ITB - what a bunch of crap [Archive] - Page 2 - Improved Touring Racing Forums

JeffYoung

11-19-2008, 07:02 PM

I would say that (start with top 5 in each class) is effectively what was done, just what, 2 years ago?

Maybe it's time to move to the next five and do it as you suggest, in small steps.

It is my understanding that all new cars are not classed at a +/- 5 lbs level of accuracy, they are classed at a 100% by the process level of accuracy. To the extent an equation that has as many subjective factors as the process can be said to be 100% accurate.

I do think focusing on a few cars at a time might address my biggest concern. If we do ALL at once, we are going to make more mistakes because a lot of people are going to be arguing for expected hp gain percentages and subjective adders/subtractors solely out of self interest.

Example? Look how hard it was and how long it took to class TWO cars: the RX8 and the V8 ponies in ITR.

Then just start with the top 5 active cars in every class.
When they are done do the next 5 active cars in every class.

Still don't see why this is as hard as you are making it out to be. The 'me' noise will be there regardless, is there now, so it is a non-factor.

You only mention new classifications here - since they do go through cars that are requested for review, why not act on those with 5# accuracy as well?

lateapex911

11-19-2008, 07:12 PM

It is my understanding that all new cars are not classed at a +/- 5 lbs level of accuracy, they are classed at a 100% by the process level of accuracy.

Example? Look how hard it was and how long it took to class TWO cars: the RX8 and the V8 ponies in ITR.

One, yeah, close I think we'll take a car that has a process weight of, say, 2768.4, and call it 2770. I mean, lets not get too crazy, after all.

Yea, the RX-8...I was recently talking to some people about that car. one guy told me I was an idiot, and "That's whats wrong with the SCCA" because it was too heavy. Another guy harassed me a bit and told me it was going to run roughshod all over ITR. "You watch".

I'm one of the harder working guys on the ITAC, but even I shudder to think about every car in the ITCS.

Catch22

11-19-2008, 07:14 PM

JeffYoung

11-19-2008, 07:21 PM

The ITR ponies are coming.

But it's not just V8s. I see the following issues:

1. ALL low hp/high torque motors create issues with the current process. It's not just my car. 325e in ITA will be a super overdog if "processed." The 3.8 liter GM cars might. The AMC Spirit (there is actually one of those runing here in the SEDiv).

2. All of the subjective factors (torque, suspension, brakes, etc.).

3. The expected % gain in IT trim.

All issues.

I'm not opposed to doing this, I just think it needs to be done carefully or it will screw up something that, whether out of luck or planning, is pretty good right now.

I do think the RX8 and V8 pony debates should be used as case studies on how hard applying the process to a SINGLE car can be, and how much "me" noise you will get from both sides.

Jeff,
How many V8s are actually classed in IT?
Yours and what else?

So maybe there is a V* adder that takes the TQ into account. I dunno.
But using a rare outlier as an example of how things could be dorked up is not really the way things ought to be approached IMO.

And Bob, I wouldn't hesitate to apply for that position you vacate except that my job and crazy work hours would likely make me an absent member of the committee. Don't see how that would do any good.
But I'd be glad, as I mentioned before, to do plenty of research and math. I've done it before, and I personally don't find it to be all that hard or that big of a deal.

300 cars isn't a big deal if you have 20 or 30 people doing the research. I don't see an issue getting that involvement, and multiple people have volunteered in this thread.
Yet... The "we all have day jobs" thing keeps coming up.

Take the help and get the work done, or get the work done without the help. Excuses for not doing the work are NOT serving the membership, and the main goal of the ITAC (or any committee) should be to serve the membership.

seckerich

11-19-2008, 07:53 PM

I'm against it at this point but IF someone supplies all the "VTS" sheets and factory shop manuals that the GCR requires for all the cars that there are none for I, will change my thinking and we can run the process for all those cars and see where they line up. As was pointed out earlier there are way to many cars that we have limited information on. Many of these were classed long before any of us were involved.
I'm quite comfortable with the 100lb issue as are others on the ITAC.
Just remember we ADVISE and do not make the rules. That is the CRB's job. Yes, they take our imput and usally go along with our line of thinking. One example of when they did not was the BMW restrictor. The ITAC was against it but the CRB went ahead with it.
As was pointed out before we, are volunteers with day jobs and race also. Not everyone can be and expert on every make and model car. The ITAC has a very good mix of people that each know a lot about certain car makes and have a good general knowledge also. The committee is very evenly balanced out in this respect.
Another point to think about is that I have personally asked several people that post here if they would be interested in taking over for me when I step down. Not one has said they would. Just my 2 cents worth and I'm sure I'll regret even posting this. I gave up on posting awhile ago after getting flamed way too many times... Will see what happens here......

Bob Clark
SCCA IT Advisorary Committee

I have found the same reality you have Bob with a thankless job in SCCA as Asst. RE and race chair. I got over the personal part and realized it makes no difference who is in the position, it comes with the terretory.:D I was one of the loudest and most vocal about the RX8 and the E36 in ITS. I can not argue that IT is better now than I can remember for the past 10 years. We forget how far we have come from the old attitude of "shut up and race, you should be glad we let you on track" to actually having a group working to make our racing fair.

That said it is reasonable to ask that we run the cars currently raced at the very least through the process. You have the adders and subs, as well as percent gain to use common sense to deal with the oddballs. Skip the #100 pound is close enough deal. If you wasted the time to run the car through the process than fix it. Round to the nearest 5 and be done with it. If the ITAC is confident of a 35% gain then so be it. If 10% or 15% was used great. If the CRB is the problem then we can go to the source and put pressure on them to allow it to happen.

Thanks for doing a thankless job to all on the ITAC.:023:

1stGenBoy

11-19-2008, 08:00 PM

Jeff,
How many V8s are actually classed in IT?
Yours and what else?

So maybe there is a V* adder that takes the TQ into account. I dunno.
But using a rare outlier as an example of how things could be dorked up is not really the way things ought to be approached IMO.

And Bob, I wouldn't hesitate to apply for that position you vacate except that my job and crazy work hours would likely make me an absent member of the committee. Don't see how that would do any good.
But I'd be glad, as I mentioned before, to do plenty of research and math. I've done it before, and I personally don't find it to be all that hard or that big of a deal.

300 cars isn't a big deal if you have 20 or 30 people doing the research. I don't see an issue getting that involvement, and multiple people have volunteered in this thread.
Yet... The "we all have day jobs" thing keeps coming up.

Take the help and get the work done, or get the work done without the help. Excuses for not doing the work are NOT serving the membership, and the main goal of the ITAC (or any committee) should be to serve the membership.

Scott,
You have helped the ITAC many times before and we do appreciate it. I work crazy hours too and so do many others along with racing. It just comes down to commitment and if somebody really wants to help better the club or not and if so find a way to do it. This is not an excuse on why not to run all the cars it just the facts is all. Yes 300 hundred cars is not a big deal IF all the information is avavialble!! If we have VTS sheets and the factory shop manual if makes things MUCH easier. Usually we could do 4 or 5 per call plus deal with all the other letters.
Believe me no one is not doing the work on the committee. We all spend hours every month doing research and getting feedback, posting to the ITAC site to hash out issues and preparing for our monthly conference call. I think we do a very good job of serving the members. IT is much better off than many of the other classes in SCCA. Look at all the issues in Prod,S2000,FC,SS and Sports racing. We don't have nearly any of those issues. The rules are stable. That is a Big, big plus.

Bob Clark

shwah

11-19-2008, 08:20 PM

I would say that (start with top 5 in each class) is effectively what was done, just what, 2 years ago?

Maybe it's time to move to the next five and do it as you suggest, in small steps.

It is my understanding that all new cars are not classed at a +/- 5 lbs level of accuracy, they are classed at a 100% by the process level of accuracy. To the extent an equation that has as many subjective factors as the process can be said to be 100% accurate.

I do think focusing on a few cars at a time might address my biggest concern. If we do ALL at once, we are going to make more mistakes because a lot of people are going to be arguing for expected hp gain percentages and subjective adders/subtractors solely out of self interest.

Example? Look how hard it was and how long it took to class TWO cars: the RX8 and the V8 ponies in ITR.
No. They were all run through the process with a 200# window at the end. That is exactly the correction that I am suggesting, rather than trying to make the whole process more accurate (which we should continue to do), why not just throw away the added variable that only ADDS to how far off we can end up.

JeffYoung

11-19-2008, 08:33 PM

Chris, that is not correct. And that's part of the problem (not pointing fingers, I'm just saying that there is a lot of incorrect information out there about what happened with the Great Realignment).

There was no "200 lb window" at the end. SOME cars that appeared to be within 100 lbs of the process weight either way were left as is, and the process was not applied to them.

We keep hearing about a "margin of error" in the process. There (supposedly) isn't one, although Scott correctly points out the math does appear wrong on a few cars. Either the car was within the 100 lb window and the process was not applied, or it was outside the window and it was and its weight corrected in accordance with the process.

No one ran the process on a car and then "fudged" the number 200 lbs either way on top of the weight the process already determined.

Knestis

11-19-2008, 09:31 PM

ekim952522000

11-19-2008, 09:46 PM

First a short answer: My preference would be to re-process cars only by member request, and to leave the output at the nearest 5 pounds. I'd further document the assumptions with which the process was applied (e.g., engine power multiplier) and make those figures available to the membership.

I honestly think that the current process (more on that word in a separate post) is pretty damned close. Most of my questions about it are academic (i.e., probably unhelpful) rather than intended to fix some major problem.

K

I don't have a problem with the ITAC only running cars that are requested thru the process I just want somewhere I can look at see if a car has been ran thru it. (and if it has I really would like to have access to the math)

That way if I am looking at car A and car B and they both have almost the exact same specs I don't get upset that the weights are different because I know that car A has been processed and car B has not so instead of getting upset about how it is not fair I would simply send in a letter for car B to be ran thru the process if that was a car I was interesting in racing.

I still think a dedicated website is the only proper way to make all of this available to the membership. But would be happy if there was a PDF I could download for each IT class.

Knestis

11-19-2008, 09:49 PM

(NOTE - make sure you read critically so you understand what is my understanding of how things are, vs. what I PERSONALLY think.)

Next - and it makes some people's heads hurt when I do things like this - I'd like to propose that we get clearer on a couple of terms. (And this is in response to those of you who asked me to PM/email you the "process.")

The PROCESS is the actual math and accompanying steps that determine from a limited set of factors, what the race weight of a car should be.

I'd propose the addition of a distinct term - call it the PROCEDURE - that is the sum of the practices around how the process is applied.

* * *

The process is pretty simple: Take the quoted stock horsepower, apply an "IT power multiplier," and multiply it by a class-specific adder, to get the "base weight."

To that are added or subtracted a very limited number of incremental amounts for specific mechanical attributes - FWD gets a minus weight (50 or 100), brakes a plus or minus (50, but that's been applied pretty rarely), suspension (+50 for A-arms, the base presumes struts; -50 for "bad designs"), gear ratios (I don't think I've seen that in my time on the ITAC yet), and "other" - which as far as I know is mid-engine layout or good/lousy torque).

The engine power multiplier is typically 1.25. We have a tendency to make adjustments to that based on "type" (e.g., "smogged up '70s POS"). There ARE other multipliers that have been applied for special cases. I PERSONALLY think that some of them are not particularly well grounded in evidence but all were determined by people who were very confident in their numbers. Further (personally), I'd prefer that we (a) document and codify these "types," and add them only grudgingly; and (b) require a really huge standard of evidence to do anything "special."

The class multipliers have been shared here before - 11.25, 12.9, 14.5, 17.0, 18.84, for R to C.

NOW, we have this clause that says, "Review the resulting classification weight and determine if the results are acceptable. Some adjustments may need to be made, but in general, the final result should be VERY close to what the recommended specification weight should be." My PERSONAL opinion is that this has been used too liberally in the past, but it tends NOT to be currently.

* * *

The procedure is a different thing, and frankly this is where many of the issues seem to be hiding. The obvious example is the "how close is close enough" question. It's NOT entirely silly to accept the notion that ANY change has costs. I personally think that the costs are small where changing a spec weight are concerned. Equally though, I think the cost IS great enough to not make it worth doing if nobody cares enough to make a request. (It's a close thing because the magnitudes are tiny.)

Another "procedure" question is, "What triggers review?" 2nd Great Realignment? Something else? One issue that I don't *think* has been mentioned is that when the first great realignment happened, it was granted by the board based on a promise that it would only be done once. (Remember this was in the day when there was NO way to address the problem of a maladjusted IT car, other than moving it to another class.)

I'm NOT going to get in the business here of making the case for why +/-100 pounds is the right answer, because I frankly don't believe that it's a good answer.

* * *

In short, I think it would be a VERY good idea if we could separate the issues of process from those of procedure. One problem we have with complex policies like this is that people say "no" to one little piece of the puzzle because they hate just that, while other people say "no" to a different piece. If they tried to figure out what aspects of the policy they agreed on, they might move forward and could work out the differences later.

K

Catch22

11-19-2008, 09:52 PM

First a short answer: My preference would be to re-process cars only by member request, and to leave the output at the nearest 5 pounds. I'd further document the assumptions with which the process was applied (e.g., engine power multiplier) and make those figures available to the membership.

Sold!

I'm OK with that. Id even be OK with being a research assistant to the ITAC to help compile the data for the letters that get written.
If nothing else it lightens the load and helps focus the work on cars that people are actually driving.

Guys, while I agree we are better off than we were a few years ago due to lots of hard work, we still have some cars that are very wrong. Coming up with reasons to NOT fix this is just completely unacceptable to me.

I could make a list of bad classifications from just ITB alone, but there is no need for that. 1 car that is wrong is 1 too many, and if members request that it be fixed... Fix it.
Again, I completely fail to see why this can't be done, and while I've worked with Bob on things in the past and respect his opinion... I simply can not manage to justify his position on this one.

I simply can't look at our classifications and say "I'm OK with this car being 99lbs too light and its competitor being 99lbs too heavy."
Thats just... Just... Wrong. I can't find a defendable justifiable position for that.

The TQ question can be answered like we answer everything else. We just need to use our brains and come up with reasonable adders.
Maybe something as simple as 100lbs for large displacement 4s (over 2 liters?), 150 for big sixes and 200 for 8s???
Dunno. But I just whipped that out of my butt in 2 minutes and I'd betcha it aint completely off target.

Andy Bettencourt

11-19-2008, 09:54 PM

It's not about the work. Plenty of us are willing to put in the time. It's that right now, there is no majority inside the committee to take the plunge.

Catch22

11-19-2008, 10:09 PM

The process is pretty simple: Take the quoted stock horsepower, apply an "IT power multiplier," and multiply it by a class-specific adder, to get the "base weight."

To that are added or subtracted a very limited number of incremental amounts for specific mechanical attributes - FWD gets a minus weight (50 or 100), brakes a plus or minus (50, but that's been applied pretty rarely), suspension (+50 for A-arms, the base presumes struts; -50 for "bad designs"), gear ratios (I don't think I've seen that in my time on the ITAC yet), and "other" - which as far as I know is mid-engine layout or good/lousy torque).

The engine power multiplier is typically 1.25. We have a tendency to make adjustments to that based on "type" (e.g., "smogged up '70s POS"). There ARE other multipliers that have been applied for special cases. I PERSONALLY think that some of them are not particularly well grounded in evidence but all were determined by people who were very confident in their numbers. Further (personally), I'd prefer that we (a) document and codify these "types," and add them only grudgingly; and (b) require a really huge standard of evidence to do anything "special."

The class multipliers have been shared here before - 11.25, 12.9, 14.5, 17.0, 18.84, for R to C.

Here is a homework exercise for anyone that thinks the current situation is not busted.

Take the information Kirk provided above (this is what is supposed to be used to fairly and consistently class ALL cars) and apply it to the starting ITB grid at the '08 ITSpectacular at Mid Ohio.

It will take some work and effort. I know because I've already done it.

But its worth the effort, because after you do it you'll see how many cars that are being currently raced actually FIT their current specs via the process/procedure Kirk listed above.

I'll even save you a step and give you the list (from memory, so its not perfect)...
VW A3 GTI
VW A2 GTI
Porsche 924
Volvo 142
1st Gen Honda CRX Si
88-91 Honda Civic DX
Ford Mustang
Ford Pinto
BMW 2002

Go ahead and do some math. PLEASE do it if you are one of the folks in this thread that think we are currently close enough or don't want to risk screwing things up by making changes.

What you'll find is a range from nearly 100lbs too light to well over 100lbs too heavy. But don't take my word for it, DO THE MATH.

I can just about promise you that the results will change your mind. The range is HUGE, with some of the cars being closer to the ITC p/w target than the ITB target while other are UNDER the target of 17.

Just ain't right.

Scott, who looks at that diverse entry list and sees HUGE potential for the class... Maybe.

Knestis

11-19-2008, 10:14 PM

That's a good exercise, Scott - primarily because it includes cars of different engine technologies, that form the basis of the "what multiplier?" point of subjectivity. Some of the comparisons are quite easy because they utilize the SAME technologies. Not surprisingly, this is where some of the first member inference-driven questions came up.

Y'all are not stoopid.

K

Xian

11-19-2008, 10:19 PM

And then there are odd-ball weight decisions like the ITA CRX...

106 stock HP * 1.25=132.5
132.5*14.5=1921.25
-50 for FWD
+50 for A-Arms

Final weight of #1921

This seems kinda rediculous to me... I like the idea of the process but there are always going to be some cars that fall outside of this. What will the "process" be for cars that are under-rated or over-rated from the factory?

My math shows that the CRX gets something crazy like a 1.43 adjustment for power. This has it wind up where it's still competitve and I'm "ok" with this but WHO gets to make this call? Look at the RX8 in ITR... lead sled by many accounts but this one was justified by the argument of sticking to stock power figures in spite of other evidence that the cars didn't make stock figures. :shrug:

If we run everything thru the process again how many "CRX" type situations will be created?

Knestis

11-19-2008, 10:20 PM

Sorry...

...this might have been said but it can't be reiterated often enough: If you make a request that a car be re-processed, PLEASE provide the information we need:

** Stock quoted power and torque

** Stock curb weight (so we can guesstimate whether it can reach a given output weight or if it needs to be in a different class)

** Explanation of model differences, generation year breaks, different engines in the same model, trim levels, or anything else that might throw us a curve

** Confirmation of the ITCS spec line information

This stuff isn't strictly required but it SURE increases the chance that we won't get any of our bits in the ringer, or stall out because someone has to chase down information.

K

JeffYoung

11-19-2008, 10:22 PM

A very valid exercise. Now let's start asking the hard questions:

1. We use the stock horsepower number right? No questions asked? Some of those cars are old enough (the 142, the 2002 and perhaps the Pinto) so that the stock number is a GROSS number, not a NET. They get screwed.

2. Power potential. All 25%? Any oddballs? That Volvo sure seems to wake up in IT trim. How do we "prove" up the percentage?

3. Suspension design. Do we give the Pinto a break for leaf springs?? Or does the fact that people have figured out how to make that thing work matter?

I'm in favor of using the process/procedure. I just think it needs to be done carefully.

Here is a homework exercise for anyone that thinks the current situation is not busted.

Take the information Kirk provided above (this is what is supposed to be used to fairly and consistently class ALL cars) and apply it to the starting ITB grid at the '08 ITSpectacular at Mid Ohio.

It will take some work and effort. I know because I've already done it.

But its worth the effort, because after you do it you'll see how many cars that are being currently raced actually FIT their current specs via the process/procedure Kirk listed above.

I'll even save you a step and give you the list (from memory, so its not perfect)...
VW A3 GTI
VW A2 GTI
Porsche 924
Volvo 142
1st Gen Honda CRX Si
88-91 Honda Civic DX
Ford Mustang
Ford Pinto
BMW 2002

Go ahead and do some math. PLEASE do it if you are one of the folks in this thread that think we are currently close enough or don't want to risk screwing things up by making changes.

What you'll find is a range from nearly 100lbs too light to well over 100lbs too heavy. But don't take my word for it, DO THE MATH.

I can just about promise you that the results will change your mind. The range is HUGE, with some of the cars being closer to the ITC p/w target than the ITB target while other are UNDER the target of 17.

Just ain't right.

Scott, who looks at that diverse entry list and sees HUGE potential for the class... Maybe.

Knestis

11-19-2008, 10:32 PM

And then there are odd-ball weight decisions like the ITA CRX...

And therein lies the rub.

This is going to chaff a few backsides but even I think the we need a "nuclear" option if a real preponderance of evidence emerges over time that an engine package/type/whatever appears to deserve one of those "special" multipliers. These cases should be very few and very far between.

That's the CRX Rule - the basis for the "review the resulting weight" step. The potential for problems is in the fact that there aren't any real checks and balances on its use.

K

EDIT - and FINALLY, finally - you all better understand that when you ask for change, you get what you get. If one/any/all of the membership don't like the resulting weight on something after it's been through the process, as implemented by the people charged with doing it, no bitching. And if you think you own car's in its sweet spot but your competitor asks us to review it and you get weight? Tough titties, right? When I do evaluation work, I never cease to be amazed at how the degree to which someone agrees with our data correlates to the degree to which they profit by the findings. How the "fairness" of a call by the refs depends on whether it's on your team or the other guys...

Ed Funk

11-19-2008, 10:51 PM

shwah

11-19-2008, 10:55 PM

OK at least half of you are going to hate me for this extreme tangent, but....

Of course the bigger rub is whether any of this discussion can make a difference unless the BoD agrees to 'allow' changes more than once a decade to IT. ITAC recomendations do not consitute rule or classification changes.

Seems to me that I recall the realignment to be a 'single bullet theory' event. Hit it once, fix it up and let it run on autopilot forever again. "after all it's not a national class" goes the BoD thought process.

At some point we need to convince the PTB that IT matters, and I am not convinced we have, despite the obvious health of the category. I think we get it, the ITAC gets it, the CRB partially gets it, but I have no confidence that it goes beyond that.

This is one of the benefits that I believe we would see as a national class (or as a class in a single tier system), to be important enough to 'deserve' effort be expended to assure close, fair, equitable classification. At some point, I suggest now, we need to demand to our divisional directors that IT be viewed with the same level of respect as the other cagegories, and be treated as a category where the cars classified should be competitive with each other. period. whatever that may take to achieve in process deveopment or evaluation.

Until then I don't have confidence that anything will really change, regardless of what whomever on the ITAC thinks what about the issue.

Z3_GoCar

11-19-2008, 10:57 PM

Xian

11-19-2008, 11:00 PM

And therein lies the rub.

This is going to chaff a few backsides but even I think the we need a "nuclear" option if a real preponderance of evidence emerges over time that an engine package/type/whatever appears to deserve one of those "special" multipliers. These cases should be very few and very far between.

That's the CRX Rule - the basis for the "review the resulting weight" step. The potential for problems is in the fact that there aren't any real checks and balances on its use.

K

EDIT - and FINALLY, finally - you all better understand that when you ask for change, you get what you get. If one/any/all of the membership don't like the resulting weight on something after it's been through the process, as implemented by the people charged with doing it, no bitching. And if you think you own car's in its sweet spot but your competitor asks us to review it and you get weight? Tough titties, right? When I do evaluation work, I never cease to be amazed at how the degree to which someone agrees with our data correlates to the degree to which they profit by the findings. How the "fairness" of a call by the refs depends on whether it's on your team or the other guys...

Quoted for truth.

This is my concern. We ALL know that the CRX and it's extended family would be horrible overdogs if classed straight off the Process. How many other unknown cars are out there that may be turned into the new "CRX" via wholesale rewighting? What then? Reweight again but this time based on performance? Ugh. How does you catch these types of cars on the first run thru the process? If you make the adjustment at a later date, how do you keep from having this turn into performance based adjustments?

jjjanos

11-19-2008, 11:00 PM

Simple it's not, because no one knows how all the different motors now classified respond to a top notch build and if there might be a way to make more. Right now the hp gain on an IT build is a swag, there's no way to get weight assigned to a 5lb window when the output isn't accuratly predictable.

Then there also is no way to get the weight assigned to a 100lb window. Either we believe the multipliers or they shouldn't be used. For engines where there is no clue for the multiplier, there's no way of knowing whether we are within 500lbs of the "proper' weight because we don't know if the factor is 25/50/75 or 100%.

Guys, this is a noble idea. But what it is going to do is set off a crapstorm of debates over:

1. Whether the Civic EX gets a 10% IT gain or a 15% one.

Already happening under the Great Torque Debate.

2. Whether MY ITB car has worse aero and should get a 50 lb subjective deduct.
Excellent addition to the process. Provide an independent and reproducable metric for aero for all classified vehicles. We can debate whether this car should get 50lb reduction, but we cannot debate that its aero value is X. (See mid- vs front- adder. The amount of the adder is debatable. Whether a car is mid- or front-engined is not)

3. Your ITA car has a "really good suspension." 100 lb adder!
Already have an adder for this - see strut versus shock adders.

It was certainly more likely to work on a smaller universe of cars, than the multitude that populate the ITCS.

The cars that actually are raced versus those classified is much smaller.

Is it fair to have a class of cars that have not been spec'd by the same process? Is it fair that a member in good standing has to go thru the nut roll of writing letters in order to get his car properly weighted?

No. Yes. What isn't fair is that if they run your numbers and they are off by less than 100lbs, you are SOL.

Another "procedure" question is, "What triggers review?" 2nd Great Realignment? Something else? One issue that I don't *think* has been mentioned is that when the first great realignment happened, it was granted by the board based on a promise that it would only be done once. (Remember this was in the day when there was NO way to address the problem of a maladjusted IT car, other than moving it to another class.)

What triggers the review? The new ECU rule. The multipliers are no longer valid given the extra HP that FI cars can get versus Carb cars. Based on the idea that the process weight is the 100% developed weight, virtually all cars with an ECU are underweight. I've been told that if I wanted to spend gobs of money on the right ECU, my 91HP stock car with a 25% multiplier can pick up an extra 5% HP.

The board granted the realignment on a once only basis. It also created the category as a regional-only category and seemed to be more than willing to ignore that absolute.

Catch22

11-19-2008, 11:31 PM

The multiplier is where subjectivity MUST occur. There simply is no way around it.
Thats what committees are for... Ideally the group pools resources to reach a valid conclusion. Unideally it gets stuck in the mud and accomplishes nothing.

The ITA CRX is an example of a car that was underrated from the factory. By the time the "realignment" came around we knew this pretty universally, and the multiplier was adjusted accordingly.
We won't always have that benefit, so the opportunity to "fix" mistakes is a must. It just is.

What we also can't do is then take what we know about (for example) the underrated ITA CRX and arbitrarily just start applying it to all Hondas. That invalidates the whole procedure and falls back into the whole classing via voodoo trap.
You know what you KNOW, and thats all you KNOW.

The reasonable target is 25%, but there should be no issues with using 15% or 35% or even 40+% (see the aforementioned factory underrated situation) IF THERE IS REASONABLE EVIDENCE THAT INDICATES THATS WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.

Again, subjectivity is unavoidable. But the goal should be to be able to use actual numbers to justify why a specific car is speced the way it is speced.

Another way to put this is if you have speced a car at a weight that will likely make it have to carry 100+ pounds of ballast, you need to be able to say why it has to carry that ballast.
Currently that can be done for a few cars and thats it. Most can't be justified, and many of the ITAC guys will honestly look at you and shrug because even they can't explain why.

Knestis

11-19-2008, 11:53 PM

...Another way to put this is if you have speced a car at a weight that will likely make it have to carry 100+ pounds of ballast, you need to be able to say why it has to carry that ballast.
Currently that can be done for a few cars and thats it. Most can't be justified, and many of the ITAC guys will honestly look at you and shrug because even they can't explain why.

Sorry, Scott - I'm not tracking on this point.

There's always going to be examples out on the ends of the distribution among cars within a class, of the difference between their spec weight and "bare naked IT prep weight." To fit in a class "bucket" some will need ballast, or put differently, will need to not be lightened as much as others. This is particularly the case if we try to classify a make/model (that is, put it in a class; as opposed to specifying its weight) such that the target spec weight is below what can be achieved with IT preparation. The latter just isn't right.

Or maybe I'm still confused...?

K

Knestis

11-19-2008, 11:58 PM

>> ...Seems to me that I recall the realignment to be a 'single bullet theory' event. Hit it once, fix it up and let it run on autopilot forever again. "after all it's not a national class" goes the BoD thought process.

Again, yup. The changes that have been made since, have been under (a rather liberal interpretation of) "errors and omissions." That's also why you don't have to wait until the new GCR comes out for these "fixes" to be implemented: They aren't actually "new rules."

K

JoshS

11-20-2008, 12:11 AM

Thank you!! Josh, Kirk, Andy, Jake and Bob for taking the time to do the committee thing, but also for taking the time to explain the "process/procedure" and your positions.

Now, it's time to take some of us who have offered to help at our word and start forming sub-committees or work groups to start working through the list and getting all cars "procedured". Steph and I were talking and thought it might be a good idea to start eliminating cars that have had no activity in the past X years. Or do you think that the infamous Borgward 3000 will become popular if classed and weighted properly!?!?

Here's what you can do to start.

Fill out a VTS sheet for all of the cars in IT. You can download the blank form from the SCCA website.

What we really need is all of the stuff that we list in the ITCS spec lines, plus suspension type. Also please explain the differences between model years and trim levels. And make sure to highlight what might make each particular model special with respect to the other cars in the class (such as restrictive intake manifolds).

Most of this information is hard to come by and the SCCA does not have it on file.

JoshS

11-20-2008, 12:12 AM

Secondly, even thought I do appreciate Josh's efforts to get the Z3 classed, I'm not happy about the extra 60lbs I have to carry based on my car being classed having dual variable cams instead of the single variable cam system thats actually in all the 97-98 year cars.

James -- I had absolutely nothing to do with it. All of that got done before my tenure, and before I wrote a single letter about IT.

Catch22

11-20-2008, 12:13 AM

OK Guys.
Because some of you are baffled as to why I seem to be so torqued about this, let me do a quick and simple exercise...

ITB A3 Golf
115x1.25x17=2444
-50 (fwd)
+50 (torque)
Gives a spec weight of 2444 (2445lbs).
Current spec weight is 2350.
So based on some pretty basic and straightforward math the VW is 95lbs too light.

Now lets look at the 84-87 Honda CRX Si:
91x1.35x17=2088
-50lbs (FWD)
=2038 (2040lbs)
Current spec weight is 2130, or 90lbs too heavy.

These cars have very similar suspension designs, so that is a non-issue. Yet the VW basically gets a 185lb advantage when the current process is used.

Now, someone is saying "yeah, but that falls within that pesky 100lb thingy. Thats why its unaddressed."

So lets go further and look at an eeevil Honda A Arm car. The 88-91 Civic DX:
92x1.35x17=2111
-50 (FWD)
+50 (Double Wishbone A Arm)
=2111 (2110lbs)
Current spec weight is 2240lbs, or 130lbs overweight.

That gives the VW a 225lb advantage!!!

Some things of note...
-These are popular modern cars that are easier to spec than the aforementioned 70s cars and stranger selections and they are STILL WRONG.
-I used a 35% adder on the Hondas and only 25% on the VW and the VW still has the advantage.
-The 25% and 35% adders in this case do in fact correspond to actual dyno results on fully built efforts (at least its close enough to call it corresponding), so the process itself isn't too far off base at all.
-Its the consistent application of the process that is off base, not the process itself.

I can't look at these numbers and say things are good enough as they are and don't need to be changed. If you can do that, I'd honestly love to hear the justification.
It seems to me that if we are going to be THIS far off when we have a process to use, why are we even bothering using it?
Actually, these numbers would indicate we are in fact NOT using the process. We're just saying we are. Sorry if that offends anyone, but thats what the numbers seem to indicate.

I'm always willing to help, but if we as a group are collectively OK with this as the status quo, then I want no part of it.

PS - This is just 3 cars in one class. I'm sure this exercise could grow to get pretty ugly. But...

Catch22

11-20-2008, 12:15 AM

Sorry, Scott - I'm not tracking on this point.

Its a part of being transparent and consistent.
If I have 100lbs of ballast in my car then a calculator should easily explain why.

AjG

11-20-2008, 12:44 AM

JeffYoung

11-20-2008, 12:52 AM

A possibility would be a move to C.

92 x 1.45 x 18.4 +50 is approximately 2500 lbs.

If the "lower" weight in a "higher" class is not obtainable, the next option is to move down a la the now ITB MR2.

Catch22

11-20-2008, 01:11 AM

If the VW Golf is accurately Processed, and is being used as the standard for ITB...

It doesn't even appear that the A2 Golf is accurate:
105x1.25x17=2231
-50 (fwd)
+50 (tq)
= A process weight of 2230. Current spec is 2280 so even it is 50lbs overweight.

As far as losing weight to get to minimum, sometimes that costs money. Don't confuse "can't" be done with "I don't want to spend the money to do it."

Remember that simply saving 5lbs per wheel gets you 20lbs. Not only 20lbs but 20lbs of rotating mass.

ekim952522000

11-20-2008, 01:13 AM

Do the FWD cars in ITS/ITR get a 100lbs deduct?

do these look right?

93 prelude 190hp x 1.25 = 237.5 x 11.25 =2670 - 100lbs = 2570 + 50 for A arms? - 50? for no torque = current weight of 2570?

RSX 200 x 1.25 = 250 x 11.25 = 2812 - 100 for fwd - 50 for struts?
2662 round up 2665 current weight

shwah

11-20-2008, 05:56 AM

It doesn't even appear that the A2 Golf is accurate:
105x1.25x17=2231
-50 (fwd)
+50 (tq)
= A process weight of 2230. Current spec is 2280 so even it is 50lbs overweight.

As far as losing weight to get to minimum, sometimes that costs money. Don't confuse "can't" be done with "I don't want to spend the money to do it."

Remember that simply saving 5lbs per wheel gets you 20lbs. Not only 20lbs but 20lbs of rotating mass.
edit = nevermind, found my mistake.

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 08:54 AM

Its a part of being transparent and consistent.
If I have 100lbs of ballast in my car then a calculator should easily explain why.

Actually, ballast has nothing to do with anything. The calculator should be able to explain people weights - regardless of ballast. Just because you have ballast in your car doesn't mean you got 'extra' weight, it just means your car may be 'light' when stripped down to IT build for the hp it will make.

My Miata carries 70lbs of ballast.

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 09:04 AM

It doesn't even appear that the A2 Golf is accurate:
105x1.25x17=2231
-50 (fwd)
+50 (tq)
= A process weight of 2230. Current spec is 2280 so even it is 50lbs overweight.

And a good example of why the crap hits the fan if everyone runs their car through the 'process'. You say it's 'innaccurate'. I am not sure the A2 was classed during the process tenure but it could have easily been this:

105 x 1.3 x 17 = 2321
-50 (fwd)
2271 or 2270.

We have been documenteing everything over the past year...another reason why going in a checking (and correcting) everything is a good idea IMHO.

I took ITB last night and 'corrected' all of them. There are easily 25-30% of the cars that don't make ANY sense because of old HP ratings. Do the excersize and tell me that you would be happy with the result - AND be able to defend your position.

I think now my position has changed. I think we reset about half of the cars and wait for requests on the ones that have little info. When someone requests a looksie, that person had better have a metric-shit-ton of info to help us help them...or else its all just a huge SWAG.

Example: Plymouth Fire Arrow @ 110 hp. 2.6L and rwd. Go for it. Currently at 2360.

Dave Gran - front suspension type?

dazzlesa

11-20-2008, 10:03 AM

is scotts's calculations right?

shwah

11-20-2008, 10:04 AM

Yes what is really missing is the documentation of when the cars were classed and/or reviewed. That is a great improvement that you guys have made:happy204:.

More likely IMO, the car was classed in the early/mid 90s, Chris Albin won the ARRC 3 times with it, and no way no how was weight going to come off during the realignment. We like to say that on track performance does not impact performance. It appears that a similar effect has taken place with the Civic.

Again, this is all just fun interwebdebation unless the ITAC or CRB will actually be permitted to make changes on a larger scale. If not then it will be as current status quo - review on a as requested basis, and leave the giant tolerance in place.

shwah

11-20-2008, 10:05 AM

is scotts's calculations right?
If Andy's are right, I need to get a quote from him to build a new engine.:D

spnkzss

11-20-2008, 10:09 AM

spnkzss

11-20-2008, 10:17 AM

Deleted

dazzlesa

11-20-2008, 10:20 AM

i am just speechless. i am looking for horse power while i should really be looking for a diet. I HATE LEAD PERIOD!

tom91ita

11-20-2008, 10:30 AM

Here is a homework exercise for anyone that thinks the current situation is not busted.

VW A3 GTI
VW A2 GTI
1st Gen Honda CRX Si

Go ahead and do some math. ....

The range is HUGE, with some of the cars being closer to the ITC p/w target than the ITB target while other are UNDER the target of 17.
.....

okay, some snips from Scott's post and an example but i decided to do the math (not even sure which Golf this is i did).

To make sure I understand the way the process as outlined in this thread, this is the way this should work out right?

So the Golf (using HP numbers and the formula shown in this thread) should be at 115*1.25*17 = 2444 - 50 (FWD) - 50 (suspension) = 2344 or 2350 if we round to the nearest 50 #'s which is the weight in the GCR.

And a CRX Si (which I have) similarly should be 91*1.25*17 = 1934 - 50 (FWD) = 1884 and round to the nearest 50 would be 1900 vs. 2130 #'s in the GCR.

I am asking because when I ran this car when it was in ITA, I would typically find myself running with ITB. After the addition of 150#'s and the drop to ITB, I still run with some cars but wow do I get pulled on the straights.

and my car has struts/torsion bars up front (not real good) and what i consider a relatively poor suspension in the back (solid beam axle) but i was unsure and did not do a correction of 50 #'s for that.

and i don't think i can get down to 1900. i did have the car down to 1800 at one time in ITA trim. it was 1800 for the car as i recall and later was 1980 for car with driver. then went to the 2130 for ITB trim. i get lots of comments that i have lots of ballast in the car. yup, about 135 #'s.

so i guess i should write a letter....

Catch22

11-20-2008, 10:49 AM

So the Golf (using HP numbers and the formula shown in this thread) should be at 115*1.25*17 = 2444 - 50 (FWD) - 50 (suspension) = 2344 or 2350 if we round to the nearest 50 #'s which is the weight in the GCR.

And a CRX Si (which I have) similarly should be 91*1.25*17 = 1934 - 50 (FWD) = 1884 and round to the nearest 50 would be 1900 vs. 2130 #'s in the GCR.

Bad math. Read Kirks post on the process more closely.
The current approach figures strut suspension as the default, so there is no -50 on the VW for that. Its also a large powerplant (in ITB terms) with excellent torque, so I would argue that needs a +50.
Using those numbers you get a process spec weight of 2445.

For your CRX you need to use a 35% adder (because Hondas can typically get that and its a 12v MPFI motor). That puts you at 2040.

Honestly, I thought about this alot last night, and you could even put guidelines in place to help guide you in the subjectivity of the HP adder.
You can use things like 8v vs 12v vs 16v coupled with TB Injection vs. Carbed vs. MPFI to get you pretty darned close to where you need to be. After that you can look at things like variable valve timing and cross flow head designs...
I ran a few samples of this through my own mini process and it actually is damned close to reality.

Perfect? Nope.
Will there be exceptions to the rule (like cars under or over rated from the factory)? of course.

But you can't just sit back and be afraid to address things. A 225lb delta between 2 cars in the same class just won't cut it. Having ANY cars currently in competition where the spec weight just "doesn't make sense" won't cut it.

I do agree with the "fix as requested" approach, for the variety of reasons already mentioned.

dazzlesa

11-20-2008, 10:51 AM

my ITA integra went through the "system" and had weight added to it. i hate it but nobody gave a rat's ass. so why should i care if others are pissed because they have the same fate? why do certain cars get wacked while others do not?:shrug:

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 10:56 AM

Write your letters. Maybe if the membership let the ITAC and CRB know that +/- 100 was not currently acceptable, we could make a change.

Again, be prepared for your weight to go UP. Cars like the 130hp Storm/Prism twins can expect a move to ITA as well.

Here are a few ITB cars for you 'process runners' to chew on. These types of cars are one of the main sticking points of the 'neys'...Please post your conclusions:

Dodge Charger/Plymouth Horizon 2.2L, 96hp and FWD. Now at 2320 in ITB.
Alfa Romeo GTV2000 2.0L, 129hp and RWD. Now at 2410 in ITB.
Audi Coupe 2.2L 5cyl, 100hp and FWD. Now at 2490 in ITB.
Porsche 914-4 1.7L, 80hp, RWD and mid engine. Now at 2080 in ITB.

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 11:01 AM

Bad math. Read Kirks post on the process more closely.
The current approach figures strut suspension as the default, so there is no -50 on the VW for that. Its also a large powerplant (in ITB terms) with excellent torque, so I would argue that needs a +50.
Using those numbers you get a process spec weight of 2445.

Actually, his math is correct, and yours is off - again defining why this is such a hard excersize over any forum. The 'base' car is a strut-based, IRS, RWDer. The Golf has no adder for TQ and a -50 for a beam rear axle. Argue the validity all you want, but that is what it is.

jjjanos

11-20-2008, 11:06 AM

I took ITB last night and 'corrected' all of them.

No fair keeping secrets.

There are easily 25-30% of the cars that don't make ANY sense because of old HP ratings. Do the excersize and tell me that you would be happy with the result - AND be able to defend your position.

"These are the rules underwhich new cars are classified. Consistency and fairness requires that all cars be classified under the same system. Your car received an unfair advantage/disadvantage because it was classified using a system that was deemed inaccurate. If your car no longer is competitive/an underdog, please refer to the IT section of the GCR where it clearly states that we do not guarantee the competitiveness of any car."

I think now my position has changed. I think we reset about half of the cars and wait for requests on the ones that have little info. When someone requests a looksie, that person had better have a metric-shit-ton of info to help us help them...or else its all just a huge SWAG.

I like that solution, but I'd like to suggest an adder - if the car hasn't been raced in the last 3 years, delist it if the information isn't available. When/if a request to classify it occurs, either the required information is produced or the factors used are the most disadvantaged. (i.e. if 35% is the max HP multiplier for any car, then no info = 35% HP multiplier).

Catch22

11-20-2008, 11:06 AM

Well, Kirk posted that there IS an adder for TQ and that the process assumes struts.
And if the TQ adder is not there, it needs to be.

So... you are saying that struts are -50 and A Arms are +50???
So a 100lb delta for A arms in a class were cars are typically in the 100 to 120hp range?

Uhhh... I think my math, based on Kirk's post, is better.
Just sayin'.

Scott, who thinks its easy and we are making it hard.

Catch22

11-20-2008, 11:22 AM

Just for giggles and since it just won the ARRC, lets run an Accord LXi:

110x1.35x17=2525
-50 (fwd)
+50 (tq)
+50 (A Arms)
That gives us 2575lbs. Actually darned close to its current 2550 spec weight.

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 11:22 AM

Well, Kirk posted they there IS an adder for TQ and that the process assumes struts. I'd quote it but its just one page back.
And if the TQ adder is not there, it needs to be.

So... you are saying that struts are -50 and A Arms are +50???
So a 100lb delta for A arms in a class were cars are typically in the 100 to 120hp range?

Uhhh... I think my math, based on Kirk's post, is better.
Just sayin'.

Scott, who thinks its easy and we are making it hard.

Focus young Jedi.

There IS a potential adder for torque. Not for the G3 in it's process however. The process also assumes struts. This car has a BEAM rear.

Double wishbone is +50. So if two cars had the same 115hp motor for ITB, one a RWD DW car and one a FWD strut car, there would be a 100lb difference in their spec weight.

For you paying attention: The 1.6L Miata could EASILY be listed at 2515 in ITB using the 'process'.

Catch22

11-20-2008, 11:24 AM

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 11:27 AM

Quoted from page 14 for reference.

What is your point? TQ is an adder, just not on the Golf III.

Gear ratio adder has hit BMW's with the 1:1 5th gear.

Catch22

11-20-2008, 11:30 AM

What is your point? TQ is an adder, just not on the Golf III.

Which is why I just added it to the Accord above.
I'm not following you Andy. Whats YOUR point.

I simply took Kirk's post and applied it to some cars. If you are telling me my math is wrong, then you are telling me Kirk gave us poor guidance.

Do YOUR process on the A3 for us and explain WHY you do what you do with it. Please explain why a 2.0 liter car in a class with cars with as little as 1.3 and 1.5 liters doesn't get that TQ adder? Why is it there if its not used?

PS - When you put that Miata in ITB at that weight did you give it a 35% adder?
Just askin'.

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 11:40 AM

Which is why I just added it to the Accord above.
I'm not following you Andy. Whats YOUR point.

I simply took Kirk's post and applied it to some cars. If you are telling me my math is wrong, then you are telling me Kirk gave us poor guidance.

Do YOUR process on the A3 for us and explain WHY you do what you do with it. Please explain why a 2.0 liter car in a class with cars with as little as 1.3 and 1.5 liters doesn't get that TQ adder? Why is it there if its not used?

PS - When you put that Miata in ITB at that weight did you give it a 35% adder?
Just askin'.

My point is that just because it's there doesn't mean it gets used on every car. That's why the last part of the process is subjective. I can cite just as many 2.2's, 2.3's, and 2.5's in ITB that make the 2.0 seem 'average' in size.

Nope on the Miata. 25%. It's an excersize in what could result if you just let the numbers fall where they may to continue to illustrate the point that this is a stupid excersize on a BB. These things have to be hashed out, discussed and agreed upon. I am not telling you Kirk gave you poor guidance, I am telling you that you did not apply the process in the same fashion as the ITAC did.

gran racing

11-20-2008, 11:40 AM

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 11:48 AM

When is a 1.25 vs a 1.35 multipler used? Scott, you used 1.35 for Hondas but know I certainly can't get that out of my A20A3 engine after a full build. Also, when is the torque adder used?

(Scott, there are actually two engines with the Accords. One has a base of 110 and the other 120 hp.)

Dave - what front suspension does your car have????? And what is the BEST whp you are telling us the 110hp 2.0L in your car can make? Whay do your dyno sheets show?

dazzlesa

11-20-2008, 11:48 AM

i only pay attention sometimes.
if the process is the same for all then so be it. if they selectively slow down cars then that is nuts. if the weight is not correct then why pay attention to weight anyway.

Catch22

11-20-2008, 12:04 PM

I understand what you are saying now Andy.

And I'll go back to my original point of "just fix it then."

If the TQ adder wasn't used... Use it. There is certainly justification for that with that car. Cars with even BIGGER motors... Use the adder. THATS WHAT IT'S THERE FOR!!!

And BTW - The Miata could only "easily" be listed in ITB using the process if you apply the process incorrectly. But I guess maybe that was your point. I dunno.
At any rate, thats still no excuse for stagnation and fear of pushing ahead. Gotta break eggs to make an omelette as they say.

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 12:10 PM

tom91ita

11-20-2008, 12:10 PM

i think that Torque may be a bit of a red herring. the ratio of torque to hp was quite close in a couple of earlier examples. if that ratio is close, the general process works.

if it is beyond some multiplier, then maybe you use it or correct.

but to state that my older honda can get 35% cause that is what hondas do is too general. that might be what a chipped OBD0 16 valve can get. but because hondas do well in ITA is not a reason to extend it to my OBD-Who 12 Valve.

but yes, sequential injection > dual point injection > carbs.
16V > 12V > 8V.
OBDx > vacuum advance.

But for simplicity sake, i think using HP covers many of the variables above.

Catch22

11-20-2008, 12:12 PM

The 1.6L Miata could EASILY be listed at 2515 in ITB using the 'process'.

116x1.35x17=2660lbs

The Miata gets the 35% for the same reasons the Hondas do.
Really... Not that hard.

If you want to put the Miata in ITB at 2660lbs... Go right ahead.

Catch22

11-20-2008, 12:17 PM

but to state that my older honda can get 35% cause that is what hondas do is too general.

Well, I actually used it because its a 12v MPFI motor.
But yeah, it can get 35%. Thats the outer limits, but its been done.

25% is reasonable on the VW 8v motors.
35% is reasonable on the 16v but dual point injected Civic DX.

The hard part is collecting the knowlege, especially with the older cars. But once you have that its pretty easy to take a very reasonable educated shot at it and get REALLY close in MOST cases.
There WILL always be outliers. I can't stress that enough. Nobody hits the target with every single shot.

Xian

11-20-2008, 12:34 PM

116x1.35x17=2660lbs

The Miata gets the 35% for the same reasons the Hondas do.
Really... Not that hard.

If you want to put the Miata in ITB at 2660lbs... Go right ahead.

Don't forget the +50 for A-Arms and possibly a hit for front "mid-engine"ness...

Hell, look at the 94-97 Miata in A.

128*1.35*14.5=2505+50 (A-Arms)=2555 in ITA

What's current spec weight for it? How about 2380.

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 12:44 PM

Don't forget the +50 for A-Arms and possibly a hit for front "mid-engine"ness...

Hell, look at the 94-97 Miata in A.

128*1.35*14.5=2505+50 (A-Arms)=2555 in ITA

What's current spec weight for it? How about 2380.

If you want to use singular dyno sheets, then all hell breaks loose. How about 2690 for the SE-R/NX2000?

Defining "When you KNOW something" is a hard thing to do as well. We can agree that the CRX power output is well known. How much information - and from how many sources do we need before it's 'fact'?

Sooooo many grey areas in this process guys...yet it is better than anything in any class right now. We can tighten it up, document what we did and run most of the cars through....but it still will generate issues no matter what.

Xian

11-20-2008, 01:05 PM

If you want to use singular dyno sheets, then all hell breaks loose. How about 2690 for the SE-R/NX2000?

Defining "When you KNOW something" is a hard thing to do as well. We can agree that the CRX power output is well known. How much information - and from how many sources do we need before it's 'fact'?

Sooooo many grey areas in this process guys...yet it is better than anything in any class right now. We can tighten it up, document what we did and run most of the cars through....but it still will generate issues no matter what.

Very true. I guess it's a little bit different for me since I'm coming from the standpoint of a car/chassis that was adjusted based on "When you KNOW something".

Are Miatae only making 25% gains or is it more like 30-35%? I know what I KNOW. :shrug:

gran racing

11-20-2008, 01:06 PM

Dave - what front suspension does your car have????? And what is the BEST whp you are telling us the 110hp 2.0L in your car can make? Whay do your dyno sheets show?

Now sure why you feel compled to play games, but since you'll get your jollies from it the suspension on my car is a double wishbone and the rear uses transverse arms with conventional MacPherson struts.

Our goal after a full build (engine, tuning, tranny, yadda, yadda) for this car was 110 at the wheels. We got 112. Then again, according to you "if you want to use singular dyno sheets, then all hell breaks loose" so I'm not sure why you are asking. Oh, was that you way of replying on my previous question where I was curious how the gain % is determined?

Ready for the next riddle Andy.

lateapex911

11-20-2008, 01:25 PM

Well, I actually used it because its a 12v MPFI motor.
But yeah, it can get 35%. Thats the outer limits, but its been done.

25% is reasonable on the VW 8v motors.
35% is reasonable on the 16v but dual point injected Civic DX.

The hard part is collecting the knowlege, especially with the older cars. But once you have that its pretty easy to take a very reasonable educated shot at it and get REALLY close in MOST cases.
There WILL always be outliers. I can't stress that enough. Nobody hits the target with every single shot.

Quoted for truuf.

Now, look at Scott's ITB list.
There are cars there spanning what, 25 years? In that time, there has been a boatload of changes. To the methods of building cars, casting engine parts, rating hp from the factory, and on and on.

Then you have individual car differences, even from the same period. On one hand, we want to be generic, and apply multipliers based on the genre. Eg: 2 valve non OHC motor? 20%. 4 valve DOHC? 25%. Oh, but wait...that particular 2 valve motor, while it seems identical to the one made the year before, is a smogged up POS. So, if we apply the SAME multipler, whoops! Trouble! And so it goes.

So, we need to start with the basics, stick to it whenever possible, but fold in some specific situation knowledge.

I've been looking at ITB for over 6 months now, and I know if we just start readjusting cars based on the standard build gains, we're going to have some super light old cars...and they'll romp. Some don't make sense from a pure numbers point of view, but in reality, they're pretty close to where tey need to be.

dazzlesa

11-20-2008, 01:29 PM

when my intgra went up to 2595 from 2480 and i have to race a 2380 lb car that should be 2555lbs at lime rock, good luck. it makes me crazy. i love the racing but this is nuts.

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 01:30 PM

Now sure why you feel compled to play games, but since you'll get your jollies from it the suspension on my car is a double wishbone and the rear uses transverse arms with conventional MacPherson struts.

Our goal after a full build (engine, tuning, tranny, yadda, yadda) for this car was 110 at the wheels. We got 112. Then again, according to you "if you want to use singular dyno sheets, then all hell breaks loose" so I'm not sure why you are asking. Oh, was that you way of replying on my previous question where I was curious how the gain % is determined?

Ready for the next riddle Andy.
Dave, you asked for justification on why your car was 100lbs more than a MKIII Golf. I am helping you understand what went through the process. Why is that playing games? You sit there and write letters asking for a correction on the MKIII, yet you don't seem to want to hear the information or do a real comparision. I am just acting as the messenger for you.

The Honduh guys on the call predicted 30% gains on your motor. Take that number and add in 50lbs for double wishbone and you have 2431lbs. Not sure where the 19-20lbs came from, but it would be something that I would like to 'correct' if we were allowed to go to town on the ITCS and scrub each car down to +/-5.

Still waiting for someone to step up and run their numbers on the ITB cars listed - or at least recommend what THEY would do with them. It may seem easy to some but when you actually look at whats in front of you, it gets cloudy REAL fast. The potential for a singular car to run roughshot over a class is HUGE.

Catch22

11-20-2008, 01:33 PM

Andy, posting for Blake, who says your earlier Porsche 914 numbers are wrong.

He says that the 1.7L 914 is in ITC at 2080 and the 2.0L is in B at 2260. I haven't double checked that.

As far as what we "know"...
If we KNOW a 1.6 liter, MPFI, 16v Honda motor can do 35%, then its reasonable to apply the same thing to a 1.6 liter, MPFI, 16v Mazda motor. Right?

BUT, if you have a knowlegeable Mazda person in the loop that says "Nope, the Miata does 25% because of xxxx factor" then you call that knowlege as well, and maybe split the difference and do it at 30%.

The info has to come from somewhere. Use all the tools you have and go for it.
Again... Perfection is not the goal. Reasonable is the goal, and I see that as VERY attainable.

JoshS

11-20-2008, 01:40 PM

but yes, sequential injection > dual point injection > carbs.
16V > 12V > 8V.
OBDx > vacuum advance.

I'm just starting to read today and haven't read the whole thread, but I've gotta disagree with the concept expressed here. Yes, it's true that new technology tends to make more horsepower than old technology. But that difference is already built into the stock hp of the car.

The question is -- what kind of technology differences cause one car to gain X% in IT trim, while another gains Y%?

It's things like restrictive exhausts (which can be changed out). It's not inherently true that a 4V engine will gain more in IT trim than a 2V engine. Unfortunately, manufacturers don't publicize that their cars have restrictive exhausts, so it's very hard to predict how an IT build will affect horsepower, and I just don't buy that newer, higher-tech engines will gain more. In fact, I think in most cases they are likely to gain LESS.

lateapex911

11-20-2008, 01:41 PM

The Pinto was reprocessed last year and the weight went from 2490 to 2340.(thanks itac)
Numbers are:
92hp x 1.25 x 17(itb) + 50 (a-arm)= 2005 lbs oops…hmmm math wrong?
92hp x 1.45(“smogged up '70s POS” ???) x 17(itb) + 50(a-arm) = 2333 lbs
I actually think 2340 would be a pretty good weight.
The problem, even at 2340 pounds, is in actually loosing the weight.
If the VW Golf is accurately Processed, and is being used as the standard for ITB, and is already a pretty good car( being generous here) then a lot of cars are going to end up loosing weight when reprocessed. But the problem in IT is that you can’t actually take anything off the car! (heater cores for example:rolleyes:) So then you end up with a very narrow obtainable weight range. Unless of course you ADD weight to the typically faster/friendlier subjectively(?) process-ified cars, and that probably ain’t gonna happen.

Classic.

IIRC when we got some letters on this, the suggestions were across the board as to what was wanted. One letter, (and I'm not suggesting it was about Pintos) requested a weight break for his ITB car, but went on to say that no matter what, don't move it to ITC, because the writer didn't like the guys in ITC.

Sometimes you just can't have your cake and eat it too....

Not to pick on this fellow, (no name/sig, so sorry, I can't be more polite), but.....

Has the car been on a diet? What does the driver seat weigh? What tires are used? What do the wheels weigh? Type of radiator? Stainless header and exhaust? Light weight hardware in all locations? Simple door bars to allow gutting doors? Hollow sway bars with aluminum arms? And I could go on.

And don't respond with "That stuff costs toio much, or takes too much time..."

Listen, I run an old crappy car. It got a weight break. The car can get to that weight, (thanks to the list above) maybe 10 pounds less, but even that isn't enough. It is what it is. The ITAC can not add 100 or more pounds to every car on the ITA list in an effort to make a few specific cars like mine competitive. The cost of such a change would be borne by EVERYONE, while only benifitting me, and a couple others. No, that's crazy.

On the other hand, when we did the GR, we added weight to a small goup of cars to bring them in line with the process. And look at the complaining. Rick Benazic is STILL bitching (see his posts in THIS thread, LOL) about how the weight ruined his car, yet that same model car just won the ARRCs.

:shrug:

Again, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

My position:

Do away with the 100 pound window of change. Round to the neatest 5.
Adjust cars on a proactive basis within the ITAC (Cars that are known issues), AND adjust cars based on member request.
Continue to fine tune the process, and DOCUMENT. And sure, publish the math.

Catch22

11-20-2008, 01:41 PM

Still waiting for someone to step up and run their numbers on the ITB cars listed - or at least recommend what THEY would do with them. It may seem easy to some but when you actually look at whats in front of you, it gets cloudy REAL fast. The potential for a singular car to run roughshot over a class is HUGE.

I may do it later, but right now frankly I'm tired of doing what seems to be a windmill chasing exercise.

But I will say this one more time... If the math doesn't work or gives you a wonky number that you KNOW isn't right on an older car, then THAT is knowlege... It is now a tool to be used.
Do more research, figure out "why," and document why you got the result you got. Maybe it is a smogged up crapmobile that will get 45% in IT prep. Thats the whole "hard part" in gaining knowlege.

But arbitrarily applying HUGE modifiers to Honda B because Honda A made those numbers IS NOT knowlege. Thats lazyness or bias or both.

And again, don't worry about the 1974 Wonky Coupe 4000 unless someone makes the request.

Catch22

11-20-2008, 01:45 PM

My position:

Do away with the 100 pound window of change. Round to the neatest 5.
Adjust cars on a proactive basis within the ITAC (Cars that are known issues), AND adjust cars based on member request.
Continue to fine tune the process, and DOCUMENT. And sure, publish the math.

Great.
Do it.
:smilie_pokal:

Xian

11-20-2008, 01:47 PM

1.6 liter Miata in ITA
116*1.3*14.5=2186.6+50 A-Arms=2236.6

1.8 liter Miata in ITA
128*1.3*14.5= 2412.5+ 50 A-Arms= 2462.5

1.6 liter Miata in ITB
116*1.3*17= 2563.6+50 A-Arms =2613.6

1.8 liter Miata in ITB
128*1.3*17= 2828.8 + 50 A-Arms = 2878.80

Spec weight for the 1.6 in ITA is 2255 and the 1.8 is 2380

Looks like a case of the 1.6 car being close but the 1.8 car needing weight... this is ASSuming that these cars are only making 30% gains and not closer to 35%. This is also with Zero adjustment for their 50/50 mid-engine like weight bias. :shrug:

Wheeee!!! This is fun! :happy204:

dazzlesa

11-20-2008, 01:51 PM

jake

sorry for still bitchin. but if the process is not consistant than there is plenty of room for bitchin. my car is not ruined. i use my cars as examples. the procees should be used across the board for the good or bad of all cars.
i do love your position.
rick

jjjanos

11-20-2008, 01:53 PM

The question is -- what kind of technology differences cause one car to gain X% in IT trim, while another gains Y%?

The computer/chip/ECU.

lateapex911

11-20-2008, 02:02 PM

Excellent addition to the process. Provide an independent and reproducable metric for aero for all classified vehicles. We can debate whether this car should get 50lb reduction, but we cannot debate that its aero value is X. (See mid- vs front- adder. The amount of the adder is debatable. Whether a car is mid- or front-engined is not)......

What triggers the review? The new ECU rule. The multipliers are no longer valid given the extra HP that FI cars can get versus Carb cars. Based on the idea that the process weight is the 100% developed weight, virtually all cars with an ECU are underweight. I've been told that if I wanted to spend gobs of money on the right ECU, my 91HP stock car with a 25% multiplier can pick up an extra 5% HP.

The board granted the realignment on a once only basis. It also created the category as a regional-only category and seemed to be more than willing to ignore that absolute.

1- On aero: Please do provide an independent and reproducable metric for aero.

2- Wrong. All ECU cars are not underweight. ECUs have been "free" since, what '97 or so? Perhaps certain makes and models needed NASA money to institute the ECUS, but they were available, and the process took that into account.

3- Really?? Last I checked, IT only runs at Nationals on a restricted basis. We're still a regional class. Unless I've been asleep for a few years.

Ron Earp

11-20-2008, 02:06 PM

This is also with Zero adjustment for their 50/50 mid-engine like weight bias. :shrug:

Wheeee!!! This is fun! :happy204:

Sure sounds like fun. Let me try:

1999 1.8L Miata in ITS, 140 stock hp. You guys like the 35% gain for the Miata, I do too so:

140 x 1.35 x 12.9 = 2438 lbs. Now, what about those adders: +50 for the front suspension and...

The 1999 1.8L Miata should weigh in at 2488 lbs, or 2490lbs. That is 115lbs more than the spec weight now, 2375. Seems like the 1999 ITS Miata will need some adjusting. I was worried about the ITS Miatas in 2009, little did I know I just had to calculate them out of the running.

lateapex911

11-20-2008, 02:09 PM

when my intgra went up to 2595 from 2480 and i have to race a 2380 lb car that should be 2555lbs at lime rock, good luck. it makes me crazy. i love the racing but this is nuts.

But Rick, first, defend that position...show me the numbers. And don't just choose one car to compare it to, do it for a cross section.

Second, Lime Rock is totally irrelevant. We can't set weights based on one track.

Guys, the cream will rise, Period. And that cream might be different at different tracks. We all can't have our cake and eat it too. In other words, if we expect to win, sometimes we have to have the right car, the right prep and the right driver at the right track. We can't always be holding back money, or deciding we want to race a certain brand, or whatever.

If, for example, I want to win at Lime Rock, and I want to stick with my Mazda roots, I might have to get over my "I want to race on a budget" issue, and get over my "Miatas are gay" viewpoint. :)

(AND, I'll have to learn to be a better engineer, a better team manager, a better funding source, and, yes, a better driver)

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 02:36 PM

Andy, posting for Blake, who says your earlier Porsche 914 numbers are wrong.

He says that the 1.7L 914 is in ITC at 2080 and the 2.0L is in B at 2260. I haven't double checked that.

Cool. I was going from the old spreadsheet RacerJake had done that has all the cars in the ITCS in it.

As far as what we "know"...
If we KNOW a 1.6 liter, MPFI, 16v Honda motor can do 35%, then its reasonable to apply the same thing to a 1.6 liter, MPFI, 16v Mazda motor. Right?

Nope. If you know anything about Mazda engines, you know that the ports are tiny compared to their Hondah counterparts. That is one of the reasons you don't see very much gain with a header. Just because things look alike on paper doesn't mean they are alike. Again, another reason that each car needs to be looked at individually. Sometimes we spend huge amounts of time on calls debating the adders.

The info has to come from somewhere. Use all the tools you have and go for it.
Again... Perfection is not the goal. Reasonable is the goal, and I see that as VERY attainable.

Agreed...and as I have done before, I may call you for a sanity check.

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 02:42 PM

when my intgra went up to 2595 from 2480 and i have to race a 2380 lb car that should be 2555lbs at lime rock, good luck. it makes me crazy. i love the racing but this is nuts.

And this is why half the ITAC stays off IT.com. We now have an ITA driver who is taking a weight pulled out of thin air from someone else and using it as fact and justification why he can't keep up at a singular track. Whooo-hooo! WinnAr!

I hope we will implement what Jake wants to do above. It's what a few of us want to do...with the exception of turning the adders into a % as an addition. Anyone want ON the ITAC? Might be a few openings this January!!!!

R2 Racing

11-20-2008, 02:59 PM

17 pages and almost three hours later, I made it! I MADE IT!!!!:happy204: (It's ok, I've been laid off!) Now, onto my lowly opinions.

A couple pages back it was said:
double wishbone = +50lbs
strut = +0lbs
other = -50lbs

Andy went on to say that the A3 would get the -50 subtractor because despite being strut in the front, it has a beam in the rear. Ok, so the beam rear trumps the strut front to become simply "other", not being four wheel strut, and warrant the -50lbs. Ok, got it. (BTW, in this comparison, so would the ITB CRX/Civic Si as it too is strut front and beam rear.)

Where my problem lies is that the later "double wishbone" Honda CRX/Civic/Integra's are getting +50 when they are in fact not four wheel double wishbone. The front is (loosely), but the rear uses a rear trailing arm with a singular upper and lower arm. Yes, it is independent, but it's not double wishbone. So shouldn't that make it not worthy of the +50?

That leads to the core issue, are the right terms being used here? Am I more correct in stating it this way?
Four wheel independent suspension = +50lbs
Four wheel strut independent suspension = 0lbs
Other = -50lbs

Sorry if I appear to be being a pain, but I just thought that needed to be clarrified.

I also agree with Giles, Jake, et al. that this +- 100lbs thing is too much. If I came to find out that my car was classed 95lbs over it's process weight while another guys car was classed 95lbs under it's process weight, and that was A-OK with the ITAC, I'd be pissed. That's not acceptable. +- 5, maybe 10lbs I could live with. Address that first, and then we can worry about "torque adders" and whatever else adders that have been talked about here. Get everyone on the same playing field through the exact same process, and then we can worry about going from there.

Lastly, Rick, your Integra is still quite competitive at 2595lbs.:smilie_pokal: If you take it at a 1.25 power adder, +50 for four wheel independent, and -50 for FWD, it's over weight. If you take it at a 1.35 power adder, the +50 for "4WI", and the -50 for FWD, it's under weight. Knowing what I know about the real kinds of gains this engine can get, it's about spot on.

Catch22

11-20-2008, 03:11 PM

Anyone want ON the ITAC? Might be a few openings this January!!!!

I do.
But first I need to have some discussions with some current members (you, Kirk? Jake?) about my work hours and if we think they could be an issue.

I don't want to get on the committee and then either be an absent member or have to immediately resign because I'm always at work during the con calls and critical discussions.

jjjanos

11-20-2008, 03:43 PM

1- On aero: Please do provide an independent and reproducable metric for aero.

Which is why it won't/shouldn't be used. We can't get a metric on this.

2- Wrong. All ECU cars are not underweight. ECUs have been "free" since, what '97 or so?

Not in the mood to search through every fast track on SCCA, but was under the impression that the allowance for alternate chips in the original housing was more recent than '97. I also doubt that the process weight took this into account for the older cars that weren't deemed a-priori as out of whack.

3- Really?? Last I checked, IT only runs at Nationals on a restricted basis. We're still a regional class. Unless I've been asleep for a few years.

It is, but the recommendations from the CRB task force on fixin national racing said that should be changed. Clearly things that are settled and on which the books are closed are not so settled or closed.

Z3_GoCar

11-20-2008, 03:54 PM

......
1.8 liter Miata in ITA
128*1.3*14.5= 2412.5+ 50 A-Arms= 2462.5
......
Spec weight for the 1.6 in ITA is 2255 and the 1.8 is 2380

Looks like a case of the 1.6 car being close but the 1.8 car needing weight... this is ASSuming that these cars are only making 30% gains and not closer to 35%. This is also with Zero adjustment for their 50/50 mid-engine like weight bias. :shrug:

Wheeee!!! This is fun! :happy204:

Uh, you're using the wrong inital hp on this one, it should be 133hp. I know that the gain was from an upgaded ecu. Two things, you could update to the new ecu, secondly, there's still got to be more to be had even in the stock ecu. The results are:

133*1.3*14.5 = 2506 50lbs for A-arm = 2556 => 2555lbs

Xian

11-20-2008, 04:03 PM

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 04:13 PM

Whooops! My bad, 128 was the figure I found via a quick search. I thought I had seen higher HP figures but couldn't remember for sure. Thanks!

As you pointed out, this makes it worse all the way around... if it "only" makes a 25% gain then it should still weigh in around 2460 but is spec'd at 2380. So it's between 80-175#'s light at a minimum. And even more if the engine makes over 30%...

Been hashed to death in other threads. Won't bother to try and explain again the timing and logic. It's a Miata hater issue anyway. It would apply to any car that came accross in the same manner and timeframe and same facts. The process for the 94-95 ITA Miata was as such:

128 * 1.25 = 160 * 14.5 = 2320 + 50 for DW = 2370. Tried to give it 50lbs in total BS 'it's a Miata' weight but the cage rules maxed it out at 10lbs at the time, hence the 2380. Should really be 2370.

Its the way new cars are classed when hp numbers are not known. Same way for the SE-R. 140 * 1.25 = 175 * 14.5 = 2537.5 - 50 for FWD = 2487.5 rounded to 2490.

spnkzss

11-20-2008, 04:17 PM

don't cars get drag coefficient numbers? Couldn't that be used for aero?

Xian

11-20-2008, 04:27 PM

It's a Miata hater issue anyway.

And right there is where you lost me. Until a couple weeks ago I owned a 97 Miata. Hell, I even looked at building a 1.8 liter ITA car but in the end "picked my poison" and stuck with a Honda :shrug: This has nothing to do with "hating" anything, it does have to do with fairly applying the rules to all cars classed. Remember "We know what we know"... and what we know is that the Miata's make more than 25% in gains. I'd argue it's closer to 35% than 30% but, regardless, the real figures are more than it was classed at.

ekim952522000

11-20-2008, 04:38 PM

.........

My position:

Do away with the 100 pound window of change. Round to the neatest 5.
Adjust cars on a proactive basis within the ITAC (Cars that are known issues), AND adjust cars based on member request.
Continue to fine tune the process, and DOCUMENT. And sure, publish the math.

This sounds like a great way to handle it to me. After/If this is done would it be to much to ask that a list off all cars that have not been processed be available?

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 04:39 PM

And right there is where you lost me. Until a couple weeks ago I owned a 97 Miata. Hell, I even looked at building a 1.8 liter ITA car but in the end "picked my poison" and stuck with a Honda :shrug: This has nothing to do with "hating" anything, it does have to do with fairly applying the rules to all cars classed. Remember "We know what we know"... and what we know is that the Miata's make more than 25% in gains. I'd argue it's closer to 35% than 30% but, regardless, the real figures are more than it was classed at.

You have to look at the history of the topic and the facts to understand. There are PLENTY of cars that make more than the initial 25% that was used in the estimate. It's begs the question: how much info do you need, when do you need it and WHAT do you need? The infomation on the CRX and Integra are plentiful. How much information are you citing when you argue it's 35%? This question applies to all cars, not just this specific case.

It's another reason the +/- 100lb group think it should stay. If 25% is estimated and we find out that 27% is more like the number (as long as you answer the quations above) do you make a change? Is that IT or Prod? 28%? 30%?

Tell me how many data points and from where you would like to cite before something is taken as fact.

Greg Amy

11-20-2008, 04:39 PM

I do.
+1.

But you guys are probably smarter than that... :cool:

AjG

11-20-2008, 04:40 PM

Classic.

And don't respond with "That stuff costs toio much, or takes too much time..."

This board is hilarious… well I wasn’t actually asking for anything Jake, just pointing out that if you reprocess based off a fast car other cars will get lighter and getting lighter is difficult/expensive/impossible in IT. So where does that get you? I’m quite content with my POS and yes losing weight is too expensive for me. I mean where do you draw the line? I know I could call up Minilite or whoever and get some custom magnesium wheels but come on, this is improved touring not pro touring. I’d be embarrassed to even use them. Admittedly my cut off is a bit lower than some with a $3300 total investment in the car but I actually like to race with people, not time trials with a $15,000 IT car. Hee hee. I’d be much more in favor of sheding non-essential crap than adding weight to anyone(don’t want to start that one here). But if your not adding weight and at the same time don’t have many ways to shed weight(imo) then fiddling with weight dosen’t get you too far.

lateapex911

11-20-2008, 04:42 PM

Which is why it won't/shouldn't be used. We can't get a metric on this.

Not in the mood to search through every fast track on SCCA, but was under the impression that the allowance for alternate chips in the original housing was more recent than '97. I also doubt that the process weight took this into account for the older cars that weren't deemed a-priori as out of whack.

It is, but the recommendations from the CRB task force on fixin national racing said that should be changed. Clearly things that are settled and on which the books are closed are not so settled or closed.

1- Correct.
2- The time line was:
Stock ECUs. Complaints arise about other cars adjusting timing, jetting, etc.

Chips allowable. Can't police them anyway.. then, of course, piggybacks get shoved in there. Can't police it, so...
Anything goes, as long as it's in the stock box. Now it's NASA money for some guys but, it just became an open rule.
**********************
The "in the box" restriction was dropped, to encourage the free market and lessen the limitations.

The point in time, highlighted by ****s is where everything was gone over to ensure that process numbers included ECU gains. before that, it was rather random, and the rule created a sort of post classification comp adjustment. Part of the entire GR was laying the groundwork for future initiatives like the ECU rule.

3- The "IT going National concept" has been coming up for years. If you notice, I start just such a thread every year or so, to gauge the membership. This past event was part of a larger package. I do wonder if they wouldn't be smart to make IT National, for the good of the club sometimes. But, at this juncture, the BoD, at least, isn't interested. (At least the majority)

Ed Funk

11-20-2008, 04:48 PM

Vote for tGA, he's for "change"

lateapex911

11-20-2008, 05:00 PM

This board is hilarious… well I wasn’t actually asking for anything Jake, just pointing out that if you reprocess based off a fast car other cars will get lighter and getting lighter is difficult/expensive/impossible in IT. So where does that get you? I’m quite content with my POS and yes losing weight is too expensive for me. I mean where do you draw the line? I know I could call up Minilite or whoever and get some custom magnesium wheels but come on, this is improved touring not pro touring. I’d be embarrassed to even use them. Admittedly my cut off is a bit lower than some with a $3300 total investment in the car but I actually like to race with people, not time trials with a $15,000 IT car. Hee hee. I’d be much more in favor of sheding non-essential crap than adding weight to anyone(don’t want to start that one here). But if your not adding weight and at the same time don’t have many ways to shed weight(imo) then fiddling with weight dosen’t get you too far.

Well, that's not accurate, entirely. For you, it might not, but that's because of the choices you've made. And you just said you chose not to avail yourself of some of the options you have. Others might take a crappy cheap to get car, then make it top drawer, because they see it as a way to get to the top, and competition is what racing is about. Some decide they want to compete up front, others are happier in the middle. And that's fine.

But, you can't say to a governing board, "Look, I don't want to spend a lot of money here, but i want my car to be competitive, and it's not. It weighs too much compared to others. So, make them all add weight, or allow me to remove things" Which will, in turn cause everyone else to need to do the same, if they wish to be as competitive as they were pre allowance. And that is the dangerous Rules creep scenario.

If you were on the governing board, you'd have a tough time justifying that to everyone slapping in the weight, or needing to remove heater cores, or make lexan windows, or carbon fenders, and on and on. Really, you would.

You're coming at this from the point of view that things haven't been reprocessed. They have. This discussion is about fine tuning, or a second swipe to get things closer. Cars in the front HAVE been slapped with weight. Some weren't classified when the GR took place, but their weights should reflect the framework laid out.

Don't forget that there are FIVE classes. Each class has a performance target/window. The architecture of the framework was to, in each class, come to a target that added weight to the front runners, and removed a reasonable amount from the backmarkers. With 300 cars, it is very very difficult to strike a balance, and have every car happy. Trust me, I was involved, and my car came up short...and that's the way it needed to be. The class/category needs outweighed my personal desires. In your case, you have the opportunity to improve your lot, and it's up to you to chose whether it's worth it to you to take the advantages.

I'm not trying to pick on you, really, but your post focused a light onto some of the issues surrounding the structure, and the limitation of the classifications, and I think some reading this aren[t aware of things that have occurred over the years, or why things are the way they are.

Catch22

11-20-2008, 05:01 PM

After brain chewing on this for a while, I'd like to suggest just completely scrapping the "-50 for Bad suspension" from the process.

Why?
1. What is "bad" anyway? It just begs for even more subjectivity.
2. Some cars that have gotten that -50 certainly don't need it. A 1st gen CRX or A2/A3 Golf certainly do not handle "bad."
3. Looks like it gets applied sometimes (A3 Golf... Strut and beam) and not sometimes (CRX... Strut and Beam).
4. There really aren't any contemporary cars that are "Bad." You have to go back farther than the ITCS to get into those.

Just set the baseline as "strut cars" and do the adder for Double Wishbone and Independent designs. Subjectivity removed, and removing it where you can is a good thing.

Just my opinion. I'm sure someone disagrees.

shwah

11-20-2008, 05:22 PM

You have to look at the history of the topic and the facts to understand. There are PLENTY of cars that make more than the initial 25% that was used in the estimate. It's begs the question: how much info do you need, when do you need it and WHAT do you need? The infomation on the CRX and Integra are plentiful. How much information are you citing when you argue it's 35%? This question applies to all cars, not just this specific case.

It's another reason the +/- 100lb group think it should stay. If 25% is estimated and we find out that 27% is more like the number (as long as you answer the quations above) do you make a change? Is that IT or Prod? 28%? 30%?

Tell me how many data points and from where you would like to cite before something is taken as fact.

The current process is the current process. It does have subjectivity (still not convinced this is a good - or bad - thing), as noted in power adders most often.

All I am asking is that you don't add more tolerance to the imperfect window that you are already landing in with the process. If it comes out at a weight, put it at the nearest multiple of 5, even if it was only 36#, or 86# away from that.

If a car is assumed 25% during initial classing - say a Daewoo that no one knows anything about - and it turns out to gain 40%, or 29%, or 15% in IT Trim, AND the ITAC can gather data that it deems satisfactory (that is part of the job - make decisions with the information available, including whether the information available is sufficient) to document that fact, then of course change it, a mistake was made, but if a car is reviewed now, is a well known quantity, and is adjusted (or not), the next time it is asked for review you will have the data to back yourselves up and say NO. If the review pre-dates the current era of recording how these things are decided, then IMO you go with what the current group arrives at using the process, since you have no idea what went into the last decision.

The window only serves to exacerbate the known lack of (impossibility of) perfect accuracy in the process.

Catch22

11-20-2008, 05:29 PM

We actually have a whole bunch of agreement here, its just hard to realize it.

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 05:35 PM

+1.

But you guys are probably smarter than that... :cool:

Unless the membership thinks we need to diversify geographiaclly, I say yes!!!

Andy Bettencourt

11-20-2008, 05:37 PM

Just my opinion. I'm sure someone disagrees.

I could buy that for a dollar.

dazzlesa

11-20-2008, 06:22 PM

my coments were not meant to ask for a weight break on the integra. looking at the formulas and seeing how the civc, golf a3 and the 1.8 miata worked out concerns me.

Xian

11-20-2008, 07:19 PM

my coments were not meant to ask for a weight break on the integra. looking at the formulas and seeing how the civc, golf a3 and the 1.8 miata worked out concerns me.

That's how I interpreted it...

FWIW, I've spoken with several other well informed IT racers over the last 2-3 years and the unanimous thought about the 1.8 Miata is that it could be a major overdog... right up until the weight gets re-evaluated based on "what we know".

Catch22

11-20-2008, 08:39 PM

I could buy that for a dollar.

Which part?

CRallo

11-20-2008, 09:24 PM

so is this thread some sort of record?

or do you guys do this every winter?? and don't you all have jobs? :rolleyes:

Vote for tGA, he's for "change"
- worked for Obama... God help us all!

CRallo

11-20-2008, 09:26 PM

a few thoughts / responses:

- anyone ever play with one of those computer programs that simulates engine power based on the info/mods that you input?? are any of them advanced to help us approximate the proper power adder for a particular engine?

The question is -- what kind of technology differences cause one car to gain X% in IT trim, while another gains Y%?

I just don't buy that newer, higher-tech engines will gain more. In fact, I think in most cases they are likely to gain LESS.

The computer/chip/ECU.
- lots of factors... many have already been mentioned. The ECU is definitely one. many cars come well tuned, some come with very conservative tunes and some come with restrictive redlines...

- a very broad way to answer this question would be: any performance limiting component that you can remove or are stuck with per the rules. I say it this way becuase there truely are many answers to the question.

- I would agree that most modern engines are more "maxed out" or in a higher state of tune and therefore there is less room for improvement...

don't cars get drag coefficient numbers? Couldn't that be used for aero?
- speaking of aero: anyone think about how the heavier car with more power will have the advantage "at speed" when the fight for speed is againt the air and not the weight??

**ducks** :eek:

CRallo

11-20-2008, 10:19 PM

doh! wrong button!!

where is the wall bash smilie when you need it??

guess I'm making up for the lost time while I was at work... ugh

Knestis

11-20-2008, 11:05 PM

An aero factor is likely unworkable. To work back to actual drag, we'd need Cd and frontal area values. It's hard enough to get the data we already use...!

K

shwah

11-20-2008, 11:55 PM

An aero factor is likely unworkable. To work back to actual drag, we'd need Cd and frontal area values. It's hard enough to get the data we already use...!

K
Someone better tell the Scirocco guys that.

R2 Racing

11-21-2008, 01:26 AM

Uh, you're using the wrong inital hp on this one, it should be 133hp. I know that the gain was from an upgaded ecu. Two things, you could update to the new ecu, secondly, there's still got to be more to be had even in the stock ecu. The results are:
133*1.3*14.5 = 2506 50lbs for A-arm = 2556 => 2555lbs

The process for the 94-95 ITA Miata was as such:

128 * 1.25 = 160 * 14.5 = 2320 + 50 for DW = 2370. Tried to give it 50lbs in total BS 'it's a Miata' weight but the cage rules maxed it out at 10lbs at the time, hence the 2380. Should really be 2370.
I've seen this discrepency before in relation to this car, and it irks me. Lets hear it from those who know - what's the utmost "stock" power one of these cars ever legally made as defined on the "Mazda MX-5/Miata includes R (94-97)" line? Is it 128, is it 133, or is it something else? Just so everyone knows who might not, I race a '92 Integra. That's where my personal knowledge resides. It's spec line is "Acura Integra (90-93)". The 90-91 made 130hp and the 92-93 made 140hp. Do I ever claim that the car should be classified at anything less that 140hp? No, because anyone who races one will set it up with the right combination of stock and legal parts to make it a "140hp" Integra. If I follow this logic that the 1.8L Miata was apparently done at, I should be claiming that the Integra should weigh (130*1.25*14.5) + 50 for 4WI - 50 for FWD = 2356lbs. Yeah, I'd like my 240lb weight break now. See, I too can make a 200lb difference. I mean come on, lets be honest here on what the car was capable of with stock parts, and what it's capable of "adding" in IT prep. I'm very honest with mine:
(140*1.28*14.5)+50-50 = 2598lbs. Actual is 2595lbs. Like I said before, "spot on".

dickita15

11-21-2008, 07:43 AM

An aero factor is likely unworkable. To work back to actual drag, we'd need Cd and frontal area values. It's hard enough to get the data we already use...!

K

Besides any aero data available would be with windows up and stock ride height. Event the small GT class guys know they can not deal with aero calculations.

JeffYoung

11-21-2008, 08:25 AM

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 09:25 AM

I've seen this discrepency before in relation to this car, and it irks me. Lets hear it from those who know - what's the utmost "stock" power one of these cars ever legally made as defined on the "Mazda MX-5/Miata includes R (94-97)" line? Is it 128, is it 133, or is it something else? Just so everyone knows who might not, I race a '92 Integra. That's where my personal knowledge resides. It's spec line is "Acura Integra (90-93)". The 90-91 made 130hp and the 92-93 made 140hp. Do I ever claim that the car should be classified at anything less that 140hp? No, because anyone who races one will set it up with the right combination of stock and legal parts to make it a "140hp" Integra. If I follow this logic that the 1.8L Miata was apparently done at, I should be claiming that the Integra should weigh (130*1.25*14.5) + 50 for 4WI - 50 for FWD = 2356lbs. Yeah, I'd like my 240lb weight break now. See, I too can make a 200lb difference. I mean come on, lets be honest here on what the car was capable of with stock parts, and what it's capable of "adding" in IT prep. I'm very honest with mine:
(140*1.28*14.5)+50-50 = 2598lbs. Actual is 2595lbs. Like I said before, "spot on".

Kev - Here is what we used for facts in making the decision: and we can use this description to point to whenever this comes up again.......

The 94-95 car was requested for a re-class - it was in ITS. The 96-97 wasn't even in the ITCS at that time IIRC. The process was run and 2380 spit out as I have shown above.

Then a year later, someone requested the addition of the 96-97 car to the spec line. The cars had different stock hp levels. There are now 3 choices.

1. List the 96-97 cars seperately @ 2460
2. Change the weight of the people who had been running and list them on the same line @ 2460
3. Just add those years to the current listing at 2380

So now you look at what are the differences between the cars. Mechanically, from oil pan to air filter, the cars are identical. The 96 model year was the swap over to OBD-2. Knowing that Miata's run pig-rich and from much SM knowledge and contact with Mazda people, the only reason for the bump was because of the ECU.

So, now you have a stock hp bump that is exclusively due to an allowable modification in IT. So in fact, the 94/95 cars and 96/97 cas have the exact same power potential in IT trim.

Given all that information, and knowing that Mazda is notorious for overrating their stock hp numbers (See dyno sheets and reversed factory numbers on Miata and RX-8's) it was determined that the lower number was the most accurate and most appropriate number to use. The committee voted as such and I stick behind that decision as the correct thing to do.

It would be like a model getting a revised exhaust system as the exclusive change resulting in a 5hp bump when everything else is identical. Since the exhaust is free in IT, the two cars have the same exact power potential in IT - and it's the LOWER of the two numbers because the foundation for your build doesn't change. It's not like a cam change or an intake revision or a larger TB...

Keep this IMPORTANT fact in mind. The timing of the two requests was the trigger to scrub down the listings. Since one was already listed, the decision needed a harder look. Your Teg - like the 2nd gen RX-7 have different hp ratings on the same line...the engines are mechanically different and you are allowed to update and backdate because the chassis are the same. You say you run the best possible combination of stock parts - and you should - and the RX-7 guys do too. But in this case, there is NO CHANGE in stock parts. Since the ECU is/was free, there is no difference in power potential. If you bolted on all your go-fast goodies onto a 1990 Teg, you most certainly would NOT get the same result as if you used the 1993 guts.

If people still have an issue with this train of thought given all the information, the CRB could seperate the listings in the ITCS. BUT, nobody would run a 96-97 car because they know it is ONLY the equal of the 94-95 car and no better...AND with the VIN rule gone, everyone would convert to the earlier car so it's really moot.

Again, agree or disagree, I stand behind the decision as the correct thing and most accurate thing to do for this listing. I would vote as such with any make and model should the facts remain the same.

dazzlesa

11-21-2008, 09:37 AM

before i go asking, what are the differences from the factory for the integra's

JeffYoung

11-21-2008, 09:41 AM

Greg Amy

11-21-2008, 09:43 AM

I think the car needs to go through at the highest stock HP no. for all makes on the same line.
Hell hath done frozen over: Young and I agree on something...

:)

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 09:55 AM

Andy, I've been in agreement with your explanation since this issue first came up, and still believe you guys thought you were doing the right thing.

But isn't the error in the logic this. Weight is set based on STOCK hp, not POWER POTENTIAL. So even though the power potential between the two cars is the same, a non-stock number is being used to set the weight for the car, and that's not how the process is supposed to work.

I think the car needs to go through at the highest stock HP no. for all makes on the same line. I assume the 2nd Gen RX7 was treated the same way, and run through at 160 hp, correct?

Actually Jeff, you are only half right. Weight is set using the stock hp level as the base, then a multiplier that estimates POWER POTENTIAL in IT trim. So in fact, the crank number that is used to multiply by the classes target PW/WT is indeed it's estimated potential. Given the cars have the EXACT SAME potential, they sould be listed at the same weight. Its what stock hp level you believe is the question - and given the facts and the timing of the requests, I believe 100% that 128hp is the correct number.

It would be like someone adding one final missing year to the TR8 spec line. Except that year had a 5hp boost due to a revised air cleaner - and nothing else. Since air filtration is open, would you accept unconditionally the additional 80lbs of minimum weight that saddled you with because of something that was already open in IT?

If you say yes, then you are a better man than I. (On edit - the RX-7 is a different issue, mechanically the motors are very different - resulting in a 16hp increase)

JeffYoung

11-21-2008, 09:58 AM

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 10:06 AM

If we are basing all weights on stock hp x a multiplier, yes, that is what should happen. This is just for consistency's sake. If we are using highest stock hp for all cars on a spec line for everyone, then we should use it for everyone.

P.S. -- that's actually exactly the case on my car. 80s made 133 hp with the carbs, 81s 138 with FI. The 138 number ought to be used.

Except you have a mechanical difference there that is NOT free in IT. Those cars have different power potentials in IT. The Miata's do not.

Again, we use what we know to most accurately class cars. In this case, we believe the 128hp number to be the correct one to use given the facts.

JeffYoung

11-21-2008, 10:10 AM

Huh? FI is "free" -- I can update/backdate. It would be wrong to run the car through the process at 133 hp when the same car on the same line has a 138 rating.

No need to beath this one to death, I understand but disagree with your position.

Greg! We have ALWAYS been Miata haters......we'll always have Paris sweetie......lol......

Gary L

11-21-2008, 10:15 AM

Except you have a mechanical difference there that is NOT free in IT. Those cars have different power potentials in IT. The Miata's do not.

Again, we use what we know to most accurately class cars. In this case, we believe the 128hp number to be the correct one to use given the facts.
And actually, this all boils down to judicious use of the multiplier. The question becomes... if the higher hp engine had been classified first, followed by the lesser, would the end result have been the same? In my (admittedly sometimes optimistic) mind, the answer is yes.

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 10:17 AM

Huh? FI is "free" -- I can update/backdate. It would be wrong to run the car through the process at 133 hp when the same car on the same line has a 138 rating.

Correct, but your UD/BD changes the power potential of the car - just like the RX-7. So the weights should be based on the power potential. In your case, you have UD'd to a higher hp level without the added weight. That is NOT the case with the Miata.

If you listed the Miata's at 2460, it would be 80lbs of weight that COULD NOT be made up for because there is no gain in IT trim to that 5 hp. Refer back to my 'air cleaner' example.

Agree to disagree, yes.

Knestis

11-21-2008, 10:20 AM

Arguments over which IT car has better, aero, whehter 128 or 133 is the stock hp number, whether 25% or 35% is the correct gain factor, etc. etc. etc. etc....sure starting to look prod like to me......

It could but it doesn't have to.

"We don't consider aero drag as a factor. Thanks for asking."

"All cars are classified using a 1.25 multiplier unless a preponderance of evidence collected from many sources over a period of years makes a compelling case for the ITAC to do otherwise. Regardless, 'IT power factors' used in classifying and specifying cars will be documented and available to the membership. Thanks for asking."

"For classification and specification purposes, the highest published stock power figure will be used for all years, trim levels, and option packages included on any given spec line. Thanks for asking." (I don't know WHY this wouldn't always be the case even now.)

K

Knestis

11-21-2008, 10:24 AM

tnord

11-21-2008, 11:19 AM

so.....if the 96-97 miata was put on it's own spec line, and used a different power multiplier to get to the same weight (since we know the power potential is the same), would you guys quit your bitching?

R2 Racing

11-21-2008, 11:25 AM

Thank you for the explanation, Andy. If that was ever been posted before, I missed it. Reading it, I understand your side of the arguement. But the idea of classing a car at less than it's maximum OEM claimed HP number still just seems wrong to me, no matter the reason for the max number. But I see your point, if the bump can be easily replicated under the IT rules by a lesser output model, everyone will run that lesser output model that will have been classed lighter. But that leads to another issue...

Hypothetically speaking, if the ITAC did decide to split the '94-95 and the '96-97 Miata's onto different spec lines at 2380 and 2460 respectively, why are both cars being calculated at the same 1.25 power adder? If what you say is true, that the only difference in stock power can be 100% made up within the IT rules, shouldn't the '94-95 have a higher power adder? Shouldn't it be more capable to make power within the IT rules than the '96-97? Seems like it absolutely should to me - there's more potential there in the ECU to gain power, Mazda proved that themselves. So why do they have the same power adder? If the power making differences between them can be completely made up within the IT rules, shouldn't the lower OEM rated model get a higher power adder, effectively resulting in both cars having about the same spec'd (higher) weight? I'm failing to see how that doesn't make sense.

before i go asking, what are the differences from the factory for the integra's
The bump in power on the '92-93's came from different cams and the move to OBD-1. As Andy is pointing out, that cam change is not something that could legally be done later on within the IT rules, so that's why 140hp was used for its classification, and not 130hp. That I understand.

But even with that, I can make the same arguement I just did for the Miata's, but in the opposite way. Again, lets hypothetically say that the ITAC classed the '90-91 and '92-93 Integra's seperately. If that happened, the '90-91 would not be legally allowed to "update/backdate" and run the '92-93 cams under IT rules and therefore would not get its 10hp bump. In this instance, you could use the same power adder for the two different classifications and come up with two different weights, because one has a specific power adding difference in it that the other cannot make up under IT rules. They would have to be spec'd at different weights in order to compete with one another. The Miata's would not, because they both should be making the same power in the end under the IT rules. The Integra's will not.

Andy, please don't think that I'm trying to single you out because you race this specific car. You're just very knowledgable about these cars, as I am with Integra's, and you're in the position to (and are willing to!) discuss with and explain this whole process to me. I'm learning a lot here on how these numbers are created, and that's a good thing. I get asked a lot at the track from other IT racers if I know how XYZ was decided upon, and I'm starting to figure that out here. Thanks again for the discussion.

Greg Amy

11-21-2008, 11:32 AM

But that leads to another issue...
Fine points you got there, Champ.

The bump in power on the '92-93's came from different cams and the move to OBD-1. As Andy is pointing out, that cam change is not something that could legally be done later on within the IT rules...Sure it can, Kevin: updating/backdating on the same spec line. There's nothing keeping you from putting the later assembly in the earlier chassis...

Bottom line: Miata guys think it's classified fine. No surprise. Non-Miata guys think it's not. No surprise. And until the ITAC is willing to revisit the issue, never the twain shall meet.

No surprise.

But, you guys do realize this topic is devolving from its intended purpose, which is a devolution from its original intended purpose...?

lateapex911

11-21-2008, 11:32 AM

An aero factor is likely unworkable. To work back to actual drag, we'd need Cd and frontal area values. It's hard enough to get the data we already use...!

K

Not to mention that air dams are legal, and used, altering the aero characteristics in ways we can not predict, even IF we knew enough going in.

jjjanos

11-21-2008, 11:41 AM

Not to mention that air dams are legal, and used, altering the aero characteristics in ways we can not predict, even IF we knew enough going in.

All I know is that regardless of what process and multipliers are used... my car is too heavy and all other cars are too light. :D

R2 Racing

11-21-2008, 11:42 AM

The bump in power on the '92-93's came from different cams and the move to OBD-1. As Andy is pointing out, that cam change is not something that could legally be done later on within the IT rules...
Sure it can, Kevin: updating/backdating on the same spec line. There's nothing keeping you from putting the later assembly in the earlier chassis...
Sorry, I think I said that kind of confusingly. I meant that if the different years were listed seperately, that power difference (cam change) could not be made up legally within the IT rules. So when combined, the higher of the two HP ratings must be used.

tnord

11-21-2008, 11:44 AM

Fine points you got there, Champ.

Bottom line: Miata guys think it's classified fine. No surprise. Non-Miata guys think it's not. No surprise. And until the ITAC is willing to revisit the issue, never the twain shall meet.

No surprise.

this is all so fucking stupid.

in one case people want the ITAC to use "what is known" about a car to get to the best possible min weight for classification :cough: CRX/BMW :cough: but when the issue is turned around to the miata it's all "screw what we know, use whatever justification we can to throw some weight at those fuckers!"

keep them on the same line or break them out on separate lines, the end result is all the same.

Miata hatred from Greg, no surprise.

Gary L

11-21-2008, 11:48 AM

Bottom line: Miata guys think it's classified fine. No surprise. Non-Miata guys think it's not. No surprise. And until the ITAC is willing to revisit the issue, never the twain shall meet.
I'll repeat the question. Would the output weight have been the same if the later (higher hp) Miata had been classified first?
If not, there's a problem.
If yes, there ain't... regardless of what kind of car you drive.

But, you guys do realize this topic is devolving from its intended purpose, which is a devolution from its original intended purpose...?
The real irony? Andy started this thread! :o

Greg Amy

11-21-2008, 11:53 AM

Miata hatred from Greg, no surprise.
Nord, try to keep your well-known personal envy of me out of this discussion, if possible.

And, if you can, logically explain to me vis-a-vis "what we know" about the stock power of the '94-'97 Miata. Discuss.

Gary: spot on.

tnord

11-21-2008, 11:55 AM

And, if you can, logically explain to me vis-a-vis "what we know" about the stock power of the '94-'97 Miata. Discuss.

Andy already did. You just have this way of convienently ignoring anything that doesn't support your distorted view.

Greg Amy

11-21-2008, 12:00 PM

Andy already did. You just have this way of convienently ignoring anything that doesn't support your distorted view.
Didn't ignore it, Nord, simply rejected it. Multiple times. As have most other logical people that have read it...

Notice only "Miata people" think it's "logical" (that means makes sense and is reasonable), Travis...?

No surprise.

Xian

11-21-2008, 12:05 PM

I'll repeat the question. Would the output weight have been the same if the later (higher hp) Miata had been classified first?

I think the answer to this is fairly obvious. The early cars were classed with the "base" 25% power adder. Had the initial factory claim been 133hp, it would likely still have been classed with a 25% adder.

I understand that the ECU is open but that doesn't mean that Mazda's later ECU tweaks have exploited all the engine's capability. Who here is going to argue that the later car's ECU is 100% optimized from the factory? As I've stated previously, I think what we have here is a case of a car that makes more than 25% gains... especially if we're going off the earlier car's stock 128hp rating. I could better accept a 25% gain on the 133hp engine... it's not perfect and I don't think it's as accurate as what the CRX and Integra got hit with but it's better than where it is right now.

tnord

11-21-2008, 12:05 PM

Didn't ignore it, Nord, simply rejected it. Multiple times. As have most other logical people that have read it...

so you're rejecting that we end up in the same place even if the car is broken out on a separate line?

or are you rejecting the idea that we should use "what we know" to adjust the power multiplier?

shwah

11-21-2008, 12:06 PM

Someone better tell the Scirocco guys that.

OK so what can/will be done to address cars that were dinged by aero?

Go take a look at any Scirroco classified - 16v in ITA, 1.8 8v in ITB, whatever. Then look at the Golfs/Jettas/Rabbits that are classified with the same motors, trans, suspension types. I can't come up with any reason for consistently higher S-roc weights other than someone dinging them for better aero.

There is no reason at all that the ITB car is any different than the Rabbit GTI in spec weight - they are the exact same chassis and components with different bodies.

tnord

11-21-2008, 12:09 PM

[
As I've stated previously, I think what we have here is a case of a car that makes more than 25% gains... especially if we're going off the earlier car's stock 128hp rating. I could better accept a 25% gain on the 133hp engine... it's not perfect and I don't think it's as accurate as what the CRX and Integra got hit with but it's better than where it is right now.

and what data do you have to support that claim? nothing i know suggests the 25% adder is wrong, dyno data or otherwise. it's not like you see a whole mess of them blowing everyone away down the back straight at atlanta.

Xian

11-21-2008, 12:11 PM

so you're rejecting that we end up in the same place even if the car is broken out on a separate line?

or are you rejecting the idea that we should use "what we know" to adjust the power multiplier?

If they're broken out on a separate line then the earlier car will make more then 25% in gains... later 133hp car based at 25% gains... result: more but equivalent weight for both cars.

Use "what we know"... 128hp car makes more than 25% gains... result: more weight.

I think a reasonable thing to do would be to use the "maximum factory output" to spec the weight on these (and all!!) cars. The ITAC has already gone down the road of using "what we know" on the Honda's no reason to stop now...

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 12:13 PM

Andy, please don't think that I'm trying to single you out because you race this specific car. You're just very knowledgable about these cars, as I am with Integra's, and you're in the position to (and are willing to!) discuss with and explain this whole process to me. I'm learning a lot here on how these numbers are created, and that's a good thing. I get asked a lot at the track from other IT racers if I know how XYZ was decided upon, and I'm starting to figure that out here. Thanks again for the discussion.

Kev - no issues. The discussion is fine. I know it's outside the norm, but there are many things that are outside the norm.

Travis does make a good point, in his own special way, that we used what knew in a good faith yet I am not sure why people are allowing that for some reason. We used what we knew for the CRX, we did for the S2000, the Type R, the RX-7's, the BMW's you could go on and on - on both sides of the power adder side of the coin.

Your hypothetical question is kind of moot because when these cars were classed, we used the standard 25% - as we did to the Golf III, the SE-R/NX2000, etc.

Here is the net/net for me. The 94/95 car is classed spot on per the process. Given the mechanical attributes of the 96/97, it is EXACTLY THE SAME CAR FOR IT as the earlier car. It can not make any more power no matter how you arrange the pieces. If you agree that the process was correctly used when the 94/95 was classed, then you can certainly use the facts and logic to understand why they are all at the same weight.

Feel free to call me if you want to debate the minutia.

tnord

11-21-2008, 12:13 PM

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 12:19 PM

If they're broken out on a separate line then the earlier car will make more then 25% in gains... later 133hp car based at 25% gains... result: more but equivalent weight for both cars.

Use "what we know"... 128hp car makes more than 25% gains... result: more weight.

I think a reasonable thing to do would be to use the "maximum factory output" to spec the weight on these (and all!!) cars. The ITAC has already gone down the road of using "what we know" on the Honda's no reason to stop now...

I think you could easily argue that the 96/97 car is more optimized. Why would you assume you should add to the 25%? Maybe the later cars are LESS than 25%.

They are the same in IT trim. 128hp is the more accurate power number. There is no data to the contrary given the IT rules.

I appreciate the debate. Dead Horse - beaten.

Xian

11-21-2008, 12:19 PM

and what data do you have to support that claim? nothing i know suggests the 25% adder is wrong, dyno data or otherwise. it's not like you see a whole mess of them blowing everyone away down the back straight at atlanta.

Travis, I think a 25% power adder would be perfectly acceptable and consistent if based off the 133hp figure.

I'd like to see a whole mess of them show up to the ARRC... so far, no such luck. I can tell you that I've seen a very fast (well prepped and well driven) ITA Miata down in the SE run with high powered Integra's at Daytona. Those things are NOT slow on the straights (yes, even with the crappy aero).

Xian

11-21-2008, 12:26 PM

I think you could easily argue that the 96/97 car is more optimized. Why would you assume you should add to the 25%? Maybe the later cars are LESS than 25%.

They are the same in IT trim. 128hp is the more accurate power number. There is no data to the contrary given the IT rules.

I appreciate the debate. Dead Horse - beaten.

True... dead horse. The basic disagreement we have is that I think the earlier car is making more than 25% in gains. You don't.

Assuming a 25% gains on 128hp and 15% driveline loss this means that none of these cars should be making more than mid 135's at the wheels... that's below the figures I've heard. Assuming the same gains and losses on the 133hp cars, they should be making a touch over 140. This is more in line with the figures I've "heard" and would imagine they can make in IT trim. If you don't mind sharing, what sort of power have you seen out of a 10/10ths built car?

tnord

11-21-2008, 12:27 PM

Travis, I think a 25% power adder would be perfectly acceptable and consistent if based off the 133hp figure.

why? doing calculations here at my desk based on known power output of optimized builds, the 25% is accurate for the 94-95, it is too high for the 96-97.

I'd like to see a whole mess of them show up to the ARRC... so far, no such luck. I can tell you that I've seen a very fast (well prepped and well driven) ITA Miata down in the SE run with high powered Integra's at Daytona. Those things are NOT slow on the straights (yes, even with the crappy aero).

and i can show you very powerful miatas that get blown away by the CRX/Integra at Atlanta.

Greg Amy

11-21-2008, 12:29 PM

so you're rejecting that we end up in the same place even if the car is broken out on a separate line?
I don't know from what rock dug this red herring; as far as I know that option is not on the table (nor should it be). What I'm rejecting is the "logical" course of action that ended up with the 1.8L Miata being formulated using the lower of the two available weights (despite evidence of other cars being treated wholly differently.)

The base problem here is that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too: on the one hand you state we should base weights on stock factory listed power (but only when applied to the earlier 1.8L Miata), yet on the other hand you support adjusting weights based on "what we know" (e.g., CRX and later 1.8L Miata). In the specific case of the Miata, you want the car weighted based on its earlier (lower) rated horsepower. What you're TRYING to (unsuccessfully) convince us is that the actual "known" output of both engines is the same as the 25% adder to the 125(?) hp engine, that the later engine only gets ~18% increase in IT trim. That, my friend, is "known info adjustments", not basing decisions on manufacturer's data and standard formulas.

Absent all that "knowledge", you know that any other car would be - and has been - classified using the higher of the two horsepower figures. Any confusion as to why people see this as favorable treatment...?

If you want to propose breaking out the two cars on separate lines, be my guest! My prediction - a silly-easy one to make - is that the later one will be initially ignored, but in the end the earlier one will eventually get adjusted based on "what we know", just like what happened to the Honda CRX, and they'll both be put back on the same line, this time with the weight calculated using the standard formula on the later car's horsepower figures.

Go ahead: prove me wrong.

GA

seckerich

11-21-2008, 12:42 PM

Except you have a mechanical difference there that is NOT free in IT. Those cars have different power potentials in IT. The Miata's do not.

Again, we use what we know to most accurately class cars. In this case, we believe the 128hp number to be the correct one to use given the facts.

Not to beat another really dead horse Andy (and entire ITAC) , but will you guys use the same logic when the 2005 RX8 with the revised lower HP ratings is classed? Same exact mechanical car with realistic HP that was not tweaked by marketing. It was such a sticking point to use the highest number in all the discussions and multipliers. I was told you had to use the highest reported number because the 2004 was being classed. Please note I am just giving you a hard time.:happy204:

Conover

11-21-2008, 01:00 PM

I know this thread has taken a turn, but I can't help myself. If you believe that an engine is stock just because someone didn't bother to clean and paint the outside of the bottom end, your fooling yourself. . .

Jeremy Billiel

11-21-2008, 01:27 PM

I don't really know jack about miata's to be honest, but I have heard that miata'a are good for 140-145 whp.

So if they are classified at 128hp *.85 (15% reduction) you would have 108hp at the wheels.

145-108=37 HP gain

37/108=34% gain in power (if you use 140 hp it would be a gain of 30%)

Even at the higher HP ratings, it would be 145-113=32

32/113= 28% gain in power (if you use 140hp it would be a gain of 24%)

In either case, on the surface, it would appear to me that either the car should have a higher multiplier or start off with the higher HP number.

Either scenario would be ok, but one should be applied IMO.

tnord

11-21-2008, 01:34 PM

I don't really know jack about miata's to be honest, but I'm going to tell you how much power they make, and how to classify them anyway.

c'mon, really?

Catch22

11-21-2008, 01:44 PM

I hate to do this, because it will tangent it even more. But...

I've seen, with mine own eyes, dynojet dyno graphs for a fully built and legal CRX and a fully built and legal 1.6 Miata. Same dyno, same tuner but unfortunately not the same day (nothing is ever perfect).

The results for those two cars are so close on the dyno graph that you could call it statistical noise. Both right at 130whp (don't start racing dynos here and tell me a Miata only gets 124whp on a mustang, thats not the point of this post... Stay focused).

Now... Take into account that the miata was rated at 116 stock and the CRX at 108 (which most people agree is an undercut from the factory and is actually more like ~115).
Now take into account that the CRX gets a weight break for FWD.
Now take into account that they both get weight added for A arm suspension.

Do that math.
Tell us what you get.
Anyone??? Bueeeellller???

Hint: The cars have the same output in IT trim, the same displacement, and the same suspension type.
The difference is FWD vs. RWD, meaning the CRX should come up damned close to 50lbs lighter if the numbers are "right."
Right?
UNLESS... The Miata gets a 50lb break for aero. Then the weight specs should be the same.
Right?

And for the record, these 2 cars are a couple that I personally think should be left alone as-is because they are currently "reasonable and close."

Just a little exercise in taking what we know and working backwards, which is why I don't think this is so hard or apple cart dangerous.

Jeremy Billiel

11-21-2008, 01:50 PM

c'mon, really?

"Convienently ignoring anything that doesn't support your distorted view", Travis? Or is it just easier to attack the messenger?

Just sayin.

I can't tell you parts, suspension or anything else. But I do have a similiar view that they are currently overdogs. I have also heard these HP numbers from a very respected source. I am simply doing math!!

tnord

11-21-2008, 01:53 PM

i've heard plenty of honda numbers also, but it's all 3rd/4th person type stuff, so i don't start screaming that they need weight thrown at them. are these power numbers you've "heard" directly from the car owner? anything you've seen with your own eyes?

Xian

11-21-2008, 02:22 PM

1.6 liter Miata in ITA
116*1.3*14.5=2186.6+50 A-Arms=2236.6

1.8 liter Miata in ITA
128*1.3*14.5= 2412.5+ 50 A-Arms= 2462.5

SNIP

Spec weight for the 1.6 in ITA is 2255 and the 1.8 is 2380

Looks like a case of the 1.6 car being close but the 1.8 car needing weight... this is ASSuming that these cars are only making 30% gains and not closer to 35%. This is also with Zero adjustment for their 50/50 mid-engine like weight bias. :shrug:

Wheeee!!! This is fun! :happy204:

I hate to do this, because it will tangent it even more. But...

I've seen, with mine own eyes, dynojet dyno graphs for a fully built and legal CRX and a fully built and legal 1.6 Miata. Same dyno, same tuner but unfortunately not the same day (nothing is ever perfect).

The results for those two cars are so close on the dyno graph that you could call it statistical noise. Both right at 130whp (don't start racing dynos here and tell me a Miata only gets 124whp on a mustang, thats not the point of this post... Stay focused).

Now... Take into account that the miata was rated at 116 stock and the CRX at 108 (which most people agree is an undercut from the factory and is actually more like ~115).
Now take into account that the CRX gets a weight break for FWD.
Now take into account that they both get weight added for A arm suspension.

Do that math.
Tell us what you get.
Anyone??? Bueeeellller???

Hint: The cars have the same output in IT trim, the same displacement, and the same suspension type.
The difference is FWD vs. RWD, meaning the CRX should come up damned close to 50lbs lighter if the numbers are "right."
Right?
UNLESS... The Miata gets a 50lb break for aero. Then the weight specs should be the same.
Right?

And for the record, these 2 cars are a couple that I personally think should be left alone as-is because they are currently "reasonable and close."

Just a little exercise in taking what we know and working backwards, which is why I don't think this is so hard or apple cart dangerous.

Agreed that the 1.6 liter car is classed "close" or "close enough", IMO. The issue here is with the 1.8 liter car... or maybe that's where you were going in a round about way?

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 02:25 PM

"Convienently ignoring anything that doesn't support your distorted view", Travis? Or is it just easier to attack the messenger?

Just sayin.

I can't tell you parts, suspension or anything else. But I do have a similiar view that they are currently overdogs. I have also heard these HP numbers from a very respected source. I am simply doing math!!

Jeremy, you are using rumored hp numbers, not a number that is backed up by years of statistical data. I have never heard of a 1.8 making 145whp. NEVER. If we want to start racing singular dyno plots, I will write up the request for a weight adjustment on the SE-R/NX2000 for you to submit.

Oh, please tell me WHY you think they are overdogs. You have any data to support that? This is what, the 3rd year people have been saying that...where are they all? And make sure it's your mouth moving without Greg's hand up your back...:)

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 02:29 PM

Not to beat another really dead horse Andy (and entire ITAC) , but will you guys use the same logic when the 2005 RX8 with the revised lower HP ratings is classed? Same exact mechanical car with realistic HP that was not tweaked by marketing. It was such a sticking point to use the highest number in all the discussions and multipliers. I was told you had to use the highest reported number because the 2004 was being classed. Please note I am just giving you a hard time.:happy204:

I wasn't on that call as you know, but IIRC 238hp is the lowest and most current published number for the RX-8.

Jeremy Billiel

11-21-2008, 02:29 PM

Jeremy, you are using rumored hp numbers, not a number that is backed up by years of statistical data. I have never heard of a 1.8 making 145whp. NEVER. If we want to start racing singular dyno plots, I will write up the request for a weight adjustment on the SE-R/NX2000 for you to submit.

I hear you Andy. If there were more SE-R's and NX2000's out there I think that would be a fair arguement. So you have a very stout motor that is making good power. Now lets assume that you were not in your current position. What types of HP do the 1.8L's really make?

tnord

11-21-2008, 02:34 PM

I hear you Andy. If there were more SE-R's and NX2000's out there I think that would be a fair arguement. So you have a very stout motor that is making good power. Now lets assume that you were not in your current position. What types of HP do the 1.8L's really make?

i really don't like to talk about other people's power #'s without their permission, but i'll just say one of the most optimized ones i know of isn't even in your rumored range, and gets walked by the hondas.

i heard those integras make AT LEAST 160hp!!!

Xian

11-21-2008, 02:40 PM

Travis I saw your post before you went back and edited out the power figure. Suffice to say that that figure you posted is right in line with the 1.8 liter car getting a 25% adder off a "base HP" figure of 133. Not as high as the number Jeremy posted but right in line with the numbers I've heard for these cars. i.e. the car is classed light right now.

R2 Racing

11-21-2008, 02:40 PM

Greg Amy

11-21-2008, 02:40 PM

Jeremy, you are using rumored hp numbers, not a number that is backed up by years of statistical data.
Care to share your "years of statistical data" showing that the later 1.8L Miata makes only 18% improvements in horsepower in IT trim...?

"Just Sayin'".

And make sure it's your mouth moving without Greg's hand up your back...:)
Having lost the Logic and Reason battle, now you're devolving into Travis Nord tactics... :rolleyes:

Xian

11-21-2008, 02:44 PM

So is this a safe representation of the beliefs of these two Miata's?

94-95 - 128hp * 1.25 * 14.5 = 2320 + 50lbs 4WI = 2370lbs
96-97 - 133hp * 1.20 * 14.5 = 2315 + 50lbs 4WI = 2365lbs

So then they should both end up on the same 2380lbs line.

Is this the God's honest belief of those "in the know", that these things just won't make any more power than that?

My contention (and others) is that it should be 30% and 25%...

94-95 - 128hp * 1.30 * 14.5 = 2412 + 50lbs 4WI = 2462lbs
96-97 - 133hp * 1.25 * 14.5 = 2411 + 50lbs 4WI = 2461lbs

tnord

11-21-2008, 02:50 PM

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 02:50 PM

Absent all that "knowledge", you know that any other car would be - and has been - classified using the higher of the two horsepower figures. Any confusion as to why people see this as favorable treatment...?

GA

But we have the knowledge. Again, it was formulated using the ONLY available rating at the time. When the higher rating was requested, we used facts and common sense to determine that it was 100% the same car as what was aready listed. Hence the weight. Can't explain it any better or any more. YMMV.

Philisophically, I agree and it is the general rule. But when you know something, you know it.

Jeremy Billiel

11-21-2008, 02:51 PM

Ok my 145 number is high. It's probably closer to 140. I will also say that in all fairness, I think we would need more data to make a sure fire bet that the multiplier should be higher. This is no different than the NX2000 or SE-R. So lets see when more Miata's are built how they fare.

Why are there not more ITA Miata's being built?

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 02:53 PM

Care to share your "years of statistical data" showing that the later 1.8L Miata makes only 18% improvements in horsepower in IT trim...?

"Just Sayin'".

Having lost the Logic and Reason battle, now you're devolving into Travis Nord tactics... :rolleyes:

I guess you are just ignoring the 25% on 128hp. It's what was classed.

I will submit a request to break them out. Nobody should have a problem with that, right?

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 02:55 PM

Why are there not more ITA Miata's being built?

Because people who know Miata's, their ins and outs and how their lap times REALLY relate to SM...know they aren't an overdog.

And non-Miata people think they are ghey. :D

tnord

11-21-2008, 02:58 PM

Why are there not more ITA Miata's being built?

1) aero sucks. it's not accounted for in the process, which it shouldn't be, but it slows the car down a lot at places like Atlanta. How far ahead did the pack of Hondacura's qualify in front of Stretch?
2) It's not the overdog you think it is.
3) I am building one.

Xian

11-21-2008, 03:03 PM

no, it's right in line with a 25% adder off of a 128hp base.

135 at the wheels? Really? Coulda sworn I saw someone reference a figure higher than that... are you sure that engine's never going to make more than 130-135? Maybe closer to 140?

Ok my 145 number is high. It's probably closer to 140. I will also say that in all fairness, I think we would need more data to make a sure fire bet that the multiplier should be higher. This is no different than the NX2000 or SE-R. So lets see when more Miata's are built how they fare.

Yep, 140 is right where a 10/10ths car should be... based off 128hp and 25% OR off 133hp and 25%.

Why are there not more ITA Miata's being built?

SM has wrecked 'em all! ;) Ziiiing!

edit:
Fixed quotes

tnord

11-21-2008, 03:05 PM

i'd like to see you guys answer your own question.

why aren't there more miatas being built?

what is used as the adder for the integra, 30%? are you DOUBLE DOG SURE you can't squeeze out more than 154.7whp? i bet you can get 158 out of that thing, i've heard 160, so 158 sounds reasonable. that thing needs another 75lbs.

JeffYoung

11-21-2008, 03:11 PM

Easy really:

1. There are quite a few 99s being built as S cars. Good power, the Van Steenburgs have shown they can be winners. I think that means less interest in the A cars. The 99 is a REALLY GOOD S car. Not an overdog, just REALLY good.

2. Still more draw for any Miata racer to run SM. Most Miatas get built for SM.

Xian

11-21-2008, 03:12 PM

i'd like to see you guys answer your own question.

why aren't there more miatas being built?

The economy? It's not like there are a ton of 10/10th's cars being built right now period.

FWIW, in the past I've actually had people tell me that they'd thought about building one but figured the cars were underweight enough that their advantage would disappear when the ITAC got around to correcting them... :shrug:

tnord

11-21-2008, 03:18 PM

The economy? It's not like there are a ton of 10/10th's cars being built right now period.

FWIW, in the past I've actually had people tell me that they'd thought about building one but figured the cars were underweight enough that their advantage would disappear when the ITAC got around to correcting them... :shrug:

economy was pretty good for a few years there, still didn't see any built. that justification for not building one was good for a laugh though.

is it possible that you guys are just think it's too light because of how close the SM times are to ITA?

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 03:20 PM

The economy? It's not like there are a ton of 10/10th's cars being built right now period.

FWIW, in the past I've actually had people tell me that they'd thought about building one but figured the cars were underweight enough that their advantage would disappear when the ITAC got around to correcting them... :shrug:

BINGO! They are SOOO misclassed that the fear is so great to build one because of an impending comp adjustment...

Oh boy.

Jeff, I think you would be hard pressed to prove that ITS Miata builds were cannabalizing ITA Miata builds. The VS's were/are just as successful in the ITA version - and everything they built before that.

Xian

11-21-2008, 03:26 PM

I should have bowed out a couple pages ago. You're right the horse is dead and, as I said, we're not going to agree.

One last question on my way out of this part of the conversation (and I asked it before but maybe you missed it), what sort of power are YOU seeing out of the 1.8 liter ITA Miata's?

JeffYoung

11-21-2008, 03:27 PM

Know of a few folks around here who considered the ITA Miata but went with (or are going with) a 99 in S in part based on the VS experience. One of them used to drive a Pumpkin.....

I do think it has taken 2, 3 maybe 5 cars that would have been in A otherwise, and in the grand scheme of things that's a lot. No knock on the ITA Miata, I just think some people are looking at the ITS car as a better bet -- supports your position no?

And yes, the Van Steenburgs always bring top notch, well driven stuff to the track, regardless of the make.

BINGO! They are SOOO misclassed that the fear is so great to build one because of an impending comp adjustment...

Oh boy.

Jeff, I think you would be hard pressed to prove that ITS Miata builds were cannabalizing ITA Miata builds. The VS's were/are just as successful in the ITA version - and everything they built before that.

Greg Amy

11-21-2008, 03:32 PM

When the higher rating was requested, we used facts and common sense to determine that it was 100% the same car as what was aready listed. Hence the weight.
Had you considered that, given new evidence facing you of a factory rating of 133 hp form a "100% same car" that you were 100% wrong on the first car, just as you were with the CRX (and any/all other cars you've subjectively adjusted)? Or, that, absent the existence of earlier car (to paraphrase you, had Mazda "gotten it right" the first time), there would be zero (as in, none, nada, zip) consideration to classifying the car at a lower factory horsepower rating?

No one's convinced by the description of the sequence of events; in fact, hanging your hat solely on that excuse just comes across as reaching. Are you willing to come outright and tell us that if there had never been a 125 hp car that you'd classify the Miata at its current weight? Then I'll buy your line of thought.

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: I, Greg Amy, am not accusing you, Andy Bettencourt of a conscious conflict of interest. I know you far too well for that and I consider you a personal friend. I truly believe that you believe what you're saying. I'm simply pointing out that were the tables turned on another vehicle your choices may/would be different.

Done. I know it's a dead horse because there's just no interest in the ITAC in revisiting this issue again (a pity). But this albatross, as well as the outstanding "dark" issues of weight classification and formulation, will always be hanging around the neck of the ITAC, as a constant reminder of the "deals" going on in the closed-door sessions of classifying cars in Improved Touring.

GA

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 03:34 PM

Know of a few folks around here who considered the ITA Miata but went with (or are going with) a 99 in S in part based on the VS experience. One of them used to drive a Pumpkin.....

I do think it has taken 2, 3 maybe 5 cars that would have been in A otherwise, and in the grand scheme of things that's a lot. No knock on the ITA Miata, I just think some people are looking at the ITS car as a better bet -- supports your position no?

And yes, the Van Steenburgs always bring top notch, well driven stuff to the track, regardless of the make.

If I read you right, you are saying people are leaning toward the ITS version because they think it's more competitive in class than the ITA version would be. Well, well.

Xian,

Your question has ZERO to do with the arguement at hand. We are talking about how they were initially classed and why. There are PLENTY of cars that make more than the estimated 25% they were classed at. 1%, 2%, 10% in some cases. It's determining how much data and from what source you want to lay out as 'fact' in order to bank that on a correction.

Greg Amy

11-21-2008, 03:37 PM

why aren't there more miatas being built?
How is that relevant to anything? What's the ITAC adder for "popularity"...?

...are you DOUBLE DOG SURE you can't squeeze out more...? that thing needs another 75lbs.Good try on turning the conversation around, Nord, but I notice no one has bothered to post the dyno sheets on a 1.8L Miata... Let's point out that the discussion comes down to two Miata guys trying to prove that the Miata isn't classified overly light...

Focus, Nord. You can do it, I have faith in you.

JeffYoung

11-21-2008, 03:45 PM

Correct. And while I think the A car should be run through at 133, in the end to me it's a lot of jibber jabber. Neither car (S or A) is an overdog, and 75 lbs or whatever isn't going to change much.

Miatas make good solid race cars with few vices.

If I read you right, you are saying people are leaning toward the ITS version because they think it's more competitive in class than the ITA version would be. Well, well.

Xian,

Your question has ZERO to do with the arguement at hand. We are talking about how they were initially classed and why. There are PLENTY of cars that make more than the estimated 25% they were classed at. 1%, 2%, 10% in some cases. It's determining how much data and from what source you want to lay out as 'fact' in order to bank that on a correction.

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 03:47 PM

How is that relevant to anything? What's the ITAC adder for "popularity"...?

Good try on turning the conversation around, Nord, but I notice no one has bothered to post the dyno sheets on a 1.8L Miata... Let's point out that the discussion comes down to two Miata guys trying to prove that the Miata isn't classified overly light...

Focus, Nord. You can do it, I have faith in you.

First off, the question on popularity is has some merit no? If nobody is building them, then are they really a perceived overdog? Would be human nature. But since Miata people tend to revel in our own Ghey-ness, it seems to substantiate even further that the people who know the cars don't think they are overdogs.

Dyno results are irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of initial classification. The ex-Amy SR20 is a prime example of that.

Xian

11-21-2008, 03:48 PM

Your question has ZERO to do with the arguement at hand. We are talking about how they were initially classed and why. There are PLENTY of cars that make more than the estimated 25% they were classed at. 1%, 2%, 10% in some cases. It's determining how much data and from what source you want to lay out as 'fact' in order to bank that on a correction.

Understood. My question relates to the statements about "what we know"... and certainly you (more than most) know quite a bit 1st hand about their power potential. Again, seems to me that a standard 25% adder "makes sense" if everything is based off the higher stock output for the 1.8 liter cars.

Let's assume for instance that JimBling Motors released their WhoZit DXE in 1994 with 133hp. Later they found that EPA/CAFE/Whatever requirements made it advantageous to revise the ECU and engine maps... this subsequently dropped the rate HP to 128hp for the 96-97 model years. How would this car be rated for classification? Off 133hp or off 128hp? Most likely it would be off the higher, initial HP rating. I just don't see how is the Miata issue is any different.

The classification history of the 1.8 Miata seems to be an effort to possibly keep from from ruffling the feathers of existing racers of the 94-95 cars at the time the 96-97 cars were classed. I'm not pointing fingers and saying this was done for any dishonest reason but, rather, that these inconsistencies should be addressed. Beaking out the 94-95 on it's own spec line with a 30% adder and the 96-97 car with a 25% adder OR leaving them on a single spec line but based off the higher hp# with a 25% adder both seem like a reasonable solutions to me.

Regards,
Christian

Xian

11-21-2008, 03:50 PM

Dyno results are irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of initial classification.

And yet they were used for subsequent re-classification of the CRX/Integra...?

lateapex911

11-21-2008, 03:55 PM

Wow.....

To a guy with an ITA RX-7, that just got back from the ARRCS, (where it came in second in IT-7, not that that's proof of too much, but I have gone through three headers, a couple carbs, two rebuilds, and a few trips to the dyno to get it even that fast), who took that car, still in the trailer to a Dynapack dyno, and spun the darn thing to the dizzying heights of .......110 hub and 106 ft pounds (Whoo HOO!), and who drives around on a live axle in the back, with struts in the front, this converstion is, yes, dare I say it, humorous....

(Not to belittle the policy implications, or the accustations of behind the doors deal making by the ITAC, (tch tch tch:018:), but to provide some contrast to the plight of others.)

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 04:00 PM

And yet they were used for subsequent re-classification of the CRX/Integra...?

They aren't used in ANY initial classification. THAT is what is being argued. If you are now saying that the Miata is light because it exceeded its estimates by X%, then we don't have to single out any one car, we can put a LIST together!!!

dickita15

11-21-2008, 04:02 PM

Just out of curiosity how long is the list of cars that we have not used the 25% adder?

lateapex911

11-21-2008, 04:03 PM

Oh, and guess what guys...

Even IF.... even if the Miata IS off......lets say, just for giggles, that we redo it to the higher base, and we get toss in an adder (why not, you'll see my point in a second): we could wind up with 2457.

So what happens then?

Nothing.

That's within a hundred pounds.

First things first, write your letters if you want adjustments to be made for less than 100 pounds. I suggest you recommend an amount, or a percentage.

Greg Amy

11-21-2008, 04:10 PM

Dyno results are irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of initial classification. The ex-Amy SR20 is a prime example of that.
Andy, you cannot possibly make me defensive to get me to back off of this or change the conversation. If you want to reclassify the SR20 then do it, write the letter. I'll send you dyno plots for evidence. 'Course, now it seems the conversation has changed from "well it got here through this method" to "hey, others are making more than 25%, so why can't I???"

Always something...

Bottom line: you're gaming the system with the Miata, plain and simple. Just about everyone besides you and Nord believe that.

And you know what's really a shame about all this? If you classified the Miata's weight based on the correct, higher horsepower, that car is good enough to where it probably wouldn't significantly affect its performance (if at all). But you'd accomplish one big result: you'd quickly shut-the-F-up of your detractors. But you won't do it; you won't even bring it up for discussion in the ITAC. You certainly won't voluntarily race at the higher weight to prove otherwise, because you know the results.

You have an advantage in that it's apparently "stare decisis", and I suppose everyone else will just have to go eat cake...but don't think that's going to satisfy the masses, Marie. :shrug:

GA

Xian

11-21-2008, 04:13 PM

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 04:22 PM

Andy, you cannot possibly make me defensive to get me to back off of this or change the conversation. If you want to reclassify the SR20 then do it, write the letter. I'll send you dyno plots for evidence. 'Course, now it seems the conversation has changed from "well it got here through this method" to "hey, others are making more than 25%, so why can't I???"

Always something...

Bottom line: you're gaming the system with the Miata, plain and simple. Just about everyone besides you and Nord believe that.

And you know what's really a shame about all this? If you classified the Miata's weight based on the correct, higher horsepower, that car is good enough to where it probably wouldn't significantly affect its performance (if at all). But you'd accomplish one big result: you'd quickly shut-the-F-up of your detractors. But you won't do it; you won't even bring it up for discussion in the ITAC. You certainly won't voluntarily race at the higher weight to prove otherwise, because you know the results.

You have an advantage in that it's apparently "stare decisis", and I suppose everyone else will just have to go eat cake...but don't think that's going to satisfy the masses, Marie. :shrug:

GA

Maybe there are two arguements going on then. It's about the validity of the initial classification of the 133hp Miata...not about dyno sheets and what cars (any car) really make once they have been on track for 3 years.

If the later car made more hp in IT trim than the early car, I would have voted for a higher weight for both...and would have since updated/backdated my car...but they don't. FACT.

(Edit - no need to get snippy.)

jjjanos

11-21-2008, 04:23 PM

Why are there not more ITA Miata's being built?

But since Miata people tend to revel in our own Ghey-ness, it seems to substantiate even further that the people who know the cars don't think they are overdogs.

i'd like to see you guys answer your own question.

why aren't there more miatas being built?

Not that there's anything wrong with it, but...

They are having too much fun ice dancing?
Between Dancing with the Stars, Project Runway and Top Designer repeats, there just isn't enough time in the day to go into the garage?
The chiffon racing seats are on back-order?
Still in mourning over Mr. Blackwell?

This thread needs a serious dose of levity.

Ed Funk

11-21-2008, 04:30 PM

This thread needs a serious dose of levity.

I had some un-levity bread once, it was really flat!

Greg Amy

11-21-2008, 04:53 PM

(Insert head-thumping-on-wall icon here)

If the later car made more hp in IT trim than the early car, I would have voted for a higher weight for both...and would have since updated/backdated my car...but they don't. FACT.
You're either trying to divert the debate - again - or you TOTALLY miss the point.

No one is saying they don't make the same horsepower in IT trim. No one. Look around, find it if you disagree. I'll wait.

...

OK, that said, you need to understand that while no one disagrees with you on that point, that everyone's disagreement with your initial classification process is that you based it off the wrong number. You chose the lower number instead of the higher number, ostensibly because "it was already there". But, you made that decision off the radically misguided position that 1) the later car would make no more horsepower than the earlier car; **AND** (that's an "and", as in "additionally") 2) the earlier car fit "the process" accurately.

One we have no argument with.
Two you were wrong about.

In reality of FACT, the 133hp car fits "the process" far more accurately, in that its horsepower gains in IT trim fit right into your sacred little process. Go ahead, show us the math you've no doubt already done, where you reverse-calc the power number you actually attained back to a stock horsepower number. I would be STUNNED to discover that it doesn't come damn close to 133 horsepower.

Funny how that worked out.

So, wash, rinse, repeat your excuses all you want, but you blew it with the Miata classification, and you won't change it because a) you won't admit you were wrong, and b) you enjoy a personal advantage by that initial error.

If I raced at 2460 and won, there would be something else you would find to bitch about, no doubt.Au contraire, mon frere: I'd be quite please, because not only would I, as a friend, get to enjoy watching you win but I'd also be proven "right".

Win-win.

GA

lateapex911

11-21-2008, 04:59 PM

(Insert head-thumping-on-wall icon here)

Au contraire, mon frere: I'd be quite please, because not only would I, as a friend, get to enjoy watching you win but I'd also be proven "right".

Win-win.

GA

Many consider "I told you so" to be a semi advanced form of btching...;)

tnord

11-21-2008, 04:59 PM

Andy, you cannot possibly make me defensive to get me to back off of this or change the conversation.

we know you will never, ever, drop your miata bitterness no matter what the situation, you don't have to tell us again.

If you want to reclassify the SR20 then do it, write the letter. I'll send you dyno plots for evidence. 'Course, now it seems the conversation has changed from "well it got here through this method" to "hey, others are making more than 25%, so why can't I???"
GA

take your pick greg, use either arguement, it's shit either way. they used the best knowledge that was available to classify the car which is the same as is done for other cars, and you can't do anything to show why the 25% adder is wrong.

and for all your claims that it's only the two miata guys arguing against your rhetoric, it's only Honda guys saying that the car is classified wrong.

Greg Amy

11-21-2008, 05:05 PM

Many consider "I told you so" to be a semi advanced form of btching...;)
:)

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 05:21 PM

Greg, you are trying to use numbers that are known NOW to fit yor argument that the later car fits the process. Seems disingenous to the original arguement.

Let me try this another way.

Some people have an issue with this because they think it is not how the other classifications work. In other words, cars are classed based on the highest hp rating on its spec line and this is somehow special treatment. In reality, this situation is TOTALLY different.

In the case of the RX-7 or the Teg or (insert applicable car here), the lower hp car has the ability to UD/BD to the higher HP level. That is NOT the case here. All the early cars would get saddled with the weight of the higher hp without any way to get that hp back. It would be like the 86 RX-7 having to run the 146hp motor at the 160hp weight. It would be like the 1990 Teg having to run the 130hp cams at the 140hp cams weight. It's not right...but they can UD/BD to get the power to match the weight. The 94/95 Miata can't UD/BD to that power rating as a base.

So my conclusion would be to list them seperatly in the ITCS. Does this logic make sense?

Greg Amy

11-21-2008, 05:33 PM

In the case of the RX-7 or the Teg or (insert applicable car here), the lower hp car has the ability to UD/BD to the higher HP level. That is NOT the case here. All the early cars would get saddled with the weight of the higher hp without any way to get that hp back....The 94/95 Miata can't UD/BD to that power rating as a base.

Okay, now you've lost me. Two questions to clarify:

- Was the Integra and the RX-7 (as examples) classified using the higher or the lower horsepower number?
- Wasn't it you that said the Miata was the same exact everything except for the ECU (which is legal to change in IT)? That the whole reason it was done this way was because it was "100% the same car"?

If so, then how is it that the earlier car could not be updated to the "higher" horsepower if the higher number was used for clarification?

:017:

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 05:47 PM

Okay, now you've lost me. Two questions to clarify:

- Was the Integra and the RX-7 (as examples) classified using the higher or the lower horsepower number?
- Wasn't it you that said the Miata was the same exact everything except for the ECU (which is legal to change in IT)? That the whole reason it was done this way was because it was "100% the same car"?

If so, then how is it that the earlier car could not be updated to the "higher" horsepower if the higher number was used for clarification?

:017:

Good questions.

- The Teg and the RX-7 are classed using the higher hp numbers. There are mechanical differences in the engines that, when ud/bd is applied, the earlier car can get to the laters cars base hp number.

- Yes, I guess. Not sure your point but I was trying to explain (justify) it a different way. The way it was decided was that the later car couldn't make more hp in IT trim than the early car with IT prep (a number that IS used in the classification) so it made sense to keep the listing as is.

This attempt at explaining my logic was to say it is not fair to the early car because it can't ever recover the 5hp difference that saddles it with the extra 90lbs because the difference that accounts for that hp is open in IT. So my conclusion is to break them apart because this situation is not the same as other lower/higher hp cars on the same spec line. You should be able to build the lower hp car into the higher hp car for them to be on the same spec line...no?

JeffYoung

11-21-2008, 05:58 PM

Ok guys, the tone here has gotten out of hand - this isn't the "brown" (roadrace) board. Andy's not advocating his position based on some personal basis. I'm 99% sure he'd still win with 75 more lbs in the car. I disagree with the rational he's using on the Miata weights but some of the stuff above is out of line.

Let's keep the debate to the numbers.

Jeremy Billiel

11-21-2008, 07:46 PM

I just saw this is the latest fastrack

" 4. ITA – Help the 1.6 Miata (Whitton). The car is appropriate as classed."

LMAO......

Knestis

11-21-2008, 08:18 PM

...Go take a look at any Scirroco classified - 16v in ITA, 1.8 8v in ITB, whatever. ...

I don't have any insider knowledge on these cases but it's completely conceivable to me that they could have ended up misaligned for the same reason that many of the other misalignments happened - they were listed/spec'd at different times by different people, thinking about different things. Even if one of those things wasn't specifically aero.

But as I said, I don't know. And my comment about aero as a factor was a normative, "what I think we should do" kind of statement - NOT an explanation of what has gone before.

K

nsuracer

11-21-2008, 08:51 PM

All this discussion about Miatas is making my eyes roll up into my head. Why don't we just create ITM and they can all just go play by themselves. Seriously, my only gripe is that there are just so many of them and they are in about every class. And that is not really a gripe.........Getting back to what this thread strarted out about, does anyone know where on the internet one might access old Road Tests? I have tried to Google them without success. AS I was one of those who volunteered to do some of the ITACs leg work on running cars thru the process, I would like to get good data on those cars. Any Ideas?

Miatas: They handle like "Sports Cars". They make everything in the world for them and there is a world of knowlege out there about them. Even if they were slow (which they are not) they would be a good choice. Many of our cars are converted grocery getters that will never attain that level of handling. They are just easier to drive.

CRallo

11-21-2008, 09:14 PM

so uhh... what was today's progress on the subject??

wait, what was the subject?:shrug::blink:

Xian

11-21-2008, 09:58 PM

does anyone know where on the internet one might access old Road Tests?

Funny you should ask... take a look for a post by "Subrew" part way down in this thread (same topic, different site): http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=20651

He mentions that
FWIW, I have Road and Track magazines dating back to the first year of publication. you know, the old ones that had awesome data panels showing all the weights, power levels, carb sizes etc. I grew up reading those time and time again. If a chart listing all that info would be useful, I would gladly put something together, and include hard copies of the tech data panels to support the data.

Sounds like he may be a great resource... :)

Christian

Knestis

11-21-2008, 10:15 PM

Hay-soos Tap-dancing Cheeto.

YOU ALL ARE THE BEST ARGUMENT YET PRESENTED FOR *NOT* "USING WHAT WE KNOW" IN ANY FASHION WHATSOEVER IN THIS GAME. (EDIT - almost) ALL OF YOU.

Andy, based on his experience, is VERY confident about his understandings on the Miatae. He "knows" that things are certain ways.

The problem is, other people "know" other things that are potentially inconsistent with Andy's "knowns;" or based on what individuals "know," they think what others "know" is wrong.

This is precisely why I am going to do my damnedest to resist any of these "we know" things when they come to the ITAC. The gorilla in the room here is that a LOT of the inconsistencies that form the basis of the real concerns that started this goat rope of a thread are in our rule book because of what one person or another "knew" when the listing decision was made. At the end of the day, Giles' Civic spec weight is farked up because someone was just too smart by half - they "KNEW" something and applied it. The Golfs don't align within their brand, all with the same kind of technology, because each of the many decisions over time was influenced by well-intentioned (mostly) people, applying what they know. We they dicked because someone had it in for them? No - I am very confident that they were not. But our biases influence what we "know" even if we don't KNOW THAT THEY DO.

I am going to throw myself bodily in front of any suggestion that anything besides (a) the standard 1.25 multiplier, and (b) clear, yes/no attribute adders (e.g., FWD), until/unless I see with my own eyes a big-ass pile of actual data, with attribution.

K

Andy Bettencourt

11-21-2008, 10:20 PM

RSTPerformance

11-22-2008, 04:08 PM

lateapex911

11-22-2008, 04:20 PM

Raymond, gotta hand it to you, that's some serious number wrangling there. Classic stuff, and you showed your colors, LOL. No ITAC invite for you!

:D

You forgot the 50 pounds off for fuglyness.

RSTPerformance

11-22-2008, 04:27 PM

Jake-

Fix it for me.... I guess you could argue the -50 for the ECU mods, the -50 for brakes, and -50 for bad layout, but I am not sure what car has worse brakes and a worse layout?? (oh and you can't mod Audi/VW CIS ECU).

With that we are still at 2290 as compaired to 2540 (current). That is 250lbs overweight and potentialy 350lbs overweight as compaired to another car (with current 100 +/- is ok rule).

Raymond

924Guy

11-22-2008, 05:53 PM

wow.... a lot of pages to catch up on and try to read... I see Miatas in "B" in the future :(

ok lets talk ITB cars though (that is what this thread was about right?)...

Tell me if I am correct:

Audi Coupe GT:
110 stock hp * 1.25 engine potential multiplier = 137.5 hp * 17 target p/w ratio = 2337.5 lb base weight.

-50lbs for FWD = 2287.5 lbs

-50lbs Brakes (single piston calipers on tiny front brake rotors and rear drum brakes = 2237.5lbs

+50lbs A-Arms = 2287.5lbs

-50lbs Bad suspension design (solid rear beam axle and not so great geometry on the front despite the lower A-Arms = 2237.5

-50lbs for bad car layout (these cars were designed for AWD, not FWD) the engine is infront of the front axle putting 2/3 of the weight over the front wheels and less than 1/3 over the rear wheels.
= 2187.5

-50lbs for not having the capability to make any ECU mods (I added this because I truley feel it should be in the mix for most of the 80's cars) = 2137.5

= 2140 Final weight rounded to the nearest 5lbs

So the Audi Coupe GT (Most popular Audi raced in SCCA) is currently at 2540lbs which is 400lbs to heavy, then add in the potential 100lbs "close enough" rule and they are 500lbs underwight compaired to another car.

Raymond "Tim, your new Audi has a 495lbd disadvantage to your old Golf III" Blethen

LOL... OK, I'll bite... starting with your 2340 base weight (rounded to the nearest 5)...

-50lbs for FWD = 2290 lbs - yep

-50lbs Brakes (single piston calipers on tiny front brake rotors and rear drum brakes = 2237.5lbs - nope; this is a pretty common setup for ITB. From what I've seen, this is an adder only, for cars with significantly more brake than the class supports. So my car, the 924, gets the +50, but the same brakes on the 944 in ITS I don't believe incurs a penalty. Back to 2290.

+50lbs A-Arms = 2340 - yep

-50lbs Bad suspension design (solid rear beam axle and not so great geometry on the front despite the lower A-Arms = 2237.5 - no, sorry - not gonna be able to argue that in the land of struts and twist beams!!! Back to 2340.

-50lbs for bad car layout (these cars were designed for AWD, not FWD) the engine is infront of the front axle putting 2/3 of the weight over the front wheels and less than 1/3 over the rear wheels. - a FWD car with poor weight distribution... aaah, I'm not hearing that all the rest of the cars get a double-tap for this, so I bet you don't get it either. Still at 2340.

-50lbs for not having the capability to make any ECU mods (I added this because I truly feel it should be in the mix for most of the 80's cars) - this would only be appropriate if all the rest of the CIS cars get the same bene. Since we're trying to compare to the CURRENT situation, not a theoretical - I'm sure you want to understand why your car is behind the Golf 3's currently on-track, not theoretical ones - you need to not change the playing field just yet (though, as no surprise since I am also a CIS guy, there may be some merit to this idea).

So seems like you should be at least at 2340... Which would seem to put you 200# heavy... unless the 1.25 engine multiplier isn't appropriate? Maybe it's time for you to write a letter?

Did those cars REALLY make 110 stock?? That's awfully low... what's the run-down on them again? How big??

EDIT - OK, found some basic specs. Dang, that's a lot of torque. Perhaps something closer to 1.3 (engine multiplier) is appropriate, then...

RSTPerformance

11-22-2008, 06:30 PM

Audi Coupe GT
Engine/Engine Design
Arrangement: Front mounted, longitudinal
Type: 5-cylinder,10 valve, in-line
Bore: 3.19 in. (81.0 mm)
Stroke: 3.40 in. (86.4 mm)
Displacement: 136.0 cu. in. (2226 cc)
Compression Ratio: 8.5:1
Horsepower (SAE Net): 110 @ 5500 RPM
Torque: 122 ft. lbs.@ 2500 RPM
Cylinder block: Cast Iron, tilted 27°
Crankshaft: Forged Steel, 6 main bearings
Cylinder head: Aluminum alloy
Valve Train: Belt-driven, overhead camshaft
Fuel System: CIS fuel injection w/ oxygen sensor
Drivetrain
Type: Front-wheel drive
Transmission: 5-speed manual
Gear Ratios: 1st 2.85:1 2nd1.52:1 3rd1.07:1 4th0.78:1 5th0.64:1 Reverse 3.17:1 Final Drive 4.90:1
Steering
Type: Rack & pinion, power assisted
Ratio: 16.8:1
Turns (lock-to-lock): 3.4
Turning circle (curb-to-curb): 32.5 ft.
Suspension
Front: Independent MacPherson struts with negative roll radius; 21 mm stabilizer bar, coil springs
Rear: Torsion crank axle, panhard rod, 18 mm stabilizer bar, coil spring struts
Brakes
Front, size and type: 10.1 in., Disc
Rear, size and type: Drum
Exterior Dimensions
Wheelbase: 99.8 in.
Front Track: 55.1 in.
Rear Track: 55.9 in.
Curb Weight: 2507 lbs.
Drag coefficient: 0.39

Remember this is a 10 valve motor that was very well built from the factory, I doubt that we are seeing anymore of performance gain than anyone else... Also, I am not an engine expert, however based on the prior posts, I think that many have agreed that torque is not a huge performance gain in ITB cars.

You say that the layout is not worth -50lbs.... however this was listed as a area that the ITAC considers in its current evaluation, what car has a worse layout??? Its not a "double tap." FWD is one thing, car balance is a completely different issue when it comes to car setup and handling.

I will settle on the brake setup being common, but I hope that all new classed cars that have better brakes are getting the adder.

The suspension is easy... The Golf III got the -50 for a solid rear axle and it has a 10+ year newer suspension design. tthe one in all of the Audi's 1980-1987 are the exact same A-Arm with 1 piece solid knuckle and strut housing design that was created back in the 70's. not to mention it has very small VW wheel bearings that can not handle the weight load created by racing.

The ECU -50 thing I think should be done with all CIS cars including yours.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

This is just one car, that I am familiar with. I am trying to see if I missed something or not? This would easily prove to me that cars in general need to go through the process and that things are not necessaraly equal. I know we have had success with our Audi's, but we are not suposed to be using on track performance, and we certainly get our but handed to us by a lot of competition depending on the track and who shows up.

Raymond

Xian

11-22-2008, 07:57 PM

I will settle on the brake setup being common, but I hope that all new classed cars that have better brakes are getting the adder.

I don't have a ton to add other than that there are ITA cars with the same weight and front brake size/setup that are considered to have very good brakes. 10.1" and single piston really is quite good, imo.

tnord

11-22-2008, 08:12 PM

I don't have a ton to add other than that there are ITA cars with the same weight and front brake size/setup that are considered to have very good brakes. 10.1" and single piston really is quite good, imo.

i think my miata had 9'' brakes for 2300lbs in SM trim, and even without ducting they worked great, lap after lap, and never ever faded on me even for a single lap.

Xian

11-22-2008, 08:30 PM

True... but your car is waaaaay better balanced. The CRX's are notoriously tough on front brakes (9.2" fronts). Looong pedal toward the middle/end of a race is the norm, pads last a double weekend, etc, etc. I don't think Bowie really believed how quickly they went thru pads until I started talking with him about it in depth.

Sounds like the Audi has roughly the same weight distribution as most the Honda products... somewhere around 62/38-ish.

tom91ita

11-22-2008, 08:53 PM

okay, i am getting dizzy scrolling through the pages looking for who to send the letter to.

is it the crb or itac? and if the itac, what is the email? i looked at scca.com and did not get any hits on the search for crb or itac....

thanks!

tom

Xian

11-22-2008, 10:03 PM

I believe it was "[email protected]"

RSTPerformance

11-22-2008, 11:37 PM

Volkswagen Scirocco II 8V
Ok, people seem to like my math...

Volkswagen Scirocco II...
90hp stock * 1.25 * 17 = 1913 lbs base weight
-50 for FWD = 1863
+50 for A-Arms = 1913
-50 for suspension (solid beam rear axle) = 1963
-50 for ECU (Again this is just my feelings, not part of current process) = 1813
Rounded to the nearest 5lbs would be 1815 as compaired to the current spec of 2130 means this car is 315lbs overweight and possibly 415 overweight compaired to a car that might be 100lbs underweight.

Raymond "These weights seem to be hard to reach, maybe the ideal ITB P/W ratio should be 18 or 19?" Blethen

gran racing

11-23-2008, 09:18 AM

Dang, that's a lot of torque. Perhaps something closer to 1.3 (engine multiplier) is appropriate, then...

Same amount as the Golf III. :rolleyes: I don't understand how anyone can say torque doesn't matter or matter much in ITB.

924Guy

11-23-2008, 09:26 AM

I don't have a ton to add other than that there are ITA cars with the same weight and front brake size/setup that are considered to have very good brakes. 10.1" and single piston really is quite good, imo.

I can't speak for the ITAC, of course, but it would appear that the brake adder is judged relative to what is the norm for the class, not across all classes... otherwise no doubt all ITS and ITR cars would get the adder, and that's useless! In ITB/ITC, it seems that disc/drum setups are most common, so a 4-whl disc car like mine ought to (and does) get the adder... but going up to ITA/ITS, nearly all cars do have discs all around, so not such a big deal... now you've gotta have big discs before it's a concern.

But again, I don't speak for the ITAC - I'm just running numbers from what I see.

Ray - it may be that the more appropriate thing for the Scirocco II would be a re-class to ITC? In fact, that would appear to give it a weight of about 2120 - right where it's at (ITC specific weight factor multiplier is 18.84 IIRC)?

924Guy

11-23-2008, 09:30 AM

Same amount as the Golf III. :rolleyes: I don't understand how anyone can say torque doesn't matter or matter much in ITB.

BTW, I ran the back-calculation based on the numbers posted - at the current weight, seems like a multiplier of 1.35 is in use. Anyone able to get near 150hp out of them???

Torque is still a question, and not just for a few ITB drivers.

MAYBE - Big Proposal Time here - we should quit kicking the ITAC around for a few cars not EXACTLY where we want them, and instead ask that they spend their time and energy focusing on the next true Big Question - how to factor torque into the equation.

:blink:

lateapex911

11-23-2008, 10:21 AM

Vaughan gets full points for paying attention~! Gold stars for you!

Raymond, well he gets a :018: for twisting the numbers to benefit his case.

But hey, no sweat Raymond. Nearly every request or initiative made here, or sent to the ITAC, has, somewhere deep down, self interests at it's core. It's the nature of the beast. Really.

A few other comments.
You say your engine is very well made, and won't make much more power. It's FIVE cylinders, and displaces 2.3 litres, yet is rated at 110 hp. That's LESS than 50hp per litre, a terrible specific output. Maybe OK for it's period, but, nothing to write home about. (While not from the same period, cars like the S2000 make 240 hp from 2.0 litres for a much higher 120 hp per litre.

Yes, that's a bit apples to oranges, but, if the Honda is classed with a multiplier of 15%, is it out of line that the Audi will gain a bit more? And lets not forget the torque.

(And, not that it should be brougth up, but, what's your trap speed at Road Atlanta? ;) )

As for the other items, Vaughan explained them well. You've applied subtractors for things that suck, but in ITB, those things are the norm. So cars lacking those things get adders.

RSTPerformance

11-23-2008, 12:30 PM

To that are added or subtracted a very limited number of incremental amounts for specific mechanical attributes - FWD gets a minus weight (50 or 100), brakes a plus or minus (50, but that's been applied pretty rarely), suspension (+50 for A-arms, the base presumes struts; -50 for "bad designs"), gear ratios (I don't think I've seen that in my time on the ITAC yet), and "other" - which as far as I know is mid-engine layout or good/lousy torque).

The engine power multiplier is typically 1.25. We have a tendency to make adjustments to that based on "type" (e.g., "smogged up '70s POS"). There ARE other multipliers that have been applied for special cases. I PERSONALLY think that some of them are not particularly well grounded in evidence but all were determined by people who were very confident in their numbers. Further (personally), I'd prefer that we (a) document and codify these "types," and add them only grudgingly; and (b) require a really huge standard of evidence to do anything "special."

Jake-

I am glad I posted numbers on a car that I understand. I would imagine that is how a lot of people might run numbers on a car they are interested in, and unfortunately (or fortunately) you and the rest of the ITAC may get flooded with inquiries like the one I posted and they may or may not make sense. I honestly posted mine because I wanted to understand this process better (before I put in a specific car request), and I want to run all the ITB cars that I feel are at the top through this process. I DO NOT think that the ITAC should automatically run every car through the process, we as members should know the process and run cars through ourselves. If we see something funky (like I have in the Audi and the VW Scirocco) we should then ask the ITAC to run that specific car.

I still have a few questions/clarifications though...

FWD: This is a subtractor, which is easy, got that!!! (About 50lbs in ITB and probably 100lbs in ITR)

Brakes: I think I understand the brakes now, In ITB you would likely only see an an adder for 4wheel disc brakes (+50lbs) rather than any subtractors, however in ITA or up you may see a subtractor for having rear drums (-50lbs).

Suspension is two parts:
A-Arms: I see on paper that is a +50lbs, but isn't that the norm???
Bad design: Is a -50 lbs for having a beam rear axle vs. independent rear suspension (probably mostly applies to “b” and “C” cars).

Gear Ratios: Not clear when this would apply….

“Other” is multi part: examples:
Car layout: I am guessing this is only a +50 for a mid engine car…
Lousy Torque: I am guessing this is only a -50lbs if your car lacks some… lol

So with this understanding I have rerun the Audi numbers (with the 1.25 multiplier) and I get 2290lbs (that takes into effect -50 FWD, +50 A-Arms, -50 Bad Design with the rear beam axle).

To reach the current spec we would need to use a 1.39 multiplier (get a 39% gain our motors, sorry not feasible)!!! This doesn’t make sense, these are motors that were not “smogged” up, simple, dependable, low power motors. With illegal mods (.60 pistons, cams, stroker kits, bigger valves, porting the intake/exhaust, etc.) you may be able to get that 39% gain, if you are a fantastic engine builder…

Raymond “Honestly, thanks for your time… not trying to be an @$$, and Jake you’re the abnormally tall ugly guy!!!” Belthen

CRallo

11-23-2008, 01:43 PM

“Other” is multi part: examples:
Car layout: I am guessing this is only a +50 for a mid engine car…

so if there is an adder for an exceptional layout/balance, why not a subtractor for a poor layout/balcance??

these are used for many performance aspects that are not the class norm... makes sense to me.

Andy Bettencourt

11-23-2008, 02:02 PM

It is very possible that the Audi's are a typical car that scares the process. 110hp and 5cyl. For two cars like this to qualify 1and 2 at the ARRC a couple years back - without extensive (ANY?) dyno tuning, it is obvious that they are some of the most powerful cars in ITB - especially if you are trying to sell us that they don't handle well.

It's hard to just plug cars like this into the process.

Greg Amy

11-23-2008, 02:07 PM

...it is obvious that [the Audis] are some of the most powerful cars in ITB - especially if you are trying to sell us that they don't handle well.
Which I don't buy, because I've seen the front suspension design on those cars (especially how Dick Shine has designed those struts)...

dickita15

11-23-2008, 03:30 PM

Just out of curiosity how long is the list of cars that we have not used the 25% adder?

Anyone, hello :shrug:

Knestis

11-23-2008, 04:56 PM

dickita15

11-23-2008, 06:47 PM

You're asking for something that we don't have the data to answer, Dick. The ITAC only started keeping records in a single file this year. While there's evidence in the ITAC discussion board of how various decisions were made during the Great Realignment, one would have to sort through lots of text to find the specifics, then tabulate the data. And of course, there's no pretense that any of the "leftover" listings (pre-GR) we established using anything like a repeatable power multiplier...

K

Thanks Kirk, and maybe some of the longer time members will chime in. I am trying to get a feel for how often this is a discussion item as it is a pretty big part of any subjective factors in car classification.
Also anything that happened before the process was in full swing in pretty irrelevant.
I think I know the rotaries are special, do I remember 40% for the 12a and 13b?
The RX8, was the same 40% used.
The S2000 I think used a lower number, 20%?
What else?

lateapex911

11-23-2008, 06:54 PM

Ok, I shook my head at the original question because I just had no concrete answer. The RX-8, no, it got 15%, IIRC. And the S2000 got the same. They have very similar stories.

I'd have to check on the rotaries, but I know the 1st gen is too high!

tom91ita

11-23-2008, 09:35 PM

Audi Coupe GT
Engine/Engine Design
Arrangement: Front mounted, longitudinal
Type: 5-cylinder,10 valve, in-line
Bore: 3.19 in. (81.0 mm)
Stroke: 3.40 in. (86.4 mm)
Displacement: 136.0 cu. in. (2226 cc)
Compression Ratio: 8.5:1
Horsepower (SAE Net): 110 @ 5500 RPM
Torque: 122 ft. lbs.@ 2500 RPM

....major snips....

Remember this is a 10 valve motor that was very well built from the factory .......

Ray,

tom here from the ITB race at mid-ohio. i was beside you or the other audi at the 2007 IT Fest. my crx was the one with the flame job in the pits...

those are some interesting numbers for the HP vs. TQ compared to other cars. one thing that bothers me about OEM hp numbers is that some de-rate to meet certain govt. restrictions and others seem to have smaller horses because they want to look more powerful. these number do get manipulated somewhat.

what i find interesting in your numbers is the HP per CC and TQ per cc. here is the comparison of yours to mine (i am 91 hp and 93 TQ, btw).

audi: 4.94 HP per 100 cc (110hp 2226 cc)
crx: 6.12 HP per 100 cc (91 hp 1488 cc)

audi: 5.48 TQ per 100 cc (122 TQ (okay, ft-#'s, etc.))
crx: 6.25 TQ per 100 cc (93 TQ)

on the face of it, i would think that your car could gain quite a bit since it is starting with such a large motor. now some of this no doubt due to mine having 3 valves per cylinder vs. the two you have.

however, when looking at weight per motor size, my car as classed is 1.43 #'s per cc vs. yours is 1.14 #'s per cc.

i have said that the TQ is a bit of a red herring because most of the numbers i had seen were not that much different in the TQ to HP ratios. but mine is 1.02 and yours is 1.11.

not trying to start an argument, just trying to understand how the classing was applied to the two cars.

hope to see you on the grid this next year at mid-ohio. but hopefully out the driver's window instead of ahead of me on the grid and out the passenger window!

good luck. i hope the general requests being to get to the process weights within a 5# window instead of a 100 # window are good to you.

tom

JeffYoung

11-23-2008, 09:49 PM

The prod like discussions above, while interesting and most offered with the best of intent, starting to scare me.

Knestis

11-23-2008, 10:30 PM

The prod like discussions above, while interesting and most offered with the best of intent, starting to scare me.

I have to agree with Jeff but I think maybe we come to different conclusions: He *might* say, "This is an argument for not addressing these issues." I would *certainly* say, "Sorry, guys - none of that is going to be considered for IT classification or specification purposes." **

Kirk (who's afraid that Tom missed the point about the inconsistencies being the result of the process NOT being applied top to bottom, front to back, on all IT cars. Your question about "how the classing was applied to the two cars" moves from an incorrect first assumption)

** EDIT - were it my decision, which it's not.

RSTPerformance

11-23-2008, 11:42 PM

Jeff-

It scares me a bit also... It seems like it might be hard to make everyone happy with this process, afterall people are already arguing that the Audi is "different" and should not be run through the process the same. I have to be honest and say that I never expected to run the process on the Audi and get those numbers, but I do think that if that is our process then we need to stick with it or change it. What is good for one, has to be good for the other, expecting a car to get a 39% gain in power because of an extra cylinder is rediculouse.

Andy/Greg... remember we can not use on track data to determine car classifications. Sure the Audi is good at Atlanta and Pocono, but go to NHMS... they are at least 1-2 seconds off the normal lap times. Would your thoughts on the classification change if NHMS was the high profile "ARRC" race??? Andy, you don't want to go down that "race-track" because I would have to side with Greg and beat you up on the Miatas ability at Lime Rock... and Greg don't get to excited, your old "egg" was dominant at a track or two if I remember correctly.

Raymond "Lastly... If anyone else sends me a PM to buy Dicks suspension... lol!!! We have spent thousands of dollars testing our own different front suspension designs on our cars, I think we have a better setup, but to each his/her own" Blethen

RSTPerformance

11-23-2008, 11:46 PM

Is post #478 a good description of the classification process?

tom91ita

11-23-2008, 11:50 PM

The prod like discussions above, while interesting and most offered with the best of intent, starting to scare me.

i guess i am unsure what a prod like discussion is. :)

i was trying to be civil and discuss what might have been part of the basis for the classing. that is one very large motor in an ITB car. i have no idea if the car went through "The Process" but i do know the car was "classed."

i have sent my letter to the CRB asking that the process be done for all cars to the nearest 5 or 10 #'s or 0.5% of what scales can read, etc. if the scales can't find 5#'s, it might be a bit much to have the process designate it. so to the nearest 10#'s would be fine with me.

i also disclosed in the letter that i think a review of the process would improve my situation with the 86 crx si. i thought it only proper to state what i was driving and where i thought it should be. i am also hoping that it will improve Ray's situation. over the course of a 20 lap race, that is a lot of mass to slow down, etc.

i want to beat Ray at the mid-ohio IT Fest because my car is better prepared and better driven. not because of inadvertent weighting that occurred when the cars were classed.

besides, it is kind of embarassing to get beat by a car that has the weight "penalties" his has. :blink:

Andy Bettencourt

11-24-2008, 03:59 AM

67ITB

11-24-2008, 08:23 AM

Jeff-
Raymond "Lastly... If anyone else sends me a PM to buy Dicks suspension... lol!!! We have spent thousands of dollars testing our own different front suspension designs on our cars, I think we have a better setup, but to each his/her own" Blethen

I will see if Dick has Dyno #'s in Lournecos car. But I am not sure if they had ever taken it to the Dyno before Allan "retired" from racing.
Just looking at what Shine did for our little 1.8 makes me think he could get some gains from that thing

Ok, so no PM, but I will talk to Eli and see if we have some in our pile that he would be willing to part with. I am not sure what the future plans are for Tims car, so he may not want to part with any spares just yet.

Matt bal

Greg Amy

11-24-2008, 09:42 AM

Raymond "Lastly... If anyone else sends me a PM to buy Dicks suspension... lol!!! We have spent thousands of dollars testing our own different front suspension designs on our cars, I think we have a better setup, but to each his/her own" Blethen

;)

Am I the only one that finds that absolutely freakin' HILARIOUS, considering you're unhappy with the handling of the car...?

;)

Ed Funk

11-24-2008, 09:57 AM

[quote=Greg Amy;277842];)

absolutely freakin' HILARIOUS
at least mildly amusing:shrug:

EBSNASCAR

11-24-2008, 12:56 PM

OK, just wanted to get your attention.

I had resisted the assertion that ITB was the 'new ITA' - but heck, this class is really redifining itself into something special. Accords, Civic's, CRX's, Volvo's, Golfs, 924's, BMW's, Audi's, Preludes, a freakin' gorgeous Alfa...

Awesome guys. Awesome. Add in Scott, The Canadians, the Blethens, Beren, Boo-hee - and oh-snap is that a showdown.

ITS seems to be the class that is static now...only 12 starters at the ARRC? Diverse yes (top 6 were all different models), but is it quality over quantity? Thoughts?

Ok so to answer the first question. I think that ITB is great, just great. I am so glad I picked this class over any other class. This was my first year driving. First year driving a manual trans car and a rear wheel drive car for that matter.
I bought a 1979 Fox body Mustang, I raced...ok followed Vaughan this year at Waterford Hills. It is a reasonably affordable class and highly competitive.
At Waterford we had two 924s (one being Vaughan), 5-6 Mustangs, a very fast Capri, two wabbits, a GTI, a MG, a Fiero and a Volvo.
Diversity and still had a blast. Sure Vaughan smoked us but his car is highly tuned and extremely well prepared over the many years of hard work and labor.

To answer the second question and I think why this thread became 25 pages…
In any racing there are the haves and the have-nots. People who can spend money and have the car built by professionals or install the best of the best parts. And then you have people who just work with what they have. If you think by asking a club to give you a 50 weight break is going to make the difference, great. But then this club becomes NASCAR, change rules constantly. I would like a car classified once and move on. That way I can continue to fine-tune the racecar to the absolute limit of the given rules and regs. End of story. If you consistently run behind someone at the same racetrack, over and over again and you both know one car has an advantage over another then find a way to play fair. Maybe he will volunteer to add weight, run old tires, start behind you, or start at the back of the pack. That seems more reasonable then petitioning a national sanctioning body.

If you want to send letter that is fine but the ultimate results are started and finished on the race track not behind a letter or a computer desk.

lateapex911

11-24-2008, 01:52 PM

Ok so to answer the first question. I think that ITB is great, just great. I am so glad I picked this class over any other class. ......... we had two 924s (one being Vaughan), 5-6 Mustangs, a very fast Capri, two wabbits, a GTI, a MG, a Fiero and a Volvo.
Diversity and still had a blast. Sure Vaughan smoked us but his car is highly tuned and extremely well prepared over the many years of hard work and labor.

You had me at "I think ITB is great, just great"...
Welcome to the madness.
You make good points, and we should remember them, while we bitch and moan the winter away fine tuning the rules and regs.

nsuracer

11-24-2008, 02:19 PM

Ok so to answer the first question. I think that ITB is great, just great. I am so glad I picked this class over any other class. This was my first year driving. First year driving a manual trans car and a rear wheel drive car for that matter.
I bought a 1979 Fox body Mustang, I raced...ok followed Vaughan this year at Waterford Hills. It is a reasonably affordable class and highly competitive.
At Waterford we had two 924s (one being Vaughan), 5-6 Mustangs, a very fast Capri, two wabbits, a GTI, a MG, a Fiero and a Volvo.
Diversity and still had a blast. Sure Vaughan smoked us but his car is highly tuned and extremely well prepared over the many years of hard work and labor.

To answer the second question and I think why this thread became 25 pages…
In any racing there are the haves and the have-nots. People who can spend money and have the car built by professionals or install the best of the best parts. And then you have people who just work with what they have. If you think by asking a club to give you a 50 weight break is going to make the difference, great. But then this club becomes NASCAR, change rules constantly. I would like a car classified once and move on. That way I can continue to fine-tune the racecar to the absolute limit of the given rules and regs. End of story. If you consistently run behind someone at the same racetrack, over and over again and you both know one car has an advantage over another then find a way to play fair. Maybe he will volunteer to add weight, run old tires, start behind you, or start at the back of the pack. That seems more reasonable then petitioning a national sanctioning body.

If you want to send letter that is fine but the ultimate results are started and finished on the race track not behind a letter or a computer desk.
For a new guy, you hit the nail right on the head. My only change to IT would be to have all the cars classed and weighted using the same criteria. Get that done and then leave it. My other comment is that I do not believe non independent rear suspensions should get a weight break. They are to common within the classes. IRS should get the +50. Thats only my opinion.

StephenB

12-11-2008, 01:03 AM

;)

Am I the only one that finds that absolutely freakin' HILARIOUS, considering you're unhappy with the handling of the car...?

;)

I don't think its hilarious at all. I wouldn't take another suspension set-up if it was FREE. My set-up on my car I feel is the best set-up for the car. The only thing I think that could use honest develepment is struts and shocks that I simply do not have the deep pockets for or the knowledge for.

I do feel that other cars with less front end weight should probably handle a bit better but I do not have this personal experience to claim this as true or not. (I have 830ish pounds on both front wheels and 420 pounds on each of the rears.) with a large wheelbase. I truelly do not know the balance of other cars as this is the only car in this class that I have worked on and have experience with.

Stephen Blethen
ITB Audi Coupe #50
The best handling 2wd Audi Coupe in SCCA! Yes mine is better than Raymonds.