June Fastrack Out

[JeffYoung]

1. MR2 to B at 2550(?) lbs. Good move I think.

2. No to IT going National (hooray!), yes to finding ways for IT cars to migrate to limited prep production (yeah right! too funny).

3. RX at 2980. The deep dark secret revealed.....

4. V8s still under consideration for ITR

5. 95 M3 under consideration for ITR

[Andy Bettencourt]

5. 95 M3 under consideration for ITR

Not sure how it got worded as such. This will not be recommended...unless we get a groundswell of people who want to build a 3500lbs E36. If it's every classed, I can see it as one of the lightest cars in a class above ITR.

[Ron Earp]

1. MR2 to B at 2550(?) lbs. Good move I think.

2. No to IT going National (hooray!), yes to finding ways for IT cars to migrate to limited prep production (yeah right! too funny).

3. RX at 2980. The deep dark secret revealed.....

4. V8s still under consideration for ITR

5. 95 M3 under consideration for ITR

(5) is being considered but (4) isn't resolved? Give me a break.

[JoshS]

(5) is being considered but (4) isn't resolved? Give me a break.
In committee, we rejected 5 (again). Not sure why it's published this way.

[JeffYoung]

That's the OBDI model that's supposedly more responsive to ECU gains too right?

3500 lbs would be how much over curb? 300lbs? MAYBE someone would build that, but doubtful.

[JoshS]

That's the OBDI model that's supposedly more responsive to ECU gains too right?

3500 lbs would be how much over curb? 300lbs? MAYBE someone would build that, but doubtful.Look at it this way -- it's over 700lbs more than the E36 325, which has an identical chassis but less power and smaller brakes. It makes no sense for them to both be in the same class.

Bottom line, that car belongs in a new, faster class, not stuffed into ITR.

[JeffYoung]

I tend to agree.

Flip side though....it's really not that different than a 330i right? 225 hp in the 330i, 235 in the 95 M3?

More interested in the RX8 and how we got there after last week's little dilly dally. Time to open the black box!

[Andy Bettencourt]

I tend to agree.

Flip side though....it's really not that different than a 330i right? 225 hp in the 330i, 235 in the 95 M3?


240hp for all E36 M3's.

[dj10]

240hp for all E36 M3's.
LOL, if the E36 M3 gets classified in ITR, I'm selling my car and buying one. I've driven these cars, they will be unbeatable with even a decent driver.:cool:

[seckerich]

OK guys. Lets see the math on the RX8. :017: Sources for the data used as well.

[mlytle]

rx8=s2000. math is the same +/-

[JeffYoung]

Except for................______________............... [fill in key blank please]


rx8=s2000. math is the same +/-

[mlytle]

LOL, if the E36 M3 gets classified in ITR, I'm selling my car and buying one. I've driven these cars, they will be unbeatable with even a decent driver.:cool:
lol! i can just see you in an e36 with 600lbs of lead in the passenger seat....

[dj10]

OK guys. Lets see the math on the RX8. :017: Sources for the data used as well.

Steve, they can always adjust the weight.:)
What happened at Luguna!!!!!!!?????????? You had the car and the lead......WTF Happened?????????:shrug:

[mlytle]

Except for................______________............... [fill in key blank please]

"nothing".....:)

what was the last week's dilly dally you were refering to Jeff?

[dj10]

lol! i can just see you in an e36 with 600lbs of lead in the passenger seat....

Oh, is it stock weight + 600#? If so maybe I'll take back my statement.:)

[JeffYoung]

240 stock hp for the S2000 right?

What's the stock hp for an RX8?

And that is the evil impossible to answer question of the day. I understand you can take the position that it is what the factory says. That's the easy way out, and may even be the right thing to do. But let's at least be honest about the situation with that factory hp rating.


"nothing".....:)

what was the last week's dilly dally you were refering to Jeff?

Edit, sorry missed that. I got pelted with rotten fruit for asking the ITAC to release the numbers behind the RX8 LAST week instead of ...... this week.

In any event, we're still waiting for:

1. Stock hp used by the ITAC and why.

2. IT "improvement factor" and why.

Other cars, I agree, this stuff is easy. RX8....not so much. Potential for big problems either way...

[lateapex911]

Factory rating is 238. Let's see the math you guys come up with. I'll add that there was an "adder', actually a "subtracter"...

On the factory HP issue, remember the basic philosophies of IT. Which we try to hold to whenever possible, keeping in mind that the masses think those philosophies are the strength of IT.

[JeffYoung]

I am not in fundamental disagreement with that. I think you in almost all cases have to stick with factory numbers.

This one though.....an unusual case...you saw my math in the proposal...what did I ask for? 2800? Most everything I read had factory whp in the 160 to 170 range, with some folks claiming an easy ECU fix could get it up to 180 to 190. If you are looking at 160 to 170 whp, then the factory rating is about 35 to 40 hp too low.

Then you've got Steve's data showing a Grand Am build at 205 whp.

I dunno. This is a tough one. I just want to see how you guys came up with 2980.


Factory rating is 238. Let's see the math you guys come up with. I'll add that there was an "adder', actually a "subtracter"...

On the factory HP issue, remember the basic philosophies of IT. Which we try to hold to whenever possible, keeping in mind that the masses think those philosophies are the strength of IT.

[erlrich]

Ok, just to add the balance...

WHAT!?!?!?!? Are you guys friggin nuts???? That's way too light for that car - it's going to be a huge overdog in ITR at that weight!!!!! I'm going to run out and get one tomorrow.

Better?

[JeffYoung]

I dub thee....Earl of Balance......

[Andy Bettencourt]

I dub thee....Earl of Balance......

EoB.

[seckerich]

Steve, they can always adjust the weight.:)
What happened at Luguna!!!!!!!?????????? You had the car and the lead......WTF Happened?????????:shrug:
Same thing I thought when they came around to the line. Front tires they give us are good for at best 25 laps. Those had a lot more and they just gave up under the brakes. I was impressed I even had a car to load after I saw how close Sylvain came to the wall!! I will take a podium after the rotton luck of the past 2 races. 69 car was also very fast but broke a lower ball joint with no warning. On to Limerock.

I promised to behave on here about the RX8 so I will wait to see the numbers used. As I said in the past. EVERY rotary in IT was classed using known numbers at full prep--not the process because it fails on a rotary engine. The ITS rx7 was used as the "target" in ITS with its known numbers, not any percentage gain from stock. Same with the 12A, RX8 is a maxed version of a 13B from the factory and got classed with BS stock numbers, torque of a yugo, and a 15% adder. Only an idiot spends that kind of money to hope it gets fixed. Get used to seeing just BMW's Dan. I need to post the dyno plots form a E36 and an RX8 here and see how anyone can justify the weight difference.

Stepping away from the keyboard now.

[JoshS]

As an ITAC-member, I believe in using the stock horsepower. Especially as its already been through a major correction by the manufacturer, I find it believable -- Mazda would be in a world of hurt if it wasn't the actual output of that engine on an engine dyno, given what happened when the car was released.

But a chassis dyno is a different beast.

As a member (not as an ITAC member), I'm curious ... I would like to see a different dyno test than any that I've ever seen.

I'd like to see a dyno test that shows both raw (not SAE-corrected) *and* corrected numbers for a truly bone-stock RX8 and a bone-stock pick-your-piston-engine car on the same dyno on the same day. I have been led to believe by someone who knows these cars well that the correction factors tend to skew the results on a Renesis.

I also believe there is an abnormal amount of driveline loss on this car, but I have no idea why. Maybe Steve can explain it.

But in any case, the car got a 15% multiplier (the lowest used anywhere) and a break for being abnormally torqueless -- just like the S2000.

Now back with my ITAC hat on: as I mentioned in the other thread, although it doesn't specifically play into the result, we got just as many letters demanding weights above this number as we got demanding weights below this number. That we got letters demanding specific weights is odd, normally we just get requests to class ... shows a certain amount of passion for the results. Anyway, in the end, we tried to apply the process the best way we could. I'm sorry not everyone can be happy.

[JeffYoung]

Uh...Mazda was/is in a world of hurt over RX8 power figures. Still.

AGreed on your correction factor, I've heard that too although it doesn't seem to be a problem for the 12A or 13B.

I heard about the numbers at the higher weight. Like 3300. I hope those were immediately discounted as completely ridiculous and not considered in what was a fair weight for the car.

In my view, with very limited technical knowledge, I would say 2980 is on the very extreme upward end of what is fair. It's probably high enough to scare off the top end builders, but probably not so high that someone won't try to privateer one to see how it does.

Maybe that is what you guys wanted, and maybe that is the correct result.


As an ITAC-member, I believe in using the stock horsepower. Especially as its already been through a major correction by the manufacturer, I find it believable -- Mazda would be in a world of hurt if it wasn't the actual output of that engine on an engine dyno, given what happened when the car was released.

But a chassis dyno is a different beast.

As a member (not as an ITAC member), I'm curious ... I would like to see a different dyno test than any that I've ever seen.

I'd like to see a dyno test that shows both raw (not SAE-corrected) *and* corrected numbers for a truly bone-stock RX8 and a bone-stock pick-your-piston-engine car on the same dyno on the same day. I have been led to believe by someone who knows these cars well that the correction factors tend to skew the results on a Renesis.

I also believe there is an abnormal amount of driveline loss on this car, but I have no idea why. Maybe Steve can explain it.

But in any case, the car got a 15% multiplier (the lowest used anywhere) and a break for being abnormally torqueless -- just like the S2000.

Now back with my ITAC hat on: as I mentioned in the other thread, although it doesn't specifically play into the result, we got just as many letters demanding weights above this number as we got demanding weights below this number. That we got letters demanding specific weights is odd, normally we just get requests to class ... shows a certain amount of passion for the results. Anyway, in the end, we tried to apply the process the best way we could. I'm sorry not everyone can be happy.

[DavidM]

Factory rating is 238. Let's see the math you guys come up with. I'll add that there was an "adder', actually a "subtracter"...

On the factory HP issue, remember the basic philosophies of IT. Which we try to hold to whenever possible, keeping in mind that the masses think those philosophies are the strength of IT.

WTF? Steve asks a direct question to see the numbers for how the car was weighted along with the sources used for data and this is the response? Are we playing Guess that Process? Sure seems like it. I hope a real answer is forthcoming.

David

[lateapex911]

WTF? Steve asks a direct question to see the numbers for how the car was weighted along with the sources used for data and this is the response.......

David

Well, I was hoping to see someone try, and I thought that might help illustrate the actual end result...

But Josh has let you in on the math above, so yes, you got the answer.

[JeffYoung]

So to extrapolate....

1. The stock hp rating (238) was used.

2. 15% multiplier

3. -100 lbs for no torque

So: 238 x 1.15 x 11.25 = 3079 - 100 =

2980?

1 and 2 are suspect numbers. How did you guys deal with them?

[seckerich]

Lets see how close I can get to the mystical process.

Highest number for HP quoted by BMW guy=238 crank x 1.15 (stated it was like S2000) X 11.25 (ITR target power to weight) = 3079 (rounded up to 3080) and - 100# for gutless torque. Am I close?? That makes this a 274 HP crank motor (238 x 1.15 = 273.7) and somehow looses 60 or more HP to the rear wheels. It is not driveline loss guys.

High end rear wheel HP for this car full prep is 205 but lets just assume 215 for discussion.
Torque is at 141 rear wheel but lets use 160 again for discussion,

Now please justify this car at 2980 compared to a E36 BMW at 215 pounds lighter with 215 HP min rear wheel and 200 torque? I would like to see you back up the process. BMW BS'd low and Mazda got caught using high numbers and had to offer to buy back cars. You know the true story for both and still treated this car different. Sad.

Again, Please prove me wrong. Nothing personal guys, just the numbers and what you used and who to back them up. I was very open with the information provided to ask the car be classed. Please show me the same courtesy.

[JoshS]

Lets see how close I can get to the mystical process.

Highest number for HP quoted by BMW guy=238 crank x 1.15 (stated it was like S2000) X 11.25 (ITR target power to weight) = 3079 (rounded up to 3080) and - 100# for gutless torque. Am I close?? That makes this a 274 HP crank motor (238 x 1.15 = 273.7) and somehow looses 60 or more HP to the rear wheels. It is not driveline loss guys.

High end rear wheel HP for this car full prep is 205 but lets just assume 215 for discussion.
Torque is at 141 rear wheel but lets use 160 again for discussion,

Now please justify this car at 2980 compared to a E36 BMW at 215 pounds lighter with 215 HP min rear wheel and 200 torque? I would like to see you back up the process. BMW BS'd low and Mazda got caught using high numbers and had to offer to buy back cars. You know the true story for both and still treated this car different. Sad.

Again, Please prove me wrong. Nothing personal guys, just the numbers and what you used and who to back them up. I was very open with the information provided to ask the car be classed. Please show me the same courtesy.
I already gave you the numbers. The number is 238. Go ahead and ask Mazda what the real stock engine dyno horsepower is for this car. They'll tell you it's 238. It's 238. It all we can use.

15% is the lowest the process has ever gone for a gain multiplier. That's a gift.

And as for the torque, there is also a precedent for similarly-gutless cars, and that's what we used. It's simple, it's consistent. End of story!

Really, Steve, we can't just say, "We don't believe the manufacturer." That's a HUGE slippery slope. It's Mazda you have to blame, not us. If they've seriously overinflated their power numbers, then it is Mazda that screwed up this classification. It's just not right to blame us.

I'd still like to see what happens when you don't SAE-correct the dyno numbers. But it's only an interesting test if you do the same with another car at the same time on the same day in the same weather conditions.

[JeffYoung]

Run the ITS RX7 using stock factory horsepower numbers.

Run my car using stock factory horsepower numbers.

Run the CRX using stock factory horsepower numbers.

In each of those cases, real world data showed us that we had to fix something that the process couldn't account for.

Let's ask the real question about the RX8 horsepower number.

1. Did you take the Mazda number as is because that is "class philosophy?"

or

2. Did you take the Mazda number as is because you did some research on the information that was given to you?

[seckerich]

Actually Josh it is the multiplier you used at the least. To state that 15% is a gift is a joke. It is much less and you know it. Find any tuner anywhere that claims more than 10%. With 25% less torque than anything else in the class 100# does not cut it.

You guys had no problem with my ITS 160 stock HP getting a huge correction factor. Whats the big problem when it goes the other way? Process only used when you get the numbers you want to get.

You stand by your process on this one. I will toss this out for discussion.

Look at these low torque cars with a power number like other race bodies do.

(HP + Torque) divided by 2

238 + 159 divided by 2 = 198.5

198.5 x 1.25 (standard gain, no "gift") X 11.25 = 2791 rounded to 2800

Compare that to cars with 210 200 and you might get the picture.

Far cry from 2980#

To answer 2 questions.

Josh I will be glad to show you any non SAE corrected data you want on the motors. This is the first a member of the ITAC has asked for. I offered a car and full access to all data--never got a call. And to be very clear Mazda did not class the car, the ITAC did so take some responsibility. I understand what you did and why. You guys had no problem going way high on the correction for other cars but have this lower ceiling of 15% even when data proves otherwise? You have had over 6 months to do your homework on this car and this is the best answer you have is you used stock published numbers? All the time you spent on the E36 with the restrictors and the SIR BS and none of you would take us up on the offer of a dyno session all at our expense. I have the original proposal to support these facts. Really says volumes.

Jeff The stock published numbers were used because it "preserves the process" even when people know it is wrong. But is thrown out when the numbers are known too high.

[seckerich]

Here is the link to Mazda Ad touting 232 HP in 08 after some upgrades. That drops the weight 50# with just that difference.

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsMain&vehicleCode=RX8&bhcp=1

Josh please answer the question about the RX8 to E36 BMW weight. You should be very up to date on their numbers.

[JoshS]

I can't share the details because I promised not to, but we didn't just "preserve the process." I personally spoke to some people at Mazda who know this car very well, and was told very clearly that the 238hp is a real number on an engine dyno.

I know you don't believe it. And I'm sorry I can't give more details, but the reason is because the people in question don't want to be questioned on internet message boards. Imagine yourself in their shoes.

238 is the number. I think arguing the 15% multiplier, or the (lack of) torque adjustment, is totally reasonable. We went with those for consistency with the process. The S2000 is very similar in those regards, and although owners grumble about the weight, people ARE building them.

As far as arguing the veracity of the stock 238hp number, I'm not going to engage that discussion any further.

[its66]

WOW, I didn't see that coming. 2980 lbs.?? Yes, I'm biased, but I don't understand that. ..And the e36 is listed at 2800lbs.???

If we assume the factory HP rating is wrong, must we continue to compound the error, by deriving a weight as a percentage increase over a potentially flawed number? Is it possible that some engines respond very well to IT tuning, and some don't respond much at all? I would think so.

:shrug::shrug:

[tnord]

WOW, I didn't see that coming. 2980 lbs.?? Yes, I'm biased, but I don't understand that. ..And the e36 is listed at 2800lbs.???


isn't the E36 ~65hp shy of the RX8 in stock form?



If we assume the factory HP rating is wrong, must we continue to compound the error, by deriving a weight as a percentage increase over a potentially flawed number? Is it possible that some engines respond very well to IT tuning, and some don't respond much at all? I would think so.


i'm trusting that they have good information that the 238hp is accurate.

as different as the RX8 is from the S2000, they couldn't be anymore the same from my perspective. both of them make pretty big hp from the factory (for the performance target of the class), both double a-arm, both gutless on the bottom and run well up top, both probably won't gain much from IT modifications, and both are classed at a weight that make me not particularly interested in one.

[RSTPerformance]

Anyone notice how the Fuel Cell rule is being relaxed? I am guessing this is in an effort to allow easier integration of your IT car into the Production classes???

IMO this is THE BEST thing that SCCA has aproved since ITR...

Next big moment will be to allow the FIA 8856/1986 driver suites!!! Send your letter of support to [email protected] and get this approved!!!

Thumbs up to the CRB and BOD for making some great improvements!!!

Raymond

[Ron Earp]

I can't share the details because I promised not to, but we didn't just "preserve the process."

I know you don't believe it. And I'm sorry I can't give more details, but the reason is because the people in question don't want to be questioned on internet message boards. Imagine yourself in their shoes.

I'm not going to engage that discussion any further.

With these comments you are certainly giving those that don't agree with the weight plenty of room to be concerned.

Did palms, tea leaves, and chicken entrails come into the discussion too?

I think you'll get less heat saying you picked it with the rotating dart board method.

Ron

[seckerich]

Anyone notice how the Fuel Cell rule is being relaxed? I am guessing this is in an effort to allow easier integration of your IT car into the Production classes???

IMO this is THE BEST thing that SCCA has aproved since ITR...

Next big moment will be to allow the FIA 8856/1986 driver suites!!! Send your letter of support to [email protected] and get this approved!!!

Thumbs up to the CRB and BOD for making some great improvements!!!

Raymond
Look closely Raymond. It is only for cars with the fuel tank inside the axles. Rear mounted still require a cell.

[seckerich]

I can't share the details because I promised not to, but we didn't just "preserve the process." I personally spoke to some people at Mazda who know this car very well, and was told very clearly that the 238hp is a real number on an engine dyno.

I know you don't believe it. And I'm sorry I can't give more details, but the reason is because the people in question don't want to be questioned on internet message boards. Imagine yourself in their shoes.

238 is the number. I think arguing the 15% multiplier, or the (lack of) torque adjustment, is totally reasonable. We went with those for consistency with the process. The S2000 is very similar in those regards, and although owners grumble about the weight, people ARE building them.

As far as arguing the veracity of the stock 238hp number, I'm not going to engage that discussion any further.

Fair enough. Care to tell the rear wheel numbers these experts at Mazda were willing to share with you. You already admitted the RX8 seems to show very big driveline losses. Where do you think all this HP goes? Even given the 238 number as fact in full prep form it will not have anywhere near a 15% rear wheel gain and you know it. 205 -210 is not a 2980 # car. I might have to rethink my earlier statement to Kirk about the HP and classing. It seems more true than ever now. Your failure to answer the BMW question tells me all I need to know.

[RSTPerformance]

Look closely Raymond. It is only for cars with the fuel tank inside the axles. Rear mounted still require a cell.


It also requires you keep the bumper I think... Its at least a step in the right direction... A cell is probably more dangerouse than a stock tank in an Audi/VW or MR2...

I am trying to think... Sorry for my lack of knowledge but what popular cars have the fuel tank outside the axles? I really have no idea where they even are in a miata for example...

Raymond

[JoshS]

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore the 325i question. It all happened before I was on the ITAC but it seems pretty straightforward. 189 hp, 30% multiplier.

FWIW, my personal belief is that we could do a better job of taking torque into account. Unfortunately, changing the approach would probably require another big realignment. My car happens to be one that has slightly more torque than hp.

[JeffYoung]

Josh, the 325i question is this:

1. Assume that the E36 325i makes 210-215 rwhp, or the number that was thrown out as a "good" (but not best) build during the whole ITS/E36 debate.

2. Assume the ITR RX8, fully build, is proven to make the same horsepower.

Would you support a reclassification at 2680, which is the same weight as the E36 minus the 100 lbs for lack of torque?

[JeffYoung]

Josh, if we are using "Deep Throat" sources of information for cars, I have two thoughts about that:

1. One it really concerns me because the classing process should be as open as possible and if information is being used to class a car, we should know who it is coming from and how it was arrived at.

2. On the other hand, I understand that doing that may cut off the ITAC from some valuable information.

As a reasonable compromise, can you tell us (a) generally what types of folks you talked to (no names)...were they racers? engineers? sales guys? and (b) what specific information did they give you about the Renesis, why they believed the 238 number and how they rectify that with the dyno plots that you can pick of the web by simple google searches?


I can't share the details because I promised not to, but we didn't just "preserve the process." I personally spoke to some people at Mazda who know this car very well, and was told very clearly that the 238hp is a real number on an engine dyno.

I know you don't believe it. And I'm sorry I can't give more details, but the reason is because the people in question don't want to be questioned on internet message boards. Imagine yourself in their shoes.

238 is the number. I think arguing the 15% multiplier, or the (lack of) torque adjustment, is totally reasonable. We went with those for consistency with the process. The S2000 is very similar in those regards, and although owners grumble about the weight, people ARE building them.

As far as arguing the veracity of the stock 238hp number, I'm not going to engage that discussion any further.

[pballance]

As a member (not as an ITAC member), I'm curious ... I would like to see a different dyno test than any that I've ever seen.

I'd like to see a dyno test that shows both raw (not SAE-corrected) *and* corrected numbers for a truly bone-stock RX8 and a bone-stock pick-your-piston-engine car on the same dyno on the same day. I have been led to believe by someone who knows these cars well that the correction factors tend to skew the results on a Renesis.


I will offer up a bone stock '04 RX8 for the test and also '04 RX8 with catback exhaust and Konis as the only change for testing. ECU has only been touched by factory software.

[seckerich]

Josh, the 325i question is this:

1. Assume that the E36 325i makes 210-215 rwhp, or the number that was thrown out as a "good" (but not best) build during the whole ITS/E36 debate.

2. Assume the ITR RX8, fully build, is proven to make the same horsepower.

Would you support a reclassification at 2680, which is the same weight as the E36 minus the 100 lbs for lack of torque?

That would be way light for the RX8. It has a 6 speed with about the same upper spread as the E36 and other ITR cars with a good suspension and brakes. I had been led to believe that it was going to be classed at around 2850# which would have been safe to see how well they performed. It has raced in other series at about 150# less than the BMW with very close competition. I only use the BMW because it was the "target" for ITR but the 944 is very similar. The multiplier is the big factor here. Given known data the E36 got 30%. S2000 got 15%. RX8 has been proven to be about 8% in full IT build with Motec M600 and 4 years of tuning. 10% would be safe and can be backed up by just about any reputable tuner in the country. I can bet I have at least a fair amount of knowledge in this area after working for the Mazda factory team for the entire life of the RX8. At 10% it would have brought the car to 2950# with the 100# break for low torque. I would spend the money to build that car and the process is in place to adjust it if it was wrong. We have a snowballs chance of getting it fixed downward.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with you on the weight -- I think I asked for 2850 or 2800 (can't remember) in the proposal. I made the analogy to the E36 and the resulting weight if you used a direct comparison to make a point.




That would be way light for the RX8. It has a 6 speed with about the same upper spread as the E36 and other ITR cars with a good suspension and brakes. I had been led to believe that it was going to be classed at around 2850# which would have been safe to see how well they performed. It has raced in other series at about 150# less than the BMW with very close competition. I only use the BMW because it was the "target" for ITR but the 944 is very similar. The multiplier is the big factor here. Given known data the E36 got 30%. S2000 got 15%. RX8 has been proven to be about 8% in full IT build with Motec M600 and 4 years of tuning. 10% would be safe and can be backed up by just about any reputable tuner in the country. I can bet I have at least a fair amount of knowledge in this area after working for the Mazda factory team for the entire life of the RX8. At 10% it would have brought the car to 2950# with the 100# break for low torque. I would spend the money to build that car and the process is in place to adjust it if it was wrong. We have a snowballs chance of getting it fixed downward.

[shwah]

Look closely Raymond. It is only for cars with the fuel tank inside the axles. Rear mounted still require a cell.
Not for me. If i keep the rear bumper, I can run my stock tank out back. At this point I can literally take my ITB car out in HP and lose badly without making any changes. Whoopty doo. I'll still not be interested in not competing.

[Knestis]

Sorry - late to the party. Long day of meetings etc.

So Josh isn't hanging out here by himself, here's the details on how we documented the specification process.

238*1.15*11.25-100=2979.13

And here's a request: Please consider that it is possible for the ITAC to get multiple "real world" data points for a single make/model under consideration, each of which is submitted by someone who has absolute confidence in his figures, and all of which are different. I am NOT pointing a finger at Steve - he clearly has a ton of experience and I've met nobody who's said he's anything besides a completely straight shooter - but are you all sure that you want us making classification/specification recommendations to the board based on our subjective judgments of the merits and qualifications of the various "experts" submitting data to support particular positions?

How do we resolve to an entire IT class field that we made a weight classification for the 2004 Putzmobile based on the most expert input possible, when that guy happens to be building them for customers?

YES - he is in the best position to know what's what about his car.

NO - we can't "Know" (with a capital K, like the capital T in "Truth") if he's fibbing to us or not, even if he's the most trustworthy guy in the paddock.

BUT - he doesn't have to be fibbing to us for it to create a problem for the entire process, the ITAC, and the Club. Just the simple appearance of impropriety is enough to mess things up far worse in the long term than if we miss the weight of a single classification by 100#.

We got the MR2 listed in B - FINALLY - at its process weight of 2525 pounds. The reason that took MONTHS is that we got sucked into trying to use "real world evidence," motivated by the desire to make the best decision possible. I think that by the time we were deep into it, we had "proof" from people that seemed knowledgeable and trustworthy, that the car COULD make its ITA minimum weight, that it could NOT, that it didn't make "predicted IT gains" with a full build, and that it did. We clearly can't believe everyone so what do we do?

It's terribly dangerous to step on the slippery slope of putting cars on dynos. Jeff asks about a 325-to-RX8 comparison using "proven" horsepower but we don't have any protocol in place that we can use to "prove" anything in any way that is beyond reproach. While that process might well have gotten this one closer to it's "correct" weight, is it a process that we can use for all future classifications? And can apply retroactively to all currently listed cars, so they are getting the same "fair" treatment?

Do you really want the ITAC to solicit input from any and all interested parties (that tend to break out into two camps - the drivers who want to race the car in question and those against whom they'll be racing) and give the nod to the ones who make the most compelling presentation?

At the end of the day, clarity, repeatability, and transparency were the priority. We have some areas where we can tweak (e.g., the 1.15 multiplier, 100# torque subtractor) and in this case we used those tools as we believed best. I'd hope that you'd at least grant your ITAC members that they're trying to maintain the integrity of the process, and respect the fact that they put that ahead of trying get the weight of this particular car adjusted to closer than the 3-4% difference in weight that we're talking about here.

Finally, I'll echo the concern that we don't yet have an completely satisfactory way to account for torque. Having some experience with it, I believe that this is the Golf's "secret weapon." It's other cars' Achilles heel. In neither case do we adequately consider that as a variable (I don't think). But until/unless we adopt a revised process, I'm still very confident that sticking to the one we have is best for us all over the longer term.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

I can't share the details because I promised not to, but we didn't just "preserve the process." I personally spoke to some people at Mazda who know this car very well, and was told very clearly that the 238hp is a real number on an engine dyno.

I know you don't believe it. And I'm sorry I can't give more details, but the reason is because the people in question don't want to be questioned on internet message boards. Imagine yourself in their shoes.

238 is the number. I think arguing the 15% multiplier, or the (lack of) torque adjustment, is totally reasonable. We went with those for consistency with the process. The S2000 is very similar in those regards, and although owners grumble about the weight, people ARE building them.

As far as arguing the veracity of the stock 238hp number, I'm not going to engage that discussion any further.

Josh,

First, and slighly off topic congratulations on the Roundel Readers Rants.

I think that Josh has found a key person in Mazda and doesn't want to out her/him, it's his professional duty to keep his source in the dark. I perfectly understand his position and have been there myself.

James

[JeffYoung]

Well and fairly stated.

Without specifically disclosing the source, can you tell us who other than the data Steve and I presented was consulted in confirming the 238 stock hp figure?

I get the feeling from Josh's post that people were in fact consulted to confirm the 238 and whp numbers, and to contradict what was submitted with the proposal.


Sorry - late to the party. Long day of meetings etc.

So Josh isn't hanging out here by himself, here's the details on how we documented the specification process.

238*1.15*11.25-100=2979.13

And here's a request: Please consider that it is possible for the ITAC to get multiple "real world" data points for a single make/model under consideration, each of which is submitted by someone who has absolute confidence in his figures, and all of which are different. I am NOT pointing a finger at Steve - he clearly has a ton of experience and I've met nobody who's said he's anything besides a completely straight shooter - but are you all sure that you want us making classification/specification recommendations to the board based on our subjective judgments of the merits and qualifications of the various "experts" submitting data to support particular positions?

How do we resolve to an entire IT class field that we made a weight classification for the 2004 Putzmobile based on the most expert input possible, when that guy happens to be building them for customers?

YES - he is in the best position to know what's what about his car.

NO - we can't "Know" (with a capital K, like the capital T in "Truth") if he's fibbing to us or not, even if he's the most trustworthy guy in the paddock.

BUT - he doesn't have to be fibbing to us for it to create a problem for the entire process, the ITAC, and the Club. Just the simple appearance of impropriety is enough to mess things up far worse in the long term than if we miss the weight of a single classification by 100#.

We got the MR2 listed in B - FINALLY - at its process weight of 2525 pounds. The reason that took MONTHS is that we got sucked into trying to use "real world evidence," motivated by the desire to make the best decision possible. I think that by the time we were deep into it, we had "proof" from people that seemed knowledgeable and trustworthy, that the car COULD make its ITA minimum weight, that it could NOT, that it didn't make "predicted IT gains" with a full build, and that it did. We clearly can't believe everyone so what do we do?

It's terribly dangerous to step on the slippery slope of putting cars on dynos. Jeff asks about a 325-to-RX8 comparison using "proven" horsepower but we don't have any protocol in place that we can use to "prove" anything in any way that is beyond reproach. While that process might well have gotten this one closer to it's "correct" weight, is it a process that we can use for all future classifications? And can apply retroactively to all currently listed cars, so they are getting the same "fair" treatment?

Do you really want the ITAC to solicit input from any and all interested parties (that tend to break out into two camps - the drivers who want to race the car in question and those against whom they'll be racing) and give the nod to the ones who make the most compelling presentation?

At the end of the day, clarity, repeatability, and transparency were the priority. We have some areas where we can tweak (e.g., the 1.15 multiplier, 100# torque subtractor) and in this case we used those tools as we believed best. I'd hope that you'd at least grant your ITAC members that they're trying to maintain the integrity of the process, and respect the fact that they put that ahead of trying get the weight of this particular car adjusted to closer than the 3-4% difference in weight that we're talking about here.

Finally, I'll echo the concern that we don't yet have an completely satisfactory way to account for torque. Having some experience with it, I believe that this is the Golf's "secret weapon." It's other cars' Achilles heel. In neither case do we adequately consider that as a variable (I don't think). But until/unless we adopt a revised process, I'm still very confident that sticking to the one we have is best for us all over the longer term.

K

[Knestis]

I speak only for myself on this but, if I ever did know what all of the sources said, I promptly forgot. It's my orientation showing through but to me, "Josh's people" don't carry any more weight than you (Jeff), where submitted evidence is concerned. For that reason, I kind of let those conversations happen without letting them significantly influence my thinking.

Now, ITAC members' opinions differ on this, just as is the case with the membership more broadly, but I pretty firmly believe that the point at which we even GO LOOKING for more information beyond the published number, is the point at which we've made the mistake. All that stuff only serves to befuddle. I didn't need any "proof" that the stock number is correct. Others might well have - just like others still might have been convinced it is too low. The consensus recommendation to the CRB reflects a compromise position among the committee membership.

K

[seckerich]

I speak only for myself on this but, if I ever did know what all of the sources said, I promptly forgot. It's my orientation showing through but to me, "Josh's people" don't carry any more weight than you (Jeff), where submitted evidence is concerned. For that reason, I kind of let those conversations happen without letting them significantly influence my thinking.

Now, ITAC members' opinions differ on this, just as is the case with the membership more broadly, but I pretty firmly believe that the point at which we even GO LOOKING for more information beyond the published number, is the point at which we've made the mistake. All that stuff only serves to befuddle. I didn't need any "proof" that the stock number is correct. Others might well have - just like others still might have been convinced it is too low. The consensus recommendation to the CRB reflects a compromise position among the committee membership.

K

I respect you Kirk, but to suggest it is any less relevant to back into the RX8 by known numbers as has been done to class every other rotary is disengenuous. You took known numbers and backed into the ITS RX7 weight and classification. You backed into the E36, 89CRX, and many others. Please get off your "greater good" high horse on this car. You missed this by quite a bit more than any 3-4%. To you it is just statistics, to someone building a car and spending lots of money it is serious business. Please feel free to show that any of the data I provided is less than accurate. I bumped all the numbers upward in the proposal to cover possible errors. As noted in previous posts feel free to post the highest numbers anyone claimed for the car and we can filter out the data. I know this posting is a waste of time because the time to ask for more data or dispute mine was BEFORE it got classed. Thanks.

[JoshS]

Steve,

ITR gets a huge benefit -- it was created after the great realignment. Nothing in that class (I assume, I wasn't around for its creation, and neither was Kirk) was "backed into" ... every classification is pure process. It's a huge benefit over the older IT classes, which are still carrying some baggage from the dark days.

I don't see any reason to corrupt it.

The point is that it's just plain safer to use published numbers and tweak what we CAN tweak -- multipliers and adders. We are not responsible for the published numbers, but the process assumes their accuracy, for better or for worse.

In this case, we used the multipliers and adders in the best way we could, by applying them consistently with other cars already classed. I'll state it again ... that's the only thing that you really could possibly have a beef with (and yes, I understand you think we should have used 10%).

BTW, you bumped the numbers up in the proposal? Why wasn't your name on the proposal? To refresh your memory, you wanted us to use 220hp with a 10% multiplier. That's 2722 lbs. To do so was just inconsistent with the existing similar cars. We chose to use the published horsepower (not a derived number), 15% for consistency with other highly-tweaked cars, and give it a further negative adder (again, for consistency.) Frankly I think we did a good job, and definitely the best we could.

I am done with this thread. Seems like the ITAC can't win. You guys gripe if we don't tell you how we think, and you gripe if we do. Sheesh. The antagonistic comments about deep-throat sources, dart boards, chicken entrails, etc, doesn't give any of us any credit for a very difficult job and frankly is not likely to get me to ever be transparent again. I really thought you guys were above that stuff. Guess I was wrong.

[seckerich]

Steve,

ITR gets a huge benefit -- it was created after the great realignment. Nothing in that class (I assume, I wasn't around for its creation, and neither was Kirk) was "backed into" ... every classification is pure process. It's a huge benefit over the older IT classes, which are still carrying some baggage from the dark days.

I don't see any reason to corrupt it.

The point is that it's just plain safer to use published numbers and tweak what we CAN tweak -- multipliers and adders. We are not responsible for the published numbers, but the process assumes their accuracy, for better or for worse.

In this case, we used the multipliers and adders in the best way we could, by applying them consistently with other cars already classed. I'll state it again ... that's the only thing that you really could possibly have a beef with (and yes, I understand you think we should have used 10%).

BTW, you bumped the numbers up in the proposal? Why wasn't your name on the proposal? To refresh your memory, you wanted us to use 220hp with a 10% multiplier. That's 2722 lbs. To do so was just inconsistent with the existing similar cars. We chose to use the published horsepower (not a derived number), 15% for consistency with other highly-tweaked cars, and give it a further negative adder (again, for consistency.) Frankly I think we did a good job, and definitely the best we could.

I am done with this thread. Seems like the ITAC can't win. You guys gripe if we don't tell you how we think, and you gripe if we do. Sheesh. The antagonistic comments about deep-throat sources, dart boards, chicken entrails, etc, doesn't give any of us any credit for a very difficult job and frankly is not likely to get me to ever be transparent again. I really thought you guys were above that stuff. Guess I was wrong.
Not above asking relevant questions and as a member of any commitee that decides matters of competition you are expected to be transparent. I never provided any data of stock 220 but did give extensive evidence of very minimal gains in IT trim. I understand the process has been used for all the ITR cars and I have been around since the "dark ages". Everything I have posted and asked about has been disputing your assumed 15% gains. If you did not receive the dyno sheets I provided I am sorry. I only expected them to be one data point and would be interested to hear how for off they were to other numbers you got. I mentioned the backing in to some of the car classifications to show that the multiplier has been tweaked many times in special cases, and on every rotary currently classed. Only difference is that every other rotary got a higher multiplier. A rotary is not an S2000 but I see your point. I am done with this as well. It is DOA in my mind and was a waste of time to get classed. We asked for the last year to have a chance for honest open debate on the car and have a chance to provide whatever the ITAC needed. I have been very respectful in my discussion and have stayed away from anything personal. I have praised you guys many times in the past for your work. Have to take the good with the bad. You knew you were going to get some heat on this car so don't act so surprised. It is a complicated classing. Just don't complain in a year or so when it is still all BMW and a lone 944 in ITR.:D

[Knestis]

>> You took known numbers and backed into the ITS RX7 weight and classification. You backed into the E36, 89CRX, and many others. Please get off your "greater good" high horse on this car.

Actually "I" did not. That all happened prior to my joining the ITAC and I was very uncomfortable with those decisions as a member not involved in them, and continue to be worried about the practice in general.

And I'm NOT disputing your data, Steve: I'm disputing - personally, since I don't speak for the committee - the entire process of trying to use "known" data. Ask any of the other ITAC members - I'm a pain in their butts in this respect.

One thought, that we might take away from this?

If someone has information to add to the process, they need to do it through official channels with a request to the CRB, with whatever information they can provide available for public scrutiny. The INSTANT we get into committee members digging for data on their own, people sharing dyno sheets in confidence, etc. we are screwed.

I'm sure there's more but work beckons...

K

[924Guy]

Glad to see the MR2 in B - long overdue (not to slag on the ITAC, but it was pushed away for so long)...

[Greg Amy]

[The ITAC] took known numbers and backed into the ITS RX7 weight and classification. You backed into the E36, 89CRX, and many others.
Which is exactly why "known" numbers are never going to get "known" again, at least from me. And, thus, the process is broken again.

Before this "known process" was known, I was a big proponent of revealing horsepower dyno numbers. I truly believed at the time the process was an objective one, with very little "fudge", thus there was no advantage/disadvantage to having this information public (and I found it silly to worry about it).

However, after development in preparation for the '06 ARRC I revealed my NX's dyno numbers to this board, and was taken to task by many folks, both in public and in private. Many people wrote letters to the ITAC/CRB and to ITAC/CRB individual members demanding performance correction to my car. It was during that fracas I found out that, in fact, "known" dyno numbers are being used for weight corrections in vehicles.

It was at that moment my stance changed. From now on, absolutely NO ONE outside the immediate development team will know what dyno numbers we get unless that dyno number reveals performance values below the expected values. In other words, we will use low numbers to our advantage when we can, but you'll never, ever know if we get numbers better than the process specifies.

And that, my friends, is called "unintended consequences".

Just sayin'...

GA

[spdmonkey]

I can't count the number of times over the past several years where someone has said something along the lines of Mazda runs the SCCA... Maybe that attitude is changing a bit or maybe its payback time:D.

[Greg Krom]

I'm glad to see the 2nd Gen Neon has been classified. Is the weight listed for the ACR and R/T a typo thought? 2780 seems way excessive for that car. Its over 100 lbs higher than the SSC weight and 130 lbs heavier than the 1st Gen DOHC Neon which has the same stock HP rating.

[dj10]

isn't the E36 ~65hp shy of the RX8 in stock form?



i'm trusting that they have good information that the 238hp is accurate.

as different as the RX8 is from the S2000, they couldn't be anymore the same from my perspective. both of them make pretty big hp from the factory (for the performance target of the class), both double a-arm, both gutless on the bottom and run well up top, both probably won't gain much from IT modifications, and both are classed at a weight that make me not particularly interested in one.

BMW Stock E36 325 has published 191 crank HP.

[jrvisual]

2008 GCR 9.1.3.C Paragraph 6
"During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as—but not limited to—manufacturer’s published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a “performance compensation adjustment” shall be made. Any performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle’s fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established."


If the weight is low you can correct it in the first 4 years. If the weight is high you won't have any data to correct to because you won't have any cars on which to base the correction. Bringing a car in at a perceived or true underdog weight kills that car. Bringing it in as a perceived or true overdog weight allows for adjustment for a balanced multi-make class.

[shwah]

Sorry - late to the party. Long day of meetings etc.

So Josh isn't hanging out here by himself, here's the details on how we documented the specification process.

238*1.15*11.25-100=2979.13

And here's a request: Please consider that it is possible for the ITAC to get multiple "real world" data points for a single make/model under consideration, each of which is submitted by someone who has absolute confidence in his figures, and all of which are different. I am NOT pointing a finger at Steve - he clearly has a ton of experience and I've met nobody who's said he's anything besides a completely straight shooter - but are you all sure that you want us making classification/specification recommendations to the board based on our subjective judgments of the merits and qualifications of the various "experts" submitting data to support particular positions?

How do we resolve to an entire IT class field that we made a weight classification for the 2004 Putzmobile based on the most expert input possible, when that guy happens to be building them for customers?

YES - he is in the best position to know what's what about his car.

NO - we can't "Know" (with a capital K, like the capital T in "Truth") if he's fibbing to us or not, even if he's the most trustworthy guy in the paddock.

BUT - he doesn't have to be fibbing to us for it to create a problem for the entire process, the ITAC, and the Club. Just the simple appearance of impropriety is enough to mess things up far worse in the long term than if we miss the weight of a single classification by 100#.

We got the MR2 listed in B - FINALLY - at its process weight of 2525 pounds. The reason that took MONTHS is that we got sucked into trying to use "real world evidence," motivated by the desire to make the best decision possible. I think that by the time we were deep into it, we had "proof" from people that seemed knowledgeable and trustworthy, that the car COULD make its ITA minimum weight, that it could NOT, that it didn't make "predicted IT gains" with a full build, and that it did. We clearly can't believe everyone so what do we do?

It's terribly dangerous to step on the slippery slope of putting cars on dynos. Jeff asks about a 325-to-RX8 comparison using "proven" horsepower but we don't have any protocol in place that we can use to "prove" anything in any way that is beyond reproach. While that process might well have gotten this one closer to it's "correct" weight, is it a process that we can use for all future classifications? And can apply retroactively to all currently listed cars, so they are getting the same "fair" treatment?

Do you really want the ITAC to solicit input from any and all interested parties (that tend to break out into two camps - the drivers who want to race the car in question and those against whom they'll be racing) and give the nod to the ones who make the most compelling presentation?

At the end of the day, clarity, repeatability, and transparency were the priority. We have some areas where we can tweak (e.g., the 1.15 multiplier, 100# torque subtractor) and in this case we used those tools as we believed best. I'd hope that you'd at least grant your ITAC members that they're trying to maintain the integrity of the process, and respect the fact that they put that ahead of trying get the weight of this particular car adjusted to closer than the 3-4% difference in weight that we're talking about here.

Finally, I'll echo the concern that we don't yet have an completely satisfactory way to account for torque. Having some experience with it, I believe that this is the Golf's "secret weapon." It's other cars' Achilles heel. In neither case do we adequately consider that as a variable (I don't think). But until/unless we adopt a revised process, I'm still very confident that sticking to the one we have is best for us all over the longer term.

K


I hope that all of those points are considered when you guys get back to my request. I have not heard any request back for additional/different information...

[JeffYoung]

I thought the uproar over the NX2000 numbers was a bit silly, and confirmed by on track results. Your car is fast, and a few SE-Rs that have been around for a while are fast, but you were no more dominating than the CRX and Integra and 240sx and Miata had/have been.

That said, how is your position on dyno numbers (which is personally understandable) good for the club as a whole? Actual corrected data is used to fix problems with outliers and overdogs. I think it is healthy to share it, and good for IT. Not knocking you, but just want a bit more explanation:

1. How can the process ever be totally objective? If it is just a plug in numbers equation you get things like the CRX, and my car in ITA.

2. Don't you think it is better to put the numbers out there and defend them, than just have people guessing and speculating, perhaps even more unfairly?


Which is exactly why "known" numbers are never going to get "known" again, at least from me. And, thus, the process is broken again.

Before this "known process" was known, I was a big proponent of revealing horsepower dyno numbers. I truly believed at the time the process was an objective one, with very little "fudge", thus there was no advantage/disadvantage to having this information public (and I found it silly to worry about it).

However, after development in preparation for the '06 ARRC I revealed my NX's dyno numbers to this board, and was taken to task by many folks, both in public and in private. Many people wrote letters to the ITAC/CRB and to ITAC/CRB individual members demanding performance correction to my car. It was during that fracas I found out that, in fact, "known" dyno numbers are being used for weight corrections in vehicles.

It was at that moment my stance changed. From now on, absolutely NO ONE outside the immediate development team will know what dyno numbers we get unless that dyno number reveals performance values below the expected values. In other words, we will use low numbers to our advantage when we can, but you'll never, ever know if we get numbers better than the process specifies.

And that, my friends, is called "unintended consequences".

Just sayin'...

GA

[JeffYoung]

I think it is actually 189.

The problem comes from actual whp after a full build.........subject of big nasty debate, same as the RX8.


BMW Stock E36 325 has published 191 crank HP.

[tnord]

to someone building a car and spending lots of money it is serious business.

i feel like there's a little more to this statement than just the words on the screen.

[Greg Amy]

...how is your position on dyno numbers (which is personally understandable) good for the club as a whole?
It absolutely is not, Jeff. Never said it would be. But, let's face it: as a competitor, my concerns are not for the Club as a whole, but for my personal competitive advantages. Simply put, I compete not for the Club, but for myself, and I am completely unashamed of that.

Unfortunately, the system is designed expecting each competitor to work for the Club as whole. While that's a wonderful utopian ideal, that's not how reality works. The base problem with such a system is that it is predicated upon the free sharing of information among motorsports competitors, something that causes them to work against their own competitive advantages, all without a way to enforce that should someone choose not to participate (in the commune? Sorry, couldn't resist... ;) )


How can the process ever be totally objective? If it is just a plug in numbers equation you get things like the CRX, and my car in ITA.Then the CRX and our car get moved up/down a class and re-weighted for that new class. Physics is neat that way.

If that doesn't work, then the process needs to be re-designed.


Don't you think it is better to put the numbers out there and defend them, than just have people guessing and speculating, perhaps even more unfairly?Why would I POSSIBLY want to subject myself to that? What possible advantage/reason would I have for doing that, unless I just like arguing on Internet boards and writing letters to the CRB to defend my position (and, despite evidence to the contrary, I really don't...)? If I keep my mouth shut, then no matter what people THINK I can at least always reply "you don't know what the hell you're talking about".

I personally don't have a self-confidence problem where I'm worried about what people think about my driving versus the performance of the car. As long as I'm tarnishing your butt, I really don't care if you think it's the car and not me. What it all comes down to is the checkered flag and who gets there first.

Face it, Jeff, this isn't a big beautiful world where we all get along, working together for a common good. This is competition, by design an antagonistic process where people work for their own individual advancement. The rules process should be designed with that in mind...

GregA, looking forward to building an engine for the 'Teg and, regardless of the result, keeping it to himself...hey, just sayin'...

[tnord]

Simply put, I compete not for the Club, but for myself, and I am completely unashamed of that.


and no one expects anything less from you.

can you not see the big picture? if you only fight for your own personal interests without any regard to what's good for the class as a whole, or even the club as a whole, where does that lead you?

[Greg Amy]

...where does that lead you?
Victory circle? 'Course, I'd not expect you to understand...

:D

[tnord]

Victory circle? 'Course, I'd not expect you to understand...

:D

do you feel like a big man now? :smilie_pokal:

[Greg Amy]

do you feel like a big man now? :smilie_pokal:
Actually, yes. And this Internet forum thread didn't change it one whit...

Travis, you got issues...

[dj10]

I think it is actually 189.

The problem comes from actual whp after a full build.........subject of big nasty debate, same as the RX8.

Your right Jeff, I was think E46 325. sorry

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg's point is a valid one, from a personal perspective. But we all must understand that a singular set of dyno numbers changes nothing. Greg could have told us that his car makes 200whp. So what? Is it a trigger to start collecting data? Probably but if you are going to try and do your best for the category as a unit, you have to 'know' that the numbers are suspect. Suspect in that it would be a single data point with no validation on legality, repeatability, or really anything.

The dyno stuff *I* put stock in are numbers based on years of experience and evidence. Not lows, not highs, but the numbers the experts know cars can make. If they are outside the standard 25%, then I submit we NEED to use them or else we end up with one car classes. That, I can document very easily.

So it's not about a big, happy family where everyone is sharing info. It's about making educated decisions with known information that can be documented and backed up. I submit it isn't perfect but I would rather have 25 cars 'correctly' classed out of 30 instead of 5. It's best-effort stuff...no gurantees, just an honest best effort.

[JeffYoung]

I'd go a bit further. We all want to win and are competitive. We wouldn't be doing this otherwise. At the same time, I don't want to win at the expense of running a category/class, and I think that is true of most of us. If a car is a known overdog, with repeatedly numbers to back it up, due to a classing erro I would want that car "fixed" whether it was someone else's, or my own.

Yes, that sounds a bit like a comp adjustment, but here I just have faith that the current ITAC and current IT culture will only allow this to happen in rare circumstances. But part of making that process work is at least somewhat open sharing of information.


Greg's point is a valid one, from a personal perspective. But we all must understand that a singular set of dyno numbers changes nothing. Greg could have told us that his car makes 200whp. So what? Is it a trigger to start collecting data? Probably but if you are going to try and do your best for the category as a unit, you have to 'know' that the numbers are suspect. Suspect in that it would be a single data point with no validation on legality, repeatability, or really anything.

The dyno stuff *I* put stock in are numbers based on years of experience and evidence. Not lows, not highs, but the numbers the experts know cars can make. If they are outside the standard 25%, then I submit we NEED to use them or else we end up with one car classes. That, I can document very easily.

So it's not about a big, happy family where everyone is sharing info. It's about making educated decisions with known information that can be documented and backed up. I submit it isn't perfect but I would rather have 25 cars 'correctly' classed out of 30 instead of 5. It's best-effort stuff...no gurantees, just an honest best effort.

[jjjanos]

If the weight is low you can correct it in the first 4 years. If the weight is high you won't have any data to correct to because you won't have any cars on which to base the correction. Bringing a car in at a perceived or true underdog weight kills that car.

Oh, it is even worse. If someone actually builds the car, chances are he won't be part of the in-crowd/the cool kids/the BMOCs. So, when he builds the car and finds out that the car has been classified as an underdog, his concerns will be dismissed because either a - it's just one car and that's not a large enough sample on which to make a decision or b - he "...really hasn't put together a top-notch, full-built effort because we don't know who the hell he is."

[JeffYoung]

I agree with that. Unlikely a full tilt one will get built at that weight so the car is "stuck."

The flip side is true too though. If it came in light, like the E36 did, the top notch builders would be all over it, build a bunch of cars that would win out of the box, etc....of course then we do have a means of correction.

[lateapex911]

Sometimes things are black and white, but, going in, I knew this was most definitely not.

The ITAC really has to use stock hp ratings...can you imagine the uproar if it got out that we were using some, but not others? Sheeesh. And we think THIS is bad...if Mazda's doing something loophole-ish to get that number and it's not what the engine really makes, well tough nuggies. Sorry. They win some and lose some with that approach.

As for expected gains/real world numbers, the rotary is a great example. First gens, second gens, the Renesis and the new one are all distinctly different "genres", even though they are all rotary. Now, if we categorized all piston engines in the same bucket, and applied XX% factor to them all, we'd be in a mess, right? We have to apply different build factors to different engines. We try to do that by engine genre...but honestly, while that aspect creates some consistency, it can also fail. Inline 6s and high strung fours and old American smogged up POSs don't respond the same. There are some old American smogged up POSs that actually weren't that bad, while others sucked, and can make huge gains once freed from the smog gear, but they get the same factor. Choose wisely son, and you can find a bit of gold in the hills. But be careful, there's no guarantee.

In this case, we went with a low build number, stock hp and a break for TQ. Personally, I think that the Renesis is very similar to the S2000 in that it is maximized from the factory, and my feeling is that both cars are too heavy, but, the process was done consistently, and with reasonable methods.

The club has gotten into trouble in the past when it listened to "trusted" friends who submitted "secret" numbers...then went out and whumped everybody in the mis classed car at the Runoffs. And the club took huge and deserved grief for listening to that person...not because of the result (which was bad) but because of the clear conflict of interest status, and the principle.

I hear a lot of arguments above that make me think I'm on the Prod board...but none of us want to be Prod right? It's a slippery slope, and each one of us has our "line" that we are willing to walk to on the way, and while mine might be at the 10 foot mark, I have to respect those who stop at the 7 foot mark.

Again, we got input on this car and the numbers were all over the place..nearly a 500 pound "recommended" weight spread, and curiously, the weights aligned with the competitive desires of the letter writers (see Amy above). We did the math, and the result was in line with other classifications sharing similar conditions (S2000), and falls in between the extremes.

[lateapex911]

I agree with that. Unlikely a full tilt one will get built at that weight so the car is "stuck."

The flip side is true too though. If it came in light, like the E36 did, the top notch builders would be all over it, build a bunch of cars that would win out of the box, etc....of course then we do have a means of correction.

And (devils advocate talking here), you know that, like the BMW, there would be a huge cry of "Foul! You are punishing us for doing better work than anyone else because WE are superior". And, "This is a competition adjustment".

I got a phone call late last fall after a certain car won a major IT race from the winners builder who said we did exactly that ...we punished them unfairly for being superior in the first place....over two years ago.

And how many BMWs stayed and raced after the "adjustment" and how many left? (Answer more left than stayed) But...how many ITS competitors were lost before that because of the overdog status of half built BMWs? (Answer, hard to say, but it was clear we had issues and you, Jeff, will be the first to agree that ITS has taken two years to rebuild but is very healthy now, arguably way healthier than 3 or 4 years ago, right?) (Some of the letters we got from guys winning in the E36s with junkyard motors defending their builds was hilarious)

Point being that there are costs on both sides of the coin. (And doing the accounting for those costs depends highly on your position)

[77ITA]

I don't really see a problem with the RX-8 considering all the other ridiculous "calculations" in ITR. :p


I'm glad to see the 2nd Gen Neon has been classified. Is the weight listed for the ACR and R/T a typo thought? 2780 seems way excessive for that car. Its over 100 lbs higher than the SSC weight and 130 lbs heavier than the 1st Gen DOHC Neon which has the same stock HP rating.

I agree, Greg. It's great to see the cars classified (as they're obviously not going to do anything in SSC any longer), but with personal experience on the subject I can't understand the weight of the R/T and ACR either. If anything but equal in weight, the Magnum engine cars (R/T and ACR) could use to be a bit lighter than the 1st generation DOHC cars due to their poor handling characteristics. At least in IT trim competitors can put some real springs under the car and fix what hindered them so badly in SSC.

[madrabbit15]

Back to the ITR and the V8s vs. the M3.........

I guess I am having a hard time understanding how a M3 is bad for the class but a v8 mustang or camaro is good for the class. Both have insaine Hp potential in IT trim. True, the v8s are the lower HP versions with gobs of torque, but it only takes bolt ons to make them breath. So the weight would still need to be close to 3500# to make them fit. Is this any better other than it might bring some people into the class? If someone can explain this to me I would very much appreciate it, because up to now, I cannot see how in the world it makes sense.

[JeffYoung]

The bolts of which you speak -- carb, cam, intake, better heads -- are illegal.

[tnord]

Back to the ITR and the V8s vs. the M3.........

I guess I am having a hard time understanding how a M3 is bad for the class but a v8 mustang or camaro is good for the class. Both have insaine Hp potential in IT trim. True, the v8s are the lower HP versions with gobs of torque, but it only takes bolt ons to make them breath. So the weight would still need to be close to 3500# to make them fit. Is this any better other than it might bring some people into the class? If someone can explain this to me I would very much appreciate it, because up to now, I cannot see how in the world it makes sense.

i think the M3 makes more power stock than the dumpy V8 iterations that are being considered, AND they gain more from IT builds than their domestic counterparts, AND the M3 has better brakes, etc.

[Ron Earp]

2. No to IT going National (hooray!), yes to finding ways for IT cars to migrate to limited prep production (yeah right! too funny).


So, the way I read this in the FastTrack is that the SCCA is committed to the same ol' same ol' for the next three years. We'll have Regional and National races, the Boreoffs will continue to be populated by vehicles with bugeyes, and cars with 50 year old suspensions will still be guaranteed a place to get their race on and be seen on TV.

Yay progressive SCCA.:blink:

[Ron Earp]

i think the M3 makes more power stock than the dumpy V8 iterations that are being considered, AND they gain more from IT builds than their domestic counterparts, AND the M3 has better brakes, etc.

This is 100% correct and outlined in the Pony Car proposal.

[tnord]

you didn't read very carefully Ron.

check the minutes from the BOD, and the task force report that follows. there's very significant change documented in there over the next 3yrs. i bet after that 3yr period, IT going national will happen after people have had some time to get used to the idea.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Back to the ITR and the V8s vs. the M3.........

I guess I am having a hard time understanding how a M3 is bad for the class but a v8 mustang or camaro is good for the class. Both have insaine Hp potential in IT trim. True, the v8s are the lower HP versions with gobs of torque, but it only takes bolt ons to make them breath. So the weight would still need to be close to 3500# to make them fit. Is this any better other than it might bring some people into the class? If someone can explain this to me I would very much appreciate it, because up to now, I cannot see how in the world it makes sense.

There has been much concern over the power potential of the V8 cars submitted for ITR. The AS adhoc was polled along with at least 2 prolific small-block Chevy builders - each were given the limits of the rules and each confirmed that 'process power' was all that could be reasonably expected. AS guys have to remember that they get cams, intake manifolds, uprated carbs, different heads in some cases, etc. Without this stuff, it's just another handicapped pump like we all run (stock TB, intake manifold, cams, stock weight pistons...).

A 215hp V8 at 25% increase is about 269 crank hp. A 240hp E36M3 at 30% increase is over 310hp.

The issue at hand is how to account for 300ft/lbs of torque on these V8's. The proposal in hand suggests a +100lb adder. The debate rages on as to that 100lbs in terms of effectiveness as we have nothing with that kind of torque potential on the books now to draw conclusions from IIRC.

[JeffYoung]

One last observation that is going to sound like a knock on the ITAC, but really is just an observation.

The goal -- a noble one -- was to make the RX8 guys a bit unhappy, and the non RX* ITR guys (their competitors) a bit unhappy.

Interesting, but I've not heard a single ITR guy complain about the 2980 weight being too low........

[dj10]

:023:
Some of the letters we got from guys winning in the E36s with junkyard motors defending their builds was hilarious)

Jake, don't you know that all BMW drivers both in ITS & now in ITR ALL HAVE JUNKYARD ENGINES and that's the turth! :023:

[JeffYoung]

You have a TR8.....last time on the dynojet I made about 197 wtq, or about 230 or so at the crank. Probably as high as any car in ITS, if not higher (Greg, close your eyes, you are not allowed to read that).

My torque peak is at 3500 rpm and drops from there though, much like the ITR V8s. I suspect a lot of that torque is not entirely usable, but it is still a big issue.

200 lb adder? I wouldn't get all "RX8" over that.....lol.......


There has been much concern over the power potential of the V8 cars submitted for ITR. The AS adhoc was polled along with at least 2 prolific small-block Chevy builders - each were given the limits of the rules and each confirmed that 'process power' was all that could be reasonably expected. AS guys have to remember that they get cams, intake manifolds, uprated carbs, different heads in some cases, etc. Without this stuff, it's just another handicapped pump like we all run (stock TB, intake manifold, cams, stock weight pistons...).

A 215hp V8 at 25% increase is about 269 crank hp. A 240hp E36M3 at 30% increase is over 310hp.

The issue at hand is how to account for 300ft/lbs of torque on these V8's. The proposal in hand suggests a +100lb adder. The debate rages on as to that 100lbs in terms of effectiveness as we have nothing with that kind of torque potential on the books now to draw conclusions from IIRC.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, that wasn't "the goal"...the goal was to class it utilizing the IT process.

We are at the mercy of the manufacturers...this has been a cornerstone of the process from day one, and we went into it knowing that, in some cases, the numbers could be bogus. We have a correction method in case there is damage done to the class by such bogus numbers.

But... we knew going in that if we were going to question every rating, then we'd need an entire policy and procedure on how to handle and test that, which is frankly beyond the scope of the club.

Just for giggles, lets say, for discussion, that he stock hp rating is not negotiable.
What number, and what math would those who think the car is heavy come up with?

[madrabbit15]

Thank you Andy for adding the main point of my concern. TORQUE. We roadrace and torque means a hell of a lot, I think the RX8 folks would agree, its not just HP numbers. You have to account for torque numbers too low or high. 300 lbs of torque better add a lot more than 100lbs. Most of V8s being considered are in the low 200s around 215hp, from a least a header, exhuast and open intake, you are going to gain a ton. Thats not even considering IT prep, which we all know the manufacturing tolerances were/are way more crude than a bmw from the factory. I know, I know I am not a AS engine builder, but 260hp and 300tq better make for one heavy ITR car.

P.S. If anyone in the world has a dyno graphs from a 95M3 making 310 hp in IT trim, I would do unmentionable, questionable things to see it. :rolleyes:

[GKR_17]

Interesting, but I've not heard a single ITR guy complain about the 2980 weight being too low........

And what would that accomplish? The math is reasonable, and the process hasn't been compromised. 2980 is about 100 lbs lighter than I wanted, but I'm willing to wait and see. The rest of my team (who are very concerned, even at 2980) don't post here frequently.

Grafton

[tnord]

Thank you Andy for adding the main point of my concern. TORQUE. We roadrace and torque means a hell of a lot, I think the RX8 folks would agree, its not just HP numbers. You have to account for torque numbers too low or high. 300 lbs of torque better add a lot more than 100lbs. Most of V8s being considered are in the low 200s around 215hp, from a least a header, exhuast and open intake, you are going to gain a ton. Thats not even considering IT prep, which we all know the manufacturing tolerances were/are way more crude than a bmw from the factory. I know, I know I am not a AS engine builder, but 260hp and 300tq better make for one heavy ITR car.

P.S. If anyone in the world has a dyno graphs from a 95M3 making 310 hp in IT trim, I would do unmentionable, questionable things to see it. :rolleyes:

don't discount the importance of where that torque is made.

and comparing it to the M3 isn't really all that valid from where i sit. high torque is most useful on tracks with quick short bursts between corners so the high-strung stuff like the S2000 doesn't have time to wind out and use it's top end to it's advantage.

so even though the torque is an advantage coming off the corner, these wallowing pigs will have significantly lower apex speeds than other cars in the class, which negates *some* of the low-end advantage.

[GKR_17]

RX8 has been proven to be about 8% in full IT build with Motec M600 and 4 years of tuning. 10% would be safe and can be backed up by just about any reputable tuner in the country.


You're contradicting your own data. You can either claim low stock hp, or low gains, but not both.

The dyno sheets I saw showed 14% gain after only intake and exhaust work. There should be plenty more in the ECU.

[JeffYoung]

Either:

I would say use 232 stock hp (which is what Mazda advertises now AFTER upgrades to the ECU).

I would say use a 10% factor to account for what appears to be pretty clear evidence the car doesn't respond to IT "work."

That gives you 232 * 1.10 * .1125 -100 = 2771....

or

232*1.15*.1125 -100 = 2900

[lateapex911]

..... but 260hp and 300tq better make for one heavy ITR car.
. :rolleyes:

'Cuz you know they handle like Miatas and stop like ALMS cars...
;)
...just sayin'

(and there are other cars with great power, great tq, that handle AND brake, and weigh 3250....the 300ZX)

[JeffYoung]

Of which, I just bought one. Former T2 car said to have a dyno sheet at abut 225 whp and 250 wtq with just an exhaust.........


'Cuz you know they handle like Miatas and stop like ALMS cars...
;)
...just sayin'

(and there are other cars with great power, great tq, that handle AND brake, and weigh 3250....the 300ZX)

[Andy Bettencourt]

P.S. If anyone in the world has a dyno graphs from a 95M3 making 310 hp in IT trim, I would do unmentionable, questionable things to see it. :rolleyes:

Those are crank numbers based on 240*1.3, not whp numbers.

[its66]

You're contradicting your own data. You can either claim low stock hp, or low gains, but not both.

The dyno sheets I saw showed 14% gain after only intake and exhaust work. There should be plenty more in the ECU.

Grafton,
This isn't questioning you, but if that dyno sheet is publicly available, I'd like to see it. Taking ITR out of the equation, and not being a smart A$$, I'd like see what actually works on these. I have one as a daily driver, and would love to find 32 more HP to enjoy.

Thanks.

[Ron Earp]

r, but 260hp and 300tq better make for one heavy ITR car.
:rolleyes:

And it does, around 3200-3300 lbs.

Ron

[seckerich]

Here is a little comparison to get some perspective on the weight differences.

2765 2980
------ ------
215 X = 231 Rear wheel to be competitive.


:blink:

[GKR_17]

Grafton,
This isn't questioning you, but if that dyno sheet is publicly available, I'd like to see it. Taking ITR out of the equation, and not being a smart A$$, I'd like see what actually works on these. I have one as a daily driver, and would love to find 32 more HP to enjoy.

Thanks.

The sheets I have, I got from Jeff Young. I believe Jeff got them from Steve Eckerich. Steve was not happy when I got them, which I can completely understand since he and I are not in the same camp regarding this car. Steve probably knows as well as anyone what works, so I'd start with him.

Grafton

[GKR_17]

Either:

I would say use 232 stock hp (which is what Mazda advertises now AFTER upgrades to the ECU).


The SAE changed the measurement method before that number was released.

[Ron Earp]

The SAE changed the measurement method before that number was released.

This is correct. I do remember reading about that last year and how some cars would be affected. Was an article in Car and Driver as I recall. Many cars saw a slight reduction in hp with the new method.

Ron

[its66]

GKR,
Thanks

[seckerich]

The sheets I have, I got from Jeff Young. I believe Jeff got them from Steve Eckerich. Steve was not happy when I got them, which I can completely understand since he and I are not in the same camp regarding this car. Steve probably knows as well as anyone what works, so I'd start with him.

Grafton
At the time Grafton I did not have permission to release them to anyone but the ITAC. I was upset that I allowed them to go further. I will be more than happy to fax whatever sheets you want to look at now.

Sheets I provided to ITAC (or so I was told)
196.68 rwhp on dynojet in full Grand Am trim (motec, exhaust, etc.
I have seen some at 203-205 but those were not backed up on our system
Highest I know of verified by GA was 203.27 rwhp
Torque seems to run at 140-145 with the sheet I provided at 140.87

Stock brand new RX8 173.25 whp (same dyno) Sorry do not have TQ number handy.

Same information I provided to ITAC

Makes no difference now.
I challenge anyone to provide a dyno sheet showing more in IT trim or any trim short of turbo and porting. You will not find one.

ITAC went heavy on this car because they were afraid it would upset the balance in the class. Many of the current ITR cars are less than full prep and it was feared we would build a bunch of 10/10ths cars and come out and start winning. This would drive away those running now. Time will tell if anyone builds them. Only one now is the one Speedsource did for Buzz Marcus in florida running ITO.

[Knestis]

I'm glad to see the 2nd Gen Neon has been classified. Is the weight listed for the ACR and R/T a typo thought? 2780 seems way excessive for that car. Its over 100 lbs higher than the SSC weight and 130 lbs heavier than the 1st Gen DOHC Neon which has the same stock HP rating.


Process weights for both new listings...

The older DOHC car may have gotten some "real world data" help since there's been a lot of "common wisdom" swirling around the difference between it and the SOHC version for ages. If we started from scratch on the one that's 130# lighter, it would end up the same now if in fact the stock power ratings are identical, since the technologies involved ask for he same multiplier.

K

[JoshS]

Either:

I would say use 232 stock hp (which is what Mazda advertises now AFTER upgrades to the ECU).


We're classing a 2004 RX-8, not a 2008 RX-8. It had 238hp.

[JeffYoung]

Actually, I think Mazda initially said north of 250 right? Should we use that?

Or should we use the Mazda corrected numbered of 238?

That was then again corrected for essentially the same motor by SAE down to 232?

Don't play games man, that's just silly.


We're classing a 2004 RX-8, not a 2008 RX-8. It had 238hp.

[tnord]

hang around SM long enough, and you're bound to spend time around a dyno as well. pay attention, and you can learn some things.

all of this back and forth about who has seen what dyno pulls is somewhat trivial. any dyno operator worth a darn can make any car produce any amount of power he chooses. so, if you really want to start arguing the merits of 197 vs 203 hp, some parameters of each need to be outlined. what type of dyno each was on would be a start. what correction factors were applied would be useful also. and when you really get down to it, which pull each of these numbers are from.

i don't know a lot about rotaries, but i do know they generate an awful lot of heat. heat tends to not be helpful for things like air intake temps, and with all the electronic gadgetry on modern cars, and the sensitivity of rotaries to running lean, i could forsee there being a meaningful drop in power when heat soak starts to occur. fan or no fan, open or closed hood, it just doesn't simulate real world conditions. sitting here mulling all this over since it's a slow day at work, i could see this as being a problem when trying to race dynos.

[erlrich]

Sheets I provided to ITAC (or so I was told)
196.68 rwhp on dynojet in full Grand Am trim (motec, exhaust, etc.

Steve - does Grand Am allow any work that IT does not?

[JeffYoung]

Now this is very true, and one of the reasons that I kind of threw up my hands on the dyno data (admittedly after I submitted the proposal).

You appear to have a bell curve of RX8 stock dyno data with the low end as low as 155 (sick cars obviously) rising through the 160s to about 170 and then down to a few in the 180 range.

THen you have some evidence that a correctable ECU issue "fixes" this for the RX8. Add this on top of the general unreliability of dyno data.

But then you have loads of 1/4 mile times slips all in the mid 15s....

And then you have anecdotal evidence of my third cousin seeing one lay a wheel 30 feet long.....

Maybe after all of this teeth gnashing, a lot by me, the ITAC did the right thing. Stick with known numbers and run the process.

I do think the 232 number is the number to use though. SAE corrected, and accurate, for the Renesis. Does this mean in 2013 when the 2008 becomes eligible we have it on a separate line at 80 lbs less?

[buldogge]

I'm only gonna post once about the '95 M3, cuz let's face it...nobody give a rat's ass.

You guys are leaving out several factors re: this car and using a 30% gain as was done with the 325 is ludicrous.

The '95 ('95 only not 96-99 3.2) uses the same injectors as the 325 and ALL heads are identical (ignoring sensors) for 93-00 325, 328, M3, MZ3....severe limiting factor there.

The HFM (MAF) is identical as well...limiter #2 for M3's.

Trackday M3's (that you read about all over the intraweb) making good power have Schrick cams, 24# injectors (not 17.5#), and a 3.5" HFM.

All that remains for the IT car is a .040 bump.

The only other difference is the cams and the .5l.

Other than that you have slightly larger brakes (frankly we don't have brake issues anyway).

Also remember that we are talking about a flying brick with no aero allowed and not some of the newer (more) slippery designs of the S2000 and RX.

Oh well...


Those are crank numbers based on 240*1.3, not whp numbers.

[lateapex911]

Oh, how I love Fastrack release time! Off to work on the race car..if #$%@&$# JEGS would get my order right!

[JeffYoung]

I hear ya man. My crankcase evacuator kit just showed up......a day after I found the section in the main GCR making it illegal....

Oh, how I love Fastrack release time! Off to work on the race car..if #$%@&$# JEGS would get my order right!

[tnord]

Maybe after all of this teeth gnashing, a lot by me, the ITAC did the right thing. Stick with known numbers and run the process.


:happy204:

it really is unfortunate that it turned out this way for the RX-8 and S2000 as they could've been staples for the class.

and no matter how truthful someone may be, i just don't think you can accept lobbying....i mean data......from someone with a conflict of interest.

[Ron Earp]

I do think the 232 number is the number to use though.

232, 238, won't make much difference.

238 232
----- = ----
2980 X

Solve for X.....and X is 2904 lbs

Well, 80 lbs, not bad but with the resolution of IT I can't see that making or breaking the car. This ain't Production.....but, on the other hand I'm not evaluating the car to build for ITR so I'm relatively insensitive to the issue.

[JeffYoung]

We discussed this car when we were working on ITR originally. I'm torn on it too but have little technical knowledge about it -- thanks for the below.

Can you give us what you think is a realistic IT gain percentage for the car and run the numbers on it to see what ITR weight would be? And then do you think you or anyone else would build the car at that weight?

Also, are you saying that the 96s and up have more power potential due to larger injectors?



I'm only gonna post once about the '95 M3, cuz let's face it...nobody give a rat's ass.

You guys are leaving out several factors re: this car and using a 30% gain as was done with the 325 is ludicrous.

The '95 ('95 only not 96-99 3.2) uses the same injectors as the 325 and ALL heads are identical (ignoring sensors) for 93-00 325, 328, M3, MZ3....severe limiting factor there.

The HFM (MAF) is identical as well...limiter #2 for M3's.

Trackday M3's (that you read about all over the intraweb) making good power have Schrick cams, 24# injectors (not 17.5#), and a 3.5" HFM.

All that remains for the IT car is a .040 bump.

The only other difference is the cams and the .5l.

Other than that you have slightly larger brakes (frankly we don't have brake issues anyway).

Also remember that we are talking about a flying brick with no aero allowed and not some of the newer (more) slippery designs of the S2000 and RX.

Oh well...

[Ron Earp]

I hear ya man. My crankcase evacuator kit just showed up......a day after I found the section in the main GCR making it illegal....

At least you found out. I installed it......:o

[JoshS]

Actually, I think Mazda initially said north of 250 right? Should we use that?

Or should we use the Mazda corrected numbered of 238?

That was then again corrected for essentially the same motor by SAE down to 232?

Don't play games man, that's just silly.
What's silly is suggesting that we should class with anything other than the manufacturer's published HP number for the car in question. The car in question is a 2004 Mazda RX-8, and Mazda says that a 2004 RX-8 has 238 horsepower. It's really simple!

That's the only thing that is *not* playing games. Using any other number would be playing games.

EDIT: Again -- feel free to argue the subjective parts of the process. Arguing the objective parts, such as the manufacturer's stated hp, is something you have to take up with the manufacturer, not with the ITAC. 238 is the only base number that we could possibly use and have any integrity of the process. Do you really not see that?

[its66]

*Grand Am allows 108db IIRC, that would make the exhaust on SpeedSource RX8's (GAC) illegal for IT. With what is done to them, and the design of the exhaust, it could not be cut to <103 without losing HP. How much HP loss..I could only speculate. Steve might know.

*I would not question the 232/238 rating. My understanding on the 232 is that is was a change in the rating system that year, and not influenced by anything else. If there is in fact a flaw in the rating, it isn't the 6 hp that changed that year.

*Open question for all. Does anyone have experience comparing crank(er flywheel) HP to wheel HP??? I don't. If you do, does 238 HP correspond to 173.xx WHP??? again, not a loaded question. I actually want to know.

*To Jeff's point about 1/4 mile times. Time is also dependent upon traction, driver, rollout, etc. Trap speed however, can be approximated mathematically, knowing only the weight and hp. There are more complicated programs available which also have inputs for gearing, tire height, etc. I would hesitate to use 1/4 mile ET's as an indication of HP-too many variables. Trap speed could be used though. Maybe I have a project for later tonight. :)

*Josh, no offense intended here, but when dealing with factory specs, there are errors. I deal with them on a daily basis. My company submits errors to the manufacturers when we find them. Most of them are easier to prove than the HP number though. (i.e. Saturn frame measurements off by 16 mm in the left rear) I realize that the factory is the best source for specs, but there are mistakes there too. If nothing else, perhaps SCCA should have a system in place for dealing with questionable specs.

[JeffYoung]

I thought the SAE adjustment was a "correction" by a governing body? Meaning that SAE mandated that everyone prove their hp numbers up. Some went up, some went down.

Why we aren't using the "corrected" number is beyond me.

On the 1/4 times, I was joking. I don't think we should be using that, tea leaves or the length of a pot and Budweiser induced burnout for classing a car.

[seckerich]

As Josh posted the 238 is the only number the ITAC can use as a base and be respected. Where I see the problem is that we say we use the process and we do to a point. The process is then skewed by the "subjective" 15,25,30 expected gains. Further deviated from with the "subjective" -100 for low torque. It was just a guess or assumption on the part of the ITAC to assume a RX8 is like a S2000 so they gave it 15%. Might be right or wrong but it was just a guess. I have not seen any place in the discussion where it was justified any other way. It was just the lowest number used to date so there it is. Any data to state otherwise was poorly stated or in Kirks words irrelevant. He does not even remember listening to anything other than the stock number and what it meant. But in his mind the process was preserved. Right up to the SWAG. All data I have seen on the car says you were wrong.

[JoshS]

Now that we're all being more reasonable:

Steve, you can't have it both ways.

We have to use the published hp. Thanks for seeing that.

Now, the multiplier is for the expected horsepower gain in IT trim. The proposal we got (with numbers from you) says that the stock horsepower on a chassis dyno is usually 165-175 (quoting from the proposal). Let's use 170, right in the middle of the range.

If we thought that the gain from IT trim was only 10%, that would mean you'd expect chassis dyno figures in IT trim of only 187 (170 + 10%). The proposal we got says that one of your cars with "some intake and exhaust work" showed 196 on the dyno. That's a gain of 15%. I personally would expect better from that once the specific combination of allowed IT mods is really targeted.

[lateapex911]

Ok, Steve, just for the record, you think the car should weigh???

If I read your posts correctly, (and feel free to point out where I might have missed or misread something, I'm kinda busy these past few days), you think the math should be:

238 x 10% =262.8
261.8 x11.25 = 2945.25
2945 - 100 (tq) = 2845, rounded to 2850.

Is that what you expected?

[JeffYoung]

Wait a second.

You say you accept 238 crank hp.

But you then use 165-175 whp to justify the 15% multiplication factor?

What am I missing here?


Now that we're all being more reasonable:

Steve, you can't have it both ways.

We have to use the published hp. Thanks for seeing that.

Now, the multiplier is for the expected horsepower gain in IT trim. The proposal we got (with numbers from you) says that the stock horsepower on a chassis dyno is usually 165-175 (quoting from the proposal). Let's use 170, right in the middle of the range.

If we thought that the gain from IT trim was only 10%, that would mean you'd expect chassis dyno figures in IT trim of only 187 (170 + 10%). The proposal we got says that one of your cars with "some intake and exhaust work" showed 196 on the dyno. That's a gain of 15%. I personally would expect better from that once the specific combination of allowed IT mods is really targeted.

[JeffYoung]

And let me do clear up the proposal stuff a bit.

1. I wrote it. Steve offered to help out, and he revised certain portions of it (I don't remember which).

2. Steve gave me the dyno numbers I submitted with it, and I did some (admittedly internet) research on my own.

3. The numbers I came up with were mine. I then shared the proposal and dyno sheets with anyone who asked before I submitted to the ITAC.

After some discussion, I agreed with Dan, Grafton and others that the requested weight of 2720 or so was low.

I never revised the proposal to reflect that and I should have. My error.

Jake, your numbers below are precisely how I would class the car right now.


Ok, Steve, just for the record, you think the car should weigh???

If I read your posts correctly, (and feel free to point out where I might have missed or misread something, I'm kinda busy these past few days), you think the math should be:

238 x 10% =262.8
261.8 x11.25 = 2945.25
2945 - 100 (tq) = 2845, rounded to 2850.

Is that what you expected?

[JoshS]

Yeah, I take it back.

Whether or not I believe the 238hp is irrelevant.

I'm just saying that I believe 15% gains over stock. I was trying to point out that apparently you do, too.

[JeffYoung]

It's all cool.

By the way, here is a good rep of a stock S2000 dyno plot. Looks a lot like.....Steve's Grand Am Renesis plot:

http://hondaswap.com/auto-multi-media/s2000-picture-stock-dyno-72995/

[robits325is]

Dyno numbers are irrevelant. Too many variables. Too many different brands with inconsistent results. 170 on a mustang might be 210 on a dynojet.

Just my opinion.

[erlrich]

Wait a second.

You say you accept 238 crank hp.

But you then use 165-175 whp to justify the 15% multiplication factor?

What am I missing here?
Jeff, that's the reason I was asking Steve whether Grand Am allowed any work that IT does not. He stated in his post on p.6 that the sheets he provided to the ITAC showed 196.68 HP for a full Grand Am build. He then went on to say a stock brand new RX8 made 173.25 HP on the same dyno. That's a 13.5% gain. It doesn't matter if the HP figures are corrected (or correct) or not, the % gain would be the same. If you plug 13.5% into the original equation, leaving everything else as is you end up at 2940. I don't have a side in this fight (my earlier smart-ass comment notwithstanding), but I think if you guys are going to argue a point you should at least be consistent.

I do think it would have been a good idea to have erred slightly on the light side - maybe have fudged some of those subjective factors a little - and get some of these cars on track, and then see if they needed adjustments. By leaning to the heavier side (I know, it's what the process came up with - never mind those subjective adders) you may very well never know whether this will be a good ITR car.

[JeffYoung]

EoB! EoB! EoB! LOL...I'm kidding Earl......

But see, we keep mixing and matching numbers. Here, you are using a much lower than 238 crank hp number (the 173 at the wheels) to generate a gain factor of 13.5% and then APPLYING THAT TO THE VERY SAME 238 CRANK HP NUMBER YOU JUST REJECTED. Sorry, don't mean to yell, just trying to be clear.

In other words, if you are going to use 173 and 196 to generate the gain factor, then you HAVE to apply it to what, 210 stock crank hp (that's about 173 wheels right), to get a "consistent" weight.

Isn't that right? Or am I missing something?


Jeff, that's the reason I was asking Steve whether Grand Am allowed any work that IT does not. He stated in his post on p.6 that the sheets he provided to the ITAC showed 196.68 HP for a full Grand Am build. He then went on to say a stock brand new RX8 made 173.25 HP on the same dyno. That's a 13.5% gain. It doesn't matter if the HP figures are corrected (or correct) or not, the % gain would be the same. If you plug 13.5% into the original equation, leaving everything else as is you end up at 2940. I don't have a side in this fight (my earlier smart-ass comment notwithstanding), but I think if you guys are going to argue a point you should at least be consistent.

I do think it would have been a good idea to have erred slightly on the light side - maybe have fudged some of those subjective factors a little - and get some of these cars on track, and then see if they needed adjustments. By leaning to the heavier side (I know, it's what the process came up with - never mind those subjective adders) you may very well never know whether this will be a good ITR car.

[tnord]

Jeff, that's the reason I was asking Steve whether Grand Am allowed any work that IT does not. He stated in his post on p.6 that the sheets he provided to the ITAC showed 196.68 HP for a full Grand Am build. He then went on to say a stock brand new RX8 made 173.25 HP on the same dyno. That's a 13.5% gain. It doesn't matter if the HP figures are corrected (or correct) or not, the % gain would be the same.



that's an astute observation worthy of repeating.

Steve....what else besides sound is different in grand am compared to IT?

[erlrich]

EoB! EoB! EoB! LOL...I'm kidding Earl......

But see, we keep mixing and matching numbers. Here, you are using a much lower than 238 crank hp number (the 173 at the wheels) to generate a gain factor of 13.5% and then APPLYING THAT TO THE VERY SAME 238 CRANK HP NUMBER YOU JUST REJECTED. Sorry, don't mean to yell, just trying to be clear.

In other words, if you are going to use 173 and 196 to generate the gain factor, then you HAVE to apply it to what, 210 stock crank hp (that's about 173 wheels right), to get a "consistent" weight.

Isn't that right? Or am I missing something?
Not so much missing anything Jeff - well, except maybe that what I'm saying, and I think Josh was alluding to also, is that the actual numbers don't mean as much as the difference between numbers from the same dyno. And in reality, we all know that even those numbers aren't all that reliable; if they came from different cars, tested on different days, with different operators, etc. they may or may not be truly representative. That's why Andy's point about only using real world data when it comes from many different sources, over a sufficient period of time, is absolutely spot on IMO. One set of data, no matter who it comes from, isn't enough to rely upon when setting the weight of a new car.

And, I would bet a paycheck that under the right circumstances you could put an engine on an engine dyno, pull 238 HP, then turn around and drop it into a car and only see 173 HP on a chassis dyno. There are just too many variables involved.

[GKR_17]

that's an astute observation worthy of repeating.

Steve....what else besides sound is different in grand am compared to IT?

http://grand-am.com/assets/KONIRules.pdf


7-5 Exhaust System
7-5.1 All catalytic converters must be removed unless otherwise stated.
7-5.2 Exhaust pipes must exit behind the driver; extend to the perimeter of the bodywork and direct exhaust gases on a minimum of 45 degrees down.
7-5.3 The exhaust system on naturally aspirated cars is free beyond the OEM exhaust manifold except as noted in 7-5.2.


7-7 Other Items Which May Be Substituted
7-7.1 Spark plugs, wires, distributors, ignition wiring and batteries. Batteries must be of the same dimensions as OEM battery.
7-7.2 Filters, fluids, lubricants


7-7.3 Belts, pulleys, hoses, wiper blades

7-7.4 Inside mirrors, fittings, nuts, bolts and fasteners
7-7.5 Gaskets, bearings, piston rings. Replacement head gasket must be OEM thickness.
7-7.6 Fuel pressure regulators and fuel injectors
7-7.7 Radiators





7-8 Engine

7-8.1 Engine management systems may be replaced with non-OEM systems with Grand-Am approval. Effective 01/01/08 all GS and 05/01/08 all ST KONI Challenge cars that choose to use an aftermarket ECU must use the Grand-Am specified ECU and wiring harness. Spec ECU and wiring harness’s cannot be modified in any way.
7-8.2 The following components may be tooled enough for balancing only - pistons, rods, crankshaft, harmonic balancer, flywheel and clutch.


7-8.3 The lightest rod and piston must remain unaltered.

7-8.4 The crankshaft and harmonic balancer may weigh no less than the OEM specification.
7-8.5 Aftermarket pistons may be used provided they remain identical in weight, dimension and form.
7-8.6 Allowed to overbore block up to .030 maximum.
7-8.7 The oil pan and oil pick up may be modified (not the pump)
7-8.8 Engine oil Accu-sump system and valve is permitted
7-8.9 All pushrod engines may use aftermarket blueprinted or adjustable length pushrods, provided they are of the same material and configuration of the original.
7-8.10 Other items that may be replaced include cam gears, sprockets and chains.
7-8.11 The airbox and air filter are free on normally aspirated cars unless otherwise specified by Grand-Am. Ram air induction is not permitted.
7-8.12 Grand-Am will provide restrictors when required.Teams will be responsible for gaskets and bolts to attach the restrictors.



spec line:


Mazda RX8 2004, final drive: 5.12:1, fuel cap: 17.9, weight: 2650


Tire size: 225/45/17. RPM limit TBD. MAZDASPEED aero #QSEA-50-020-X1, QSEA-51-96Z and QSEA-70-900-X1 are allowed. Allowed exhaust header. Allowed oil cooler vent in trunk. May use aftermarket ECU.

[JeffYoung]

Grafton, thanks.

So, Grand Am Renesis gets header, open exhaust, open ECU and intake. Basically IT prep?

[tnord]

so do i read that right, Koni Challenge cars use an OEM header?

[GKR_17]

So, Grand Am Renesis gets header, open exhaust, open ECU and intake. Basically IT prep?

per 7.8.1, effective now: Grand-am specs the aftermarket ECU (presumably a good one).

Apex seals are free in IT.

[GKR_17]

so do i read that right, Koni Challenge cars use an OEM header?

spec line allows header on some cars, including Rx-8

[tnord]

so then it's pretty much IT prep except for maybe some gains from the open-ECU rule in IT?

[seckerich]

Sorry to come late to the party. Been out loading for CMP. Yes the Koni Challenge cars are spot on an IT build and were free ECU until this year. The numbers I posted were from a front running car (don't ask which one) and were all done on the same Speedsource Dynojet. I have used the same dyno for my ITS car and got within 2 hp from there to dynolab in atlanta and to a Dynojet in Asheville so I am pretty confident in my numbers. The rear wheel on those 2 cars does show almost 15%. You have to stretch pretty far to believe it looses 66 hp in the driveline. Was the original car a little of a pig--yes it seems so. Did Motec M600 and a very good exhaust and 3 years of tuning fix it--yes. At your assumed driveline losses that puts the motor at 275.3 hp (theoretical) Now apply those same numbers to other cars and they don't pass the smell test.

Reality check here. Do you honestly believe that 195 or even 205 rear wheel with 140-145 ft of torque is a match for a 215 hp 225 ft of torque BMW at the same weight, let alone at 215# heavier. Get a grip guys, something is wacked in this equation. The S2000 is in the same boat. You have got to realize that somehow torque has to be considered a little more than a trivial 100 pound drop. We give up 70# rwtq to the BMW. It is the same with most of the big 6 motors in the class but the BMW is the only one I have first hand knowledge of the numbers on and that has been publicly admitted to in the SIR debacle. I have seen more but will stick to the established numbers. I would have welcomed this discussion before the ITAC published the classification. I would have been happy to provide information to the CRB but never got the chance. All we got was it was being looked at and then it is in fastrack.

[JeffYoung]

I go back and forth and back and forth on this. I see and understand the ITAC's commitment to process, but if the process produces THAT result...WTF? I mean the RX8 has no chance against the 325is, the 944S2 and even the Mustang V6 at that weight, whp and wtq. Makes no sense.

The difference with the S2000 to me anyway is way more stock whp, but I agree, generally the same issue.


. Do you honestly believe that 195 or even 205 rear wheel with 140-145 ft of torque is a match for a 215 hp 225 ft of torque BMW at the same weight, let alone at 215# heavier. Get a grip guys, something is wacked in this equation. The S2000 is in the same boat. .

[Tak]

I am puzzled at the accounting for torque comments. The correct process is straight forward but tedious. You need torque vs RPM data, you need the gear ratios (including final drive) and you need the wheel radius.
From this data you generate a plot with torque on the Y axis and MPH on the x-axis. You will create a torque vs speed graph for each gear.
You end up with a a series of overlapping torque curves. (1 curve for each gear). A side benefit of this graph is it will show you exactly where to shift (where the curves cross). Equalizing cars then involves finding the area under the curve for a given speed range (say 30 to 120 mph), and multiplying by the vehicle mass.
As I said, this method is tedious, but will correct for both HP/torque disparity and for gearing issues.
Josh- You are local--I'd be happy to get together with you over lunch one day and show you the spreadsheet I worked up for my Rx-7.
Food for thought: F1 cars don't make torque either, but they are plenty fast in a straight line...

Tachi (Tak)

[dj10]

Grafton, thanks.

So, Grand Am Renesis gets header, open exhaust, open ECU and intake. Basically IT prep?

Jeff, you forgot injectors.

[seckerich]

Jeff, you forgot injectors.
We use stock injectors Dan. Barely see 60% duty cycle.

[Knestis]

>> I do think it would have been a good idea to have erred slightly on the light side - maybe have fudged some of those subjective factors a little - and get some of these cars on track, and then see if they needed adjustments.

Think VERY carefully about this statement. While it's sensible as far as it goes (in terms of the motivation to build and therefore likelihood of seeing cars on the track) this approach codifies competition adjustments (bleah!) EXACTLY like they are implemented in Production - post hoc changes in specification based on on-track performance. Are you ALL ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that you want to go down that road?

I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that I do NOT and I take it as part of my mission on the ITAC to keep us from going there.

K

[dj10]

We use stock injectors Dan. Barely see 60% duty cycle.
That's wild considering you are making HP up to 8500 rpm. I am wondering if torque is such a big deal how the Mazda's are beating Pontiac & Porsche, which both have tons more torque?:shrug:

[chuck baader]

DJ10...what matters is torque applied to the rear wheels. You must look at the gear ratio. I suspect the Mazdas are using a 5+ gear while the other cars are using a 3 or 4+ gear. Multiply the available torque by the gear ratio to get applied torque. Chuck

[lateapex911]

That's wild considering you are making HP up to 8500 rpm. I am wondering if torque is such a big deal how the Mazda's are beating Pontiac & Porsche, which both have tons more torque?:shrug:

Huh?

I think you mean in the Rolex cup races? With the banner Racing Pontiacs? Those Speedsource RX-8s, if I have a clue, are 3 rotors...(right Steve?) a MUCH different animal, and THAT class is Ad-jus-ted!

[dj10]

Huh?

I think you mean in the Rolex cup races? With the banner Racing Pontiacs? Those Speedsource RX-8s, if I have a clue, are 3 rotors...(right Steve?) a MUCH different animal, and THAT class is Ad-jus-ted!

Sorry, I guess two different subjects.:) So I guess the 3 rotor makes gobbs more torque than the 2 rotor. I didn't mean to imply that the Rolex RX-8 was anything like the ITR RX-8 would be. I also under stand that the Rolex RX-8 is like the NASCAR car are to their OEM versions.:)

[erlrich]

.
this approach codifies competition adjustments (bleah!) EXACTLY like they are implemented in Production - post hoc changes in specification based on on-track performance. Are you ALL ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that you want to go down that road?

I understand your concerns Kirk, but at the same time have to ask how you reconcile them with "At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a "performance compensation adjustment" shall be made."?

Seems to me we've already codified something like competition adjustments? And while I don't really want to see Prod type comp adjustments in IT either, I don't really think what I suggested was quite the same thing; at least no more than PCAs are competition adjustments. What I am suggesting is that there is already some 'wiggle room' built into the process, in the form of the subjective adders, and that this is where the ITAC could work to help ensure a car doesn't die on the drawing board. And I know you of all people Kirk dislike the subjective part of the process, but until there are hard and fast formulas in place to account for all of the additional factors that must be considered when classing a car we're going to have to live with them.

Besides, I have the utmost faith that the current ITAC is the last group in this club that would allow true comp adjustments into IT.

[JeffYoung]

Yup, subjectivity is necessary. Especially when the process used solely objectively produces the following result:

E36 BMW 325is: Weight: 2780, KNOWN min. whp: 205, KNOWN min wtq: 200

RX8: Weight: 2980, KNOWN MAX whp: 205, KNOWN MAX wtq: 140

Maybe no guarantee of competiveness justifies this, I don't know.

[its66]

Sorry, I guess two different subjects.:) So I guess the 3 rotor makes gobbs more torque than the 2 rotor. I didn't mean to imply that the Rolex RX-8 was anything like the ITR RX-8 would be. I also under stand that the Rolex RX-8 is like the NASCAR car are to their OEM versions.:)

yep, very different beasts. Look at the rolex RX8 weight and the weight of the other, more "torqueified" entries. It is 500+lbs lighter than the Pontiacs, and 325 lighter than the Porsches. But, apples and oranges other than to say that for some reason, GA thought the RX8 needed to be lighter to be competitive.

Chuck,
I'm no expert, but I would think that when you run a car on a dyno, through the actual transmission, R&P, and tires that the car will be run on the track with, that you would be measuring the torque applied to the wheels. I do understand basic torque multiplication, but does it, or does it not show up when making chassis dyno pulls??

[chuck baader]

Jim, I understand your point and I'm not sure I can competently explain. At 5250 rpm, torque and horsepower cross on a dyno sheet. Torque is generally going down as HP goes up. Because of the high RPM, those cars run a much lower gear. On a car that is RPM limited, while they can make more torque down low, they are limited by the taller gear they must run. Also, it does not seem to matter what gear (transmission) you run on the dyno, the results are very similar.

Now, let's get some of our more learned colleagues to chime in. Chuck

[dj10]

I've seen RX-8's run at ARRC last year in ITU (under a certain weight), what configuration were they?

[JoshS]

Yup, subjectivity is necessary. Especially when the process used solely objectively produces the following result:

E36 BMW 325is: Weight: 2780, KNOWN min. whp: 205, KNOWN min wtq: 200

RX8: Weight: 2980, KNOWN MAX whp: 205, KNOWN MAX wtq: 140

Maybe no guarantee of competiveness justifies this, I don't know.
Jeff, this drives me nuts. The "minimum" BMW numbers are that high? Pretty sure there are LOTS of BMW's out there with lower numbers than that.

And the maximum is known on an RX-8? With one never built to the exact ruleset? How can you possibly know that it's the max?

And before we go comparing wheel horsepower numbers, I still want to see the test I proposed earlier, because the SAE correction factors have a bunch of assumptions about engines built into them. I could be wrong, but a friend who understands this stuff much better than me explained that it could be an issue.

[JoshS]

I am puzzled at the accounting for torque comments. The correct process is straight forward but tedious. You need torque vs RPM data, you need the gear ratios (including final drive) and you need the wheel radius.

Hey Tachi,

I wouldn't mind getting together, but I think we all understand how to figure out the area under the curve. The issue is that it's not realistic for the ITAC to get the torque vs. RPM data for every car we class.

[Knestis]

Yup, subjectivity is necessary. Especially when the process used solely objectively produces the following result:

E36 BMW 325is: Weight: 2780, KNOWN min. whp: 205, KNOWN min wtq: 200

RX8: Weight: 2980, KNOWN MAX whp: 205, KNOWN MAX wtq: 140

Maybe no guarantee of competiveness justifies this, I don't know.

There is a HUGE difference between changing the engine multiplication "IT power" factor based on research and applying subjective decisions about what something should weigh. We CAN do the former. We can almost do the latter with the PCA process, but it scares the crap out of me. True subjectivity applied at the unit of each model considered is totally not OK.

(PS here to anyone who opposed the IT-to-National-status initiative - you can have your worst nightmares come true, even leaving IT Regional-only, but going down this road.)

We might also change the math behind the process to more satisfactorily consider torque, since it sounds like that's a factor here. I'd like to better understand the ramifications and considerations of that, particularly since (the way my limited understanding goes) "HP" figures from most dynos are derived from direct measurements of, uh, torque...?

And I STILL argue that we don't "KNOW" what we think we know.

...and I'd be interested to know, since at least a few of us think the recommendation to the board was 100# fat, what you think that translates into in terms of lap time. Strictly as a mental exercise mind you, but I'm like that. :)

...and no, Jeff. Every car should have a shot at being in the game. Some will be closer than others but I don't believe that any ITAC members is kicking dirt on any make/model of eligible car with the "no guarantee" silliness.

Finally - and this is **REALLY** just Kirk talking...

...the tone of some of the posts here suggests that the writers believe that the ITAC's "got it in for Brand X." Please, SET IT FREE. We've got plenty on our plate trying to worry about the health of the category as a whole, without having to sit around figuring out ways to dink you. Yes - the committee is made up of individuals with differing biases, priorities, and perceptions. Yes - those perceptions influence individual decisions. But those biases are lost in the noise of translation to recommendations to the board through a process that's pretty close to consensus building.

K

[GKR_17]

The issue is that it's not realistic for the ITAC to get the torque vs. RPM data for every car we class.

I completely agree. This is why we need to be very careful using the torque number to set weights. All that actually matters is the hp of the engine in the usable RPM range. In general a high torque motor will have a 'flatter' power curve and won't lose as much power when shifting to a higher gear. But notice the ratio change in the transmission is highly important also. We clearly have an adder for torque, and I thought we had one for good transmission, but I don't hear much talk of it.

Here are 4 examples:

ITR BMW 325i (E36)
2nd-3rd: 33.7% drop
3rd-4th: 26.9% drop
4th-5th: 18.0% drop

ITR Porsche 944S2
2nd-3rd: 32.0% drop
3rd-4th: 26.1% drop
4th-5th: 19.7% drop

ITR Honda S2000
3rd-4th: 21.6% drop
4th-5th: 16.4% drop
5th-6th: 16.5% drop

ITR Mazda Rx-8
3rd-4th: 27.8% drop
4th-5th: 15.8% drop
5th-6th: 15.7% drop

Both of the low torque cars also have better transmissions, especially when you go down two gears from top. In addition, since the ratios are better, they may actually use 4 gears at some tracks where any 5-speed box will only use 3.

As an added thought - those familiar with the ITS Rx-7 know how much better the GTUs 5th gear is. The 0.71 5th gear in that car is a 29% drop, while the 0.76 5th drops 24%. Without that 5% better gear, that car has little chance in a tough field. Notice how much better than that both the S2000 and Rx-8 are for both 5th and 6th gears.

[JeffYoung]

It should drive you crazy because it shows the problem with the classification.

Here's what drives me crazy. I spent probably 200 hours over the last 2 years working on setting up ITR, developing the initial spreadsheet with Ron, participating in the ITR Ad Hoc committee, helping Ron with the V8 proposal (minimal, Ron did most of that), researching the RX8 proposal, and then doing the ITR spreadsheet clean up with you.

During all of that, I thought the goal of the "new wave" of IT thinking was to limit adjustments, keep rules stable, but not ignore the obvious. And most importantly to make all decisions as transparently as possible.

We put out the ITR spreadsheet for comment. I offered the V8 and the RX8 proposal, and dyno sheets (after a miscommunication with Steve), to anyone who asked BEFORE I submitted them.

I've read Kirk's post below and I frankly agree with most of it. I need to turn down the heat a notch, because I believe in the ITAC's integrity and commitment to preserving what we have.

But I am TICKED..I admit it...about:

1. That there was no "external" debate about the ITAC's proposed number before it went to the CRB. I did a lot of research on RX8 horsepower issues, and Steve knows a lot about gains. Offers were made to allow dyno testing of the Renesis, and there is information available from SCCA Pro on the motor that was not used. Why???? Why not take people up on this information to find out as much as you can about problematic numbers and THEN make the call. Would you still get heat over it? I'm sure, but at least you could say you went to great lengths to keep the process open to discussion, and member information input. I did more research after I submitted the proposal and had serious doubts about my own number. It's too low.

2. This one is directed directly at you, and I'm sorry about that. But I'm going to say it. Despite all of the work I did on researching the RX8 and power numbers, and all of the knowledge Steve E. and SCCA Pro have on it, YOU took it upon yourself to go get information from an "unnamed source" who doesn't want to be disclosed. YOU did this as someone who is in direct competition to the RX8. And now, you won't tell us anything other than you believe the stock hp number and the gain factor you arrived at because...someone told you so we know not who. Can you see how to others this might look a little off? I honestly don't think you had anything other than the best interests of the class involved, and I believe you are honest and have integrity. But just think about how that LOOKS.

I of course respect the ENTIRE ITAC, including you, for your volunteer efforts, and the hard work that you do (and all you get is shit from guys like me about it). After this, I do need to stop posting because I (a) have too much time invested in this one (even though I will end up cometing against the damn weedeater motor car!) and (b) consider all you guys friends. But I did want to throw out my concerns from my perspective in the hopes that maybe the classification process going forward will be more open.

I will also tell you that after spending the time that I did on the RX8 proposal, and Steve E. as well, to not be consulted AT ALL on some of the numbers we developed, why, how, etc....and then have the number come out like it did......makes it much less likely I ever undertake a classification effort again. I know this frustrated Steve a lot and he is a great resource on all things rotary.

That's all. You guys on the whole do great work. I just think you buggered this one (my opinion) and I think the process needs to be much more open. If we had this debate BEFORE the number showed up as the ITAC's classification recommendation and AFTER IT folks had an opportunity to comment on it prior to submission to the CRB, it would be much easier to swallow.


Jeff, this drives me nuts. The "minimum" BMW numbers are that high? Pretty sure there are LOTS of BMW's out there with lower numbers than that.

And the maximum is known on an RX-8? With one never built to the exact ruleset? How can you possibly know that it's the max?

And before we go comparing wheel horsepower numbers, I still want to see the test I proposed earlier, because the SAE correction factors have a bunch of assumptions about engines built into them. I could be wrong, but a friend who understands this stuff much better than me explained that it could be an issue.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with most if not all of this.

To answer your question, I think the effect on lap times of the extra 100 lbs will be...rightly or wrongly....infinite.

I think that because of that 100lbs it is possible none will be built.


There is a HUGE difference between changing the engine multiplication "IT power" factor based on research and applying subjective decisions about what something should weigh. We CAN do the former. We can almost do the latter with the PCA process, but it scares the crap out of me. True subjectivity applied at the unit of each model considered is totally not OK.

(PS here to anyone who opposed the IT-to-National-status initiative - you can have your worst nightmares come true, even leaving IT Regional-only, but going down this road.)

We might also change the math behind the process to more satisfactorily consider torque, since it sounds like that's a factor here. I'd like to better understand the ramifications and considerations of that, particularly since (the way my limited understanding goes) "HP" figures from most dynos are derived from direct measurements of, uh, torque...?

And I STILL argue that we don't "KNOW" what we think we know.

...and I'd be interested to know, since at least a few of us think the recommendation to the board was 100# fat, what you think that translates into in terms of lap time. Strictly as a mental exercise mind you, but I'm like that. :)

...and no, Jeff. Every car should have a shot at being in the game. Some will be closer than others but I don't believe that any ITAC members is kicking dirt on any make/model of eligible car with the "no guarantee" silliness.

Finally - and this is **REALLY** just Kirk talking...

...the tone of some of the posts here suggests that the writers believe that the ITAC's "got it in for Brand X." Please, SET IT FREE. We've got plenty on our plate trying to worry about the health of the category as a whole, without having to sit around figuring out ways to dink you. Yes - the committee is made up of individuals with differing biases, priorities, and perceptions. Yes - those perceptions influence individual decisions. But those biases are lost in the noise of translation to recommendations to the board through a process that's pretty close to consensus building.

K

[dj10]

I think that because of that 100lbs it is possible none will be built.

This is hard to believe Jeff. I believe it would be their loss. :( Some how you got to believe in the system, after all they did get the bmw 29 mm sir right.;)

[jjjanos]

If we had this debate BEFORE the number showed up as the ITAC's classification recommendation and AFTER IT folks had an opportunity to comment on it prior to submission to the CRB, it would be much easier to swallow.

It's still not a done deal. Wasn't this just in the recomendations? The BoD has to approve it. One would hope that, if several people make a strong case that there was a factual error in the base HP or the possible gains from IT trim, the BoD will send it back to the CRB to review it.

[seckerich]

That's wild considering you are making HP up to 8500 rpm. I am wondering if torque is such a big deal how the Mazda's are beating Pontiac & Porsche, which both have tons more torque?:shrug:
Wrong car Dan. We have a 3 rotor periferal port in hte RX8GT. We are talking about the Koni Challenge cars.

[seckerich]

Jeff has pretty much summed up the opinion of most from the outside looking in on the RX8 classing. You ignored all data because some were sure they were so much more informed than others. You used your secret source and ignored all the data that is available from Formula Mazda on the motor. To you directly Josh--are you so sure that we are idiots at Speedsource after winning championships in the RX8 and building them for 4 years that you think we left something on the table? Get with the program guy. The GA RX8 is built to EXACT IT specs in the driveline dept--Period. 4 years of data to go on. Make a frikkin phone call to any team and get a clue before you spout off about the one data point . Pro formula Mazda runs them with M600 Motec, header, and ram air intake. Do some research or step away from the decisions if all you use is your ONE source that is posted as god. Talk about uninformed experts.

Good thing is Kirk is parked by me at CMP so dont be surprised to find him strung up with a RX8 rotor hanging from his neck.:rolleyes: Yea, I am kidding but I will wear him out on this one. Enjoy the holliday weekend and we can resume our bitching later.

[seckerich]

There is a HUGE difference between changing the engine multiplication "IT power" factor based on research and applying subjective decisions about what something should weigh. We CAN do the former. We can almost do the latter with the PCA process, but it scares the crap out of me. True subjectivity applied at the unit of each model considered is totally not OK.

(PS here to anyone who opposed the IT-to-National-status initiative - you can have your worst nightmares come true, even leaving IT Regional-only, but going down this road.)

We might also change the math behind the process to more satisfactorily consider torque, since it sounds like that's a factor here. I'd like to better understand the ramifications and considerations of that, particularly since (the way my limited understanding goes) "HP" figures from most dynos are derived from direct measurements of, uh, torque...?

And I STILL argue that we don't "KNOW" what we think we know.

...and I'd be interested to know, since at least a few of us think the recommendation to the board was 100# fat, what you think that translates into in terms of lap time. Strictly as a mental exercise mind you, but I'm like that. :)

...and no, Jeff. Every car should have a shot at being in the game. Some will be closer than others but I don't believe that any ITAC members is kicking dirt on any make/model of eligible car with the "no guarantee" silliness.

Finally - and this is **REALLY** just Kirk talking...

...the tone of some of the posts here suggests that the writers believe that the ITAC's "got it in for Brand X." Please, SET IT FREE. We've got plenty on our plate trying to worry about the health of the category as a whole, without having to sit around figuring out ways to dink you. Yes - the committee is made up of individuals with differing biases, priorities, and perceptions. Yes - those perceptions influence individual decisions. But those biases are lost in the noise of translation to recommendations to the board through a process that's pretty close to consensus building.

K
Kirk since you and all the ITAC conveniently ignore my posts on HP to weight comparison because none on the ITAC have a prayer of explaining the total inequity based on real power numbers, I will answer yours. It is not 100 pounds. It is 215 more than a car that makes more HP and torque--get it yet. Yes 100 pounds is huge on tires, brakes, and a car with no torque has to maintain more corner speed to compete. Hard to do with almost 3000 pounds. The cars with torque just slow in the corner and drive away on exit. Starting to understand my earlier post where I said some think it is cute to screw the car based on BS stock numbers. Too much turf protection going on here and it sailed by the CRB while they were busy with runoffs crap.

For the dyno question: all sheets were with a 5.12 so it was real available torque. Please, prove me wrong--anybody.

[GKR_17]

For the dyno question: all sheets were with a 5.12 so it was real available torque. Please, prove me wrong--anybody.

The gearing is irrelevant on the dyno (except that it needs to be in the right load range). It's just a number you type in so the computer knows what to use in its math.

On second thought - you don't even have to enter the ratio since it already has RPM and speed.

Run it in 4th, 5th, and 6th gears, the results will be virtually identical if the dyno can handle the torque/speed combination.

[dj10]

We are talking about the Koni Challenge cars.

Steve, I've looked at the rules in the Grand Am ST Series and you are allowed to run the RX-8 @ 2650# while the BMW's 3.0L are running @ 2875#, Acura RSX & TSX are 2500 & 2600# & the VW GTI is @ 2750#. I've also looked at the results and by know means should on track performance be taken I account.;). If anyone thinks that any Pro series doesn't take in account on track performance, they answer a question, how do they come up with adjustments for the different cars? What I'm saying here, that by the data I've seen I do believe the RX-8 is classed to heavy but can I say for sure is 2890# to light? :shrug:Lets look at the Grand Am weights for a second. BMW 3.0L, 225 hp 2875# that's 225# difference between the BMW & RX-8. Now look at IT's weights, BMW 3.0 is 3290# and the RX-8 is @ 2940, if I'm correct, this is 350# difference. From the Grand Am RX-8 weight to the IT weight is an additional 290#'s, 2650 to 2940#. Looking at all of this I tend to believe the BMW is also classified to heavy in IT but that's another matter. What is a compromise weight fair enought for someone to build a RX-8? I've asked this before, does anyone know what weight the ITU RX-8's had or were running last year @ ARRC? In T3 the RX-8 is 2980#'s and from what I see, will be allowed to use a 18" X 8" wheel in IT. If it were me. I'd split the difference between the 2940# & 2850# and let them run @ 2895#, watch their performance and adjust accordlingly.:birra:

[mbuskuhl]

I've asked this before, does anyone know what weight the ITU RX-8's had or were running last year @ ARRC?

The ITU RX-8 that won, Team MER Shannon McMasters was a fully developed T3 car with springs. T3 weight is 2980...

[dj10]

The ITU RX-8 that won, Team MER Shannon McMasters was a fully developed T3 car with springs. T3 weight is 2980...

Thanks Mark. Now if you lop off 85#'s and are allowed an IT suspension setup with more camber, bushings...etc. allowed in touring, can the RX-8 now compete? I bet it could.:cool:

[GKR_17]

The ITU RX-8 that won, Team MER Shannon McMasters was a fully developed T3 car with springs. T3 weight is 2980...

And the same S2000 that runs ITR is 2930 in T3.

[dj10]

And the same S2000 that runs ITR is 2930 in T3.
And in ITR your 3005. Hmmmm Maybe they have accounted for the suspension changes from touring 3 to IT. Does seem a little heavy. Hopefully the ITAC & CRB know more than me.:D

[GKR_17]

And in ITR your 3005. Hmmmm Maybe they have accounted for the suspension changes from touring 3 to IT. Does seem a little heavy. Hopefully the ITAC & CRB know more than me.:D

My point is the ITR S2000 gained weight compared to the T3 version, the Rx-8 didn't. Though who knows how the T3 weights are calculated. The ITAC used the exact same parameters on both cars.

[Knestis]

ii'm havivvng troullbel tpying wiht fmy feethanging frm this trees.

kk

[lateapex911]

No trouble typing here up at NHIS for a regional, but I did get my ear chewed about the Miata in ITA, and the Golf in ITB. (No, it wasn't Dave Gran ;) )Evidently, New Englanders are happy with ITS, or the guys with issues don't know what I look like, LOL.

[tnord]

No trouble typing here up at NHIS for a regional, but I did get my ear chewed about the Miata in ITA.....

pppsssshhhh.....based on what?

[Super Swift]

Dan,
I noticed @ the ARRC, that the RX-8 T-3 @ 2980# was 1.86sec faster than your ITR e36 BMW.

The RX-8 was competing w/o the benefit of IT preparation & you want to lower the weight?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dan,
I noticed @ the ARRC, that the RX-8 T-3 @ 2980# was 1.86sec faster than your ITR e36 BMW.

The RX-8 was competing w/o the benefit of IT preparation & you want to lower the weight?

Actually, the T3 RX-8 that you are talking about was 2.215 seconds SLOWER than Dan...and Dan was 2.034 seconds slower than the winning ITR E36...for a grand total of 4.249 seconds PER LAP slower between the T3 RX-8 and the ITR Bimmer.

If you wanna use on-track results as all..... :)

[Super Swift]

Andy,

Refer to www.arrc-online.com for each drivers best time for the weekend...

Robert H... 1 39.07

Dan J... 1 40.93

[Eagle7]

Andy,

Refer to www.arrc-online.com (http://www.arrc-online.com) for each drivers best time for the weekend...

Robert H... 1 39.07

Dan J... 1 40.93
Huh????
Rob was driving the ITS RX-7
Ray was in the RX-8 with a 1:41.76 - a real world-beater :eclipsee_steering:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Refer to www.arrc-online.com (http://www.arrc-online.com) for each drivers best time for the weekend...

Robert H... 1 39.07

Dan J... 1 40.93

Tha's an ITS RX-7 my friend. Fastest T3 RX-8 in the race was Shannon M.

[GKR_17]

Tha's an ITS RX-7 my friend. Fastest T3 RX-8 in the race was Shannon M.

Check the enduro. The McMasters Rx-8 did finish higher, but did not have the best lap. The Huffmaster Rx-8 ran a 1'39.60 in the enduro, and qualified at a 1'39.07. The best ITR E36 lap for that weekend (including qualifying) was 1'40.93.

[Z3_GoCar]

Andy,

Refer to www.arrc-online.com (http://www.arrc-online.com) for each drivers best time for the weekend...

Robert H... 1 39.07

Dan J... 1 40.93

When I look at those results, the first thing I noticed was that only a handfull of racers come from West of the Mississippi, none from any rockie mountain states or the Pacific coast. I wonder what the participation will be like this year, both at the RO's and the ARRC might be a slim year for club racing championships.

James

[Eagle7]

Check the enduro. The McMasters Rx-8 did finish higher, but did not have the best lap. The Huffmaster Rx-8 ran a 1'39.60 in the enduro, and qualified at a 1'39.07. The best ITR E36 lap for that weekend (including qualifying) was 1'40.93.
And the best ITS time was 1:39.56, so now we know that ITR is a slower class than ITS. What was your point again? :blink:

[dj10]

Dan,
I noticed @ the ARRC, that the RX-8 T-3 @ 2980# was 1.86sec faster than your ITR e36 BMW.

The RX-8 was competing w/o the benefit of IT preparation & you want to lower the weight?

I guess your talking about Huffmaster in Enduro qualifying? Don't judge a book by it's cover. How does anyone know if I had a good suspension setup for that weekend or not? I only want whats fair. If the weight is fair where it's at, ok, if it's not just give them a fair shake.

Andy, that was a Porsche that beat me not a BMW.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I was looking at the Sprint results, not enduro. And yes, it was the 944S2...sorry!

[Rabbit07]

Process weights for both new listings...

The older DOHC car may have gotten some "real world data" help since there's been a lot of "common wisdom" swirling around the difference between it and the SOHC version for ages. If we started from scratch on the one that's 130# lighter, it would end up the same now if in fact the stock power ratings are identical, since the technologies involved ask for he same multiplier.

K

Then maybe some "real world data" needs to be applied to the Gen2! And if all this lip service about process weight is true then some one please explain why the hell the stratus with the same SOHC engine as the ITA Neon is 550 lbs heavier in ITA!!!!??????? Something is very wrong here!!!!!:mad1:

[GKR_17]

And the best ITS time was 1:39.56, so now we know that ITR is a slower class than ITS. What was your point again? :blink:

The best ITR time for the weekend was a 1'39.11, so no ITS wasn't faster. I certainly expect ITR to get faster as the cars get more developed. However, the E36 doesn't have much room left for improvement. An Rx-8 prepped mostly to T3 specs surely does.

[Knestis]

Guys - do you really, REALLY want to get in the business of comparing single lap times among disparate cars, at one track, on one weekend, with ALL of the other variables not accounted for...???!!

You are our own worst enemies.

And Andy - look up "enabler" in the dictionary. Don't encourage this insanity. :blink:

Chris - The recent Neon/Stratus specifications all went through the process. My point was that, if the first generation models did NOT go through the same process - if they got "real worlded" - it would account for the differences.

K

[JeffYoung]

Yes! My car ran a 2:00 there in 2003. It should therefore weigh 10 lbs. Who do I write to?


Guys - do you really, REALLY want to get in the business of comparing single lap times among disparate cars, at one track, on one weekend, with ALL of the other variables not accounted for...???!!

You are our own worst enemies.

And Andy - look up "enabler" in the dictionary. Don't encourage this insanity. :blink:

Chris - The recent Neon/Stratus specifications all went through the process. My point was that, if the first generation models did NOT go through the same process - if they got "real worlded" - it would account for the differences.

K

[Rabbit07]

Chris - The recent Neon/Stratus specifications all went through the process. My point was that, if the first generation models did NOT go through the same process - if they got "real worlded" - it would account for the differences.

K
If this is true then "WHY" is the Stratus heavier than the Gen2 ACR Neon that has 20 more HP? I like that there is a formula being used to class cars, but I would like it if it was the same formula for a all the cars in IT!!!!!!!!:mad1:

If you could, please show me the numbers and how each of these examples works out in ITA

Gen 1 Neon SOHC
Gen 1 Neon DOHC
Gen 2 Neon ACR
95-99 Stratus SOHC

This makes no sense to me why the weights on these 4 cars should be so much different?

[Andy Bettencourt]

IIRC, the Stratus is a misprint. The car that was requested was the 6cyl and thus the weight. Somehow, the 4cyl spec line was copied.

I will look into it.

[Eagle7]

The best ITR time for the weekend was a 1'39.11, so no ITS wasn't faster. I certainly expect ITR to get faster as the cars get more developed. However, the E36 doesn't have much room left for improvement. An Rx-8 prepped mostly to T3 specs surely does.
If it's the same RX-8 that Ray had at MidOhio in August, it's his old Grand-Am car from when they ran with SpeedSource, not a T3 car. I think it was pretty well developed.

[dj10]

If it's the same RX-8 that Ray had at MidOhio in August, it's his old Grand-Am car from when they ran with SpeedSource, not a T3 car. I think it was pretty well developed.
Marty I believe you are correct. He had 2 - RX-8's, 1, a T3 and the other the GrandAm rx-8

[DavidM]

.

Think VERY carefully about this statement. While it's sensible as far as it goes (in terms of the motivation to build and therefore likelihood of seeing cars on the track) this approach codifies competition adjustments (bleah!) EXACTLY like they are implemented in Production - post hoc changes in specification based on on-track performance. Are you ALL ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that you want to go down that road?

I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that I do NOT and I take it as part of my mission on the ITAC to keep us from going there.

K

I'm quoting this post, but I really could've picked just about any of them in this thread. This whole debate illustrates the very slippery slope the ITAC stepped upon when it decided to use real-world numbers in the weighting process. It may (or may not) be a necessary evil, but it muddies the waters big time.

The ITAC has demonstrated it has no issues using real world numbers to bump up the weight of a car. Now they have to use that mindset to drop the weight of a car. How low is too low though? If the car gets weighted to heavy it'll never get the weight dropped because it's impossible to prove a negative (the negative being that the car can't make more power). If it's weighted too light then how do you prove it needs more weight?

PCAs have already been used in IT. They were implemented under the guise of adding weight to cars during the re-weighting, but they were PCAs nonetheless. Anybody thinking PCAs haven't been used should wake up.

The ITAC had better get a handle on how they plan to use real-world data because it's becoming an issue. I stopped reading the discussion concerning periodically re-evaluating cars because it was clear that was going nowhere. If you're going to use real-world data then you had better develop a process for how that data is going to be used.

Of course, as Greg pointed out, the days of people sharing their engine performance information are long gone so I'm wondering how the ITAC plans on getting real-world information. Why would anyone prove their car can make more power if it's going get them weight?

I think the ITAC is attempting to do the right thing, but this is the path that they started down when the grand re-weighting was implemented. The consequences of that are now becoming more apparent.

David

[lateapex911]

David, good points, but, real world data is, of course, the origin of the estimates..

If the first gen RX-7 genre were to be handled the same as , oh, say the average IT car, we'd have 1st gen RX-7s making 137 flywheel, and 116 WHP, and they'd weigh....1993 pounds (assuming they could hit that weight...)

is that what we want?

In some cases, there need to be usage of real world data.

In one case, a car was being examined, as it was already classified. Research was done. Two different engine builders with dozens of that engine built (to IT specs) were contacted, (out of the blue) and they both responded with numbers that were within .5% of each other, In cases where the person requesting classification is supplying the "real world" number, it's obvious that there is a conflict of interest, and those numbers must be treated as such.

[Z3_GoCar]

I completely agree. This is why we need to be very careful using the torque number to set weights. All that actually matters is the hp of the engine in the usable RPM range. In general a high torque motor will have a 'flatter' power curve and won't lose as much power when shifting to a higher gear. But notice the ratio change in the transmission is highly important also. We clearly have an adder for torque, and I thought we had one for good transmission, but I don't hear much talk of it.

Here are 4 examples:

ITR BMW 325i (E36)
2nd-3rd: 33.7% drop
3rd-4th: 26.9% drop
4th-5th: 18.0% drop

ITR Porsche 944S2
2nd-3rd: 32.0% drop
3rd-4th: 26.1% drop
4th-5th: 19.7% drop

ITR Honda S2000
3rd-4th: 21.6% drop
4th-5th: 16.4% drop
5th-6th: 16.5% drop

ITR Mazda Rx-8
3rd-4th: 27.8% drop
4th-5th: 15.8% drop
5th-6th: 15.7% drop

Both of the low torque cars also have better transmissions, especially when you go down two gears from top. In addition, since the ratios are better, they may actually use 4 gears at some tracks where any 5-speed box will only use 3.

As an added thought - those familiar with the ITS Rx-7 know how much better the GTUs 5th gear is. The 0.71 5th gear in that car is a 29% drop, while the 0.76 5th drops 24%. Without that 5% better gear, that car has little chance in a tough field. Notice how much better than that both the S2000 and Rx-8 are for both 5th and 6th gears.

This is an excellant post. One reason torque might not be so important is that you can always gear lower for more wheel torque, but no matter how you gear you can't get more horsepower. The second reason the torque is less important is that both the S2k and Rx8 have red-lines that are 1500-2500 rpm above anything the BMW can get to with out creating vented blocks. So lower gearing for more wheel torque will still result in the same ultimate red-line speed, and end of straight speed. Thirdly, both these cars have the extra usable gear availible in a six speed transmission vs. the five speed.

In the end I :happy204: the ITAC.

James

[Super Swift]

Eagle 7 & DJ10,

I understand any confusion but the time was turned by their T3 RX-8.

Check out this link
http://photos.hydrous.net/photo.php?photo=19832

Be sure to look at the class designations on the side of the car... ITU & T3...

It might be a F1 car with Mazda livery but I think we need to call a skunk a skunk.

Rotor's are scary fast!!

It's all about power under the curve.

[Eagle7]

Eagle 7 & DJ10,
Check out this link
http://photos.hydrous.net/photo.php?photo=19832

Be sure to look at the class designations on the side of the car... ITU & T3...
Your eyes are a lot better than mine - saw the ITU in another pic but couldn't find the T3. OTOH, I don't know why I'm even responding - this whole discussion is totally meaningless.

[rcc85]

I thought the Stratus weight was way off. So it should be the 2.5L V6 Stratus in ITA at 3000 lbs? That's not a bad engine (Mitsubishi). Not as good as the 3.0L V6 (which I think was about 200 hp) I had in my '02 Stratus coupe, but it could be an interesting build. Hey, maybe that's what happened when they classified the Daytona. They thought it was a V6!!

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona (with a broken engine from Pocono):(

[Rabbit07]

I thought the Stratus weight was way off. So it should be the 2.5L V6 Stratus in ITA at 3000 lbs? That's not a bad engine (Mitsubishi). Not as good as the 3.0L V6 (which I think was about 200 hp) I had in my '02 Stratus coupe, but it could be an interesting build. Hey, maybe that's what happened when they classified the Daytona. They thought it was a V6!!

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona (with a broken engine from Pocono):(

The 2.5 Stratus was only available as an automatic. The only Manual trans equipt Stratus 95-99 was the 2.0 SOHC

[Knestis]

The 2.5 Stratus was only available as an automatic. The only Manual trans equipt Stratus 95-99 was the 2.0 SOHC

There's a possibility that the ITAC - in an effort to be more customer friendly? - hasn't been particularly strict about requiring complete vehicle technical specs before making classifications... :p

K

[GKR_17]

I see 3 SPU Rx-8's registered for the Homestead ECR this weekend. Testing the water for ITR perhaps? Could be a great race.

Grafton

[quadzjr]

Looking at joshes previous response.

Who said they could get the MR2 down to the ITA weight (legally)?

Not to argue against them.. I would like there secret, without cutting into one of the many bulk heads on the car.

[erlrich]

Looking at joshes previous response.

Who said they could get the MR2 down to the ITA weight (legally)?

Not to argue against them.. I would like there secret, without cutting into one of the many bulk heads on the car.

When the move came out in Fastrack I did an informal poll of our MARRS ITA drivers as to their current weights, I got responses of:

2290 w/155 lb driver
2360 w/150 lb driver (windows still in)
2350 w/210 lb driver
The secret - a really light driver?

[lateapex911]

Looking at joshes previous response.

Who said they could get the MR2 down to the ITA weight (legally)?

Not to argue against them.. I would like there secret, without cutting into one of the many bulk heads on the car.

Have you taken out the fuel tank and the surrounding shielding and insulation? i'm told there's quite a bit of weight there. And do you have your rear glass in? That's a bit heavy as well,

[jimmyc]

The ITAC took the safe road, something with a great alabi. Plan and simple