Problem Cars

[IPRESS]

Not everyone is in the know about what cars are "out of line" from a competitive stand point.
Which ones are messed up?
Are there cars out there that are so bad that they are stupid slow even with a great driver in them?
Is there a car in IT that is so superior that the car alone dusts the field? (I am thinking the ITS BMW type situation of a few years back.)

[GKR_17]

Very few on the track so it's hard to say for sure, but my poster-child for not run through the process are the ITS Alfa Milano's. Same chassis, one 2.5 liter, one 3.0 liter (with a good bit more power), same spec weight.

[Knestis]

...Are there cars out there that are so bad that they are stupid slow even with a great driver in them? ...

There are cars that are so badly classed that you almost never see them. I looked at ITB for a data-collection exercise we did...

How about a 2680# SAAB 900? One generation of Mopar stuff is in the same boat, hundreds of pounds overweight. A couple of the Volvo options are too heavy for the engines that came in them, leaving drivers to use the update/backdate rule to make them all the "right year." The 4-cylinder Mazda MX3 is spec'd 200 pounds heavier than the Golf III but comes with 88hp stock, vs. 122 for the VW. We should see a ton of BMW 318i racers in B but we don't because people are smart enough to know they are too fat.

K

[JeffYoung]

Same with the 318is in ITA. You'd think that car would be a great choice.....but too much weight.

[ericblois]

the e30 318 m40 113hp or m42 136hp is classed the same wt 2600 t.he 325E m20 122hp at 2550 least it was the last time i checked.

[joeg]

Brakes and gearing also come into play for a lot of cars.

The problem with dropping weights is that a lot of these cars are kind of Porky anyways. I am not sure how you legally pull a couple hundred pounds out of a Saab 900, for example.

It is a "big" car to begin with.

[Knestis]

Understand though, that it's not necessarily the "so far out of line" cars that are the problem. A pretty big part of the motivation to "fix" mis-spec'd cars is the inconsistencies that members see between cars that are ostensibly the same - that should be the same weight but aren't.

K

[dickita15]

Brakes and gearing also come into play for a lot of cars.

The problem with dropping weights is that a lot of these cars are kind of Porky anyways. I am not sure how you legally pull a couple hundred pounds out of a Saab 900, for example.

It is a "big" car to begin with.


Had a new kid this year who bought a 900 in B this year and had never scaled it. Lucked into a 3rd place and came across the scales at 150 pounds light.
But your point may still be valid.

[shwah]

Understand though, that it's not necessarily the "so far out of line" cars that are the problem. A pretty big part of the motivation to "fix" mis-spec'd cars is the inconsistencies that members see between cars that are ostensibly the same - that should be the same weight but aren't.

K

e.g. VW Scirocco in ITB vs VW Rabbit GTI in ITB
Same everything (literally - engine, brakes, chassis/floorpan, trans, suspension, steering) except the outer body, and the Scirocco came with 13 or 14" wheels, rather than 14" only. Yet the Scirocco weighs 50# more.

[callard]

All Porsche 911s have to add several hundred pounds after the build to meet the process weight and the horsepower can't be upped the magic 25%.
Chuck

[cjb25hs]

How about the other side of the equation. The cars that are very very hard to beat.
For example the ITA CRX/Civic Si's. A well built miata can beat them and of course the driver always is a big factor in any race that you look at, but what other cars are beating the Spec Honda ITA recipes.

Saturn SC2's, some of the Nissan products?

Of course I think a great car for the class is the Focus or Mazda 3's. Especially since now you can build a Mazda 3 with the 2.3 for the class. You are already starting out at IIRC 160HP stock.

[Bill Miller]

Brakes and gearing also come into play for a lot of cars.

The problem with dropping weights is that a lot of these cars are kind of Porky anyways. I am not sure how you legally pull a couple hundred pounds out of a Saab 900, for example.

It is a "big" car to begin with.

Joe,

If that's truly the case, I would think that car would be a good candidate for a move down to ITC. Look at the case of the VW New Beetle, it's believed that the car can't legally make the process weight that the identical (other than the bodywork) Golf and Jetta can. Therefore, the New Beetle landed in ITC at a portly 28xx lbs (IIRC).

Chris (shwah),

It's my understanding that the difference in the Rabbit and Scirocco weights is based on the perceived aero advantage of the Scirocco bodywork. I am not convinced that there's any aero advantage, but what I've heard, is that is the reason for the difference in weights.

[JeffYoung]

Integras....240sxs....Miatas....Nissan SR20 motored cars....I'd love to see a full tilt E30 318is.....Neon maybe...the Saturn....a full on 2nd Gen MR2 whenever someone builds on (Ken!) will be fast I think.

ITA to me, an outsider, really looks like a choose you weapon class. Very balanced. The CRX is a lot like the RX7 or the 240z in ITS -- the secrets of the car have been cracked and it's just a formula to make the car fast.

[shwah]

But I have been told that aero is not an input to the 'codefied' process.

Even if it were 50# is a LOT to hang on cars with 90hp stock.

[JeffYoung]

Aero is most definitely not part of the process.

[IPRESS]

Not trying to stir anything up, but why is aero NOT a part? I am not saying it should be, just asking. Guessing that the determination of bad or good aero would take lots of either "track hours" or "tunnel time" (equals $$$$$)?
So from the above posts I am gathering that "B" has some, maybe more, cars that are on either side of the curve, am I right? (I am not trying to push this subject in any direction, I just think it is good to know where the problems are that push the buttons.)
Maybe somebody could make a list.

[JeffYoung]

Marc, that's correct. Speaking for myself (although I think most of the ITAC agrees) there is just no way to quantify aero. Even the "book" numbers for a car are pretty much useless given what we can do with spoilers/splitters.

[Knestis]

Aero drag - negative HP - is a very complicated business and there's no way to accurately determine it with the resources we have. We also dork with the factory body shape a LOT with airdams. Finally, the actual physics is often contradictory to what we *think* we see when we eyeball something asking how "aerodynamic" it is.

K

[AjG]

All depends on where the standard of the class is set. For ITB the standard was the Golf right? Since there aren’t many ways to lose weight on an IT car, it seems like the best the process can really do is micro manage around the standard. Unless of course we are willing to ADD weight to cars, even ‘popular’ cars, and I seriously doubt that will happen.
For example, last race I went to there were two Mustangs(fox body). They look a bit heavy to me at 2550lbs and 90hp(I think). I don’t think they have been reprocessed but I’ll bet they couldn’t lose the weight anyway. The point is, it’s easy to say “add weight and move to ITC” but not so easy to hear “lose 200 lbs we’re moving your ITB Golf to ITA” The question of achievable weight goes hand in hand with where the standard is set, and who decides that? It seems like the standard for the class should be running around with at least 100 lbs of ballast just to make weight. This would help center the class and include more cars in the curve.
Are the ‘class standards’ for each class running ballast?

[shwah]

I have heard from some that the standard was the Volvo. I have heard from others that there are multiple 'standards'. Either way, since they just recommended a (small) weight change on the Golf, I doubt it was the standard - though I used to assume it was.

Regardless - I run 100+ in my car.

[Bill Miller]

But I have been told that aero is not an input to the 'codefied' process.

Even if it were 50# is a LOT to hang on cars with 90hp stock.

Chris,

I am only going on what I was told (a long time ago) when I asked why there was a weight difference between the Rabbit and Scirocco, given the same engine. Initially, I was told that it had to do w/ the ITB Mk II Scirocco being classified w/ the RD (103 hp, 10:1) engine. But that was tossed several years ago, so I don't know. Given that both the Rabbit GTI in ITB, and the Mk II Scirocco w/ the 1.8 8v engine saw weight changes as part of tGR, coupled w/ Jeff's and Kirk's comments about aero not being a factor, I have no idea why those cars have different weights. Maybe someone on the ITAC that was involved w/ tGR can shed some light on it.

[chuck baader]

Jeff, Eric...re.the 318 BMW with M42. I have done quite a bit of research regarding this motor with the thought of changing for a more balanced car. First, I could not find anyone that has done a full IT build. Second, those who have played with the motor have said it will not respond to tuning the way the M20 does...i.e., you can't really improve on the factory numbers. That being the case, the car is too heavy as classified. Chuck

[Flyinglizard]

The Rocco is about 50 or80# better than the Rabbit GTi. That is, add 50# and the cars will be very close. The windsheild angle and the lower Cg, makes for a lot better car.
Best is the Jetta 2.

[frnkhous]

See 88-91 civics vs. crx. The ITAC claims aero plays no part in the process, now you can find lots of people, including those who have driven what were supposedly identically prepped cars back to back on the same track and say the crx is faster. I believe the factory cf of drag is lower as well, but they weigh the same. At road atlanta the number has been said to be as high as 1 second in an identical car. The rocco should not be heavier end of discussion. Aero either is part of the equation or it is not. Now if wheelbase is an issue the civic vs crx thing gets interesting because you have a measureable by the itac difference.

[Knestis]

... Either way, since they just recommended a (small) weight change on the Golf, I doubt it was the standard - though I used to assume it was. ...

I explained the back story on all that, Chris. I'm rapidly getting to the point where I think you don't want to understand, or you choose not to so you can advance a particular point of view. Or you think I lied to you. Regardless, I feel like a stooge for taking the time to try to explain, and for making the effort to keep you informed about the status and outcome of your request.

K

[Flyinglizard]

Aero makes a huge difference ,with a 100hp at 100mph. My airplane flies at 38mph!!
The CRX is a lot cleaner and smaller total surface area, than the Civic.
Drop the rear end on a Golf,lowering the windhshield angle, and the car goes 2mph faster!! Try it from full high to full low.
Total front area is pretty easily estimated. Cd might have to come from the manufacturer. But you can do it the old fashioned way, coast down from 100mph with the "trackmate", will show right away. Same tires, etc... valid data tho.

[frnkhous]

I'm saying you can't fairly do it across the board and I own an effected car. 90 civic hatch. the way you describe would allow me to have tighter bearings(not easy with sealed bearings but possible), tighter tranny, maybe a little rear drum brake drag, not to mention the airdamn/splitter issue still exists. Now, I switch all those back, after getting a worse than true number in your test, to the loose/good parts and where am I at. Remember drivetrain loss on a dyno is measured in coastdown with the clutch in, would still apply here so car to car is also apples to oranges. Every rwd car would in theory have a worse cfd than an identical body fwd car if you were attempting to measure it in this manor because of the drivetrain. It may work fairly well to compare a 2 identical chassis volkswagens, maybe even the honda's assuming in either example similar bearing, breaks, rideheights, airdamns, etc.. But your example doesn't work at all to compare either to a pinto. Lots of things going on different.

[Flyinglizard]

Aero is such a huge percent of the drag at 100mph, the small stuff just doesnt matter that much. It does, but not enough. As long as the brakes were off, the tires the same, aligment the same. The time and G force, from 100 to 60 would show a good amount of very valid data. IMHO. MM

[shwah]

I explained the back story on all that, Chris. I'm rapidly getting to the point where I think you don't want to understand, or you choose not to so you can advance a particular point of view. Or you think I lied to you. Regardless, I feel like a stooge for taking the time to try to explain, and for making the effort to keep you informed about the status and outcome of your request.

K

Kirk your mixing topics. You and I never once discussed whether the Golf 2 was used as a standard, or reference for the ITB class (or at least I don't remember that). In the past I always did assume that to be the case. Some have told me that it was not, AND a small weight change was just recommended, which would be unlikely if it were in fact the class target. I just presented it as evidence that the previous poster should not assume it was a reference car.

I do still appreciate your explanation of what happened. Please understand that the cars I know and understand the best are the ones that I will talk about.

[madrabbit15]

The scirocco II is a faster car in IT trim then a rabbit GTI. The 50lbs is justified. We have raced both in ITB back to back with the same parts just switch chassis, same motor, trans, suspension, etc. The scirocco was faster. Now how the comp board came to that I have not idea, but seems correct to me. :shrug:

Derek

[shwah]

Thanks for the feedback guys. It sounds like the Rabbit/Scirocco situation is actually classed accurately. The question then becomes, how do we do the same for future cases? As noted there is no provision in the process for aero, rightly or wrongly, and I think we can agree that you will not be able to achieve a power disparity between the two. So if they were classed today, what would be the mechanism to get them 'right'?

[Knestis]

Kirk your mixing topics. You and I never once discussed whether the Golf 2 was used as a standard, or reference for the ITB class (or at least I don't remember that). In the past I always did assume that to be the case. Some have told me that it was not, AND a small weight change was just recommended, which would be unlikely if it were in fact the class target. I just presented it as evidence that the previous poster should not assume it was a reference car.

I do still appreciate your explanation of what happened. Please understand that the cars I know and understand the best are the ones that I will talk about.

We did. Whether it was in a public forum or one-on-one through one of the offline PM systems, I can't say at this point.

Regardless, there is ZERO question from the IT BB written record and talking with key folks who were involved then, that the Golf II was used as a "bogey" car for ITB during the GR. That meant that it's then-current weight (along with the Volvo 142 and a couple of others) was left unchanged. The idea was to use the opportunity for alignment to reset the weight of some additional cars - but NOT all cars - such that the anticipated on-track performance would end up at the same place as the bogies.

Note here, Big Great Realignment Fallacy #1: Because the Golf II, 142, et al. were used as the bogies, they "went through the process." This is absolutely not the case. The Process is based on physical attributes of the car. No such comparision was ever made. Further, ask anyone who purchased a used 142 about what they've found in their engines (start with valve springs). The bogies were picked, from a very small sample (if one does the math), because they were frontrunners. Nobody made any comprehensive effort to determine WHY they were frontrunners.

Hot on the heels of that reality is BGRF #2: The cars that WERE adjusted during the GR all got treated equally by the then-new math of The Process. THEY DID NOT. There is plenty of evidence in the internal ITAC record that, when the resulting weight of a given car seemed out of line with the then-ITAC's beliefs of what should be fast and what should not - when The Process spit out a weight that "felt wrong" - they simply, and completly subjectively, changed it. The Giles/Underwood generation of Civic DX is the poster child for this. Prevailing fear of the CRX dictated a bunch of weight got added, ignoring the fact that the engines are substantially different.

Of cousre, BGRF #3: All cars went through the process, has (I think) been well discredited but I STILL see people base arguments on that assumption. Following the GR, we had in essence three types of car:

1. The Bogies - left unchanged because they viewed as "competitive"

2. The Realigned - based on often subjective predictions of how fast they "should be"

3. The Completely Ignored - mostly cars that for whatever reason were not popular, they were left with their then-current race weights, which might have been set by any number of philosophies, by any of a large number of members/committees, going all the way back to when minimum weights were introduced to the class (in the late '80s?).

As the ITAC pinned down the details of the now-current practices around the Process math over the past 6 months or so, it addressed requests by members that cars be reviewed. Chris asked us to look at the MkII Golf, which we did. Running it through the math and the policy standards that dictate how we USE the math, we recommneded a 10# decrease in the race weight - a great example of Current Fallacy #1: The ITAC thinks the process is so perfect, that 10 pounds is greater than the tolerances - the sloppiness - among the factors, our ability to measure them, and the math we do with them. Wrong. We absolutely recognize that, while 10 pounds over the course of a 30 minute race probably does might a difference in performance (irrespective of whether it's measurable), there's no way that we can have that much confidence that the resulting weight is "right." No way. No how.

The point of recommending that small change was to demonstrate that we were going to be consistent - that we weren't going to impose our own subjective judgments about "how close is close enough." This was a reaction to the unwritten - so inconsistenly enforced - rule that if a car was within 50 pounds (or 100, depending on who you asked), it was close enough. That policy had the potential to yield a 100 (or 200) pound delta among cars that HAD been re-examined. That was viewed by the ITAC as simply not good enough for the membeship, AND as a yet another opportunity for committee members to impose their own biases on the outcome: Almost but not quite a big enough difference to make the change? No problem if we just tweak one of the not-carved-in-stone "adders" somewhere.

Back to the Golf - we also recorded the factors considered, including the 1.3 power multiplier in the Golf's case (a figure in which we had substantial confidence based on the evidence provided), ensuring that the next time someone asked, we'd get the same number. Any process that yielded different outputs at different times (even from the same members) based on the same inputs is NOT a process.

The CRB voted to not make the 10 pound change that was based on Chris's request and the ITAC's recommendation, citing Current Fallacy #1. By doing so, it resoundingly dismissed the assumption strongly (though not absolutely) held by the current ITAC, and equally not accepted by most expressing opinions here: That it is better to be consistent and predicable than "right" where IT spec weights are concerned, if "right" is measured directly by observations of competitiveness on track.

That's the bottom line right there, and it's about a fundamental belief. If you look at at a "too-fast" example of a make/model and assume it needs weight without asking about mediating variables like legality, driver talent, etc., etc., etc., then there's no way you'll ever accept what the ITAC has tried to do. And if that's the prevailing belief among members, it's probably time for those damned elites who think they know what's right for the category to let the majority Joe Racers of the Club have what they want.

We call those "competition adjustments" [bleah!] - defined simply as different specifications based solely on observed or anticipated on-track performance. The Golf II has, by the CRB's rejection of the ITAC's process-derived recommended race weight, received a 10# competition adjustment. ITB Audi GT Coupe got one approximately equal to one large man in the passenger seat, for the same reason.

I am absolutely positive I know what will result when we go down this path, but am all-but-absolutely-positive that we've finally reached the point where there's not a damned thing that can be done to keep us from heading that way.

HOWEVER, if your ("you" as in everyone, not Chris) support for the position that on-track performance is in and of itself evidence enough for weight adjustments is based on one or more of the fallacies above, your argument is based on incorrect facts. It makes no difference if those adjustments are a priori, post hoc, at least display the intellectual honesty to argue from what is really motivating the position, rather than by invoking untruths.

You'll LOVE competition adjustments [bleah!] when they fall in your favor but you'll hate them a lot more when they don't. And if your goal is "stability...?" LOL. Good luck with that...! You'll REALLY know what it's like to chase a moving target, particularly if you put together a good program and go fast.

So long and thanks for all the fish!

K

[Knestis]

Thanks for the feedback guys. It sounds like the Rabbit/Scirocco situation is actually classed accurately. The question then becomes, how do we do the same for future cases? As noted there is no provision in the process for aero, rightly or wrongly, and I think we can agree that you will not be able to achieve a power disparity between the two. So if they were classed today, what would be the mechanism to get them 'right'?

In the new reality? Lobby. And hope you have friendly ears among the decision makers - or at least that you haven't pissed any of them off at any point.

:happy204:

K

[seckerich]

or at least that you haven't pissed any of them off at any point.

:happy204:

K[/quote]

Damn Kirk--I am really screwed!!:D

[shwah]

We did. Whether it was in a public forum or one-on-one through one of the offline PM systems, I can't say at this point.


Didn't read your whole post yet, but if that's the case, then I'm sorry. Again, just pointing out that we should not assume what the 'target' cars are for a class. I thought I had a sensible example. I guess I didn't.

[shwah]

Reading your whole post Kirk. Thanks for putting that out there in one place. It will make a good reference whenever we enter a discussion with someone who doesn't even know what TGR is.

Also, looking at the big picture presented, and turning off what I think I know, or have preconcieved, it seems to me that the result you got on the Golf II being very close to its current and original weight is a validation of the process.

As far as the details about this particular car, I don't really care one way or the other on a 10# change, BUT if the goal is to run the whole active field, failing to set them all will introduce an added error factor, so I guess I can see the ITAC point.

I do wonder if the data the 1.3 is based on is as accurate as the 142 data, but I can't ever truely call that one out, as I do not have 100% stock data that is comparable to my own. I would be surprised if this existed in the original case, and continue to be concerned with the legitimacy that seems to be assumed in dyno sheets. Regarldess a while back I filed this under 'it is what it is', and made a commitment that if there is any way legally possible to get 1.3, I will. If I hit it, I will be happy to share, if I don't it won't matter what I say, but all the stones and all the grains of sand will be turned over in the process.

EDIT - and no I do not beleive that on track performance should be used to make classing decisions directly. Both for selfish reasons of not wanting to hurt my own case, and understaning the realities of all the uncontrolled variables. I do think it can and should be a trigger to go back and see what went wrong in the process - whether that happens after the fact, or in the case of a 'reset' is known before a change is decided. What went wrong could range from dramatically better prep and driving (thus nothing really is wrong), to illegal prep, to incorrectly assumed legal gains. I'm sure there are others. The point is performance can and should make us look at something, just not make us decide something. It can't be the 'root cause' of a change.

[Charlie Broring]

Interesting that the Volvo 142 is one of the model cars for ITB. I know that the 142 makes a lot less horsepower then many think. I suspect that Volvo may have been a little optimistic with the published specifications, as was common back when the car was built. It does however benefit from a very wide, flat power band which makes it accelerate better then its peak horsepower would suggest it could. It may be a perfect example for the imitations of classifing cars based on published peak horsepower.

Possibly using the 142 as a "bogie" explains why the newly classified ITB cars were a second or so faster then all the older previous front runners at the Labor Day MARRS races. And why the ITB lap record that stood for over 10 years at Summit is suddenly being reset every race by the same newly classified cars. From my limited perspective the "Process" has resulted in a loss the long standing parity in ITB.

Charlie

[Knestis]

A little additional info: The ITAC recommended that EIGHT ITB cars get new weights in the Great Realignment. In hindsight, maybe we should refer to it as the Mediocre Realignment.

>> ... I suspect that Volvo may have been a little optimistic with the published specifications, as was common back when the car was built. ...

GR Fallacy #1 rears its head.

Since the 142 did NOT go through the process published spec's were NOT a factor. At all. Consider for a minute though what would have happened if, say, during the period just before the GR, there were a few cheated-up examples out there winning races..?

The net result could have been that cheater 142s established - quite incorrectly - that the car was "competitive," but increases in enforcement and fear of discovery have put that car back in line where it should have been in the first place.

K

[lateapex911]

>> ... I suspect that Volvo may have been a little optimistic with the published specifications, as was common back when the car was built. ...

GR Fallacy #1 rears its head.

Since the 142 did NOT go through the process published spec's were NOT a factor. At all. Consider for a minute though what would have happened if, say, during the period just before the GR, there were a few cheated-up examples out there winning races..?

The net result could have been that cheater 142s established - quite incorrectly - that the car was "competitive," but increases in enforcement and fear of discovery have put that car back in line where it should have been in the first place.

K

#1: See also, chasing your tail. also known as putting too much stock in on track performance.

#2: One would think that the vast amount of Volvos were legal, though, ......right? Or ???

#3: Go back to #1


Kirks post above (the big one) is a great summation of the history and current status. It's all been posted before, but not in one post, I don't think.

The "other side of the coin" is that BI, (Before ITAC), we had a system of, well, I don't know. I once joked that a bunch of guys got together, had a bunch of beers, put post it notes up on the wall, blindfolded one guy, put him on a stool. spun him, then handed him a dart. Then they all ducked. The number he was closest to was "the weight". Obviously that's not the case, but it's also obvious that there were gross inequities in existence.

Now, establishing a process, then creating the protocol to use it hasn't been easy, and has taken time. The big ships don't turn fast. But, looking back, there has been significant process. I'm hoping our current bumps are things we can work through. I think we can, but we need to be patient.

[Charlie Broring]

This is a little wacky. The ITAC asks for differing opinions, but if they are not in line with their own, you argue against them.

#1: See also, chasing your tail. also known as putting too much stock in on track performance.
I just ask that you just put SOME stock in on track performance. The Process is a great piece of work, however from my perspective it is may not serving ITB very well at present. And if this observation is consistent thought the country a little extra weight on the new overdogs may be indicated. But what I hear from the ITAC is an unwillingness to even consider this. I personally would feel better if the ITAC just kept the door open for review of on track performance to use adjustments if needed.

What if, just for example, MK3 VW's, ex ITA Honda's, and Porsche 924 are "Problem Cars" that showed up the older previous top dogs in ITB most everywhere. Would you rather fix this problem, or say "ITB changed, get with the new order and build a WV".

Jake, did you watch the ITB races at Summit Labor Day Weekend. How bout those Honda's and WV MK3. How about the lap record being set twice! Shame about those slow old BMW 2002's.

[lateapex911]

Charlie, I don't think I'm arguing as much as highlighting issues.

I did see those BMWs at Summit. And I saw a guy who hasn't been to Summit bring his stuff.

(Andthe next statement isn't to toot my own horn, but there's a point to be made)

Did you see a guy bring an RX-7 who had never run Summit and set a track record that was nearly a half second under the existing record? (That was two years old, I'm told). I guess the other cars in the class aren't competitive, right? Maybe the 'new' car needs weight. Yea, well, they are ALL RX-7s. (IT-7s).

So, was my car faster? Why? Was I faster? Why?

Same thing can be said for ITB.

And I watched an ITB BMW win the ProIT race at NJMP the very next weekend. And he beat the controversial Blethen Audi.

Here's what I'm saying. Some of you guys want to "add a little weight" as you said, to the overdogs in ITB. (In your case)
I ask you, HOW? How do we know Tristian was legal? or Dave Gran? Or that the BMWs weren't/were on the fresh rubber? Could Randy Pobst get in my car and run faster? Hell yea! How about in the BMWs? I bet he could. And I bet Penske could wring more performance out of them too.
HOW do you tell the membership that 50/100/150/whatever pounds is right?
HOW do you do that repeatedly?
How do we know what we think we know, and how do we apply it objectively, transparently, and with repeatability???

That's NOT a rhetorical question, help us by answering it. But make sure your answers pass the sniff test. If you answer, "We trust you", that's a fail. WE won't be in the position forever, or even into the moderate future. Heck, there are some that want us to rotate out now.

[Knestis]

Thanks for that, Jake! The IT7 NEEDS MORE WEIGHT...!!!!

The other people at the Jet Blue terminal bar at JFK are wondering why I'm laughing my ass off...

K

[Gary L]

What if, just for example, MK3 VW's, ex ITA Honda's, and Porsche 924 are "Problem Cars" that showed up the older previous top dogs in ITB most everywhere. Would you rather fix this problem, or say "ITB changed, get with the new order and build a WV".

But Charlie - if some of the "previous top dogs" (like the 142) have NOT been run through the process, shouldn't that take priority over monkeying with the cars that have?

You wanna write the letter, or should I?

[Bill Miller]

Interesting that the Volvo 142 is one of the model cars for ITB. I know that the 142 makes a lot less horsepower then many think. I suspect that Volvo may have been a little optimistic with the published specifications, as was common back when the car was built. It does however benefit from a very wide, flat power band which makes it accelerate better then its peak horsepower would suggest it could. It may be a perfect example for the imitations of classifing cars based on published peak horsepower.

Possibly using the 142 as a "bogie" explains why the newly classified ITB cars were a second or so faster then all the older previous front runners at the Labor Day MARRS races. And why the ITB lap record that stood for over 10 years at Summit is suddenly being reset every race by the same newly classified cars. From my limited perspective the "Process" has resulted in a loss the long standing parity in ITB.

Charlie

That speaks volumes. In that time, the track has been repaved, and DOT tires have gotten better.

/edit Last I looked, this is the 6th year that the Mk III Golf has been in ITB. Not exactly what I'd call 'newly classified'.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill highlighted the key points perfectly. A 10 year record can never be broken? The track has been repaved. Geez.

Is it possible that the top drivers have just migrated to newer equipment because its easier to find parts, good donors, ect? Point in fact - take a look in this months Sports Car - the article about Eric Curren. He takes his dads 142 out once or twice a year at LRP during a test day and runs WELL under the ITB track record...times in fact that would make some ITA guys jealous.

The point is that there is SO MUCH in play here that it really is not appropriate to say that the old stuff is being rendered uncompetitive, it just may be that because there are a few more decent choices, the new hotshoes are building different stuff.

[gran racing]

Charlie,

Summit Point could be a good example for us to discuss the impact of using that as a performance indicator / classification tool. If comparing results of cars that attended the event, a few things I’d want to know are - the level of car prep, information about the tires used throughout the event, driver experience and ability, and other information that may have played a role.


Shame about those slow old BMW 2002's.

Using on track performance without knowing more information about the cars or drivers, one might come to a conclusion that weight needs to come off the 2002s after looking at the Summit Point results. However on the flip side, the exact opposite could be concluded after looking at different results – the Mid Ohio IT Fest. I was absolutely amazed with the amount of power the 2002s had there! I was in their draft, had a good run, and they easily pulled away from me on the straights.

Volvos…I keep thinking back to a test day I attended last year at Lime Rock. Paul Curran whose a damn good racer was at the event with his son Eric. Paul was getting the car around pretty quick and running times that would have him near the front. His times were in the low 1:04s. Nothing was changed with the car, same tires, same conditions. His son Eric jumped in the car, did just a few laps and holy shit. Eric was turning 1:02.7s (which is below the track record). Note: just saw Andy post this too. lol

Even with the same exact car, using on track performance could easily produce different results in how the car should be classed.


But Charlie - if some of the "previous top dogs" (like the 142) have NOT been run through the process, shouldn't that take priority over monkeying with the cars that have? You wanna write the letter, or should I? Gary

Bingo! If you’re running a car that hasn’t been through the process, write a letter and ask for your car to be run through it. Having cars be classified by the same process is important.

[tnord]

i'm wondering why everyone thinks that should on track performance be used in any way.....that it would have to be used for every car at every event. don't you think it's more reasonable to think that they'd consider results from IT Fest and ARRC almost exclusively?

[Bill Miller]

But Charlie - if some of the "previous top dogs" (like the 142) have NOT been run through the process, shouldn't that take priority over monkeying with the cars that have?

You wanna write the letter, or should I?

Gary,

Not saying which way it will go, because I have no idea, but what are you going to do / say, if it comes back and says the current weight is below the process weight? I don't think it's a given that just because something wasn't run through the process, that it's for sure going to lose weight when it is. I'm all for running every car through, and going w/ that weight (w/ a pragmatic eye). To me, the variable w/ the largest 'window' is the power estimate. I don't think anyone will argue w/ the fact that some cars make more, and some cars make less, than the 'standard' gain percentage that's used in the process. There's a significant enough variation in the motors from marque to marque that I don't think anyone thinks they all respond the same to an IT build. That's where the pragmatic eye comes in.

[Knestis]

>> ... His son Eric jumped in the car, did just a few laps and holy shit. Eric was turning 1:02.7s (which is below the track record).

Eric Curran obviously needs more weight.

K

[gran racing]

Travis,
While those events are great, there are many cars that don’t show for one reason or another. Even then, there are too many variables.

Bill,
When I submitted my request to have my car run through the process, my thought was at least now it’ll be classed using criteria other cars were. Seeking consistency, explainable, and a fair classification for various cars – that’s what motivated me to write my letter.

[tnord]

......and "The Process" can obviously account for 40 years and 400 cars across 5 classes without fault.

[spawpoet]

>> ... His son Eric jumped in the car, did just a few laps and holy shit. Eric was turning 1:02.7s (which is below the track record).

Eric Curran obviously needs more weight.

K


Or he's a cheater :p

[tnord]

Travis,
While those events are great, there are many cars that don’t show for one reason or another. Even then, there are too many variables.


i agree there are a lot of variables, i just don't think that when discussions of using "on track performance" come up it's fair to talk about it in terms of any car anywhere in the country on any weekend. because in practice were it to actually happen i'd be pretty confident the results to be used would only really come from those two (and T-Hill maybe) events. to say otherwise i think is a scare tactic used to push an agenda.

[lateapex911]

.............. to say otherwise i think is a scare tactic used to push an agenda.

Just to be clear, there are no ITAC guys here promoting the use of on track performance as anything but a trigger to look at he cars physical characteristics more closely.

[tnord]

I'm aware Jake.

[Gary L]

Gary,

Not saying which way it will go, because I have no idea, but what are you going to do / say, if it comes back and says the current weight is below the process weight? I don't think it's a given that just because something wasn't run through the process, that it's for sure going to lose weight when it is. I'm all for running every car through, and going w/ that weight (w/ a pragmatic eye). To me, the variable w/ the largest 'window' is the power estimate. I don't think anyone will argue w/ the fact that some cars make more, and some cars make less, than the 'standard' gain percentage that's used in the process. There's a significant enough variation in the motors from marque to marque that I don't think anyone thinks they all respond the same to an IT build. That's where the pragmatic eye comes in.
If the weight stays the same or goes down, great... I'll prolly stick with the Volvo and just keep truckin'. If the weight goes up significantly, we know we need to work on plan "B". What ever that is.

But to be honest, I would be very surprised if there was a significant change (prolly 50 lbs or less) one way or another, on a "processed" 142.

[Rabbit07]

I have one, no bias here.:D

DOHC Neon @ 2650, the SOHC is @ 2450. The SOHC is a mildly competitive car with better response to IT mods. The DOHC makes more power stock, but dosn't see the power gain that the SOHC sees in IT trim. The SOHC still is only a 3rd place car at best. I say lower the weight on the DOHC and see what happens?

[lateapex911]

I have one, no bias here.:D

DOHC Neon @ 2650, the SOHC is @ 2450. The SOHC is a mildly competitive car with better response to IT mods. The DOHC makes more power stock, but dosn't see the power gain that the SOHC sees in IT trim. The SOHC still is only a 3rd place car at best. I say lower the weight on the DOHC and see what happens?

Chris, I'm not picking on you...really. But that's a classic quote.

So, based on your paragraph, you say lower the weigth and see what happens. How much? 100 pounds? 50? 150?
How should we tell the members we came up with that? "Chris said so"? How would you feel if Jake said his RX-7 only made 100 hp, and suggested a 100 pounds off? And "See what happens"?? How do we judge what happens, by what yardsticks. How will we really KNOW what happens?

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I hope you see the point. We hear often things like "Everybody knows the Dohc doesn't make the same gains as the Sohc", or the "1.6 engine is not intake limited like the 1.7, everyone knows that". Yet, "Everyone knows" is the 'data' we get.

The internet is always accurate....

The questions above are serious. If anyone can answer them in a repeatable, robust, transparent and non subjective manner, please, please do so.

We act on issues when we can document the data, and our members EACH vote a confidence percentage. We need a minimum percentage to accept the data. So, we are MORE than happy to get data, but we HAVE to scrub it down. It's not easy to either submit effective data, or to examine it, but we owe it to the members to be vigilant when we stray off the standard.

[cjb25hs]

I have one, no bias here.:D

DOHC Neon @ 2650, the SOHC is @ 2450. The SOHC is a mildly competitive car with better response to IT mods. The DOHC makes more power stock, but dosn't see the power gain that the SOHC sees in IT trim. The SOHC still is only a 3rd place car at best. I say lower the weight on the DOHC and see what happens?

I agree with Chris, since I run a neon as well. The other sanctioning body only adds 50lbs to the DOHC over the SOHC. 2500 and 2450lbs respectively.

[tnord]

How do we judge what happens, by what yardsticks. How will we really KNOW what happens?


The questions above are serious. If anyone can answer them in a repeatable, robust, transparent and non subjective manner, please, please do so.



i think some are starting to come to the conclusion that what the ITAC is trying to accomplish with the process under the current lanscape is just not feasable.

it's a good guide, and probably works 90% of the time, but i think some of us are fooling ourselves in how well it should work. lets be honest here. the process is an educated guess the same way in that "lets take 30lbs off the DOHC Neon" is an educated guess.

25% power adder is a guess
FWD weight break of 100lbs (2%?) is a guess
DWB adder is a guess
live axle is a guess
mid engine adder is a guess
brake adder/subtractor is a guess
torque adder is a guess

"you guys" have just come up with a formulaic, formal, repeatable way to make your guesses, but to think it's going to work for the absurd amount of cars listed i think is a bit silly. don't get me wrong, these are all good things and its very helpful to future ITACs and current competitors to know just what's going on.

PS - I'm all for delisting cars that aren't actually run to make this a somewhat more manageable task.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The point is to classify everyone using the same guess, then let people pick their weapon.

[tnord]

The point is to classify everyone using the same guess, then let people pick their weapon.

i know that's the intent, but i think it's coming to light that it's just not doable.

it's been brought up many times before that there are certain cars that the process fails. Honda S2000, Mazda RX8, most any Porsche derivative, 1st gen RX7 as putting the cars at uncompetitive weights. it's a bit silly to think that it can't create an overdog scenario either, like this Audi example that keeps getting trotted out.

and not all cars get the same guess anyway right?
some get different power multipliers, some get weight breaks for different physical characteristics, some get weight added. i agree that "codifyng" this methodology is a good thing, as it helps consistency now and in the future, but i think you have to recognize that it won't work 100% of the time.

i think it can work MOST of the time, but not ALL of the time.

[JeffYoung]

Travis, give us an example of an overdog that has not been corrected using the process (ignore the SIR on the ITS 325, and assume it had gotten "process weight") or that could not be corrected using the process.

Are there any out there?

[tnord]

well, this Audi is a good example. it won the ARRC yet if it were to be run through the process it would lose 200lbs no? that doesn't really pass my "smell test."

[RacerBill]

i know that's the intent, but i think it's coming to light that it's just not doable.

it's been brought up many times before that there are certain cars that the process fails. Honda S2000, Mazda RX8, most any Porsche derivative, 1st gen RX7 as putting the cars at uncompetitive weights. it's a bit silly to think that it can't create an overdog scenario either, like this Audi example that keeps getting trotted out.

and not all cars get the same guess anyway right?
some get different power multipliers, some get weight breaks for different physical characteristics, some get weight added. i agree that "codifyng" this methodology is a good thing, as it helps consistency now and in the future, but i think you have to recognize that it won't work 100% of the time.

i think it can work MOST of the time, but not ALL of the time.

I would not say that "the process fails". I would say that the results are more accurate in some cases than others. That said, I am really torn between changing the 'formula(s)' for one car, or not (and that is what you are really doing when you say 'lets add 100 lbs to the Fabulous Trashwagon' or 'lets take away 200 lbs from the 1998 Boojum'.

Friendly question for the ITAC. Do you have a spreadsheet with all the cars that have been run thru the process are listed with all of the adders and subtractors? If so then if you change one or more of those parameters, for all cars, you could see what it would do for the weights by making that change. This may be a way to fine tune the process and not be making a change the benifits/hurts a particular car. Just a thought.

And I'll say it again, I really appreciate what the ITAC has been able to accomplish, and encourage them to keep it up (even if I don't get my jacking plates ,errr frame repair, and have to tape up my windshield washer bottle :D).

[JeffYoung]

Actually, it didn't win the ARRC I think. The two cars just sat 1-2 on the grid.

Is one ARRC win enough for overdog status? I mean, I just don't see Audi Coupes out there dominating ITB like the 325 did in S, or the CRX in A.

[tnord]

Actually, it didn't win the ARRC I think. The two cars just sat 1-2 on the grid.

Is one ARRC win enough for overdog status? I mean, I just don't see Audi Coupes out there dominating ITB like the 325 did in S, or the CRX in A.

ok....whatever it was. taking off 200lbs still doesn't pass my "sniff test." does it pass yours?

no, one ARRC win is not enough for overdog status, and i don't think anyone will tell you that it is. i think it is enough to say that the cars aren't completely uncompetitive though (given normal conditions).

[JeffYoung]

Yes, it passes my smell test for now. The "Great Realignment" took weight off of Z cars and the 944, all of which had either won (in some cases repeatedly) the ARRC or did well at it. That seemed to work out ok.

My point with the Audi is take the weight off and see how it does. If on track results show that it makes more than the 25% we think it makes, that's the trigger to take another look at the car.

[tnord]

Yes, it passes my smell test for now. The "Great Realignment" took weight off of Z cars and the 944, all of which had either won (in some cases repeatedly) the ARRC or did well at it. That seemed to work out ok.

My point with the Audi is take the weight off and see how it does. If on track results show that it makes more than the 25% we think it makes, that's the trigger to take another look at the car.

ooftah. i just don't agree with that.

it seems like the general principle here is to wait and react to a problem, and given the limited number of Audi ITB cars out there, it's quite possible you won't be able to get the data you're hoping for. the car stays as listed.....more people spend $15k building them.....a year or two later you finally find someone willing to give it up....adjust the weight....and piss off everyone who just built the car (as well as everyone that got beat by it previously).

i don't like that.

[gran racing]

How will track results show it makes more than 25%? It will show how well the overall package does inicluding drivers, but not if the power adder is accurate or not. The Audi is an interesting one - 5 cylinders makes it unique. It sure does get moving from low speeds quickly!

I agree that this still comes down to educated guesses, but it's a hell of a lot closer than it had been previously. :happy204:I also like the fact we can ask how in the world they came to a conclusion and it can be explained. That provides people an opportunity to give the ITAC proof and other facts which may be contray to initial beliefs. Previously it was the ole "not guaranteed competitiveness" repsonse and not much more than that.

[JeffYoung]

The alternative is to make subjective determinations about on-track performance and adjust weight a priori before knowing how the car does at process weight.

I like that a lot less.

[tnord]

The alternative is to make subjective determinations about on-track performance and adjust weight a priori before knowing how the car does at process weight.

I like that a lot less.

i don't think anyone is proposing that drastic of a change either.

"back in the day" cars were listed based on whatever number the CRB felt was right, based off of imperfect information, with an eye towards on-track results. now, it's done 100% based on some formula (developed by volunteers) which is supposed to be accurate for 40 years of cars across 5 different classes.

to me.....cars get run through the process to get an idea of where it should be. and i bet 90% of the time it would work to just list the output. the other 10% is where some non-standard analysis will need to be considered....which may or may not include on-track results at the ARRC/IT Fest/IT West.

[JeffYoung]

Actually, they were given a weight based on curb weight minus an allowance for items that could be removed plus the 185 lb driver and fuel. No attempt at competitive balance at all. Run what you brung.

Listen, I agree performance should be in the mix somewhere, I just see it as a trigger for reevaluation ONLY.

[lateapex911]

About the Audi;

Two sat on the front row/pole at the ARRCs. But they didn't finish or make it to the tech shed.
First- We have NO idea what engine, head, bottom end, gearbox, etc etc etc were in them. And that's not a slam against the owners either, as it's easy to mistake engines and parts and get the wrong ones in.
Second, it was a fine day, but they were well off the record pace.
Third, it's not like they are trouncing everyone regionally.

I do agree that the result is not one that fits preconceived notions, and I have no problem, no, make that, I think it's prudent, to go digging deeper and get more data before moving further.

[tnord]

Listen, I agree performance should be in the mix somewhere, I just see it as a trigger for reevaluation ONLY.

it's how that reevaluation is done that is the sticking point. with the parameters set by the formula, i think you're going to have a damn hard time finding what you're looking for.

[JeffYoung]

In all cases -- Z cars, 944s, Integras, Miatas, E36s, RX7s, RX8s -- people have been surprisingly forthcoming with dyno data. I know that can be problematic, but the point is we have gotten the data we have needed so far.


it's how that reevaluation is done that is the sticking point. with the parameters set by the formula, i think you're going to have a damn hard time finding what you're looking for.

[lateapex911]

it's been brought up many times before that there are certain cars that the process fails. Honda S2000, Mazda RX8, most any Porsche derivative, 1st gen RX7 as putting the cars at uncompetitive weights. .

Just to clarify,
S2000 -we just don't know. The class is very young, and people think that they aren['t willing to gamble on that car. But it hasn't proven to have failed that car. And lets not trot out the "nobody is building one, therefore it fails" argument. Nobody is building 75% of the cars listed! Yet.

Mazda RX-8. Tough case, when Mazda lies about the stock power. If we have hard data, we might take a closer look, can't say for sure, but there hasn't been a solid case made for the car yet.

A 968 is doing very well in ITR in the NE, and he has yet to pre the car all the way.

1st gen RX-7 is known to be a bit heavy in ITA, but there's no sense setting it 'right' in ITB, as the car is raced happily in IT-7. The solution came too late for that car. In that sense the process fails it, but it could be rectified. But the 'fix' is worse than the existing situation. (A move to B, and the attendant swap to 6" rims)

[lateapex911]

In all cases -- Z cars, 944s, Integras, Miatas, E36s, RX7s, RX8s -- people have been surprisingly forthcoming with dyno data. I know that can be problematic, but the point is we have gotten most of the data we have needed so far.

hee hee. ;)

[tnord]

In all cases -- Z cars, 944s, Integras, Miatas, E36s, RX7s, RX8s -- people have been surprisingly forthcoming with dyno data. I know that can be problematic, but the point is we have gotten the data we have needed so far.

because these are all popular cars with lots of them around. have fun getting data for a one-off.

[JeffYoung]

Raymond/Stephen, you guys willing to put your car on the dyno?

Everyone has seen my dyno sheets......

Blake's ITB 914 the same......

We all saw Greg's on the NX.......

Like I said, for whatever reason, IT culture is fairly open with dyno data.


because these are all popular cars with lots of them around. have fun getting data for a one-off.

[tnord]

Just to clarify,
S2000 -we just don't know. The class is very young, and people think that they aren['t willing to gamble on that car. But it hasn't proven to have failed that car. And lets not trot out the "nobody is building one, therefore it fails" argument. Nobody is building 75% of the cars listed! Yet.


the difference between the S2000 and the other 75% of non-running cars is that people WANT to build S2000s but the listing is keeping them from doing so. if you have an extremely popular street car, with huge aftermarket support, and a very strong following amongst track day, autocross, and racers from other orgs, a bunch of T3 cars around, but there aren't "any" in ITR? you've got a problem. sounds like how SM got started no?



Mazda RX-8. Tough case, when Mazda lies about the stock power. If we have hard data, we might take a closer look, can't say for sure, but there hasn't been a solid case made for the car yet.


i classify this as process/ITAC methodolgy failure. chicken/egg.....etc.

these two + BMW + V8 Pony cars should be the CORE of ITR. the potential is there, people WANT to build them (i think). but it's just not a $20,000 experiment many are willing to perform.

[lateapex911]

i classify this as process/ITAC methodolgy failure. chicken/egg.....etc.

.

But what do you do? Just make up a number that seems right? Once you go down that road EVERYONE has a number that 'seems' right for their car, and nobody feels like they are being treated fairly.

In the RX-8s case, I would love to get solid data that could be scrubbed down and used to get a better picture of what that car is all about. Mazda did us no favor on that one.

[trhoppe]

Haven't read the thread, but have you guys discussed the 1.8 Miata as a problem car yet? :happy204::happy204:

-Tom
who will have more video of being walked by a 1.8 Miata in his Integra in 4 weeks :)

[tnord]

But what do you do? Just make up a number that seems right? Once you go down that road EVERYONE has a number that 'seems' right for their car, and nobody feels like they are being treated fairly.

In the RX-8s case, I would love to get solid data that could be scrubbed down and used to get a better picture of what that car is all about. Mazda did us no favor on that one.

the same thing SCCA does for every other class?

take ALL information into account and make a decision. maybe it's just me but it doesn't really seem lie EVERYONE thinks they are being treated fairly right now? :shrug:

[JeffYoung]

Travis, I think this is pretty critical for you to understand.

IT isn't every other class. In fact, the more and more I think about it, it's pretty unique. We try, and most of of membership seems to agree, to use an objective weighing process to get cars close -- and then let folks have it.

We aren't (or I thought we weren't) trying to be like Prod, or GT, etc.

And I would say that 95% of the people I see here and in the paddock are fine with IT as it stands, and do think they are treated fairly. You have plenty of options to run up front in B/A/S/R right now, and there are no blatant overdogs.

It's really to the point with me that improvements/changes to the class weighing process will provide diminishing returns. What we have now seems to work, and work well.

[tnord]

look jeff, I get it. i get what you guys are trying to do. i think it works for the most part, but i think you guys are being a bit naive if you think you can make it work in all cases.

i'm not so sure that members are really buying "The Process" as much as they are buying what they believe the outcome is....utopian parity for everyone.

i agree that a large number of people are fine with where IT stands currently (so why mess with it?), but i don't agree that 95% of people think all cars are listed correctly....which is what i really meant before. they might think they're own car is at an "ok" weight, but they can sure point to a few of their competitors that are too light.

[JeffYoung]

I strongly disagree.

We recognize we can't get everything "right." We try to get it as close as we can.

Sure, everyone can point to his car or that car and disagree with the weight, but on the whole, what about IT is broken?

I don't see many folks in the IT paddock who are pissed off at the system, at all really. I don't think, at all, that any of them I have met and talked to are looking for or want a Utopian parity. THey want a class that has a stable ruleset with an objective means for setting a weight on a car -- and then have at it with minimal changes going forward.

I'll be honest with you -- I enjoy the discussions with you but you are one of the very few people I know who constantly gripes about the weight of his car versus others.

[JoshS]

the difference between the S2000 and the other 75% of non-running cars is that people WANT to build S2000s but the listing is keeping them from doing so. if you have an extremely popular street car, with huge aftermarket support, and a very strong following amongst track day, autocross, and racers from other orgs, a bunch of T3 cars around, but there aren't "any" in ITR? you've got a problem. sounds like how SM got started no?

We had one ITR S2000 here in SFR until he decided to bolt on a supercharger and go ITE. Based on what I saw, I think with the right driver and the right build, it could very well be competitive. Of our three tracks, it was particularly good at Laguna Seca.

Based on talking to that driver and other members of the S2000 crowd here in NorCal, I think the problem is less a problem with the perceived competitiveness in ITR, and more of a problem that no one in the S2000 community wants to race a 3000lb S2000, competitive or not. It's just SO easy to get one of those cars down under 2700 lbs w/driver, so it just seems like an excessive amount of ballast.

In my opinion, that car just isn't right for ITR, it really belongs in the next class up (too bad we don't have one.) Nothing wrong with 240hp in ITR, but it doesn't make sense on a car that starts its life so light.

[tnord]

I strongly disagree.
Sure, everyone can point to his car or that car and disagree with the weight, but on the whole, what about IT is broken?


lack of stability, but otherwise nothing. as i've been saying through this entire discussion, everything works fine 90% of the time.



I don't see many folks in the IT paddock who are pissed off at the system, at all really. I don't think, at all, that any of them I have met and talked to are looking for or want a Utopian parity. THey want a class that has a stable ruleset with an objective means for setting a weight on a car -- and then have at it with minimal changes going forward.


utopian parity is probably an overstatement. but i think the capabilities of the process have been a bit oversold. there are some things it just doesn't deal with well.



I'll be honest with you -- I enjoy the discussions with you but you are one of the very few people I know who constantly gripes about the weight of his car versus others.

where have i said shit about my car in all of this?

i know i'm tilting at windmills by debating the shortcomings of the process with the ITAC. it's your baby.....everything is centered around it. it's like when a baseball coach tells a kids parents that their kid isn't good enough to be on the "A-Team," they just don't want to believe it.



In my opinion, that car just isn't right for ITR, it really belongs in the next class up (too bad we don't have one.) Nothing wrong with 240hp in ITR, but it doesn't make sense on a car that starts its life so light.


i can buy that.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think people read too much into how much we think the porcess is 'accurate'. EVERY time I talk about it, I make sure to say that we know it is flawed, it is based on assumptions etc. All we are trying to do is apply the tool we have to use equally. We then refer back to the 'no guarantee' clause.

I firmly believe that the process gets cars onto the same dartboard. Some are singles, some are doubles, some are triples and some will be bullseyes. Pick your dart and have at it. Because of the wide variety of EVERYTHING that goes into making a car a car, I think it's as granular as it can get.

It's not perfect for sure - but nobody EVER set that expectation.

[StephenB]

Someone told me you were all talking about me again and I chould visit this topic... Seriously I can't take it anymore! I have tried to stay out of all this BS for so long and it has me at a boiling point. A few facts that I would like to share but since I am unorganized I simply don't have them but I know they exist so I CHALLENGE anyone to find the real facts and prove me wrong.

Audi Coupe non-GT (50lbs lighter than the GT) driven by ME went to the tech shed in 2003 finishing 4th on track (FIRST time ever setting foot their) a Horizon was DQ'd for a bullshit thing because his rear door interior panel was replaced with tin as allowed on the front doors only. (I said BS at the event) but either way I moved up to third. No-one wanted to even look at my car.

Audi Coupe non-GT (50lbs lighter than the GT) driven by ME and my brother got pole and off pole at the ARRC in 2004 BUT WE WENT SLOWER than the top dogs in that area did at other events THAT SAME YEAR. We were at the time almost a second SLOWER than the track record. WE DID DRAFT and both where within a tenth of eachother I believe. DRAFTING MAKES a difference hellloooo can anyone actually drive here? Get a teammate/partner on track and your lap times will drop if you have any common sence!

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) have ZERO Track records at ANY tracks. Do you think I just don't want one?

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than the VW MKII (i think that is what they are) driven by Derek and Rob from Vantage in CA.

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than the VW MKII (i think that is what they are) driven by Beran Peter and HAVE NEVER BEAT HIM.

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than Hondo Driven by David Gran AND has only beat him once due to luck and consistancy not car performance.

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than Vovlo driven by Eric Curran AND HAVE NEVER BEAT HIM

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than Vovlo driven by Scott Carlson AND HAVE NEVER BEAT HIM

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than Vovlo driven by Nat Wentworth AND HAVE NEVER BEAT HIM

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than Opal GT driven by Jim Mcmahon AND HAVE NEVER BEAT HIM

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than the 2002 driven By Ken Hubbard

WE HAVE NEVER BEAT any well prepaired, well driven fast Volvos, Hondas, MKII golfs, 2002, ect unless they broke or fell off track. The point is that WE ARE NOT AS FAST AS YOU ALL THINK WE ARE! Look at our fast lap times for the ENTIRE TIME WE HAVE HAD OUR CARS. (since 1999) No Track Records, just some wins and a few championships. We are consistant and I will say I am a top 3car at most tracks, which yes I am excited about... Being consistantly fast but not the fastest is how I have done well over the years.



GO GET SOME FACTS and say our car is an example of how the process has failed. The ARRC everyone references was great, fun, and exciting for us but the reality was that we were over a second of the track record and we had a draft for that hot lap... look at the majority of our laps they are within a few tenths of everyone else lap after lap. AND all the other "Hot shoes" from around went a second slower than they did earlier that year...

YES I WILL GO TO A DINO anytime, Send me the info on the location I am towing to. Anything more than 45 miles from 19 birchwood drive in Allenstown NH 03275 will require some type of compensation to help cover my costs and I would prefer you give me at least my HP/wieght #'s so I can answer that question in the future for people.

I have seriously heard enough... I can't win on track or off. IMHO The ITAC should just classify all cars old and new with the same process right or wrong then get a set of balls and tell all the winers and complainers that the process is what it is, its the same for all cars in all classes, don't like it pick another car or another place to race. You've received the feedback year after year... make our class predictible so anyone can choose a weapon and understand the process. Let it be our choice if we want to race it and let us suffer the consequenses if it is not a good choice. The BIGGEST mistake you ever made was not doing all cars at one time and saying this is the NEW IT CLASSIFICATION PROCESS. If you are happy with what we have then say that and stop getting feedback be consistant going forward and run new cars that are classified through the same process. you will never please everyone and it will feel like you are pleasing no-one.

I will be the first to say here that I beleive my car is amoungst the biggest that didn't take advantage of this new process. And guess what I COULD CARE LESS let me keep the 200lbs! If you choose that cars that are already classified are staying the way they are and new cars will go through this process then fine with me. just set the groundrules, follow them and go forward with it. GET IMPROVED TOURING STABLE... if you keep asking for feedback and walking on eggshells you will destroy all the hard work you have done.


Yes I drive the Audi Coupe that F-d up your class.
Stephen

PS: to any ITAC member or CRB member or even SCCA member that is concerned about my car and the process its only because you looked at one race one time for 1 session 5 years ago and you saw an on track performance concern. I feel like you have all been here saying on track performance doesn't matter and only flags you to look at that car in more detail. In my cars situation your taking it a step further with my car looking at one event one time for one session 5 years ago.... think about it.

[StephenB]

Was going to put this in and Edit but decided it needed it's own thread so you would read it.

I BELIEVE what the ITAC has done is the best thing that has happened in the last 10 - 15 years by coming up with a consistant close way to quantify weights for cars that are classified in IT. With that being said I DID request my car to go through the process for 2 reasons.

1.) Why wouldn't I if i knew my car could potentially be 200ls lighter? That is like sticking the thanksgiving turkey on the counter with a 2 year old great dane that looks into the sink for water. (Ya that really happened to me!)

2.) IF their was an obvious flaw it is my duty as a member to request my car to be run through the process for them to look at it so if it was decided something drastic WAS being overlooked they could catch it for the future classification of cars.

Last but not least... Yes I post on this site BUT Do I post and or start new threads here to argue my car is at a disadvantage? NO. I am happy even with my exta 200lbs. It doesn't make or brake a fun weekend of racing and if it makes or brakes your idea of AMATUER RACING then your probably in the wrong crowd with the majority of IT drivers.

Rule stability is what I want. Be fair and consistant with no guarentee like andy said.

[JeffYoung]

And I would suggest that we would all have the same reaction as Steven, and be justified, if someone took our car's performance at a single event out of context and used that as a weight setting tool.

[tnord]

And I would suggest that we would all have the same reaction as Steven, and be justified, if someone took our car's performance at a single event out of context and used that as a weight setting tool.

i may have conveyed that message, but i certainly wouldn't take a single event and make a change based on it.

[JeffYoung]

Travis, I didn't think you meant that either. No worries.

[gran racing]

I agree with quite a bit of what Stephen said, can totally understand his frustration, and wouldn’t be surprised with the Audi losing some weight. How much, that I’m not entirely sure. Way too much emphasis is being placed on that ARRC qualifying by some people (while it does not take away from what you guys did and the accomplishment). The Audi is a bit unique in that it has 5 cylinders, and don’t know if / how the process takes that into consideration. I do believe the Audi is capable of making some great power if given a pro motor and lots of dyno tuning. That’s where I’d have some concern if the Audis lost a substantial amount of weight – not because of existing on-track performance per se. At the same time if the process being used does take into the various characteristics (good and bad), then it’s a hard sell not to use that derived weight. Or if the powers that be genuinely feel the process weight is too light, extra research is necessary and should be done to ensure it receives fair treatment.

[callard]

Okay, so you knock off the 200 pounds and Stephen proceeds to win a lot of races against the other top dogs in IT-B. What does more research and fair treatment mean?
Chuck

[JeffYoung]

A harder look to see whether the motor makes the 25% expected IT gain, or whether it makes more.


Okay, so you knock off the 200 pounds and Stephen proceeds to win a lot of races against the other top dogs in IT-B. What does more research and fair treatment mean?
Chuck

[frnkhous]

Just to clarify,
S2000 -we just don't know. The class is very young, and people think that they aren['t willing to gamble on that car. But it hasn't proven to have failed that car. And lets not trot out the "nobody is building one, therefore it fails" argument. Nobody is building 75% of the cars listed! Yet.

Mazda RX-8. Tough case, when Mazda lies about the stock power. If we have hard data, we might take a closer look, can't say for sure, but there hasn't been a solid case made for the car yet.

A 968 is doing very well in ITR in the NE, and he has yet to pre the car all the way.

1st gen RX-7 is known to be a bit heavy in ITA, but there's no sense setting it 'right' in ITB, as the car is raced happily in IT-7. The solution came too late for that car. In that sense the process fails it, but it could be rectified. But the 'fix' is worse than the existing situation. (A move to B, and the attendant swap to 6" rims)


Jake, you have dyno sheets for the rx-8 Those are from like 5 years of development. They had the help of mazda if they needed it. Atleast 2 other teams built cars(developed seperately) and I've seen dyno sheets from one after it was sold to the current owners, they are no different. 210 whp is as good as it is gonna get. 205 is what can be expected from any health engine. I don't know why this is so hard. Bosch, motec, atleast 2-3 versions of stock ecu's reflashed. Multiple headers/exhausts from different shops/suppliers this is what the cars make. If that many on the ITAC really felt that the speedsource dyno sheets that they were given are leaving something on the table I think they are being foolish.

[tnord]

A harder look to see whether the motor makes the 25% expected IT gain, or whether it makes more.

which translates into....Stephen has to be willing to turn in dyno sheets showing he should get weight.

[Knestis]

>> The ITAC should just classify all cars old and new with the same process right or wrong then get a set of balls and tell all the winers and complainers that the process is what it is, its the same for all cars in all classes, don't like it pick another car or another place to race.

Thanks for stepping into this mess, Stephen. But be clear about who you should be unhappy with.

K

[JeffYoung]

You'd be surprised how many people have been willing to do that. It's pretty impressive actually.


which translates into....Stephen has to be willing to turn in dyno sheets showing he should get weight.

[tnord]

You'd be surprised how many people have been willing to do that. It's pretty impressive actually.

I was one of them.

How many have knowingly submitted dyno data that would result in a significant addition of weight?

[JeffYoung]

Blake Meredith, Kirk Knestis, myself (potentially, the car could get more weight depending on a few things), the E36 BMW guys back in the day, your great friend Greg Amy, etc.

[frnkhous]

Actually I don't think Greg Amy thought that the car would get weight if he shared his dyno numbers as I believe he's said he'll never do that again. But maybe that is for some other reason.

[tnord]

i don't want to get too far off topic, and this is all way back in my memory and could very well be wrong (and frankly i don't really care to argue this miniscule aspect of the bigger picture), but....

the Golf gained 10lbs?

Blake's 914 dyno sheet doesn't show it above 30% does it?

your sheet doesn't show it should get weight based on peak power, but possibly rather torque/powercurve (which you already get weight for and know that starting to use calculus to determine area under the curve is WAY beyond what we're trying to do here)

The last time i heard Greg discuss his old NX he mentioned that he made public those numbes with the understanding his car would NOT gain any weight. Believe it or not he actually came to my defense when i wouldn't make public my dyno numbers (which i provided only to Jake Gulick) and cited the issue with the NX (which still hasn't received weight, despite the data).

E36 BMW data is "pre-process" and i don't really think is relevant to the specific issue at hand

like i said....from the cloudy areas of my memory.

[JeffYoung]

My car could get weight with the peak numbers. It's never been run through.

Greg has said he wouldn't share again, but the fact is he did.

I can't remember specifically what we did with Blake's numbers other than I know the 914 weight was set using his dyno data.

Actually, the E36 submissions were at the same time the process came on line, and used to support an ITAC recommendation that the car get weight. The CRB decided to go with a restrictor.

I don't really know much about the Golf, although I know a lot about Kirk and I will tell you of anyone, he'd be the first to put whatever process weight on his car the process and his dyno plots required.

Don't give up on folks and their dyno sheets until we have a real problem, which would be an overdog we can't get dyno sheets for. That day may come, but it has not come yet.

[tnord]

there's plenty more to debate on those individual issues....but whatever....

PS - the problem is not only with overdogs, but underdogs as well. if no one wants to build it because of the weight....where are you going to get data from?

[JeffYoung]

Travis, remember, we can't make sure that every car in the ITCS can win. We can get them close, but that's about it. There will always be perceived "dogs" -- although I agree with you it is far more likely that the "underdog" problem will not be solved as quickly if at all as the overdog problem(s).

Jake had a good quote about that "the unraced and unloved will be left alone" or something (Jake?). Until someone wants to come along and "process" an ITB MGB or something and prove it can't make 25%, it will probably just sit, I agree.

But I do think we underestimate one of the beauties of IT -- people build weird farked up shit. And not just me. There are Alfa Milanos and GTVs out there, Spitfires, Fire Arrows, TR6s, Fieros, TR7s, Olds Achievas, Opel GTs and Mantas, etc. etc. etc.

IT racers are a diverse, eclectic crowd.


there's plenty more to debate on those individual issues....but whatever....

PS - the problem is not only with overdogs, but underdogs as well. if no one wants to build it because of the weight....where are you going to get data from?

[StephenB]

>> The ITAC should just classify all cars old and new with the same process right or wrong then get a set of balls and tell all the winers and complainers that the process is what it is, its the same for all cars in all classes, don't like it pick another car or another place to race.

Thanks for stepping into this mess, Stephen. But be clear about who you should be unhappy with.

K

I am unhappy with anyone that doesn't want a consistent process for all cars being classified in the ITCS. If the ITAC decides that cars are fine with the current weights, going forward, any new car classified goes through this process then fine with me, or if they choose that ALL cars currently classified in the ITCS will be "re-aligned" then that is fine with me also, lets just make a decision and go with it so I can build my new car and move on! I am tired of sitting in limbo racing my same old car because I have no clue what IT will look like next year. I want a new car and it will be in a class that is consistant and looks stable into the future.

If you're on the ITAC, CRB, or a SCCA member and you think any car should get an "exception" both plus or minus then I am unhappy with you. Classify the cars consistantly then leave them alone and let us choose what we want to race you and everyone else with.

Stephen

[Knestis]

i don't want to get too far off topic, and this is all way back in my memory and could very well be wrong (and frankly i don't really care to argue this miniscule aspect of the bigger picture), but....

the Golf gained 10lbs?

Blake's 914 dyno sheet doesn't show it above 30% does it?

your sheet doesn't show it should get weight based on peak power, but possibly rather torque/powercurve (which you already get weight for and know that starting to use calculus to determine area under the curve is WAY beyond what we're trying to do here)

The last time i heard Greg discuss his old NX he mentioned that he made public those numbes with the understanding his car would NOT gain any weight. Believe it or not he actually came to my defense when i wouldn't make public my dyno numbers (which i provided only to Jake Gulick) and cited the issue with the NX (which still hasn't received weight, despite the data).

E36 BMW data is "pre-process" and i don't really think is relevant to the specific issue at hand

like i said....from the cloudy areas of my memory.

On relatively current issues...

** The MkII Golf got a recommended 10 pound decrease which the CRB voted against. The MkIII Golf (mine) is sitting on a huge list of ITB cars that we compiled but were waiting on word re: whether we could do a "Great Realignment Part Deux," before the current batch of recommendations - all those since the Golf II, actually - were put on hold pending the CRB getting the information it's looking for.

** I don't have my documentation handy but I'm pretty sure that the 914 is among those recommendations on hold.

** We've been around and around on torque and in the end, opted to use a simple adder rather than any of the more complex approaches discussed, primarily so the membership would be familiar and comfortable with it.

K

[tnord]

one more on this topic because i basically agree with all of your last post....

even the oddball guy that does take a flyer on some ITX crapwagon even though he thinks it can't be competitive at its current weight will be left out to pasture. unless he throws a full $20k (approx full build cost for an oddball) at a car, gets dyno data, develops some more, gets more dyno data, and lobbies and lobbies......his car still won't have a shot in hell at an adjustment. we'll all just shout that the car isn't developed enough, a single example isn't enough to adjust for, etc etc.

that guy is left up shit creek without a paddle, and so is the car. nobody else in their right mind would build another one after that, and the adventurous oddball trailblazer is left with $20k invested in a car he can sell for maybe 5k. the car is dead, and this guy probably doesn't look very fondly on SCCA anymore.

[bamfp]

Be carefully about on track performance adjustments. Watch the Fastrac after the Runoffs. There will a bunch of letters asking for weight on the winning car or remove wait on this car. It sucks. I have run Prod before and that part of it is not fun.

I sent a letter, a year ago, asking the ITAC to run the 914 through the "Process". I have given them engine dyno numbers and chassis dyno numbers. I am not sure what the out come is. I have heard that they are waiting on the CRB. I am also not sure what % gain they used. I wanted them to have chassis dyno numbers to show the power loss through the transmission which is about 21%. I will take what ever I get. If it looses weight great, if not fine. I will just spend more time on the dyno and chassis setup to get it better. I never stop developing a car, even one that is 36 years old.

Blake Meredith

[StephenB]

even the oddball guy that does take a flyer on some ITX crapwagon even though he thinks it can't be competitive at its current weight will be left out to pasture. unless he throws a full $20k (approx full build cost for an oddball) at a car, gets dyno data, develops some more, gets more dyno data, and lobbies and lobbies......his car still won't have a shot in hell at an adjustment. we'll all just shout that the car isn't developed enough, a single example isn't enough to adjust for, etc etc.

that guy is left up shit creek without a paddle, and so is the car. nobody else in their right mind would build another one after that, and the adventurous oddball trailblazer is left with $20k invested in a car he can sell for maybe 5k. the car is dead, and this guy probably doesn't look very fondly on SCCA anymore.

He should be "left up shit creek without a paddle"! It was his/her risk to take and his/her decision to make. not mine, not yours not the CRB , not the ITAC. It's His/her mistake and it's up to him/her to take ownership and responsibility for their decision. The rulebook and the weights are all their for them to see, and once (or if) the "process" is published then we all are to blame for the car WE choose to build and race.

Since non of us are argueing any of this to help ourselves :rolleyes: We all need to stop feeling sorry for those that make poor decisions. Lets seal this deal make the process final and then make our own decisions on what to run and then race and have fun!

Stephen
:eclipsee_steering:

[tnord]

sure thing Stephen....i'd be happy to have everything in IT locked down as it is, but there are a metric crapton of people who are not.

REGARDLESS of countless admissions by the ITAC that "The Process" is not meant to be perfectly accurate, really amounts to nothing more than an educated guess, and the relatively strong level of parity existing today across cars that were or were not "Processized"......there are are a large contingent of people that insist that every single car be rerun through the process and listed to the nearest 5lbs.

i get the impression that there really are quite a few cars that haven't been run through "The Process," which stands to reason that quite a few cars would go up, or down in weight. so it's not really just the individual who may have "taken a flier" on a car that didn't turn out to be listed to competitively, but potentially a whole host of people who at one time had at least a *decent* car that may not be so anymore.

it's easy to say "run everything through and lock it down!" when you know the risk you bear is losing another 200lbs.

maybe i've got this all wrong?

[lateapex911]

1.) Why wouldn't I if i knew my car could potentially be 200ls lighter? That is like sticking the thanksgiving turkey on the counter with a 2 year old great dane that looks into the sink for water. (Ya that really happened to me!)

.

SB- LOVE that. made me laugh out loud. You've seen "A Christmas Story", no doubt? "You'll shoot your eye out!"

Liked your post too!

[StephenB]

it's easy to say "run everything through and lock it down!" when you know the risk you bear is losing another 200lbs.

maybe i've got this all wrong?

Just to be clear... I want stability and the ability to move forward feeling good about what IT will look like in the future. If that means that I keep the extra 200lbs so be it. I would be just as happy if all cars that are already in the GCR DONT go through the process and we "lock down" the current weights, and move forward consistantly placing cars as they currently are being classified.

Stephen

[gran racing]

Doesn't that go contray to the "want all cars treated fairly" if others don't get classed by the same process? I'm sure you're probably just feeling sick of all this especially given your position and that's understandable.

[tnord]

Doesn't that go contray to the "want all cars treated fairly" if others don't get classed by the same process? I'm sure you're probably just feeling sick of all this especially given your position and that's understandable.

and this is where i think some have lost the plot.

the end goal is to get a competitive landscape across many makes/models and strong participation numbers. sounds like what we have now doesn't it? i think some people have become too fixated on this whole "process" and the corresponding idea of what "fairness" is.

i'm a guy that focuses on the goal, end game, outcome, whatever. i don't care as much how we get there. it seems like i'm the minority though.

[gran racing]

the end goal is to get a competitive landscape across many makes/models and strong participation numbers. sounds like what we have now doesn't it? i think some people have become too fixated on this whole "process" and the corresponding idea of what "fairness" is.

It's not necessarily about this process or another form of classification. Fairness to me is being able to ask and understand the rationale of how cars reached it's classification regardless of whether one fully agrees with some of the factors. I do not think it's fair when a member seeks input on why one car that has a greater performance potential than others is classed at a lower weight and the only justification the PTB can provide is it was classed by a previous group of people. I also think it's great to have a group of people who are at least willing to listen if a member believes the factors used to class their car are wrong, and ability to provide some proof.

[tnord]

It's not necessarily about this process or another form of classification. Fairness to me is being able to ask and understand the rationale of how cars reached it's classification regardless of whether one fully agrees with some of the factors. I do not think it's fair when a member seeks input on why one car that has a greater performance potential than others is classed at a lower weight and the only justification the PTB can provide is it was classed by a previous group of people. I also think it's great to have a group of people who are at least willing to listen if a member believes the factors used to class their car are wrong, and ability to provide some proof.

i agree that transparancy is important. but in the end, i'll trade all the transparancy and consistency in the world for a stable ruleset and relative parity amongst the field. :shrug:

[lateapex911]

i agree that transparancy is important. but in the end, i'll trade all the transparancy and consistency in the world for a stable ruleset and relative parity amongst the field. :shrug:

Travis, that's a VERY interesting statement.

Some would say that the things that you would trade, transparency and consistency, are the first principals that create a stable ruleset. (As far as classifications go. I'm ignoring, for now, the changing of washer bottle, etc rules)

IF the rulesmakers are transparent (which begats consistency), then cars that are classed, or are requested to be run thru the process will be treated equally, right?

[Ron Earp]

Some would say that the things that you would trade, transparency and consistency, are the first principals that create a stable ruleset.

What he said.

[erlrich]

IF the rulesmakers are transparent (which begats consistency), then cars that are classed, or are requested to be run thru the process will be treated equally, right?

Yes, they will be treated equally; will equal treatment necessarily give us parity though? Me thinks those are two different things. I'm beginning to think that those of us who are "pro-process" aren't necessarily that concerned about the end result, in terms of parity among cars. Certainly Stephen has said he isn't.

I know a lot of you point to the fact that we now have a variety of cars in each class that are relatively competitive. But in reality we have what, 4, 5, maybe 6 cars in each class that are capable of winning in a highly competitive field? Out of how many cars that are classed in IT - 300+? I think the process is a great tool to help us reach the goal, I just think we need to make sure we know what the goal is.

Just my $.02

[Andy Bettencourt]

But in reality we have what, 4, 5, maybe 6 cars in each class that are capable of winning in a highly competitive field?

Just my $.02

I would be willing to bet that if you took the top 5 drivers in those classes, forced them to build something other than those top 5 CARS, given the same budget and the same prep level, you would find that those same drivers were on top.

[tnord]

I would be willing to bet that if you took the top 5 drivers in those classes, forced them to build something other than those top 5 CARS, given the same budget and the same prep level, you would find that those same drivers were on top.

irrelevant.

if they're 2s/lap slower than what they were in one of the "top 5" cars however....THAT matters.

[Andy Bettencourt]

My point is that I don't think they would be. People migrate to what wins. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[erlrich]

I would be willing to bet that if you took the top 5 drivers in those classes, forced them to build something other than those top 5 CARS, given the same budget and the same prep level, you would find that those same drivers were on top.

You make a good point Andy, and one that I forgot to bring up earlier. One of the problems I see with trying to make any determination about the effectiveness of the process has to do with the very nature if IT; there are so few cars that really are built & driven to their fullest potential that we may never really know how close we are to achieving parity, and therefore how good the process really is.

The answer may very well be that there is no answer :shrug:

[Knestis]

You are getting VERY close to the answer, Earl - that we accept your premise re: "built and driven to their potential" and set free any assumption that we can make decisions based on what we see.

K

[RexRacer19]

I would be willing to bet that if you took the top 5 drivers in those classes, forced them to build something other than those top 5 CARS, given the same budget and the same prep level, you would find that those same drivers were on top.

I agree with this logic. It may be possible that there are some class overdogs that have never fully reached their potential and are cast aside. If I were rich and bored, I think it would be fun to do a few "all out" builds on some cars that have never made it that far.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with this logic. It may be possible that there are some class overdogs that have never fully reached their potential and are cast aside. If I were rich and bored, I think it would be fun to do a few "all out" builds on some cars that have never made it that far.

I think so too Jeff! The ones I would try right away would be:

SOHC Neon
MKII MR2
Fiero GT, 88
(insert one of a million Hondas)

ITS
Alfa Romeo GTV6
Mercedes Benz 2.3 16V
84 300ZX slicktop

Obviously parts and reliability are issues on some cars that could have a chance...

[JeffYoung]

We have a Milano down here that has won race and has proven to be fast.

We also have an unbeatable Merc in ITS, when it comes out -- Irish Mike's 2.3 16v.

We had one guy, Chris Newberry, build an 84 300zx slicktop and it was extremely fast in testing, totalled first time out at Road Atlanta.

They've been done. They could be fast.

[lateapex911]

I'd toss in the Porsche 914-6 and The Monza in ITA as longshots, but interesting ones. I think the 2nd gen MR2 is not a longshot at all, it just needs a top builder /driver.

[JeffYoung]

If anyone ever actually builds a 3.8 liter GM V6 motor in ITA, they are probably going to have a car with 170-180 whp and 200 wtq. I'm not kidding.

Regardless of how bad that thing stops and turns, and it won't be as bad as people think, that thing will run like stink in straight line.

[lateapex911]

Is that the same motor that needs to be lifted out of the car to change the sparkplugs? or is that the 350 version that came in the Monza for a bit?
(I might make that a double longshot. Smaller brakes than an Acura in front, drums in the rear, a live axle and 2800 pounds. yech)

[JeffYoung]

I don't think so.

The 3.8 V6 is essentially a Rover V8, same block with two cylinders lopped off. I'm not kidding -- a Buick V6 water pump fits my car.

It's aluminum, lightweight, smogged out and LOTS of power potential when cleaned up in IT trim, just like the Rover V8.

I'm serious. I bet 170whp, 200wtq, on a $5k build.

[Bill Miller]

I would be willing to bet that if you took the top 5 drivers in those classes, forced them to build something other than those top 5 CARS, given the same budget and the same prep level, you would find that those same drivers were on top.

This!

[gran racing]

I agree with that, for the most part. I know down at Summit Point the MR2 I was behind with not a well developed engine, I couldn't get past on the straight. That would be one to consider.

Although, the Mini would be on my short list of cars to consider for ITB.

[rcc85]

Jeff,

Not to hijack the thread, but I think the 3.8 Buick V6 is cast iron. I do think the Monza/Skyhawk has potential but they are hard to find. It's the same basic engine as the V6 Camaro/Firebird in ITR.

The AMC Spirit 4.2 L6 is also an interesting ITA car. Isn't that the biggest displacement outside of the 5.0L pony cars?

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona (2.2L and 2630 lbs in case anyone cares)

[JeffYoung]

Bob, you are right, it is cast iron, I went back and looked. I think you are right about the Spirit, it is the biggest displacement in IT outside of ITR.

There is a guy in Atlanta who runs one, Ed Forrest. I think the stock carb is a problem on it.

Jake, if those cars got processed I think they would loose serious weight -- 110 stock hp.

[frnkhous]

They are honda's but i'll point out 1992 prelude s and the 94-97 accord ex are both likely capable undeveloped ITA cars. the prelude in particular reads almost like an ita integra but about 90 lbs heavier and more torque. I'm guessing it might be a better car for places like road atlanta and road america than the integra is.

[Bob Roth]

Just being Honda Centric, I think the high hp/displacement VTEC hondas have a difficult time. At already being 100 hp per liter, they don't have much to work with in terms of HP improvement. Del Sol VTEC is especially tough given its about 2350 dry and empty, about 150 pounds heavier than Civic Si with same engine. For picking winners, a trait that helps is finding a car with about 0.6 hp per liter. I think an engine at that power range best benefits with the mild compression, header, computer and intake improvements allowed in IT. If a car is at 100 hp/liter, its likely the manufacturer has already done those things.

[ericblois]

like a car that had 121hp from the factory and 2.7L of displacement? thats only 44hp per liter

[spnkzss]

I'm just now catching up on THIS thread, but I have to ask Charles about on track performance. Wasn't the Summit record FIRST broken this year by a Volvo and not by Tristen? :D

[tgerrity]

Jeff, Eric...re.the 318 BMW with M42. I have done quite a bit of research regarding this motor with the thought of changing for a more balanced car. First, I could not find anyone that has done a full IT build. Second, those who have played with the motor have said it will not respond to tuning the way the M20 does...i.e., you can't really improve on the factory numbers. That being the case, the car is too heavy as classified. Chuck

Boy, would I like to be able to "tune" the M20 in my 325e. I'm getting buried under all the Piñatas showing up in ITA in the Midwest.

Any hints as to where to look?