So about these Pony Cars for ITR... [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Mike Guenther

01-03-2009, 01:02 AM

Kurt,
I'm not necessarily against the V-8 cars in ITR. I don't know all the facts about HP vs weight and all of the other performance factors that the ITAC and CRB considers. But it just seems to me like the V8s are capable of a lot more power than anything currently in IT, and there's already an AS class or other classes where they fit in. If the Toyota Celica GTS is 1796cc and the Mustang V6 is 3797cc, then how much bigger is the V8? 3 times as much as the Celica?

Does it make sense? Or do these cars need another class because of some other problems or costs associated with running in AS or Production classes?

I won't get upset if V8 cars start to take over the ITR class because I will have a blast racing against the ITS car that's in front of me or behind me. I'm in this for the adrenalin and the camaraderie. The adrenalin comes from racing with cars that are in my vicinity on the track and the camaraderie comes from friends in the paddock or on IT.com. I appreciate all the work and time spent by board members and club volunteers who make all the efforts to make our events safe and fun. Thank you!

I only add my comments because I'm in the ITR class and I don't understand the reasons that this class is preferred over AS for these American Sedan muscle cars. Thank you ITAC and CRB members for trying to keep the IT classes up to date by classing more cars. I appreciate all that you do for our club. :happy204:

cjb25hs

01-03-2009, 01:08 AM

ITE!?! Where the biggest wallet wins? For a guy that wants to race in a reasonable prep level multi marque class, that's a bad solution. Again, IT is about the ruleset, and I think it's ridiculous to segregate classes due to cylinder number. or is it something els? I must be because....

So a German V8 is ok, but an American isn't?? Make sense of that for me please...

It is not about whether it is German or American. I feel that the V8 cars already have a place to play so why change things.

Z3_GoCar

01-03-2009, 01:20 AM

I'm a little more reticent about classing the v8 pony cars. With the large displacements that they possess, and installing option factory camshafts, that can't easily be policed or enforced leads to gains that can't be predicted by the process. Since I ran in the same group as AS, and having been lapped by Bill Schepergerdes' Camero, which is the same generation as is being discussed, I've seen these cars in action putting in lap times similar to Super Prodution former Southwest Tour cars, even after being punted off track and taking major body damage. Lastly, I probably feel this way because of the nature of all of the track in my region favor cars that have superior straight line handeling. Actually, the v6 pony's would make an excellant choice here in So-Pac.

JeffYoung

01-03-2009, 01:25 AM

With all due respect, there is some seriously screwy V8 stuff in this thread.

1. The AS and IT rulesets are completely different. Please spend 5 minutes reading the AS rules and you will see what type of power potential we are talking about -- heads, cams, carbs, compression, etc.

2. No "factory optional" camshafts are available that I am aware of. If you are aware of one, give us the information on it.

If anyone wants to see the V8 proposal, let me know. Ron did the hard work on it, and it pretty clearly lays out the case for these cars in ITR.

The only real "issue" with them is torque. All of the proposed cars make less or equal hp than, say, a 300zx or a 330i or a S2000.

Mike Guenther

01-03-2009, 01:40 AM

Jeff,
Please send me that proposal. I'm interested in how these cases are laid out and how the Mustang and Camaro cases are presented.
Send it to fastflames at tampabay dot rr dot comm.

Thanks Jeff.

By the way, how much HP do you expect the V8s to make? I will seriously consider a Mustang for the future. They are fun cars to drive. Torque = adrenalin.

ekim952522000

01-03-2009, 01:48 AM

I've been an ITR driver exclusively for the last 2 years, and I say, bring 'em on! Whatever will get turnouts higher, I want more cars in ITR!

I agree that lap times for ITR are similar to AS and T2, both places where V8 mustangs are already classed (although newer ones in T2). But the rulesets are different. And since those are national classes, their turnouts seem to lag at regionals.

Does it matter that they already have a place to play? Trust the process! The weights will be set such that, in IT trim, they aren't overdogs.

<----Building a ITR car and says run them through the process and class them.

Besides it's a win win situation for me.

If I win I get to say "haha I beat you with a little 4 cylinder Honda"

If I lose I get to say "yeah but you have a V8"
(I mean come on how many cars do you get to race that have a built in excuse)

=) Seriously though I say "bring 'em on!" as long as the weight is right what's the big deal.

ekim952522000

01-03-2009, 01:50 AM

lateapex911

01-03-2009, 02:17 AM

cjb25hs

01-03-2009, 02:39 AM

It is not about whether it is German or American. I feel that the V8 cars already have a place to play so why change things.

ITE!?! Where the biggest wallet wins? For a guy that wants to race in a reasonable prep level multi marque class, that's a bad solution. Again, IT is about the ruleset, and I think it's ridiculous to segregate classes due to cylinder number. or is it something els? I must be because....

So a German V8 is ok, but an American isn't?? Make sense of that for me please...

With all due respect, there is some seriously screwy V8 stuff in this thread.

1. The AS and IT rulesets are completely different. Please spend 5 minutes reading the AS rules and you will see what type of power potential we are talking about -- heads, cams, carbs, compression, etc.

2. No "factory optional" camshafts are available that I am aware of. If you are aware of one, give us the information on it.

If anyone wants to see the V8 proposal, let me know. Ron did the hard work on it, and it pretty clearly lays out the case for these cars in ITR.

The only real "issue" with them is torque. All of the proposed cars make less or equal hp than, say, a 300zx or a 330i or a S2000.

So what year cars and models are we talking about. I would assume that we are talking 80's to early 90's fox body mustangs and camaros with 302's and 305's then. Because any of the later cars due in fact make more HP then the cars you mention above. You take say a late 80's or early 90's notchback mustang with a 5.0 build it to IT rule set with balance, blueprint say 20 over, headers open exhaust gut it per the rules due all the suspension modes per IT rules and on tracks such as M-O, Nelsons, WGI, I would be willing to bet that they would have not much trouble being at the front of the field. In american sedan trim that car is listed at 3080 lbs. A stock 1995 Mustang GT made 285 ft lbs at the crank, assuming say 20% loss that takes it down to 228 ft lbs in stock trim. And IIRC all of the Mustangs came with 4 wheel disc brakes after 1993

Take for example the track records at Nelson Ledges. In 1993 when the track was slower and tires were slower Bob Strange turned a 1.17.03 in a 1LE Camaro. This year Dan Jones turned a 1.14.709 in an ITR BMW. I would bet that the track and tires alone would be good for say 1 to 1.5 seconds alone in that Camaro with no other mods.

Z3_GoCar

01-03-2009, 03:03 AM

Guys, with all due respect, every argument I hear is ill informed. You're arguing against something because you fear it will make power...but you have no facts. Not to mention, have you driven one of these? Live rear axle? Choked motors? big weight?

If you're cool with the Porsche, you should be REALLY cool with these....

just sayin-

Jake, the AS rules started out the same as IT, they are as they are because of the Pony cars and keeping the balance between the GM and Ford. I also have a GM Power Book, so when I find it, I can tell you some of the tricks and factory parts to make a Camero or Firebird class dominate. Finally the Porsche doesn't have the huge displacement. Also you're forgeting that the Camero and Firebird had tuned port on the 5liter motor as an option, so they weren't as choked as you think. For brakes there was the 1LE option....

Andy Bettencourt

01-03-2009, 08:49 AM

Andy Bettencourt

01-03-2009, 09:01 AM

1. Just because the GM power book or SVT offers a cam for a car doesn't mean it's legal for IT. Come on guys, it's just as easy for 'you' to put in a better cam as it would be for these guys.

2. AS did start out like IT. The rules crept to where they are now because the cars didn't handle and they didn't stop. Since it's effectively a spec class (F-body and Fox platform), changes can be made to accomodate the members easily.

3. READ THE AS RULES. These cars are making HUGE power and have brake and suspension mods that put them WAY OUTSIDE IT spec. Talk with any V* engine builder with the IT rules in your hands and ask him for an estimate on HP for this genre of motor...all you will have to do is say these words: stock intake manifold, stock throttle body, stock cam, stock fuel injection.

4. Yes, these cars will have big torque. They won't rev, they won't stop and they won't turn. I am in favor of classing stuff the membership wants, but these just won't be good choices IMHO. Not at the 3200+lbs they are being considered at.

5. Stop with the 'they have other classes to run' arguement. We all do. The reason I asked what car was being run above is because I was going to point out all the OTHER classes it could be run in too. Almost all of us could go to Prod if we wanted too. I run IT because I like the RULES. Let me run there as long as you class me like everyone else. Not a rediculous request really.

If you are afraid of these cars in ITR, bring some data to the table. We have done the research and we have a lot of information on power etc.

JeffYoung

01-03-2009, 09:15 AM

James, if you are afraid of power potential, instead of innuendo, plesae give us FACTS. What "factory parts" are you talking of?

The 928 is 4.5 or 4.7 liters correct?? How is not nearly the equivalent -- with EFI, dual overhead cams, etc. -- of a 302 or 305 with either a carburetor or archaic FI?

Instead of of sending the V8 proposal to everyone piecemeal, I'm cutting and pasting it below. These cars make a LOT of torque. We acknowledge that, and the proposed weight is therefore high. When responding to this thread, please, let's stay away from "Bill Joe had a Camaro and he ran XXXXX at XXXX track." Take a look at the numbers set forth below and tell me where we are wrong.

Note: I've bought a Z32 300ZX to build into an R car. I would personally LOVE to race with the ponies.

JeffYoung

01-03-2009, 09:16 AM

http://www.gt40s.com/images/Z/ITR%20Pony%20Cars%20Version%202.0%2012-16-071web.doc

SCCA ITR PONY CAR CLASSING PROPOSAL

As of this writing SCCA’s Improved Touring R class has been in place for almost one year. The class has had a positive impact on Improved Touring (IT) as many popular, higher power sports cars and sedans that were previously not classed in IT can now participate under the IT rules set. For only being in existence for on year, ITR participation has been significant, and is growing (compared to say, for example, BP and DP). There are a significant number of ITR cars racing and many more under construction. Cars that are known to fall into these two categories include the BMW Z3 2.8, BMW 325, BMW 328, BMW 330, Nissan 300zx, Honda S2000, Acura Integra Type R, Porsche 944 S2, Porsche 968, Porsche Boxster, and the Toyota Celica GTS.
Thus, it appears ITR has been well received by the majority of IT racers and the momentum for the class is growing.
However, there is a void in ITR with respect to "V8 Pony Cars" – V8 Ford Mustangs and V8 Chevrolet Camaros are notably absent. We believe that filling this void will simply add to the momentum that ITR is experiencing.
Certain popular, lower powered versions of these cars can fit into ITR easily and there is a distinct need for them in the class. The reasons we believe support their inclusion are (at least) the following:
They fit into ITR based on IT horsepower production.
They fit into ITR based on torque, but will need weight modifier for torque/displacement. We propose 100 lbs.
Their inclusion provides a low-cost (IT) rules set to race a modern domestic fuel injected V8.
Their inclusion provides an alternative to costly SCCA National American Sedan racing for domestic V8s.
Their inclusion may attract racers from NASA which does provide classes for modern fuel injected domestic V8s and a similar class for AS-type cars.
An informal internet survey has shown that the cars already have a large amount of support in the IT community among racers who would like to build a V8 ITR Pony Car.
Horsepower
The original grouping of ITR cars were classed by weight and this was based on horsepower, chassis/suspension, brakes, and other factors. Clearly horsepower plays (and should play) a fundamental role in the classification process.
The standard ITR power classification would be made based on an IT modifier for power increase and a target power to weight ratio for the ITR class. A stock 1994/1995 Mustang GT (A target car we’ll use as an example in the discussion) has 215hp, the standard IT modifier is 25%, and the target power to weight ratio is 11.25 to 1. Using the standard formula would result in a weight classification of:

215hp x 1.25 x 11.25 = 3023 lbs
If a plot is made of classed ITR car weights versus stock horsepower for the upper echelon horsepower cars in the class, the following plot will be observed (Figure 1).

Figure 1
A linear regression analysis can be performed on the dataset and it results in a fairly linear relationship between stock flywheel horsepower and ITR class weight. The regression result (IT Weight = 9.95 * (Stock HP) + 890.8) can be used to calculate a rough estimate for ITR class weight for any potential ITR candidate car.
In the case of a 1994/1995 Mustang GT with 215hp stock we would arrive at an estimated class weight of approximately 3023 lbs without any subjective adders or subtractors. This is in agreement with the process IT weight of 3023 lbs.
IT Trim Horsepower Gains
Naturally careful estimates have to be made of how much of a horsepower gain will be realized with a particular engine in IT trim. A standard percent gain is often quoted at 25% and in many cases this estimate seems to fit well. However it may be necessary to modify this gain based on an individual engine configuration from the factory. If one were to look at expected horsepower gains for some ITR candidates the following data chart can be produced:

Car
IT Trim HP
Classed Weight
BMW 325i
240
2765
BMW 328
250
2850
Camaro
250
2815
944 S2
250
2850
Maxima
275
3040
300zx
280
3250
Supra
280
3220
BMW 330
275
3290
968
265
3055

Some of these expected IT horsepower figures are simply 25% gains with rounding. Others are estimates based on empirical data. The following plot shows ITR class weight versus predicted IT trim horsepower, again a very linear relationship is shown. In Figure 2 the horsepower figure is shown as the first data label followed by the car model.

Figure 2
The 5L 1994/1995 Mustang GT is commonly known to be able to produce approximately 250 to 275 flywheel horsepower in a rough "street" approximation of IT trim, or up to a 25% increase. This seemingly low result based on displacement is due to a number of factors: a pushrod two valve per cylinder design, an undersized mass air flow sensor, an undersized throttle body, a special intake for the low 1994/1995 hood lines that is extremely constricted compared to 1985-1993 manifolds, and Ford E7 head castings with a poor exhaust port design which cannot be rectified in IT trim.
The linear regression analysis performed for the ITR class weight versus predicted IT horsepower returns an equation of (IT Weight = 12.49 * (Predicted IT HP) – 276.0). Assuming the 1994/1995 Mustang GT can produce 270 hp we have an estimated ITR weight for the car of 3105 lbs. This figure is in close agreement with the 3023 lbs predicted using the stock flywheel horsepower model and the 3023 lbs suggested by the IT process.
These three analysis methods show the 1994/1995 Mustang GT can fit into ITR with respect to horsepower. Indeed, the 5L V8 in the Mustang is simply an air pump and with its’ pushrod two valve per cylinder design, a relatively crude one at that.
Torque
Horsepower alone does not determine the suitability of inclusion for a car into ITR. Another figure of merit that must be evaluated is torque production. The 1994/1995 Mustang GT has a absolute torque advantage over other cars in ITR.

JeffYoung

01-03-2009, 09:19 AM

http://www.gt40s.com/images/Z/ITR%20Pony%20Cars%20Version%202.0%2012-16-071web.doc

Car
Stock Torque
Torque / Liter
BMW 325i
181
72
BMW 328
207
74
Camaro V6*
225
59
944 S2
207
69
300zx
198
66
Supra
220
73
BMW 330
215
72
968
225
75
Mustang*
285
57

*Two valve motors have significantly less torque per liter displacement than four valve designs.
Somewhat surprisingly a plot of ITR class weight versus stock torque does not produce a linear relationship at all, The R² value for the regression model is less than 0.07 which reflects almost zero correlation. It would appear that a relatively subjective process was used when considering torque production in respect to classed ITR weight. Be that as it may, we would strongly suggest that a 1994/1995 Mustang GT receive a weight modification based on displacement of the engine and torque production. Figure 3 contains the ITR weight versus torque data.

Figure 3
It is believed that a stock 1994/1995 Mustang GT generally produces around 235 to 245 ft-lbs of rear wheel torque on a Dynojet dynometer. This will result in approximately 290 ft-lbs of rear wheel torque if one assumes a standard IT gain of 25%. In reality the gain is actually less than 25% with "street" IT-like builds producing in the neighborhood of 275-280 ft-lbs. The car is highly optimized for torque production from the factory due to small volume ports, high port velocity at low RPM, and small cam thus 25% improvements are hard to realize.
The point is that the 1994/1995 Mustang GT has torque capacity that is certainly within the performance envelope of ITR and should not be discounted because of class leading torque figures.
Other V8 Mustangs
The discussion thus far has focused on the 1994/1995 Mustang GT with a 5.0L OHV 2 valve per cylinder design. The car fits into the ITR framework quite well. However there are other V8 Pony cars that could fit into the class – earlier V8 Ford Mustangs and 3rd Generation GM V8 Camaros and Firebirds (3rd Gen F-Bodies).
The earlier Fox boded Mustang V8s, from 1982-1993, had a large variety of horsepower ratings due to changes in induction and cams over the years. The lowest horsepower model in this range is 165hp and the highest is 225hp. The cars are cheap and plentiful and, like the 1994/1995 Mustang GT, could be classed in ITR at approximately the same weight. But, none of these cars had rear disc brakes and each one would almost require a separate spec line in the GCR due to induction differences. For example the following is an incomplete list of horsepower and induction based on year:

Year
Horsepower
Induction
1982
165
2 bbl carb
1983-1984
175
4 bbl carb
1985
210
4bbl, roller cam
1986
200
EFI, Speed Density
1987
225
EFI, Speed Density
1988 (49 State)
225
EFI, Speed Density
1988 CA
225
EFI, Mass Air Flow
1989-1993
225
EFI Mass Air Flow

The cars would need to be specified at the same weight as the 1994/1995 V8 Mustangs, or, possibly at a higher weight. The 225 hp cars have better intakes and cams than the 1994/1995 V8 Mustangs and can produce slightly more power in IT trim.
If the cars were to be included we could simplify the years and models to the following:

Year
Induction
1989-1993 Mustang GT
EFI, MAF

This would provide the "best" Fox 3 ITR platform with the most power, torque, and strongest rear end. They have brakes that are inferior to the 1994/1995 cars, but they can produce more power than the 1994/1995 V8 Mustangs.

JeffYoung

01-03-2009, 09:21 AM

http://www.gt40s.com/images/Z/ITR%20Pony%20Cars%20Version%202.0%2012-16-071web.doc

GM Pony Cars – Camaro and Firebird
GM has produced 3rd Gen F Bodies that fit well into the ITR class. The 1987 through 1992 LB9 powered 3rd Gen F Bodies with the five speed manual transmission were rated:

1987 LB9 215hp@4400 / 295lbft@3200
1988 LB9 220hp@4400 / 290lbft@3200
1989 LB9 230hp@4600 / 300lbft@3200
1990 LB9 230hp@4400 / 300lbft@3200
1991 LB9 230hp@4200 / 300lbft@3200
1992 LB9 230hp@4200 / 300lbft@3200

The 3rd Gen F Bodies also have four wheel disc brakes and a solid rear axle, just as the 1994/1995 Mustang GT does. Power gains for these motors will be somewhat hampered by camshaft, but even if a 25% gain is assumed they can still fit within the confines of ITR.

American Sedan
When ITR was being developed by the ad hoc ITR committee the V8 Mustangs and Camaros were discussed. Some people felt the car fit the ITR classing process and should be included. Others had objections against the cars, one of them being that they already had a place to race in American Sedan (AS).
Any investigation at all into the AS rule set will show that AS prep is far and above IT prep. Among the fundamental differences that alienate many IT racers are some of the AS prep details: the mandatory use of carburetors, expensive advanced engine preparation including alternative cylinder heads, open cams and valve train, expensive car preparation beyond IT builds, alternative driveline components, low mean time between failure on many parts, and so on. In sum, an AS car is very different from an IT prepped Mustang and Camaro, and we feel that there will be little if any crossover between racers interested in one rule set or the other.
Additionally, we firmly know there are racers who would prefer to race their pony cars against different makes and models, and with a more stable and restricted ruleset than American Sedan. Club track days are full of Mustangs and Camaros running non-competitive track day events with full cages and other race prep. Many of these cars would be, in our view, likely to cross over to IT if given the opportunity to do so.
Improved Touring Forum Support
The ITR V8 Mustang proposal has been aired on the internet forum for Improved Touring located at http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/. The proposal has generated interest among racers and currently there are ten racers who would build a V8 Pony Car if classified. These racers do not have any interest in the AS class.
ITR Classification Recommendations
The recommendations are based upon the following criteria for the V8 Pony Cars:
Horsepower output that is near the top of the class. Low RPM limit.
Torque production that will be the highest in class by 10-15%. The cars will need a weight modifier beyond process weight.
Brakes that are inferior to the majority of cars in the class (even with the four wheel disc brakes on the Camaros). Swept area per ton will be in the bottom 10% of the class if the car weighs near 3200 lbs.
Solid rear axle on all of the proposed cars (I am aware that the ITAC has not previously used a modifier for this "feature", however, I think that would be an error in judgment on a 240-250 rwhp car in a race class full of independent rear suspensions)
Shown below is the process weight at a power to weight ratio of 11.25:1 for each car in the proposal. Following the process weight is our recommended class weight with a subjective torque modifier of 100 lbs added to the process weight.

Car
IT Process
Recommended Weight
94/95 GT
3023
3120
89-93 GT
3164
3260
F Body
3234
3330

Classifications
1994/1995 Ford Mustang GT at 3120 lbs (exclude Cobra).
1989-1993 Ford Mustang GT and LX 5.0L at 3260 lbs (Exclude Cobra)
1987-1992 Chevrolet Camaro at 3330 lbs (exclude 1LE & BC4 Package).
1987-1992 Pontiac Firebird at 3330 lbs (exclude 1LE & BC4 Package).

Summary
Classification of V8 Pony Cars into ITR will meet the needs of IT racers and expand the ITR class. For the first time a low-cost SCCA class will be available for domestic Pony Car enthusiasts to road race their favorite vehicles.
Authors
Ron Earp, SCCA Member 345404
Jeff Young, SCCA Member 304971

Andy Bettencourt

01-03-2009, 09:52 AM

In my mind, if I were an ITR driver, what would I consider?

The cars have a crap-tastic suspension.
The cars have crap-tastic brakes.
They don't rev for snot.
Is 25% really the power level they can achieve?
Is 100lbs of 'adder' enough to offset the 300ft/lbs they will produce?

IMHO, a legal version of these cars will be mid-pack at best. The ITAC will IMMEDIATLY and FUNDAMENTALLY REJECT any and all marque specific requests to improve these cars by spec line (ie: brake upgrade, subframe connectors, aftermarket suspension upgrades like Griggs, etc).

Again, take a look at the rules in AS and take away all the differences - and about 150hp. Then bring your concerns.

dickita15

01-03-2009, 10:16 AM

Jeff and Ron, nice job. While trying not to offend anyone, the A Sedan argument is absurd to me. AS prep levels have little in common with IT and I dare to say the IT rules set is one of the reasons so many of us are devoted to these classes. That plus the idea of racing against cars that have different strengths and weakness make IT racing a winner in my mind.
If I was a current ITR driver I would be looking at the facts about intakes, cams and head design for the particular models and years being discussed as that will be the factors that limit pony car performance in ITR.

JeffYoung

01-03-2009, 10:28 AM

That proposal was 95% Ron -- he did the hard work.

I think I can fairly say he agrees with you. The hard work here is making sure the correct combinations get classed.

I don't get the AS argument either. Completely different set of rules. I also don't get the "they don't race like us" argument. IT is full of different cars that race differently.

benspeed

01-03-2009, 11:03 AM

Great thread! Awesome work and a great look inside the classing process and required research. This illustrates a rules classification proceedure that is professional, comprehensive and frankly makes me glad I race in IT.

Pony cars - bring 'em on. When I looked at them I concluded that the AS times don't make me want to build an American ITR V8 - even if they do get classed. They can't make the same power as the AS ruleset and the brakes really do suck that bad. No brakes and really fat = sloppy driving day at the track.

Now a 928 V8 - don't go making me pissed I bought a 968! Do I need to slow-up on the build?

Ron Earp

01-03-2009, 11:05 AM

lateapex911

01-03-2009, 11:24 AM

The resistance to the proposal has been really odd in my mind. Some people have rejected it based purely on "They don't belong on the same track with a BMW". I was ASTOUNDED when I heard that....and I'm a freaking E46 M3 vert owner! LOL. We class cars. We don't class by nameplate.

Trabant? You request, we class (if it was available for sale, bla bla bla...)

As for the "You can get XYZ part/option/factory doo dad"...well, the models have been chosen specifically, for their makeup. If you want to run one of these cars and put that doodad in, by all means, go for it. Just be prepared to rip it apart in the paddock while a Steward watches....just like you should be prepared to with any car. And vice versa. if somebody is cheating, it is your job to call them out. Seriously. Cheating is cheating. Simple.

And I'll repeat what i said earlier, and others have backed up.
IT is about the RULESET, the RULESET and finally, the RULESET.

It's mixed marque racing.

As for the Porsche V8, it's funny that it doesn't get the same horrified response a craptastic Ford does, as it's got better brakes, suspension, and nearly the same displacement but with much better architecture (there's some bait there, let's see if anyone takes it).

Ben, you want to race a 928? Request away my friend, but check your wallet first, i imagine they might be a bit spendy to build.

nsuracer

01-03-2009, 11:26 AM

Ron Earp

01-03-2009, 11:57 AM

, but between a 3200 lb and a 1900 lb and the little car is going to the weeds. It only gets worse as the accident does. If I had a say in anything (which I don't) I would vote against putting V8 pony cars in IT.

Hate to say it but that is something of a red herring. The argument doesn't hold water - there are ALREADY 3200 lbs cars in ITR:

Supra 3220
300zx 3250
IS300 3145
SC300 3290
BMW Z3 3L 3240

It's mixed marque racing.

As for the Porsche V8, it's funny that it doesn't get the same horrified response a craptastic Ford does, as it's got better brakes, suspension, and nearly the same displacement but with much better architecture (there's some bait there, let's see if anyone takes it).

Jake, I've said it for years - there is a bias toward domestics in the SCCA. It is unspoken but it is there. Some folks don't want to be wheel to wheel with a Ferd or Chebby. And I remember when ITR was being birthed an offical who was in the decision making process of ITR and against the domestic Pony cars made the comment:

"They will spoil the look of the class".

Knestis

01-03-2009, 12:28 PM

I've heard hints of the bias that Ron mentions, even in internal conversations among ITAC members. It's not something we can ignore or avoid - we just have to work through it.

K

cjb25hs

01-03-2009, 12:43 PM

Guys, have a read of the complete proposal with graphs. You'll need MS Word to view, I don't have Acobat Distiller on my computer.

http://www.gt40s.com/images/Z/ITR%20Pony%20Cars%20Version%202.0%2012-16-071web.doc

Drop the AS thing - AS prep has nothing to do with IT prep - ANY cam to 0.500 lift, single plane intakes, race Holley carb, 10.5:1 compression - AS and IT are not alike at all.

And laptimes - if you want to use those for your argument against the pony cars have a look at NASA Factory Five Cobra challenge cars. These are IT build 5L V8s in a very LIGHT package, much lighter than the ITR cars. The FFR Cobras use factory suspension, IT build motor with stock cam, intake, etc. Have a look at the laptimes those cars turn, at the hands of the champions of the class, for your favorite track. Scared now? Remember, this challenge car is far lighter than an ITR Mustang or Camaro will be.

As far as lap times, I would say that the NASA CMC cars are probably a better comparison than the FFR cars. The top FFR cars at M-O turn around a 1.40.2, The best results could find for ITR was Dan Jones at a 1.41.5. The fastest CMC car was 1.43.6. Keep in mind that the NASA cars are running Toyo's and if you put Hoosier tires on them at a track like M-O I would estimate at least a 3/4 to 1 second improvement. Of course the weight of the CMC cars is based on Dyno output but the lowest weight for a Mustang from 79 thru 2004 with 230hp or lower and 300 ft lb or lower torque is 3100lbs.

Based on the above, I still beleive that you put a well built pony car in the hands of a good pony car driver and they will be at the front.

The craptastic brakes and suspensions that everyone keeps speaking of are yes inferior to what elese is in the class, but keep in mind that when comparing the pony cars to everything else the driving style and technique is way different. In an ITR s2000, Type R or Prelude, these cars are going to be a smooth momentum style where the BMW's for example fall somewhere in between.

I do fully understand the rules, I have been in and out of the Club Racing scene for many years since the mid 80's as a spectator, crew member, worker and driver. There are already places for these cars to play so why do we need to make another.

If I wanted to run on a regional level and run a Pony car, I would run a mild build AS car which in turn would be similar to what an ITR build would be. I know that you can go crazy with motor builds, but if you go mild build with the right year 5.0 and develop the rest of the car, brakes and suspension right you will have a boat load of fun and be winning races. Of course there are not that many AS cars at the usual weekend like maybe 1 or 2 if you are lucky.

Ron Earp

01-03-2009, 12:52 PM

I've heard hints of the bias that Ron mentions, even in internal conversations among ITAC members. It's not something we can ignore or avoid - we just have to work through it.
K

It definitely shouldn't be ignored, it should be eradicated. If an ITAC member can't divorce themselves from their subjective opinions on a topic I would hope they would have the ability to admit that and step out of the discussion.

Everyone sees different things when they look at a car. A lot of the guys on the AutoX board see a Type Arrgghhh Acura or Honda Fit and say "RACECAR!". I see the same thing and thing "WTF?!?!?!?!?!". But to each his own. This is a club by the members for the members, if a member wants to race it and it isn't a danger to the structure of the club or the members then I think we're obligated to try to make it happen.

Just for the record I've owned many Mustangs over the years. While I did author the V8 Pony car proposal and firmly think the cars should be in ITR I am not going to build one. Now that V6 2005 model, I might build one of those when classed....

JLawton

01-03-2009, 01:10 PM

I would like to add a perspective that has not been addressed. Size and weight. Out here in Midiv, all I.T. run in one group. I do not like being on the track in my slow and light ITB with fast and heavy ITE Vipers and Corvettes and Mustangs.

So if you're already running with these cars, what's the big deal if we add Mustangs?? :confused:

Look at enduros. How many different weights and speeds are there??

You can always run Spec Miata if that makes you nervous..................

Z3_GoCar

01-03-2009, 02:44 PM

Ron Earp

01-03-2009, 02:49 PM

lateapex911

01-03-2009, 03:33 PM

I would like to add a perspective that has not been addressed. Size and weight. Out here in Midiv, all I.T. run in one group. I do not like being on the track in my slow and light ITB with fast and heavy ITE Vipers and Corvettes and Mustangs. When I ran circle track, all the cars in the group were of similar weight. There was a reason for this. I know that we are not supposed to make contact with each other, but s**t happens. Incidental contact between two 3200 lb cars would have no result, but between a 3200 lb and a 1900 lb and the little car is going to the weeds. It only gets worse as the accident does. If I had a say in anything (which I don't) I would vote against putting V8 pony cars in IT.

See? That's not the issue. If that were the responsibilty of the Ad hocs, are you suggesting that we class NO cars above a certai weight, because some Region might group them in a away that could have didimilar weights on course at the same time???

No. Contact your region, and tell them to stop the practice. Probably best if you attend a few comp board meetings.

BruceG

01-03-2009, 03:37 PM

I was keeping my fingers crossed waiting for the 2009 GCR, but no such luck...

What is the status of the "Pony Car" Proposal? When can we expect somesort of news? Is there anything we can do to help it along? Anyone else out there waiting for this? any other random thoughts?

thanks!!

Chris...my 2009 GCR came in today's(Sat)mail.

Bruce

lateapex911

01-03-2009, 03:43 PM

I think you're picture of these cars is colored by the cheap base models that run tuned barrel induction. How do you account for the lb9/1LE made from 88-92, It had an aluminum driveshaft, 12.86" front rotors with twin piston calipers. 12.86" (326mm) is bigger than the 330i! And what other car in ITR gets an optional aluminum driveshaft?

This is only topped by the equiptment on the 93 Cobra-R, with 13" (330mm) front rotors with twin piston calipers. Better than that a motor with C-R parts on it will put out 260hp with only an ECU tune. It's got special heads, a special camshaft with higher ratio rockers, and 26lb/hr injectors. All of this is legal on the GT beause the Cobra-R is a sub-model. The real horror is that updating/backdating will result in even more power option, like removing the MAF to opperate in Speed-Density mode. Both the f-bodies and Fox-bodies came with Speed-Density injection at some point.

As for the 928, the only version you should be classing would be the 79-82 4.5 liter making 229hp. I doubt there'll be more than one or two of those run, the numbers are just not there to support a big number for development to the level that the Pony cars already have.

James, forgive me if I come across as harsh, but you're a sharp guy....but you've not bothered to read the proposal have you!!?!?!?

WHERE does it say ANYthing about Cobra Rs?!?!

Please, go read the list of cars included. And read the lines at face value. a XXYZ is NOT the same thing as an XXYZ with the 45F option package.

if after reading that list, you know of parts that were stnadard on those cars than can be up/backdated, PLEASE detail exactly what the combination is, and send it to us. But....if you're including Cobra R stuff and the like, then it's a non issue.

lateapex911

01-03-2009, 03:54 PM

The craptastic brakes and suspensions that everyone keeps speaking of are yes inferior to what elese is in the class, but keep in mind that when comparing the pony cars to everything else the driving style and technique is way different. In an ITR s2000, Type R or Prelude, these cars are going to be a smooth momentum style where the BMW's for example fall somewhere in between.

So, you're saying that the parts are inferior, yet Superman can drive around them? A car that doesn't stop is, forgive me, a car that doesn't stop! Put Superman in ALL the cars if you have to think that way.

There are already places for these cars to play so why do we need to make another.Ok....lets try this another way. Bob wants to race. And he wants to race a car that doesn't need it's entire driveline converted...he wants a reasonable level of mods. And he'd like to scare himself a bit..that's HIS happy place. So, IT is the place that fits the desire mod level, and ITR is the appropriate clas for the speed he seeks. And, yea, he's not a snob, and doesn't "have" to race a Porsche or BMW, he'll race anything...just make it as cheap as possible. He wants competition (Why ELSE would you race????), so doing a half assed build and showing up to race against one or two other guys is lame. What he needs is a cheap fun car that's plentiful in a class like ITR. A car like the Mustang or the F bodys.

so why do we need to make another.
To further this thought...we are not MAKING a place for these cars! The playground ALREADY exists! It's all good...just inviting more kids to play...in a carefully controlled manner, of course.

If I wanted to run on a regional level and run a Pony car, I would run a mild build AS car which in turn would be similar to what an ITR build would be. I know that you can go crazy with motor builds, but if you go mild build with the right year 5.0 and develop the rest of the car, brakes and suspension right you will have a boat load of fun and be winning races.
Against who!?!? Weak class it sounds like....(if a half build can win)

Of course there are not that many AS cars at the usual weekend like maybe 1 or 2 if you are lucky.Ahhh...

See, that's the thing. The entire point of racing is to test yourself against the best. Running in a class where nobody shows up, well, that kind of sucks, doesn't it? How meaningful is it to beat one guy?

Z3_GoCar

01-03-2009, 03:56 PM

Read the proposal James. Those versions are specifically disallowed. To use parts from them would be ILLEGAL - just like putting a non-stock cam in your car or other such nonsense.

Parts from those models are excluded and besides they, they are different versions of the car. Your argument is the same as saying you can use the stuff from the M version of your car - you cannot, that is illegal.

First of all, the M example isn't a good example which I'll explain later.

Secondly, that may work for the Cobra-R, but wont for the 1LE. The Cobra-R is a distinct model, sure you can rule that out. But 1LE is an option code, same as Z28 originally was, and we've got a precidence for allowing options, it's called update/backdate. The only way around this is to not class the LB9 motor, which had the 1LE as an option. Instead I'd recommend either the pre-88 H.O. motor (LB9 215hp TPI) or the 88-92 base motor (LO3 170hp TBI)

Finally, do you know the reason that cam shafts are free in BMW's Prepared class? It's because there's no way to tell if it belongs in the correct model. The M isn't a good example because:

1 ) It's a distinct model, with a motor that's a different size. That said there's also....

2 ) Many parts in the e36 M3 is shared with my motor, for example the throttle body, intake manifold, and head all share the same part number.... So based on that and the fact assemblies are allowed to be swapped, can I perform a top-end swap with a M3 motor?

Z3_GoCar

01-03-2009, 04:03 PM

.....
Ahhh...

See, that's the thing. The entire point of racing is to test yourself against the best. Running in a class where nobody shows up, well, that kind of sucks, doesn't it? How meaningful is it to beat one guy?

Sound like all the classes out here except for Special M and SRF.... I imagine that most of the regions are like this.

Z3_GoCar

01-03-2009, 04:12 PM

James, forgive me if I come across as harsh, but you're a sharp guy....but you've not bothered to read the proposal have you!!?!?!?

WHERE does it say ANYthing about Cobra Rs?!?!

Please, go read the list of cars included. And read the lines at face value. a XXYZ is NOT the same thing as an XXYZ with the 45F option package.

if after reading that list, you know of parts that were stnadard on those cars than can be up/backdated, PLEASE detail exactly what the combination is, and send it to us. But....if you're including Cobra R stuff and the like, then it's a non issue.

Sorry Jake,

Since it was three posts long my eye's started to glaze over after about half way through:eek: I saw the exceptions just as I was reading Ron's reply, I think the difference was I read it that time from the bottom up.

lateapex911

01-03-2009, 04:18 PM

Sound like all the classes out here except for Special M and SRF.... I imagine that most of the regions are like this.
That's too bad. I was out there a couple years watching a race at Sonoma on March 31st, and there were easily 40 ITA cars...mostly double dipped Miatas.

Around here, ITB never fails to have 10, and ITA is better than that. 25 to 30 is the norm. ITS is similar. C is weak...2-5. And R has similar to C counts.

Andy Bettencourt

01-03-2009, 04:52 PM

The original proposal excluded the 1LE. The Cobra is not on the proposal either.

Ron Earp

01-03-2009, 05:43 PM

James, have a look at the entire proposal with the graphs and all, I think it'll make more sense. What Jeff has posted is simply the text with no graphs or table formatting.

http://www.gt40s.com/images/Z/ITR%20Pony%20Cars%20Version%202.0%2012-16-071web.doc

Those options and car variations you speak of are specifically disallowed.

Knestis

01-03-2009, 08:10 PM

It definitely shouldn't be ignored, it should be eradicated. If an ITAC member can't divorce themselves from their subjective opinions on a topic I would hope they would have the ability to admit that and step out of the discussion. ...

Everyone - including ITAC members - are allowed to have their opinions about what's right (so not right) for the category, Ron. We all base our specific suggestions about "how it should be" based on bigger principles or values. Some people think that ITR is "supposed to look" a particular way. I don't agree and will argue it but MY position is based on a set of principles that others might not share, too.

That's part of the reason that changes take time in this organization. We start out disagreeing about some piddly little rule, beat it to death, discover that we have some fundamental disagreement, then work to find common ground - then we move back to resolve the piddly rule based on a new consensus.

There's posts here that are CLEARLY rooted in a local perspective, based on experience, that a half-prepared AS car can win races. We see arguments from drivers all over the nation based on that - and other - points of view. We have to make our decisions based on certain assumptions that might be inconsistent with those experiences (e.g., some entrant being willing to spend $50K to win IT races), and yes - our own subjective opinions have to play into that.

We can't "eradicate" those views. We can educate or legislate around them, maybe.

K

Z3_GoCar

01-03-2009, 08:43 PM

Because it would be the car to have in ITR here in So-Pac, I looked up a 87-92 camero manual transmission, v8 on autotrader. According to Edmunds they should be priced between $1200 and $2500. Well the results were 16 cars across the whole country, two were convertibles, and one of the coupes was a 5.7, with 11 being priced above $3000, and the most expensive was $9k!! I guess I underestimated how many came with automatic transmission, and how many ended up in the salvage yard because a teen driver wrapped it around a tree. Even as dominate as these cars would be here on our wide open tracks, I doubt I'll ever see one because they are either being saved for a future BJ auction, of are clapped out junk suitable for a destruction derby.

JoshS

01-03-2009, 09:47 PM

I think people would build put a new drivetrain into a car that was originally an automatic, if manual transmission cars are that hard to find.

ekim952522000

01-03-2009, 09:50 PM

.........Some people think that ITR is "supposed to look" a particular way........

But Mustangs and Camaro's are already classed in ITR? so it will "look" the same. Right?

Ron Earp

01-03-2009, 11:16 PM

Kirk,

I think you are right. The scientist in me wants to reduce the decision making process down to a decision tree or an equation. And I know that can't ever happen. However, I do hold out hope that if an ITAC member is expressing an opinion that s/he knows is not based in fact, or is based on the wrong facts, and can be proven to be such, then that member would be willing to step away from the decision making process.

James,

Why do you think a Camaro be the car to have in SoPac? The cars are relatively common and while you might only turn up eleven now you can always obtain one. And, they are inexpensive compared to some other desirable ITR iron such as the 944 S2 (owned one up until last year), the 968, and a hard top 300zx (Jeff has one now), or a Supra (be an aweome ITR car but far more rare than the rarest Mustang or Camaro). The Ford Mustang is quite accessible and essentially the same car - do a search for 94-95 Mustang GT 5 speeds. If you get less than 50 available I'd be suprised.

There aren'tt any 1/2 prepared AS cars winning races in the Southeast, that much I know. Or 1/2 prepared IT cars. The NE and SE are tough areas to go winning in without bringing serious preparation.

Z3_GoCar

01-04-2009, 12:16 AM

James,

Why do you think a Camaro be the car to have in SoPac? The cars are relatively common and while you might only turn up eleven now you can always obtain one. And, they are inexpensive compared to some other desirable ITR iron such as the 944 S2 (owned one up until last year), the 968, and a hard top 300zx (Jeff has one now), or a Supra (be an aweome ITR car but far more rare than the rarest Mustang or Camaro). The Ford Mustang is quite accessible and essentially the same car - do a search for 94-95 Mustang GT 5 speeds. If you get less than 50 available I'd be suprised.....

We've got three track here, one's a Roval, one's one of the oldest in the US since 1953, and one is owned by the club and has multiple configurations. The Roval is obviously biased to a high hp car that can be wide for about a third of a lap in the infield.

http://www.autoclubspeedway.com/seating_charts_maps/track_maps/

The historic track has only one tricky and historically deadly corner. Other than that it's pretty wide open and suitable to a car with top speed, and not very hard on brakes either as all but one brake zone is up hill.

http://www.willowspringsraceway.com/trackinformation/RoadCourseLg.htm

The final track is where most of our regional races are held. It's a multi-configuration track. Of all the configurations only one would place a pony car at a disadvantage. This is the same track where I rolled at, and in that configuration a camero would be a class killer, with the 1/4 mile straight leading to a slightly banked turn to a second 1/4 mile straight. These cars would walk anything else in ITR on that configuration.

Now if we had a Laguna Seca or Infineon, that would be a different story. But we don't.

JeffYoung

01-04-2009, 12:35 AM

Don't see anything there much different from Daytona, Lowe's, Road Atlanta, Roebling, CMP or VIR.

Knestis

01-04-2009, 08:15 AM

The Golf sucks in medium-to-low speed corners of 180* or more, but it climbs hills like a tank and loves fast corners. Do we give it a weight break for Mid Ohio or a lead trophy for VIR...?

Point being, we class and spec cars based on their mechanical attributes, to put them in performance "buckets" that are theoretically in the same ballpark, called a "class." Every class will have cars that are better in some places (corners, tracks, or even regions because of how tracks might be), and worse in others.

The next argument, extending logically from here, is the 'they race differently' issue. "They drive past on the straight, then I have to fight to pass them in the corners." Same answer there: It's how things are - and have always been - in multi-marque racing.

K

CRallo

01-04-2009, 10:03 AM

Hey guys, LOVE the discussion!! Many of you have brought up good points and everyone is being kept honest so to speak... its good to see so much input.

i am however disappointed that someone would harbor predjudices such as those being refered to regarding the addition of these cars to ITR. I could just as easily say "Get your Jap Crap and German Junk off our beloved American racetracks!!" but i don't. Thats not why we do what we do... An attitude like that needs to go back to PCA or where ever it came from!

Many of you are scared that these cars could dominate... As much as it kills me to admit it, I think it could be a good fit. The only thing I'm scared of is being classed too heavy b/c of the apparent paranoia. I own one of these cars, i know what it takes to make them fast and you can't do any of it with in the IT ruleset.

So it makes some torque... all that wins is the start and short drag races off corners... these cars lose power over about 5k rpm and will get runover. It doesn't take long for the Honda's and Rx7's to catch the Nissans and BMW's does it?

I have dreamed of these cars since I was seven years old. I worked my ass off and bought a Z28 for my first car when i was almost 17 and still have it today. Don't ask me why I'm not a statistic, I don't have an answer for you lol :) I want to race one of these. I want to be able to win, not just drive laps or I would do track days. I do not have the budget for AS or IT"X" so what am I to do??

In a time of shrinking race budgets, why not invite people to play where it costs less? It just makes sense...

jjjanos

01-04-2009, 11:26 AM

It is not about whether it is German or American. I feel that the V8 cars already have a place to play so why change things.

I feel very strongly about the above statement. All of the V8 pony cars have a place to run currently in AS or SS or IT as far as on a regional level. Why are they even being considered for ITR. I believe that it will just disturb the class structure.

There we have an arguement against the very existence of IT....

Do all of our cars have a place to play in Prod or GT? Yes.
Has the existence of IT disturbed car counts in Prod and GT? I would say yes.

Clearly it is time that the ITAC correct this long-standing error and advocate that IT be abolished and the cars returned to the ranks of Prod And GT.

Of course, our cars as they sit will be uncompetitive but...

If I wanted to run on a regional level and run a Pony car, I would run a mild build AS car which in turn would be similar to what an ITR build would be.

Just run regionals!

Frankly, if I were an AS driver, I would be very worried about American V8s in IT. It's the first step in the withering of AS.

benspeed

01-04-2009, 11:51 AM

I think the V8 cars really should be classed in ITR. This is what makes IT such a great class - we do have a solid process to class cars. I think the small 8 cylinder motors should race in R but they will be heavy.

"Frankly, if I were an AS driver, I would be very worried about American V8s in IT. It's the first step in the withering of AS."

That's a great observation and I fully agree. V8 drivers will flock to IT because of the same reasons we do - great rules to keep costs under control.

I don't recall who said it earlier but, "trust the process." I think there's a great perspective on car potential built into our classing process.

lateapex911

01-04-2009, 11:56 AM

But Mustangs and Camaro's are already classed in ITR? so it will "look" the same. Right?

LOL, ironic, isn't it!?

Here's the basic transcript I had with a guy about this.

Him: "I don't like the idea at all. They just aren't right for the class"
Me: "What do you mean by "aren't right"??
- "ITR is supposed to be high end foreign cars"
-"ITR is supposed to be faster than ITS. Nowhere is it written that it's only for high end foreign cars!"
- "Well, if these cars get in, all we're going to have is a bunch of these and a couple other cars,"
- Tough problem to have! I think having cars classed that people actually want to run is a good thing~!
-"Well, it won't look right to have big American cars out there with the others"
"We have that NOW! There are V6 versions of these cars already classed"
-"Yea, but they don't matter"

......and so it went.

My head assploded.

Of course, that's my opinion, and his opinion. I think mine is grounded in logic, but hey, I've been wrong before.

There have been threads on this before, and the comments have been enlightening, to say the least. One fellow objected because he didn't want to share the track with Pony car drivers in his nice Snooty Motor Corp Perfectomobile. He felt that as a group they would obviously be inferior drivers, and have no regard for his car, because they were driving badly in their craptastic buckets.....

:shrug:

Knestis

01-04-2009, 12:24 PM

cjb25hs

01-04-2009, 01:15 PM

Well, to be honest if I were going to compete in ITR with a Pony Car even if the V-8 cars are classed, I would build a 96-02 V6 Camaro. I had a '97 that I ran in SOLOII. It was a very competitive G Stock car. You could order it with the performance option, don't remember the code, but it gave you the 3.42 rear end and limited slip out of the Z28 and the Z28 4 wheel disc brakes. Essentially if you ordered that car with that option it was a Z28 with a 200HP V6 that had almost 50/50 weight distribution. The front of the block was behind the centerline of the front axle.

With an IT build expect about 250HP and 260 to 280TQ and at 2815lbs should be a good car.

Now of course if I wanted to run ITR and be at the front I would build a different car. What that would it be, well that would depend on what part of the country and what type of tracks I would run on.

lateapex911

01-04-2009, 02:41 PM

But wait - that's not ALL...!! For a limited time we can also offer you...

"It's not fair that someone could build a competitive ITR Mustang for so much less than I have invested in my [whatever]."

The Economic card!!!

"Body parts are so cheap, Camaro drivers won't care about crashing into my [whatever]."

The Low Life Scum Card!

"Even if they're running the same lap times, I'll have to pass them every lap, then they'll pass me, etc."

The Bizzaro Anti Racing Card! (Straight out of Bizzaroland!)

"It's going to be DANGEROUS for me to try to pass them in the corners."

The Safety Card!! (My personal favorite, as it's always used to cloak the objectors true issue)

"Performance parts are so cheap that there won't be anything keeping them from cheating."

The Cheating Card! (My second favorite, as it always humors me that the objector has somehow failed to realize that EVERY car can be illegal!)

Now how much would you pay for this amazing offer...???

:)

But wait, isn't there more?? ;)

........And the really interesting dynamic is when someone is willing to argue one specious position to hide another, even more selfish motivation...

K

Yup, that's the Double the Fun Card! The objector has stooped to even lower levels to hide his true objection, because of personal fears/benefits, then tries convince us of his higher morals. You need deep boots for that one, but they ARE easy to smack out of the park..

OK, sorry, having a bit too much fun here. Not trying to step on anyone's toes.....

Jim

01-05-2009, 10:22 PM

Jake,

I think you left one out ...

Some people are anti-mullet. They say things about not wanting V8's in ITR, just to mask their true feelings about mullets.

Plus don't even get me started about Member's Only jackets. I wonder if I can get a Member's Only racing suit to go with my Camaro. That would be too cool.

Plus I am not even sure why folks are so spun up about V8's in ITR. Everybody knows V8's get classed in ITS. Jeff has that TR8 V8 deal over in ITS.

Jim

JeffYoung

01-05-2009, 11:10 PM

I proposed the cration of ITM -- IT Mullett -- over on the brown board. They are all into classing Honda Fits and stuff over there, so they ignored me.

Jim, I could break out the tan Members Only with epulets, and put a cage in my 72 Charger and go racing.

What Bitchin' Maro do you have? Is it, perchance, a "Berlinetta"?

Marcus Miller

01-06-2009, 01:06 AM

If its not a honda...

Marcus <-- closest mullet enthusiast, with a 68 Mootang in the garage.

Jim

01-06-2009, 08:34 AM

Jeff,

I am between F-Body cars at present. I had a '68 Camaro and a '75 Trans Am (with ThunderChicken on hood). This little gem has caught my eye:
http://baltimore.craigslist.org/cto/971190419.html

I do think (and I sent a note to the CRB some time ago) the Pony Cars in ITR plan does make sense - trust the process and give the members more choices.

Ron Earp

01-06-2009, 08:41 AM

People get worked up over fear.

GRM has and intersting "Best of 2008" article in the latest issue. In one section they take cars from the best classes and drive them on the Streets of Willow for comparison times. Naturally the test is not a scientific comparison but the results were somewhat interesting:

Spec Miata, 116 whp, 110 wtq, 1:04.231 laptime, 2350 lbs
SRF, 113 hp (flywheel I assume, 124 tq, 1:00.116, 1670 lbs
CMC (Camaro Mustang Challenge), 230 whp, 290 wtq, 1:01.407 laptime, weight 3150lbs, 1995 Mustang GT
Factory Five Challenge, 225 hp (flywheel), 300 tq (flywheel), 59.679 laptime, weight 2450lbs

The later two are powered by Ford 5L V8s. The CMC car is sporting an illegal for IT "Cobra Intake" to get around problems with the stock factory piece. In IT you'd have to use that shortened and flattened restrictive piece. The FFC car is over 600 lbs lighter than what we've speced for Pony cars in ITR.

quadzjr

01-06-2009, 08:49 AM

With an IT build expect about 250HP and 260 to 280TQ and at 2815lbs should be a good car.

That is some decent gains. Are you refering to a full level IT build or just headers, intake, chip, etc..?

JeffYoung

01-06-2009, 09:17 AM

I have a technical question.

Can I tuck my mullett into my driving suit, or do I need a mulletclava?

JeffYoung

01-06-2009, 09:20 AM

I liked those mid 70s TransAms myself, especially (of course) the 73 and 74 Super Duties. That scene in American Beauty where Lester's wife comes home to find one in the driveway is classic........

That 89 should make a good ARRRRRGGGGH car........break out the mulletclava!

Jeff,

I am between F-Body cars at present. I had a '68 Camaro and a '75 Trans Am (with ThunderChicken on hood). This little gem has caught my eye:
http://baltimore.craigslist.org/cto/971190419.html

I do think (and I sent a note to the CRB some time ago) the Pony Cars in ITR plan does make sense - trust the process and give the members more choices.

lateapex911

01-06-2009, 10:20 AM

Dollar for dollar, a mid 70s Trans Am was a pretty fast car.

erlrich

01-06-2009, 11:26 AM

That is some decent gains. Are you refering to a full level IT build or just headers, intake, chip, etc..?

For the six banger it's going to take a full tilt IT build to get 250 hp. With bolt-ons & tuning you could probably get close to 230-235, but not 250. Also, if someone can legally get a 4th gen car down to 2815 with a 180 lb driver I'll be shocked. I think even getting one much under 3000 will take a lot of work.

And I love all the AS comparisons; the fact that fully prepped AS cars are only running a second or two faster than the top ITR cars is one of the reasons I'm re-thinking my idea of building my '02 Camaro into an ITR car (which is why I bought it to start with). I'm still planning to get it on track just to see if it has any potential whatsoever, but I'm not optimistic.

Jeff - I think as long as you can find a nomex dew rag (preferably with a confederate flag on it) to tuck the hair into you'll be just fine :D

GKR_17

01-17-2009, 02:06 AM

Not exactly a pony car, but what about the C3 vettes? I see quite a few with under 200 hp stock.

JeffYoung

01-17-2009, 11:31 AM

Now this is a good point. Late 70s/early 80s Vettes had what, 170-180 hp stock? They were the performance of equivalent of a TR8 at the time, if that tells you something.....

Would be a decent R car I think. Torque, decent brakes, decent suspension (or at least correctable).

lateapex911

01-17-2009, 04:05 PM

Fine with me! Run them with the 308s. 80's rednecks vs 80's poseurs!

tnord

01-17-2009, 04:23 PM

think of the potential ITR grid in 5 years or so when ITR gets going after the economy recovers...

old school american iron C3 Vettes next to fancy-pants 308 ferrari next to euro touring car BMWs next to modern high tech japanese 4cyl Honda's alongside the newest rotary RX8 ahead of redneck pony cars with a few NA versions of 90's japanese supercars.

seriously cool.

Bob Roth

01-17-2009, 07:09 PM

I think a root cause of the objection of V8's in ITR is the way the committee assignes clasifications and weights using OEM peak hp. I think this really puts highly tuned honda VTEC cars that have 100 hp/liter at disadvantage when classed against less than 33 to 45 hp/liter american cars.

I have put a lot of work into my VTEC delsol, (Hondata 300, Hytech header, tuned intake, extensive tyno tuning) to get your expected 25% hp increase . I got a bit of midrange but no substantial increase of hp. The result was 150 whp at 7400. Of course from a 1.6 liter engine thats darn good. Why would I expect more? Torque (ignition timing, displacement, and compression ratio) are already good, and the engine is limited by valve float at over 8000. So, no surprise it realy can't be improved upon when its already 100 hp per liter. What do you expect; 125 hp per liter?? That would be a world challenge motor. Forget it.

(ps our 1.8 liter Integra Type R is 184 whp or essentially 100 whp/per literin IT trim and 109 street hp/liter per stock oem rating).

Meanwhile, take you '80's smog motor that that at 33 to 45 hp/liter, put a big exhaust, intake system, and wake up the engine management, extend the RPM/hp peak from 5000 to 6000 rpm and a 25% increase to 40 to 60 hp/liter sounds doable.

The last point is, cheating. At 100 hp/per liter, something like a type r has nothing to work with (it always has a race cam, and it is already reving to 8400 rpm); do I need to use nitrous?. Besides, if cheating is my goal, it would be a lot easier to start cheating with a car who puts out 40 hp per liter than one with 100 hp, come on....

I looked at the ARCC results, no honda's are entered in ITS. The beauty of the modern japanese cars is that on the engine side, they are pretty fully developed and are near IT maximum as stock. Accordingly we are fighting with a way short stick in IT against low power to displacement V8's.

I really think the ITAC should use something other than OEM power when balancing cars. It puts modern cars at a disadvantage, and it puts VTEC hondas at a huge disadvantage.

If the ITAC fixes the way that hp, is rated, I would be fine with V8's in ITR. Don't, and I think more ITR owners will feel the way that current Honda VTEC owners do about their chances to be competitive.

For comparison from Andy's notes and using his formula (IT Weight = 9.95 * (Stock HP) + 890.8), here are ITR stock power per liter

BMW 325 --75 hp/liter
BMW 328 -- 70 hp/liter
944 S2 --66 hp/liter
Maxima -- 72 hp/liter
300zx -- 79 hp/liter
Supra -- 78 hp/liter
Acura type R -- 109 hp/liter

Camaro (5.8 liter) -- 33.3 hp/liter
Ford Mustang (5 liter) -- 45 hp/liter

For some time, the IT formula has killed competitiveness of VTEC honda's. Who knows, if we let V8 cars at 33 to 50 hp/liter use the same formula as 70 to 100 hp per liter nissans, porsche's and toyotas, maybe somebody other than the Honda VTEC racers will realize how unfair the present rating system is.

Please tell me how to get to 125 hp/liter in a honda legally and I will be glad to oblige in retracting these comments.

Ron Earp

01-17-2009, 08:09 PM

Hi Bob,

I think you'll find the membership was in favor of the V8 pony cars in ITR. I understand that the letters received were around ten to one FOR the inclusion of V8 Pony cars.

I understand what you are commenting on with respect to the ITR Type Integra being in a high state of tune from the factory. However, ITR may not be the proper place for Type R Integras. The average car in ITR has significantly more displacement than 1.8L, more horsepower, and more torque than the Type R Integra. It could be that a Type R isn't a good choice for ITR and/or doesn't fit well in the class.

In any event, it'd be a shame to limit the ITR cars based on the inclusion of a single car, or couple of cars, that just barely qualified for the minimum specification for an ITR. The minimum horsepower specifction was 190hp and the Type R, as well as the 1.8L Celica GTS, just barely make it. They make the horsepower number but do so with small displacement when compared to other cars in the class.

"Ease of cheating" isn't a valid argument against including V8 Pony cars in ITR. The SCCA needs not worry about how easy or hard it is to cheat in a class. The rules are broken with a BMW 2.5L motor stroked to 3L just as easily as they are with a Ford 302 inch motor stroked to 347 inches. The only Camaro that was specified in the Pony car proposal was the 5L Camaro. The 5.7L motor was not considered.

Ron

Knestis

01-17-2009, 08:31 PM

>> ...The last point is, cheating. At 100 hp/per liter, something like a type r has nothing to work with (it always has a race cam, and it is already reving to 8400 rpm); do I need to use nitrous?. Besides, if cheating is my goal, it would be a lot easier to start cheating with a car who puts out 40 hp per liter than one with 100 hp, come on....

You want us to include as a consideration for weight specs, trying to allow each make/model to be cheated up equitably? REALLY...?

K

lateapex911

01-17-2009, 08:32 PM

Bob....I totally see the point regarding hp/displacement. I ring that bell ALL the time...ask anyone on the ITAC. The S2000 is an awesome example of how we varied from the standard operating procedure, and I'd argue even that wasn't enough...but, I think that it's not a point that applies to every one of the cars you mention. You mentioned no Hondas were entered ro did well at the ARRCs. Well i remember a Prelude that ran second for most of the 07 race until burning up a rear bearing, and that particular car owns a few lap recrds, at tracks with solid ITS records. Finally, we're not prod. it takes a LOT..as well it should...for us to vary from the SOP.

But....I agree with Ron that you can't eliminate cars from being classed because you don't like the way others are classed. That's being exclusionary.

The solution is to remedy the issues with the cars you feel are being classed incorrectly, not barring any other cars that could beat the "maligned" cars.

Further, you speak as though the V8s will make big gains...based on their crappy specific displacement...and you mention an intake system. I am sure you're not referring to the actual intake manifold, which can't be changed, and is the kink in the hose on these cars. Factory hp is used because, in general it reflects what the cars will make after a build, as the core components to HP are stock and must remain. As always, remember Kip VanSteenburgs methods...read the spec line carefully, compare the specs, choose wisely. And, it's not ALL decided by the engine.

Xian

01-17-2009, 09:00 PM

Hi Bob,

Here's a quote of my response to your same post over int he Honda specific forum:

The D16 SOHC VTEC engine was rated at 125hp... those cars are classed in ITA (1992-1995 Civic EX/Si). The later 99+ Si cars used a B16 that was very similar to what's in your Del Sol.

A couple of questions... you mention that you've put time and money into the engine build. Have you take full advantage of the porting and compression bump allowances? How about an overbore?

As far as weight, I think the cars/engines you listed are reasonably classed and weighted. The GSR has been shown to be a podium runner when well driven, developed, and fully 10/10th's built. The Del Sol VTEC, and Civic Si in ITS are both 160#'s lighter with a smaller and less torquey engine... remember "no guarantee of competitiveness".

ARRC entries aren't really indicative of anything... especially this year with the economy iin the toilet. Add to this the fact that both Ivan and Greg Amy both wrote off very strong GSR's within a few months of the ARRC and you really just don't have much of anything there...

Christian

Ron, I'm all for having the ITR and Celica in ITR... I wasn't in on the original classing and math but am wondering if it was another case of "light" in one class or really "heavy" in another. I know most folks will take light and in a faster class if, for nothing else, it cuts down on abuse to the brakes and tires :shrug:

Ron Earp

01-17-2009, 09:52 PM

Ron, I'm all for having the ITR and Celica in ITR... I wasn't in on the original classing and math but am wondering if it was another case of "light" in one class or really "heavy" in another.

I'm fine with them in there too - as long as those driving/building them don't try to limit the class based on the limitations of the car they picked to race. There is no guarantee of competitiveness in IT. It is fact the cars are borderline for the class and have the smallest displacement engines in the group. If you decide to run one you've got to know that you'll be at a disadvantage with respect to power and hopefully you can capitalize on other attributes of the car.

You are correct with them being something of a tweener. The GTS comes in at 2380 lbs, the lightest car in ITR, 1.8L, 190 hp. I am not sure why the Type Arrggh is 200lbs heavier with only 5 more hp and the same size motor. Anyhow, seems to me that both could be in ITS at a heavier weight. But racing them at a lighter weight would be preferable, I completely agree.

Cobrar05

01-18-2009, 02:07 PM

I feel very strongly about the above statement. All of the V8 pony cars have a place to run currently in AS or SS or IT as far as on a regional level. Why are they even being considered for ITR. I believe that it will just disturb the class structure.

If you take a say 1979 to 2002 fox body mustang and prep it for ITR, how much difference would there be in lap time performance versus an ASedan car. Probably less than second. Of course that would really depend on what the weight the car was set at in ITR.

I think if you feel this way, you must know very little about the V8 classes that you are talking about. AS requires a formula that has not been available in a Mustang street car since 1995. The any Mustang there after built with the 4.6L DOHC engine, 13" brakes and 17" wheels needs to be torn down to a roller to be effective.

These cars are now allowed in AS with a weight penalty that makes participation unrealistic.

There is a reason there are 10-15 of these cars per event racing NASA American Iron and 2 or 3 AS cars and no Touring cars. How many ITR cars are there on average?

The SCCA needs to make these cars easier to race, somewhere, somehow and with a chance to be competitive. Its a great source of entries that is not being properly marketed to.

Cobrar05

01-18-2009, 02:12 PM

i.e. ITE of course the ruleset varies mostly by division and region for ITE but any of the Escort, Firehawk i.e. IMSA or older SSGT mustangs, camaros and firebirds can run in ITE so why do we need to creat an ITV class or look at putting them in a newer IT, i.e. (ITR) class that has a great start at being of another awesome class like ITA and ITS!

Simple, ITE/ITO allows cars prepped far beyond the IMSA, Firehawk, Grand Am Street stock classes. The Mustang that won ITO at the ARRC had 600hp under the hood.
The cars we are talking about for ITR have half that horsepower or so. My Cobra R dyno's at 320whp. I don't even bother to race ITO sprint races anymore unless I need to just log a race for my license.

I race enduros when I am allowed because I have an actual race with ITR and good ITS cars.

JeffYoung

01-18-2009, 02:13 PM

Bob, one thing I immediately noticed in your thread is the assumption that the V8s are going to make huge gains in power. They may, they may not. There is evidence they won't. Let's take a harder look at your list.

I think every Japanese car you list has 4 valves per cylinder, dual overhead cams, GOOD cams, and high compression.

Take a look sometime at the stock comperssion, head design, and cam specs for the cars we are talking about classing.

I would suggest that the collorary of your argument that the Hondas/Nissans/Toyotoas are maxed out and don't gain much in IT trim MIGHT BE that the V8s have inheriting limiting factors that won't result in power per cubic inch rates anywhere near what your car makes.

P.S. -- I of course understand that the displacement of the V8s will necessarily produce a lot of torque, and I think we have tried to account for that in our proposal.

Bob Roth

01-18-2009, 05:04 PM

The point I am making is that the ITAC process that uses a fixed 1.25 Hp multiplier discriminates against cars like Honda VTEC’s that come from the factory with high stock HP/liter ratios.

With the present rule, a non-vtec 2.3 Prelude SI at 160 hp at 70 hp/liter is allowed to race at less weight than a 1.8 GSR VTEC which has 94 hp per liter. I believe that at 70 hp/liter, the prelude far better benefits from increased compression, computer and breathing than a 94 hp/liter GSR. The best evidence I can give is the non-VTEC Mid Ohio lap record holding for sale on the forum. He says it far better than I can. Go to http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25399 (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25399)

Bottom line, he's right, the VTEC prelude which has a ton more torque and development potential than a GSR. As he says, why race a VTEC GSR under the current rules?

I think we need to add a factor for Hp/Liter. My suggestion would be to ratio the OEM HP multiplier in a straight line assuming 100% multiplier for 100 hp/liter, 115% multiplier for 70hp/liter and 125% for 50hp per liter. Assuming the below formula, if we capped the max Hp/liter at 100 and the low at 50, the adjusted hp for IT would be

Adj Hp = (100 - OEM Hp/Liter)/50*.25+1

Class----- Car----- Liter----- OEMHP ----Hp/Liter---- Adjustment -----Adjusted Hp
ITR -----BMW 325-2.5------- 187.5------- 75------------ 1.13-------------- 211
ITR----- BMW 328 --2.8------- 196 --------70------------ 1.15-------------- 225
ITR----- 944 S2------ 3-------- 198--------- 70----------- 1.15-------------- 228
ITR------ Maxima---- 3--------- 216-------- 72------------ 1.14-------------- 246
ITR------ 300ZX----- 3---------- 237-------- 79------------ 1.11-------------- 262
ITR------- Supra----- 3---------- 234-------- 78------------ 1.11------------- 260
ITR------ Type R---- 1.8-------- 190------- 100------------ 1.00------------- 190
"ITR" -----Camaro--- 5.8------- 230-------- 40------------- 1.25------------- 288
"ITR"----- Mustang---- 5-------- 225-------- 45------------- 1.25------------- 281

ITS------- GSRVTEC --1.8------ 170-------- 94------------- 1.03------------- 175
ITS------- Prelude Si-- 2.3------ 160-------- 70------------- 1.15------------- 184
NonVTEC
ITS------Prelude VTEC 2.2------ 190------- 86-------------- 1.07------------- 203
ITS -Civic/Sol VTEC --1.6------- 160------- 100------------- 1.00------------ 160

ITA ----Integra -------1.8-------- 143-------- 79------------- 1.10------------- 158
ITA Civic EX VTEC ---1.6-------- 127-------- 79------------- 1.10------------- 140

See next post for continuation

Bob Roth

01-18-2009, 05:49 PM

To the eye –

For ITR there starts feeling some equivalence between the 300ZX Nissans, the Supra and the pony cars. As for the Type R, I think its better in ITS.

As for ITS class, with these adjustments a Prelude Si is still less adjusted HP than a Prelude VTEC, however now the GSR is allowed less weight at 1.8 liters than the prelude at 2.3 liters. If you think that’s unfair, ask why is it that the Prelude has the lap records? With a 203 adjusted hp, I think there is a better case case for Prelude VTEC’s in ITR than there is for the Integra Type R. At the same time, I think the Civic SI/Sol VTEC is a better car for ITA.

For ITA class, the parity of the civic EX and Acura Integra doesn’t change as they have the same Hp/Liter. However, with these adjustments the Civic Si/Sol VTEC would slot in at the same weight as a Integra which would be fine with me as I am running very competitively with a ITA tegs and miata’s and would need only about 30 pounds to make the new weight with an empty tank.

What I like about these changes are that we eliminate the fallacy that a 160 hp 1.6 Civic SI VTEC is essentially the same as a 160 hp 2.3 liter non-VTEC Prelude. Everybody who races Honda’s knows that’s not true, that’s why most don’t build VTEC’s today. I hope this doesn’t give too much heartburn, its not intended to. The world is thick with Honda VTEC’s and people who want to race them. If you want more VTEC cars, change the rules.

JeffYoung

01-18-2009, 05:56 PM

Bob, there are so many errors in those numbers its hard to work with (you have the stock 300zx horsepower wrong, you are using the 350 for the Camaro, etc.).

I can tell you right now that I personally would not be able to support a change like this that ties expected improvement in IT trim solely to displacement. You never answered my point about how the V8s may have some architectural issues that could provent the gains you are afraid of, and when you chart shows effectively no gain for some motors in IT trim it's hard to take it serious, I'm sorry.

Andy Bettencourt

01-18-2009, 06:19 PM

Especially seeing as how cars like the GSR can - and do - make the 25% increase. It's listed at 3% in Bob's model.

The best we can (and should) do, is start from an estimate (25%) and adjust when we know something to be wrong. To simply assign based on displacement has things fubar'd huge.

Agian, we aren't trying to balance on the head of a pin here. The process will slightly fail some cars and slightly benefit some cars but at the point we try and start adjusting 2-3%, I think we have failed what makes IT great.

Bob Roth

01-18-2009, 06:21 PM

For those curious on what my sol has, its the ex Fenton Beede motorolla cup car - its really good for weight and suspension. In 2003 it was a NASA Honda Challenge S2 car, national class runner up. Back then, I believe the engine prep was very comparable to IT, overbore, compression etc. I can't vouch for the head but having gone to Steve Coletti shop who has built and raced these engines for a decade, taking Steve's word, 155 hp is about all you are going to see in IT trim.

I have to agree considering 1.8 GSR's are getting 174 hp which is a straight ratio up from 1.8 from 1.6. As Steve says, the engine can only work with the intake and displacement honda gave it. Its not a type R and there is very little improvement to be gotten. Again, its already 100 hp/liter, if you got 125 hp/liter it would be a World Challenge motor.

As it is, the 1.6 Sol VTEC at about 2650 pounds would be a good ITA car. Run it at 2550 pounds with driver (its 2350 empty) against a 2555 pound 2.3 liter prelude SI, its a joke. But thats what the rules say.

Ps. Sorry for talking about both ITS and ITR in the same string. I own a ITR Type R for endurance and a ITS Sol for sprint, this rule and these comments apply to both.

Knestis

01-18-2009, 06:22 PM

To the eye –

...However, with these adjustments the Civic Si/Sol VTEC would slot in at the same weight as a Integra which would be fine with me as I am running very competitively with a ITA tegs and miata’s and would need only about 30 pounds to make the new weight with an empty tank. ...

Again, I think there's some merit to what you're suggesting but the kind of rationale presented above just can't make it into the conversation, with any kind of merit. I nose-to-tail with Vesa Siligren as often as not this past season, but that doesn't make the Golf III an ITC car.

K

Bob Roth

01-18-2009, 06:43 PM

To jeff's comment about the errors, please understand I am not on the committee and don't have the committe HP numbers. I back calculating the HP's based upon the formula in his string, if I got it wrong, oops. On the Camaro, if that engine is a 305 instead of a 350, it wouldn't make a difference in that anything less than 50 hp/liter would get the same 1.25

Please note what I am trying to do, deal with the HP/liter outlyers. My premise is that the present rule works fine fro cars that are in the range of 70hp/liter (typical Toyota, Nissan, BMW) but doesn't work for VTEC cars. My bet is it isn't going to work for V8's in ITR.

As for the GSR that supposedly is getting 25% increase, I don't believe it. With that intake manifold, throttle body, unported head and compression, he's saying he's getting better performance than a type R? Cool. I wonder what he knows that all the other GSR owners don't?

Bottom line, if the rules were right, where are all the VTEC cars?

lateapex911

01-18-2009, 06:53 PM

Bottom line, if the rules were right, where are all the VTEC cars?

THAT is a very good question....

But your premise is that is ONLY the rules that keep them away...but is it??

Before I take this further, I ask you a question, that has two parts-

If the weights were set "properly" how many new entrants would we see??, and...what would "properly" be, for those entrants to feel they wanted to race?

Bob Roth

01-18-2009, 07:08 PM

The ITA Integra 1.8 is very equal to a Honda 1.6 B16 VTEC. They use the sameblock, they use the same head, but the 1.6 has a different intake and a VTEC. They use the same suspension. They ought to be close

All I know is that having jumped a 2.5 liter Porsche 944 and a Gen 2 Rx7 at the start, they flat passed me 2 laps into the race. But how can that be, isn't a 160 1.6 liter Honda better than a 155 hp 2.5 liter Porsche? --especially out of a turn?---

Stock hp basis totally ignores the development potential of the engine. Again, where do I improve an engine that is already 100 hp per liter? I will gladly drop the coin to make a legal 175 whp 1.6 VTEC motor, but I don't see any builder proposing how to do it without a GUD cam, 12 to 1 race pistons, Extrudehone the intake system, and using flyweight valves and full race springs. Believe me, I have asked. If somebody is getting 25% increase numbers from a GSR, let him explain how.

tnord

01-18-2009, 07:24 PM

i like ya bob, but i think you're off on this one.

1) a couple REAL GOOD ITS Intega's were built last year, and quickly wrecked. see Blake's comments about a ~175whp car that he built the motor for. it was on the dyno, those are the numbers, it can make 25%.
2) even though i'm a miata guy, i would run a GSR in ITS without much hesitation, especially at a place like RA (either one). you really have to pay attention to heat in the front wheel assemblies, but that's going to be the case with any ITS/ITR FWD car. every car has issues, and the GSR has it's share, but that doesn't mean it can't be competitive. are there better options? i think so, but as Andy said, tip of a pin is not the goal....and shouldn't be. this isn't SM.
3) Dyno's are different. Coletti's may be spitting out a number that artificially makes the cars look like they aren't making as good of power as the process says.
4) you'd get a lot farther if you suggested a process that had a reasonable output. ZERO gain for your type R bob? really? i know you've had that on the dyno.
5) i think the best route for you would be to try to get the 1.6l VTEC cars into ITA rather than trying to turn the process, which has unquestionably produced a better, stronger IT class since the years of its implemention......on it's head.

Knestis

01-18-2009, 07:29 PM

...All I know is that having jumped a 2.5 liter Porsche 944 and a Gen 2 Rx7 at the start, they flat passed me 2 laps into the race. But how can that be, isn't a 160 1.6 liter Honda better than a 155 hp 2.5 liter Porsche? --especially out of a turn?---

I'm not picking on you in particular, Bob but I can think of a big pile of reasons - tire brand, tire age, suspension set-up, dyno tuning time, strategic advantages/disadvantages, traffic, engine builder's knowledge, fuel, legality, condition of consumables (bearings, bushings, etc.), driver skill and/or bravery, weather conditions, local track knowledge, nature of the track, and a BUNCH of tiny little differences that might add up the kind of difference you describe, if they all stack out one way.

...I will gladly drop the coin to make a legal 175 whp 1.6 VTEC motor, but I don't see any builder proposing how to do it without a GUD cam, 12 to 1 race pistons, Extrudehone the intake system, and using flyweight valves and full race springs. Believe me, I have asked. If somebody is getting 25% increase numbers from a GSR, let him explain how.

(Yet) again - I think you've got a good question here but do you understand the trap the ITAC's in on this kind of thing? We have two people telling us different things. There's just no way we can consistently, equitably, repeatably, and transparently take any of this kind of information into account.

My advice is stick to your core argument, based on the physical attributes of the engines in question. Everyone can argue "I see this," or "I think this," but we have relatively few people contribute a new idea about how to actually look at the things we CAN look at - and that's helpful.

K

Bob Roth

01-18-2009, 07:39 PM

As to the question of where would the cars come from if we changed the rules, I've run CRX's from '94 to 2004. At its peak, there were a ton of CRX's out there, much like the Miata's today. But people don't want to run the same car forever, and if you are front drive, there is no step up FWD ITS car that had comparable competitiveness and interest unless you happen buy the only ex world challenge prelude.

For ITS and above, the GSR is a mid pack car, S2000 is fragile and rear drive, the Type R is not really the car for ITR but is a good endurance car. Its not like Honda VTEC cars don't exist, NASA has a ton of them in Honda challenge, and there are a bunch of cheap street cars and there are always SSC Civic Si's. But seriously, running a 1.8 against 2.8 liter cars? Who wants to invest in that?

There is no cheaper, more reliable, faster for the dollar race car than a B series honda. And you can buy all the parts from a catalog. My opinion is if you made the B series Honda VTEC cars competitive, there would be more than a few CRX runners who would enjoy the old CRX experience with 50 more Hp.

I think the real factor is, if we make the VTECs competitive in ITS, where do the Porsche/BMW/Nissan rear drive guys get to play? I am sympathetic, but at the same time, you have to agree, if they made so many B series hondas out there and they are such good cars, why is nobody racing them in IT?

If its distastefull to try to make Fwd Honda VTEC cars competitive in ITR and ITS , give us our own Honda B series Class in IT for 1.6 and 1.8 Civic, Del Sol, and Integra. just like Spec Miata. There are a lot of B series VTEC cars out there built between 95 and 01. If you did that, I bet there are several several Honda builders who would sign up in a second to write the rules.

Ron Earp

01-18-2009, 07:46 PM

I think the real factor is, if we make the VTECs competitive in ITS, where do the Porsche/BMW/Nissan rear drive guys get to play?

Weeellllll.....

If you are talking about making the VTEC cars competitive in ITS then the Porsche/BMW/Nissan rear wheel drive cars will run in ITS.

Is "making VTECs competitive" a euphemism for "make the VTEC cars an overdog"?

lateapex911

01-18-2009, 07:51 PM

Its not like Honda VTEC cars don't exist, NASA has a ton of them in Honda challenge, ........

Bait taken....

I'll go dig up the real entries and numbers, but the term "A ton" is a far cry from what I've been aware of.

Frankly, I'm having difficulty here because your premise is so self motivated, and your numbers are skewed to serve that purpose. Bringing in "getting passed" into the discussion really spins things into a hugely subjective mode, and it strikes me that you're grapsing to make your point. And I actually think you have a point!

The thread started with you stating that the V8 cars should be kept out of ITR, to protect the Hondas, but that thinking is exclusionary, and on top of that, the promised windfall of Hondas just doesn't exist in the numbers that I think you're envisioning....even if that were a route that anyone wanted to follow.

I think you need to look at this from other angles....

tnord

01-18-2009, 07:54 PM

I don't like the prospect of changing a process that has been such a success, but i think i'm getting closer to an alternative based on specific output of the stock powerplant that works. the only other thing i'm thinking of is maybe a floor of 10% minimum multiplier, and a maximum of 35%. maybe the Z will make 260whp, but i kinda doubt it.

Class-----Make-----Model------Dspl-----Output---- HP/L-----# cyl-----HP/L/cyl-----Baseline-----Delta-----New Multiplier-----WHP
ITS-----Acura ---Integra GSR---1.8------ 170---- ---94.4----- 4.0------ 23.6--------- 19.44----- (-7.15)-------- 17.85----------- 170
ITA ----Acura---- Integra------ 1.8------ -140------- 77.8----- 4.0------ 19.4--------- 19.44----- (-0.01)------ 24.99----------- 149
ITA ----Mazda---- Miata------ 1.6------- 116------- 72.5----- 4.0------ 18.1--------- 19.44------ 2.25-------- 27.25----------- 125
ITA---- Mazda---- Miata------ 1.8------- 126------- 70.0----- 4.0------ 17.5--------- 19.44------ 3.33-------- 28.33----------- 137
ITS ----BMW----- 325-------- 2.5------ -190------- 76.0---- 6.0------ 12.7---------- 19.44----- 11.61------- 36.61------------ 221
ITR ----Acura--- Type-R------ 1.8------- 195------ -108.3---- 4.0------ 27.1--------- 19.44---- (-13.11)------- 11.89------------ 185
ITA ---Nissan---- SE-R-------- -2-------- 140------ 70.0------ 4.0----- 17.5---------- 19.44------ 3.33-------- 28.33----------- 153
ITA---- Dodge-- Neon ACR---- 2------- 150------- 75.0----- -4.0----- 18.8-----------19.44----- 1.18--------- 26.18---------- 161
ITA---- Honda--- CRX Si----- 1.6------- 108------- 67.5----- 4.0------ 16.9--------- 19.44------ 4.40 --------29.40----------- 119
ITR ----Honda---- S2000------ 2-------- 240------- 120.0---- 4.0------ 30.0--------- 19.44---- (-18.11)-------- -6.89----------- 218
ITR---- Honda---- S2000----- 2.2------- 240------- 109.1---- 4.0------ 27.3--------- 19.44---- -(-13.43)-------- 11.57------------ 228
ITR---- Nissan---- 300ZX----- -3-------- 222------- 74.0----- 6.0------ 12.3-------- 19.44------ 12.19---------- 37.19----------- 259

lateapex911

01-18-2009, 07:56 PM

I think the real factor is, if we make the VTECs competitive in ITS, where do the Porsche/BMW/Nissan rear drive guys get to play? I am sympathetic, but at the same time, you have to agree, if they made so many B series hondas out there ......

??????

"Where do the Porsche/BMW?Nissan guys get to play?? I am sympathetic..."

Sympathetic to what??? Are you suggesting that there are more Hondas so the currently classed cars get ...what...tossed?? I an not imagine that's what you are suggesting, yet I'm scratching my head on another read.

The more I read, the more this starts smelling really really self centered. Tell me I'm wrong...please.

Bob Roth

01-18-2009, 08:00 PM

I agree that 175 Whp is right for a teg, but its OEM hp is 170. What gets me is people advertising over 200 whp from their ITS Alfas when their OEM stock was not much more than mine. But then again 200 Whp isn't too hard (8- hp/liter) when you start with 2.5 liters. With mine at about 153, I am already knocking on 100 hp/liter.

Some cars respond to IT tuning and some don't, the fact that we have tons of ITS BMW, Mazda, Porsche ITS car but virtually no honda VTECs should tell us something. If you would like, I'd be glad to lead an exploritory committee on the B series challenge.

Bob Roth

01-18-2009, 08:13 PM

What I meant, is if the weights were fixed for ITS VTEC's and all the sudden by shear numbers of increased GSR's, the VTEC honda's started winning, there are a lot of ITS rear drive guys guys who will say, where is my place to play, you ruined my class.?

Look, I am just trying to figure out a way to make a 160 hp VTEC sol fit and not get blown by down the straight, and also look like a joke when I see class dyno numbers discussed. I like the specific output idea, but then there will be those who will not be happy if VTEC cars are suddenly competitive. Perhaps, a B challenge class is a way to keep everybody happy.

Gotta go.
will check in later!

JeffYoung

01-18-2009, 08:15 PM

Bob, I think you are missing a fair amount of IT history in reaching the conclusion that Hondas must be classed wrong because there are so many Porsches/BMWs/Mazdas out there in S. Those cars, especially the Mazdas and Zs have been classed for many years -- the S Hondas/Acuras are mostly newer. Plus, there was a stretch of about 4-5 years that ended recently where before the Great Realignment, I agree, it made little sense to build anything other than a BMW.

I have yet to see many fully developed Honda/Acura products in S, but the changes to S are still new -- and the ones that I have seen have done well.

Travis, on your model, I still think focusing solely on specific output per cubic inch to "anticipate" horsepower is a mistake, as we ignore too many factors. Valves per cylinder, number and quality of cams, compression ratio, etc.

It may be the case that a 305 Chevy motor with 8.5 to 1 compression or whatever, 2 valves per cylinder, and crappys cams and induction system might not make 25% either.

Knestis

01-18-2009, 08:15 PM

...give us our own Honda B series Class in IT for 1.6 and 1.8 Civic, Del Sol, and Integra. just like Spec Miata. There are a lot of B series VTEC cars out there built between 95 and 01. If you did that, I bet there are several several Honda builders who would sign up in a second to write the rules.

If your region can support something like that, there's absolutely no reason for them to not do it.

...but then there will be those who will not be happy if VTEC cars are suddenly competitive. ...

Sorry. Sure, some individuals with [competitive Brand X] will be cranky if [Brand Y] gets a break but it SOUNDS LIKE you're suggesting that there's some plan in place to keep V-tac (yo) out off of the podiums. That just isn't so.

K

tnord

01-18-2009, 08:29 PM

Travis, on your model, I still think focusing solely on specific output per cubic inch to "anticipate" horsepower is a mistake, as we ignore too many factors. Valves per cylinder, number and quality of cams, compression ratio, etc.

we ignore it now, no?

JeffYoung

01-18-2009, 08:47 PM

Vaguely account for it in determining if a motor makes 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% (default), 30% or 35% in IT trim.

tnord

01-18-2009, 08:58 PM

and the current process either ignores or "vaguely accounts for" a whole bunch of other things right? i thought we were trying to keep this simple?

JeffYoung

01-18-2009, 09:07 PM

Yessir. If it were up to me -- and it's not, I only get one vote -- I would use:

25% unless we have conclusive dyno proof from sources who are willing to go public that something else is true.

A torque adder, of 50 or 100 lbs..

A FWD subtractor, of 50 or 100 lbs.

And that's it.

A lot of the above are good exercises, and I appreciate the thinking, but if we adopt something like that, what do we do with the next guy who wants a "brake deductor" based on a formula using swept area? Or a "aero adder" based on a formula using frontal area, etc.?

I see these exercises as far more dangerous to the balance we have achieved in IT than "removing the washer bottle" or "removing passenger glass," and FAR further "down the path to production." They are formulaic, complicated attempts to balance 300 disparate car chassis.

Knestis

01-18-2009, 09:08 PM

JeffYoung

01-18-2009, 09:17 PM

Maybe my understanding is wrong, but torque is influenced by displacement, not number of cylinders.

I am willing to listen to this but I think we are headed towards a very complicated formula to "predict" horsepower in IT trim that will result in a lot of argument over the necessarily subjective factors that go into it. Just how much gain do we give a 4 valve motor? Etc. It's the same discussion (and problems) we are having now, just broken down into many smaller and just as divisive pieces.

But I am open to listening to this.

I'm warming even more to the idea. Travis - Between my fiddling with it and yours, I've lost track: How did you get your New Multiplier, again...?

EDIT - The beauty of this kind of approach, Jeff is that it gets us "closer" - allows us to consider additional factors - without resorting to either (1) BS "what we know numbers" or (2) big chunk adders. Based on physical attributes of the car. It's something of an oversimplification I'll admit but I'm intrigued by the consideration that number of cylinders might play into the math. It's not a crazy idea to suggest that torque is influenced by that value.

K

Ron Earp

01-18-2009, 09:21 PM

I agree that 175 Whp is right for a teg, but its OEM hp is 170. What gets me is people advertising over 200 whp from their ITS Alfas when their OEM stock was not much more than mine.

How do you know their ITS Alfa is IT-legal?

How do I know your HonduhB11VTECYoTypeArrrgghhhhITSheetbox is maxed out and you have a 100% IT-build on the motor?

How do we know if the dynos are even of the same type and somewhat comparable?

Ron

Knestis

01-18-2009, 09:45 PM

...Just how much gain do we give a 4 valve motor? Etc. It's the same discussion (and problems) we are having now, just broken down into many smaller and just as divisive pieces. ...

It's not a consideration, directly. Remember, the first assumption of this idea is that engines with higher stock specific powers outputs have less potential to gain in IT preparation. (I'm willing to conditionally accept that proposition, even as I admit we don't know enough to be sure about quantifying it at this point.) That's all.

On the torque/cylinders issue, how would a 2.5 liter four compare to a six of the same displacement and technology? Are there comparisons that are fair? I admit I don't know off-hand.

K

JeffYoung

01-18-2009, 09:52 PM

I really need to get off this forum and do some work...lol...but this is a good discussion.

I do agree with you that it is possible a motor with a very high stock specific output might not gain much in IT trim. It's interesting to me though that the poster child for this -- the GSR -- shows what, 20% gain, on the Blake Meredith motor? Which just goes to show we have a lot to learn.

I think you have a decent example of 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder motors in the 2.5 range, and the 4s (Porsches, primarily, but the Prelude 2.3 is close) make decent torque. The 3.0 liter 4 cylinder Porsche motor makes really good torque.

Knestis

01-18-2009, 10:07 PM

...I do agree with you that it is possible a motor with a very high stock specific output might not gain much in IT trim. It's interesting to me though that the poster child for this -- the GSR -- shows what, 20% gain, on the Blake Meredith motor? ...

I have no reason to distrust Blake's judgment but do we accept his numbers but not Bob's? We just can't reasonably decide.

K

Ron Earp

01-18-2009, 10:10 PM

On the torque/cylinders issue, how would a 2.5 liter four compare to a six of the same displacement and technology?
K

You can find numerous examples but typically torque per liter is most constant regardless of technology (within reason) while hp really changes considerably. For example if we looked at four ITR cars Ford 5L Mustang, 300zx, BMW 330i, and a Porsche 968 S2 we'd have the following hp/liter and torque per liter outputs:

http://www.gt40s.com/images/Z/hptq.jpg

If we normalize to the lowest output engine in the class, the Ford, then we end up with a 32% change in absolute torque per liter across these four cars. But with horsepower per liter we end up with a 61% change. Three of the cars are four valve per cylinder designs, DOHC, while the Ford is an OHV pushrod engine.

Now if we remove the Ford we get a different result, one that has larger changes in HP than in torque:

http://www.gt40s.com/images/Z/hptq2.jpg

Interesting. I think I could probably pull a subset of cars and go either way on this situation. Have to look at them in depth when I have time. In general a 4 valve NA motor is doing well at 75 ft/lbs per liter in mild trim while a 2 valve NA design is doing really well at 60-65 ft/lbs per liter.

tnord

01-18-2009, 10:28 PM

I'm warming even more to the idea. Travis - Between my fiddling with it and yours, I've lost track: How did you get your New Multiplier, again...?

EDIT - The beauty of this kind of approach, Jeff is that it gets us "closer" - allows us to consider additional factors - without resorting to either (1) BS "what we know numbers" or (2) big chunk adders. Based on physical attributes of the car. It's something of an oversimplification I'll admit but I'm intrigued by the consideration that number of cylinders might play into the math. It's not a crazy idea to suggest that torque is influenced by that value.

K

i have lots of thoughts on this, which i'll have to respond to later, the wife is needing attention.

but basically i used the ITA Integra as the baseline for a HP/liter/cylinder in stock trim, then calculated the percentage variance each of the other cars were from that baseline, and devide by 3 (totally arbitrary) to get the movement +/- 25%.

the first time through i didn't account for # of cylinders, and it worked well for all the 4cyl cars, but failed the 6cyl stuff. so i came up with another formula that included # of cylinders to give it a bigger adder than the 4cyl stuff.

Xian

01-18-2009, 10:30 PM

I have no reason to distrust Blake's judgment but do we accept his numbers but not Bob's? We just can't reasonably decide.

K

A large portion of Bob's numbers have been a leeeetle bit biased... any reason to think his dyno numbers wouldn't be also? :shrug:

Personally, this discussion seems like it's not much more than a lightly veiled attempt at getting several B-series cars' weights dropped on the premise that they'll never make enough power. Are the Del Sol and Civic Si VTEC cars mid-packers? Probably more so than the Integra/BMW/RX-7 but are they any worse off than a lightly developed TR8? All cars have different weaknesses but there's no guarantee of competitivness right? This just all sounds an awful lot like a fast-track to line item allowances for specific make/model/engines/etc.

Christian

JeffYoung

01-18-2009, 10:40 PM

Why? A 3.0 six cylinder BMW and Nissan inline and V6 makes about the same hp and torque as a 3.0 Porsche inline 4.

We are confusing no. of cylinders with displacement guys......

i have lots of thoughts on this, which i'll have to respond to later, the wife is needing attention.

but basically i used the ITA Integra as the baseline for a HP/liter/cylinder in stock trim, then calculated the percentage variance each of the other cars were from that baseline, and devide by 3 (totally arbitrary) to get the movement +/- 25%.

the first time through i didn't account for # of cylinders, and it worked well for all the 4cyl cars, but failed the 6cyl stuff. so i came up with another formula that included # of cylinders to give it a bigger adder than the 4cyl stuff.

there's lots of reasons my formula works....i think. but more later....probably after the wife has too many vodka's and passes out. :)

Knestis

01-18-2009, 10:59 PM

Sorry - I contributed to the confusion. There are TWO issues here, the less important one being the number of cylinders. I'll set that aside for the time being to focus just on the potential of the "specific output adjuster."

I don't personally care any more or less about Bob's motivations or rationale, Christian, than I do anyone else's. To me NONE of that information is trustworthy enough on which to base rules decisions.

K

Bob Roth

01-18-2009, 11:03 PM

Actually, I agree that dyno numbers are a poor predictors which is why I looked at Hp/liter. The observation is as a consumer of Hp, when I went to buy more, the suppliers said "if its already 100 OEM Hp/Liter ,what do you want a miracle worker?

The honda is already a highly maximized, intake, emissions, and exhaust package. To ask a builder to give me 15% more hp, he has to find a way to flow 15% more gas (but the car already has a 4-2-1 header) or run at 1200 more rpm (readline is already 8200 rpm).. As he said, it aint happinen.

I have been to two different dynos, two tuners and got between 153 and 155 on 20 or more pulls. Its an ex pro engine in an ex pro car. Sure we could be missing something, but again its already nearly 100 hp per liter to the wheels. Where else can I look?

JeffYoung

01-18-2009, 11:21 PM

Are you:

1. Using Motec?

2. Have your exhaust extrude honed with merge collectors, and a custom header with pipe sizes by header.design or a similar program?

3. .040 over pistons?

4. Low resistance/tension rings?

5. Crank scraper? Windage tray?

6. Port match on the manifold to the head?

7. Allowed valve job?

8. .5 bump in compression?

9. You keep your oil and water at the temperatures necessary for best power?

10. You use the lightest oil your engine can stand?

11. How many hours have you spent on the dyno tuning fuel and ignition maps?

Actually, I agree that dyno numbers are a poor predictors which is why I looked at Hp/liter. The observation is as a consumer of Hp, when I went to buy more, the suppliers said "if its already 100 OEM Hp/Liter ,what do you want a miracle worker?

The honda is already a highly maximized, intake, emissions, and exhaust package. To ask a builder to give me 15% more hp, he has to find a way to flow 15% more gas (but the car already has a 4-2-1 header) or run at 1200 more rpm (readline is already 8200 rpm).. As he said, it aint happinen.

I have been to two different dynos, two tuners and got between 153 and 155 on 20 or more pulls. Its an ex pro engine in an ex pro car. Sure we could be missing something, but again its already nearly 100 hp per liter to the wheels. Where else can I look?

Bob Roth

01-19-2009, 01:35 AM

Jeff. I am not sure what in total has been done, other than this motor was second in Honda Challenge, and there was a lot of dyno, exhaust work and computer work by me. Plus the head and rings are fresh without a significant difference before or after. I don't see a glaring defect in performance or dyno curves, yet the ITAC's rules that says a 70 hp per liter 2.3, 9.8 compression ratio Prelude motor has the same development potential as a 100 hp per liter 10.2 compression ratio 1.6 Civic Si VTEC motor.

My thought is honda left a ton on the table for the base prelude, they put the cheap exhaust or intake systems on it and they tuned it for regular gas. Meanwhile on they knocked it out of the park with the civic Si VTEC with a real header, an unported version of the type r head, and tuned for premium gas. Yet for the rules, the ITAC says that each is a 160 hp motor. Funny thing though, the 2.3 prelude has the lap records.

Do you really think that the things you list are going to give a 100 hp per liter engine 120 hp per liter like a S2000 has in order for it to be competitive. Remember the Civic Si does not have the big primaries that the Type R has, nor the rev range. nor the valve springs. To make 20% more power, it has to flow 20% more air. So how is it that low tension rings are going to make it better than a type R? Just tell me who will get me 120 hp/liter at wheel and I will talk with him. I've done 6 well planned hours at the dyno with a Hondata 300 and the best header I could find and we checked multiple intake runner lengths. Using the guidance of an experienced B series tuner and other people I trust, they say aint going to happen if I stay within the rules. Tell me what to change to get 120hp per liter and I will do it.

Ps, I found the post claiming 220 whp for a ITS 2.5 alfa (88hp per liter). Look familiar? http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24972&highlight=gtv6
Why should I doubt 220 whp, its got 56% more displacement than my 150 hp motor? Perhaps he's stretching the truth, and only has 210 hp But with his 2680 weight while mine is 2550 (2350 dry plus driver) am I supposed to feel better?

Bottom line, Honda has done all the things you suggest for the VTEC motors, so at 100 hp/liter at stock, what am I supposed to do to get the 25% improvement assumed?

1. Using Motec? Hondata 300

2. Have your exhaust extrude honed with merge collectors, and a custom header with pipe sizes by header.design or a similar program? Done both pro header that came with car and Hytech Header, no siginificant peak difference though the hytech had a bit more midrange.

3. .040 over pistons? 020.

4. Low resistance/tension rings? Yes

5. Crank scraper? Windage tray? Yes

6. Port match on the manifold to the head? Not needed

7. Allowed valve job? - Not sure what is allowed - I have used the same guy used for 15 years, he used to do world challenge cars for PD cunningham. I don't think its a bad head job.

8. .5 bump in compression? Probably yes, not sure.

9. You keep your oil and water at the temperatures necessary for best power? Can't be sure but no indication of water temp problems from race data or dyno tuning.

10. You use the lightest oil your engine can stand? 0W 30 oil.

11. How many hours have you spent on the dyno tuning fuel and ignition maps? 6 well prepared hours setting maps and ignition- ran out of things to change. Air fuel ratio all well in control.

JeffYoung

01-19-2009, 01:48 AM

Bob, go through that list and tell me if you know that those things have been done to your motor. If you don't know, then you don't really know what you have.

Each one of those individually is a small gain. Together, it is quite possible you could see that additional 10 or 20 horsepower you are not seeing at the moment.

I've seen the ITS Alfa ad you mentioned. Let's not draw comparisons based on a complete unknown. We have no idea what power that car makes, other than what is in an ad trying to sell it.

Look, I'll be honest. I've been where you think you are now -- totally maxed out. I've thought that MANY times. This is the best I can do....and then I start reading the rules or thinking more and there is always something more to do.

The funny thing is I don't totally disagree with your basic proposition that Honda and Acura motors might not get the 20 or 25% gain we expect. But given what you've told us, I'm not sure if your motor is actually a good example of that. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just trying to convey the level of prep and effort it takes, for example, to get 200 crank hp out of a 2.4 liter Datsun 240z motor. It's LOTS of little things. LOTS of them.

Bob Roth

01-19-2009, 02:25 AM

I noted above what I believe the motor to have. On the other string on the Honda cars list, ITBlouis had a new sundial motor with 162hp 115 torque. Given variance of dynos and temps, there may be a horsepower or two between us but I don't think either of us will see 170hp any time soon . At this point I am pretty much done investing in a motor that is over 100 hp per liter and experienced Honda guys are saying its not worth it. Besides, its not going to make a difference against a 2.3 liter prelude. http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25399

If I wanted to win ITS at any cost, I't buy the the Lude. If I wanted to turn the same laps and win, I would build an ITA 1.8 non VTEC teg. I guess I am taking the hard route and trying to get the VTEC cars properly classed, or if it pleases ITAC, encourage them to create a B series VTEC class, because I would rather race my car than a Lude.

Bottom line, I believe an equalizer based upon hp/liter would be an improvement compared to the fixed assumption of improvements today.

tnord

01-19-2009, 11:01 AM

alright.....

i think bob's motives are extremely misplaced and dangerous. making allwances for a specific chassis, engine make, etc is a terrible idea i'd never support. but....if we can come up with something that treats every car in the ITCS equally, i might be kinda sorta mildly ok with it. maybe.

ITA Integra --> 140 factory rated hp / 1.8 factory displacement = 77.8hp/L. 77.8 / 4cyl = 19.44hp/L/cyl baseline. 25% * 1.25 * .85 = 149whp expected.

if someone else has an example of another car that hits closer to 25%, as i think this car actually makes a little bit more than this, please speak up.

using the 19.44hp/L/cyl as a baseline to determine how much above or below 25% a vehicle should be, we can try out some vehicles that are on the outer fringes of the current process to see how they end up.

BMW 325 --> 190hp / 2.5L = 76hp/L. 76 / 6cyl = 12.7hp/L/cyl. ((12.7 - 19.44) / 19.44) / 3 = -11.61% 25 - (-11.61) = 36.61% power adder. 190 * 1.3661 * .85 = 221whp.

Honda S2000 --> 240hp / 2L = 120hp/L. 120 / 4 = 30hp/L/cyl. ((30 - 19.44) / 19.44) / 3 = 18.11. 25 - 18.11 = 6.89%. 240 * 1.0689 * .85 = 218whp.

looks pretty good no?

one thing i REALLY like about using engine displacement and specific output is that it completely ends this whole torque debate, and yes Jeff, I think it fairly accounts for engine architecture as well. think of the basic characteristics you get from a motor achieving 2.0L of displacement from a small bore but long stroke, lots of torque down low, but not much peak power right? conversely, one with a very short stroke but large bore has lots of peak power but little on the bottom. how many times over the past year have people asked that the power adder use something simlar to this?

(HP + torque) / 2

what they're really asking is that both peak power and torque be given equal consideration. using displacement does that by saying that you can either have a torquey 2.0L motor or a peaky 2.0L, but not both. furthermore, we really don't care which set of charachteristcs (determined by engine architecture) your engine has, as we think each has advantages and drawbacks, neither one being better or worse than the other....just different.

tnord

01-19-2009, 11:48 AM

PS - can someone send me a few examples of the V8 cars that might be classed in ITR? i want to see how they end up with my process to see if it works.

Ron Earp

01-19-2009, 11:51 AM

PS - can someone send me a few examples of the V8 cars that might be classed in ITR? i want to see how they end up with my process to see if it works.

http://www.gt40s.com/images/Z/ITR%20Pony%20Cars%20Version%202.0%2012-16-071web.doc

tnord

01-19-2009, 12:22 PM

Knestis

01-19-2009, 01:08 PM

Travis - The .85 in your formula represents an assumed 15% driveline loss...?

K

tnord

01-19-2009, 01:20 PM

Travis - The .85 in your formula represents an assumed 15% driveline loss...?

K

correct. i actually think the FWD cars are lower than that, but it's the number i see thrown around the most, so that's what i used.

lateapex911

01-19-2009, 01:25 PM

Travis ownz me on math!

But, Travis, if Kirk is right, and I think he is, how about plugging in 18% for the rear drivers??

tnord

01-19-2009, 01:32 PM

18% loss for RWD puts the mustang at 274 and camaro at 280. 2.0 and 2.2 s2k at 210 and 220; 300ZX at 250.

sounds good right? except the 1.6 miata is at 121, and 1.8 at 133. that's low. do the other numbers look right? how much does the Datsun 240Z actually make? i think i'm low there as well.

Ron Earp

01-19-2009, 01:50 PM

i spit out 284 for the 5L, 225hp Ford V8, and 290 for the 5L, 230hp GM V8. a little bit higher than what you had come up with in the proposal, but as far as how that translates into minimum weights....i bet it's an inconsequential amount.

i think i'm on to something here.

I think something is amiss.

1995 Ford Mustang GT; 215 hp stock, 5L displacement

215 / 5L = 43 hp/L. 43hp/L / 8 cylinders = 5.4 hp/L/cylinder.

5.4hp/L/cyl ((5.4 - 19.44) / 19.44) / 3 * 100 = -24.07%

25 - (-24.07) = 49.07, or a 49.07% gain.

215 * 1.49 * 0.85 = 272 REAR WHEEL HP

Maybe I made a mistake in there.

272 rear wheel hp is not obtainable in IT trim. If my arithmetic is correct the problem with this approach is that you've fixated on a 4 valve DOHC head (19.44 hp/L/cyl) design as your normalization factor and applying it to a 2 valve OHV engine. A 2 valve OHV engine has a lot of port and flow compromises due to pushrod pass through and valve location. A 2V OHV engine will never acheive the specific output of a 4 valve DOHC design, all things being relatively equal.

Anyhow, about the best that can be expected of the 1994/1995 Mustang GT 5L is around 235-250 rear wheel hp given the IT limitations and the inherit engine design.

I like the idea but we probably need a few different normalization constants depending on the engine design (4 valve DOHC, 2 valve SOHC, 2 valve OHV pushrod).

JeffYoung

01-19-2009, 01:55 PM

What Ron said. Travis, I appreciate the effort but you are using a 4 valve, dual overhead cam motor as your "base" and then expecting other motors to have similar specific output. They don't.

Knestis

01-19-2009, 01:59 PM

Hmmm....

I had to monkey with the class weight multipliers to get them so that they output current weight for some common, currently-competitive options in each class (we don't want wholesale changes in any kind of do-over we might implement) but there are some interesting comparisons falling out. I used .85 for FWD and .82 for RWD cars.

ITB

MkII Golf - 2260
MkIII Golf - 2479
Infamous Civic DX - 2012 (I DID include the +50 suspension adder for now)

ITA (no suspension adders, got bored)

EDIT - Deleted because I dorked them up. See later post...

ITR (distinction between FWD and RWD applied but no suspension adders used)

e36 325 - 2661
Integra GSR - 2143
205hp 'merican V8 - 3142
Type ARRR - 2318
S2000 2.0 - 2630

For discussion purposes only...

I'd be very interested to layer onto this a progressive FWD subtractor that assumes the kind of things Greg describes elsewhere here.

K

Knestis

01-19-2009, 02:03 PM

What Ron said. Travis, I appreciate the effort but you are using a 4 valve, dual overhead cam motor as your "base" and then expecting other motors to have similar specific output. They don't.

There's a disconnect somewhere here, Jeff. The specific output math is being done as a ratio, relative to a bogey value set by this Integra. This really ought not be ONE specific make/model but a mythical car that represents our basic assumptions re: IT power gains but it's a useful place to start.

"Specific output" is merely the stock power, considering displacement (and in this case, number of cylinders).

K

Knestis

01-19-2009, 02:05 PM

...272 rear wheel hp is not obtainable in IT trim. ...Anyhow, about the best that can be expected of the 1994/1995 Mustang GT 5L is around 235-250 rear wheel hp given the IT limitations and the inherit engine design. ...

...and let's not get bound up thinking that "WHP" in this situation is supposed to be REAL wheel HP. It's a new way of thinking of our "IT Power" figure. It's mythical.

K

JeffYoung

01-19-2009, 02:10 PM

Kirk, I may be reading it wrong, but isn't the 19.44 number in Travis' formula a "bogey" power output per cylinder that is derived from Integra numbers -- a dual OHC, high compression, 4 valve motor?

If so, you simply can't use that figure as a basis for predicting the power output of 2v low compression motors, or rotaries for that matter.

There's a disconnect somewhere here, Jeff. The specific output math is being done as a ratio, relative to a bogey value set by this Integra. This really ought not be ONE specific make/model but a mythical car that represents our basic assumptions re: IT power gains but it's a useful place to start.

"Specific output" is merely the stock power, considering displacement (and in this case, number of cylinders).

K

tnord

01-19-2009, 02:11 PM

Ron -

I agree that the shortcoming of the model is that it's going to have to "fixate" on a specific engine type. perhaps it might work better if i used a SOHC as the baseline for output/L/cyl?

i used 225 for the Mustang because i thought i read in your proposal that it was the max offered across years of the 5.0 mustang. anyway, i initially balked at the number my model spit out as well. but reading through your proposal i found that the number produced by the model isn't far at all from what you predicted as torque output. the proposal even recognizes that a consideration needs to be made for torque even though the power output may meet the 25% standard.

looking at it from the perspective i hinted at above in that "we don't care if you have a peaky motor with high hp, or a really torquey one that runs out of breath" the output number really could be looked at as potential HP or torque, depending on engine architecture. big bore short stroke vs small bore long stroke.

i dunno, i'd like to see how that power multiplier translates into min weight and see if it is close to what you proposed or not. i'm outside of my knowledge base here with the OHV V8 stuff, and very open to input.

lateapex911

01-19-2009, 02:12 PM

Mythical yes, but it would need to function in the real world, and if used, it needs to not shake up the existing weights, as you pointed out.

Our current system is rather simple, is transparent regarding make and model for the most part, and is conservative by default.

If it's going to work, it needs to jive with reality to the same degree or more that the current system does.

tnord

01-19-2009, 02:15 PM

What Ron said. Travis, I appreciate the effort but you are using a 4 valve, dual overhead cam motor as your "base" and then expecting other motors to have similar specific output. They don't.

i agree, and i just used the DOHC non-VTEC Integra motor just to get an idea of a "bogey" number that we may be looking for because off the top of my head, it best hit the current 25% assumption as closely as anything i knew of.

what people more familiar with engines, and those on the ITAC should do is come up with a more reasonable "bogey number" and i can re-run everything with that in mind. anyone know of a SOHC motor that hits the 25% right on the nose?

tnord

01-19-2009, 02:19 PM

There's a disconnect somewhere here, Jeff. The specific output math is being done as a ratio, relative to a bogey value set by this Integra. This really ought not be ONE specific make/model but a mythical car that represents our basic assumptions re: IT power gains but it's a useful place to start.

"Specific output" is merely the stock power, considering displacement (and in this case, number of cylinders).

K

exactly. i'm not saying the 19.44 is the perfect number that works everywhere, it was just a generic number i came up with to see if my model was even in the ballpark.

i think it is.

Ron Earp

01-19-2009, 02:24 PM

Ron -

I agree that the shortcoming of the model is that it's going to have to "fixate" on a specific engine type. perhaps it might work better if i used a SOHC as the baseline for output/L/cyl?

The model doesn't have to fixate on one standard. We just have a different modifer for each engine type, easy enough. This isn't going to work well if you assume from the outset you'll be able to use one normalization factor for all engine types. I would hope that the OHV Ford example just showed that to be the case.

Andy Bettencourt

01-19-2009, 02:25 PM

Try this one: 1.3L 160hp.

Snafu.

It may work for a few cars but it has to work for hundreds. Sell me on how this is any better than what we have now.

tnord

01-19-2009, 02:26 PM

certainly possible Ron, i'd leave that up to others whether that gets too complex, and opens the door too wide for lobbying on just what each type should make....and the consequential constant fiddling.

JeffYoung

01-19-2009, 02:27 PM

Travis, just a quick thanks. THought I don't fully agree with you I do appreciate the effort and this is an intriguing idea.

In any event, lots of ideas here get torn apart without much appreciation for the effort. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

tnord

01-19-2009, 02:29 PM

Try this one: 1.3L 160hp.

Snafu.

It may work for a few cars but it has to work for hundreds. Sell me on how this is any better than what we have now.

i thought of that....but dismissed it because rotaries always have, and probably always will require special attention. same as now.

but just for funzies....

the 1.3L thing is misleading no? isn't it really more of a 2.6L? using a "4cyl 2.6L" as the model, it comes up with a 31.95% adder and 171hp. :)

and i really don't know if it is any better than what we have now. my first post states as such, with the qualifier that "if we're going to go down this road, this is how i would do it." i think the biggest selling point for me so far, is that it treats all "types" of motors the same, and in my mind ends the whole arguement for yet another adder/subtracter for torque. should make the VTEC guys happy as well.

tnord

01-19-2009, 02:32 PM

Knestis

01-19-2009, 02:53 PM

The model doesn't have to fixate on one standard. We just have a different modifer for each engine type, easy enough. This isn't going to work well if you assume from the outset you'll be able to use one normalization factor for all engine types. I would hope that the OHV Ford example just showed that to be the case.

...but at least at first blush, this seems to be accommodated by the math that determines the ratio. There's NO NEED to assign different values because they're inherent to the specific power figure for each make/model. Assuming of course that we accept the first principle assumption that "some engines have greater IT power potential than others, and the higher the STOCK specific output, the less potential they have." Of course, we also assume it's a linear function, in this example.

ALL that the 19.44 number needs to do is equal "1" when divided by itself, as the denominator of the ratio.

...but WHOOPS. I had a simple spreadsheet error (6-cylinder Integra!) that dorks up the numbers I posted for ITA. Replace the above with...

Integra RS et al. - 2541
Miata 1.6 - 2058
CRX Si - 2019
Sentra SER - 2596

K

Knestis

01-19-2009, 02:58 PM

Try this one: 1.3L 160hp.

Snafu.

It may work for a few cars but it has to work for hundreds. Sell me on how this is any better than what we have now.

NOT FAIR, Andy. We don't apply the current system to the Rotaries and you know it. We reverse-derived the ITS RX7 13B multiplier to make it fit.

Bzzt. Wrong. Sorry.

K

tnord

01-19-2009, 03:03 PM

...but WHOOPS. I had a simple spreadsheet error (6-cylinder Integra!) that dorks up the numbers I posted for ITA. Replace the above with...

Integra RS et al. - 2541
Miata 1.6 - 2058
CRX Si - 2019
Sentra SER - 2596

K

that obviously won't work. both the miata and CRX is too low. SE-R and Integra look good though. this is before any +/- for DW and FWD right?

Ron Earp

01-19-2009, 03:06 PM

...but at least at first blush, this seems to be accommodated by the math that determines the ratio. There's NO NEED to assign different values because they're inherent to the specific power figure for each make/model.

I think you do unless I have this all farked up, which is possible - I'm on DayQuil and drugged up.

In each of the examples the specific engine output is being compared to the Integra's specific engine output and this ratio is then being used to create a % gain for the engine in question. How far away from the Integra hp/L/cyl output the engine in question is will determine the modifier. This assumes that each engine can produce the same hp/L/cyl output as the Integra.

With the 5L Ford:

215hp / 5L = 43 hp/L. 43hp/L / 8 cylinders = 5.4 hp/L/cylinder. <===very low hp/L/Cyl

5.4hp/L/cyl ((5.4 - 19.44) / 19.44) / 3 * 100 = -24.07% <====very high modifier because the difference between the Ford and Integra is (5.4 - 19.44). If the Ford output was 19.44 hp/L/cyl then this modifer would be zero because the Ford motor acheived the same output as the Integra. With a zero modifer then the assumed again would be 25 - 0 = 25%.

25 - (-24.07) = 49.07, or a 49.07% gain. <==== Produces an unobtainable gain for the Ford because of the assumption that all motors can reach the specific output of the Integra engine.

215 * 1.49 * 0.85 = 272 REAR WHEEL HP <==== Not obtainable with a 5L Ford in IT trim.

lateapex911

01-19-2009, 03:16 PM

OK, i'm not feeling particularly bright today...but. ....I'll make a fool of myself anyway. :(

Ron, even though that number is high, isn't the goal to incorporate torque in the equation, thereby eliminating it from the "adder" aspect?

So, if that number then gets multiplied into weight, would it come out where the process would put it WITH the 100 pound (or so) tq adder?

I certainly see the problems with outliers, (the rotaries are just too different to accommodate, and that's fine, we can continue with them as is..). Interesting exploration.

Ron Earp

01-19-2009, 03:29 PM

Ron, even though that number is high, isn't the goal to incorporate torque in the equation, thereby eliminating it from the "adder" aspect?

Is that the goal? I hadn't seen anything about torque on this model. I was just following along with Travis and using the proposed mode and the horsepower/L/cyl. I think something like this could work, but it'd have to incorporate the fact that not all engine designs will be able to achieve the specific output of the "bogey".

However, since there are not that many engine designs in IT I don't think it'd be a big deal to have a few different specific output targets:

DOHC 4 valve
SOHC 2 valve
OHV
Rotary

tnord

01-19-2009, 03:31 PM

ron you've got the math exactly right, but as i mentioned, i'm not dead set on the 1.8L 4cyl DOHC non VTEC Honda motor as being the "poster child" of effeciency per cylinder. you could certainly be right in that i've come up with a bogey number that is too high. just keep in mind that the number has nothing to do with the Integra specifically, but should just be a value that is a good middle-ground number to apply across all of IT. pretty tough to do, maybe impossible. it's just an honest exercise to see if what a lot of people are crying for is feasible.

also keep in mind that your 272 number does not necessarily have to represent HP, think of it as "output." i'm struggling with the methodoligy to make this work logically.....but the end result seems to be in line.

since HP and torque are so closely related, one just being a calculation of the other, what if we used the greater of the two values, no matter the measure as a starting point? and lets replace our HP/L/cyl language with output/L/cyl. perhaps the model works for all the other cars listed because they coincidentally have HP figures higher than lb/ft, as is usually the case with 4 and most 6 cyl. but when we run across an entirely different type of engine that turns that upside down, maybe we should just consider the greater of the two numbers? after all, we (well actually, just me) have already made the assertion that HP and TQ are to be treated equally.

....well, turns out that didn't work at all. it does bring the "adder" value down a bit, but results in silly expected tq numbers. like 350lb/ft silly. the thought process i still think has some validity, so i'll leave it up.

i think the model seems to work if i can find a good reason to start the calculation with a HP figure, but then accept that the number it spits out could be either HP or lb/ft. that's why i went down the path of starting with the higher of the two numbers and going from there. the V8s seem to be causing me some difficulty. surprise! :)

lateapex911

01-19-2009, 03:38 PM

Travis, am i right in thinking that one of the goals here is to incorporate the torque into the output? So that we won't be adding it subjectively?

(Just stating the obvious....errrr...i think!)

tnord

01-19-2009, 03:42 PM

Travis, am i right in thinking that one of the goals here is to incorporate the torque into the output? So that we won't be adding it subjectively?

(Just stating the obvious....errrr...i think!)

kindof. see my last post on the previous page. i think one of the biggest benefits of doing it this way is that this would eliminate the need for an adder, yes.

Ron Earp

01-19-2009, 03:43 PM

also keep in mind that your 272 number does not necessarily have to represent HP, think of it as "output." i'm struggling with the methodoligy to make this work logically.....but the end result seems to be in line.

Ok, I see that now and agree and I think that is what Kirk was after. In that case we should eliminate units from the example calculations because the INTJ types will continue behaving as I am, going around in circles and pointing out impossibilities.

Yes, it would be possible to come up with a system that spits out numbers and those numbers are used to assign weights. But I still think you'll need to have a normalizer for engine type if you want to get it right. I bet that you'll have to have a engine type modifier to make the model fit our current class system the way it is now.

Andy Bettencourt

01-19-2009, 03:48 PM

NOT FAIR, Andy. We don't apply the current system to the Rotaries and you know it. We reverse-derived the ITS RX7 13B multiplier to make it fit.

Bzzt. Wrong. Sorry.

K

Why do you say that Kirk? All we do is keep it simple. We take what we know and we apply it. The Wankel doesn't have it's own 'process'...it't no different that any other car that doesn't fit the standard 25% multiplier.

Andy Bettencourt

01-19-2009, 03:52 PM

Lots of 'it looks right' and 'its wrong for this car' stuff that is all subjective. If it differs from the current weight and the poster thinks its a better weight from their persepctive, it's good. If it differs from the curent weight and the poster thinks it's 'off' based on their persepctive, it's bad.

Still trying to see what this is getting us - without trying to force something.

tnord

01-19-2009, 03:52 PM

Ok, I see that now and agree and I think that is what Kirk was after. In that case we should eliminate units from the example calculations because the INTJ types will continue behaving as I am, going around in circles and pointing out impossibilities.

Yes, it would be possible to come up with a system that spits out numbers and those numbers are used to assign weights. But I still think you'll need to have a normalizer for engine type if you want to get it right. I bet that you'll have to have a engine type modifier to make the model fit our current class system the way it is now.

yeah, the whole "output" instead of HP is something I came up with only after starting to mess with the V8s.

i'm starting to think we may need one factor for OHC, and one for OHV......maybe. the current math seems to work if you can make the leap of faith that we can start the formula with HP, and spit out either HP or lb/ft. but i can't explain why, or justify why anyone should accept that.

Ron Earp

01-19-2009, 04:00 PM

i'm starting to think we may need one factor for OHC, and one for OHV......maybe. the current math seems to work if you can make the leap of faith that we can start the formula with HP, and spit out either HP or lb/ft. but i can't explain why, or justify why anyone should accept that.

Well, no, the system can't spit out hp or lb/ft. All the calculations are done with hp and the system does not take into account torque. I can accept that we can drop the hp and go unitless, but to convert into lb/ft because "we want to" doesn't work well with me.

Seriously, there isn't a lot to it. It is simply normalizing the cars in the class to a bogey's specific output. Which is fine with me, it is what it is. One specific output is not going to work for the entire class in question and I'm not sure that you'll get away with a single OHC specific output target. We need to run the numbers on known engines like a 4 valve DOHC engine and a 2 valve SOHC engine, I imagine we'll find they don't jive well and each type of OHC engine will need a specific output.

A good 4V DOHC / 2V SOHC test case might be the BMW 325i and 240Z. Engine outputs of each are well known and I know right off the BMW 325i achieves a specific output the Datsun motor can't get to.

tnord

01-19-2009, 04:08 PM

the datsun was another one i was having trouble with, but i don't have much knowledge about what it should make, so i just kinda left it alone. i think i'll let you guys run with this however you like. it seems to be in the ballpark, and pretty decent for a first effort, but not accurate enough to use across the entire IT listing.

lateapex911

01-19-2009, 04:31 PM

A good 4V DOHC / 2V SOHC test case might be the BMW 325i and 240Z. Engine outputs of each are well known and I know right off the BMW 325i achieves a specific output the Datsun motor can't get to.

I agree, any output should be called a "Power factor" or some such.

I see the goals are to predict what engines that don't fit normally into the standard process will do, so that they can be classed appropriately. To that end, the S2000 is a good case study.

And sure it HAS to work for known targets, like the cars you mentioned Ron. But even there, we can get REALLY tripped up. The 325 that we "know" would actually DISprove the formula.... if the numbers 'seemed' right, because the stock HP rating is questionable/bogus.

It's back to the age old debate over "Predictive' formula vs. "what we know'

JoshS

01-19-2009, 04:34 PM

Hey Ron, is there a reason why you are calling out 2V SOHC and 4V DOHCs, but not 4V SOHC (2nd-gen Neon), or 5V (Audi) motors? Are all of these different in your mind?

And the formula Travis is espousing doesn't take into account torque, but it takes into account displacement as a substitute, assuming that high displacement yields high torque.

Bottom line for me though, I'm with Andy ... it just seems to be another, more complicated, way to get to basically where we already are. I'm not sure it's helpful. Changing the process in this way FORCES another great realignment in my mind, so there better be a good reason to change the process.

JeffYoung

01-19-2009, 04:42 PM

And if you start talking about accounting for peak torque you have to to start considering gearing and torque under the curve....

I'm with Josh. This system is appealing but seems fraught with danger and unneeded complexity since the "rough justice" we have right now works, mostly. Which is all you can ask for.

Ron Earp

01-19-2009, 05:31 PM

Hey Ron, is there a reason why you are calling out 2V SOHC and 4V DOHCs, but not 4V SOHC (2nd-gen Neon), or 5V (Audi) motors? Are all of these different in your mind?
.

Yes, there is a reason, simplicity.

A 2V SOHC motor is distictly different from a 4V DOHC engine with respect to breathing characteristics. The 2V motor many times has the valves in a line and are not canted to the intake or exhaust port. A 4V DOHC design can have the banks of two valves canted which enhances port flow plus it has more valve area than the 2V engine.

The OHV engine is it's own unique case as you can imagine.

The others you mention are slightly different cases of the ones I defined. While the Audi is somewhat unique, I doubt the advantages were that great. Most of the five valve adopters have gone back to four valve designs. In particular is Yamaha in their Superbike race designs. They were a huge proponent of five valve motors but found just as much power with four valve designs.

I have to agree with Jake and Jeff. The system we have works pretty damn well, at least for ITS it does, the class which I know the most about. I understand from talking with others it works pretty well in A,B, and C.

Bob Roth

01-19-2009, 10:13 PM

As a fly on the wall, might I suggest that the honda B and K VTEC motors with their essentially same vtec cams, head flow capability, and same specific power, be considered as essentially the same for a different multiplier?

tnord

01-19-2009, 10:14 PM

Knestis

01-19-2009, 10:29 PM

Why do you say that Kirk? All we do is keep it simple. We take what we know and we apply it. The Wankel doesn't have it's own 'process'...it't no different that any other car that doesn't fit the standard 25% multiplier.

But saying a new system is a "snafu" because it won't handle one of three oddball Wankel cases is completely disingenuous. I would NOT propose doing anything differently with the Wankels in any process we apply. They're "cases of one" so defy any effort to make them part of a repeatable process.

HOWEVER, that is most assuredly NOT enough of a reason to bail on any different way of dealing with the data.

Still trying to see what this is getting us - without trying to force something.

It's getting us away from picking power multipliers based on imprecise data. While I've long ago accepted that we need to do that with the rotaries, I've never been at all comfortable with the using "what we know," because - for about the zillionth time - we don't KNOW what we know.

This approach would quantify a theoretical assumption that I think there's pretty broad consensus on. And it would be REPEATABLE. And OBJECTIVE, if first principles are accepted...

K

Knestis

01-19-2009, 10:39 PM

... It is simply normalizing the cars in the class to a bogey's specific output. Which is fine with me, it is what it is. One specific output is not going to work for the entire class in question and I'm not sure that you'll get away with a single OHC specific output target. ...

It's normalizing the outputs to our 1.25 multiplier standard. EVERY EXAMPLE has its own specific output, based on stock power, displacement, and number of cylinders.

Do we or do we not accept the first principles:

1. Not all engines respond to IT preparation the same way; they don't have the same "power potential"

2. We current adjust for this by using the 1.25 power factor multiplier, unless we "know otherwise" (I get hives just typing that)

3. We would LIKE to be able to take this step in the process, in a repeatable, objective way - we may not all agree on this point...?? Some of us may WANT to be able to adjust power factors subjectively more than others of us.

4. The "specific output" of an engine - the power per unit of displacement - is an indicator of how "maximized" it is. We made a big deal out of the 283hp 283CI Fuelie 'vette, and the S2000 gets cited as an example of engineering excellence because it's more than one hp/cc...

5. Therefore, it's REASONABLE (not perfect) to suggest considering specific output to predict how a car might be expected to respond to IT preparation.

Or have I fallen off my stool and am completely missing something...??

HELP?

K

tnord

01-19-2009, 11:05 PM

It's normalizing the outputs to our 1.25 multiplier standard. EVERY EXAMPLE has its own specific output, based on stock power, displacement, and number of cylinders.

Do we or do we not accept the first principles:

1. Not all engines respond to IT preparation the same way; they don't have the same "power potential"

yup. without getting into what i feel is an overly complex process, and if you want a process other than what we currently have (which works well enough IMO), then you have to accept that whatever formula is used will be so with varying degrees of success. in other words.....any feasable formula used there will still be instances where people can say "HEY!!!! i don't make 175whp, i only make 165!!!!"

2. We current adjust for this by using the 1.25 power factor multiplier, unless we "know otherwise" (I get hives just typing that)

3. We would LIKE to be able to take this step in the process, in a repeatable, objective way - we may not all agree on this point...?? Some of us may WANT to be able to adjust power factors subjectively more than others of us.

i want it both ways. any formula will fail in some instances, i don't want "us" to be so rigid in the process that we won't move from it and creating another ITS BMW situation.

4. The "specific output" of an engine - the power per unit of displacement - is an indicator of how "maximized" it is. We made a big deal out of the 283hp 283CI Fuelie 'vette, and the S2000 gets cited as an example of engineering excellence because it's more than one hp/cc...

5. Therefore, it's REASONABLE (not perfect) to suggest considering specific output to predict how a car might be expected to respond to IT preparation.

Or have I fallen off my stool and am completely missing something...??

HELP?

K

of the entire post, 4 and 5 are the best points. you understand what i was trying to do perfectly, and if you want to run with it.....have at it. you have a lot more clout with people than i do, but i'm still happy to run numbers or help manipulate the formula however you want.

Tristan Smith

01-20-2009, 11:43 AM

Having read this thread, and having raced in IT for 15 years, I can't help but think that creating new criteria for classifying cars, or adjusting cars is a slippery slope. It seems like the process currently works. why mess with it?
Now aside from the fact that I am building a 300zx for ITR, I am one of the those who feel that the Pony cars already have a place in AS, and there is no need to include them in ITR. It's not that I fear that they will become over dogs, but the cars have a place to race, and including them in IT is redundent. But I am all for the v6 Mustangs and camaros being included.

Ron Earp

01-20-2009, 12:30 PM

but the cars have a place to race, and including them in IT is redundent. But I am all for the v6 Mustangs and camaros being included.

Tristan I highly respect your opinion as a long time IT racer. But that argument is akin to saying Miatas have a place to race in Spec Miata, Prod, and SS so they should not be allow to race in IT. Can a car only have one place to race? Should a car type only be limited to one engine option? If so there are numerous examples in IT that would be made redundant since they are already available in various configurations, including my own 260Z.

There are a lot of racers (the letters on the subject were heavily in favor of the Pony cars in ITR) who would like to race a Mustang or Camaro outside the AS ruleset and IT fits the level of modifications they wish to perform.

The discussion on this thread about another classification process was a digression from the Pony Car thread. There is no need to alter the ITR classification process. If you have a look at the proposal, which is around 1.5 years old, you'll find nothing new or rule changing was proposed to fit the V8 Ponys in ITR.

lateapex911

01-20-2009, 12:52 PM

4. The "specific output" of an engine - the power per unit of displacement - is an indicator of how "maximized" it is. We made a big deal out of the 283hp 283CI Fuelie 'vette, and the S2000 gets cited as an example of engineering excellence because it's more than one hp/cc...

5. Therefore, it's REASONABLE (not perfect) to suggest considering specific output to predict how a car might be expected to respond to IT preparation.

Or have I fallen off my stool and am completely missing something...??

HELP?

K

Two big flys can fall into the ointment from my vantage point, assuming that we CAN find a predictive formula such as the one being discussed here that works:

1- Original specs from the manufacturers are under/overstated. Now, we already have issues dealing with that...so I would suggest that we need to continue to handle "special cases" in "special ways" (Of course I know THAT path is thick with thorns too....)

2- The basic assumption is that two factors will predict an outcome: Size and efficiency. It is assumed that motors that have high specific outputs just can't see large gains, (OK, I buy that), but the converse is assumed that low specific outputs WILL see bigger gains. We have to be careful there, as those low specific output motors are that way for a reason, and the reason could very well be something that can't be changed in IT, like a cam/intake manifold combo that just won't make power.

in the end, I think the current system is working, and anything we do needs to be a clear improvement. AND I can't see going to a system that doesn't allow, however strictly, some degree of "tuning" by humans.

It is very possible for a system to spit out the wrong output given the wrong input, and that can damage a class.

(Don't get me wrong...I like the idea, but I want to tread carefully)

lateapex911

01-20-2009, 12:55 PM

Knestis

01-20-2009, 01:11 PM

...1- Original specs from the manufacturers are under/overstated. Now, we already have issues dealing with that...

We don't adequately handle those situations currently (I don't personally think). That's a quandary for which a solution requires agreement on first principles. We don't have anything like consensus yet so it's an open question...

2- The basic assumption is that two factors will predict an outcome: Size and efficiency. It is assumed that motors that have high specific outputs just can't see large gains, (OK, I buy that), but the converse is assumed that low specific outputs WILL see bigger gains. ...

Those cases fall into the "we have to prove a negative" situation, whereby to use anything MORE FAVORABLE than a 25% power factor, we need "proof" that can't happen. It sounds harsh but make/model examples that fall into that trap are kind of doomed so I confess that I neglect that side of the problem. Of course, that argues for 25% being a FLOOR and the Nordwald Conspiracy proposes it as a middle... Hmmm.

K

tnord

01-20-2009, 01:21 PM

We don't adequately handle those situations currently (I don't personally think). That's a quandary for which a solution requires agreement on first principles. We don't have anything like consensus yet so it's an open question...

i think the model handles those situations pretty well. it says, "i don't give a F what rating the factory gives it, it has 2.0L and should be able to achieve X power level."

Ron Earp

01-20-2009, 01:34 PM

Those cases fall into the "we have to prove a negative" situation, whereby to use anything MORE FAVORABLE than a 25% power factor, we need "proof" that can't happen. It sounds harsh but make/model examples that fall into that trap are kind of doomed so I confess that I neglect that side of the problem. Of course, that argues for 25% being a FLOOR and the Nordwald Conspiracy proposes it as a middle... Hmmm.
K

This was my point many posts ago but I must be not understanding how this thing works. However, Travis said I did understand how it works.....anyhow.....

You take one model car/engine and say "This one gets a 25% gain". Now, any engine that meets this bogey's hp/L/cyl figure also gets a 25% gain.

If the engine we're "testing" has a stock figure is under the bogey's hp/L/cly figure, look out, because it'll be scaled up to assume to be close to as efficient as the bogey. That simply doesn't happen in practice. No matter what you do to a pushrod 3.8L OHV engine it won't be as efficient as a 1.8L 4 valve Integra.

For example, as test case, the V6 Camaro:

200hp / 3.8L / 6 cyl = 8.77 hp/L/cyl <= Stock hp/L/cyl of the Camaro

((8.77 – 19.44) / 19.44 / 3) * 100 = -18.29 <=This number is negative because the test case is not as efficient as the bogey, the 19.44 hp/L/cyl Integra

25 – (-18.29) = 43.29 % expected gain in IT trim <= % gain IS MORE than 25% because the stock engine was not as efficient hp/L/cyl as the Integra. If the Camaro produced 19.44 hp/L/Cyl then the gain would be 25%

The V6 Camaro is not going to see a 42.29% gain in IT trim. That'd be a 286 hp 3.8L OHV pushrod engine, 75 hp/L. While I know that is no big deal in the DOHC 4V VTEC domain, it is a huge deal for OHV pushrod engines to reach that sort of specific output.

There needs to be different types of scalars for different engine architectures.

Ron

Tristan Smith

01-20-2009, 03:20 PM

Tristan I highly respect your opinion as a long time IT racer. But that argument is akin to saying Miatas have a place to race in Spec Miata, Prod, and SS so they should not be allow to race in IT. Can a car only have one place to race? Should a car type only be limited to one engine option? If so there are numerous examples in IT that would be made redundant since they are already available in various configurations, including my own 260Z.

There are a lot of racers (the letters on the subject were heavily in favor of the Pony cars in ITR) who would like to race a Mustang or Camaro outside the AS ruleset and IT fits the level of modifications they wish to perform.

The discussion on this thread about another classification process was a digression from the Pony Car thread. There is no need to alter the ITR classification process. If you have a look at the proposal, which is around 1.5 years old, you'll find nothing new or rule changing was proposed to fit the V8 Ponys in ITR.

Fair enough. Although the Miatas were classed in IT BEFORE Spec Miata was created. And the reason Spec Miata was classed, at least to some degree was because many felt a competitive Miata couldn't be built for IT (obviously proven wrong). Sure there were other reasons.....but I digress. If folks want the v8's in, bring them in. I was just voicing may opinion. The AS ruleset got progressively out of hand as competitors claimed that they had to do "X" and "Y" to the car, and "A" and "B" parts had to be put on the car to make them safe, reliable, ect. I think you will see a lot of that going on if the v8's are put in ITR. Now you all will say, "well we won't let that happen", and you probably won't, but.......just my opion. Take it for what it's worth.

Tristan Smith

01-20-2009, 03:26 PM

Tristian, ask yourself why you're building your ITR car. (Welcome back, BTW...IIRC you had to step away for a bit and sell the car due to a family tragedy...if I'm right, glad you've gotten by that )

Are you building it because you like the number of cars you'll race against in the class? Are you building it because you like Nissans? Because you like the IT ruleset? (Not too much, not too little). Or?

Now, try to redraw your conclusions, but from another point of view....

Yep. Building an ITR 300zx because I am a Nissan guy. Already did the 240sx thing, and there aren't any other rear drive Nissans I want to try. And yes I like the prep level of IT. Hey like I said, I was just throwing in my 2 cents. I'll race who ever shows up. I won't be any less of mediocre driver if the v8's show up! ha.

As of this week (and these days I take it week by week) I am still gainfully employed. I was layed off my job is August and then reinstated a month later. Go figure. But I am grateful in this economy!

tnord

01-20-2009, 03:49 PM

I think one of the things that makes Travis' formula more appealing is the use of the 'rwhp' factor (.85), which has the effect of smoothing the output. If you remove that constant the results are more noticeably off; you end up with the 300ZX making 305 HP, the BMW making 260, the V6 Camaro making 268, and my puny little ITA 240SX making 187.

uhh....they probably do make those power numbers at the flywheel. the .85 is in there to spit out a number you'd see from the dyno, and accounts for drivetrain loss. i did that so i can compare the formula to "what i know" regarding how much power certain cars make on the drums.

Ron Earp

01-20-2009, 04:15 PM

I think one of the things that makes Travis' formula more appealing is the use of the 'rwhp' factor (.85), which has the effect of smoothing the output. If you remove that constant the results are more noticeably off; you end up with the 300ZX making 305 HP, the BMW making 260, the V6 Camaro making 268, and my puny little ITA 240SX making 187.

Earl, the rear wheel factor doesn't do anything with respect to "smoothing" the data. It is simply a scalar value and just gives you an approximation of rear wheel hp.

100 flywheel hp or 85 rear wheel hp. Assuming a 15% driveline loss this is the same thing.

A 3.8L OHV IT-trim Camaro with 286 flywheel hp is just as improbable as a 3.8L OHV IT-trim Camaro with 243 rear wheel hp. They are the same.

Knestis

01-20-2009, 05:17 PM

Thanks for connecting the dots for me, Ron. I think you are kind of talking about the "floor vs. middle" question that Jake surfaced. MY disconnect was that I had *never* thought about the output of the process as anything like "real horsepower." Partially, it's because I don't know enough about the various make/model examples for them to make much sense but also - I suppose - it's because I view the outcome as a contributor to additional math that actually spits out a race weight. We already apply torque adders to the cars most likely affected by what you describe, in the Nord v.1.5 plan, and I had *NOT* done that with the output examples I played with. The WEIGHTS of the cases I looked at appeared to shake out close(ish) to where they are set by the current process, which suggested to me that it has potential. It's a proxy for torque, which I know complicates the conversation...

K

tnord

01-20-2009, 05:46 PM

And, uhhh, no, I promise they don't make those numbers at the flywheel.

.

160whp (rumored number for a certain former 240sx) * (1/.85) = 188 crank hp. :shrug:

Ron Earp

01-20-2009, 06:01 PM

. The WEIGHTS of the cases I looked at appeared to shake out close(ish) to where they are set by the current process, which suggested to me that it has potential. It's a proxy for torque, which I know complicates the conversation...
K

Kirk,

I never got as far as looking at the weights it spits out. I couldn't get past the first steps and issues I saw with the resulting numbers, nerd I am. Tonight I'll play with it a bit more and run it in ITS to see what it does with weights. Naturally I'll post the results in a readable fashion.

I think it has some promise. But, I also feel like of all the things discussed on this board about balancing things on a pin, the slippery slope to prod, and so on - this is it. Way more so than motor mounts being free or kicking out washer bottles or removing your window glass and headlights. This can balloon into models for DOHC 4V, SOHC 2V, OHV, and rotary engines. Next thing you know folks will want to account for valve area. And cam lift. And compression. And then we're trying to build a engine dyno program with a committee. Might as well just use desktop Dyno2000, it has been done. Nobody much likes desktop Dyno2000 either.

Ron

lateapex911

01-20-2009, 07:24 PM

The AS ruleset got progressively out of hand as competitors claimed that they had to do "X" and "Y" to the car, and "A" and "B" parts had to be put on the car to make them safe, reliable, ect. I think you will see a lot of that going on if the v8's are put in ITR. Now you all will say, "well we won't let that happen", and you probably won't, but.......just my opion. Take it for what it's worth.

Tristian, I hear you, and trust me, that aspect has been brought up and discussed. HARD.

If I may brag a bit...the ITAC has shown, I think, over the past few years (actually going back quite aways) a commendable resistance to line item exceptions (That's exactly what you are talking about). And, actually, we've done away with some, which is unheard of in the SCCA, LOL.

While I'd like to think that your concern won't be an issue because the ITAC won't let it, I'm not that naive. The major factor that will keep them in check is the fact that the IT category is a multi marque series, with a long history of "model blindness". AS is essentially a two car category, and that's morphed into a 1.5 model category. That means that changes can be implemented far more easily. Now, those changes stack up, and with time can create a different class ...but I'm not worried about that at all in IT.

If they become overdogs, we have the mechanism to fix it, and we've shown that we are up to that task in the past.

Knestis

01-20-2009, 08:09 PM

I think it has some promise. But, I also feel like of all the things discussed on this board about balancing things on a pin, the slippery slope to prod, and so on - this is it. Way more so than motor mounts being free or kicking out washer bottles or removing your window glass and headlights. This can balloon into models for DOHC 4V, SOHC 2V, OHV, and rotary engines. ...

I couldn't disagree more, actually. In fact, my greatest fear right now is that we'll eek forward trying to do a "better job" ABSENT any explicitly defined model, and increasingly allow subjectively assessed "what-we-knows" to influence decisions.

It's NOT a major problem right now but there are several places in the current process where subjective decisions by the ITAC are allowed. If we're saddled with constraints like the "100 pound rule" and collectively (all us us) have low expectations for precision, there's a lot less organizational pressure to "get it right" than will likely be the case in the future, when "not on the head of a pin" means "within 5 pounds of what the process says."

So maybe this isn't it but it's a hell of a big step toward understanding how it might work. And REMEMBER - my first assumption is that a predictable, repeatable, transparent system that's "wrong" sometimes is better than any one that allows very much human interference. THAT'S what got Production where it is today.

K

tnord

01-20-2009, 08:27 PM

i have to agree with kirk on that.

<----is totally fine with 50lbs outside of process weight being the target.

Ron Earp

01-20-2009, 08:29 PM

I think it is a good idea to strive to create an impartial process that is devoid of hearsay, what we knows, and so forth. I do. But I suppose two things stand out to me:

1) IT really isn't broken. IT seems to work very well right now, although I'd estimate that if we had an impartial model in place new car classifications wouldn't be so damn hard - i.e. Pony cars and the like.

2) Any project always grows beyond the initial scope and boundaries envisioned by the creators.

We don't seem to be able to change some really simple IT characteristics that the membership as a whole seem to want. Things like "ditch the washer bottles" and "make motor mounts free" without others bringing up the "Unintended Consequences" and using that UC spectre to deny the request.

We don't seem to be able to do a simple thing like ditch the washer bottles because we don't think we can hold the rules development to that simple change only. How can we be sure that we can develop a new IT classification model, hold that model to the bare essentials of IT, and not suffer UC with a prod like result?

Hey, I'm with you on making IT a better place. But I'm also with you on not breaking it.

Xian

01-20-2009, 08:50 PM

Ron, if someone tells me motor mounts are free, then my engine is getting lowered and moved back by several inches in the chassis. KISS, TANSTAAFL, and all that.

Tristan Smith

01-20-2009, 08:58 PM

160whp (rumored number for a certain former 240sx) * (1/.85) = 188 crank hp. :shrug:

Sorry I call bullshit on that one. My Sunbelt built and tuned (on a dyno) LEGAL motor made 158 hp and 162 ft/lbs at the FLYWHEEL. Anyone making the numbers you are quoting is either cheating or sniffing too much race gas.

Tristan Smith

01-20-2009, 09:05 PM

Ron Earp

01-20-2009, 09:17 PM

I'm with you on this Ron, and that was my concern posted earlier. The question for me then, is if we don't classify the V8's do we really still need to be having this discussion about a new classification process?

Hey Tristan,

They are unrelated. The thread started about "hey, what about those Pony cars" because people knew the proposal was out there but there was no feedback from the ITAC and/or CRB. Once that got kicked off the thread degenerated into various things about the classification process - how does it address torque, how does it address % gains seen in some engines, and so on. The V8 Pony cars fit just fine into ITR although the weight is about 100 lbs more than the 300zx and they have a much poorer suspension. Wouldn't be my tool of choice but folks do want a place to race them in IT.

Anyhow, the thread that has started out about V8 Pony cars is now about the an alternative classification process that encompasses all of IT, not just ITR/Pony cars. The thread might should be peeled off into another topic but generally when that is done on forums both topics, the new one and the parent, go cold.

Ron

Ron, if someone tells me motor mounts are free, then my engine is getting lowered and moved back by several inches in the chassis. KISS, TANSTAAFL, and all that.

Cool. Turn it around 90 degrees and fix it so it drives the correct set of wheels too!

Knestis

01-20-2009, 09:57 PM

Deep Throat - 160whp (rumored number for a certain former 240sx) * (1/.85) = 188 crank hp.

Mata Hari - My Sunbelt built and tuned (on a dyno) LEGAL motor made 158 hp and 162 ft/lbs at the FLYWHEEL. Anyone making the numbers you are quoting is either cheating or sniffing too much race gas.

Welcome to a microcosm of "what we know." :)

K

Xian

01-20-2009, 10:35 PM

Cool. Turn it around 90 degrees and fix it so it drives the correct set of wheels too!

Well played. :happy204: Granted that would have one axle going out thru the front bumper... guess I could always attach some sort of saw blade wheel of death thing to it. May help cut down on lap traffic getting in the way ;)

JeffYoung

01-20-2009, 10:42 PM

Sharpen and use that passenger window Christian!

Kirk, you've got a noble goal here, which is (I think) to remove subjectivity and "here's my dyno sheet" from the process. I understand that.

But we are racers, and even if we come up with a 10 page formula for every type of engine architecture possible in order to "fairly" class all cars so that all are equally competitive, SOMEONE will still show up with a dyno sheet showing us why we are wrong.

To me, a more granular process has no real added advantage because the arguments -- including the one about what we know -- don't really go away, and at the same time we open the door for all kinds of lengthy discussion about what a 2V OHV motor has in the way of volumetric efficiency, or whether one 4V DOHC motor head is a better design than antoher, etc.

Bob Roth

01-20-2009, 11:20 PM

An opinion to keep in mind is that though IT might not be broken, there are still reasons to look at the rules.
1) We now have 30+ years of diversity of engine performance that we are trying to equalize. Lets assume that the trend is to for modern cars to have substantially higher specific hp than the class, and that they do not benefit from IT prep like the present class, why should people build new cars? Tough question unless its ok that we all race 20 year old cars. Sooner or later where will the new IT cars come from if they are overclassed?
2) The root of the string illustrates the other concern, if you take a homogious class like ITR where most cars are in the 70hp/liter range, and drop a significantly different engine like a V8, my bet is there will some heartbreak is that the 225 hp at 45 hp/liter V8 may benefit more from IT allowed improvements than the 240 hp at 100 hp/liter S2000.

Both are problems worth addressing. As an example street S2000's are now selling for less than $15k. They might be a magnificent IT car to build, but my bet is any Honda tuner would tell you he's unlikely to get meaningful more power than honda did, so why build one?

Again I mention, there are more VTEC B Honda's than all the Miata's built. They represent the best in FWD, being excellent reliable cars. Yet they are notoriously absent from IT fields.

Although IT might not be broken, I think there are reasons to look at equalizing the different Hp/liter potential engines. I noted with interest the ITA's 240 SX owners comments that says his 1990 2.4L engine is 160 whp, 160 ft/lb torque and races in ITA at 2630 pounds, my 1995 to 1999 1.6L Sol VTEC is 155 whp, 115 ft/lb but I gets to race in ITS. I would love to race in ITA at 2660. but because honda gave me a race cam, 4-2-1 header and an intake that is every bit as good as any aftermarket upgrade, I'm in ITS. It would really help for the comittee to look at development potential when classing engines.

thanks

Knestis

01-21-2009, 10:33 AM

<sigh>

I'm proposing doing away with pages, Jeff - not adding them. But like I posted in the FWD adders thread, if I'm the only one worried about this dynamic, I should set it free. I'll invoke Greg's warning that "we eventually get the IT that we ask for." I hope I'm wrong but 25 years of history tells me otherwise.

** We don't collectively appear to be interested in exploring more complex objective processes for adders/subtractors.

** Equally, nobody seems interested in establishing what constitutes evidence substantial enough to do something other than use the default 1.25 power multiplier.

** We DO appear to have something like consensus that we should try as best we can to get the weights to "within 5 pounds" of "right."

There's a an org theory term that I love - "strategic ambiguity" - that describes a situation where decision makers actively enact practices that leave them wiggle room. Some managers use it as a tool to enable micromanagement. In this instance, It's clear that this has been codified into The Process to allow for enough subjectivity that the ITAC can "do the right thing" and "use what they know..."

...but the exact same practice can - and will - result in situations like the notorious Civic DX listing, where WE (collectively) do what WE (one or two people) know (or convince others, or worse yet themselves, that they know). In cases like this, we eventually come to understand that we're too clever by half.

K

erlrich

01-21-2009, 10:52 AM

<sigh>
** We don't collectively appear to be interested in exploring more complex objective processes for adders/subtractors.

K

Which then begs the question; are there any non-spec racing classes (or series) anywhere in the world that rely solely on objective, non-performance based processes for classifying cars?

JeffYoung

01-21-2009, 12:44 PM

Kirk, I respect what you are trying to do, I just don't see it going where you want it to go.

We will by necessity have to add pages, and collective wisdom, to the classing process if we try to go to some sort of displacement based output formula because motors of different architectures (and even ones of the same architecture) produce widely varying power outputs. Take a look at the Ruck Prelude and tell me how the formula would deal with a 2.3 4 cylinder that puts out over 170 wtq?

For me, IT -- with its no guarantee of competitiveness and a history of NOT trying to ensure that all cars are 100% equally balanced (which is impossible anyway, and is truly what "leads to prod") -- needs a simple, repeatable process with some very limited "human" checks on it. Basically, what we have now. It works.

To answer your specific questions:

** We don't collectively appear to be interested in exploring more complex objective processes for adders/subtractors.

See above. I think at the end of the day it causes more trouble than it eliminates, and we will stil have guys sending us dyno sheets and saying our calculations are wrong......

** Equally, nobody seems interested in establishing what constitutes evidence substantial enough to do something other than use the default 1.25 power multiplier.

I am, but think this is a tough call because that line will be different for each individual. I'm not sure if it is possible to come up with a completely objective criteria to do this.

** We DO appear to have something like consensus that we should try as best we can to get the weights to "within 5 pounds" of "right."

Within the parameters of the process, yes, ok, let's make this effort (and we are).

<sigh>

I'm proposing doing away with pages, Jeff - not adding them. But like I posted in the FWD adders thread, if I'm the only one worried about this dynamic, I should set it free. I'll invoke Greg's warning that "we eventually get the IT that we ask for." I hope I'm wrong but 25 years of history tells me otherwise.

** We don't collectively appear to be interested in exploring more complex objective processes for adders/subtractors.

** Equally, nobody seems interested in establishing what constitutes evidence substantial enough to do something other than use the default 1.25 power multiplier.

** We DO appear to have something like consensus that we should try as best we can to get the weights to "within 5 pounds" of "right."

There's a an org theory term that I love - "strategic ambiguity" - that describes a situation where decision makers actively enact practices that leave them wiggle room. Some managers use it as a tool to enable micromanagement. In this instance, It's clear that this has been codified into The Process to allow for enough subjectivity that the ITAC can "do the right thing" and "use what they know..."

...but the exact same practice can - and will - result in situations like the notorious Civic DX listing, where WE (collectively) do what WE (one or two people) know (or convince others, or worse yet themselves, that they know). In cases like this, we eventually come to understand that we're too clever by half.

K

Knestis

01-21-2009, 01:56 PM

>> For me, IT -- with its no guarantee of competitiveness and a history of NOT trying to ensure that all cars are 100% equally balanced (which is impossible anyway, and is truly what "leads to prod") -- needs a simple, repeatable process with some very limited "human" checks on it. Basically, what we have now. It works.

I'm quoting that for posterity, emphasis mine. We'll come back to this in January 2010 and see what that looks like. :)

Between now and then, do you think I should let things go the direction I smell them going, throw myself bodily in front of any listing not following the default assumptions, or...??

Or I'm just paranoid and should quit worrying.

K

JeffYoung

01-21-2009, 02:04 PM

Throw that body around man!

Seriously, in my limited time on the ITAC it already seems to me that different folks fulfill different roles. You are VERY good at giving us context to what we are doing, history on past mistakes and our ability to repeat them, and strict adherence to certain fundamental principles. THis is necessary stuff.

I also fully agree wtih you that the limited human checks part is where the danger is with the existing process. That thing can go to hell if "what we know" starts becoming complicated formulas on aero, or brake size, or even FWD handicaps.

The simpler we keep this, in my view, the better off we are. Power/Weight/Torque mod (50 and 100)/ FWD mod (50 and 100) and that is IT -- I think the suspension modifiers are a mistake given what can be done via the rules to MacStruts and live rears. 25% power adder, except for rotaries, and my car, and any other where we have conclusive (subjective still, I know that) evidence to the contrary.

dickita15

01-21-2009, 06:00 PM

[quote=Knestis;281434
Between now and then, do you think I should let things go the direction I smell them going, throw myself bodily in front of any listing not following the default assumptions, or...??

Or I'm just paranoid and should quit worrying.

K[/quote]

Kirk,
Just because you are paranoid does not mean the world is not out to get you.
Your goal of removing subjectivity is worthy. I am not sure if it is possible, but keep trying to find the way. In the meantime keep questioning “what we know” when others claim we know it. I would rather have a few cars that cannot be raced well than have an political classification process.

esuvee

01-29-2009, 09:27 PM

There is a discussion going on in another forum about ITA racer satisfaction and in responding 'very satisfied' I stumbled across what my fear really is about these potential changes and I though I would paste it here as well. It also applies to the FWD/RWD thing.

"Some of the IT.com discussions about refining the weight/power/adder process are well intentioned and have meaningful, correct, engineering based answers available. However, I see that we may be correcting one or two factors that currently offset some equally incorrect factors that we don't fully understand. Therefore, by correcting what we can and ignoring what we don't understand we put the whole thing off it's current balance.

A specific example is the discussion surrounding the IT power multiplier being modified by engine specific output. Certainly it makes some engineering sense to utilize this data and I think it could be done correctly. However, what if we don't understand the ties between a high specific output engine and a generally well engineered car for the track. In that case when we 'correct' the IT power factor 'problem' we eliminate the currently unintended but important 'it's generally a shitty car' factor that is working in the opposite direction to keep things balanced currently."

The 'it's generally a shitty car' factor is just an example I used for things we don't fully grasp that contribute to what is already working well, I think there are many of these.

Alex