March 09 Fast Track

[shwah]

Fast track is out.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/09/03/09-fastrack-march.pdf

I didn't ask for 'clarification' of the air dam rule. I asked for it to be changed. But either way - status quo rules. Yes I still think its dumb to allow any air dam, but require stock ones to remain in place. No you can't convince me that there is any additional gain being prevented, simply because tons of cars have no air dam to begin with. And yes I'll stop talking about it now.

:eclipsee_steering:

[Greg Amy]

Technical Bulletin:

"2. Add to Appendix B: Traction Control – Any system that employs electronic signals to reduce wheel spin, independent of direct driver inputs. To achieve their goal, such systems may, for example, reduce engine speed, reduce fuel flow, selectively apply braking, or modify differential output."

Ergo, if it doesn't use "electronic signals" - e.g., sensors - it's not "traction control"...

Where's that damn popcorn icon...?

[Rabbit07]

ITS – Clarify Neon ACR move to ITA (Gulick). Tabled for further research

I am cofused by this one? Jake, do you care to coment?

[Ron Earp]

"Move the RX8 to ITS?" - Marcus

I don't even think one has yet been built for ITR.

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Move the RX8 to ITS?" - Marcus

I don't even think one has yet been built for ITR.

You bet there has.

[Andy Bettencourt]

ITS – Clarify Neon ACR move to ITA (Gulick). Tabled for further research

I am cofused by this one? Jake, do you care to coment?




Not sure how this got tagged as Jake. Larry Ray wrote the letter.

[Rabbit07]

Not sure how this got tagged as Jake. Larry Ray wrote the letter.

Thanks Andy

[Ron Earp]

You bet there has.

Ok.

And does this figure into the moving it into S request?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ok.

And does this figure into the moving it into S request?

Sure it does! Only from the requestors standpoint. The RX-8 is an ITR car in the opinion of the ITAC. The weight is what is currently being hotly debated. Either way, it just may not be the best car for the class. A shame too.

[Ron Earp]

The weight is what is currently being hotly debated. Either way, it just may not be the best car for the class. A shame too.

Call me an outcast, but if there is no apparent "best car" for a class then to me it means the ITAC has done a good job in classing the cars. If there is a "best car" for the class something is wrong.

[tnord]

Call me an outcast, but if there is no apparent "best car" for a class then to me it means the ITAC has done a good job in classing the cars. If there is a "best car" for the class something is wrong.

i think what he's saying is that it may be at a disadvantage, and there's nothing they can do about it.

[Ron Earp]

i think what he's saying is that it may be at a disadvantage, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Unfortunately, that viewpoint sort of depends on who you ask - the folks wanting to build them or the folks racing against them.

[tnord]

Unfortunately, that viewpoint sort of depends on who you ask - the folks wanting to build them or the folks racing against them.

if no one is willing to build them, i think that gives you a pretty strong signal towards your answer.

i'm not super knowledgeable on the cars, but i look at it the same was as the S2000. awesome car that i'd love to compete with, but at 3000lbs i think they're too heavy, and i'm not going to be the $20,000 guinea pig.

[JeffYoung]

There is one ITR RX8 in Florida, the person who requested the move to ITS built it.

[tnord]

i'd be interested to know what his thought process is and expected outcome of that request.....for the sake of my own curiosity.

Q; What's worse than a 3000lb RX-8?
A; A 3250lb RX-8.

[JeffYoung]

I can only speak for myself personally, but I don't see it as an S car even with the issues related to stock hp rating and potential gain (or lack thereof) for the Renesis.

It's clearly an R car (to me).

[seckerich]

The car you are talking about belongs to Buzz Marcus. He is a past pro driver and plenty quick in his older ITS Speedsource RX7. His car is a 10/10ths build by Speedsource and was a total waste of time and money. He had the car built when he thought it would get classed properly. Not going to kick that wounded horse again but the proof for a lot of ITR cars is the lack of builds. Time for the ITAC to take a leap of faith and fix it later if they were wrong. He was just tweaking you guys with the ITS request to show the insane logic that has a car with 25% less torque, and less HP classed 200+ pounds heavier than other cars in the class. As my sig says--RIP.

[Andy Bettencourt]

i think what he's saying is that it may be at a disadvantage, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Correct.

[lateapex911]

He was just tweaking you guys with the ITS request .....

Steve, that's too bad.

Here's why. For anyone who might want to try and rectify the situation, his request served as a problem.

The ITAC is in a constant process of trying to be better. Trying to be responsive, consistent transparent and accountable.

That's much different than the way committees in the club have operated in the past.

because he wrote us requesting an action, we are bound by procedure to respond to the action he requests. IF he had written another type of request, we would be bound to respond to THAT request. The CRB is going to get accountability from the ITAC, and we want the same from the CRB and the BoD.

We might "know" (wink wink) what the requester wants, but, we have to act on what he writes. It's our duty to the club.

(I'll be honest here that there is considerable "discussion" regarding that car, and other procedural factors that affect how that car, and cars like it are handled. We need to make sure that we are consistent. fair, transparent, and accountable in how we handle that case, and similar ones. It IS being worked on.)

[seckerich]

Steve, that's too bad.

Here's why. For anyone who might want to try and rectify the situation, his request served as a problem.

The ITAC is in a constant process of trying to be better. Trying to be responsive, consistent transparent and accountable.

That's much different than the way committees in the club have operated in the past.

because he wrote us requesting an action, we are bound by procedure to respond to the action he requests. IF he had written another type of request, we would be bound to respond to THAT request. The CRB is going to get accountability from the ITAC, and we want the same from the CRB and the BoD.

We might "know" (wink wink) what the requester wants, but, we have to act on what he writes. It's our duty to the club.

(I'll be honest here that there is considerable "discussion" regarding that car, and other procedural factors that affect how that car, and cars like it are handled. We need to make sure that we are consistent. fair, transparent, and accountable in how we handle that case, and similar ones. It IS being worked on.)

I have not spoken with Buzz, just guessing myself:D, A lot of people are just frustrated, for lack of a better term, that cars they would like to build have no real chance against good builds of other makes. Glad to hear there is ongoing discussion. We really need more cars if ITR is to survive. ITR builds are way too expensive to build an underdog of any make. The poster child of the process will hopefully get more refined. You have some good blood on the ITAC now with a more open mind so it might happen.Should I change my sig to "on life support" instead of RIP???

[Ron Earp]

We really need more cars if ITR is to survive.

If the V8 Mulletmobiles were classed and you'd increase ITR counts more than with any other car classifcation. The support was very strong for those vehicles.

R

[lateapex911]

,......Should I change my sig to "on life support" instead of RIP???

LOL..I wish i knew.

Remember Steve, we are constrained by larger picture issues. We need to be very very careful when it comes to using "what we know"...because that little trickle that seems innocent today can become a flash flood instantly, and suddenly we are back to where we started, with the membership feeling like there is backroom dealing and a lack of transparency, and that creates a level of mistrust.

As a group we've worked hard to earn trust, and i think we're in a better position now than 5 years ago in that dept.

So, anything we do that treats a car "specially" needs to have a strict framework, and consistent evidence standards that can be applied fairly across the broad spectrum of IT cars.

I imagine you might see that such a thing isn't easy.

But, we meet in 15 minutes and the entire call will be discussing large picture items such as those I listed above.

We're trying, man!

[gran racing]

What I don't get is why someone would be a 10/10ths car, especially with that type of build before it gets classed. While the ITAC has done a great job and continues to better the process (I hope), there are still cars to have and ones not to have in each class. The process still has holes in it where not all cars are going to equally competitive.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What I don't get is why someone would be a 10/10ths car, especially with that type of build before it gets classed. While the ITAC has done a great job and continues to better the process (I hope), there are still cars to have and ones not to have in each class. The process still has holes in it where not all cars are going to equally competitive.

It is certainly a risk. This car is like the S2000 in that it just doesn't make the expected 25% in IT trim. The issue is collecting enough data on a new listing that proves the negative. This car was a BIG risk when you factor in those issues.

[seckerich]

It is certainly a risk. This car is like the S2000 in that it just doesn't make the expected 25% in IT trim. The issue is collecting enough data on a new listing that proves the negative. This car was a BIG risk when you factor in those issues.

Actually quite a few cars on the ITR list are a big risk. The E36 is the target and therefore the poster child of fast. The other BMW and Porsche makes are also a shoe in with big HP and Torque with nominal weight. The others are either big HP and stupid high weight, or front drive/tire limited. Some are both. Somewhere common sense and the process will hopefully meet. Don't get me wrong, you guys are doing your best given the tools you have. I hope you do get a repeatable, defendable solution.

And to Daves post: If there is a "car to have" the ITAC has failed and the process is a joke.:023:

[Greg Amy]

What I don't get is why someone would be a 10/10ths car, especially with that type of build before it gets classed.
So they go through a 7/10s process (or 8/10s, or 9/10s), at that point have the ability and experience to recognize that the car will not be competitive (starting to sound a tad bit familiar?) and then make requests for adjustment, only to be bitch-slapped with "hey, until you commit the time and money to build a 10/10s car and prove to us otherwise, stop complaining. It's obviously not the car, it's the driver."

Starting to sound REAL familiar?

Can't win with you guys... :shrug:

[Andy Bettencourt]

So they go through a 7/10s process (or 8/10s, or 9/10s), at that point have the ability and experience to recognize that the car will not be competitive (starting to sound a tad bit familiar?) and then make requests for adjustment, only to be bitch-slapped with "hey, until you commit the time and money to build a 10/10s car and prove to us otherwise, stop complaining. It's obviously not the car, it's the driver."

Starting to sound REAL familiar?

Can't win with you guys... :shrug:

How did this become about us doing a bad job?

PS: There have been NO REQUESTS FOR ADJUSTMENTS. Must have missed your letter...:rolleyes:

[gran racing]

Steve, I said carS to have. That could mean 20 cars yet there might be a few that for what ever reason, the process doesn't get them to where they should be in terms of real world competitiveness.

[tom91ita]

How did this become about us doing a bad job?

PS: There have been NO REQUESTS FOR ADJUSTMENTS. Must have missed your letter...:rolleyes:

Andy,

I sent a letter to the CRB November 23, 2008 for reviewing IT weights in general and used my 1st gen CRX si ITB car as a specific example.

has that letter ever been received? if there was a "further review needed" or "weight is correct as classified" type of response, i must have missed it.

tia, tom

[Knestis]

>> He was just tweaking you guys with the ITS request to show the insane logic that has a car with 25% less torque, and less HP classed 200+ pounds heavier than other cars in the class.

I'll be more pointed in my response: Given the degree of responsiveness and transparency that the ITAC is TRYING to have, "playing the game" a la BS data, sandbagging, snarky comments, back-channel communications to board members, and all that old school smoke-filled rooms crap is to say the least UNHELPFUL.

If the ITAC is going to be collaborative, we absolutely need the membership to enter into the process in the same spirit. As my friend Greg is fond of saying, y'all will get the IT you deserve and the most surefire way to jam us up is to dick with openness when we're first learning how to use it.

K

[seckerich]

As I said before Kirk. Just my OPINION about what Buzz was doing. Contact him directly before yoiu get on your high horse and lecture me. He may very well think you are that far off with the car. After all, he is the ONLY one to actually build one. Might just have a better grasp on the situation. Get over yourself.:rolleyes: I am into very pointed responses as well.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

I sent a letter to the CRB November 23, 2008 for reviewing IT weights in general and used my 1st gen CRX si ITB car as a specific example.

has that letter ever been received? if there was a "further review needed" or "weight is correct as classified" type of response, i must have missed it.

tia, tom

If it was an e-mail, you should have gotten an immediate auto-gereated response when it hit the inbox. Items from Nov are on the December list and we didn't have a Dec call due to the holiday. We are in a temp holding pattern on all reviews and new classifications because we are defining, documenting and ironing out the process in order to move forward in a productive way. And I didn't mean to imply that we hadn't receive ANY letter, just not a letter from Greg (or anyone on FWD adders) who seems to be implying that we aren't listening.

[Greg Amy]

How did this become about us doing a bad job?

PS: There have been NO REQUESTS FOR ADJUSTMENTS. Must have missed your letter...:rolleyes:
WITF are you talking about, Bettencourt? You need to get that defensive chip off your shoulder, son.

Gran said it was stupid (OK, sorry, "I don't get it") to build a 10/10 car that's not classified yet (or, more inferentially, is not classified "well"). I pointed out that if he HADN'T done that, then you (as in YOU, Andy Bettencourt) would have been all up in his face complaining that he's got nothing to stand on since he hasn't built it 10/10 yet.

i.e., "Sound familiar?"

So, someone gets his panties in a twaddle when someone DOES take the initiative to 10/10s build a car, and someone else - usually Andy Bettencourt - gets his panties in a twaddle when he DOESN'T.

e.g.: Lose-Lose with "you guys."

Just sayin'. Sheesh.

My "even cheaper shot": it's a Mazda, so I'm pretty sure it'll get classified pretty damn well, eventually. So maybe the guy's not too stupid after all... :happy204:

[ddewhurst]

****If it was an e-mail, you should have gotten an immediate auto-gereated response when it hit the inbox.****

Andy, a word to the wise. The SCCA auto answer system is a bit lame to say the least. As an example back when the BoD member ran his/her mouth to a Mazda employee I sent an e-mail & NEVER received notice that the e-mail had been received. During that time the SCCA pres stated that the SCCA had received 31 BoD/Mazda e-mails. What is worse than an automated system, is an automated system that may never be checked to see if it's functioning correctly.

[Andy Bettencourt]

WITF are you talking about, Bettencourt? You need to get that defensive chip off your shoulder, son.

Gran said it was stupid (OK, sorry, "I don't get it") to build a 10/10 car that's not classified yet (or, more inferentially, is not classified "well"). I pointed out that if he HADN'T done that, then you (as in YOU, Andy Bettencourt) would have been all up in his face complaining that he's got nothing to stand on since he hasn't built it 10/10 yet.

i.e., "Sound familiar?"

So, someone gets his panties in a twaddle when someone DOES take the initiative to 10/10s build a car, and someone else - usually Andy Bettencourt - gets his panties in a twaddle when he DOESN'T.

e.g.: Lose-Lose with "you guys."

Just sayin'. Sheesh.

My "even cheaper shot": it's a Mazda, so I'm pretty sure it'll get classified pretty damn well, eventually. So maybe the guy's not too stupid after all... :happy204:

Do you ever read your posts outloud before you send them? I have no right to get defensive when you write the stuff you do? You say 'sound familiar' like you have actually made a request. Your post reads like you have gone through the 7/10ths motions when you haven't followed through and sent in some information. The request from a 10/10th car owner was to drop it to ITS at a lower weight than it is listed now in ITR based on on-track performance at one event. It had no real information other than how much he 'lost' to an E36 by and his statement of RWHP (with no supporting documentation).

It's hard not to read all the sacrasm and BS you write and not get defensive...especially just coming off a 4 hour con-call last night in which I committed to put together a proactive proposal for changes in the FWD adders because nobody has written in yet and gotten it on an agenda.

But I guess ignorance is bliss.... Just sayin'.

More edit - do I overreact to your posts? Maybe - but it ain't like you aren't trying to get a rise out of us. Probably just me...but it is what it is.

[tnord]

Greg & Andy are both right.

1) It's a big gamble, if not foolish, to build a car before you even know what your starting point/weight will be. Espeically with something like the RX-8 where there are a lot of variables working against it that other cars don't have to deal with.
2) If you're going to do it, and essentially be the first one, you better do it all-out because if it's not "competitive" and not a 10/10ths build, the data point is dismissed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

****If it was an e-mail, you should have gotten an immediate auto-gereated response when it hit the inbox.****

Andy, a word to the wise. The SCCA auto answer system is a bit lame to say the least. As an example back when the BoD member ran his/her mouth to a Mazda employee I sent an e-mail & NEVER received notice that the e-mail had been received. During that time the SCCA pres stated that the SCCA had received 31 BoD/Mazda e-mails. What is worse than an automated system, is an automated system that may never be checked to see if it's functioning correctly.

I have sent two or three letters in this year and have always received the auto-response.

[Super Swift]

I only know of Buzz Marcus competing in one race with his RX-8: Homestead in June 08. He seemed to be off his game as he crashed out early however he was 4 seconds faster than the quickest ITS car and within 1/2 sec of the ITR track record. Doesn't seem like a dog to me.

Ben Robertson

[Knestis]

As I said before Kirk. Just my OPINION about what Buzz was doing. Contact him directly before yoiu get on your high horse and lecture me. He may very well think you are that far off with the car. After all, he is the ONLY one to actually build one. Might just have a better grasp on the situation. Get over yourself.:rolleyes: I am into very pointed responses as well.

I wasn't lecturing you about his response, Steve - just making a general statement in response to it.

K

EDIT - ...and yes, I admit to being frustrated by some of the conversations that have happened around the RX8. That's influencing my attitude. I felt like I was (personally and as a member of the ITAC) acting in good faith, and post hoc, conversation surfaces that sounds a little like maybe I/we were getting gamed. It bothers me.

[Greg Amy]

Andy,

Easy there, Einstein, no need to go off on a bender. Take it or leave it, feedback is part of the process of being in charge. If it bothers you that much...?

GA

P.S., in reference to "do you ever read your posts before sending" shot, I much preferred your initial "it's obvious you don't have a clue" one-liner post... ;)

[benspeed]

Man - you guys need to get out on the track! The winter has place y'all into The Shining mode - heeeere's Jonnny!

C'mon - who wants to laugh at my goal to have a ITR Porsche on the track for under $15K????

[Andy Bettencourt]

I much preferred your initial "it's obvious you don't have a clue" one-liner post... ;)

Me too...

[seckerich]

I wasn't lecturing you about his response, Steve - just making a general statement in response to it.

K

EDIT - ...and yes, I admit to being frustrated by some of the conversations that have happened around the RX8. That's influencing my attitude. I felt like I was (personally and as a member of the ITAC) acting in good faith, and post hoc, conversation surfaces that sounds a little like maybe I/we were getting gamed. It bothers me.

Never personal on my part big guy, we have mutual respect by now I hope. I stand by all the information I provided to the ITAC a year ago as honest and factual. Havent found anyone yet who could dispute them with proof. To be honest I see the problem more about dealing with the higher power levels of ITR in general, not just the RX8. Economy sucks too bad to care about any new car right now anyway.

Back to the thread--Build the damn BMW, it is a great ITR choice!!

[JoshS]

I only know of Buzz Marcus competing in one race with his RX-8: Homestead in June 08. He seemed to be off his game as he crashed out early however he was 4 seconds faster than the quickest ITS car and within 1/2 sec of the ITR track record. Doesn't seem like a dog to me.

Ben Robertson
Ben, where can I find a copy of the results from that weekend?

[lateapex911]

Wow.

Here's what happened. Simple facts.

-Mazda RX-8 was created. It had too much power for ITS.
-ITR was created.
-Mazda RX-8 was looking like a fit once it "aged in"
-Buzz Marcus built one for ITR, before it had been classed.
(The back story- it's a completely different rotary than those that went before it. It makes a much smaller gain in IT trim than the two previous Rotary genres. The IT classification system uses stock HP for classifications. The stock power is reported to be rated high. See the bad combo here??? )
-Buzz hoped (?) assumed(?) didn't think(?) that the car would be classed at a weight that he expected could win. (Or else why did he build it/complain post classifcation?)
-Buzz wrote in stating it was too heavy and couldn't compete in ITR, and that it be reclassed in ITS.
-His request was turned down


Listen guys.

Write in. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Think he wanted the car moved to ITS at whatever weight the same input resulted in for an ITS weight!?!?!

I've written the CRB (ITAC) with requests of my own numerous times. That's how things you see happen, happen! (My most recent was the request to move/reprocess the early Porshe 911s. It got an instant response, as all I've written in the past few years have, was entered into the system and a number was generated. Then it appeared on the ITAC board. Members asked questions, I answered, others opined, and then it got discussed on the con call, and acted on.)

If you want the car run through the process, SAY SO!!!
Is that that hard?? Just like a business letter, you need a clear definable call to action. Prove your case. ALL of us are available to help explain the limitations of the system, and how to best work with it, or advise on how best to get your request heard and approved.

But don't build an UNclassed car, then write letters telling us to move it, if thats not what you want. That's not fair to us.

[spawpoet]

Ben, where can I find a copy of the results from that weekend?

Here's the mylaps results: http://www.mylaps.com/results/showrun.jsp?id=858764

[Xian]

Listen guys.

Write in. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Think he wanted the car moved to ITS at whatever weight the same input resulted in for an ITS weight!?!?!

I've written the CRB (ITAC) with requests of my own numerous times. That's how things you see happen, happen! (My most recent was the request to move/reprocess the early Porshe 911s. It got an instant response, as all I've written in the past few years have, was entered into the system and a number was generated. Then it appeared on the ITAC board. Members asked questions, I answered, others opined, and then it got discussed on the con call, and acted on.)

If you want the car run through the process, SAY SO!!!
Is that that hard?? Just like a business letter, you need a clear definable call to action. Prove your case. ALL of us are available to help explain the limitations of the system, and how to best work with it, or advise on how best to get your request heard and approved.

But don't build an UNclassed car, then write letters telling us to move it, if thats not what you want. That's not fair to us.

Quoted for the truthiness in it. When I wanted to build my EX, the first thing I did was email the CRB and submit all the docs needed to get it classed. Once I found out how and when it was going to be classed, then I started pulling together everything for the build. No sense putting the cart before the horse and then complaining how tough things are. :shrug:

Christian

[Knestis]

Here's the mylaps results: http://www.mylaps.com/results/showrun.jsp?id=858764

I'm less interested in the lap times than I am in the fact that he didn't run ITR. Odd.

K

[seckerich]

Not odd. It was not an ITR car until Jan 09. He ran the car in a catch all class. It was also running about 250# light and with RR shocks. It was basically Grand Am trim. As usual Ben has half the facts and all the knowledge.:eek: Plus when did we start using on track results and new track records for a comp comparison? Lets stick with real numbers.

[Greg Amy]

But don't build an UNclassed car, then write letters telling us to move it, if thats not what you want. That's not fair to us.

No sense putting the cart before the horse and then complaining how tough things are.
In the blowback from the Bettencourt rant, I think you guys missed my original point.

Both of you, how is this any different in the end? What is the significance of "unclassed" (or "not classed prior"?) Would it have been better to wait until January 1st 2009, after the car was officially classed, to spend the money and begin to build a full-up effort, only to end up at the same place we are now, but a year later? Or, how about if the guy had hidden it in a garage somewhere, not told anyone about it, then not brought it out until the first Regional in Florida last month, then started complaining about it this year instead of last?

In the end, the only difference is that we're having this conversation one year earlier. Why is that a problem?

And that's my point: it's been this forum's (and the ITAC's) position that if you disagree with a classification, until you "build it" to prove otherwise you've got nothing to stand on. Well, looks like the guy built it, he disagrees with your classification, and he's asking for change. And now it seems he's getting beat on for doing it, but in advance?

Sorry, but I'm the one that just doesn't "get it".

Greg, who - apparently foolishly - spend several years building a 10/10s FWD 4-cyl NX2000 for ITS, all the while expecting the Club to eventually "do the right thing." And they did. And he now wonders, could that even happen today, or will someone else come up with yet another excuse/reason when he meets their demands, say for example with an overly-heavy ist-gen Toyota MR-2, or a FWD car in ITS/ITR, or some other car attractive but apparently misclassed? Would he be ridiculed today for building that car in ITS, even knowing in hindsight its eventual success?

More importantly and to the point, is it reasonable action today to spend his own money to try and prove the ITAC wrong, with the very real risk if being told "car is properly classified"...? "Build and we'll talk about it" seems to no longer be a reasonable path to serious consideration for reclassification...well, unless it's been raced for more than a couple of years. By a lot of people. 'Cause he'd probably get that silly "single data point" excuse next... :shrug:

Lose. Lose.

[Knestis]

Not odd. It was not an ITR car until Jan 09. He ran the car in a catch all class. It was also running about 250# light and with RR shocks. It was basically Grand Am trim. As usual Ben has half the facts and all the knowledge.:eek: Plus when did we start using on track results and new track records for a comp comparison? Lets stick with real numbers.

Ah - DUH on my part. Thanks, Steve.

K

EDIT - From our conversations, I *think* that Jake's primary issue with the Marcus letter is in the idea that maybe he didn't ask for what he wanted. Or he did ask for something that wasn't necessarily what he wanted. THAT"S not fair to the committee. We get a lot of letters that don't ask us to do anything, or that ask us to do something we aren't empowered to do. We really want to do a good job but we've got to follow some rules.

I for one - this won't surprise Greg - don't buy into the "you have to prove that it's not competitive" part of these discussions. It's not possible to do so, so for someone to even suggest that it's a legitimate consideration is a problem. But even more fundamentally, we should NOT be making our decisions based on what we see on the track. It's tempting but that is lousy methodology. We *think* we're making decisions based on "evidence" or "data" but that's just not the case if we do that.

In short and to my mind, the guy who says, "I'm two seconds off the other guys" is just as wrong using that as a rationale for change, as is the guy who says, "You're two seconds too fast."

And Greg - the current ITAC wouldn't tolerate a "NX2000 in S" situation for a New York minute.

[Andy Bettencourt]

In the blowback from the Bettencourt rant, I think you guys missed my original point.

Both of you, how is this any different in the end? What is the significance of "unclassed" (or "not classed prior"?) Would it have been better to wait until January 1st 2009, after the car was officially classed, to spend the money and begin to build a full-up effort, only to end up at the same place we are now, but a year later? Or, how about if the guy had hidden it in a garage somewhere, not told anyone about it, then not brought it out until the first Regional in Florida last month, then started complaining about it this year instead of last?

In the end, the only difference is that we're having this conversation one year earlier. Why is that a problem?

And that's my point: it's been this forum's (and the ITAC's) position that if you disagree with a classification, until you "build it" to prove otherwise you've got nothing to stand on. Well, looks like the guy built it, he disagrees with your classification, and he's asking for change. And now it seems he's getting beat on for doing it, but in advance?

Sorry, but I'm the one that just doesn't "get it".

I don't think you are understanding the facts here Greg. There is no difference in the timing at all - but it's because there is a process that sets a weight and that is pretty much it. To tell the ITAC that "I spent $70K hoping that you guys would class it correctly" and then being upset afterwards is a little disingenuous. Why not wait to see if you 'like' the weight and then build it? ESPECIALLY when it's a car that you know there is going to be a ton of disagreement on. Especially.

If you want to build one to 'prove the negative', then you have an uphill battle for sure. Not sure how that can be any other way. With all the game playing etc, we have to be so sure that the power number is good that is doesn't wreck the class.


Greg, who - apparently foolishly - spend several years building a 10/10s FWD 4-cyl NX2000 for ITS, all the while expecting the Club to eventually "do the right thing." And they did. And he now wonders, could that even happen today, or will someone else come up with yet another excuse/reason when he meets their demands, say for example with an overly-heavy ist-gen Toyota MR-2, or a FWD car in ITS/ITR, or some other car attractive but apparently misclassed? Would he be ridiculed today for building that car in ITS, even knowing in hindsight its eventual success?

Well Greg, foolish is a rough word. Wreckless maybe. What if the ITAC classed your car at a weight you didn't like? I think all we are saying is that it seems to be much better to look at the weight FIRST, then start throwing money at it. Seems like a simple to understand concept really.


More importantly and to the point, is it reasonable action today to spend his own money to try and prove the ITAC wrong, with the very real risk if being told "car is properly classified"...? "Build and we'll talk about it" seems to no longer be a reasonable path to serious consideration for reclassification...well, unless it's been raced for more than a couple of years. By a lot of people. 'Cause he'd probably get that silly "single data point" excuse next... :shrug:

Lose. Lose.

I just don't see this as any different than it ever has been. In IT, you build it and it is what it is. No comp adjustments. If you feel there was an error in the process in classification, you provide your data and try and convince the ITAC that they missed something. I am just not seeing how this is unreasonable. Funny how nobody sends in power numbers telling us we underestimated their power and it would be good for the class for us to raise their weight. It's just not reasonable to expect that.


And to the 'silly single data point' excuse comment, I call BS. You and I have had conversations about your power output in the NX2000. Anyone who saw your power numbers could have writtten in and asked to have that car re-evaluated based on new data. If a single data point was to be accepted, boom, your car weighs over 100lbs more overnight. I just don't accept that a single source is enough to make a move no matter how much I trust you or Matt is putting a legal product on the track. It's not fair to membership or anyone on the ITAC who doesn't know you. Can we agree on that? How is that different than an RX-8 guy telling us he only makes 198hp at the wheels and he should be 2850 in ITS...

It's a tough battle for sure, but how can it be any other way? Help us define some evidentiary standards for someone who wants to prove the negative and we can move forward. Really, post here what you would like to see - and from whom in order to change a min weight based on power.

[Greg Amy]

Why not wait to see if you 'like' the weight and then build it?...it seems to be much better to look at the weight FIRST, then start throwing money at it.
So, you're saying 'don't build it unless you think it will be competitive, and don't cry to us afterward if you do and it's not'...

...but...


If you feel there was an error in the process in classification, you provide your data and try and convince the ITAC that they missed something....and the ITAC's "prove it to us" response is, typically, followed with "build it first and prove us wrong, because we won't take your word for it, nor will we accept your logic, nor your experience, nor your intelligence or knowledge, nor will we accept computer programs or expert testimony, either."

Uh, ok. So which is it?

The ITAC has made it clear that the only way to "prove" something, positive or negative (as much as it can be) is to "build it and prove it." Go view that whole shebang about FWD in ITS/ITR I started last month. Or to the thread on how I think the 1st-gen ITB MR-2 was classified at too heavy a weight? Or how about the one where I think a first-rate-build and -driven Miata is going to clean up ITA once it truly happens because it's too light? I can dig up and link all those specific instances (as well as others) if you deny this is true.

The response was - to a "t" - "fine, you go build it and prove us right/wrong."

Understand the confusion and frustration here?


And to the 'silly single data point' excuse comment, I call BS. You and I have had conversations about your power output in the NX2000.Andy, we're talking generalities, here. You're inferring (and taking personally offense with) specifics that I am not implying. I'm simply pointing out - towards the generality - that these are the responses and calls to action that always come with these exact questions/comments.


...I just don't accept that a single source is enough to make a move no matter how much I trust you or Matt is putting a legal product on the track.Though, again, it's not relevant to the discussion (and I don't know why you're singling out this specific example) and it is most decisively a non-sequitor to the current conversation, this classification "process" has gone drifted well off the objective path, venturing deep into the subjective calls of a handful of folks in a closed room ("...meet the new boss...") Foremost in that subjective process, it has been made abundantly clear to the membership and participants that "known information" is now supplanting objective calculations whenever it is available.

As such, it is imperative that "known information" is used both ways, not just in the direction that the ITAC wishes.

Regardless of number of data points, and regardless of the characteristic being discussed, even one single case that proves it "can" be done proves that it "must" be done to be competitive (we're assuming legally), regardless of its effect. Ergo, since it "can" be done, and since the ITAC/CRB stresses that if it "can" be done then it "must" be done as part of the preparation process (e.g., you can't claim to be slow against the other BMWs since they spend $6000 on shocks and you put in KYB AGXs, and/or the "build it and prove us wrong" concept) then it must be included as part of the subjective classification process as well.

Just because others choose not to use that potential advantage because it may not be needed to be competitive (vis-a-vis "the old days" when one could win IT on a lightly-modded outdated Showroom Stock car) or because it's too expensive (e.g., those awesome Koni 2817 struts) doesn't mean that that potential advantage should be simply ignored as part of the "process".

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander...

GA

[lateapex911]

...and the ITAC's "prove it to us" response is, typically, followed with "build it first and prove us wrong, because we won't take your word for it, nor will we accept your logic, nor your experience, nor your intelligence or knowledge, nor will we accept computer programs or expert testimony, either."

..............
The ITAC has made it clear that the only way to "prove" something, positive or negative (as much as it can be) is to "build it and prove it." Go view that whole shebang about FWD in ITS/ITR I started last month.

GA

Whoo boy Greg.

Fist, let me very clear.

MY 'problem' with Buzz is that his request was, essentially, unreasonable. How hard is that to see? IF his letter was sarcastic, well, that's not smart. And, judging by the amount of money he tossed at that car (heck, the dampers on/off the car alone are worth more than lots of guys entire outfits, LOL) he's gotta be smart enough to rake in enough cash...yet, we have to take his letter at face value.

All we can do when we get a letter like that is respond appropriately.

So, if someone doesn't don't like something, tell us exactly what it is, why it is, what to do, and provide empirical data that shows us the error of our ways.

You know what? That's often a lot of WORK.

Just like college though, the letters we get that DO provide real data and a clear concise call to action, are the ones we can work with.

But, I'm sorry, a letter that says, "It can/can't be done, I have years of experience, I'm very bright, you'll have to trust me", isn't a starter!

We have a duty to the mebership that each ITAC member must be able to say, "I saw the numbers, I saw the data, I have confidence in the out come", and the membership isn't going to take "We got a letter from a guy who said "trust me" as a legitiment reason for a change.

In Buzz's letter he asked for something that was unreasonable, (or was a joke) and provided no data other than one races results. And look at the facts that came out after the fact on THAT! Sheeesh.


But further, we have never said the items in your quotes.

And, what's REALLY ironic, is that you have NO idea whats happening behind the scenes. Your FWD issues were interesting, and Andy and I both asked you to help provide empirical data to prove your point. Truth is, we were truly interested, (to the point of calling each other and discussing the issue over the phone, to try to get a handle on it....and we were on your side!) but again, we need to justify any actions to our membership. In essence, what we were saying was "Please help us and give us some teeth to go into battle with". But your response was one of "I have the experience, I've been doing this for years" and so forth.

Interestingly, it was Mike who actually came up with solid empirical data, something that we can work with and present to the committee. Remember, teh committee is a buch of guys, and you know what? They don't all know you, or Steve, or whoever. They have to see the numbers.

Again, we are bound by duty to be able to explain our actions to the membership.

Have we done that perfectly in the past?? NO!!! Can we do it better? YES! Are we trying? YES! Will it get better? I'm sure!. You have no idea how hard we're trying, the steps being taken, and the things going on behind the scenes.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I had typed up a long point-by-point response and it didn't hit so I will simplify for ease of the read.

Greg - in my mind, your comments are from someone who has only looked at what should be done in a perfect world. Yes, I agree that one data point does constitute information that could be acted on but we have been talking about evidentiary standards on our calls and on our forum. Please answer these questions directly, not in conceptual terms without any solutions.

Is one guys dyno sheet enough information for you to change a minimum weight? If yes (as you seem to imply):

How did you validate it in terms of legality?
How did you validate it in terms of 'maximum effort'?
How did you validate it in terms of truthfulness?

If no:

How many dyno sheets (or pieces of information) would you need in order to deem a power figure 'valid'?

Or, as you have stated in the past - put everyone at the same power multiplier so as to eliminate the potential pitfalls of human error and bias.

Your post asks for an 'either - or' and we are not comparing two like items. All I am saying is that it is foolish to build a car before it's classed and complain about it's weight. Complaining about a factor that was used in it's classification is fine...but smart money says to wait until you get the info before you throw money at it.

Yes, proving a negative is tough...VERY tough. I just don't see how it's not in the best interest for it to be.

[Greg Amy]

Guys, I've made a pact with myself this year: I'll argue with the ITAC Gang member(s) once, maybe twice, then I won't bother to spend a lot of time online with it.

I've hit my limit.

You both have my cellphone number in your Rolodex. You know where to find me at the paddock. But I am not going to pit myself against the Gang online and - literally - waste a lot of time, because you are a rock that cannot be convinced, seemingly ever.

You want to play these games face-to-face over a Yeungling (or a Diet Fanta)? I'm game. I'll explain it all to you to your heart's content. But, short of pulling a Bill Miller and permanently lurking (welcome back, Bill!), I'll give you a couple of shots then I'm done online.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Are you serious? I ask you to answer some legitimate questions that we wrestle with every day in order to come to the positions we come to, and you (again) take your ball and go home. We THINK we see the big picture but it's not always possible, even with 9 guys.

Give it a shot. The questions are legit, no?

[Greg Amy]

Call me on the "phone", Andy (and/or Jake, or anyone else). I'm tired of spending hours online trying to write the same things over, and over, and over, and over. The phone - or in person - is FAR more effective than swinging an e-penis online for posterity.

At some point, the answering of questions with questions, and bickering back and forth, and puffing out the chest becomes tedious. You want to endlessly debate minutiae? That will require phone or beer. Preferably beer. - GA

[ddewhurst]

:014: :birra:

[D. Ellis-Brown]

In this month's Fastrack there is a submittal to "Allow the removal of the windshield washer system" and was submitted by Hullinger –the response to this request is “This is outside of the parameters of the class philosophy”….I know where the Purpose and Intent of Improved Touring are documented within the GCR. The only reference to "philosophy" (that I have found) is in the reference to the statement "that we will give you a place to race you car and have fun, but not guarantee that you will be competitve". I have never seen a documented statement titled "Philosophy or Parameter of the Class Philosophy". Please let me know where such a document can be found so that we can use it as a reference for future submittals. I am sure that many competitors in Area 3 would like to be made aware of the IT class philosophy”. We are being indoctrinated that words "shall" mean something. If this is the case I would like to familarize myself with the said "class philosophy" . Now if no such document or statement on philosophy exists, then the rationale for rejecting this request is invalid. Therefore Mr/Ms Hullinger should be given the courtesy of a more creditable response from the CRB or the ITAC why their request was rejected. Any member of SCCA who submits a "rules change request" should be given the courtesy of a creditable, logical, rationale response. Not some nebulous, meaningless statement in response.
Respectfully , David Ellis-Brown

[JoshS]

In this month's Fastrack there is a submittal to "Allow the removal of the windshield washer system" and was submitted by Hullinger –the response to this request is “This is outside of the parameters of the class philosophy”….I know where the Purpose and Intent of Improved Touring are documented within the GCR. The only reference to "philosophy" (that I have found) is in the reference to the statement "that we will give you a place to race you car and have fun, but not guarantee that you will be competitve". I have never seen a documented statement titled "Philosophy or Parameter of the Class Philosophy". Please let me know where such a document can be found so that we can use it as a reference for future submittals. I am sure that many competitors in Area 3 would like to be made aware of the IT class philosophy”. We are being indoctrinated that words "shall" mean something. If this is the case I would like to familarize myself with the said "class philosophy" . Now if no such document or statement on philosophy exists, then the rationale for rejecting this request is invalid. Therefore Mr/Ms Hullinger should be given the courtesy of a more creditable response from the CRB or the ITAC why their request was rejected. Any member of SCCA who submits a "rules change request" should be given the courtesy of a creditable, logical, rationale response. Not some nebulous, meaningless statement in response.
Respectfully , David Ellis-Brown

Dave,

The CRB writes the actual responses that appear in Fastrack. But when the ITAC discussed this as well as the similar letters that you have written, basically we felt that these rules are not difficult to meet, and there's no compelling reason to change.

After a member's letter has been acted on, any member is welcome to contact an ITAC member directly and ask about the discussion that occurred around that letter.

Josh

[jjjanos]

In this month's Fastrack there is a submittal to "Allow the removal of the windshield washer system" and was submitted by Hullinger –the response to this request is “This is outside of the parameters of the class philosophy”….I know where the Purpose and Intent of Improved Touring are documented within the GCR.


Removal is useful, not necessary therefore not consistent with class philosophy.

9.1.3.B (First sentence)
"It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car."

Which is a total and complete load of horse dung. Most of what we are allowed to do to the cars do not satisfy both of those requirements - useful and necessary simultaneously.

Necessary - cage, racing seat, belts, tow hooks, fire extinguisher (what a minute, we aren't allowed to have that last one.)
Useful - everything else in the rulebook, plus those safety items.

Off the top of my head...
Alternate final drives? Useful, check. Necessary, no.
Gut the interior? Useful, check. Necessary, no.
The allowable suspension mods? Useful, check. Necessary, no.
Non-stock intakes? Useful, check. Necessary, no.

In short, the statement that something is not consistent with class philosophy is meaningless. It amounts to nothing more than "Because we say so a/o because we are afraid of the parable of horribles."

[JoshS]

It amounts to nothing more than "Because we say so a/o because we are afraid of the parable of horribles."
And/or because there needs to be a good reason to make a change in order to make one.

[Knestis]

The philosophy of each and every category is manifest in the decisions applied by the Board, as informed by the recommendations the category's ad hoc committee.

From either my ITAC perspective, or from my point of view as a member/racer, the philosophy if IT is pretty darned consistent and clear. Yes, no question - there have been decisions over the quarter century existence of IT that seem (to me, others, even a majority perhaps in some instances) to be inconsisent with that philosophy, but I daresay that isn't the real issue here.

The problem is that no matter how clear the philsophy-in-action is, there will always be some folks who would prefer that the philosophy - broadly stated or in detail - be DIFFERENT than it is. For one to say that he doesn't understand something that's been explained over and over, in both words and actions, is disingenuous if in fact the issue is that one disagrees with that philosophy.

More specifically, David, it's been my experience that if someone doesn't agree with the substance of a decision, no amount of explanation is going to change that or assuage their irritation at being told "no." We WILL get another request, some time in the next 12 months, to change the rules to allow the removal of something that the rules require stay in place. As Josh points out, unless there is a really compelling reason to make the change (removing vent windows to facilitate egress from cars, made harder with the advent of H&N devices comes to mind) the answer is going to be "no."

If someone makes a request KNOWING that has been the case in the past, and doesn't present compelling new information, then the problem is NOT that they don't understand the philosophy: It's taht they want to change it.

K

PS - ...and a clause in the ITCS that attempts to spell out this philosophy? It would only become fodder for word-parses trying to find an allowance somewhere. (e.g., "useful and necessary"). What is useful to one racer might not be useful to the category. The ITAC makes its recommendations to the board based on what we think is good for the entire group.

[frnkhous]

unfortunately I no longer have access to it but 210whp is the limit of the rx8(grand-am spec which is similar to it prep). You simply aren't gonna get a car that isn't ported to make more than that. Honestly I question whether it is even that strong. they make around 168-178whp from the factory(I think that is correct from memory) so it makes more than a 20% jump but it was overated by the factory and that could be proven. Dyno sheets from multiple people with low mileage stock cars could confirm. I'm sure some of you could witness the runs if you wanted. If you couldn't prove the overating from the factory i'd say you did the right thing to be leary of the 210whp numbers. Andy you have dyno numbers for grand-am mx5 i'm sure it has more torque than the rx-8's so you should have an idea what the power output would be on one.

[Ron Earp]

In 2005 the SAE introduced a new horsepower / torque reporting protocol with improved precision and accuracy. Manufactures now us the J1349 method:

http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/

What is the RX8 output of say a 2008 model (assuming they adopted the new standard and adopted it later than others)?

Ron

[JeffYoung]

Ron, it's a subject of great debate. The stock hp rating (even before the change of the SAE standards) was reduced by Mazda when it became clear the cars were not making the advertised power.

I've seen the 165 to 180 stock whp numbers as well, but have also seen written that the car's computer gets fooled by a dyno and doesn't fuel properly when on it.

It's a tough question all around.

[gran racing]

Why / how would a car get fooled by a dyno?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why / how would a car get fooled by a dyno?

Modern computer systems. Rumor has it that when the RX-8's computer senses a significant discrepancy between front and rear wheel speeds, like on a chassis dyno, it reigns in fuel and timing.

Never verified this but it certainly could be one of the reasons that the car only puts 170ish hp to the groung on most dynos. You also have to know what settings to change on your dyno in order to properly measure a 2-stroke.

[Ron Earp]

Yep, I'm aware the early models didn't have as much poke as Mazda claimed.

I say again, does Mazda now adhere to the new J1349 method and what is the hp output of the motor that adheres to the J1349 method?

The method didn't exist when the first RX8 came out. If Mazda now adheres to the J1349 standard then year models that adhere to the standard will produce the stated horsepower. Since updating and backdating are allowed the car could be classed on the J1349 certified number and the earlier information ignored.

Sure, it'd require competitors to make sure they have the "latest and greatest" stuff, but that is what we racers do anyhow.

[shwah]

Modern computer systems. Rumor has it that when the RX-8's computer senses a significant discrepancy between front and rear wheel speeds, like on a chassis dyno, it reigns in fuel and timing.

Never verified this but it certainly could be one of the reasons that the car only puts 170ish hp to the groung on most dynos. You also have to know what settings to change on your dyno in order to properly measure a 2-stroke.

You mean to properly track engine speed? Not if you use a dynapac and the gear ratios to measure engine speed rather than the ignition system. All your measuring is lb-ft, which are the same regardless of engine type, and calculating hp based on engine speed.

[Ron Earp]

Taken from a Mazda press release:


The 2006 Mazda RX-8 is available as either a 232-horsepower model fitted with a six-speed manual transmission, or the new 212-horsepower model fitted with a six-speed automatic with steering-wheel-mounted paddle shifters for a Formula 1-style driving experience.

Both horsepower figures are SAE J1349 Certified Power, which is a new method of rating vehicle power for 2006. The SAE J1349 is an automotive standard written by the Society of Automotive Engineers to provide manufacturers with a method of certifying the power of engines.

The press release can be found here:

http://rotarynews.com/node/view/757

So it would appear that it'd be a good bet to use the 232 horsepower figure for classification of the RX-8 starting with the 2006 model. Updating and backdating would allow 2004 MY RX-8s to use whatever it is the later models have to produce the J1349 certified horsepower.

[frnkhous]

Modern computer systems. Rumor has it that when the RX-8's computer senses a significant discrepancy between front and rear wheel speeds, like on a chassis dyno, it reigns in fuel and timing.

Never verified this but it certainly could be one of the reasons that the car only puts 170ish hp to the groung on most dynos. You also have to know what settings to change on your dyno in order to properly measure a 2-stroke.


or it could be that mazda was making excuses for a "240hp" car that only made 180 at the wheels max. Which is 25% drivetrain loss an I can only hope they didn't screw up that bad.

Sorry but i've seen the numbers speedsource and others that weren't speedsource cars in grand am and the dyno sheet is never more than 210. which makes 170-180 look reasonable. roughly 15% improvement in it trim would seem to make an adequate multiplier if you use the 180 number. Nother ridiculous about asking to be classed at that level. I'll see if I can get a buddy to send someone on the itac a nonspeedsource dyno sheet from a grand am car so that you can see it from multiple sources.

Sorry but I don't see how correcting for this car would have been smoke and mirrors back room deal, this was a well documented problem to the extent that I believe mazda gave money back to owners much like they did the the mx-5. Don't think this was in any way being hidden. I really like rx-8's(don't own one) and while I don't wanna race one I think they would be a relatively cost effective itr car to build.

If the info is put there and you guys are proven wrong by a legal car and promptly take action I don't know why somebody would get horribly upset. If someone could provide as much documentation that say the s2000 couldn't make it's power goal then I'd say the comparison would apply but I doubt you'll find s2000's in the state with as much power development work(in what amounts to IT trim) as the rx8.

[JeffYoung]

If you could that, that would be great.

Thanks.

Jeff


I'll see if I can get a buddy to send someone on the itac a nonspeedsource dyno sheet from a grand am car so that you can see it from multiple sources.

[seckerich]

Another good source is Charlie Shatzen at Mazcare in Atlanta. He is very active with the RX8 club and tunes a lot of cars for track duty. Most of the sheets I have seen are in the 195-199 range. Dual use cars with intake and exhaust mods but stock computer. All done on the dynojet at Speedlab. PM me if you need contact information. All the Speedsource cars were originally done with Motec M600 and full Grand Am (and IT) legal mods so they make slightly more. I will provide those for a data point. If anyone has dyno results that either support or disclaim the numbers we are posting, please send them to the ITAC and be ready to back them up. No smoke and mirrors or back room deals, lets just get real numbers and let the chips fall.

[Knestis]

... So it would appear that it'd be a good bet to use the 232 horsepower figure for classification of the RX-8 starting with the 2006 model. Updating and backdating would allow 2004 MY RX-8s to use whatever it is the later models have to produce the J1349 certified horsepower.

This is interesting but the idea is complicated by our age/eligibility rule. With the VIN rule gone, it's possible to build a race care out of a 2006 MY RX8 but it has to meet the specifications (all part numbers and spec's, the whole ball o' wax) of one that's among the years listed in the ITCS.

K

[Duc]

Modern computer systems. Rumor has it that when the RX-8's computer senses a significant discrepancy between front and rear wheel speeds, like on a chassis dyno, it reigns in fuel and timing.

That happens, run a new Mustang on a single wheel dyno and they will get different power ratings than a 4wd dyno. I will see if someone I know has run an RX8 on a 4wd and gotten a difference.

[GKR_17]

Most of the sheets I have seen are in the 195-199 range. Dual use cars with intake and exhaust mods but stock computer. All the Speedsource cars were originally done with Motec M600 and full Grand Am (and IT) legal mods so they make slightly more.

The original Rx-8 proposal included a dyno sheet that you said was from a full prep Grand-Am car. That sheet showed under 197 hp max. Now you say it's 'slightly' more than 199. I've heard there's a lot to gain in the computer, what exactly is 'slightly'? This is precisely why we shouldn't be using competitor supplied dyno data.

Regardless, there is absolutely no evidence that this car isn't competitve as is. The T3 Rx-8's (at the same spec weight) seem to run good ITR times, and they should be significantly faster with the increased mods allowed in IT.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Regardless, there is absolutely no evidence that this car isn't competitve as is. The T3 Rx-8's (at the same spec weight) seem to run good ITR times, and they should be significantly faster with the increased mods allowed in IT.

Just to validate your assertion...can you provide track records for a few tracks on that? Please also provide the ITS records so we can see if the ITR record is soft. We don't have maybe more than one ITR record up here that is faster than the ITS record - yet. Still a young class here.

[Knestis]

An IT Haiku by Kirk

Lap times mean bupkes
Lack of speed can't be proven
A fruitless pursuit

K

[GKR_17]

Just to validate your assertion...can you provide track records for a few tracks on that? Please also provide the ITS records so we can see if the ITR record is soft. We don't have maybe more than one ITR record up here that is faster than the ITS record - yet. Still a young class here.

The S2000 seems to have most of the T3 lap records. You are correct, in many cases, the ITR record is currently slower than the ITS record. Here are a few good examples to show my point, I've included the ITA time as well, which should show that the ITR time is not likely to be significantly better than the ITS time:

Mid-Ohio
ITA: 1'42.9
ITS: 1'42.6
ITR: 1'43.4
T3: 1'42.2 (S2000)
T3: 1'42.7 (Rx-8)

Grattan
ITA: 1'29.5
ITS: 1'29.0
ITR: no record posted
T3: 1'28.5 (Rx-8)

[Andy Bettencourt]

An IT Haiku by Kirk

Lap times mean bupkes
Lack of speed can't be proven
A fruitless pursuit

K

Just want to see the support. T3 National track records aren't as fast as ITS out here.

[seckerich]

The original Rx-8 proposal included a dyno sheet that you said was from a full prep Grand-Am car. That sheet showed under 197 hp max. Now you say it's 'slightly' more than 199. I've heard there's a lot to gain in the computer, what exactly is 'slightly'? This is precisely why we shouldn't be using competitor supplied dyno data.

Regardless, there is absolutely no evidence that this car isn't competitve as is. The T3 Rx-8's (at the same spec weight) seem to run good ITR times, and they should be significantly faster with the increased mods allowed in IT.

At the time of the original proposal the sheets were correct. 2 years later and a ton of dyno time have the car up above 200 rear wheel. As I said, most guys have found a way to get the stock computers up close to 200 and the Motec cars make a couple more. All numbers I am quoting are for a Dynojet with SAE correction. Certified sheets have been provided to the ITAC with those gains and as I asked in an earlier post, please send in any you might have to prove more or less and be ready to back yours up. Read a few unbiased magazine articles that all lost HP when they tried to add exhaust,intake, etc to these cars. When ITR can out qualify ITS at the ARRC, then we can talk track data.:023: Right now most of those times are pretty soft.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The S2000 seems to have most of the T3 lap records. You are correct, in many cases, the ITR record is currently slower than the ITS record. Here are a few good examples to show my point, I've included the ITA time as well, which should show that the ITR time is not likely to be significantly better than the ITS time:

Mid-Ohio
ITA: 1'42.9
ITS: 1'42.6
ITR: 1'43.4
T3: 1'42.2 (S2000)
T3: 1'42.7 (Rx-8)

Grattan
ITA: 1'29.5
ITS: 1'29.0
ITR: no record posted
T3: 1'28.5 (Rx-8)


I was hoping for some tracks that actually have some size. RA, RAmer, Watkins Glen (which I know), Sebring, Daytona, etc.

I do not buy into the fact that T3 should be running with ITR. It doesn't even really run with ITS.

[seckerich]

Like VIR


ITS: 2:14.247
ITR: 2:15.593
T3: 2:16.567

Roebling:
ITS: 1:20.744
ITR: 1:21.147
T3: 1:22.275

As I said, ITR is still pretty soft. We can play this silly game all day and choose data to support our side. Still meaningless for car classing. Real numbers matter.

[JoshS]

Just want to see the support. T3 National track records aren't as fast as ITS out here.
T3 records are slower than ITA out here!

But that's because we run almost no nationals in SFR. We're down to one annual double event in the region, so our three tracks see very little high-effort drives from those national classes.

[JoshS]

Specifically, in San Francisco Region (race times only, there are definitely faster qualifying times):

Thunderhill:
ITR: 2:05.555 (Z3)
ITS: 2:05.682 (325i E36)
ITA: 2:06.350 (RX-7)
T3: 2:06.479 (S2000)

Infineon:
ITR: 1:52.705 (325i E36)
ITS: 1:51.796 (RX-7)
ITA: 1:54.039 (Integra)
T3: 1:54.784 (S2000)

Laguna Seca:
ITR: 1:43.359 (Z3)
ITS: 1:43.224 (325i E30)
ITA: 1:43.750 (RX-7)
T3: 1:45.420 (S2000)

[GKR_17]

Real numbers matter.

That would be 238.

[GKR_17]

When ITR can out qualify ITS at the ARRC, then we can talk track data.

ITS has not yet outqualified ITR at the ARRC.

2007:
ITR (Robertson) qualified at 1'39.8, raced at 1'39.1
ITS (Huffmaster) qualified at 1'39.9, raced at 1'39.6

2008:
ITR (Robertson) qualified at 1'40.3, raced at 1'41.0
ITS (Reppert) qualified at 1'40.7, raced at 1'41.0
Spillman, and Vansteemburg both turned 1'40.9's in the race.

As for the 2007 ARRC, that same weekend, the T3 Huffmaster Rx-8 was entered in the enduro as an ITU car, and qualified at 1'39.1 and raced at 1'39.6
Similarly, the McMasters Rx-8 was entered in ITU and qualified at 1'43.1, but raced at 1'40.1.

[GKR_17]

Like VIR
ITS: 2:14.247
ITR: 2:15.593
T3: 2:16.567

Again, Huffmaster appears to have entered his T3 Rx-8 as an ITE car at the October 2006 SARRC, and turned a 2'14.6.

[ddewhurst]

I have absolutely no dog in this hunt........ Those ITS/ITR Mid Ohio times are ridiculously funny. For those times to merit any attention/value some drivers names would be required attached to each time. Also with names attached the times may merit no attention for the current conversation.

I accecpt the ITA time of Joe Moser at 1.42:939.
I accecpt the G Prod time of Steve Sargis 1.42.019.

Now compare the ITS & ITR times from Mid Ohio to the G Production of 1.42:019 time.

[GKR_17]

For those times to merit any attention/value some drivers names would be required attached to each time.

Mid-Ohio
ITA: 1'42.9 Moser
ITS: 1'42.6 Ehmer
ITR: 1'43.4 Jones
T3: 1'42.2 (S2000) Gilsinger
T3: 1'42.7 (Rx-8) Huffmaster

[ddewhurst]

Mid-Ohio
ITA: 1'42.9 Moser
ITS: 1'42.6 Ehmer
ITR: 1'43.4 Jones
T3: 1'42.2 (S2000) Gilsinger
T3: 1'42.7 (Rx-8) Huffmaster

Please don't add more classes in an attempt to validate your position. ITS/ITR times that are similar at Mid Ohio to ITA/G Prod times are pathetic. By the way, I knew the ITA, ITS, ITR names before you posted the names.

[seckerich]

Be sure you know what RX8 Huffmaster was driving before you post numbers. One was the GA car and the other was the T3. I know because I was crew chief on their GA car. Also factor in that he was the fastest driver in ST at the VIR GA weekend in ST. He can flat wheel a car. Either way the ITR times are still soft in many places (including the ARRC) if you are only .8 faster than ITS. If not then I think Buzz had a pretty good case for moving the RX8 to ITS.:D Yes, I am just kidding, but these BS lap time comparisons back up that every ITR car so far could just as well be in ITS. In most cases they would get their butt kicked. Now you see why Kirk has such a dislike for on track data.

[Knestis]

Yeah. What he said.

K

[JoshS]

At least out here, with only a couple of exceptions, every ITR car that has run was built since the class was created, meaning, they are still on the uphill part of the curve. These cars/drivers often set personal records every single weekend they show up, because they get faster every race. Meanwhile, the ITS records have stood for a decent amount of time and only get broken when the stars align (great weather, great track grip, great car, and great driver). Here anyway, even though the ITR track record is slower than the ITS record at 2 out of 3 tracks, it's not like the ITR cars are usually losing to the ITS cars. ITR actually is a faster class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If you read between the lines, the excersize was to point out that lap times don't mean much. Heck, we are getting letters on this very car using lap times as the data.

Ain't gonna fly.

[Duc]

So is it real achievable HP in IT trim that we need to look at? Again I think this car (RX-8) is much like the S2000 where the HP potential gain is not there (handling and chassis aside). How much data do we need and what kind? Dyno plots with each mod before and after?

FWIW Any system that uses a stick style airflow meter like the RX8:
http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/8/6/6/8/2/2/webimg/190355957_tp.jpg
will not compensate correctly for intakes if the intake was not designed correctly (MANY of them are not). When the diameter of the intake tube changes, that changes the airflow seen by the meter. That is why the RX8 will not see the full gains of a AirBox change. Oh and the RX8 acting different on the dyno is true, at least with a stock ECU.

[GKR_17]

Be sure you know what RX8 Huffmaster was driving before you post numbers. One was the GA car and the other was the T3. I know because I was crew chief on their GA car. Also factor in that he was the fastest driver in ST at the VIR GA weekend in ST. He can flat wheel a car. Either way the ITR times are still soft in many places (including the ARRC) if you are only .8 faster than ITS. If not then I think Buzz had a pretty good case for moving the RX8 to ITS.:D Yes, I am just kidding, but these BS lap time comparisons back up that every ITR car so far could just as well be in ITS. In most cases they would get their butt kicked. Now you see why Kirk has such a dislike for on track data.

You'd clearly say so if it was the GA car. Plus, I know the one at the ARRC was the T3 car.

Yes, most ITR times are soft, no argument there. The point is there are T3 Rx-8's out there now that are turning competitve ITR times right now. Sure ITR will get faster, but a T3 Rx-8 will too once you build it to IT specs.

The car was classed as light as possible per the process (and didn't get the double wishbone adder, none in ITR did). There just isn't any evidence to support the need to change the weight. Either way, it's not even allowed for a few years if you read the rules, and even then only after it's shown to upset the equity of the class.

[JeffYoung]

Actually, the RX8 was classed on the very high end of the "matrix" the proposal laid out, with varying values for actual stock hp (unknown at the time) and actual gain in IT trim.

To further muddy the on track data debate, an ITR 325 went 2:10/11 at VIR this weekend, with Ricky T. running a 2:14.9 in a Z3 2.8 to use as a benchmark against the 325.

The above data means nothing from a classing perspective, other than to validate my viewpoint that R cars have a LOT of time/speed left in them in development and that comparing their present lap times to T3 RX8s doesn't really get us anywhere.


You'd clearly say so if it was the GA car. Plus, I know the one at the ARRC was the T3 car.

Yes, most ITR times are soft, no argument there. The point is there are T3 Rx-8's out there now that are turning competitve ITR times right now. Sure ITR will get faster, but a T3 Rx-8 will too once you build it to IT specs.

The car was classed as light as possible per the process (and didn't get the double wishbone adder, none in ITR did). There just isn't any evidence to support the need to change the weight. Either way, it's not even allowed for a few years if you read the rules, and even then only after it's shown to upset the equity of the class.

[RacerBowie]

I personally think R cars should end up consistently in the 2:09s at VIR, maybe in the 8s. That class has a recipe to be REALLY fast once good cars with good drivers and development start to show up.

[dj10]

Mid-Ohio
ITA: 1'42.9 Moser
ITS: 1'42.6 Ehmer
ITR: 1'43.4 Jones
T3: 1'42.2 (S2000) Gilsinger
T3: 1'42.7 (Rx-8) Huffmaster

Please don't add more classes in an attempt to validate your position. ITS/ITR times that are similar at Mid Ohio to ITA/G Prod times are pathetic. By the way, I knew the ITA, ITS, ITR names before you posted the names.

BTW, my time in ITR was run with a car that had a full tank of fuel and not my best tires on the car.

"To further muddy the on track data debate, an ITR 325 went 2:10/11 at VIR this weekend, with Ricky T. running a 2:14.9 in a Z3 2.8 to use as a benchmark against the 325."

Jeff, there were only 2 ITR cars, a Acura and Z3?? What other 325 was there?

[GKR_17]

Actually, the RX8 was classed on the very high end of the "matrix" the proposal laid out,

That proposal threw the process in the trash and went for power-to-weight based on competitor supplied dyno data. Now that you're on the ITAC I would expect a little more strict adherance to procedure.

Through the process, this car got the lowest gain multiplier, based on the lowest published stock hp, it got the largest subtractor for low torque (without any adder for the best-in-class transmission), and no adder for double wishbone suspension. I'd say that's about as low as you can go and still claim to have used the process.

The process isn't based on track performance, but if you want to make ajustments after the car is classed, then you need on-track data to justify the change (not to mention the required time frame) as the rules require. Or do we just call this another realignment and change the weight of any car any time we want? If you agree with that, then why bother with the process anyway, because you're headed straight back to the old mystery closed-door system.

I for one, would like to see the process parameters used for each car noted on it's spec line.

[lateapex911]

That proposal threw [sic]the process in the trash and went for power-to-weight based on competitor supplied dyno data.

Through the process, this car got the lowest gain multiplier, based on the lowest published stock hp, it got the largest subtractor for low torque (without any adder for the best-in-class transmission), and no adder for double wishbone suspension. I'd say that's about as low as you can go and still claim to have used the process.


Actually,:

1- Should we have used the higher hp ratings Mazda was sued for using, which were known to be incorrect? No. So lets no phrase it like there was a choice. (Critics note that even the ratings we used are wrong. it can't go both ways, guys!)

2- It's gain multiplier was higher than some felt appropriate, and is not the lowest. It's the same as used for the S2000.

3- It was given the standard toque adder (subtracted)...and it's tq is about 10 more than the ITS Rotary....wildly deficient compared to many ITR cars

4- It got no adders for anything else, because, in that class, its other components don't stand head and shoulders above what is common.





I for one, would like to see the process parameters used for each car noted on it's spec line.

That won't happen, but the ITAC is looking into a web based listing that would shed light on each listing.

Again, this car is tough. We didn't use the actual dyno sheets we had to class the car because of standards of evidence. They were given to us by people who were trusted, but....because there were conflicts of interest, they couldn't be used. We have continued to search out other sources to confirm or verify, and we've endeavored to find neutral parties in that search.

Along with that search, the ITAC has taken steps to structure it's standards of evidence, so that it can be consistent and transparent in it's actions.

[GKR_17]

2- It's gain multiplier was higher than some felt appropriate, and is not the lowest. It's the same as used for the S2000.


Yes, it shares the 15% multiplier with the S2000. But that is the lowest multiplier.

As for the torque, what actually matters is torque multiplied by RPM. Yes, they have less torque, but they also turn more revs than most. Couple that with class leading transmissions and you have a package much better than one torque value would imply.

[JoshS]

Yes, it shares the 15% multiplier with the S2000. But that is the lowest multiplier.

The Porsche 968 also appears to get a 15% multiplier.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Couple that with class leading transmissions and you have a package much better than one torque value would imply.

What specifically about these transmisisons make then 'class leading'? Other than they break all the time in Grand Am, I don't know what might make them good...

[JeffYoung]

Dan, Michael Moorefield's former ITS 325 went 2:11 consistently in the ECR with Michael Skeen (of Setup fame) driving.

Grafton, I've always enjoyed talking to you, but you are just flat out wrong. And it's clear you didn't read the proposal. We provided a matrix with two axes -- on the one side was actual stock horespower (since 2 years ago the actual stock horsepower was in doubt) and on the other was expected IT gain (also in doubt).

WE AT ALL TIMES USED THE PROCESS TO RECOMMEND CLASSING THE CAR. I personally was not sure what the actual "real" inputs were because of the above doubt.

Using that matrix, process weights varied from as low as 27xx to as high as just over 3000. Car came in near the top of the matrix.

I know you guys have some issue with Mazdas; that's fine. I actually hate the buzzy things too. But to say the process was not used in our proposal, and in classing the car, is just wrong. It was. The problem with the ITR RX8 has always been the uncertainity involved w/stock hp and gain on the Renesis.

Quite honestly, given what that unrestricted ITR 325 ran at VIR (in fact, what was essentially an ITS car a few years back), I'd think you guys in the Porsche camp would be far more "Fear the VANOS" than "Fear the Rotor."

Again, nothing personal -- have always enjoyed talking to you, but to say we didn't use the process in the proposal and in classing the car is just wrong. You may disagree with teh inputs we used, and in fact you do, but the process was used.


That proposal threw the process in the trash and went for power-to-weight based on competitor supplied dyno data. Now that you're on the ITAC I would expect a little more strict adherance to procedure.

Through the process, this car got the lowest gain multiplier, based on the lowest published stock hp, it got the largest subtractor for low torque (without any adder for the best-in-class transmission), and no adder for double wishbone suspension. I'd say that's about as low as you can go and still claim to have used the process.

The process isn't based on track performance, but if you want to make ajustments after the car is classed, then you need on-track data to justify the change (not to mention the required time frame) as the rules require. Or do we just call this another realignment and change the weight of any car any time we want? If you agree with that, then why bother with the process anyway, because you're headed straight back to the old mystery closed-door system.

I for one, would like to see the process parameters used for each car noted on it's spec line.

[seckerich]

For just comparison and nothing else, Grand Am RX8 times at VIR were 2:10 at the fastest with Sylvain and averaged about 2:11. That was at 2650#. Not a class killer.

[GKR_17]

What specifically about these transmisisons make then 'class leading'? Other than they break all the time in Grand Am, I don't know what might make them good...

Look at the RPM drop when shifting, here are 4 examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

Small compensation for 60 less ft/lbs of torque and a rediculously narrow power band . Spec for spec, even at the same weight the cars are a toss up. GAC RX-8 are prepped in excess of ITR and the times just aren't there with pro drivers and ultimate prep. We have enough independent data to make a much better decision on power potential in IT trim. Stay tuned!

[NORRIS]

How do the Hoosiers that they run in Grand Am compare to the Hoosiers we run in IT?

[cjb25hs]

How do the Hoosiers that they run in Grand Am compare to the Hoosiers we run in IT?

They are slower from what I have heard.

[tnord]

We have enough independent data to make a much better decision on power potential in IT trim. Stay tuned!

is it not even going to hit 15%?

i'm disappointed that (IMO at least) the car is not listed at a competitive weight, but i fully understand the pickle the ITAC is in with this car. if that were to change, i think this is the car that could be the spark that lights the ITR fire. :happy204:

[Knestis]

Some of these arguments could be more typed more efficiently:

"Me."

"No, me."

"No, me!"

"ME!"

"Me, me, meeee!"

:)

K

[lateapex911]

Some of these arguments could be more typed more efficiently:

"Me."

"No, me."

"No, me!"

"ME!"

"Me, me, meeee!"

:)

K

Yea, but at least this version of this particular discussion (version IX, for those keeping track) is civil and polite...