IT Class Philosophy [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Andy Bettencourt

09-04-2007, 04:30 PM

I normally don'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 'tweener'. It wasn'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't make the weight legally) and learning to drive even better; it is still losing ground. I'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'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'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'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'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't already being done) for the ITAC to look at the potential 'tweeners' and see if it's time for them to move.

Roland [/b]

OK, I would like to use this post as a point of discussion. There has been some good debate on the topic from the last thread and I want to keep the dialogue open. The ITCS doesn't guarantee competitivness but I sure as hell want everyone to think they have a chance - at least on paper. That is about as good a job as the process can give right now.

So Roland says he can't make weight. Maybe his car can't, but I know of a prominant poster here on IT.com who just busted his balls all winter to prove the exact same thing. Guess what? He can make the minimum. BUT - he has done so at considerable time and expense - all legal mind you - but not easy or cheap. So now I have two opposing data points. One guy who can't, a bunch of people who say it can't be done but one guy who did it.

Then there is the engine issue - parts availability. That would seem to make the class change issue moot but it's still there. The ITAC/CRB has refused many requests for special allowances due to part availability over the past 4-5 years.

So, the item(s) for discussion:

When is a car REALLY a tweener?

Should it be the responsibility of the CRB to find a place for these tweeners when they 'fit' the process currently within reason (ie: make them more competitive)?

Do we just let cars die a natural death when parts become obsolete and unobtainable?

Do we 'throw these cars a bone' as some have suggested - with the understanding that it would get pulled if it was 'too much'?

What is too much?

Is that fair to cars that have run through the 'regular' process?

Does that mean we have two processes? One for regular cars and one for underachievers?

Do we just rely on the process and allow the chips to fall where they may?

Is this reliance on the process just a cop-out to those that own cars that can't compete on track when the 'paper' model shows they could/should?

IT has made significant changes over the past 5 years. Most would say for the net good. How static do we want the rules/classifications going forward? When do we tell people no and when do we make a change?

Discuss.

gran racing

09-04-2007, 04:53 PM

know of a prominant poster here on IT.com who just busted his balls all winter to prove the exact same thing. Guess what? He can make the minimum. BUT - he has done so at considerable time and expense - all legal mind you - but not easy or cheap. [/b]

When a car reaches this phase, I absolutely think the weight / classification needs to be looked at. In the IT category, it should not be necessary to go through this much money and work to reach the minimum weight.

One part that should be considered is how some of these changes could impact the popularity of the category and participation numbers for events as a whole. I do think that's a bit tougher to determine the true impact.

BlueStreak

09-04-2007, 05:04 PM

First off, nice work. The current process is great.

I have one little issue, I'm larger than average, not the car, but ME! So, how about giving me the option of taking a 5% weight penalty and going to the next slower class?

As for obsolete parts, we're racers, and although it's a slippery slope, we should allow alternative parts where practical:

Examples:
let the RX-3 run RX-7 braking components, transmissions, engines (there is no real performance advantage in any of these parts between the RX-3 and the first generation RX-7)

let square headlight rabbits run round headlight front ends

let rabbits born as 1.7l carb cars become 1.8l CIS cars (the VIN rule)

Also, preserving the future value of the vehicle is critical to improving the size of the fields. If we let cars become uncompetitive, they'll stop coming, and the fields will stop growing.

Knestis

09-04-2007, 10:43 PM

Sorry but, no. No, And no. Maybe, and heck yeah.

No alternate parts. The downside of going there is a inevitable avalanche of requests. What standard gets applied to decide if RX7 rotors are scarce enough but something else isn't? It's going to be a horrid mess, even if well-intentioned. Their mere availability is a (relative) competitive advantage.

No to different processes applied for different makes/models. To the extent that the process IS repeatable, it must remain in place. It's unfortunate but if it means that some cars become less popular because they can't be competitive - or the PERCEPTION is that they can't be competitive - then so be it. If the process says that an MR2 can be in A at XXXX pounds or B at YYYY pounds, let it be in either. I was initially against dual classing but I think it might be the only viable solution to the tweener problem. Note that this does NOT mean I endorse the idea of "giving tweeners a break" for whatever reason - if they fit, let them fit. If a model is readjusted because it is expensive to get to the minimum, the door is open for someone to actually SPEND THE MONEY necessary to do so, thereby gaining an advantage. On the other hand, if that simply means that the same car runs in a slower class at an easier-to-achieve weight, it isn't a big issue I don't think.

No classification based on anything short of 100% builds - even if they remain hypothetical. I tend to be of the opinion that there are a LOT of IT cars out there whose owners think they are going as fast as they can - but are wrong. There are times when I get sucked into that way of thinking but luckily the enduros give me a chance to be reminded of the car's potential by the Greg Amys and Bowie Grays of the world. I also know what I have NOT spent on the final tweaks of tuning and track testing.

Maybe it's time to look at the driver's contribution to the minimum weights. If the mean driver weighs more than 180 pounds, it wouldn't upset the applecart much (if any) to simply increase the minimum race weights by 30 pounds or something similar.

...and since it's been brought up, a big YES on ditching the stupid VIN requirement. I'm not talking about alternate parts here, just the idea that allowances for the use of identical parts extend to body pieces. However, let's don't conflate a bunch of issues here. That always gets dangerous.

K

RSTPerformance

09-05-2007, 07:02 AM

For me I think that I would not like much changed with exception to allowing cars that are "tweeners" to be classed in both classes and let people run in one or both if they desire. I do think that if dual classing starts the ITAC certainly maintains the abbility to "undo" what is done as they (the ITAC) watches the effects of a weight & wheel size as a balancer effect in the different classes.

The Vin issue to me is questionable... If you can find the parts for the car you want to build then why can't you go to the junk yard and find the correct Vin and slap in on? if you think that is illigal well then we will not get into that discussion and we will just walk away as I would at the track....

Raymond

Doc Bro

09-05-2007, 07:12 AM

Andy,

Good job starting this out this way, it should lead to meaningful discussion. I'm in favor of dual classification for several reasons;

1. It's less "big government-ish". It allows the competitor to be more in control of their racing state of affairs. If for no fancier reason than they like the guys in B more than A.....it gives options.

2. If it's a simple as bolting in weight or an SIR, then it may encourage some double-dipping which is good for the vitality of any region.

I also agree with Kirk, swapping of parts=too slippery. And, bye-bye vin rule.

R

Andy Bettencourt

09-05-2007, 07:50 AM

Greg Amy

09-05-2007, 08:21 AM

Sorry but, no. No, And no. Maybe, and heck yeah.[/b]
+1

What cars get consideration?[/b]
Those that can be moved (or dual-classified) within xx% change in the "optimal" process weight from the "optimal" (or existing) class, but no more than yyy pounds.

What's "xx" and "yyy"? Tawk amongst yooselfs...

Ron

09-05-2007, 08:22 AM

Why are so many people afraid of a Neon at 2800 pounds? Or any dual car that seems "Heavy". My first ITB Mustang was about that heavy. We built a new one in '06 and spending the money and time needed, we were able to get it down to 2600 lbs. I will be the first to say I thought there was no way, but looking at every little part we lost the weight. I do chuckle when weight comes up, cars can be heavy, they will do just fine.

And kill the VIN, no part swapping, slippery slope

Doc Bro

09-05-2007, 08:36 AM

Well it's rather interesting...if we add weight we "theoretically" slow a car. The question is where do we slow the car the most. Corner entry, exit, onto the straight, the end of the straight or just universally? So the addition of weight may have a more (or less) detrimental effect depending on how and where the car responds to it. At a track like LRP vs Road Atlanta that 2800# Neon has the potential to be two totally different animals. As Amy elluded to on another thread, run DP with the big bores and you'll get very clearly what my point is.

I think there has the potential to be undiscovered variables left in this equation. Unfortunately for some the only way to truly know will be to try. At some point we'll have to test the waters and get some data (emperical or evidence based) and begin to develop another "formula" if necessary, to not upset the balance of other classes. If we can acheive sucess this may allow for some really great racing with larger run groups and better participation.

R

Rabbit07

09-05-2007, 08:37 AM

Parts substitution within in reason, I think the current rules already allow for most of what I would consider substitution; ie Aftermarket Alternators, rotors, belts, hoses, "Connecting Rods :P "

Axe the damn Vin Rule! :dead_horse:

Dual Classification seems fine to me, but you wouldn't find me running my Neon in ITB.

spnkzss

09-05-2007, 08:47 AM

Let me facilitate more on the dual-class idea.

What cars get consideration? What cars don't? Example: We just got a request to bump the ITA Neon (SOHC) to ITB. It CAN run in ITB but would havce to in excess of 2800lbs. If the car is determined to be a 'core' car for its class (meaning it's a perfect fit), do we get to say no? Is everyone going to be ok with getting that 'no' when they think they have a tweener?

Care to define tweener for us all?
[/b]

What about using the same formula now. Use the formula to class it in ITA. Use that same formula to classify it ITB. When you look at the weights you need to determine another percentage of weight difference the lightest possible car and the heaviest possible car in Class. You don't want to get slammed by a 2800 lb Neon in you 1900 lb VW.

BTW, + a million on the axing of the VIN.

JLawton

09-05-2007, 08:49 AM

I normally don't get involved in these discussions...........

The 1st gen RX7 is kind of sad for me to watch however. They used to be the main stay of ITA and even a 10/10ths car has been relagated to mid pack. I don't think it fits the specs for ITA any more. Move it or make it dual classed. Think about how much it would beef up the ranks of ITB to have the RX7 competitive again??

I would think there are only a few cars that can be considered for dual classification..... The Neon is NOT one of them :rolleyes: ..... If it fits nicely into a class, forget about it........

I also don't think we should class cars based on expense. Tough sh*t if it costs a lot of money to make weight......That's racing!! It's all about the cubic dollar.... :( I'm sorry if your 944 costs $25K for an engine. I'm sorry if you can no longer find parts. If we start making exceptions, where will it end?

lateapex911

09-05-2007, 09:53 AM

I normally don't get involved in these discussions...........

The 1st gen RX7 is kind of sad for me to watch glued to my bumper however. [/b]

Fixed that for ya....

lateapex911

09-05-2007, 10:18 AM

When is a car REALLY a tweener?
[/b]

If it's not competitive, and is being discussed as a tweener, something is amiss. Either the top dogs in the class are "breakouts" and are doing something better than the process estimated, or the car under consideration is not capable of acheiving process estimates. Or both.

If it's the first option, then the class needs to be looked at for adjustment, because the issue will relegate more than 1 car to the back.

If it's the second, research needs to occur to determine if:
- The process estimate was in error
- If the potential of the car has been met in the real world
- And if the potential can be met..and will match the process estimate.

Not easy questions.
Example. The much discussed MR2- Honestly, there aren't a lot of examples out there. Of those examples, some say it can't make weight, yet others say if you go all out, you can either make it or come really close. We don't have anyone like Milledge or Fordahl independently confirming what top builds will yeild for power, but we have one guy who states he's gone most of the way, spent a lot of money, and doubts the last bits to do will make the difference. Honestly, we all believe in our gut that the car
A: MIGHT be able to hit weight, but
B: is likely to be under process estimates for power.

But, if the car is moved, the ITAC will be faced with critics who ask, "What documentation can you show?". Furthermore, IF we know the car can't hit power estimates, the next question is "Why?" Other motors of the same genre are matching process estimates very nicely. Yet this one misses. Rumour has it that the mid engine packaging has constricted the intake track, and the car just can't ht the numbers.

So......the question then becomes, Do we reclass based on model specific issues? And if so, what is the threshold of evidence needed? If it is YOUR class the car comes into, and the public decides that NOW it's worth REALLY going all out on the car, and oooops, the ITAC was wrong, the thing CAN make power, will you be happy? because then we're faced with a one off example thats really fast...but..is he legal???

I can see both sides.

In my eyes, for cars of this ilk, dual classification is a reasonable answer. If we find that the preponderance of evidence suggests the can can make power afterall, a weight increase would be warranted. Again though, it's tricky with cars like this, esp when such a small body of expertise exists.

Do we just let cars die a natural death when parts become obsolete and unobtainable?
[/b]

yes, the alternative is way too slippery. Witness American Sedan.

Knestis

09-05-2007, 10:25 AM

Why are so many people afraid of a Neon at 2800 pounds? Or any dual car that seems "Heavy". ...
[/b]
I don't think that there's an inherent fear for all (many?) of us. Some get wrapped around their axle about weight differences but that's a little silly in my view.

The real issue is that there probably ARE "costs" (to the category and program, not individual racers) associated with dual classification - some of which we might not yet even anticipate or understand. Dual-listing of cars should be considered as a solution to particular problems (or problem singular, the tweeners?) rather than blanket policy.

If a car is in the fat part of the curve - can comfortably make process weight - then it shouldn't be a candidate. If it's an outlier, it might make sense. The issue currently seems to be that there's no consensus among those outlier car owners as to whether they want to run heavy in A or struggle to meet a low race weight in A. (Or maybe the PTB aren't interested in change in this respect or don't want to PO anyone who are fine with the current situation?) Each individual's answer is going to depend on their particular tastes, goals, and priorities and the dual-listing option makes some sense as a possible resolution.

BUT I still contend that there is value in having particular makes/models identified with particular classes - particularly for spectators, casual participants, and newbies looking at IT as an option. The more "sloppy" or complex the classification process is (or appears), the more daunting it is to get started and the less cohesive the resulting groups. Look at NASA's PT experiment - it's the anti-IT, in the sense that you can show up with anything and find a class for it. I could run the Golf in PTG, PTD, or anything in between without real changes in fundamental set-up or philosophy but the resulting classes/groups are a mess, with greater within-class differences in performance potential and areas of relative strength.

K

924Guy

09-05-2007, 10:26 AM

+1 on the VIN rule

Likewise on obsolete parts - isn't that what Prod is for???

Knestis

09-05-2007, 10:34 AM

Another thought, generated by Jake's post while I was typing: The point at which we make "potential" assumptions about a specific car/engine package rather than about the engine TYPE, is the point at which we are way past the line between PCAs and competition adjustments (bleah). Case in point would be the MR2/Corolla GTS/FX16 family:

** If assumptions behind the IT-prep gains influencing the HP part of the equation gets determined based on the fact that they are twincam 16v 4-cylinder engines, we're happily within the process and PCA realm.

** If those assumptions are based on "real world" gains of TOYOTA engines of that family, we're dangerously close to Productionland.

** ...but the point at which each gets its own math because one is transverse FWD, one is mid-engine'd, and one is longitudinal RWD (aka "the way race cars should be"), we are well and truly in the suck. (1)

K

(1) See previous posts about how, if this is what the IT world REALLY wants, it can sure have it. I haven't fundamentally changed my position on that but am still willing to share the odd cautionary post on occasion, in moments of optimism.

EDIT - i was also a little surprised to learn at the Longest Day that the FX16 is already in B! It's at 2445#, for those like me who didn't notice.

lateapex911

09-05-2007, 10:36 AM

One more thing...

(sorry)

IF we determine the car ...lets say the MR 2 or the RX-7...isn't capable of hitting the process estimates in it's current class, then merely movig it down a class and rejigging the numbers based on the same estimates will be a complete waste of time and money.

Because, if, say the RX-7 is getting creamed in ITA because it has 101 ft lbs of tq, and 128 at the wheels and the process has it at 130 at the wheels but has no "subtractoer" for it's huge lack of torque, (cars of equal weight have roughly 25% more tq) then it will remain uncompetitive in any class it goes to, as the weights will be adjusted in excess of it's real capabilities.

I use the RX-7 as it has a much better base of knowledge..there are a multitude of pro builders that have made the dyno runs needed to really know what the car can do, and there are an equal number of pro builders and suspension engineers, (professionals) who have built cars themselves.

In the case of the RX-7, moving it down and using the same process is just a sideways move.

(I hate to bring on track results into the equation...yeccchhh...sorrry...but, just as an illustration point, when that car is driven by the top guys, who are the top preparers, like Jim Susko ...the car is 3 or 4 seconds off the mark at all the tracks it runs against versus the real ITA cars. Mid Ohio, Road Atlanta, etc. And those times are near the ITB times. So adding 200 (or whatever) pounds of weight, and taking an inch of rim away will slow the car down, which makes it less than competitive in B. A lot of trouble to go to to be uncompetitive in either class. And the same, to some degree holds for the MR2.)

If we chose to move cars, we need to look carefully at the real reason for the failrue in the current class, or it will be repeated.

(In both cases, it appears the reason is power related, and further weight breaks would be pointless, as the cars are near or at the limit of how low thay can go)

Knestis

09-05-2007, 10:41 AM

Tag - I'm it.

...and the RX family is a special case because (1) the basic form of the powerplant is different than everything else out there, and (2) there's some historical (hysterical?) precedent still in the organization that rotaries just make mythical power, going back to their introduction in the '70s.

K

Darryl Pritchett

09-05-2007, 10:54 AM

77ITA

09-05-2007, 11:56 AM

As a "new-to-IT" racer, I am very careful about the opinions I carry related to "class philosophy". IT racing has been around long before me or any of my humble opinions.

The above being said, my ultimate opinions stem from the purpose and intent that is listed in the GCR.

Purpose: "Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition."

Intent: "It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible; however, those determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified. Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C, are not allowed..."

It is my strongest and first opinion that everyone should open their GCR, read these statements, and then rethink that letter, complaint, or request for adjustment that they are about to send.

Almost every car is well classified as is, the rules are good like they are (sans the impending open ECU bullcrap) and if you're not winning with your IT car... build it better or build something else! If your car is too old to find parts, build a newer one! Constant rule changes, adjustments, and vehicle specific allowances are always a slippery slope that leads downhill. We do not need to turn Improved Touring into class full of drama, confusion, and constant vehicle specific adjustments like Touring is. None of us should ever have to worry about building a different "hot car" every time a new fastrack is published.

In equal strength, I additionally feel that all classifications should be based upon maximum build of the vehicle and that weights should be factored upon the medical averages for the weight of an adult. Subsequently, I don't want to hear anything about moving the MR2 to ITB until I see a 100% build failing horribly or anything from a 300lb driver that can't meet minimum weight in his car.

In closing, feel free to paint me how you like. My opinions are not based upon years of experience, but I hope they are still valued. IT racing is just as important to me as anyone else.

77ITA

09-05-2007, 12:07 PM

It was actually my request to add weight to the SOHC Neon and let it run ITB. There are many old SSC Neons out there that are not running ITA because they cannot win against the fully prepaired Miata's & Intergra's. I have spent a lot of money on my Neon this year to bring it to a front running car but still several seconds behind the above mentioned cars. If dual classification was a way to bring some of these old SSC cars out of retirement it could be good for all.
[/b]

I also own an ex-SSC SOHC Neon and run it in ITA. My car can't keep up with the miatas either, but that doesn't mean it is classed wrong. If your car is not competitive, have you done everything you can to make it competitive? 4:12 final drive? coilovers? 225s? light weight wheels? good roll cage? header? fat radiator? ECU?

for what little it's worth, I'm currently leading the mid-am championship with a far under-prepared Neon and I know it could be even faster if developed further (and if I were a better driver :lol: )

Darryl Pritchett

09-05-2007, 12:29 PM

Congratulations on leading your region in your Neon.

My idea of reclassifying the Neon or dual classifying it was to encourage more people to want to build a Neon. Many people are not building their SSC cars up because they feel they cannot be competitive in ITA. Thats where giving them the chance to possible run in ITB might encourage that. What is so wrong with dual classification anyway, look at the Miata running in SM and ITA.

In conclusion it was just an idea and if the majority don't agree then so be it. I will still continue to build my Neon to hopefully someday soon win some races.

To answer your questions about my prep, yes I do have most of what you mentioned on my Neon. The 4:12 is on order and will be installed by years end and I have high hopes for the improvement it will make.

Darryl

Knestis

09-05-2007, 01:20 PM

... Many people are not building their SSC cars up because they feel they cannot be competitive in ITA. Thats where giving them the chance to possible run in ITB might encourage that. ...
[/b]
Problem is (and refer back to Jake's point about the RX7 math), just listing the car in B won't make it automagically more competitive than it would be in A - IF the math and basic assumptions applied to the listed weight are applied consistently. Is a Neon going to be more competitive in B than in A, if it has to weigh 300 pounds more and run on 6" rather than 7" wheels?

It's not like we can look at lap times of those yet-to-be-fully-developed ex-SSC cars and say, "Well, they're doing '28s now, so they'll be right with the ITB guys who are doing similar times."

Remember (and this isn't just for the new guys/gals in this game) that we ought to try very hard to not get caught up in making classification or specification decisions based on on-track performance. Our questions/concerns might START there but lack of competitiveness is s symptom of something, not a disease in and of itself to be cured by liberal applications of soothing adjustment. :)

K

EDIT - and I'd be interested to hear from those who really know the package why the Neon might not be competitive against the current most obvious choices.

Rabbit07

09-05-2007, 01:45 PM

EDIT - and I'd be interested to hear from those who really know the package why the Neon might not be competitive against the current most obvious choices.
[/b]

What do you want to know?

Remember, I am not saying that the Neon isn't a strong ITA car. I can often run in the top 10% of the ITA group. Considering the class philosophy that states that cars are not guaranteed competitiveness I think that isn't so bad.

Hahn63

09-05-2007, 01:59 PM

...and the RX family is a special case because (1) the basic form of the powerplant is different than everything else out there, and (2) there's some historical (hysterical?) precedent still in the organization that rotaries just make mythical power, going back to their introduction in the '70s.

K
[/b]

Yea, still looking for that mythical power...

I'm not really looking for anything for the car. It had its time and now it is gone. :( The dual clasification would be the only thing I'm looking for since my butt is too big to make weight. Yep, it will be at the back of B too, that would be my choice. I agree with no changing parts ...I might invent a 12b engine...maybe it would have the Mythical power. :023: Count me in for the bye bye to the vin number.

Roland

shwah

09-05-2007, 02:16 PM

I can see dual classification in certain cases. Yes it is fuzzy as to how you decide which cars to consider for this, but so are other aspects of our classification method. I would certainly want the ITAC and CRB to really keep the reigns on the idea, rather than open dual classes up for any underprepared car. The ones that come immediately to mind for me are the 944 and MR2.

OTOH I don't know if I see a burning need for it. Yes a few cars are affected, but a few cars are afflicted with tons off issues such as NLA parts - from any source, short life expectancy critical parts, very expensive engine parts/modifications. At the end of the day if a car can make weight it can make weight. The point about knowing what is in what class is a valid one, from a racer, worker or spectator viewpoint.

So - I am firmly on the fence here. I would not be knashing my teeth either way as long as our heretofore well performing 'process' were applied in all cases.

I don't agree with any type of special consideration beyond our classing process and/or possible dual classification.

Yeah I think the VIN rule is retarded too.

mom'sZ

09-05-2007, 02:22 PM

As I read this thread, one thing that occurs to me, and I don't want anybody to take this as an endorsement of the dual classification idea, is that if a few of these cars were moved, and the new weight set using 'the process' and the cars turn out to be well classed and not overdogs... that, to me anyway, would verify the integrity of 'the process'. Sort of like checking your math by calculating your results backwards.
Does anybody get what I'm saying?
Andrew Rowe

JoshS

09-05-2007, 02:24 PM

Problem is (and refer back to Jake's point about the RX7 math), just listing the car in B won't make it automagically more competitive than it would be in A - IF the math and basic assumptions applied to the listed weight are applied consistently. Is a Neon going to be more competitive in B than in A, if it has to weigh 300 pounds more and run on 6" rather than 7" wheels?
[/b]
Thank you Kirk. This is exactly the point. Moving the car to a different class is not likely to make it any more competitive.

I do understand the argument that it's an easier (and maybe cheaper) build if you don't have to worry about removing weight. Heck, the SSC Neons could just keep their interiors as ballast for the heavier ITB weight, that makes the build really really easy. But it doesn't make them any more competitive than they would be in A.

I personally do not like dual classifications. I don't think we should ever do them. The only exception that I find compelling is the one that led us to the current DCs: we created a new class, and some existing cars were listed there. We left the cars in the old class as well to give a reasonable transition period. In my opinion, an expiration date should have been placed on that older classification right from the get-go (and it's not too late.)

So, temporary DCs when a new class is created, with clear expiration dates from the start, and no permanent DCs.

As far as reclassing goes: I'm okay with a reclass (but not a DC) to a slower class (at a different weight, of course), for cars that have low popularity, if both of the following conditions are met:
A -- The new weight doesn't require "silly" amounts of ballast. Specifically, a car should not have to weigh more than its showroom stock/touring weight in IT. We could also try to make a similar statement about curb weights.
B -- There is CONSENSUS among the active drivers of the car in question. We'll need to define "active."

gran racing

09-05-2007, 02:47 PM

the SSC Neons could just keep their interiors as ballast for the heavier ITB weight, that makes the build really really easy.[/b]

Is getting down to the minimum weight that difficult for the Neon in ITA (meaning needing to go on a rotisserie or other more extreme measures)?

Rabbit07

09-05-2007, 02:53 PM

Is getting down to the minimum weight that difficult for the Neon in ITA (meaning needing to go on a rotisserie or other more extreme measures)?
[/b]

It's not too difficult with a SOHC, but you do need to make sure you work at it. The unfortunate part is most of the good legal ways to remove weight are on the wrong end of the car. I weigh in at 220 and my car is about 20 lbs over after the race.

The DOHC weight is such that you could leave all the interior in and still not be there without ballast!

77ITA

09-05-2007, 03:29 PM

Although I am one skinny SOB, I found it VERY easy to reach minimum weight with the SOHC Neon. I actually run heavy on gas + ballast to make sure I come in a little over on the scales.

mustanghammer

09-05-2007, 03:49 PM

BUT I still contend that there is value in having particular makes/models identified with particular classes - particularly for spectators, casual participants, and newbies looking at IT as an option. The more "sloppy" or complex the classification process is (or appears), the more daunting it is to get started and the less cohesive the resulting groups.
K
[/b]

?????

The Miata, VW Golf, RX7, Ford Fiesta, Honda CRX, etc are classed in many different Production and GT classes. Often these classes are on the track at the same time. So that means for example that an FP and EP Miata will be racing at the same time. I don't believe the drivers, workers, or spectators are terribly confused by this. I guess we could mandate bigger class disignation fonts.

So is ITB supposed to be an Econo Box class? Is that a valid argument against putting "sports cars" like the RX7 and MR2 in ITB? In midiv we have Alfa Romeo sportscars that run in ITB. It never seemed to out of place to me. After all when I saw the car and noticed that It said ITB on the door I knew I didn't have to race it. I assumed also that the workers, spectators and other drivers could read too.

Not trying to be a smart ass but it seems to me that a car fits were it fits no matter what it looks like. Worrying about keeping "like" cars together is one of the things that killed and is killing Production.

mustanghammer

09-05-2007, 04:03 PM

One more thing...

IF we determine the car ...lets say the MR 2 or the RX-7...isn't capable of hitting the process estimates in it's current class, then merely movig it down a class and rejigging the numbers based on the same estimates will be a complete waste of time and money.

Because, if, say the RX-7 is getting creamed in ITA because it has 101 ft lbs of tq, and 128 at the wheels and the process has it at 130 at the wheels but has no "subtractoer" for it's huge lack of torque, (cars of equal weight have roughly 25% more tq) then it will remain uncompetitive in any class it goes to, as the weights will be adjusted in excess of it's real capabilities.

I use the RX-7 as it has a much better base of knowledge..there are a multitude of pro builders that have made the dyno runs needed to really know what the car can do, and there are an equal number of pro builders and suspension engineers, (professionals) who have built cars themselves.

In the case of the RX-7, moving it down and using the same process is just a sideways move.
[/b]

I disagree. A fully built, well driven 2280LB ITA RX7 may be a really good car. Maybe even competitive at some tracks. this would mean that the process worked for the car in ITA. Hpwever the argument that many of us are making is that the weight generated by the process is not realistic. As result we cannot prove the process to be correct.

Let's assume that the process works for ITA. Wouldn't that mean that it would also work for the same car in ITB since one of the components of the claissification process - minimum weight - is now attainable?

I am in favor of Dual Classifications for tweener cars.

lateapex911

09-05-2007, 05:15 PM

I disagree. A fully built, well driven 2280LB ITA RX7 may be a really good car. Maybe even competitive at some tracks. this would mean that the process worked for the car in ITA. Hpwever the argument that many of us are making is that the weight generated by the process is not realistic. As result we cannot prove the process to be correct.

[/b]

Except the weight IS achevable, and has been done.

mustanghammer

09-05-2007, 05:49 PM

Except the weight IS achevable, and has been done.
[/b]

What year and model RX7? For example was it a 79-80, 81-83 or an 84-85? Was the model a GS or GSL?

Not being argumentative, I want to know.

dickita15

09-05-2007, 06:18 PM

I am the guy Andy referred to that made weight with an ITA Rx7. My old car was heavy and tweaked in places and while the Rx is not a winner I have a slew of parts and the knowledge to maintain it and I also wanted to do a ground up. I really was not in a cash flow position to change cars.

I was intending to prove you could not get the car to weight but I failed. Now the caveats, I started with a pretty good 79 shell. The 79 is reported to be the lightest. I built a rotisserie and removed every single part from the car. I think I exploited every grey area in the rule book. If you can remove a part then I ground off every attachment bracket. Remember this was an exercise (think watts link, parking brake, ect). The cars was stripped mechanically, grinders and wire wheels. The number of hour is this project is ludicrous, it has to be 1000. Some kind of media stripping would have saved a few hundred. I spent 20 hours on the wiring harness eliminating every wire that you could argue the GCR says you can. That saved 8 pounds. I used a 8 gallon fuel cell, of course I had to put the 12 back in to run Mid Ohio. The rear bumper is a 79 but the front sheet metal and bumper are late as they are lighter. The exhaust could still be lighter, maybe 10 pounds. I still need to add a couple of parts, I need to score some horns, license plate light for a 79 and door locks but the car is pretty close. Without a driver the car weighs 2038 pounds. Oh yea that was before paint, add 5 pounds but still the car makes weight with a 240 pound driver.

So if you pick the right year, build a minimum cage and push the rules on component removal it is possible. But no sane person would want to. I should mention that we have two extra dormant ex IT RXs sitting in the shop that no one wants to race, but I built this one anyway.
Jakes point about the formula is good, we suffer from lack of torque, and still will if moved to ITB but to have that disadvantage AND expect someone to go through what I did to make an illogical weight is just too much to expect.

Yes it is expensive to build a Porsche motor but that is because it is a Porsche. The reason I had to go to this expense and effort to reduce the weight is because of an arbitrary rule.

mustanghammer

09-05-2007, 06:30 PM

Thanks for the information. Hmmmmm make E Prod or going to an FC RX7 seem like a better idea.

Knestis

09-05-2007, 11:14 PM

>> [mustanghammer said] ...The Miata, VW Golf, RX7, Ford Fiesta, Honda CRX, etc are classed in many different Production and GT classes. ...

Yeah - not the strongest argument for the practice, based on the underwhelming recent success of those categories, now is it?

As long as we assume that the people we need to care about are already entrenched in the cultural knowledge of the organization, you're right - it's not an issue. If on the other hand we think outside of the box a little and worry about what someone new to the scene is going to understand, the answer might be completely different. As an organization, we've spend decades focusing on what existing members want, without much of a strategic position re: what POTENTIAL or FUTURE members might care about.

>> So is ITB supposed to be an Econo Box class? Is that a valid argument against putting "sports cars" like the RX7 and MR2 in ITB? In midiv we have Alfa Romeo sportscars that run in ITB. It never seemed to out of place to me. After all when I saw the car and noticed that It said ITB on the door I knew I didn't have to race it. I assumed also that the workers, spectators and other drivers could read too.

...and with respect - that isn't even remotely related to my point. I said...

...there is value in having particular makes/models identified with particular classes - particularly for spectators, casual participants, and newbies looking at IT as an option.

That means what it says - that all other things being equal, it's helpful for people coming into the sport, or reading about it on web sites or in other media, to be able to count on a given make/model to always be in the same class, racing against the same cars. If I had to explain that my car might be in PTE one weekend and PTD another, because I put on a different size tire that looks the same from 50' away, the average Joe - even one with a passing understanding of what's going on - is going to think it's goofy. I think we run the risk of diluting or compromising the integrity of the category every time we make things more complex or obtuse but there ARE other considerations, and different intelligent people will see the situation differently.

>> ...it seems to me that a car fits were it fits no matter what it looks like. Worrying about keeping "like" cars together is one of the things that killed and is killing Production.

You made up the part where I said that we should classify cars based on "what they look like," and where I was opposed in any fashion to the RX7 and MR2 ending up in B, for that matter. And if THAT'S what's killing production, I'll eat my GCR. The single thing that could be done to save the Prod and GT categories would be to ELIMINATE options, rather than allowing a Rabbit to run in any of four(?) Prod classes. A couple of healthy classes makes oh, so much more sense than a bunch of poorly subscribed ones but those with a vested interest in their established positions are willing to watch classes die rather than consider change. Those old sporty car guys aren't opposed to a new look - they just don't want competition running with an equal shot at winning, regardless of what shape the metal box around the driver might be...

...and THAT is an example of the strongest argument for staying WAY far away from practices common to that category.

K

EDIT - frakin' quote function is p'ing me off.

What do you want to know?

Remember, I am not saying that the Neon isn't a strong ITA car. I can often run in the top 10% of the ITA group. Considering the class philosophy that states that cars are not guaranteed competitiveness I think that isn't so bad.
[/b]

I'm wondering what mechanical attributes of the car (or either version of the car) make it inherently uncompetitive against the Acura, CRX, et al. I'm taking it on faith that there ARE such issues behind any suggestion that the Neon should be moved to B.

(Actually I don't buy that there IS anything keeping it from the winner's circle, other than the fact that nobody's pushed it all the way to its limit. It's kind of a rhetorical question.)

K

Rabbit07

09-06-2007, 06:45 AM

I'm wondering what mechanical attributes of the car (or either version of the car) make it inherently uncompetitive against the Acura, CRX, et al. I'm taking it on faith that there ARE such issues behind any suggestion that the Neon should be moved to B.

(Actually I don't buy that there IS anything keeping it from the winner's circle, other than the fact that nobody's pushed it all the way to its limit. It's kind of a rhetorical question.)

K
[/b]

The major issues with the Neon are directly related to handling. It has a poor suspension geometry with a very long wheel base. It has one of the longest wheel bases in ITA and it's FWD. That coupled with most of it's weight over the front axle lends the car to not wanting to rotate. Can it compete? Yes, it just gets eaten alive in the twisties by the CRX and Acura. Longer, HP like tracks the differential isn't as great.

JLawton

09-06-2007, 07:01 AM

I will still continue to build my Neon to hopefully someday soon win some races.

[/b]

I think you kind of prove the point that we can't consider the Neon as tweener........ When you get your car to a 10/10ths build and are still seconds of the pace, then you can consider it non-competitive....... Anyone who knows my car knows that it was a 10/10ths car. My first year I was waaaaaaay off the pace. Yup, right in there with the ITB times!! This year I did a little more tweeking, worked on the driver and have started to run at the point end.....But, I also came to the realization that I need to work on the driver more than anything!! I have closely watched Greg Amy and Andy Bettencourt spend hours and hours on car prep, testing, tweeking, testing, (and on and on and on) and now understand that that commitment and hard work (and tons of money) is what it takes to win and break track records!! If your going to do it half assed (both in car prep and driver prep) don't expect to win.

Unfortunately, Chris Childs has built a decent Neon that can run at the pointy end. I'm sure it wasn't easy, but he showed that it can be done.

We can't use an excuse like "attracting more racers" to reclassify a car or designate it as a tweener.

I go back to my earlier comment. How can we say a car isn't competitive if it hasn't been built to 10/10ths of the rules?? And we certainly can't use cost as a measure. "Yup, we're going to reclassify all the ITS cars to ITA that have engine builds that cost more than $10K!!". Hmmmmm, not exactly in the spirit of IT...........

On another note, aren't the numbers for the formula different for the different classes?? (not sure why I thought that......Maybe in one of my nightmares about these arguments) As in, ITA uses one multiplier and ITB uses another??

Andy Bettencourt

09-06-2007, 08:19 AM

On another note, aren't the numbers for the formula different for the different classes?? (not sure why I thought that......Maybe in one of my nightmares about these arguments) As in, ITA uses one multiplier and ITB uses another?? [/b]

Yes. The target power to weight ratios are obviously different. But to be clear, the power estimation % is the same.

So the Neon: High power potential, poor geometry, and FWD.

Sounds like a car that just won the ARRC in ITA. :birra:

This debate is for another thread. It's NOT a tweener, nor a candidate for ITB.

924Guy

09-06-2007, 08:40 AM

Thanks for weighing in with the RX7 build details, Dick.

As you've clearly shown, it's not easy and takes a lot of determination and persistence, not to mention time and money, to make it happen.

Then again, most of us know and understand, either by direct experience or watching, that it takes all the same qualities to run up front regardless.

So if you want to be up front, plan on making that commitment or plan on coming away disappointed - regardless of what car you choose.

If you're hell-bent on building an RX7, or some other specific car that doesn't seem to be a sure, proven winner - don't expect it to be easy!!! Don't think you can pull the interior out, bolt in a cage, cut your springs, slap on a header, and go win races!!! Sorry, folks, but this is racing. You want that kind of experience, go to the local circle track and run a 4-cyl series.

I still don't think there's any need to "throw a bone" out there to those who want to run X car, but are still sitting on the fence 'cause they don't think it'll be competitive. Those who are dedicated will do it anyway; besides me, I know there's plenty on here. Childs. Amy. Walker, when he built Lawton's car (10/10ths? Seems more like 11/10ths! ;) ). If you're sitting on the fence, you're not exactly dedicated. What next, you want a subsidy? Forget having the perfect car, are your skills even going to be up to the job of getting the car, any car, on the podium?? Seat time, remember?

And if you don't want to have such a long, exhausting, hellish build - buy something that's already competitive! Buy a CRX, or Integra, or whatever is winning in whatever class you feel like joining. Better yet, buy one that's already built!

Fast, easy, and cheap, pick any two. I got fast and cheap - took me 7 years to get the car there (the driver's still lagging!). But I had a lot of fun along the way, and learned even more.

</rant>

gran racing

09-06-2007, 09:19 AM

Except the weight IS achevable, and has been done.[/b]

Yes, but at what cost and amount of time? It should not be necessary for someone to spend 1,000 hours trying to get the car down to minimum weight and go through all of the other extremes in the IT. Dick mentions building a minimum cage in order to get to the minimum weight. Is that what the rules in essence should be encouraging?

expect someone to go through what I did to make an illogical weight is just too much to expect.[/b]

Exactly.

Vaughan, of course it shouldn’t be easy to build a front running car. I built my car over the course of the past year knowing full well that it would require several custom parts (time and $$$$), and being a unique model it would be up to me to take on a significant amount of research and development. O.k., cool. I choose that route, the car, and no one is saying cars in similar circumstances should be given a break. But dealing with achieving weight should not fall into this category. Heck, many people I’ve spoken with would actually rather some of these cars that have weights that are only achievable with the type of effort Dick put into his car have the weight higher still in the same class.

Knestis

09-06-2007, 09:31 AM

... Dick mentions building a minimum cage in order to get to the minimum weight. Is that what the rules in essence should be encouraging?[/b]
THAT is a good point and might be an indicator of a car that's out on the end of the curve - one possible diagnostic characteristic of a "tweener?"

K

lateapex911

09-06-2007, 10:07 AM

Yes, but at what cost and amount of time? It should not be necessary for someone to spend 1,000 hours trying to get the car down to minimum weight and go through all of the other extremes in the IT. Dick mentions building a minimum cage in order to get to the minimum weight. Is that what the rules in essence should be encouraging?
[/b]

But,,,read what he wrote...his car is actually 60 pounds UNDER weight. So, he could add bars if he chose to.
(Based on the car weighing 2280 with a 180 pound driver, SCCA standard) Obviously, that 60 pound underweight number is less with a heavier driver, and would be more with a lighter driver.)

Now, IF the car wasn't underweight, can anyone suggest a standard for "cost and amount of time" that the commitee should use to detremine how much is ok, and how much is too much?

JLawton

09-06-2007, 11:07 AM

ggnagy

09-06-2007, 11:21 AM

The above being said, my ultimate opinions stem from the purpose and intent that is listed in the GCR.

Purpose: "Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition."

Intent: "It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible; however, those determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified. Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C, are not allowed..."

[/b]

Everyone seems to focus on the last line, while ignoring the rest of that quote. Why do we have to throw out "low cost", "limited modifications" and " useful and necessary to construct a safe race car"?
Why aren't cars being classified in such a way that extensive, expensive, and possibly unsafe methods need not be undertaken on order to try and meet weight and be in the ballpark???

If everyone really believed in the "guaranteed competitiveness" then there should be zero argument against moving a car down that cannot reasonably achieve the weight. The reason there IS an argument is just because a belief in an ad hoc "guarantee" of competitiveness for the current front running cars.

Hahn63

09-06-2007, 11:33 AM

I think I exploited every grey area in the rule book.

If you can remove a part then I ground off every attachment bracket.

I spent 20 hours on the wiring harness eliminating every wire that you could argue the GCR says you can.

The rear bumper is a 79 but the front sheet metal and bumper are late as they are lighter.

Jakes point about the formula is good, we suffer from lack of torque[/b]

I would like to play devils advocate here for a moment.

Dick, this isn't an attack on you. I am very happy to hear someone else still has a love for these cars like I do. I would love to meet with you sometime and see your car and compare notes. Sounds like your like me!

Grey areas in the rule book....well it all depends how you want to look at it. One place it would stand up to a protest another place it wouldn't. So is there a cure? Not an easy one I'm sure. I hate having to look over my shoulder all the time to see if someone is having heart burn over my intepritation.

Grinding off brackets..... I'm pretty sure this isn't legal.

Eliminating wires .... not seeing that one in the book either.

79 rear bumper and later front sheet metal and bumper? Now would this be like off of a 82 or later? This could be a major can .

The formula is good ....or is it? If it doesn't take torque into account along with the various other items, how can that be a good? The car isn't allowed to port macth like the rest, why? It won't change the porting on the inside of the motor. Sounds to me like the car has been given a carrot delete! I not saying it should get more than the others just the same.

Now stepping down off the box. I will continue to run the car no matter what happens. I have never cried foul because I wasn't up front. Someone has to be in the back. Expectations of making weight should be resonable and all cars should be on a level playing field. No parts swapping because it isn't made any more or because it's unsafe. That is just life in the racing relam. I truely think that the process has come a very long way and it will continue to improve. However, just because a car has always been in a class doesn't mean it should stay there for it's life time. It could also could mean that at a certain point the car should be delisted. Production has a severe case of this exact problem and we can learn from it.

Thank you to all for listening to my rant and understand I want what is best for all not what is just best for me. I want a better club! :eclipsee_steering:

Roland

pballance

09-06-2007, 11:48 AM

I have followed this thread with great interest and have enjoyed the discussion and think that maybe I can add a little food for thought.

As a newbie I wanted a relatively inexpensive way to get into racing (again) after a 25+ year absence When I was last around racing it was prior to the creation of the IT classes. I chose my car because I wanted to driving a Datsun 240Z. Bottom line, I chose the car because I liked it not because it would be competitive. It turns out that the Z is still competitive.

I could have chosen a Showroom Stock car or a Spec racer and probably have made a better economic choice but I didn't. I chose the Z car and IT for an entry level racer.

I viewed IT as a "door opener" class that would allow me to re-learn both race craft and race driving while doing so at a cost much less than ANY of the other classes out there. In addition, I lurked on this very forum for a long time trying to learn about IT racing.

With all of that said, the line in the GCR regarding competitiveness still didn't affect my choice in a car. I didn't plan on being competitive as that will only come with seat time and car development in whatever car or class I selected. I am not wealthy but I could have swung a Nationally competitive SRF or some other class if I wanted to spend cubic dollars to be at the front of the pack. Instead, I selected a cheaper route that got me on track with a bunch of guys that want to have fun and not worry about rules creep and the other things I see happening in some other "National" classes.

Bottom line, at least for me, racing is FUN and IT racing in particular allowed me to start racing. IF I ever have the desire to truly try to win then I know I will need to either spend $$$$ to develop a new car and $$$$ to develop me into a better driver! I still think that seat time and driving skill can be an equalizer in competition.

I may not be the typical racer and while I would certainly enjoy winning a race, my payoff is just being on track. IT cars are providing that and that is what is important to me.

Thanks for letting me put in $.02 worth

gran racing

09-06-2007, 12:03 PM

Read my last post again Jeff. I am not talking about how much it costs to build an engine, suspension, header, blah, blah, blah = overall cost. For an entry level class, getting down to the minimum weight with a 180 lb driver should not be a terribly difficult task.

You can't classify a car based on how much it costs to build!!![/b]

The overall build, of course not! But looking at some cars, it is possible they could fit into two different classes. One where it would be a struggle (i.e. what Dick went through) and another where they could add weight to the car to meet the minimum spec weight. Dick and I both built our cars this past year and I've heard plenty about his build process and saw his tub during it. I was [/b]extremely thankful that I had the opposite problem in trying to add weight.

While we cannot classify a car on the overall build cost, we sure can make the process a bit easier for folks to at least get to this basic part of the build.

can anyone suggest a standard for "cost and amount of time" that the commitee should use to detremine how much is ok, and how much is too much?

A point when one can build a solid cage and doesn't need to skimp on safety; when it is not necessary to push the envelope to get down to minimum weight; and when a person does not need to put the car on a rotisserie. One should be able to go into a home garage with farily basic tools and be able to accomplish this. Pretty basic stuff like taking the carpeting out, rear seat, passenger seat, take a chisel and remove the sound deadening on the interior surface, take the A/C out, remove the sunroof and plug that.

I also agree with Kirk is saying about prospective racers and what their perceptions will be.

lateapex911

09-06-2007, 12:08 PM

The formula is good ....or is it? If it doesn't take torque into account along with the various other items, how can that be a good?

Roland
[/b]

First, it's not just a formula, it's a process. And it started out as an attempt to add objectivity into the classification procedure, and to create a method for fixing classification errors.

As much, it was decided to incorporate major items that affect a racing cars lap times. All along, it's been accepted that no formula or process can create perfect parity, at least considering the practical limitations of the club we operate in.

So, there are certain cars that are just not treated well by the process, and others that actually do well by it. My car, the fist gen RX-7 falls outside the process goals because of it's severe lack of tq. Would I like to change that? Sure! But it is what it is. But, and this is important, the root cause must be identified.

I have been reluctant to move cars like it down a class, because if it isn't competitive in it's current class at it's process weight, then it won't be in any other class at process weight, all things being equal.

(In the RX-7s case, if we were to add a level of fine tuning to the process that accounted for it's abnormally low torque, we would first have to solve for the current class, then, if it couldn't fit it would be solved for the next lower class)

I suspect that the original process was seen by many as a starting point, and that depending on the success and failures of the process, tweaks could be implemented along the way. To me, tq is something that i feel should be a standard consideration in the adderss and subtracters part of the process.

Doc Bro

09-06-2007, 12:15 PM

I have been reluctant to move cars like it down a class, because if it isn't competitive in it's current class at it's process weight, then it won't be in any other class at process weight, all things being equal.

I suspect that the original process was seen by many as a starting point, and that depending on the success and failures of the process, tweaks could be implemented along the way. To me, tq is something that i feel should be a standard consideration in the adderss and subtracters part of the process.
[/b]

Great points Jake.

I think many of the concerns that many folks debate on this BB are exactly what you're implying. The fine tuning that may be a necessity at this point.

R

Andy Bettencourt

09-06-2007, 12:51 PM

And we have 'tuned'. The FWD 'adders' were revamped in ITS and ITR over a year ago. How much we fine-tune is up for debate as the results have clearly shown to produce large fields with many different makes and models.

Adjusting for faults is a good idea IMHO but tweaking for perfection is the impossible dream.

(And torque is a consideration in the process)

JoshS

09-06-2007, 01:04 PM

Hahn63

09-06-2007, 01:11 PM

Thanks Andy. I was lead to believe that it hadn't been part of the process( which seemed really odd to me), I stand corrected. I do agree that there is a limit to what can be done and that there will always be exceptions to any process that may be developed. Fine tuning can be a infinate thing so boundries must be established at some point. Where those limits are I guess is the real question to these issues.

Roland

dickita15

09-07-2007, 08:22 AM

Dick, this isn't an attack on you. I am very happy to hear someone else still has a love for these cars like I do. I would love to meet with you sometime and see your car and compare notes. Sounds like your like me!
Grey areas in the rule book....well it all depends how you want to look at it. One place it would stand up to a protest another place it wouldn't. So is there a cure? Not an easy one I'm sure. I hate having to look over my shoulder all the time to see if someone is having heart burn over my intepritation.

Grinding off brackets..... I'm pretty sure this isn't legal.
Eliminating wires .... not seeing that one in the book either.
79 rear bumper and later front sheet metal and bumper? Now would this be like off of a 82 or later? This could be a major can .

Roland
[/b]
Roland, no offence taken. For the sake of this experiment I felt I had to exploit every possible way to remove weight. I can site a GCR reference for everything I did but that does not mean I would win every protest. If I had not gone to the extreme someone would have said more can be done to take out weight. If this car was in the classifieds it would become a long thread.
What I had to do was ridiculous. I had to start with the lightest year on the spec line, update any parts that were lighter from the other years and really push the rule interpretations.

The only reason I had to spend this much time and money is because the ITAC made a decision last year to take 100 pounds off the car instead of moving it down a class.
The process is not kind to this car. The lack of torque, the live axel and the left- right weight distribution give this car some serious disadvantages under the process.

At 2550 in ITB the Rx7 would still have these disadvantages under the process, although you could make the weight distribution better. There are a number of “barn cars” that I expect would be run if the car could be run in B.

Doc Bro

09-07-2007, 09:34 AM

Roland, no offence taken. For the sake of this experiment I felt I had to exploit every possible way to remove weight. I can site a GCR reference for everything I did but that does not mean I would win every protest. If I had not gone to the extreme someone would have said more can be done to take out weight. If this car was in the classifieds it would become a long thread.
What I had to do was ridiculous. I had to start with the lightest year on the spec line, update any parts that were lighter from the other years and really push the rule interpretations.

The only reason I had to spend this much time and money is because the ITAC made a decision last year to take 100 pounds off the car instead of moving it down a class.
The process is not kind to this car. The lack of torque, the live axel and the left- right weight distribution give this car some serious disadvantages under the process.

At 2550 in ITB the Rx7 would still have these disadvantages under the process, although you could make the weight distribution better. There are a number of “barn cars” that I expect would be run if the car could be run in B.
[/b]

This club needs more guys like you around, Dick. Thanks!!

R

jamsilvia

09-07-2007, 09:41 AM

(And torque is a consideration in the process)
[/b]

And is rev limit also a consideration??

I understand that the RX7 in general is low on torque. However, it can run up to some ungodly rev limit.

So instead of making torque, you put a really crazy diff in it (something like a 5.1 for the 2nd gens) and get awful close to the torque being put out at the wheels with a car that can only push a 7000 RPM redline and therefore only a 4.3 or so gearset, but has torque.

Just asking...

Joe Mac

lateapex911

09-07-2007, 11:02 AM

And is rev limit also a consideration??

I understand that the RX7 in general is low on torque. However, it can run up to some ungodly rev limit.

So instead of making torque, you put a really crazy diff in it (something like a 5.1 for the 2nd gens) and get awful close to the torque being put out at the wheels with a car that can only push a 7000 RPM redline and therefore only a 4.3 or so gearset, but has torque.

Just asking...

Joe Mac [/b]

Torque, is, essentially, tq.

The tq I mentioned, (101 -105) was measured after the diff... Yes, the engine can rev to about 8K, but peak hp occurs earlier. Your car is known to be a strong tq AND hp engine. IIRC, you car can put over 150 HP down and tq is very close, but you don't rev as high.

Net net is I need to maintain a minimum of 4500 rpm and shift between 7 and 8K, while you can run a lower rev range. But, grunt and pull are much greater for you, at nearly any part of the curves.

And while gear multiplication helps acceleration, when taken to extremes, top speed could become very limited if the gearing gets too high in an attempt to keep up with the "Jones" acceleration.....sure, it might match you to 40 MPH, but then it might run out of revs in 5th at 80mph.

steve b

09-07-2007, 11:39 AM

First, it's not just a formula, it's a process. And it started out as an attempt to add objectivity into the classification procedure, and to create a method for fixing classification errors.

As much, it was decided to incorporate major items that affect a racing cars lap times. All along, it's been accepted that no formula or process can create perfect parity, at least considering the practical limitations of the club we operate in.

So, there are certain cars that are just not treated well by the process, and others that actually do well by it. My car, the fist gen RX-7 falls outside the process goals because of it's severe lack of tq. Would I like to change that? Sure! But it is what it is. But, and this is important, the root cause must be identified.

I have been reluctant to move cars like it down a class, because if it isn't competitive in it's current class at it's process weight, then it won't be in any other class at process weight, all things being equal.

(In the RX-7s case, if we were to add a level of fine tuning to the process that accounted for it's abnormally low torque, we would first have to solve for the current class, then, if it couldn't fit it would be solved for the next lower class)

I suspect that the original process was seen by many as a starting point, and that depending on the success and failures of the process, tweaks could be implemented along the way. To me, tq is something that i feel should be a standard consideration in the adderss and subtracters part of the process.
[/b]

I agree (in the case of the MR2) that using the same process and moving the car down to B will just produce a heavy back of the pack B car. But it would be a good first step. It is my understanding that the weight of the MR2 was reduced from 2370 to 2270.

Did the process change that caused that? Or was that a non-existent competition adjustment? Whatever it was, it didn't work because the cars are still back markers. The fastest ones are still 3 seconds off the pace at SP.

But I say move the car to B, make it heavier if you have to, run the 6" rims and let the chips fall where they may. Then maybe the car can get a 100 pound adjustment in B (later) like it did in A and then maybe you start to see competitive MR2s

gran racing

09-07-2007, 12:29 PM

For cars that people are not able to (even if that's means simply do not have the means to get it to min. weight), adjusting the class using the same process would make a difference. That would be the primary advantage of making the change.

JamesB

09-07-2007, 12:38 PM

B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve b @ Sep 7 2007, 11:39 AM) 122726</div><div class='quotemain'>
I agree (in the case of the MR2) that using the same process and moving the car down to B will just produce a heavy back of the pack B car. But it would be a good first step. It is my understanding that the weight of the MR2 was reduced from 2370 to 2270.

Did the process change that caused that? Or was that a non-existent competition adjustment? Whatever it was, it didn't work because the cars are still back markers. The fastest ones are still 3 seconds off the pace at SP.

But I say move the car to B, make it heavier if you have to, run the 6" rims and let the chips fall where they may. Then maybe the car can get a 100 pound adjustment in B (later) like it did in A and then maybe you start to see competitive MR2s
[/quote]

Steve just to clarify, none of the MARRS MR2's are 10/10th builds. And one is having no issue raising hell in the top 10 along with some other non 10/10th built cars fighting for position. So until a 10/10th build is made I cannot pass judgement comparing to the caliber of cars running the pointy end of the MARRS ITA field.

Can it run in B, I think so with the right weight and a 10/10ths build might have the chance of catching that pesky volvo and gaggle of 2002's once a proper motor is built.

77ITA

09-07-2007, 12:40 PM

All this talk of torque and RX-7s being too slow for ITA, I'm curious... how many of you are running the Mazda Comp 5.125 ring and pinion (P/N:M068-27-110A)? I know it's spendy, but it should do quite a bit for the car. Remember, torque multiplication. If anyone is running it, what is your gear limited top speed? Surely it's not 80mph like estimated above.

Rabbit07

09-07-2007, 12:52 PM

All this talk of torque and RX-7s being too slow for ITA, I'm curious... how many of you are running the Mazda Comp 5:125 ring and pinion (P/N:M068-27-110A)? I know it's spendy, but it should do quite a bit for the car. Remember, torque multiplication.
[/b]

See Post #61

77ITA

09-07-2007, 01:06 PM

See Post #61
[/b]

I did read his post, but I am interested in hearing what people are actually using in their ITA cars and the "80mph top speed" sounds more like a an estimate than product of mathmatical equation or testing with the 5.125

My math skills are on par with a child (if not worse), so I won't try working it out myself :lol:

dickita15

09-07-2007, 01:18 PM

Yes I run the 5:12 and it helps. Most of my friends run the 4:88 or 4:40. The gearing does not change the torque number; it does help the transmission gear spacing and makes it a little easier to keep it above 6500 rpm. On the other hand my friends shift less.

Also while the rotary has a reputation for high revving the 390 CFM nikki carb severely limits the power as you approach 8000 rpm.

on edit i estimate top speed with 5:12 and 45 series tires at 120 mph. I was at about 7700 rpm in 5th at Mid Ohio at the end of the straight.

Andy Bettencourt

09-07-2007, 01:24 PM

B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve b @ Sep 7 2007, 11:39 AM) 122726<div class='quotemain'>

I agree (in the case of the MR2) that using the same process and moving the car down to B will just produce a heavy back of the pack B car. But it would be a good first step. It is my understanding that the weight of the MR2 was reduced from 2370 to 2270.

Did the process change that caused that? Or was that a non-existent competition adjustment? Whatever it was, it didn't work because the cars are still back markers. The fastest ones are still 3 seconds off the pace at SP.

But I say move the car to B, make it heavier if you have to, run the 6" rims and let the chips fall where they may. Then maybe the car can get a 100 pound adjustment in B (later) like it did in A and then maybe you start to see competitive MR2s [/b][/quote]

Well I can tell you that won't happen. If the MR2 is moved to ITB - at ITB process weight - and it is still a backmarker, then it's a backmarker. The weight reduction wasn't done to try and garner some more competition potential. Just like the cars that gained weight didn't gain it to try and reign them in. It happened by running cars that hadn't been through the classification process - and resetting their weight if it was 'off' by 100 or more lbs - up or down.

Each car is what it is. R, S, A, B or C. In theory, the MR2 would be just as competitive in B as it is in A - but as some have pointed out, it could at least nail minimum weight.

****************

And on the 5.12...most RX-7's are running the 4.88 or the 5.12. 12A's and 13B's. It's the ONLY way to make them go. You have a 4.10, you are a sitting duck. I wouldn't race our BEST ITS RX-7 in ITA with a 4.10.

tnord

09-07-2007, 01:33 PM

steve b

09-07-2007, 01:41 PM

the prep level that the one dude went through to get his rx7 to weight is how you HAVE to class the cars. i have to admit giving a little chuckle when people say their car is at 100% prep, because it's usually VERY easy to see that it's not.
[/b]

But are we to assume that all of the cars running away from them are 100% prepared?

I'm going to back down and finish getting my license and learn a few things before I beat this horse any more. I only added my .02 because I've been told that I purchased one of the best prepared MR2s (by several sources) and therefore felt obligated to related my experiences and feelings on the topic.

Believe me, if there is one car on the track running the same lap times as me(regardless of position), I'll be able to have fun out there.

lateapex911

09-07-2007, 01:56 PM

I did read his post, but I am interested in hearing what people are actually using in their ITA cars and the "80mph top speed" sounds more like a an estimate than product of mathmatical equation or testing with the 5.125

My math skills are on par with a child (if not worse), so I won't try working it out myself :lol: [/b]

Reread the words..

when taken to extremes, top speed could become very limited if the gearing gets too high in an attempt to keep up with the "Jones" acceleration.....sure, it might match you to 40 MPH, but then it might run out of revs in 5th at 80mph.[/b]

Extremes, like above 5.12.... in other words, you can't magically "fix" a lack of torque, without incurring penalties. Yes, you can make the car acclerate faster, but you will run out of top end. So, they go by at the end of the straight when the motor is spinning 8400 and breathing thru a straw.

Of course 80 MPH isn't an estimate, never said it was...just an illustration of a concept, taken to extremes to help make the point more obvious....

Dickita (cha cha cha...had to) runs a 5:12, I run a 4.88. He tends to run at NHIS and Lime Rock, with occasional forays to Watkins glen and Mid Ohio, whereas I tentd to love the longer tracks like the Glen and Mid O, and Atlanta and (this year) VIR...so I use the 4.88 for a better top end, and less shifting.

It's all a compromise. But lack of tq is lack of tq. And tq wins races.

tnord

09-07-2007, 02:00 PM

But are we to assume that all of the cars running away from them are 100% prepared?

I'm going to back down and finish getting my license and learn a few things before I beat this horse any more. I only added my .02 because I've been told that I purchased one of the best prepared MR2s (by several sources) and therefore felt obligated to related my experiences and feelings on the topic.

Believe me, if there is one car on the track running the same lap times as me(regardless of position), I'll be able to have fun out there.
[/b]

no. you are to assume that both their car and their driver are better prepared.

spnkzss

09-07-2007, 02:30 PM

Steve just to clarify, none of the MARRS MR2's are 10/10th builds. And one is having no issue raising hell in the top 10 along with some other non 10/10th built cars fighting for position. So until a 10/10th build is made I cannot pass judgement comparing to the caliber of cars running the pointy end of the MARRS ITA field.

[/b]

But that kind of statement can be taken the wrong way also. In MARRS ITA, there is a pretty good gap between top 5 and 5-10. If the MR2 was able to run top 5 in MARRS ITA then there is nothing more to talk about. If I remember correctly that MR2 is running low 31s which is pretty far off of the mid 28s.

Not trying to add to the debate, just don't want statements like that to be too generalized.

gran racing

09-07-2007, 02:33 PM

If the MR2 is moved to ITB - at ITB process weight - and it is still a backmarker, then it's a backmarker.[/b]

That would be completely fair, and expected.

the prep level that the one dude went through to get his rx7 to weight is how you HAVE to class the cars.[/b]

If it could fit into a class where the weight was easier to attain, why does it "HAVE" to be at the more challenging (money, safety, significant hours) weight?

I've been told that I purchased one of the best prepared MR2s (by several sources).[/b]

And you have. If it happened to be a different car (Miata, 240SX, Integra, CRX) and prepared to the same extent, it would be one hell of a car for the class. Then again, it wouldn't have been sold to you as cheaply.

JamesB

09-07-2007, 02:37 PM

Absolutely, he is running in the 31's with a well prepared chasis and a junkyard motor with a heck of a well tuned header/exhaust. i have no idea what the potential could be if he had a balenced, .040 motor with a .5 compression bump and port matching with a well tuned fuel map. Could he make 3 seconds off just that, I dont think so. Can he work on himself as the driver and give a 10/10ths effort and make it up there? I think so. I dont run by lap times because dick has a well pepared car but hes in the 40's, Meanwhile AJ is in the mid 30's and doug is in the low 30's. I look at how is car is down the straight, and hes not really loosing steam to the other cars out there where it matters.

tnord

09-07-2007, 02:43 PM

That would be completely fair, and expected.
[/b]
maybe for the first year. but i bet 3 years later and it'd be the same old sob story.

If it could fit into a class where the weight was easier to attain, why does it "HAVE" to be at the more challenging (money, safety, significant hours) weight?
[/b]

well, for one you have to look at max performance potential, not *something less.* max performance is reached by removing every bit of weight you can and relocating it where ever you want.

it has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with max potential.

gran racing

09-07-2007, 03:40 PM

max performance is reached by removing every bit of weight you can and relocating it where ever you want. [/b]

Exactly. In many cases people can't get to the point of the relocation (again, for whatever reason) and just struggle with getting it down to spec weight to begin with. Why make things more difficult for people to achieve weight if there's an option to make it easier?

Andy Bettencourt

09-07-2007, 03:47 PM

Exactly. In many cases people can't get to the point of the relocation (again, for whatever reason) and just struggle with getting it down to spec weight to begin with. Why make things more difficult for people to achieve weight if there's an option to make it easier?

[/b]

While I agree with you in principle Dave, how do you define 'difficult'? In hours? In dollars? How many hours? How much money?

We could all be classed 'one class down' and not even have had to remove our stock interiors. I think we all understand what you are saying but try and define it for us so that you can explain to one guy his car is classed fine where it is and tell another he was right, even though it's possible, it costs too much and/or takes too much time.

jamsilvia

09-07-2007, 03:47 PM

Reread the words..
Extremes, like above 5.12.... in other words, you can't magically "fix" a lack of torque, without incurring penalties. Yes, you can make the car acclerate faster, but you will run out of top end. So, they go by at the end of the straight when the motor is spinning 8400 and breathing thru a straw.
[/b]

Sorry - didn't mean to pick on any one car here, but for an example.

When I originally asked, I was actually comparing the 2nd gen RX7 and the ITS 240SX. Graphing out the torque from the 5.12 vs the 240 with a 4.3, the tq at the wheels is similar. Both have a 0.76 top gear ratio.
240 @ 7000 RPM in 5th, 4.363 = 149mph
rx7 @ 8200 RPM in 5th, 5.12 = 149mph

(both with 225x15x50 tires, calculated from http://www.catherineandken.co.uk/sti/tyres.html

It's all a compromise. But lack of tq is lack of tq. And tq wins races.
[/b]

I think I could argue that HP wins races...if only start/finish was closer to the exit of a turn instead of in the middle of a straight!! (typically anyway!)

In your 1st gen's defense, I'd say that the torque differences with the ITA RX7 vs the ITA 240SX are far greater than what I had in mind when I wrote originally. Heck, I think the ITA 240's put out more torque than the ITS 240's at some points in the powerband.

joe

gran racing

09-07-2007, 04:55 PM

Andy, this is essentially what I would use as a general guideline. (From post 52)

A point when one can build a solid cage and doesn't need to skimp on safety; when it is not necessary to push the envelope to get down to minimum weight; and when a person does not need to put the car on a rotisserie. One should be able to go into a home garage with farily basic tools and be able to accomplish this. Pretty basic stuff like taking the carpeting out, rear seat, passenger seat, take a chisel and remove the sound deadening on the interior surface, take the A/C out, remove the sunroof and plug that.[/b]

I agree that there will always be people spending significant sums of money on motors, suspensions, tuning, weight placement, yadda, yadda, yadda. Within the IT principal, I just don't feel that attain weight should be of an overly challenging (see above) process.

This is only a small part of my reasoning, but as someone relatively new to IT racing, it would have been frustrating to know that in order for me even just to get to my spec weight it would consume a significant amount money and time. In this scenario, it just makes getting into IT a bit harder and more expensive. I know, I know. Choose a different car; but how many people want to race the car they have sitting in the driveway, or the car they just think is cool.

Hey, I'm done with the weight thing as I'm all to throughly enjoying having my passenger seat in, among other balast to make weight. I am so thankful I'm on this end of the spectrum. :happy204:

Andy Bettencourt

09-07-2007, 05:23 PM

I know, I know. Choose a different car; but how many people want to race the car they have sitting in the driveway, or the car they just think is cool.
[/b]

And this my friend, is NOT the way to the podium as a general rule for the average racer. In every form of racing, there will always be 'a car' for the class.

tnord

09-07-2007, 05:28 PM

the guy that cares so much about racing a specific car is not the guy who cares so much about winning. same theory applies to the ease of achieving weight thing.

the guy that refuses to spend the time and money on getting to weight is the same guy that refuses to spend $7k on a good motor, so even if he could get to weight easily, he still wouldn't be competitive.

924Guy

09-08-2007, 08:10 AM

Amen. And that guy (formerly me) needs to be content with just getting to the top half of the field, in sight of the podium.

The only reason I'm no longer that guy is thankfully the ITAC saw fit to correct my classification... though only after I'd been racing the car for many (4-5?) years. Till that point, I was happy, but getting discouraged. I still wanted to race my car, not change. I started a different racing series with the "other guys" (NASA) where I could be competitive as-is.

But my car still had a good 3- seconds left unused in it!! Not just build; actually more driver than anything. I was always pretty slow.

gran racing

09-08-2007, 08:49 AM

Don't forget that my car was in ITA not so long ago. It wasn't until it was moved to ITB when I started dumping money into the car.

lateapex911

09-08-2007, 12:48 PM

Don't forget that my car was in ITA not so long ago. It wasn't until i I went off big in West Bend that I REALLY started dumping money into the car. [/b]

fixed that for ya....;)

gran racing

09-08-2007, 01:14 PM

I had a well prepped motor before that. The other items were actually in big part due to us deciding to have a kid next year and my realizing that I better build the car the way I want it now. LOL

Bill Miller

09-09-2007, 01:07 PM

Read the whole 5 pages, lots of good discussion.

The more I think about this, the more I like just setting a process weight, and class, for a car based on what is a reasonably expected min. weight. I don't think you can use a percentage of curb weight (but that might not be a bad place to start), because each car will be different. Some will come stock w/ lots of heavy stuff that can get tossed (pwr w/l, sunroofs, etc.). Once that weight/class is determined, the process weight for the next class down should be determined, and the car given the option of running in Class X a xxxx # or Class Y at yyyy #. I think if you do it for everybody, then no one can gripe that they didn't get the same opportunity as everyone else.

I had considered Greg's (and others') option of setting a cutoff percentage of weight change from one class to the other, but that may make sense. Just haven't thought about it enough to form an opinion.

If a car is in the fat part of the curve - can comfortably make process weight - then it shouldn't be a candidate. If it's an outlier, it might make sense.[/b]

Kirk,

I'm really surprised at seeing a comment like this from you. "Comfortably make process weight" :blink:

Knestis

09-09-2007, 03:46 PM

Having done a 10/10ths chassis build-up, I really do understand the law of diminishing returns on the IT lightening gig. Do I think that it should be possible for someone to take a car that can make its specified process weight, whittle out the last 20 pounds, and put them back in the form of additional rollcage stiffening or something else that puts weight in a more optimal place? Yes. Do I think it should be necessary to do so - that the process (or the spec'd weights of cars within the process) should be tweaked such that it is necessary to do so? No, I don't necessarily think this.

Remember that I'm already on record as saying that I'm more than comfortable with the reality that the normal variance in laptimes imposed by the average club driver's skill level are WAY greater than the potential change due to +/-50# of weight. Probably even 100#. We don't need a micrometer to build a doghouse, so it's silly to argue about 1/000ths of inches when quarters or eighths will do just fine.

The rules have to accommodate that someone WILL go crazy but I agree that they shouldn't HAVE to go crazy, but I'm talking within my 50 pounds personal threshold of pain. Don't strip the crap out of the interior? No love from me. That's a right of passage and if you aren't willing to go at least that far, don't whine.

K

Bill Miller

09-09-2007, 05:30 PM

Thanks for the explanation, I was worried for a sec. :)

Jake

09-09-2007, 09:25 PM

I like the sound of the “let the process let the car fall where it may” stuff – it “sounds” like it takes out the subjectivity.

But speaking of subjectivity – I’m trying to get a handle on the “subjective” adders and subtracters. If the MR2 process weight (sounds like something that came out of a computer) is 2550 – where is the subtracter that it only is a 1.6L motor which makes it harder make torque or hp than a 2.0L that much of the class has? And who verifies that it really needs a 100lb adder to offset its weight distribution. Is this a sound engineering number? Do 50/50 distribution BMW and Miata’s have the same weight adder?

As it has been said, I firmly believe that the RX7/MR2 moves to B will be lateral moves. Still backmarkers, but at least they can make weight. But I’m not sold that some cars are the cars to have and some will never be competitive. There are REASONS for this – real engineering ones. (Lack of TQ for RX7’s, lack of potential for MR2’s, etc.) And if those don’t warrant a variable in the process function, I’m bothered by the fact that the MR2’s weight distribution gives it another 100lbs over it’s FWD sister car the Corolla. And worse – nearly 100lbs over the GEO Prizm that has a version of the same motor that produces 130hp stock. (and before anyone asks – those parts cannot be used legally) Talk amongst yourselves...

Andy Bettencourt

09-09-2007, 09:30 PM

I like the sound of the "let the process let the car fall where it may" stuff – it "sounds" like it takes out the subjectivity.

But speaking of subjectivity – I'm trying to get a handle on the "subjective" adders and subtracters. If the MR2 process weight (sounds like something that came out of a computer) is 2550 – where is the subtracter that it only is a 1.6L motor which makes it harder make torque or hp than a 2.0L that much of the class has? And who verifies that it really needs a 100lb adder to offset its weight distribution. Is this a sound engineering number? Do 50/50 distribution BMW and Miata's have the same weight adder?

As it has been said, I firmly believe that the RX7/MR2 moves to B will be lateral moves. Still backmarkers, but at least they can make weight. But I'm not sold that some cars are the cars to have and some will never be competitive. There are REASONS for this – real engineering ones. (Lack of TQ for RX7's, lack of potential for MR2's, etc.) And if those don't warrant a variable in the process function, I'm bothered by the fact that the MR2's weight distribution gives it another 100lbs over it's FWD sister car the Corolla. And worse – nearly 100lbs over the GEO Prizm that has a version of the same motor that produces 130hp stock. (and before anyone asks – those parts cannot be used legally) Talk amongst yourselves...
[/b]

Jake,

Most of your questions hav been answer a hundred times on this site. We just can't keep typing it over and over. People will hear and read what they want. Maybe a search can get you up to speed.

Knestis

09-09-2007, 09:42 PM

... There are REASONS for this – real engineering ones. (Lack of TQ for RX7’s, lack of potential [emphasis Kirk's] for MR2’s, etc.) And if those don’t warrant a variable in the process function, I’m bothered by the fact that the MR2’s weight distribution gives it another 100lbs over it’s FWD sister car the Corolla. And worse – nearly 100lbs over the GEO Prizm that has a version of the same motor that produces 130hp stock. (and before anyone asks – those parts cannot be used legally) Talk amongst yourselves...
[/b]
Dumb question - has the Prizm been rescaled with the process? Maybe IT is the outlier.

Interesting point about the RWD/FWD difference. Just like the division was made larger for high-HP FWD cars in S, maybe it's appropriate to re-examine the assumptions about the difference for lower-powered cars. The split might not be so large for cars down around 110-120 hp, that just can't overuse the front tires so much.

Now, on the "lack of potential" point: If we follow the good advice elsewhere here about separating the tweener issue of a car not being able to make its minimum weight and DO put the MR2 in ITB, is the problem solved? Does it get into the predicted performance envelope for the class? (Note that this is an entirely separate issue from, "Do real examples on the track get competitive?" I'm not going there.) If it DOES, then the ITAC's work is done and it's time for racers to do their thing.

However, I'm bothered by the suggestion that it's about "lack of potential" - that the car is just not up to the task of actually achieving the predicted performance envelope. ASSUMING that we get the "can't meet minimum weight" issue resolved by the move, what is the basis for suggestions of lack of potential? If the move to B is just one step in a series of requests for relief because nobody seems able to get up front with one, I'm going to lose enthusiasm for my support for the move, pronto.

K

Jake

09-09-2007, 10:03 PM

Sorry for my poorly written post. Wife yelling at me to get off the PC, kid can't get to sleep, etc. I'll try again...

The lack of potential I was referring to was the lack of the 4AGE to get predicted power gains. There are more than one 100% motor builds (less the new ECU rule) that aren't getting 110hp to wheels. THIS is why the car isn't as competitive as it looks on paper. THIS is why it doesn't have the same potential.

Why doesn't it respond to the same tweeks a 2.0L VW or Honda Motor does? We can easily get into a engineering discussion on that. First off it is a 1.6L (20% smaller) and produces the same stock hp as some ITB Hondas/VWs by reving up very high and a fairly optimal head/header design. There are engine builders that have found match porting actually hurt hp, and nobody has designed a header that had gains of more than a 2-3hp. This can be argued to death as I am not a Toyota engine development engineer.

However, as Kirk points out - the RWD "adder" has some engineering shortcomings. While an ITS FWD is certainly going to have problems getting the power down, at ITB power levels it is a totally different story. FWIW, I run an OPEN diff and still can't spin a wheel on the track.

Andy Bettencourt

09-09-2007, 10:34 PM

Sorry for my poorly written post. Wife yelling at me to get off the PC, kid can't get to sleep, etc. I'll try again...[/b]

I hate when life gets in the way of bench racing!

The lack of potential I was referring to was the lack of the 4AGE to get predicted power gains. There are more than one 100% motor builds (less the new ECU rule) that aren't getting 110hp to wheels. THIS is why the car isn't as competitive as it looks on paper. THIS is why it doesn't have the same potential.[/b]

Note: Open ECU's are not new...can a MoTec fit in the stock box?

Why doesn't it respond to the same tweeks a 2.0L VW or Honda Motor does? We can easily get into a engineering discussion on that. First off it is a 1.6L (20% smaller) and produces the same stock hp as some ITB Hondas/VWs by reving up very high and a fairly optimal head/header design. [/b]

CRX 108 stock hp - 1.6L. Miata 116 stock hp - 1.6L.

There are engine builders that have found match porting actually hurt hp, and nobody has designed a header that had gains of more than a 2-3hp. This can be argued to death as I am not a Toyota engine development engineer. [/b]

Sounds EXACTLY like the 1.6l Miata (except for the port matching piece - unknown on that - Miata's have very small intake and exhaust ports) in that all the bolt ons do little to enhance power. The real power is found in the A/F tuning. Can someone post a dyno sheet with A/F ratios for one of these Toyotas?

However, as Kirk points out - the RWD "adder" has some engineering shortcomings. While an ITS FWD is certainly going to have problems getting the power down, at ITB power levels it is a totally different story. FWIW, I run an OPEN diff and still can't spin a wheel on the track.
[/b]

There is no RWD adder. Only a FWD subtractor. Mid-engine layout in ITB is VERY unique and could be considered an advantage - especially under braking.

Jake

09-10-2007, 02:47 PM

I hate when life gets in the way of bench racing!
Note: Open ECU's are not new...can a MoTec fit in the stock box?
CRX 108 stock hp - 1.6L. Miata 116 stock hp - 1.6L.

Sounds EXACTLY like the 1.6l Miata (except for the port matching piece - unknown on that - Miata's have very small intake and exhaust ports) in that all the bolt ons do little to enhance power. The real power is found in the A/F tuning. Can someone post a dyno sheet with A/F ratios for one of these Toyotas?

There is no RWD adder. Only a FWD subtractor. Mid-engine layout in ITB is VERY unique and could be considered an advantage - especially under braking.
[/b]

MoTec won't fit.

Doesn't sound like the Miata. SM Miata engines put out more HP than IT MR2's. The TVIS system also hurts the engine's potenial. There have been some MR2's built that removed this system that puts a restriction on the intake - but that is against IT rules.

RWD adder/FWD subtracter = semantics. Weight dist isn't that diff from BMW/Miata. I agree it is an advantage, but I'm not convinced it is worth 100lbs. Maybe if I was allowed to use a Miata or CRX engine...

Jake

JoshS

09-10-2007, 02:54 PM

Weight dist isn't that diff from BMW/Miata.[/b]
The weight distribution of a BMW might start at or near 50/50, but all of the weight one removes under the IT rules comes off the back. I can't remember the actual numbers off the top of my head, but I can tell you that my car isn't 50/50 anymore, and it's a 2-seater. I assume that 4-seater BMWs get even more askew.

On the other hand, I'd expect a mid-engined car to move more towards rear bias as legal lightening occurs.

Bill Miller

09-10-2007, 06:23 PM

MoTec won't fit.

The TVIS system also hurts the engine's potenial. There have been some MR2's built that removed this system that puts a restriction on the intake - but that is against IT rules.

Jake
[/b]

Jake,

I've heard some argue that the TVIS system is part of the pollustion control system, and can be legally removed under the rules that govern that system. Don't know if it's ever been put to the protest test, but I can certainly see valid points in the arguement.

tnord

09-10-2007, 09:48 PM

SM Miata engines put out more HP than IT MR2's.
[/b]

i want to see your build sheet before you can use this as a data point. and not just the engine. the computer/air metering device, the transmission, the wheel bearings, the fluids, the receipts for $34/gallon fuel, the radiator you use, everything.

most people who say they have 100% engine builds, really don't.

Jake

09-10-2007, 10:12 PM

Jake,

I've heard some argue that the TVIS system is part of the pollustion control system, and can be legally removed under the rules that govern that system. Don't know if it's ever been put to the protest test, but I can certainly see valid points in the arguement.
[/b]

I don't see that argument as a valid one. The TVIS system is designed to boost torque at low RPM's - 2-3K rpm.

I don't think anyone has protested an MR2 for a very long time since none have gotten close to placing for a long time.

Hmm... maybe I should just cheat enough so I can keep up with the top ten. :)

I can drop in a JDM small port 4AGE nobody would ever know. (come to think of it, I've seen some MR2's running these)

Z3_GoCar

09-12-2007, 02:24 AM

MoTec won't fit.

Doesn't sound like the Miata. SM Miata engines put out more HP than IT MR2's. The TVIS system also hurts the engine's potenial. There have been some MR2's built that removed this system that puts a restriction on the intake - but that is against IT rules.

RWD adder/FWD subtracter = semantics. Weight dist isn't that diff from BMW/Miata. I agree it is an advantage, but I'm not convinced it is worth 100lbs. Maybe if I was allowed to use a Miata or CRX engine...

Jake
[/b]

That's two motors with dual length intake's that don't make the predicted hp gain. Is there a third? Maybe a trend can be found for hp potential, or lack there of. After our last discussion on this topic I tried to find a correlation based on swept volume and stock hp, but wasn't able to account for the differences in intake, heads, and cams and there effects on total potential of making hp in race trim. It seemed to work for the Miata, NX-2000, CRX, and even the 240sx. The fact is that volumetic filling is always limited by something. If all the parts are already matched by the engineers at the factory then changing the exhaust manifold for less backpressure will result in minimal gains, as the items you can't touch are still limiting any potential. However; if the motor is mostly prettey good, except the exhaust manifold is a cheap sand cast-iron mass produced unit with huge casting flanges still in it, there'll be a huge gain in swapping it out.

Rob, did Matt say anything about your intake manifold?