically all of this thread) get scrutinized to the Nth degree while (again, sorry Ben) the Fiero subframe issue get passed right along through? Does ANYONE on the ITAC know they don&#39;t just bolt up??? (Thanks to Ben&#39;s high integrity to publicly post that- otherwise we&#39;d all be in the dark) Where is the defendable stance to the BoD, CRB or the IT community on that? I don&#39;t understand why the soapbox for one car or issue, while something else (outside of the philosophy of IT I contend) goes right along by.......we either live with loose rules or tight rules, not an interplay between the two.


R

[gran racing]

Guys, think what you would do if YOU were on the ITAC....[/b]

:biggrinsanta: I&#39;d add weight to the Audis, Golf III, Volvo, Alpha, the ITA Miata (just because I want to pick on Andy), reduce the Prelude&#39;s weight by 100 lbs. :smilie_pokal:




Sorry, couldn&#39;t resist.

[Doc Bro]

:biggrinsanta: I&#39;d add weight to the Audis, Golf III, Volvo, Alpha, the ITA Miata (just because I want to pick on Andy), reduce the Prelude&#39;s weight by 100 lbs. :smilie_pokal:
Sorry, couldn&#39;t resist.
[/b]


Dave don&#39;t forget that you&#39;d give all racers opportunity to utilize PVC and duct tape to modify/replace/repair any part!! :D

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Dude, your like a brotha from anotha motha but seriously, man....it burns my buscuits when you say that. I get your point you don&#39;t need to explain it again, but do you REALLY (really, really,really) REALLY, expect someone to show you their buildsheet without any (intellectual property) omissions? Why do we have patents? Does a coach show the other coach his playbook for the sake of a better "competition"? Why do people pad their resume? Why do poker players wear dark glasses?? With the competitive nature of this venture you have to see the trace amounts of DA-DA-ism in that statement. When I was asking you for help with my custom header you were reluctant to give me the name of your guy (and ultimately didn&#39;t) and I was left to find my own. I certainly understand and don&#39;t fault you or mean disrespect, BUT, same thing, NO? With fellow IT competitors sitting on the ITAC I just don&#39;t see how the conveyance of unfiltered, unmanipulated information can flow with sincerity.


(Andy, I&#39;m not trying to attack here, just trying to keep it fair, and point out a flaw inherent in the system.)


.02

R [/b]

You guys aren&#39;t getting the point. You can&#39;t singularly hold up your &#39;conclusion&#39; as a means for change - and not show your &#39;work&#39;. I don&#39;t think the ITAC/CRB needs to know methodology, just that &#39;the porting rule was exploited&#39; or that &#39;the car has a custom intake designed with cool air in mind&#39;. Telling us that all the areas for optimization were addressed, including info like &#39;race header&#39; and not &#39;street&#39; header, etc is what I am talking about. So as an example, I would explain my build like this:

Balanced and blueprinted
.020 over Mazda pistons
Intake and exhaust port matching per the rules
.5 compression bump
Service-limit valve job
Hi-flo 3rd gen air intake system
Mazdacomp full race header
Oil pan baffling and crank scraper
Lightweight crank pully
Fully programmable ECU
20 hours of dyno time (with sheets showing incremental increases as mods were tweaked)

Does that type of detail give away any &#39;secrets&#39;? No, but it does give you one hellava idea how comprehensive the build was. More convincing than say, "He didn&#39;t fill me in on the details of the build...The only thing I think on that motor that has not been done/explored for more power is the ECU." If you are TRYING to prove that negative, you had better come to the plate with some convincing data, no?

(And I think you are wrong about me and the header thing. My header is bought from Mazdacomp but is subcontrated locally by Tubular Automotive in Rockland, MA - sorry for the confusion on that! I gave that info to BBRacing and they developed their own header for the 240SX&#39;s)

And on the Fiero thing, the difference is that someone is trying to tell us the numbers INSIDE of the process are wrong. We know they are assumptions, so show us where and how they are wrong - and show us your math. The Fiero request was a simple combination of like cars with the same drivetrains as an attempt to allow the 88 brakes on the 85-87 cars. Joe Diminno is considering a letter to the same effect for the SE-R/NX2000 twins.

[Doc Bro]

Andy,

I like everything you posted. Thanks for the clarity on what is(n&#39;t) necessary.

The Fiero thing as explained to me allowed for the complete swap of subframe assemblies not just brakes. If I&#39;m misquoting I&#39;m sorry, but I believe you need more info on the Fiero thing.

R


Oh BTW, nice job "forgetting" the 6-71 supercharger off your "buildsheet".

[JLawton]

Guys, think what you would do if YOU were on the ITAC....

[/b]

I would re-name Improved Touring to Production!!


And add weight to the ITA Miata and Dave&#39;s Prelude.....Just cause I like pickin&#39; on Dave!! :P

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,
but I believe you need more info on the Fiero thing.

R
[/b]

You think? Here is the letter.




I believe this will encourage more entries of this type of race car in ITA. The braking power/stopping distance will not be markedly changed, just the near immediate fade of brakes will be somewhat mitigated providing safer and more competitive racing with this vehicle.

[/b]

[Doc Bro]

OK,....so the "same spec line" doesn&#39;t allow the subframe change, as well as the interchange of virtually everything else?

If that is the case than let&#39;s combine the Z3 with the 318is....they&#39;re "real close" too.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK,....so the "same spec line" doesn&#39;t allow the subframe change, as well as the interchange of virtually everything else?


R [/b]

Being on the same spec line does open the door to many updates and backdates - but remember how similar these cars are. Same ENTIRE driveline, body, core chassis and rear suspension - so there isn&#39;t really much to UD/BD.

[Doc Bro]

Being on the same spec line does open the door to many updates and backdates - but remember how similar these cars are. Same ENTIRE driveline, body, core chassis and rear suspension - so there isn&#39;t really much to UD/BD.
[/b]


And that is the crux of the issue...the ASSUMPTION that everything bolts right up without modification.

R

[JoshS]

And that is the crux of the issue...the ASSUMPTION that everything bolts right up without modification.

R
[/b]
Rob,

The fact that they are on the same line means that anything that *can* be swapped without modification *may* be swapped.

If it requires modification of the parts in order to get it done, then it&#39;s not a legal swap.

What&#39;s the issue again?

If the original letter writer is wrong and you can&#39;t put &#39;88 brakes onto an &#39;87 subframe, and you can&#39;t put the &#39;88 subframe into an &#39;87 chassis, then nothing was accomplished other than some wasted time. If you CAN swap the entire subframes over, well, the committee decided there was nothing wrong with that, and it&#39;s within the spirit of the update/backdate rule.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And that is the crux of the issue...the ASSUMPTION that everything bolts right up without modification.

R [/b]

Actually, it&#39;s a non-issue. If it doesn&#39;t bolt up without modification, it can&#39;t be UD/BD&#39;d.

PS: I have owned 3 V6 Fiero&#39;s.

[Doc Bro]

I stand corrected.

R

[dominojd]

The Fiero request was a simple combination of like cars with the same drivetrains as an attempt to allow the 88 brakes on the 85-87 cars. Joe Diminno is considering a letter to the same effect for the SE-R/NX2000 twins.
[/b]

To whom would tht letter be addresed?

Dear Andy,

Get me freakin NX2000 Brakes.

Thanks

How would that work? :D

[JoshS]

It wouldn&#39;t help the SE-R and NX2000 to be on the same spec line, because you cannot update/backdate between body types.

[ddewhurst]

***The issue is rather complex, and the CRB has responsibilities to more than any one individual, or any one model of car.***

Mr. Prosess says add 270 pounds IIRC to the RX-7 & make it an ITB car. Is that all Mr. Process says to make it an ITB car? They&#39;ll be racen with the fast ITC cars, maybe.

As someone said in another post there are some people lost in time being goffy with reference to the power of a rotor motor. It takes torque to get to where the hp keeps it going. With no legs ya ain&#39;t going to get there. :026:

What does Mr. Process say the 270 pounds (2280 pounds to 2550 pounds) will do to the 101 ft # of torque ? Talk about an animal with no legs :026:

Is this above CRB group the same CRB that&#39;s has taken care of the G Production class ? :o

[Greg Amy]

It wouldn&#39;t help the SE-R and NX2000 to be on the same spec line, because you cannot update/backdate between body types.[/b]
Zing!!!


Actually, it&#39;s a non-issue. If it doesn&#39;t bolt up without modification, it can&#39;t be UD/BD&#39;d.[/b]
Uuuuhhh, where in the rules does it say that? There is no limitation due to method of fastening in the update/backdate rule (9.1.3.C)...

[JoshS]

Zing!!!

Uuuuhhh, where in the rules does it say that? There is no limitation due to method of fastening in the update/backdate rule (9.1.3.C)...
[/b]
Where does it say you can modify the part?

9.1.3.B: "Other than those specifically allowed by these
rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given
vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining
any competitive advantage."

and 9.1.3.D: "Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein."

[Greg Amy]

We&#39;re not talking about "modifying", Josh, we&#39;re talking about moving an assembly (be it a subframe assembly, a front nose clip assembly, a rear clip assembly) from one car to another. Why is it you assume that if it&#39;s welded, it must be modified to be moved? I can moved a welded part from one car to another without modifying it, as can others.

If you boys are banking on this ideal to keep folks from building one of them there Fee-Air-Os, you&#39;re gonna get an awful surprise one day...and you will lose your protest. Gar-un-teed.

[Doc Bro]

If you boys are banking on this ideal to keep folks from building one of them there Fee-Air-Os, you&#39;re gonna get an awful surprise one day...and you will lose your protest. Gar-un-teed.
[/b]


Greg,

I&#39;m not sure if that was headed my way or not. I wasn&#39;t trying to prevent anyone from doing anything. I was pointing out something that appeared to be an oversight for which I humbly stand corrected on, unless someone agrees with my can of worms ;) ..............

R

[JoshS]

I think we agree, Greg. But I thought those that claimed we missed the boat thought that there was a fitment issue, not a fastening issue.

As I said, we discussed it -- if the swap can be done without modification, go for it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me rephrase for Greg: If it doesn&#39;t TRANSFER without modification to the part or the recipient, it can&#39;t be UD/BD&#39;d.

If someone wanted to transfer the front end of an 88 to an 85-87, all the more power to them. IMHO, it would be cost and time prohibitive. You could probably recage to an 88 and transfer your parts faster and cheaper. In the end, if done legally, all you have is an 88.

[benspeed]

When is there an open test day when I can get some fast ITA guys to come run with me so I can tell if this thing is ready for the cage? We think we&#39;ve got the ECU figured for better powerband and go to the dyno again on Tuesday.

Love the contraversy :D

[Bill Miller]

Let me rephrase for Greg: If it doesn&#39;t TRANSFER without modification to the part or the recipient, it can&#39;t be UD/BD&#39;d.

If someone wanted to transfer the front end of an 88 to an 85-87, all the more power to them. IMHO, it would be cost and time prohibitive. You could probably recage to an 88 and transfer your parts faster and cheaper. In the end, if done legally, all you have is an 88.
[/b]

Andy,

Since when did cost and time have anything to do w/ it. Greg&#39;s got it pretty much nailed, you put the cars on the same spec line, you can update/backdate to your heart&#39;s content. You guys are worried about the subframe swap, why not just swap the whole clip? If the cars are on the same spec line, tell me I can&#39;t do that. Sometimes you have to think outside the box.

And the way I read the rules, update/backdate trumps modification for comp. advantage. If you&#39;re allowed to update/backdate, you&#39;re allowed to update/backdate. Where the heck is George when you need him?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Since when did cost and time have anything to do w/ it. Greg&#39;s got it pretty much nailed, you put the cars on the same spec line, you can update/backdate to your heart&#39;s content. You guys are worried about the subframe swap, why not just swap the whole clip? If the cars are on the same spec line, tell me I can&#39;t do that. Sometimes you have to think outside the box.

And the way I read the rules, update/backdate trumps modification for comp. advantage. If you&#39;re allowed to update/backdate, you&#39;re allowed to update/backdate. Where the heck is George when you need him? [/b]

Bill,

I realize you aren&#39;t on here very much anymore but you really have to read the posts better if you are going to weigh in. Where did I say that costs had anything to do with it? I simply pointed out that a swap like that would be semi-foolish if you take into account time and money. It&#39;s still up to each individual, obviously.

Who is worried about the subframe swap? If you do it, it just becomes an 88. I just don&#39;t understand the problem. And remember - it isn&#39;t allowed to &#39;create&#39; a model by updating/backdating. Says it right there in the UD/BD section. So there most certainly could be instances where it would be illegal - but unlikely given the similarities of all cars that share spec lines, this one included.

[benspeed]

I think Andy has the right read on this particular car, especially since he owned three. There are no inherent advantages to swapping clips, sub-frames or whatever beyond the performance of the &#39;88 chassis. The best you can hope for is an &#39;88 chassis. If there was a proven advantage beyond the &#39;88 chassis by swapping clips and creating a "new model" that performed better than the &#39;88, then I think a problem would be presented. I have done extensive research on this. Swapping the front is pointless - no difference in performance (folks who have done the work might debate that claim but who wants to admit they pissed away time and money - show me a time sheet). The rear bump steer issue with these cars was mitigated by a new rear subframe on the &#39;88. That update is worth it and falls into permitted update/backdate in my opinion and others if I understand Greg&#39;s position correctly. Greg is a respected tech official and I tend to take my direction from guys with the certifications. Before I contemplate doing anything like this you can be assured I will seek clear direction from several respected club officials. I also need to experience a problem with bump steer before I will consider this.

The letter posted by Andy was submitted by me - the most significant benefit of the change is the ventilated brake rotors - no peformance advantage but more braking longevity during racing equally commensurate with an &#39;88.

The open ECU rule should have a significant performance improvement for these cars based on some of the dyno work and struggles we&#39;ve been having. With that said, I am going the chip burning route for the moment. I don&#39;t want to be one of the guys several years back who bought remote resevoir shocks only to have them outlawed the following year. The ECU rule change is something I&#39;m going to watch before I drop my $$ unless somebody can give some strong assurances on the rule&#39;s survival.

[JoshS]

The open ECU rule should have a significant performance improvement for these cars based on some of the dyno work and struggles we&#39;ve been having. With that said, I am going the chip burning route for the moment. I don&#39;t want to be one of the guys several years back who bought remote resevoir shocks only to have them outlawed the following year. The ECU rule change is something I&#39;m going to watch before I drop my $$ unless somebody can give some strong assurances on the rule&#39;s survival.
[/b]
Well, nobody should be spending money based on the new ECU rule before it gets approved by the BOD!

[Gary L]

Fieros. I know I&#39;m going to be sorry... but one last time, I&#39;m going to weigh in on this subject. (Having been the first to throw the BS flag a month or two back when this first came up.)

And FWIW, I&#39;ve owned a few Fieros myself, so I&#39;m not shooting in the dark. Here&#39;s the chain of events involved in legally changing the brakes on an &#39;84-87 Fiero to those from an &#39;88... which was the only reason for putting the early and late cars on the same spec line, right? If someone finds a hole in this sequence, I&#39;ll gladly step back, but I believe the following is 100% correct.

- The brakes from the &#39;88 won&#39;t bolt to the early front suspension without modification of the calipers or suspension upright, or both. The &#39;88 suspension assembly was a complete redesign with zero parts commonality to the early cars; including the hubs, the rotors, the calipers, the uprights, the a-arms, and even the suspension pickup points.

- Okay then, let&#39;s change the entire front suspension assembly, crossmember and all. Oops! The &#39;88 spaceframe was changed to accomodate the new crossmember, so to stay legal (no modifications, remember?) we&#39;ll have to literally cut (this is NOT a bolt-on subframe) the entire front end off an &#39;88 and weld it to our &#39;87. Now there... that didn&#39;t take long, did it?

- Uh-oh. We&#39;ve now got our vented brakes and better calipers on the front end, but we&#39;ve just "...created a model", because the back end of the car is still carrying the &#39;87 engine cradle, suspension, and brakes. But Hey! We&#39;ve got this &#39;88 cradle laying around, which includes the struts and brakes, and...

- Oh, no! You guessed &#39;er, Chester... they changed the rear spaceframe components as well (with relocated strut towers, among other things), so the only way to keep the car IT legal is to cut the entire rear end off an &#39;88, etc, etc.

Yessir... combining these two cars onto the same spec line makes all kinds of sense. :blink:

As I said back in July, this is bad precedent, as they really are two different cars from an IT ruleset perspective. And this has nothing to do with any alleged performance enhancing combinations that may or may not be possible. IMO (and it&#39;s just that... an opinion) there is just a lot of potential here, unintentional as it may be, to create an IT compliance monster that will negatively influence other classification decisions over the long haul.

[ddewhurst]

Bill, at least you don&#39;t get totally ignored. THEY don&#39;t like what some people (me) say therefore they don&#39;t respond.

Then there is the spec window for weight, but 100 pounds that is one thing for a car that has torque & it&#39;s all together another thing for a car with a rotor motor/no torque. My guess is that spec 100 pound window will do the same thing to the ITA Miata if the Miata is at the heavy end.

Which end of the spec 100 pound window is the ITA Miata at?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill, at least you don&#39;t get totally ignored. THEY don&#39;t like what some people (me) say therefore they don&#39;t respond.

Then there is the spec window for weight, but 100 pounds that is one thing for a car that has torque & it&#39;s all together another thing for a car with a rotor motor/no torque. My guess is that spec 100 pound window will do the same thing to the ITA Miata if the Miata is at the heavy end.

Which end of the spec 100 pound window is the ITA Miata at?



[/b]

Both the 1.6 and 1.8&#39;s are spot on their process weights (previous debate on the later 1.8 aside). Actually, the 1.6L Miata was 50lbs on the light side of it&#39;s spec weight (2205) but was adjusted up to it&#39;s exact spec weight of 2255 in an effort to proactively quell the people who&#39;s black helicopters have bumper stickers that claim it&#39;s the Mazda Car Club of America. It wasn&#39;t consistant with what we did but it was a &#39;reverse&#39; political move in an effort to keep the peace.

Why do you bring up that car?

[Jake]

you have the lack of class to question the integrity of someone that you obviously don&#39;t even know. :rolleyes:
[/b]

While I am done with debating this issue, I do want to publicly apologize to Chris. That was w/o class, I was a bit pissed, and I&#39;m sorry. FYI, several people have told me that you have said things like "the MR2 will move to B over my dead body". Hearsay can be wrong as we all know with the telephone game when we were in elementary school. And we at least pretend that we are grownups.



I say move the MR2 into B, unless the driver is named Jake, move those to S at current weight. :P
[/b]

Deseved! LOL. At least if I go to ITS give me a spec weight of 1800lbs!!

If I ever do meet you I owe you a beer (or two).

[benspeed]

Per the rules, ITA Fieros are on the same spec line in the GCR - no misinterpreting that. The brake rotors are listed - no debate there. They all run at the same weight and they can exhange parts. All the lawyering of the rules won&#39;t change that fact. Check page GCR - 334 B)

For those who enjoy a little "lawyering":

Calling out the rule on page GCR - 312:

"8. No other relocation or reinforcement of any suspension component or mounting point is permitted."

My argument is that the mounting point(s) for the suspension apply to the cars on the same spec line.

Refer to page GCR 305 section C - The argument presented that creation of a new "model" fails. A new model would be different than an &#39;88 chassis or an &#39;87 and the argument presented fails to make that case.

Parts are allowed to be updated and backdated as complete assemblies. When examining the rule the intent is that if the new "model" would achieve an advantage, it should not be permitted. Otherwise why would the rule exist? Anybody making the case that a new "model" with the intent of advantage will occur, cannot support this position with any evidence other than supposition or opinion. If the argument is presented that if backdating occurs, the car is now "different" and therefore a new "model", remember ANY updating or backdating of assemblies would then fall into that interpretation. Intent must be recognized and it is not the intent to prevent updating or backdating if no advantage occurs. In fact it is permitted because no advantage is gained.

I am VERY confident of the fact that these cars are on the same spec line and cannot achieve any advantage through updating or backdating beyond the best model year, being the &#39;88, and that any protest would be chucked. :018:

PS - Wasn&#39;t there supposed to be a vote this August on the ECU rule? Any news on that front?

[Knestis]

I learn new things all the time, which is pretty cool.

I&#39;m afraid Benspeed, that the question is not &#39;what is OK now that all of these Fieri are on the same spec line?&#39; but instead, is &#39;Should they be on the same spec line in the first place?&#39;

While I don&#39;t know (honestly) if the "can&#39;t make a model" rule holds up in this instance any better than in some other commonly accepted examples (mix and match 2nd gen RX7s), if they are substantially different chassis, between which bolt-on parts don&#39;t mix and match, I have a hard time seeing that they should be.

The counterfactual might be the MkII and MkIII Golfs - they have LOTS of parts in common but are NOT on the same line.

I also don&#39;t give a hoot about performance differences (despite the fact that I completely disagree with the contention that bigger vented brakes aren&#39;t an advantage - let&#39;s ask Mr. Young about that). I just think it&#39;s a dangerous precedent.

K

[shwah]

If I ever do meet you I owe you a beer (or two).
[/b]
Cheers :birra:

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

I realize you aren&#39;t on here very much anymore but you really have to read the posts better if you are going to weigh in. Where did I say that costs had anything to do with it? I simply pointed out that a swap like that would be semi-foolish if you take into account time and money. It&#39;s still up to each individual, obviously.

Who is worried about the subframe swap? If you do it, it just becomes an 88. I just don&#39;t understand the problem. And remember - it isn&#39;t allowed to &#39;create&#39; a model by updating/backdating. Says it right there in the UD/BD section. So there most certainly could be instances where it would be illegal - but unlikely given the similarities of all cars that share spec lines, this one included.
[/b]

Andy,

What you said was that it would be &#39;cost and time prohibitive&#39;. To me, that&#39;s saying that costs have something to do with it.

And no Andy, it doesn&#39;t "just become an &#39;88" when you swap the subframe over. There&#39;s that pesky little rule about VIN #s. And if you want to trot out the "can&#39;t create a model" clause, and strictly apply it, then none of the update/backdate stuff would be legal. What you do w/ update/backdate is take parts from one version or model and put them on another version or model that didn&#39;t come with them. If you put stuff on a version or model that didn&#39;t come on that version or model, haven&#39;t you just created a model? Where do you draw the line?

[ddewhurst]

***Why do you bring up that car?***

Because I own a Maita. No black helicopter, relax.

Also IF I understand the spec window of 100 pounds, at the top end is a load to hang on any torqueless momentum car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

***Why do you bring up that car?***

Because I own a Maita. No black helicopter, relax.

Also IF I understand the spec window of 100 pounds, at the top end is a load to hang on any torqueless momentum car.
[/b]

It most certainly wouldn&#39;t be optimal for that car, sure.






Andy,

What you said was that it would be &#39;cost and time prohibitive&#39;. To me, that&#39;s saying that costs have something to do with it. [/b]

Not in classing Bill. It was a value judgement - but one for an owner/builder to decide.


And no Andy, it doesn&#39;t "just become an &#39;88" when you swap the subframe over. There&#39;s that pesky little rule about VIN #s.[/b] The VIN# rule is moot if a car is on the same spec line, no?

[Bill Miller]

The VIN# rule is moot if a car is on the same spec line, no? [/b]

I don&#39;t know Andy, is it? You&#39;re the one that brought up the "can&#39;t create a model" issue. If an &#39;87 Fiero didn&#39;t come w/ the front cross member, etc. and you put it on (which I believe is legal under update/backdate), how does that constitute creating a model? Update/backdate pretty much creates a model, by definition.

And as far as build costs not playing a factor in classing, I seem to recall that being one of the reasons why the New Beetle went to ITC rather than ITB, because it would be very costly to get it to the ITB spec weight, if it were even possible.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And as far as build costs not playing a factor in classing, I seem to recall that being one of the reasons why the New Beetle went to ITC rather than ITB, because it would be very costly to get it to the ITB spec weight... [/b]

Nope.

[Bill Miller]

Nope.
[/b]


What about the other question in that post?

And I guess I need to do some digging in the archives.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

I can not remember COST being a factor when classing any car, especially when getting it down to weight was the concern.

As far as your other question, I think we are saying the same thing.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

I can not remember COST being a factor when classing any car, especially when getting it down to weight was the concern.

As far as your other question, I think we are saying the same thing.
[/b]


You&#39;re right Andy, you guys didn&#39;t think it could make 2450#, so it went to C. No hard data, no info on anyone that tried to build one. Oh, and with your 100# window, if it got to 2550#, that would have been close enough.

Funny how you&#39;ll hammer on the AW11 MR2, when you&#39;ve got a lot more feedback on how it can&#39;t make weight, but just went on a hunch for the New Beetle.

Dual-class the tweeners and let the chips fall where they may. Spec &#39;em at process weight and that&#39;s that.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You&#39;re right Andy, you guys didn&#39;t think it could make 2450#, so it went to C. No hard data, no info on anyone that tried to build one. Oh, and with your 100# window, if it got to 2550#, that would have been close enough.

Funny how you&#39;ll hammer on the AW11 MR2, when you&#39;ve got a lot more feedback on how it can&#39;t make weight, but just went on a hunch for the New Beetle.

Dual-class the tweeners and let the chips fall where they may. Spec &#39;em at process weight and that&#39;s that. [/b]

Bill,

WTF? We thought it would be real TOUGH to get it to ITB weight given it&#39;s curb weight and since that curb weight was quite high, it would fit in ITC. ITC needed some freshening up, so it seemed like a nice little fit.

As far as the 100# window, read the posts from beginning to end instead of what you want to read and argue about. The 100# window was used during the Feb 06 &#39;correction&#39;, not as a general rule for classification. We class cars at their process weight. I brought up the issue WRT the MR2 to make a point. That point is that 80#&#39;s here or there doesn&#39;t put a car 3 seconds back. It&#39;s all within the statistical noise of the IT classing structure as it exists now.

Head back to the Prod boards Bill, you are much more suited for those guys.

(For the record, I am not sure where I stand yet on dual classificiations because I just don&#39;t know how you define it in black and white - because guys like you will bitch and moan about one car getting a yes and another getting a no, without a written and transparent structure - but I am currently in favor of moving the MR2 and probably the 12A RX-7 to ITB at ITB weights. The ITAC is firmly split. See the Philosophy section for why)

[gran racing]

The dual classification idea is a tough one. I like it as a way to help out the tweener cars, but I can see a few down falls to it. Like you said Andy, there will be people who will whine why their car can&#39;t be dually classed. I could see the "why is that car allowed to run in multiple IT run groups but not mine?"

For the RX7 and MR2, I&#39;m still not convinced that dual classification is the solution but maybe it is?

[tnord]

Dual Classification;

Risk > Potential Reward.


seriously, what are we talking about here, half a dozen or less cars? potentially opening up a huge can of worms/cat out of the bag/horses out of the barn/pandora&#39;s box/etc is not worth it to appease a few people who even if we give them what they *think* they want will still be in the same situation after the change.

it started under reasonable circumstances with the BMW in ITR/S, don&#39;t let it lead the way for a whole mess of crap.

[Bill Miller]

Dual Classification;

Risk > Potential Reward.
seriously, what are we talking about here, half a dozen or less cars? potentially opening up a huge can of worms/cat out of the bag/horses out of the barn/pandora&#39;s box/etc is not worth it to appease a few people who even if we give them what they *think* they want will still be in the same situation after the change.

it started under reasonable circumstances with the BMW in ITR/S, don&#39;t let it lead the way for a whole mess of crap.
[/b]

Travis,

"Reasonable circumstances"??? Not sure how you come up w/ that one. First, the car gets special treatment vis-a-vis the SIR, something that no other IT cars has gotten. Next, it gets moved to ITR, where it belongs, but gets to stay in ITS w/ the SIR. Yet none of the other ITS cars that got moved to ITR got the benefit of dual-classification. How does special treatment for one car constitute &#39;reasonable circumstances&#39;?

And all the metaphors are great, but don&#39;t really have much substance to them. And let&#39;s not even get into how you just insulted all the folks that drive tweener cars that would like dual classification. But please do elaborate on the &#39;whole mess of crap&#39; that dual-classification would cause. Seems pretty simple to me, we&#39;ve got a process that sets weights based on a given target for each class, doesn&#39;t take much to generate the spec weight for the same car in 2 or 3 classes. Give people the option of where they want to run. If a car runs in ITA at XXXX #s, classify it in ITB at YYYY #s (and maybe even in ITS at ZZZZ #s). Where&#39;s the huge risk? If the process works, it works. That means that the process weight for the car in one class should be just as valid as the process weight for the car in another class. The New Beetle is a great example of that (well, maybe not so great, as I don&#39;t think anyone&#39;s built one for ITC).

BTW, I find it ironic to the point of being humorous that you have that position on d-c in IT, yet advertise in your sig that you have a car that gets to run in multiple classes. Disingenuous? Just a tad.


Andy,

Come on. You say you class cars at their process weight. You also say that 100# is essentially the &#39;statistical noise&#39; for that weight. The way I read that, is "Here&#39;s your process weight, if you can only get w/in 75-100 # of that, that&#39;s good enough." I&#39;m not making this up, this is what you&#39;re saying.

[JoshS]

Next, it gets moved to ITR, where it belongs, but gets to stay in ITS w/ the SIR. Yet none of the other ITS cars that got moved to ITR got the benefit of dual-classification. How does special treatment for one car constitute &#39;reasonable circumstances&#39;?
[/b]

Bill, check out the Prelude listings.

Best not to rant unless you&#39;ve got the facts right!

[Bill Miller]

Bill, check out the Prelude listings.

Best not to rant unless you&#39;ve got the facts right!
[/b]

I stand corrected. But why not all the cars that got moved?

Gotta wonder though, why the inconsistencies between how the weights are set for the cars in ITR vs. how they&#39;re set in ITS (disclaimer: I didn&#39;t check all the FasTracks, if this was addressed, please disregard).

[tnord]

Travis,

"Reasonable circumstances"??? Not sure how you come up w/ that one. First, the car gets special treatment vis-a-vis the SIR, something that no other IT cars has gotten. Next, it gets moved to ITR, where it belongs, but gets to stay in ITS w/ the SIR. Yet none of the other ITS cars that got moved to ITR got the benefit of dual-classification. How does special treatment for one car constitute &#39;reasonable circumstances&#39;?

And all the metaphors are great, but don&#39;t really have much substance to them. And let&#39;s not even get into how you just insulted all the folks that drive tweener cars that would like dual classification. But please do elaborate on the &#39;whole mess of crap&#39; that dual-classification would cause. Seems pretty simple to me, we&#39;ve got a process that sets weights based on a given target for each class, doesn&#39;t take much to generate the spec weight for the same car in 2 or 3 classes. Give people the option of where they want to run. If a car runs in ITA at XXXX #s, classify it in ITB at YYYY #s (and maybe even in ITS at ZZZZ #s). Where&#39;s the huge risk? If the process works, it works. That means that the process weight for the car in one class should be just as valid as the process weight for the car in another class. The New Beetle is a great example of that (well, maybe not so great, as I don&#39;t think anyone&#39;s built one for ITC).

BTW, I find it ironic to the point of being humorous that you have that position on d-c in IT, yet advertise in your sig that you have a car that gets to run in multiple classes. Disingenuous? Just a tad.
Andy,

Come on. You say you class cars at their process weight. You also say that 100# is essentially the &#39;statistical noise&#39; for that weight. The way I read that, is "Here&#39;s your process weight, if you can only get w/in 75-100 # of that, that&#39;s good enough." I&#39;m not making this up, this is what you&#39;re saying.
[/b]

good lord bill, chill out.

what do you suggest should&#39;ve been done with the BMWs to slow them down in S?

how did i insult all the folks with tweener cars? all i said is that if they care so much about winning, they need to get a different car. you&#39;ll never please anyone, and if we change the entire philosophy of the class to appease a handfull of people at the risk of everyone else, that is not a good idea (especially considering the car will still be an underdog in the lower class following the same process).

actually there pal, i ran in IT exclusively for the last two years. the SM to IT thing is a COMPLETELY different issue than dual classification within a single category. good try though.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I stand corrected. But why not all the cars that got moved?

Gotta wonder though, why the inconsistencies between how the weights are set for the cars in ITR vs. how they&#39;re set in ITS (disclaimer: I didn&#39;t check all the FasTracks, if this was addressed, please disregard). [/b]

What differences are you citing between ITS and ITR?

[Knestis]

>> I could see the "why is that car allowed to run in multiple IT run groups but not mine?"

Good point embedded here. If the DC option is allowed to go forward, it needs an intent statement that makes it clear that the policy behind the allowance is not to allow cars to run in more than one class in a given weekend and that further, the fact that the change makes this POSSIBLE in some cases, in no way endorses it as being a DESIRED outcome. Let this idea germinate and it grows into the root of a bunch of further complications, like we tend to get into with a change like this.

** Please may I be allowed to mount ballast in different ways, to more easily remove it so I can run two classes? It&#39;s a safety issue to have to run heavy in ITB.

** Please make 7" wheels legal for ITB to facilitate crossover at races where my brother-in-law and I share my MR2. (Whether this is a good idea or not has nothing to do with this allowance.)

** Please reconsider the race weight of the ITA Celica so I can get a dual classification and run more than one class in a weekend. It&#39;s good for our regional program because they&#39;ll get more entries.

Et cetera.

K

[seckerich]

Since this is a thread about IT philosophy lets get it on the table. (oops--got lost in a different thread)We have all spent enough money in our cars over the years that we deserve a little more than the original class description. It is time to drop the no chance of being competitive. We have a process in place to get pretty darn close with every car in the listings. Might be a dog at one track but a fair choice at others. Time to stop guarding our turf and make the changes. I have never had more fun racing than this year with all the other makes that are now running right up front. I think it sucks that we could not just set the E36 weight properly and leave it in S like the E46. I miss racing these guys.

When we did the class-wide adjustments we picked a target for the class and tried to get them all as close as possible. Some long time supporters of IT got dropped to the edges and rendered uncompetitive in their class. Is it such a bad thing to drop them to the top of a slower class at process weight so they might have a chance? We make such a big deal out of the cars that were known to make "better than average" gains in IT prep but ignore those known to make less. Am I missing something? If they somehow find some huge power in the lower class we have the process in place to bring them back in line.

Talk about racing for fun all you want. Second place sucks and people will stop and move on if they think they never have a chance--ever. Some cars will really never have a chance based on their design no matter what we do. The other 70% or more should if the process is working. In the end it is about all the drivers and a fair shot--not a guarantee. I see the dual classing as a way to get more people involved and grow the sport--how can that be a bad thing.

Rant Off. :happy204:

[Andy Bettencourt]

>> I could see the "why is that car allowed to run in multiple IT run groups but not mine?"

Good point embedded here. If the DC option is allowed to go forward, it needs an intent statement that makes it clear that the policy behind the allowance is not to allow cars to run in more than one class in a given weekend and that further, the fact that the change makes this POSSIBLE in some cases, in no way endorses it as being a DESIRED outcome. Let this idea germinate and it grows into the root of a bunch of further complications, like we tend to get into with a change like this.

** Please may I be allowed to mount ballast in different ways, to more easily remove it so I can run two classes? It&#39;s a safety issue to have to run heavy in ITB.

** Please make 7" wheels legal for ITB to facilitate crossover at races where my brother-in-law and I share my MR2. (Whether this is a good idea or not has nothing to do with this allowance.)

** Please reconsider the race weight of the ITA Celica so I can get a dual classification and run more than one class in a weekend. It&#39;s good for our regional program because they&#39;ll get more entries.

Et cetera.

K

[/b]

This post should be required reading. It&#39;s like Kirk can see the letters tha come in... :)




Since this is a thread about IT philosophy lets get it on the table. (oops--got lost in a different thread)We have all spent enough money in our cars over the years that we deserve a little more than the original class description. It is time to drop the no chance of being competitive. We have a process in place to get pretty darn close with every car in the listings. Might be a dog at one track but a fair choice at others. Time to stop guarding our turf and make the changes. I have never had more fun racing than this year with all the other makes that are now running right up front. I think it sucks that we could not just set the E36 weight properly and leave it in S like the E46. I miss racing these guys.

When we did the class-wide adjustments we picked a target for the class and tried to get them all as close as possible. Some long time supporters of IT got dropped to the edges and rendered uncompetitive in their class. Is it such a bad thing to drop them to the top of a slower class at process weight so they might have a chance? We make such a big deal out of the cars that were known to make "better than average" gains in IT prep but ignore those known to make less. Am I missing something? If they somehow find some huge power in the lower class we have the process in place to bring them back in line.

Talk about racing for fun all you want. Second place sucks and people will stop and move on if they think they never have a chance--ever. Some cars will really never have a chance based on their design no matter what we do. The other 70% or more should if the process is working. In the end it is about all the drivers and a fair shot--not a guarantee. I see the dual classing as a way to get more people involved and grow the sport--how can that be a bad thing.

Rant Off. :happy204: [/b]

Steve,

Hardly a rant - an excellent post. My only nit-pick is that cars that make less-than-average gains don&#39;t get ignored. Porsche is a perfect example. The problem is that when something makes good gains, it tends to have lots of support, many examples built and lots of data to build a file. Self fulfilling prophecies then disctate that if something dosn&#39;t respond well, people don&#39;t tend to build because effort is not rewarded. Data doesn&#39;t pile up so changes are tough to justify in this environment. In Prod, not so much.

[JoshS]

When we did the class-wide adjustments we picked a target for the class and tried to get them all as close as possible. Some long time supporters of IT got dropped to the edges and rendered uncompetitive in their class. Is it such a bad thing to drop them to the top of a slower class at process weight so they might have a chance?
[/b]

If they are uncompetitive at process weight in one class, then it is highly likely that they will be uncompetitive at process weight in a different class, because, apparently, the process is failing them.

They only way that a car would be expected to get more competitive in a different class is if either:
- it couldn&#39;t compete at its process weight, because that weight was unreachable; or
- when given a new weight for a different class, the subjective stuff is reevaluated.

[Bill Miller]

What differences are you citing between ITS and ITR?
[/b]



Andy,

In ITS, the Prelude Si, SH, and non-SH are spec&#39;d at 2905, 2905, and 2825 respectively. In ITR, the same cars are spec&#39;d at 2570, 2640, and 2640 respectively. In ITS, the Si and SH weigh the same, and both weight more than the non-SH. In ITR, the SH and the non-SH weigh the same, and both weigh more than the Si. Regardless of what the weights are in either class, I think the relative weights should follow the same trend.

Like I said, I didn&#39;t check all the FasTracks, so if that apparent error was corrected, please disregard.

Travis,

The E36 should have gotten set at the process weight in ITS, just like EVERY OTHER CAR in the ITCS did. The SIR language should have never made it into PCAs, and invoking it on the E36 was a Charley Foxtrot from the start.

And there&#39;s no point in trying to explain your insult to you, you won&#39;t get it.

And please explain how dual-classification &#39;changes the whole philosophy&#39; of IT. There&#39;s a classification process. It defines a spec weight for a given car in a given class. Easy enough to determine the spec weight for that same car in a different class. What does it matter if you can slap different letters on the side of the same car? What&#39;s to say the process weight for one class is any more or less valid than the process weight for the same car in a different class?

Going back to the New Beetle example, I&#39;m sure the ITAC feels that the 2450# weight for ITB would be the right weight for that car in ITB. I&#39;m also sure that they feel that the 2650# (or whatever the number is), is the right weight for the car in ITC. That&#39;s a pretty solid example that you can generate valid process weights for the same car in multiple classes.

The fact is, dual-classification changes nothing about the philosophy or the intent of IT. What it does, is give people options, and it may even increase entries.

And I could care less about what class you ran your car in. You list it as a dual-classed car.


If they are uncompetitive at process weight in one class, then it is highly likely that they will be uncompetitive at process weight in a different class, because, apparently, the process is failing them.

They only way that a car would be expected to get more competitive in a different class is if either:
- it couldn&#39;t compete at its process weight, because that weight was unreachable; or
- when given a new weight for a different class, the subjective stuff is reevaluated.[/b]

Josh,

That&#39;s pretty much it. The other thing that comes into play, is where in the class actual performance / spec weight &#39;bucket&#39; that the car falls. I think we all agree that there&#39;s a performance envelope for any given class. I believe that&#39;s what Andy referred to as &#39;statistical noise&#39;. If a car can&#39;t make weight, and happens to be on the lower end of the performance envelope, it&#39;s pretty much hosed in that class.

[seckerich]

If they are uncompetitive at process weight in one class, then it is highly likely that they will be uncompetitive at process weight in a different class, because, apparently, the process is failing them.

They only way that a car would be expected to get more competitive in a different class is if either:
- it couldn&#39;t compete at its process weight, because that weight was unreachable; or
- when given a new weight for a different class, the subjective stuff is reevaluated.
[/b]
My point was that they might fall a little closer to the middle of the class and actually be able to have a real cage and other items a otherwise "weight challenged" car might have. More likely to get built and raced in any case. I see what some of the guys that come to my shop have to do to make min weight. Very gray!!

[JoshS]

Is it such a bad thing to drop them to the top of a slower class at process weight so they might have a chance? [/b]


My point was that they might fall a little closer to the middle of the class and actually be able to have a real cage and other items a otherwise "weight challenged" car might have.[/b]
Sorry, guess I misunderstood. Your first post suggested "dropping them to the top of a slower class." My point was that the process doesn&#39;t allow for that.

[seckerich]

This post should be required reading. It&#39;s like Kirk can see the letters tha come in... :)


Steve,

Hardly a rant - an excellent post. My only nit-pick is that cars that make less-than-average gains don&#39;t get ignored. Porsche is a perfect example. The problem is that when something makes good gains, it tends to have lots of support, many examples built and lots of data to build a file. Self fulfilling prophecies then disctate that if something dosn&#39;t respond well, people don&#39;t tend to build because effort is not rewarded. Data doesn&#39;t pile up so changes are tough to justify in this environment. In Prod, not so much.
[/b]

I guess I would like to see us work a little harder to make it happen. We have too many classes in SCCA and it would be good to see IT7 or whatever a region calls it go away and get all these cars back in IT. Same goes for some of the other makes that are going elsewhere to race. Better to bend a little and see what happens. The ITAC giveth--the ITAC taketh away. :026:



Sorry, guess I misunderstood. Your first post suggested "dropping them to the top of a slower class." My point was that the process doesn&#39;t allow for that.
[/b]
If a car is at the bottom of say ITA and drops to ITB it might just race better at that weight. It would also need to be looked at in respect to the cars it now races. They may not all be modern fuel injection with all the tweaks. Many are the same technology and are a better fit. Just a thought. I understand the process and target weight/HP.

[Knestis]

If they are uncompetitive at process weight in one class, then it is highly likely that they will be uncompetitive at process weight in a different class, because, apparently, the process is failing them.

They only way that a car would be expected to get more competitive in a different class is if either:
- it couldn&#39;t compete at its process weight, because that weight was unreachable; or
- when given a new weight for a different class, the subjective stuff is reevaluated.
[/b]

Well presented. The point though is that discussions about tweeners and dual classifications are suggested as a remedy ONLY for the first of your two situations. A VERY important distinction that should have been made this clearly earlier in the discussion.

If the problem is in the OTHER half of the weight/power math - if a car doesn&#39;t make the ponies required to get into the predicted range of ratios, that&#39;s a much more complicated issue. I am completely NOT a fan of trying to micromanage that part of the system by playing around with information re: what different engines "really make" with IT improvements. It&#39;s just way to susceptible to manipulation, inaccurate information, politics, and other manipulations.

K

[ScotMac]

>> I could see the "why is that car allowed to run in multiple IT run groups but not mine?"

** Please make 7" wheels legal for ITB to facilitate crossover at races where my brother-in-law and I share my MR2. (Whether this is a good idea or not has nothing to do with this allowance.)

K
[/b]

Please do not tie the relaxation of the wheel restrictions to the dual classing. It correctly stands on it&#39;s own, and should not be brought down by the issues associated w/ dual-classing.

Thanks, -Scot :D

[Bill Miller]

Well presented. The point though is that discussions about tweeners and dual classifications are suggested as a remedy ONLY for the first of your two situations. A VERY important distinction that should have been made this clearly earlier in the discussion.

If the problem is in the OTHER half of the weight/power math - if a car doesn&#39;t make the ponies required to get into the predicted range of ratios, that&#39;s a much more complicated issue. I am completely NOT a fan of trying to micromanage that part of the system by playing around with information re: what different engines "really make" with IT improvements. It&#39;s just way to susceptible to manipulation, inaccurate information, politics, and other manipulations.

K
[/b]

Kirk,

It&#39;s not just about making the ponies or not. The ITAC has already tweaked the subjective stuff for certain classes (which I think was a good thing). They&#39;ve adjusted the FWD &#39;adder&#39; for ITS and ITR. That kind of adjustment is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I was advocating a defined classification formula some five-odd years (or more) ago. The model should evolve, and constants refined, as more data become available (and unfortunately, some of that data will have to be based on actual performance information).

[Knestis]

Please do not tie the relaxation of the wheel restrictions to the dual classing. It correctly stands on it&#39;s own, and should not be brought down by the issues associated w/ dual-classing.

Thanks, -Scot :D
[/b]

Yeah, but my point with that illustration is that people are going to conflate issues like you just wouldn&#39;t believe.

Wheel widths are a consideration where A-to-B moves are concerned because the wheel rules ARE different in the two classes involved. As soon as dual classification is allowed (IF it is allowed), the next concern in line for some is going to be wheel size. We&#39;ve already heard "I&#39;d have to buy new wheels!" as the basis of arguments to NOT move cars from A to B - by owners of THOSE CARS. It&#39;s no stretch to imagine that different parties will logically follow with...

** "Moving my Borgward from ITA to ITB is a great idea BECAUSE I can use my stock 6" wheels"

** "Running 7" wheels is a good idea because I have them and I got moved from A to B"

** "We should NOT allow 7" wheels in B because those guys who just got re-classed from A will have an inherent advantage - they already have the wider ones and I have to buy them"

** Et cetera, et cetera. You get the picture? Everyone&#39;s trying to protect their little competitive patch of turf and if-then logic gets totally lost in the disingenuous cases to further particular interests...


...and Bill - if the tweaks can be applied to broad characteristics of the cars involved (FWD vs. RWD being a great example), then there&#39;s not so much risk there. The point at which those adjustments to the process get granular enough that there is a "mid &#39;90s Toyota Celica" adjustment, a "Datsun 510" adjustment, and a "1500 cc Rabbit" adjustment (et al.), we&#39;ve well and truly crossed the line to competition adjustments (bleah).

When we say, "Well, that generation of Cavaliers gain 35% power and 40% torque with IT improvements so let&#39;s make them weigh XX pounds more than they used to," we are making decisions based on OUTCOME measures - the results of building a race car - rather than on INPUTS like the mechanical attributes of the vehicle. That represents a huge departure from established practice in the IT category.

K

[mustanghammer]

good lord bill, chill out.

what do you suggest should&#39;ve been done with the BMWs to slow them down in S?

how did i insult all the folks with tweener cars? all i said is that if they care so much about winning, they need to get a different car. you&#39;ll never please anyone, and if we change the entire philosophy of the class to appease a handfull of people at the risk of everyone else, that is not a good idea (especially considering the car will still be an underdog in the lower class following the same process).

actually there pal, i ran in IT exclusively for the last two years. the SM to IT thing is a COMPLETELY different issue than dual classification within a single category. good try though.
[/b]


Ummm let&#39; see Travis I&#39;ll just sell off all my RX7&#39;s and the parts I have accumulated and buy something else.....ya that&#39;s ticket! Thanks buddy I was wondering what I was going to do with that pile of money I have. Since you&#39;re so smart tell me what to buy. And no, I&#39;m not insulted at all. I like having other people tell me how to spend my money.

As far as Dual classifications in the same catagory we have been doing that in MiDiv for the last 3-4 years. It&#39;s called IT7/ITA and YES, sometimes the same car get ran in two different classes (if IT7 is grouped with SM) on the same day. Hell I have seen the same car run in ITA and EP in the same day, not to mention the SM bush-wackers that run IT on allot of Regional/National weekends. I can&#39;t say I have seen anything all that bad happen as a result. Unless you consider the additonal revenue to the region and the additional track time to the driver a bad thing.

Last I checked this CLUB RACING and I am a member - have been for 18 yrs. So what is wrong with making a change that will bring out a few more cars? Who is hurt by this? I have gotten IM&#39;s and seen postings from fellow tweeners that say they will come out dual classing or a move to ITB is made. Why not see if they are telling the truth. What is the cost?

Oh, and another thing, I can&#39;t speak to the number of active/inactive MR2&#39;s that there are but there are allot of RX7&#39;s out there. More than we see in out little corner of the world. So don&#39;t be so quick to kick dirt on us or marginalize our place in this club or our value as participants.

Insulted...no. Pissed off....getting there

[tnord]

Ummm let&#39; see Travis I&#39;ll just sell off all my RX7&#39;s and the parts I have accumulated and buy something else.....ya that&#39;s ticket! Thanks buddy I was wondering what I was going to do with that pile of money I have. Since you&#39;re so smart tell me what to buy. And no, I&#39;m not insulted at all. I like having other people tell me how to spend my money.
[/b]

well, a place to start would be the crx, integra, miata, nx2000, or maybe a civic. if you really want to win, just do what the others are winning with. i&#39;m not sure how saying "go get what others are winning with" is telling you how to spend your money.



As far as Dual classifications in the same catagory we have been doing that in MiDiv for the last 3-4 years. It&#39;s called IT7/ITA and YES, sometimes the same car get ran in two different classes (if IT7 is grouped with SM) on the same day. Hell I have seen the same car run in ITA and EP in the same day, not to mention the SM bush-wackers that run IT on allot of Regional/National weekends. I can&#39;t say I have seen anything all that bad happen as a result. Unless you consider the additonal revenue to the region and the additional track time to the driver a bad thing.
[/b]

I&#39;ve said IT7 should go away for a couple years now, pretty sure I&#39;ve even told you this in person at some point. IT7 is a regional deal not recognized in the GCR (maybe it is, but i just looked and didn&#39;t see it), so it&#39;s not quite a valid comparison.



Last I checked this CLUB RACING and I am a member - have been for 18 yrs. So what is wrong with making a change that will bring out a few more cars? Who is hurt by this? I have gotten IM&#39;s and seen postings from fellow tweeners that say they will come out dual classing or a move to ITB is made. Why not see if they are telling the truth. What is the cost?
[/b]

go back and read kirk&#39;s posts, he&#39;s a better wordsmith than i am.


Oh, and another thing, I can&#39;t speak to the number of active/inactive MR2&#39;s that there are but there are allot of RX7&#39;s out there. More than we see in out little corner of the world. So don&#39;t be so quick to kick dirt on us or marginalize our place in this club or our value as participants.
[/b]

don&#39;t take it so personally scott. it&#39;s nothing more than trying to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people. i think a dual classification system potentially benefits a small handfull of people relative to risks it places on the entire IT class (and by extension, the club as a whole since IT entries represent a big percentage of entry fees). that&#39;s it, nothing more.

[Bill Miller]

i&#39;m not sure how saying "go get what others are winning with" is telling you how to spend your money. [/b]

Do you even read what you type?


I&#39;ve said IT7 should go away for a couple years now, pretty sure I&#39;ve even told you this in person at some point. IT7 is a regional deal not recognized in the GCR (maybe it is, but i just looked and didn&#39;t see it), so it&#39;s not quite a valid comparison. [/b]

And exactly why should it &#39;go away&#39;? IT7 may not be listed in the GCR, but it has expanded to other regions. IIRC, the WDCR introduced it last year, even though they already had Spec7. And just as a point of reference, it was IT7 that really got me to thinking about how screwed up the classification process used to be. The fact that the RX7 is so popular that they were able to create IT7 is a testament to just how many people race those cars. But you&#39;d rather see them &#39;go away&#39;.


go back and read kirk&#39;s posts, he can actually defend his position.[/b]

Fixed that for you.


don&#39;t take it so personally scott. it&#39;s nothing more than trying to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people. i think a dual classification system potentially benefits a small handfull of people relative to risks it places on the entire IT class (and by extension, the club as a whole since IT entries represent a big percentage of entry fees). that&#39;s it, nothing more. [/b]

Please see first comment in this post. On one hand you say you want the IT7 folks to &#39;go away&#39;, and on the other, you say you&#39;re worried about IT entries. And I&#39;ll ask you this again, what are the risks dual-classification places on IT?

The simple fact that IT7 came about, continues to bring people to the track, and has expanded to other Regions is pretty solid evidence that dual-classification increases the number of entries. One of the only downsides I can see, is that it has reduced the size of the ITA fields.


Kirk,

We&#39;re on the same page. The tweaks should be made on the mechanical attributes of the vehicles, but I like the fact that the ITAC recognized that those tweaks may carry more or less weight, based on the overall characteristics of the class. Others have pointed it out as well, FWD vs. RWD becomes less of a differentiating factor when you&#39;re talking about lower hp cars. I suspect something like Carb vs. EFI is another example.

[tnord]

you&#39;re so smart bill. i wish i could be like you.

have fun guys.

WWHHHEEEEEEE!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill doesn&#39;t drive this home enough but IT7 / Spec7 popped up because the lack of a cohesive classification process resulting in some serious overdogs in ITA - sending the 12A to the back. Plenty were built so they created a home for themselves. The SCCA failed these guys.

So, now the 12A is, on paper, in the same league as the rest of the class but min weight is uber-hard to come by. A new build yes, maybe current builds, no. And now that I think about it more, maybe we ought to be leaning more toward guys who did &#39;reasonable&#39; builds in the past - of which there are what, a hundred 12A&#39;s out there? It&#39;s tough to go backward once your car is built.

Here is my question: Will the 12A in ITB bring guys back from IT7 / Spec 7? I am not sure. They are settled in and presumaby happy - now they have to ballast way up and buy a couple sets of new wheels - all to go slower. Hmmm.

For me, it all comes back to defining a tweener, deciding to reclass it at a higher weight, and having the stones to tell people that their car is &#39;correctly classified&#39; when they ask for a re-class because they can&#39;t win locally. Kirk&#39;s post about what people will request after something like this happens, is SPOT on.

[tnord]

Bill doesn&#39;t drive this home enough but IT7 / Spec7 popped up because the lack of a cohesive classification process resulting in some serious overdogs in ITA - sending the 12A to the back. Plenty were built so they created a home for themselves. The SCCA failed these guys.
[/b]

i&#39;m aware. some of the same reasons SM came about. and as you said, now that everything has been adjusted, they should be just fine in A.

[lateapex911]

Bill doesn&#39;t drive this home enough but IT7 / Spec7 popped up because the lack of a cohesive classification process resulting in some serious overdogs in ITA - sending the 12A to the back. Plenty were built so they created a home for themselves. The SCCA failed these guys.[/b]

Right, the once popular, and some said dominant, 12A was the poster child in my mind for how the classification process was a one way street, and mistakes could only be rectified by making more mistakes. In other words, the CRX got classed way light, so other cars were added to compete with it. Which hammered the rest of the class down the running order even harder.



So, now the 12A is, on paper, in the same league as the rest of the class but min weight is uber-hard to come by. A new build yes, maybe current builds, no. And now that I think about it more, maybe we ought to be leaning more toward guys who did &#39;reasonable&#39; builds in the past - of which there are what, a hundred 12A&#39;s out there? It&#39;s tough to go backward once your car is built.
[/b]

On paper given the current constraints of the process, but I would argue the process still fails the car as the real characteristics of the mechanical package are not being fully compesated for. (Huge lack of torque of the rotary, vis a vis the other cars in the class. To the tune of 20 or more percent in many cases). Your point about already built cars needing complete rebuilding to hit new targets is a good one.



Here is my question: Will the 12A in ITB bring guys back from IT7 / Spec 7? I am not sure. They are settled in and presumaby happy - now they have to ballast way up and buy a couple sets of new wheels - all to go slower. Hmmm.
[/b]

One thing that has been mentioned, but rather obliquely is the regional naure of our racing. Things are wildly different over the vast expanses. If we decide to, say, move the RX-7 down to ITB, (using the current process assumptions and methods) I suggest it will make zero impact in areas where the IT7 class is doing well. Why would these guys want to move? More expense, more testing, more hassles with a new package, and now they get to be mid pack in ITB? Thats not going to happen. The regions have freedom to make/maintain classes, and they will do just that to protect their bottom line.

And in Nor Cal? Same answer, but for different reasons...the RX-7 (5 of them last April as I recall) is nearly the only ITA car raced out there, except for the double or triple dipping SMs, and I think (Josh help me out here) that when I visited, there wasn&#39;t one ITA Miata out of the over 50 that raced in ITA. And ITB was 3 cars. So here we have another region where the RX-7 guys are kind of playing by themselves.

In the NE, we have the "Mazda Cup" an informally run perpetual trophy that gets handed to the best finishing RX-7 driver in ITA in each race. I doubt that, again, if the process puts the car in B in the same manner as in A, we would see a wholesale buying of wheels and lead weight and testing, just to run for a theoretical mid pack ITB finish. I bet the Region would be approached with an IT7 proposal. Just a guess, but the point is that when we discuss large global changes we have to consider what really happens out in the real world.

Thats why DC is a tempting concept, because it lets the market decide, and the answer can be different where the market is different.

[JoshS]

And in Nor Cal? Same answer, but for different reasons...the RX-7 (5 of them last April as I recall) is nearly the only ITA car raced out there, except for the double or triple dipping SMs, and I think (Josh help me out here) that when I visited, there wasn&#39;t one ITA Miata out of the over 50 that raced in ITA. And ITB was 3 cars. So here we have another region where the RX-7 guys are kind of playing by themselves.
[/b]

At our double regional on Labor Day weekend, we had 45 ITA entries. 10 RX-7s, 1 Scirocco, and 34 SMs. No true ITA Miatas that I know of. Many of the RX-7s are rentals from a single shop. And just 4 ITB cars (two Volvos, a BMW, and a Honda).

BTW, one of those RX-7s is very quick and routinely wins ITA -- although my ITR car isn&#39;t done by any means, he is a very experienced driver and he and I are about the same speed.

[Rabbit07]

There is something that troubles me about having an early RX-7 with lots of ballast for ITB. The front Spindles are a bit fragile to begin with and then you task them with more weight! Those poor little wheel bearings. Just my $.02

Just ten more days and we will have a new fast track to talk about for 3 wks! :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse:

[dickita15]

There is something that troubles me about having an early RX-7 with lots of ballast for ITB. The front Spindles are a bit fragile to begin with and then you task them with more weight! Those poor little wheel bearings. Just my $.02
[/b]

We have had a lot less spindle and bearing problem since we upgraded our inspection process to make sure they are true. We started taking more care due to the expense of fabricating custom struts and wanted to make sure we started with a good spindle.

Many of the current A Rx’s are within 100 pounds of the ITB weight.

Smaller wheels may help bearing life.

[ddewhurst]

***Bill doesn&#39;t drive this home enough but IT7 / Spec7 popped up because the lack of a cohesive classification process resulting in some serious overdogs in ITA - sending the 12A to the back. Plenty were built so they created a home for themselves. The SCCA failed these guys.***

Andy, you may include ITA/7 (one in the same) in your above statement but please don&#39;t include Spec-RX7 because including Spec-RX7 in your statement would not be factual.

The three FACTUAL things used to develop Spec-RX7 were:

1. A list of things that keep people from racing.

2. A list of things that would appeal to people who were not already racing.

3. A series that would somehow avoid the increasing cost and constant change found in Improved Touring.

Please continue, remembering that some of us will catch the BS. :o

[Andy Bettencourt]

***Bill doesn&#39;t drive this home enough but IT7 / Spec7 popped up because the lack of a cohesive classification process resulting in some serious overdogs in ITA - sending the 12A to the back. Plenty were built so they created a home for themselves. The SCCA failed these guys.***

Andy, you may include ITA/7 (one in the same) in your above statement but please don&#39;t include Spec-RX7 because including Spec-RX7 in your statement would not be factual.

The three FACTUAL things used to develop Spec-RX7 were:

1. A list of things that keep people from racing.

2. A list of things that would appeal to people who were not already racing.

3. A serious that would somehow avoid the increasing cost and constant change found in Improved Touring.

Please continue, remembering that some of us will catch the BS. :o


[/b]

Dave,

Pllease. If the RX-7 was as competitive in ITA now as it was &#39;then&#39;, Spec 7 wouldn&#39;t exist. And if it did, it would still only be a MARRS class. It&#39;s just like SSM. Only exists in our little patch.

[Gregg]

Do you even read what you type?
And exactly why should it &#39;go away&#39;? IT7 may not be listed in the GCR, but it has expanded to other regions. IIRC, the WDCR introduced it last year, even though they already had Spec7.
[/b]
Bill-
Just for a point of reference, we had six IT7 cars take the green flag at what is arguably the DC Region&#39;s biggest regional of the year, the Labor Day Double, where we had ~340 entrants. That&#39;s compared to 28 registered ITA cars. We have averaged 6.5 cars since the class&#39;s inception at the beginning of the 2006 season. That&#39;s the same 6.5 avg. that we had in 2005 and most of the drivers were not around back then. It&#39;s not a case of old cars coming out of mothballs. As the person on whose watch it was as ITA rep (and original IT7 rep) when the class was created, it was, in the words of the driver who submitted the proposal, created so that "RX-7 drivers could win trophies too." I can understand that to an extent, but as opposed to many of the IT7 cars I&#39;ve seen in the south east, most of ours are not nearly as well prepped or maintained as some of the front-running ITA cars, and the frontrunners are constantly running slower lap times than the Spec7 folks with whom they currently share a run group. And that&#39;s fine for them. They&#39;re having close racing, but I believe the split has perpetuated the notion that you can be competitive when you run a "junk yard" motor (as I know a few that have been), you can run Toyos vs. Hoosiers (like the front-running ITA cars do)

At the end of the day, it&#39;s not always the "process" that dooms these cars and drivers. Many times it&#39;s the wants, desires, pocketbook, and on-track skill of the entrants that relegates a car or cars to also-ran/mid-pack status when not running these "splinter" groups. These drivers are having fun, but how many 6-car classes can/should a region support. My local MR2 drivers (of which I have about 5) have been so emboldened by the IT7 situation that they&#39;ve discussed bringing a proposal for IT-MR2 to our committee. I want these guys to feel like they&#39;re getting everything out of the effort they&#39;re putting into the car, but soon we&#39;ll start looking like another organization I know of, where I always used to chuckle at the number of tropies handed out in 1-car classes.

[Gregg]

Dave,

Pllease. If the RX-7 was as competitive in ITA now as it was &#39;then&#39;, Spec 7 wouldn&#39;t exist. And if it did, it would still only be a MARRS class. It&#39;s just like SSM. Only exists in our little patch.
[/b]
Andy-

At least as far as the DC Region is concerned, Spec-7 really has nothing to do with IT in the least. It has to do with very inexpensive racing, where full interiors, bolt-in cages, no fuel cell, etc. are the rule, not just the norm. Here are the rules for your perusal:

http://www.wdcr-scca.org/marrs/2006SRX7.pdf

I think you&#39;d be very hard pressed to see an ITA RX-7 converted to Spec-7.

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

I mentioned WDCR introducing IT7 as an example of the increasing popularity (or probably, the increasing disillusionment of the ITA RX7 drivers) of getting the RX7s out of ITA. And let&#39;s not get into creating classes for 6 or 7 cars.

It was not that long ago that Spec7 was a very well subscribed class. I remember a few years ago 50 cars entered in MARRS I. And I agree, there&#39;s a big gap between a Spec7 and an ITA RX7 (at least based on the WDCR version of Spec7).

Andy,

You may have hit on something there. Things may have gone on for too long, that the IT7 folks may have no interest in running in ITB. But that doesn&#39;t do anything for the Regions that don&#39;t have IT7.

Travis,

I really didn&#39;t think you were such a quitter. I also thought you had a little more conviction in your position. Guess I was wrong on both counts.

[ddewhurst]

***Pllease. If the RX-7 was as competitive in ITA now as it was &#39;then&#39;, Spec 7 wouldn&#39;t exist. And if it did, it would still only be a MARRS class. It&#39;s just like SSM. Only exists in our little patch.***

Andy, are you implying that Spec-RX7 started in the DC Region? By typing a sentence like this ^ your showing what you don&#39;t know about Spec-RX7. If you are saying that the Spec-RX7 class started in the DC Region then I must tell you that your talking out of your a$$. Oh, & I said that with a :D

Greg, if you saying that Spec-RX7 cars run as fast as your IT7 cars the IT7 must be a bunch..............you know what. Unless you people have basterdized the Spec-RX7 rules.

[seckerich]

With all the realignment of the IT rules in the past few years we came real close to ending IT7 in the southeast this year. I doubt it will survive next year. These classes that exist to give small groups a trophy are fast loosing favor. Look at the classes at the ARRC and see how many are just about the same except for the letters on the car. How many "formula whatever" can you think up for no longer competitive cars. When it gets down to a few cars it needs to go away. Especially if there is another class they can reasonably run. Cold hearted but true. ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

***Pllease. If the RX-7 was as competitive in ITA now as it was &#39;then&#39;, Spec 7 wouldn&#39;t exist. And if it did, it would still only be a MARRS class. It&#39;s just like SSM. Only exists in our little patch.***

Andy, are you implying that Spec-RX7 started in the DC Region? By typing a sentence like this ^ your showing what you don&#39;t know about Spec-RX7. If you are saying that the Spec-RX7 class started in the DC Region then I must tell you that your talking out of your a$$. Oh, & I said that with a :D

[/b]

No Dave, I worded it wrong as I was responding to Bill who was undoubtably talking about it WRT the MARRS series and his patch. We don&#39;t even have S7 in NER.

Bottom line? I believe Production-based spec classes are born from perceived or real batches of cars ready to race or be built that feel they have no shot in current class structure. And that isn&#39;t unique to SCCA...

[Gregg]

Greg, if you saying that Spec-RX7 cars run as fast as your IT7 cars the IT7 must be a bunch..............you know what. Unless you people have basterdized the Spec-RX7 rules.
[/b]
I&#39;ve posted the DC Region&#39;s Spec-7 rules above.

Here&#39;s a quick rundown ITA vs. IT7 vs. Spec-7 race winners for all Summit Point MARRS races this year. Note that ITA runs w/ ITS and ITR. IT7 and Spec-7 run together w/ SSB and SSC

MARRS 1 (4/29/07)
ITA: 1:29.339, IT7: 1:30.980, Spec-7: 1:32.329

MARRS 4 (6/17/07)
ITA: 1:28.834, IT7: 1:32.778, Spec-7: 1:32.394

MARRS 7 (8/12/07)
ITA: 1:28.701, IT7: 1:32.209, Spec-7: 1:32.066

MARRS 8 (9/3/07)
ITA: 1:28.884, IT7: 1:31.435, Spec-7: 1:31.851

MARRS 9 (9/4/07)
ITA: 1:28.592, IT7: 1:32.008, Spec-7: 1:31.637 (new track record)

It should be noted that the IT7 driver who won MARRS 1 (and was last year&#39;s innaugural champ) has not run since. You can see what the drop is from that driver to the others in class.

For reference, here are fastest lap times for the highest finishing ITA Rx-7 during each of the 2005 MARRS races at Summit Point. Remember that the minimum weight for the chassis was 100lbs heavier than it is now:

MARRS 1 (4/24/05): 1:31.365
MARRS 4 (6/18/05): 1:31.238
MARRS 5 (7/10/05): 1:31.056
MARRS 7 (8/14/05): 1:30.856
MARRS 8 (9/4/05): 1:30.938
MARRS 9 (9/5/05): 1:31.093
MARRS 10 (10/9/05): 1:32.278

We&#39;ve said time and again that we shouldn&#39;t be judging classing cars based on on-track performance but when when given a 100lb weight break the front-running IT7 cars have actually gotten slower in the DC Region. How do you explain that? How can they justify a change in the "process" for these cars and/or a move to ITB?

[tnord]

Travis,

I really didn&#39;t think you were such a quitter. I also thought you had a little more conviction in your position. Guess I was wrong on both counts.
[/b]

quitter? ha. good one. if you knew anything about me, my situation, or my history in racing, you wouldn&#39;t ever give the first thought to associating me with that word.

i&#39;ve come to the realization/accepted the fact that there are a LOT of people on this board and pretty much every racing web forum who are bitter/uneducated/uninformed/closed minded/etc, and use this medium as a tool to feel important and powerful in this world to make up for deficiencies in the real one.

i&#39;ve also accepted that i would make a terrible politician/speach writer/public figure, as i do not spend near enough time to perfect my communication skills. in an environment where every word is poured over and scrutinized, the message that is intended to be delivered is not the message received.

it usually doesn&#39;t take more than a post or two to determine if someone is worth talking to or not. you didn&#39;t pass, so i&#39;m not wasting my time arguing with you on this issue. besides, kirk shares my views on this and is far more eloquent.

[Knestis]

... We&#39;ve said time and again that we shouldn&#39;t be judging classing cars based on on-track performance but when when given a 100lb weight break the front-running IT7 cars have actually gotten slower in the DC Region. How do you explain that? How can they justify a change in the "process" for these cars and/or a move to ITB?[/b]
A case can&#39;t be made for the RX7 move to B based on lap times. However, it&#39;s equally true that arguments AGAINST the move are not well founded if based on the same evidence.

K

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

One explanation for the cars going slower is that they not the 10/10ths cars that they used to be, or they don&#39;t have the same drivers. Hard to say w/o know which cars/drivers ran from year to year.

Kirk makes a good point about lap times. But, as an aside, not one of those ITA RX7 lap times that Greg posted are faster than the current ITB track record at Summit Point. Some are close, and would be at pointy end of the field, but that&#39;s at their ITA weight.

Travis,

You crack me up!

[ddewhurst]

Greg, after reading the WDC Region Spec-RX-7 rules all I can say is that there must be some really slow ITA/7 cars that race in your area.

Short list of what ITA/7 gets & Spec-RX7 don&#39;t get.

A. Blueprinted Niki carb or other carb. (OEM Niki with Grose jets ONLY)

B. Exhaust system of choice including header. (Cast iron header non-modified)

C. Rear end gear of choice, 4:88/5:12 (3:90 OEM)

D. Camber/castor to suite. (1 1/2 degree max./no adjustment)

E. Weight 2380 compared to 2530 IIRC. (150 pounds)

Your local, you tell me how the Spec-RX7 can turn times as close as they do to cars with lighter weight, ability for better chassis setup, a bunch taller rear end gear & 25% MORE hp. If the ITA/7 cars are not dogs, you tell me how to they race at near equal times to to the Spec-RX7 cars.

When is the last time anyone protested a Spec-RX7? :o

[lateapex911]

With all the realignment of the IT rules in the past few years we came real close to ending IT7 in the southeast this year. I doubt it will survive next year. These classes that exist to give small groups a trophy are fast loosing favor. Look at the classes at the ARRC and see how many are just about the same except for the letters on the car. How many "formula whatever" can you think up for no longer competitive cars. When it gets down to a few cars it needs to go away. Especially if there is another class they can reasonably run. Cold hearted but true. ;) [/b]

well, if IT7 goes away, you won&#39;t see me dragging my RX-7 to the ARRCs ever again. Even the very fastest RX-7s ever there are not capable of a podium finish in ITA unless the leaders take each other out, and there is attrition.

Simple math:
NX 2000: north of 150hp, and 140 tq at the wheels, if my memory serves me regarding what I&#39;ve read here.
Saturn: similar, but I think it&#39;s a bit stronger tq
Nissan 240 sx 150 tq, and 150s hp. again, if memory serves.
(This is all off the top of my head, and yes, we can argue exact numbers all day, vis a vis, "What kind of dyno", etc...but the gross point remains)

RX-7s: under 110 tq and maybe 130 hp.

Atlanta is a dragstrip connected by some very cool corners. If you don&#39;t have the ability to defend, or pass on the straight, you are dog meat.

[JeffYoung]

For what it&#39;s worth, and I take no position on this, there will be significant resistance from the IT7 drivers in the SEDiv to:

1. Moving the RX7 to ITB.

2. Ending IT7.

[tnord]

Atlanta is a dragstrip connected by some very cool corners. If you don&#39;t have the ability to defend, or pass on the straight, you are dog meat.
[/b]

do you really want everything adjusted according to results based on one track? As a 1.6 SM owner, i can tell you, you don&#39;t.

PS - 130whp and 110tq is right where a 1.6 ITA miata will be.

[Greg Amy]

PS - 130whp and 110tq is right where a 1.6 ITA miata will be.[/b]
Ouch. And it&#39;s twenty five pounder lighter, has IRS and a shorter wheelbase, larger brakes, and not to mention (but I will) scads more aftermarket support...

This ain&#39;t helpin&#39;, Travis. :)

[tnord]

i&#39;m not trying to keep it out of ITB, i just think DC is dumb.

i didn&#39;t put that with the idea it will keep the RX7 in A, just threw it out there as a data point.

[cmaclean]

Atlanta is a dragstrip connected by some very cool corners. If you don&#39;t have the ability to defend, or pass on the straight, you are dog meat.
[/b]

Amen to that. I even get pulled on the back-straight by IT7&#39;s that I&#39;m lapping!

[mustanghammer]

well, if IT7 goes away, you won&#39;t see me dragging my RX-7 to the ARRCs ever again. Even the very fastest RX-7s ever there are not capable of a podium finish in ITA unless the leaders take each other out, and there is attrition.

Simple math:
NX 2000: north of 150hp, and 140 tq at the wheels, if my memory serves me regarding what I&#39;ve read here.
Saturn: similar, but I think it&#39;s a bit stronger tq
Nissan 240 sx 150 tq, and 150s hp. again, if memory serves.
(This is all off the top of my head, and yes, we can argue exact numbers all day, vis a vis, "What kind of dyno", etc...but the gross point remains)

RX-7s: under 110 tq and maybe 130 hp.

Atlanta is a dragstrip connected by some very cool corners. If you don&#39;t have the ability to defend, or pass on the straight, you are dog meat.
[/b]

So, does this mean you are in favor of Dual Classification as it would keep our cars in ITA, IT7 and put them in ITB?

Ya, it means we get to have our cake and eat it too... I see this as the best compromise. The regions participating in IT7 can kill that class off as it suits them.

[lateapex911]

do you really want everything adjusted according to results based on one track? As a 1.6 SM owner, i can tell you, you don&#39;t.

PS - 130whp and 110tq is right where a 1.6 ITA miata will be. [/b]

Oh yes! That&#39;s exactly what I said Travis, how astute of you!

Never mind the rest of my response, or the fact that i quoted someone to make that response, the entire point of my post was that we should be using Atlanta as the de-facto standard for classification, Yup, the Prod boys really did have it right,...what WERE we thinking?

(Oh, and sice I was just writing off the top of my head, I was conservative with the RX-7 tq. The numbers I&#39;ve seen are well under 110. like 101 to 106 or so.)

[gran racing]

well, if IT7 goes away, you won&#39;t see me dragging my RX-7 to the ARRCs ever again[/b]

Really Jake? Not even if that meant you could beat up on me in ITB?

[lateapex911]

So, does this mean you are in favor of Dual Classification as it would keep our cars in ITA, IT7 and put them in ITB?

Ya, it means we get to have our cake and eat it too... I see this as the best compromise. The regions participating in IT7 can kill that class off as it suits them.

[/b]

Well, if you&#39;re asking my my views..and remember, there is nothing on the ITACs aganda on this subject, I would:

Not move it from ITA at this point.

Why? Because, as it stands, I feel the process fails that mechanical genre, and merely moving it down a class will only change the lettering on the side of the car. In some areas, the car would see success, as the ITB class is weaker(than that areas ITA class), and in other areas it might hurt the car, again depending on the strength of the regional classes. But all things equal, it should finish in the same percentile as it does now.

I would also not be a fan of dual classing, unless we can create a clear policy of when a car should be dual classed. I do think the RX7 and the MR2 are poster chiildren, as one of the qualifications in my mind for DC would be an existing classification. Due to the fact that the cars have been built, and are racing, and the very varied nature of regional racing, allowing the constiuents the option of remaining or moving is important. Now, if the car DOES get dual classed, I would also suggest that if the process is fine tuned for it in it&#39;s new class, then it should be fine tuned for it&#39;s current class.

But, as always, you can see that one thing leads to another, and a simple question such as this becomes a much broader policy issue when you look at the real core reasons.

[mustanghammer]

Well, if you&#39;re asking my my views..and remember, there is nothing on the ITACs aganda on this subject, I would:

Not move it from ITA at this point.

Why? Because, as it stands, I feel the process fails that mechanical genre, and merely moving it down a class will only change the lettering on the side of the car. In some areas, the car would see success, as the ITB class is weaker(than that areas ITA class), and in other areas it might hurt the car, again depending on the strength of the regional classes. But all things equal, it should finish in the same percentile as it does now.

I would also not be a fan of dual classing, unless we can create a clear policy of when a car should be dual classed. I do think the RX7 and the MR2 are poster chiildren, as one of the qualifications in my mind for DC would be an existing classification. Due to the fact that the cars have been built, and are racing, and the very varied nature of regional racing, allowing the constiuents the option of remaining or moving is important. Now, if the car DOES get dual classed, I would also suggest that if the process is fine tuned for it in it&#39;s new class, then it should be fine tuned for it&#39;s current class.

But, as always, you can see that one thing leads to another, and a simple question such as this becomes a much broader policy issue when you look at the real core reasons.
[/b]

Thanks for your answer.

I guess I am at a loss as I cannot think of a way to correct the ITA specifications for this car. Lowering it&#39;s minimum weight would be a token gesture at best. So what would we be looking at, port matching?

Seems to me that the car in ITB starting at 2550lbs allows for future adjustments to the car in areas that are support by the IT rule set. IE - a lower weight.

As a competitior seeking a positive change I believe we should continue to ask for a move to ITB and take our lumps moving forward.

[seckerich]

Or we could take cars that ended up on the edges of the process and dual class them. Use the process to better class them with known numbers. These known numbers have been used in many cases (BMW, second gen RX7, and CRX) instead of the average IT gains. Keep the dual classing for a 2 year grace period then it goes in the new class. In 2 years we should know where it fits best and it gives drivers plenty of time to change wheels if necessary. Food for thought.

[tnord]

Oh yes! That&#39;s exactly what I said Travis, how astute of you!

Never mind the rest of my response, or the fact that i quoted someone to make that response, the entire point of my post was that we should be using Atlanta as the de-facto standard for classification, Yup, the Prod boys really did have it right,...what WERE we thinking?

[/b]

sure read to me like you were building a case for the RX7 to be moved/DC in B and were using Atlanta as a data point.

[Bill Miller]

sure read to me like you were building a case for the RX7 to be moved/DC in B and were using Atlanta as a data point.
[/b]

That&#39;s pretty funny Travis, because his post didn&#39;t mention either moving the car or dual-classification. The way I read the post, was that he wouldn&#39;t take his car to the ARRC (which happens to be run at Road Atlanta) if IT7 went away. The dragstrip comments referred to the lack of torque of the RX7, and how it would get gobbled up in ITA.

And you talk about other people only reading what they want to.

BTW, it&#39;s nice to know that you think d-c is a dumb idea, not that there are any real risks involved. Certainly puts things in perspective. :happy204:

[lateapex911]

sure read to me like you were building a case for the RX7 to be moved/DC in B and were using Atlanta as a data point.


[/b]

You jumped the gun with that response. you know me...I am way too wordy to suggest such a thing in such a un supported manner, and you clearly haven&#39;t read what I had already stated on the subject. (That I feel the process fails that genre of car, and if it&#39;s broken in ITA, moving it to B will be a huge waste of time and money, and be horriblly short sighted)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Is it possible that, for a car that the process &#39;fails&#39; due to lack of torque in ITA (12A RX-7), that if it got moved to ITB - where power / torque is lower, that the &#39;failure&#39; is mitigated by the different environment that the car then would find itself in? AND one of the strengths (high revs) is also much less common among the core cars in the class?

So is it possible to become more competitive in a lower class where the &#39;standard&#39; attributes are different? I think so. I don&#39;t think class competitiveness is as linear as some are making it out to be.

[shwah]

Can&#39;t really speculate in a case like this.

The one thing that we know will be accomplished is that it will become easier to make weight.

[tnord]

You jumped the gun with that response. you know me...I am way too wordy to suggest such a thing in such a un supported manner, and you clearly haven&#39;t read what I had already stated on the subject. (That I feel the process fails that genre of car, and if it&#39;s broken in ITA, moving it to B will be a huge waste of time and money, and be horriblly short sighted)
[/b]

i&#39;ve read the whole thing from page one. remember jake, for some of us, reading web forums and keeping up with all the positions and every word everyone has said isn&#39;t a major focus of our life. that post as a standalone statement still looks to me like you&#39;re building a case based on on-track performance at a single track (exactly like how it&#39;s done for every national class).

so sorry if i don&#39;t keep perfect tabs on everyone over 13 pages and 20 some odd days. :rolleyes:

hey bill -
DC is stOOOOOOOpid!

[seckerich]

Is it possible that, for a car that the process &#39;fails&#39; due to lack of torque in ITA (12A RX-7), that if it got moved to ITB - where power / torque is lower, that the &#39;failure&#39; is mitigated by the different environment that the car then would find itself in? AND one of the strengths (high revs) is also much less common among the core cars in the class?

So is it possible to become more competitive in a lower class where the &#39;standard&#39; attributes are different? I think so. I don&#39;t think class competitiveness is as linear as some are making it out to be.
[/b]
Exactly the point I was making. What does it hurt to give it a try?

[Matt Rowe]

Exactly the point I was making. What does it hurt to give it a try?
[/b]
Creating a precedent in which everyone who thinks their car isn&#39;t competitive request that it be dual classified. Who is going to stand up and make the decision of when a car should and shouldn&#39;t be dual classed thereby changing this from an isolated case to multiple cars spread across multiple classes.

What&#39;s the harm in that?

More confusion for new participants and spectators. How do you explain to someone that those two identical cars aren&#39;t racing each because one decided he wanted a heavier car. It&#39;s easy to say but then you have to explain why those other two cars can&#39;t make that choice.

More confusion on track (am I racing him for position or is he running the other class, no wait that was the other red model X that is in ITB).

So if that is the downside what are the benefits?

It doesn&#39;t sound like we can agree the car is going to be anymore competitve in ITB at the process weight. So if it can&#39;t contend for a win are the current competitiors going to be any happier going slower? Are you going to attract new drivers with a heavier/slower car that still runs mid pack? Oh, and they have less chance of competing with other RX-7&#39;s because they will be split between two classes.

I just don&#39;t see a benefit that justifies the potential risk.

[Knestis]

...and that&#39;s precisely where I started this conversation. Well put, Matt.

However, if the DC option is seen as a remedy to ONLY the cars that "can&#39;t" make process weight in A, and the policy is applied by the ITAC only to cars in that situation, then the benefit/cost math might well tip the other way. It is always good practice to be explicit about what a given policy decision is supposed to do, to help prevent it from being co-opted to other ends.

"Dual classification is intended to allow entrants of cars that have difficulty achieving the specified process weight in one IT class to race in the next-lower class at the appropriate process weight for that class - this option being seen as preferable to forcing all entrants into one class or the other. Dual classification is not intended to achieve any other goal (e.g., providing opportunities for multiple entries in a single car), even if some individuals in some instances may realize other benefits from this allowance. Requests for dual classification based on rationale beyond the stated intent will not be considered."

Do I think it&#39;s the best answer? No. Do I think it&#39;s a pragmatic solution that balances the various needs? Yes.

K

[dickita15]

"Dual classification is intended to allow entrants of cars that have difficulty achieving the specified process weight in one IT class to race in the next-lower class at the appropriate process weight for that class - this option being seen as preferable to forcing all entrants into one class or the other. Dual classification is not intended to achieve any other goal (e.g., providing opportunities for multiple entries in a single car), even if some individuals in some instances may realize other benefits from this allowance. Requests for dual classification based on rationale beyond the stated intent will not be considered."
[/b]
Kirk, that is a great paragraph. I think it sums up what I would want very well and answers Matt’s concern about the flood gates opening.

I tend to in most cases trust the process so if a car fits the process in two classes I see no harm.
I do not buy the confusion argument against DCs. Without even mentioning Miatas as a person who is not an expert on Hon Duhs and Vee Dubs, I have not lost any sleep on the variants of rabbit/golfs or civics that run in multiple classes depending on which motor they have.

SCCA Club Racing in participant driven and the rules should serve the participants not the 12 spectators.

[Greg Amy]

...not the 12 spectators.[/b]
Dick, you can&#39;t count the tow truck guys in that...

[tnord]

krik -

do you think DC opens the door for the elimination of the "no garauntee of competitiveness clause?"