January Fastrack

[Tristan Smith]

http://www.scca.org/documents/Fastrack/11/11-fastrack-jan-club.pdf

Yahooo


ITR
1. #2501 (Tristan Smith) Please re-examine weight for ITR 300zx
In 9.1.3, ITR, Nissan 300ZX (89-96), change the weight from 3250 to 3120. [An error was made during the initial weight-assignment process.]

Thanks ITAC

[23racer]

I just wanted to say thank you to the people from the SCCA for clearly stating what I need to do to be able to run with you guys next year;

#3415 (Eric Nummelin) Classify 2002 Cougar Using WC VTS
The car is eligible for STU with the appropriate STU specifications and by bringing the compression ratio in compliance.

While I do find it a bit confusing that the car was still legal to run in World Challenge in 2010 and in STU as well, but the new direction of the class is to not allow that. Greg Amy did a very good job in keeping me informed as to the process and I want to thank him. While I am disappointed that I have to put my spare motor in the car and loose about 40 hp and make the car a ton heavier, I have nothing I can really complain about, rules is rules. I just need to change the bullet for a more stock one and bolt on about 150 lbs of weight, :blink:. With these changes I can expect to have my a$$ handed to me in the races, but I get to keep the car mostly in its original condition.

I just wanted to come down and run the car in a couple of races a year for kicks and giggles and I understand that the actual SCCA membership needs to understand and determine the direction the STU class proceeds in and not change for 1 car.

All I have to do now is work out the licensing issues, pick a region and see what weekends work the best for me. Thanks to the CRB for clearing up the questions very quickly and I while I wish that I could run to the WC VTS approved in 2009, it doesn't meet the direction of the class. I will need to think about things a bit to see if it all makes sense.

Eric

[Greg Amy]

WOW!!!

#3394 (Josh Sirota) Reevaluate weight/class of ITB Dodge Daytona
In 9.1.3, ITB, Dodge Daytona 2.2 (84-89), reclassify from ITB to ITC at 2380 lbs. and classify the identical Chrysler Laser, effective 1/1/12. [Note separate Technical Bulletin item to reduce 2011 ITB weight to future ITC weight.]

[quadzjr]

no mk1 MR2... figures.

[JeffYoung]

I did the initial analysis on those cars. They are tough birds. No power (same motor as Omnis, etc.) and too much curb weight. I owned one of these turds back in the day (an 84 Laser).

In B, they'd have to lose something like 600 lbs off of curb to get to process weight. In C, they still probably can't make the weight but at least they have something of a chance....


WOW!!!

#3394 (Josh Sirota) Reevaluate weight/class of ITB Dodge Daytona
In 9.1.3, ITB, Dodge Daytona 2.2 (84-89), reclassify from ITB to ITC at 2380 lbs. and classify the identical Chrysler Laser, effective 1/1/12. [Note separate Technical Bulletin item to reduce 2011 ITB weight to future ITC weight.]

[GKR_17]

In 9.1.3, ITR, Nissan 300ZX (89-96), change the weight from 3250 to 3120. [An error was made during the initial weight-assignment process.]


So what was the error? As I recall it was classed with an assumed gain of 30%, was that dropped to 25?

[JeffYoung]

Steve, I understand the frustration. All I can tell you now is that we spent a lot of time discussing the car, and the data you and others provided.

I personally am in the camp of re running the weight at 25%. That's probably the best you are going to see. While I agree the evidence suggests (pretty strongly to me) that even 20% is tough for these motors, the fact is we don't have a full on IT build to evaluate.

In any event, the issue is still open. I (again personally) hope we get this done next meeting. We'll see.


no mk1 MR2... figures.

[JoshS]

#3394 (Josh Sirota) Reevaluate weight/class of ITB Dodge Daytona
In 9.1.3, ITB, Dodge Daytona 2.2 (84-89), reclassify from ITB to ITC at 2380 lbs. and classify the identical Chrysler Laser, effective 1/1/12. [Note separate Technical Bulletin item to reduce 2011 ITB weight to future ITC weight.]

In case it's a little confusing: the Operations Manual for the CRB states that reclassifications are not like weight adjustments -- reclassifications need to go through the rule-change process. That process involves a member input period, and the proposal is subsequently voted on by the BOD. Now that there is a "rules season", rule changes and reclassifications are "closed" for 2011, they will be voted on for 2012. So the ITAC/CRB is reducing the weight for 2011, which we can do now, and have submitted a request to reclass for 2012. I suspect there will be other examples like this as we work through our list.

[JoshS]

So what was the error? As I recall it was classed with an assumed gain of 30%, was that dropped to 25?

Correct. This was the only V6 in ITR done at 30%.

[JeffYoung]

Not knocking Johs, but I think the actual thinking was that basically ALL sixes in ITR were hit with a 30% gain (at least) whether there evidence to support it (like with the BMW 2.5 motors) or not (the Supra and the 300ZX).

In my personal opinion, the Supra should get a similar reduction, if requested.


Correct. This was the only V6 in ITR done at 30%.

[quadzjr]

Steve, I understand the frustration. All I can tell you now is that we spent a lot of time discussing the car, and the data you and others provided.

I personally am in the camp of re running the weight at 25%. That's probably the best you are going to see. While I agree the evidence suggests (pretty strongly to me) that even 20% is tough for these motors, the fact is we don't have a full on IT build to evaluate.

In any event, the issue is still open. I (again personally) hope we get this done next meeting. We'll see.

They dyno I gave you what made 108whp is a full tilt buggie motor that was built by TED componets. My motor, has every possible thing done to it that I could find, sans a header built on a dyno and made 106.75, others are in teh 103 to 104 range on a dyno that is not ego-inflated. All those numbers are below 15%, let alone 20 or 25%. Even the few inflated dyno's that you can find (though teh majority shows I am right) are below 20%. Stock rebuild dynos are around 97hp. I mean the cars are so un-competitive it is rediculous. How much more time and money do I need to invest in my car before someone looks?

I am not going to make a mod list, but you name it it has it. Custom made struts housing DA konis, Bearing LCA's, custom header, intake tube, spent hours on the dyno, custom rings, and alot more setting and testing the suspension than actually racing this year. light wheels, sticky tires, aero data, tuned exhaust, tested brake pads, etc. what more?

What more information does the ITAC need? Seriously? 100lbs or 200lbs isn't going to make it a "class killer". we would have to make something like 125-130 something hp to the wheels at the current weight.

This is just like this year at sebring, when a guy came up with no knoledge on MR2 and told me my motor should be making 130hp. I told him more than he cared to hear, but no mater how much facts I told him he said "well your missing something", and I watched him balk up in the corners then mutilate me in the straights. I talked to a few others and their solutions were cheating. I am not going to do that. I would change class before that.

At roebling I got lucky and snuck into the lead after the leaders had an issue on lap 1. I had a 3 car length lead coming out of 9. By turn 1 I was a car or so behind them. same class.

[JeffYoung]

Steve, we are looking. I would say that other than perhaps the ITA Miata, this car has gotten more discussion than any other over the last year or so.

I don't remember any of they dyno plots you sent Josh and I being represented as IT builds. They were N/A builds for various different applications, if I recall correctly.

I remember you saying a guy named Ted built one full on IT and made 108 or 110? Which was 15%? If we could get that sheet it would be very helpful.

We'd need to see the sheet and the list of what was done.

Look, I told you before I personally think the car needs help. I should be a popular car in ITB and it's not, and I (personally) know that is because of the weight.

I'll keep pushing for what I think is right. That is all I can do.

[Andy Bettencourt]

RE: the 300ZX

I hope you guys asked the MYRIAD of builders who know them from Prod and GT. AND learned what they made in stock form in the old SSA.

Ya blew it. Sorry Tristan, what information did you submit to refute the 30%?

[Eagle7]

#3422 (Sean Sweeney) Allow Mazda 13B Non ported motor in STL at appropriate weight
In 9.1.4.3.G.2 change Mazda 12A weight from 2365 to 2225. Add the Mazda 13B at 2615. No porting is permitted in either engine. The 5th and 6th intake port actuators and valves may be removed or disabled.

Does this mean what I think it means? My ITS RX-7 in STL?

[JeffYoung]

No, I'm pretty sure we got this right.

The rule is 25% default unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

All we have is a dyno sheet for (my car) showing a lot of wheel hp on an SSA "build." That car has some visibly illegal stuff on the suspension, so who knows about the motor.

The N/A build information we were able to find in no way supports a 30% gain on this motor. Admittedly, it's not an IT build, but basic stuff (headers, etc.) doesn't result in big power gains on it.

Prod and GT have no bearing on an IT build -- you know that.

The BIG problem we have with this car is it was tagged with 30% with no real evidentiary trail of why, other than a very suspect dyno sheet. That's not how we do things. It's 25% unless we have a lot of evidence of IT builds either on the high side or low side.

P.S. - I recused myself from the vote AND am selling the car I have.

RE: the 300ZX

I hope you guys asked the MYRIAD of builders who know them from Prod and GT. AND learned what they made in stock form in the old SSA.

Ya blew it. Sorry Tristan, what information did you submit to refute the 30%?

[Greg Amy]

Does this mean what I think it means? My ITS RX-7 in STL?
Yes. Don't forget to add 2.5% for RWD and you won't be shocked at the resulting weight...

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Prod and GT have no bearing on an IT build -- you know that.

.

Except there are a ton of builders that have experience with modified variants of that 3.0. THEY know how certain allowances in IT prep can increase HP.

I sure hoped you talked with at least one builder familiar with them. You would do the same thing on a new classification (assuming the car was old enough and not a 5 year old 'new' car).

[JeffYoung]

Actually, no, we wouldn't. We'd assume 25% unless there was strong evidence to the contrary. Speculation on what an IT build might make wouldn't cut it.

There's no evidence this car will make 30%. When and if there is, I would support a change to 30%.

This is probably an area of how classification works that has changed since you left the ITAC. We have a STRONG preference for classing at 25% initially until proven wrong with actual evidence.

[Eagle7]

Yes. Don't forget to add 2.5% for RWD and you won't be shocked at the resulting weight...

GA
Darn - 6 oz over the ITS weight. :happy204:

[JeffYoung]

VERY tough for that car to be competitive in STL. Or any rotary for that matter.


Darn - 6 oz over the ITS weight. :happy204:

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is probably an area of how classification works that has changed since you left the ITAC. We have a STRONG preference for classing at 25% initially until proven wrong with actual evidence.

Nope, that is how it was when I was there - except there was some evidence to consider, you just didn't look for it - or ask for it.

To that point - it's why the record-keeping implemented 2 years ago was so important.

Either way, reasonable people will disagree. I'm just glad you have the power to make changes and know you do it will 100% good intention.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Not knocking Johs, but I think the actual thinking was that basically ALL sixes in ITR were hit with a 30% gain (at least) whether there evidence to support it (like with the BMW 2.5 motors) or not (the Supra and the 300ZX).

In my personal opinion, the Supra should get a similar reduction, if requested.
The SHO, Acura Legend, Stealth, Contour SVT, 3000GT, various Porsches were processed at 25% IIRC.

[JeffYoung]

You are right on the SHO, Legend, Stealth twins and Contour.

I think the Porsches got less than 25%.

The Toyota and BMW inline sixes got 30% -- no data at all on the Toyotas. So too did the 300zx.

I still don't see any evidence being available on that motor. To me, builder speculation prior to a build doesn't cut it. Real data does.

Thanks on the last statement. It is appreciated. It was true when you led the ITAC and I hope we try hard to live up to that standard.


The SHO, Acura Legend, Stealth, Contour SVT, 3000GT, various Porsches were processed at 25% IIRC.

[Greg Amy]

VERY tough for that car to be competitive in STL. Or any rotary for that matter.
"Competitive" is not the short-term priority right now; "inclusion" is. Long-term this is not "the final answer".

Multiply the 12A weight by 1.025; try guessing at the answer before you do.

Donja worry, there's a long-term plan and outlook. Just sayin'.

GA

[RacerBill]

Josh: Thanks very much for getting the weight reduced for the Shelby. I did write a letter (#3616) requesting a clarification of the process used to determine the weight, but only as a result of looking at the line in Fastrack that said 'change weight from 2340 to 2290' which would have been a reduction of only 50 lbs. The actual GCR weight is 2430, so the reduction of 140 lbs is just about what I was hoping for. BTW, the weight of my car as it rolled over the scales the last time I weighed it was 2452, and I've lost a few pounds since then. Looking forward to getting it back on the road a little lighter.

[StephenB]

No, I'm pretty sure we got this right.

The rule is 25% default unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

All we have is a dyno sheet for (my car) showing a lot of wheel hp on an SSA "build." That car has some visibly illegal stuff on the suspension, so who knows about the motor.

The N/A build information we were able to find in no way supports a 30% gain on this motor. Admittedly, it's not an IT build, but basic stuff (headers, etc.) doesn't result in big power gains on it.

Prod and GT have no bearing on an IT build -- you know that.

The BIG problem we have with this car is it was tagged with 30% with no real evidentiary trail of why, other than a very suspect dyno sheet. That's not how we do things. It's 25% unless we have a lot of evidence of IT builds either on the high side or low side.

P.S. - I recused myself from the vote AND am selling the car I have.


Actually, no, we wouldn't. We'd assume 25% unless there was strong evidence to the contrary. Speculation on what an IT build might make wouldn't cut it.

There's no evidence this car will make 30%. When and if there is, I would support a change to 30%.

This is probably an area of how classification works that has changed since you left the ITAC. We have a STRONG preference for classing at 25% initially until proven wrong with actual evidence.

.

[JeffYoung]

I THINK I know what your point is, but it would help me if you would explain it.

Thanks.

Jeff

[StephenB]

Sorry for the double and multiple posts.... not sure how many times I tried the quote thing.... smart phones aren't always the best!

Anyway... using my quotes above is it safe to assume that all new classifications (or old cars being adjusted to the process weight) will use the 25% multiplier unless multiple documented dyno charts exist to warrant a higher or lower multiplier.

Does this set a new precedent going forward? Or will the rules change depending on the car or percieved performance?

Thanks,
Stephen

[JeffYoung]

Just me speaking here, need to be careful about that and add a Greg Amy disclaimer to my posts.

My understanding is that we use 25% as a fdefult unless there is sufficient EVIDENCE (not just dyno charts) to warrant a change.

The one exception is that apparently we use 30% for multi-valve cars in ITB. Personally, I don't agree with that but I respect the vote for it and will of course adhere to that.

This isn't that different from previous experience; I would just say, at least for me, the preference for the 25% default is stronger.


Sorry for the double and multiple posts.... not sure how many times I tried the quote thing.... smart phones aren't always the best!

Anyway... using my quotes above is it safe to assume that all new classifications (or old cars being adjusted to the process weight) will use the 25% multiplier unless multiple documented dyno charts exist to warrant a higher or lower multiplier.

Does this set a new precedent going forward? Or will the rules change depending on the car or percieved performance?

Thanks,
Stephen

[Chip42]

Donja worry, there's a long-term plan and outlook. Just sayin'.


In the mean time, people could be spending money going the wrong way, and more and more the ST category has people scratching their heads more than licking their lips.

is it even worth writing in with ideas? there has to be SOME place I can run an AW11 MR2 where it wont suck, I'd like ST to be that place.

[JeffYoung]

Bad refrain I know, but working on ITB...working on ITB.....


In the mean time, people could be spending money going the wrong way, and more and more the ST category has people scratching their heads more than licking their lips.

is it even worth writing in with ideas? there has to be SOME place I can run an AW11 MR2 where it wont suck, I'd like ST to be that place.

[StephenB]

My post actually has nothing to do with the mr2 or my 10valve Audi (not multi valve) which is classified well above 30% and as high as 40% depending on what you use as a stock HP number. To be honest I don't want to go back to those ugly discussions...

I am more concerned with new cars being classified and how the committee would decide if weight should be added to an already classed car. The 300zx has now set the precedent in what will happen with future requests... am I wrong?

I am spending thousands of dollars building a new car for ITR and I would like to see consistent policy.

Stephen

[JeffYoung]

For me, the default is 25% unless there is pretty strong evidence to the contrary.

I fully agree with you on consistency and I think that -- a strong default rate -- helps keep things consistent.


My post actually has nothing to do with the mr2 or my 10valve Audi (not multi valve) which is classified well above 30% and as high as 40% depending on what you use as a stock HP number. To be honest I don't want to go back to those ugly discussions...

I am more concerned with new cars being classified and how the committee would decide if weight should be added to an already classed car. The 300zx has now set the precedent in what will happen with future requests... am I wrong?

I am spending thousands of dollars building a new car for ITR and I would like to see consistent policy.

Stephen

[Greg Amy]

In the mean time, people could be spending money going the wrong way, and more and more the ST category has people scratching their heads more than licking their lips.
I completely recognize that, which is why I am asking that we finalize and publish the philosophy as well as where we think the category will go in 12-18 months.


is it even worth writing in with ideas?
Short-term micro ideas and long-term macro ideas, absolutely. To think that a group of a half-dozen guys have it all figured out, and can come up with all the answers with complete objectivity is silly. Fresh ideas are always a good thing... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

With all due respect to the ITAC, you MUST remove the 30% for multi-valve rediculousness from ITB. It MAKES ZERO SENSE.

All you have to do is ask yourself this simple question when the topic comes up:

Why does a multi-valve car in ITB have more power potential than a multi-valve car in ANY OTHER CLASS? Because of the 'ITB' sticker? Come on.

You guys are doing a great job of being consistant lately (maybe to a fault IMHO) and this sticks out as one of the last glaring evidences of ITB protectionism. There is simply zero data to back up the MR2 at 30% nevermind a class-based policy that differs from the others in the entire category. It's based on architechture - yet not applied evenly across the category - which is a core value in IT, no?

Just. Fix. It.

[erlrich]

Just me speaking here, need to be careful about that and add a Greg Amy disclaimer to my posts.

My understanding is that we use 25% as a fdefult unless there is sufficient EVIDENCE (not just dyno charts) to warrant a change.

This isn't that different from previous experience; I would just say, at least for me, the preference for the 25% default is stronger.

So Jeff, it is safe to assume that any request to re-evaluate the weight of car that was classed using a factor other than 25% would cause the ITAC to re-examine the evidence used in the original classification?

[JeffYoung]

It would cause ME to do ask to do so.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It would cause ME to do ask to do so.

How are people going to know when to submit data to support or refute these requests? Make a plan because you will need one....

[Knestis]

With all due respect to the ITAC, you MUST remove the 30% for multi-valve rediculousness from ITB. It MAKES ZERO SENSE.

All you have to do is ask yourself this simple question when the topic comes up:

Why does a multi-valve car in ITB have more power potential than a multi-valve car in ANY OTHER CLASS? Because of the 'ITB' sticker? Come on.

You guys are doing a great job of being consistant lately (maybe to a fault IMHO) and this sticks out as one of the last glaring evidences of ITB protectionism. There is simply zero data to back up the MR2 at 30% nevermind a class-based policy that differs from the others in the entire category. It's based on architechture - yet not applied evenly across the category - which is a core value in IT, no?

Just. Fix. It.

SHENANIGANS.

Who championed that policy, Jeff? Josh? The membership deserves to know. Hell, we deserve to know who voted on it and how.

K

[JeffYoung]

If we published the process, and let people know how individual cars were classed, that would go a long way towards resolving the issue you identify.

Kirk, what I can tell you is it was discussed at length, hashed out, and was the result of committee action. I personally don't think any individual biases or any such shenanigans were involved. As a whole, the committee felt that 4 valve motors in ITB typically resulted in a 30% gain, and that is the default for those cars. I respect the committee's decision, and the process used to reach that conclusion.

You may disagree with that decision, or even think it dumb, but shenanigans is a pretty strong and very inappropriate word for it.


How are people going to know when to submit data to support or refute these requests? Make a plan because you will need one....

[Tristan Smith]

RE: the 300ZX

I hope you guys asked the MYRIAD of builders who know them from Prod and GT. AND learned what they made in stock form in the old SSA.

Ya blew it. Sorry Tristan, what information did you submit to refute the 30%?

Actually I couldn't find anyone that made the wheel horsepower that you (and the initial classification) claimed it would, with not only an IT-like build, but with mods that aren't allowed in IT.

[Ron Earp]

There is simply zero data to back up the MR2 at 30% nevermind a class-based policy that differs from the others in the entire category. It's based on architechture - yet not applied evenly across the category - which is a core value in IT, no?

Just. Fix. It.

Why is this so damn hard to fix? It seems that everyone knows it was done poorly and wants the cars "fixed". Hell, I want it fixed so I don't have to read about it anymore. From reading these boards one would get the impression that ITB has tied the entire ITAC up for a year.

[Chip42]

Bad refrain I know, but working on ITB...working on ITB.....

Jeff - I appreciate all that you and the others on the side of the mkI MR2 adjustment have done. I'm not asking for the ITAC to fix it. there are those in this world who cannot rationalize the differences between a 1985-89 street car motor and it's full-bore Atlantic counterpart. some of these people are on the comittees and boards that need to validate a change. I've come to terms with that. for the sake of those who HAVE ITB cars, I hope you are successful.

at the moment my car is in limbo. ITB? likely as it's the easiest path to the track, but the goal had switched to STU until august, when the kybosh was put on my JDM 2.0L (MkII 94-97 MR2 2.0L NA, not a BEAMS) plans with the fastrack release. STL seemed a good alternative, but that motor is a grenade and there's very little I like about L when compared to U. toyota has nothing else (viable) that fits in the 2 in these classes unless I go turblow and I wanted to stay NA. so i'm kinda feeling like a man without a country.

[JeffYoung]

My guess is, as to individual cars, we've spent more time on the ITA Miata and ITB in general than all other issues combined.

[JeffYoung]

Understood. I'm speaking totally from a personal perspective here: I think the MR2 should be one of the group of cars that make up the "core" of ITB. I'm perplexed why we can't get to that point, as based on the dyno sheets I've personally seen the car is overweight and doesn't stand much chance in ITB.

Steve Ulbrik submitted a very detailed summary of why the (is it 4AGE?) motor is very different mechanically from the Atlantic motor. It persuaded me.

Again, personally, I am doing what I can to fix what I perceive is an issue with the MR2, but this is committee work and others can reasonably disagree with me. I hope you guys will stay in ITB with these cars, and that once the process plays out they have as fair a chance as any other car in ITB, but I understand if the frustration level has reached its limit.

Thanks guys.


Jeff - I appreciate all that you and the others on the side of the mkI MR2 adjustment have done. I'm not asking for the ITAC to fix it. there are those in this world who cannot rationalize the differences between a 1985-89 street car motor and it's full-bore Atlantic counterpart. some of these people are on the comittees and boards that need to validate a change. I've come to terms with that. for the sake of those who HAVE ITB cars, I hope you are successful.

at the moment my car is in limbo. ITB? likely as it's the easiest path to the track, but the goal had switched to STU until august, when the kybosh was put on my JDM 2.0L (MkII 94-97 MR2 2.0L NA, not a BEAMS) plans with the fastrack release. STL seemed a good alternative, but that motor is a grenade and there's very little I like about L when compared to U. toyota has nothing else (viable) that fits in the 2 in these classes unless I go turblow and I wanted to stay NA. so i'm kinda feeling like a man without a country.

[Andy Bettencourt]

IAs a whole, the committee felt that 4 valve motors in ITB typically resulted in a 30% gain, and that is the default for those cars. I respect the committee's decision, and the process used to reach that conclusion.

You may disagree with that decision, or even think it dumb, but shenanigans is a pretty strong and very inappropriate word for it.

Name one car please that has the documentation to back up that policy.

I can count on one hand how many DOHC cars there are in ITB that aren't Alfas or Fiats. What 4 valve cars typically result in 30% in ITB?

[JeffYoung]

Andy, you know the answer to that and you know my thoughts on this.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, you know the answer to that and you know my thoughts on this.
Actually, I don't know the answer. I DO know your position, but you just introduced new evidence into the "ITB 30% trial" as it relates to the majority.

If (obviously), the majority of the ITAC thinks that cars classed in ITB that have multi-valve architecture produce 30% as a rule, I would think someone would be able to rattle off a pile of them for us. Since the Alfas and Fiats are non-existant (and if they do exsist, they would be moot data due to previous HP measuring standards) then these are the remaining DOHC cars in ITB:

Geo Prism/Geo Storm
Mazda 626
Mazda Protege ES
Nissan Sentra
Saab 900
Suzuki Swift
Toyoyta FX-16
Toyota MR2
Golf 2.0

Wow. Some real overdogs there.

Time for me to write a letter instead of blathering here. :)

[JeffYoung]

That is appreciated. A letter would be appreciated.

Is the version of the Honda Civic that Scott G. and Jeff Underwood built 4-valve? For that one there is a lot of information (many thanks to Scott on that). For that car I would say there is documentation available, but I'm not as up on Honda engines as I should be and don't even know if it is 8 valve or 16.

[Andy Bettencourt]

That is appreciated. A letter would be appreciated.

Is the version of the Honda Civic that Scott G. and Jeff Underwood built 4-valve? For that one there is a lot of information (many thanks to Scott on that). For that car I would say there is documentation available, but I'm not as up on Honda engines as I should be and don't even know if it is 8 valve or 16.

No DOHC Honduhs in ITB.

[Chip42]

Add isuzu stylus XS to that list (4dr version of Geo Storm GSi). it's shown as "OHC" in the ITCS.

many if not all of the Alfas and Fiats are DOHC 2valve motors, too.

but the point remains - these aren't 30% gainers (maybe, MAYBE the swift) most are more likely ~20%. they were "optimized" from the OEM more so than most of the older tech cars. So if anything, the 30% is in the WRONG direction from the nominal gainer. :dead_horse:
ITB was a great ARRC race between 4 valve SOHC 1.5L and 3 valve SOHC 2.0L hondas. SOMETHING is being done right, if selectively.

[JeffYoung]

I'm confused by the above -- sorry guys.

Andy says no 4 valve Hondas in ITB, Chip suggests Underwood and Ruck's cars are? Which is it?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm confused by the above -- sorry guys.

Andy says no 4 valve Hondas in ITB, Chip suggests Underwood and Ruck's cars are? Which is it?

I said no DOHC. I guess we need to slice it up even more for this new 'rule'. . Maybe anything other than 2V is multi-valve in the 'rule'.

IIRC the guideline that was being clung to when saying the MR2 should be 30% was "16V", not 'multivalve' if you want to get techincal.

Isn't Scott's Honda a 12V?

[JeffYoung]

As I recall the discussion it focused on valves per cylinder. I may be wrong. I get lost in some of the lengthy discussions about the smaller Honda/Nissan/Toyota motors. There are people on the committee with a lot more knowledge about them than me.

[Chip42]

tKR, underwood etc.. civics are 16v. older ones are 2/3 depending (have to check ITCS and don't have the time). they are all SOHC. I know the 92-95 Civic DX is classed at >25%

Accord LXi/SEi, 2L Golf 3, many others are 12v SOHC

the DOHC list andy provided are all 16v. a lot of the DOHC Italian stuff is 8v.

ITCS should thus list valves/cyl as well as/ instead of cam type and count?

the point remains that as a blanket rule, the 16v at >25% concept fails to be acurate. there are cases where it may be true (some SOHC 16v hondas for sure) but more where it is not (nissan GA16DE, toyoter 4AGE, etc...) and then there are the isuzu twins at different weights neither of which match process (way under 25% for the storm). it's a cluster.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So the net result is that an 'architecture rule' is being based on a small generation of overacheiving 12V Hondas yet it is applied to anything 'multivalve', regardless of MFG, in JUST ITB.

Write your well-founded letters now please. A policy change should result in the MR2 issue going away.

[lateapex911]

If we published the process, and let people know how individual cars were classed, that would go a long way towards resolving the issue you identify.

Kirk, what I can tell you is it was discussed at length, hashed out, and was the result of committee action. I personally don't think any individual biases or any such shenanigans were involved. As a whole, the committee felt that 4 valve motors in ITB typically resulted in a 30% gain, and that is the default for those cars. I respect the committee's decision, and the process used to reach that conclusion.

You may disagree with that decision, or even think it dumb, but shenanigans is a pretty strong and very inappropriate word for it.

Jeff, I fully accept that you feel the above statement is accurate.
But I'm calling BS on it. (With all no disrespect to you!)

When I was on the ITAC, (and this MR2 thing has been going on YEARS!), various hollow reasons were trotted out defending the absurd factor the MR2 was classed at, and lot's of comical things were stated.
"Its a Toyota Atlantic motor " is one, and that is the SECOND most absurd reason I've nearly EVER heard.
But, the number one big stinking pile of poop was the statement by Peter Keane on one of the con calls. "The deal we made to allow 16V cars into ITB was that they must be classed at the higher factor". That's an exact quote: "The deal we made...."
When I questioned the origin of that 'deal' I found out that refers to stuff that was happening just before my joining the ITAC.

Now if THAT isn't 'shenanigans' then NOTHING is.


I'm with Andy. How can the ITAC, on one hand, say, 25% is the standard default, yet SUPPORT the ludicrous stance that the MR2 motor makes 30 or 35%? IF they require 'EVIDENCE" to waver from 25%, then show us the evidence that supports the 30%!!!

You just can NOT have it both ways.
:shrug:

[Chip42]

Letters should be in support of "the process" or in opposition to the inequality of the process as applied to >3v/cyl cars in ITB? as I understand it, "the process" isn't an officially recognized classification mechanism, and this methodology isnt "published".

can a letter to the CRB be in stated opposition to an unrecognized, unpublished rule-making methodology understood to be used by an AC? or did I miss it when the CRB/BoD recognized the ITAC process? where is it published?

[lateapex911]

You are right on the SHO, Legend, Stealth twins and Contour.

I think the Porsches got less than 25%.

.

I disagree. I think it's 25% for them.
I know in the air cooled cases, that it will be a cold day in hell before we see a Porsche air cooled product on an IT grid making 25%.

[lateapex911]

Anyway... is it safe to assume that all new classifications (or old cars being adjusted to the process weight) will use the 25% multiplier unless multiple documented dyno charts exist to warrant a higher or lower multiplier.

Does this set a new precedent going forward? Or will the rules change depending on the car or percieved performance?

Thanks,
Stephen


Just me speaking here, need to be careful about that and add a Greg Amy disclaimer to my posts.

My understanding is that we use 25% as a default unless there is sufficient EVIDENCE (not just dyno charts) to warrant a change.

This isn't that different from previous experience; I would just say, at least for me, the preference for the 25% default is stronger.


My post actually has nothing to do with the mr2 or my 10valve Audi....I am more concerned with new cars being classified and how the committee would decide if weight should be added to an already classed car. The 300zx has now set the precedent in what will happen with future requests... am I wrong?

I am spending thousands of dollars building a new car for ITR and I would like to see consistent policy.

Stephen


For me, the default is 25% unless there is pretty strong evidence to the contrary.

I fully agree with you on consistency and I think that -- a strong default rate -- helps keep things consistent.


Stephen is asking a specific question, and is not getting, I think, the answer he's seeking.
Specifically, I'm betting that what he's really asking is "If you got a request to re-examine the RX-8, would that car be set at 25%?"
Jeff's answer is more generic, and probably is setting alarm bells in Stephens head. Essentially, the 300ZX reweight has set a precedent that the 'evidence' used to initially set the weight was inadequate.
Now, the current RX-8 weight was an adjustment and the result of multiple dyno sheets from unbiased builders building engines to the same ruleset but for a different class. Those numbers had a very high degree of repeatability. And the committee voted it's confidence in those numbers, and it passed. We have records of that vote and the sources.
I would hope that such evidence would not be ignored, either now, while it's a fresh memory, or in the future when the memory is more distant, unless equally compelling contrasting evidence is revealed.
Jeff, Josh, thoughts?

[JeffYoung]

Jake, no offense taken, but I don't see any shenanigans. There are folks on the ITAC who think small 4 valve motors make 30% generally speaking. I don't think they are doing that for an improper reason. It is there fundamental belief about the motor. I can disagree with that, but I don't think there is anything improper in it.

I thought I was clear with Stephen. My understanding is the rule is 25% default unless strong evidence acceptable to a majority of the committee to the contrary. For the RX8, I really think the proces worked. We had a lot of folks looking at it, and a lot of data from a lot of places. You, Josh and Kirk did great work in collecting the data and making sure the process (little p) was done up front, above board and correctly.

On the Porsches, ar you sure the 944S2 and 968 weren't classed at 15%

[Charlie Broring]

My guess is, as to individual cars, we've spent more time on the ITA Miata and ITB in general than all other issues combined.

ITB is the class that has been most impacted by the "Process". It seems that the ITAC and CRB keep scrambling to make the things fit together in "B" and not getting it done. It doesn't apear to me that they "Get" what the problem really is, although it's pretty clear to some of us that have been racing in ITB for a long time.

Now the Club is making wholesale changes in ITB and ITC to try it make the class fit the process, rather then adapting the process to fit the class. With more time and hard work this will eventually sort itself out, however ITB is going to look a whole lot different then it did for the past 20 years. In my mind this goes against the goal of Rule Stability, a highly held value in IT.

The Miata is another car that doesn't fit too well with the Process. That's why it's challenging you.

The Process is like a brand new tool. You don,t know how to best use it or understand it's limitations, but your already rebuilding the whole IT race structure with it. It aslo seems like you already threw out the old tools in your toolbox.

[JeffYoung]

Just a quick response.

The Process has been around for quite some time now. The old method of classing cars was complete BS -- curb weight minus 180 lbs or something? How is that a tool?

You are a Volvo guy right? And so your point is that newer cars are threatening the old in ITB and in the interest of stability we should stop that?

That's true in ALL IT classes including S (mine), and there is nothing we can or should do to stop that.

Devising rules to ensure that 30 and 40 year old chassis are competitive with new ones is THE real road to Prod in my view.

We have a power to weight based system. It doesn't and can't account for all factors. Some cars will just be better than others.

But right now anyway, when I look out and see the type of racing you guys had in ITB at Summit, or the ARRC, I have a real hard time thinking that anything is broken (and that applies to S and A too).

[lateapex911]

...... It aslo seems like you already threw out the old tools in your toolbox.

What WERE the old "tools"??

Case: ITA; In '93 (or so) the CRX was added. Based on, exactly what, I don't know. Whatever it was, it resulted in the car being a pretty obvious big dog.

So, the next step was to class a car that could compete. (I get this info from a former CRB guy). And another. Next thing we know, cars that are added are classed at weights that the committee thinks will be competitive with the new top dog.
The result is an entire class being relegated to also ran status. I call this the 'compounding mistakes effect'.

Another 'tool' was the 'next version' of a car going to the higher class. I don't think this was done as an absolute rule, but it seemed like it was a 'norm'.
Then there was a method that Jeff mentioned involving curb weight.

I've looked, and talked to guys involved, and I've never been able to find a long term policy and process. It always seemed to involve "what we know" and "what we see". That mindset has always been, and I'd dare say, still is, a central tenet to the way the CRB and committees work.

[Ron Earp]

r ITB is going to look a whole lot different then it did for the past 20 years.

I sure hope so. And not just for B, but the other IT classes too. Classes that don't evolve are destined to whiter and die.

[lateapex911]

J
You are a Volvo guy right? And so your point is that newer cars are threatening the old in ITB and in the interest of stability we should stop that?

That's true in ALL IT classes including S (mine), and there is nothing we can or should do to stop that.

Devising rules to ensure that 30 and 40 year old chassis are competitive with new ones is THE real road to Prod in my view.

We have a power to weight based system. It doesn't and can't account for all factors. Some cars will just be better than others.


Yea, the current system is designed to set up performance targets and envelopes for each class. but it tries to not micromanage (comp adjust) individual cars.
In the long run, old cars will fade. The Volvos were and are contenders in in ITB, but they are ooooold cars. They are becoming few and far between. And with that comes less than dominance. That's teh natural progression. I agree with Jeff, you can't adjust an entire class for one model in the name of stability. Now, if ONE car is classed that resets class records, is the clear and dominant winner wherever it runs, then we have an issue. But I don't see that as an issue in ITB.

[gran racing]

Classes that don't evolve are destined to whiter and die.

I guess that depends upon how one defines evolve. lol At some point when there's a lack of cars to classify for a given class, let it die. That's essentially what's happening now. ITC is slowly dieing off but new blood was introduced with ITR. I don't see that as a horrible thing.

[Ron Earp]

The Volvos were and are contenders in in ITB, but they are ooooold cars. They are becoming few and far between. And with that comes less than dominance. That's teh natural progression.

Exactly.

The same happens in other classes. It is happening now in S and that is fine. With the ECU rules and the natural development that occurs over time some older carbed cars, like the Z series, will lose a bit of their competitiveness. Such is life.


IAt some point when there's a lack of cars to classify for a given class, let it die. .

Wat? In the SCCA, a class dying due to lack of participation? You mean when like three guys show up for a Prod class at a National? Doesn't happen in the SCCA, a class dying off that is. Class can have two entries and an entire paddock of 600+ people will need to spend a few hours a weekend tending to them.

[Dano77]

WOW 4 pages since yesterday,holy crap.

Since the MR2 is the car in question,wasent it originally classed in ITA then moved to ITB,now you want it reweighted or moved again.

Wait for it......

WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST GEN RX7??????????????????????

Why cant that car move to ITB and be a competitive car again? Jake has all the data in his head cause hs super smart about that stuff. Yes it will be beat by the current crop of B cars but it will be at the pointy end of the field. and every squrell finds a nut someday.

Ok done now.

If a car was produced with a turbo and its removed can it run in STU or STL,found a sweet deal on a 3rd gen RX7 roller and need to decide if ST is the place for this chassis.

Dan 77 IT7

[JeffYoung]

Dano, I think most opposition to moving the 1st Gen RX7 (originally an ITS car!) to ITB has been from IT7 drivers themselves.

Plus, it would require moving to a different wheel (15X6) and possibly a recage at the higher ITB weight.

Conceptually Jake has convinced me it is the right thing, but I don't want to support anything the majority of the drivers of a particular chassis don't want.

[CRallo]

What WERE the old "tools"??

Case: ITA; In '93 (or so) the CRX was added. Based on, exactly what, I don't know. Whatever it was, it resulted in the car being a pretty obvious big dog.

So, the next step was to class a car that could compete. (I get this info from a former CRB guy). And another. Next thing we know, cars that are added are classed at weights that the committee thinks will be competitive with the new top dog.
The result is an entire class being relegated to also ran status. I call this the 'compounding mistakes effect'.

Another 'tool' was the 'next version' of a car going to the higher class. I don't think this was done as an absolute rule, but it seemed like it was a 'norm'.
Then there was a method that Jeff mentioned involving curb weight.

I've looked, and talked to guys involved, and I've never been able to find a long term policy and process. It always seemed to involve "what we know" and "what we see". That mindset has always been, and I'd dare say, still is, a central tenet to the way the CRB and committees work.


Cavemen had tools like this... no offense (or not much) to anyone involved, you gotta start somewhere!

Next model of a car trim wise or time wise? Are you refering to something like the ACR Neon being thrown into ITS? Quite laughable looking back on it now, but then again, so are steam cars... lol

[JeffYoung]

Yep, as I understand it, one way of classing cars back in the day was look at the car, look at other cars, determine it is "like" other ITA cars, and then put it in ITS to be safe.



Cavemen had tools like this... no offense (or not much) to anyone involved, you gotta start somewhere!

Next model of a car trim wise or time wise? Are you refering to something like the ACR Neon being thrown into ITS? Quite laughable looking back on it now, but then again, so are steam cars... lol

[Dano77]

Ive always thought the cage issue was gonna be a big hurdle. Now I know.

Good answer. The wheel thing wont make as big an issue as the cage part. Thanks

Dan 77 IT7

[gran racing]

Ron, there's a difference between letting a class die and killing it. I don't think SCCA needs to kill them, let it happen naturally. For IT, there's not a big problem finding a place to put these cars where it doesn't require seperate run groups. For the open wheel cars you're talking about, put them in a group where they best fit. Now these drivers may not like what that constitutes, but this is where I think we need to say sorry, but if the class grows we can make changes in the future. I wouldn't want to completely turn them away.

[JeffYoung]

I think that is exactly where we are now, and what Ron is saying. No one is saying "kill" a class. But if it dies a natural death due to lack of interest, so it goes.

On the other hand, I've not been in SCCA long, but there certainly seems to be ebb and flows. ITB is flowing right now, back from what to me looked like the dead a few years back.

Why? Lots of newer chassis options that make it attractive and competitive and varied and fun class to run in.


Ron, there's a difference between letting a class die and killing it. I don't think SCCA needs to kill them, let it happen naturally. For IT, there's not a big problem finding a place to put these cars where it doesn't require seperate run groups. For the open wheel cars you're talking about, put them in a group where they best fit. Now these drivers may not like what that constitutes, but this is where I think we need to say sorry, but if the class grows we can make changes in the future. I wouldn't want to completely turn them away.

[Charlie Broring]

Devising rules to ensure that 30 and 40 year old chassis are competitive with new ones is THE real road to Prod in my view.

One of the major failings of prod has been to effectively integrate new car classifications to race alongside the older cars. And, this is exactly what is happening in three IT classes currently.

[JeffYoung]

Right. And I'm saying there is no acceptable fix for that.

I drive a 30 year old chassis in ITS. It has a live rear and drum brakes. Eventually, it will no longer be competitive in ITS as newer cars come in and are developed. I see no real way to fix that with our power to weight process other than a Harrison Bergeronish set of factors, and adjustments and other mess that is what Prod has now.

In my personal view, the older cars (including mine) are on their way out. They can still run, but you can't expect your chassis to be competitive forever. I don't mean SS like car of the year, but I am talking about after 20 years of racing and auto technology moving forward, there just comes a time.


One of the major failings of prod has been to effectively integrate new car classifications to race alongside the older cars. And, this is exactly what is happening in three IT classes currently.

[DavidM]

Must be the off season. I find it ironic how some people are quick to say a car should be weighted using 30%, but when people suggest that the car they drive be treated the same way things change.

Tristan, are you going to be able to make the new weight?

[lateapex911]

Must be the off season. I find it ironic how some people are quick to say a car should be weighted using 30%, but when people suggest that the car they drive be treated the same way things change.



Having read the thread I didn't see that...but I guess I missed that....example please?

[Tristan Smith]

Must be the off season. I find it ironic how some people are quick to say a car should be weighted using 30%, but when people suggest that the car they drive be treated the same way things change.

Tristan, are you going to be able to make the new weight?

Not sure. I think i will get close.

[lateapex911]

On the RX-7, yea moving it to B has it's hurdles, AND it's different than ALL other IT cars as it's the ONLY IT car that, in pure IT prep, has it's own class available to it over 75% of the country, IT7.

And IT7 is pretty popular in many places, and in some cases out numbers (ed) ITA cars at the same event.

So, does it really make sense to move a car to a new class, require it to be recaged, require the drivers to sell the wheels and buy new, AND tires (I have 3 sets min)?
Then there's the problem of the process. Guess what, the ITAC will recalculate the numbers for ITB, so a car that, when you look at the top IT7 drivers in the country, barely (if at all) beats ITB cars, will have weight added.
A process that has rendered it uncompetitive in A will, in all logic, do the same in ITB.

So, with all that, what's the point?
It's better off as is.

[gran racing]

but you can't expect your chassis to be competitive forever.

If the "target" for a lack of better words isn't shifted upwards, which it shouldn't be, why not? If one car can only achieve 18% gain for whatever reason (lack of technology or vice versa), if we're evaluating cars based upon performance potential that shouldn't be a factor.

Charlie, I'm not saying the process is perfect but why can't it work for ITB especially now that they will (hopefully) be reviewed using the same classification method?

[almskidd]

Jeff, I fully accept that you feel the above statement is accurate.
But I'm calling BS on it. (With all no disrespect to you!)

When I was on the ITAC, (and this MR2 thing has been going on YEARS!), various hollow reasons were trotted out defending the absurd factor the MR2 was classed at, and lot's of comical things were stated.
"Its a Toyota Atlantic motor " is one, and that is the SECOND most absurd reason I've nearly EVER heard.
But, the number one big stinking pile of poop was the statement by Peter Keane on one of the con calls. "The deal we made to allow 16V cars into ITB was that they must be classed at the higher factor". That's an exact quote: "The deal we made...."
When I questioned the origin of that 'deal' I found out that refers to stuff that was happening just before my joining the ITAC.

Now if THAT isn't 'shenanigans' then NOTHING is.


I'm with Andy. How can the ITAC, on one hand, say, 25% is the standard default, yet SUPPORT the ludicrous stance that the MR2 motor makes 30 or 35%? IF they require 'EVIDENCE" to waver from 25%, then show us the evidence that supports the 30%!!!

You just can NOT have it both ways.
:shrug:

Q. What car, other than the MR2, was classified assuming 30% IT gains since that "Deal"?

The 92-95 Civic DX is at 38% (4 valves per cyl and SOHC), so that doesnt count and I don't know enough about the rest of the ITB field to know which ones are 4 Valves per cyl.

[lateapex911]

If the "target" for a lack of better words isn't shifted upwards, which it shouldn't be, why not? If one car can only achieve 18% gain for whatever reason (lack of technology or vice versa), if we're evaluating cars based upon performance potential that shouldn't be a factor.

Charlie, I'm not saying the process is perfect but why can't it work for ITB especially now that they will (hopefully) be reviewed using the same classification method?

The ITB case is a unique cluster. In the new beginning, the Volvo was considered to be a central 'bogey car', and it's known performance and specs were distilled into the performance envelope/target for ITB....IIRC. (Andy?)

Then, down the road, we hear complaints from the Volvo guys (years later, a 'new' crop speaks up, somewhat thru the grapevine) that the numbers we used weren't representative of an ...ummmm..legal Volvo. Doncha know?
Well, that's a twist.

But beyond that, I think Jeff is saying ANY chassis can't be competitive forever. Aftermarket support dries up, engines disappear (RX-7), etc etc. And that's FINE. The ONLY way the ancient mariners in Prod have been kept competitive is artificial life support: Billet cranks, full glass bodies, alt heads and who knows what.

[JeffYoung]

Dave, my opinion is we have thing about newer cars -- better suspension designs, better chassis rigidity, better geometry, better aero, better weight distribution, etc -- that are not (and n my view can't be) accounted for in the Process.

I know you can "work with" leaf springs and live rear axles but do we really want a bunch of amateur racers (which is what the ITAC is) trying to balance those attributes on the head of a pin with others.

Eventually, cars from the 70s shouldn't be competitive in IT. Run? Sure. Guaranteed competitive? No.

I'm fighting this battle right now. Modern cars like the Integra and the Miata and the 323 are and are going to continue to be the future of ITS. As it should be if the class is to stay healty. My car is a dinosaur that will eventually not be competitive. I accept that.


If the "target" for a lack of better words isn't shifted upwards, which it shouldn't be, why not? If one car can only achieve 18% gain for whatever reason (lack of technology or vice versa), if we're evaluating cars based upon performance potential that shouldn't be a factor.

Charlie, I'm not saying the process is perfect but why can't it work for ITB especially now that they will (hopefully) be reviewed using the same classification method?

[erlrich]

If the "target" for a lack of better words isn't shifted upwards, which it shouldn't be, why not? If one car can only achieve 18% gain for whatever reason (lack of technology or vice versa), if we're evaluating cars based upon performance potential that shouldn't be a factor.


I'm with Dave on this one - I still don't understand the thinking that any given class will just naturally get faster as it evolves. After all, we know how to slow cars down, don't we? To my way of thinking there is no reason an RX7 couldn't still be a front-running car in ITA.

[Russ Myers]

Gee,,, all this talk of evil old cars makes me feel real good about the Pinto I bought earlier this year. Haven't even had it on the track yet, and y'all want me to go away. Thanks.

Russ

[JeffYoung]

Russ, as a driver of an evil old car, I understand where you are coming from. No one is telling anyone to go away. No one will be denied a place to race.

But it is my personal opinion, and it is smething I have accepted as a driver of a car that was, literally designed in 1970, that eventually my car can't be guaranteed, using a power to weight process, to be competitive in ITS. Race it? Sure. But guarantee it has a shot? Not possible.

Dave, I'm not talking about power issues when I say certain chassis wouldn't be competitive anymore. Power to weight we can deal with. It's other things we can't.

But this is not going to happen overnight. Cars have faded away before (RX3 in ITA springs to mind) and it will happen again.

Jake stated my position well by the way.


Gee,,, all this talk of evil old cars makes me feel real good about the Pinto I bought earlier this year. Haven't even had it on the track yet, and y'all want me to go away. Thanks.

Russ

[quadzjr]

Jeff. I am working on getting a build sheet from the full tilt motor, however I bet that is going to be difficult as those are his trade secrets. One of the dyno's I submitted was his.

If it matters I can send you my build sheet if it matters. where my motor was only 1.25 hp down from his.

I thought the new process was classed at 25% unless dyno evidence proves otherwise. I provided as much evidence as I could find. Even the FProd motor build just barely made the gains expected in IT. Yes most were not "IT" builds.. only one was. It is hard to gather a bunch of IT builds when there is so few running a group of 5 or so run at summit point. The point remains the same, most decent IT builds are making aroudn 103-104 hp. As much as I can do netted me 106.75, and a full on build netted 108hp.

If a car is classed in ITA at 25% if it moves to ITB then it has to be classed at 30%?

i don't like a deal that was made by a person that races in ITB and currently has one of the cars to have.

Current members in ITAC can think 16v motors make 30%.. well some make more and some make less... So.. No mater how much evidence shows the contrary, I am stuck with a deal that was made that had nothing to do with the process? I want the car classed using the new process and no "legacy" stuff.

More specifically on teh 4AGE, in that paper I pointed out the reason why they don't make power in IT trim. No amount of vavles are going to help. The head ports are huge, and the port angles are large, and they don't flow worth a damn (head flow charts in the appendix of the paper). I am not lying or stretching the truth. Obviously my point of view may look a bit biased. However, I challenge for someone to prove anything that I have submitted wrong or biased. I know no one has come out and said I am lying, but looking at everything that was submitted and still believe the contrary, either a person has to think I am lying/wrong or you don't care.

honestly Jeff. I applaud you on staying on here to defend your position. I wish others would do the same no matter what side of an issue you are on, if you vote one way you should be able to defend it.

[lateapex911]

I'm with Dave on this one - I still don't understand the thinking that any given class will just naturally get faster as it evolves. After all, we know how to slow cars down, don't we? To my way of thinking there is no reason an RX7 couldn't still be a front-running car in ITA.

The RX-7 is a unique case. It WAS competitive in ITA, but NEVER dominant. There are those who will argue, but, a good RX-3SP, (or even a well driven /prepped RX-2) always had the upper hand on the 7. THEN came a new wave of (mis) classed cars that put the RX-3 et al in the garage. The CRB fix was to add new cars at the same performance level (Weight changes in IT were, at the time NOT allowed...don't even THINK about it things).

So, in the great Reorg, the slow cars were given breaks, and the fast cars were given weight. But, you can't really take enough weight OFF the RX-7 to be competitive. And, at teh time, IT7 was very popular in many parts of the country, so the desire to move to ITB was nil.
Simply, the needs of the many (ITA) are more important than the needs of the few ( the RX-7)

[lateapex911]

J
i don't like a deal that was made by a person that races in ITB and currently has one of the cars to have.

.

Since this is a matter of public record, I'd like to be as exact as possible. I didn't say Peter MADE the deal. I said he defended the use of the higher gains as being part of the 'deal we made' for 4 valve cars to go to ITB.

Subtle difference, but I just want to be clear.
(I remember it pretty clearly as I was shocked when that was said....)

[JeffYoung]

No problem, and I appreciate all the work -- and you have been polite and informative -- you have done.

For those that don't know, Steve sent in a very compelling, detailed and in my view objective analysis -- includign parts lists, manifold pictures and specs, etc. -- of why the 4AGE is NOT an Altantic motor. Convinced me.

I know it sounds incongruous for me to say I respect and accept the ITAC's decision on the 30%, but at the same time personally feel the MR2 is a key to the future of ITB and is classed incorrectly. But that is where I am. I've seen enough data for me personally to believe the car can't make anywhere near 30%. Others disagree, and I respect that.


Jeff. I am working on getting a build sheet from the full tilt motor, however I bet that is going to be difficult as those are his trade secrets. One of the dyno's I submitted was his.

If it matters I can send you my build sheet if it matters. where my motor was only 1.25 hp down from his.

I thought the new process was classed at 25% unless dyno evidence proves otherwise. I provided as much evidence as I could find. Even the FProd motor build just barely made the gains expected in IT. Yes most were not "IT" builds.. only one was. It is hard to gather a bunch of IT builds when there is so few running a group of 5 or so run at summit point. The point remains the same, most decent IT builds are making aroudn 103-104 hp. As much as I can do netted me 106.75, and a full on build netted 108hp.

If a car is classed in ITA at 25% if it moves to ITB then it has to be classed at 30%?

i don't like a deal that was made by a person that races in ITB and currently has one of the cars to have.

Current members in ITAC can think 16v motors make 30%.. well some make more and some make less... So.. No mater how much evidence shows the contrary, I am stuck with a deal that was made that had nothing to do with the process? I want the car classed using the new process and no "legacy" stuff.

More specifically on teh 4AGE, in that paper I pointed out the reason why they don't make power in IT trim. No amount of vavles are going to help. The head ports are huge, and the port angles are large, and they don't flow worth a damn (head flow charts in the appendix of the paper). Which was also presented in the paper. I am not lying or stretching the truth. Obviously my point of view may look a bit biased. However, I challenge for someone to prove anything that I have submitted wrong or biased.

honestly Jeff. I applaud you on staying on here to defend your position. I wish others would do the same no matter what side of an issue you are on, if you vote one way you should be able to defend it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with Jeff on this. It is certainly conceivable that as cars get 'better', the 'envelope' of the performance of the class bulges a little. Could be brakes, core suspension design, etc that affects this expansion - and can't be taken into account in the Process which as we all know is a glorified power to weight calc.

So lets say that the 1G RX-7 is a car to have in ITA. Engines are virtually gone. Aftermarket support has dried up and moved on. Pretty soon you won't be able to get a windshield or a xxx or a yyy. Natural selection.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Others disagree, and I respect that.

And they disagree based on what? So far, NOBODY has produced ANY evidence even close to 20%. Nevermind 25 or 30%.

:dead_horse:

[quadzjr]

As for the hoping to stay in ITB. I have been waiting a long time and I have watched other cars get changed around it. I understand it has been a heated discussion and that is why I have been patient.

tell me what fun it would be to drive a car that has a power to weight of 23.8:1 lbs/hp (2525lbs/106hp) against the competition that is in teh low 20:1 to 19:1 lbs/hp range.

I just feel let down. Like when you found out santa was not real.

[Andy Bettencourt]

As for the hoping to stay in ITB. I have been waiting a long time and I have watched other cars get changed around it. I understand it has been a heated discussion and that is why I have been patient.

tell me what fun it would be to drive a car that has a power to weight of 23.8:1 lbs/hp (2525lbs/106hp) against the competition that is in teh low 20:1 to 19:1 lbs/hp range.

I just feel let down. Like when you found out santa was not real.

And you should. Even if the ITAC wants to keep this bogus 30% in ITB rule in place, they should still have enough data to move the MR2 in ITB to a 15% multiplier. That still means you have to get to 113whp to be 'at process power'.

It would bring your weight to 2320 however. And maybe bring some cars into ITB.

[gran racing]

ANY chassis can't be competitive forever. Aftermarket support dries up, engines disappear (RX-7), etc etc.

That's different - we're not talking about aftermarket support and the challenges of building or maintaining a car. If the car is old but there's enough demand, parts will be available.

Now I will buy into the technology impacting cars like Jeff said. Good points. Although those same things impact newer cars too. I recognize that this is probably to a lesser extent so as technology improves.

[JeffYoung]

I'm speaking for others, and that is tricky, dangerous and usually wrong, but if I understand it correctly, it is based on the idea that this engine architecture -- 4V per cylinder -- generally makes this kind of gain. I'm not knocking you, but I would point out the example that you thought most/all inline sixes make 30%. Now, I agree you reached that conclusion based on hard data, whereas that may not be true with the ITB cars.

But those who take that position can do a better job of explaining it to me. Fortunately, we don't have this problem in R/S/A which are the classes where I know far more about the cars involved.


And they disagree based on what? So far, NOBODY has produced ANY evidence even close to 20%. Nevermind 25 or 30%.

:dead_horse:

[lateapex911]

I'm speaking for others, and that is tricky, dangerous and usually wrong, but if I understand it correctly, it is based on the idea that this engine architecture -- 4V per cylinder -- generally makes this kind of gain. I'm not knocking you, but I would point out the example that you thought most/all inline sixes make 30%. Now, I agree you reached that conclusion based on hard data, whereas that may not be true with the ITB cars.

But those who take that position can do a better job of explaining it to me. Fortunately, we don't have this problem in R/S/A which are the classes where I know far more about the cars involved.

Fine. I've heard that trotted out too.
But are 4v engines dinged to the same effect in A? S?
Crickets.
(Except when the CRX or Teg are pointed out, but those cars weren't weighted based on a theoretical number, they were based on real world data.)

And REGARDLESS.....nobody has posted a dyno sheet on the ITAC forum showing such power is remotely possible.

As I recall, one ITAC member (who moved to the CRB, ) said he knew a guy who made that engine make power. As far as I know, nobody has seen that car run since then, nor have I ever seen the sheet to back up that claim. (Maybe I missed it?)

The MR2 situation has really made the ITAC look foolish. (I should accept some blame for that as my bad math on a con call I ran in Andy's absence when I was working out of a hotel room resulted in the listing, BUT, I suspect if my math had been correct, it would have been stopped in it's tracks by the detractors and objectors. But since the number was what they wanted, it was all fine and good.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

but if I understand it correctly, it is based on the idea that this engine architecture -- 4V per cylinder -- generally makes this kind of gain. I'm not knocking you, but I would point out the example that you thought most/all inline sixes make 30%. Now, I agree you reached that conclusion based on hard data, whereas that may not be true with the ITB cars.



So I don't get why you would trot that out as an arguement. My conclusions - based on hard data, vs. a conclsuion that most multi-valve cars in ITB make 30% without the non-Honda data needed to support a precident-setting rule.

It's someting that has no defense, and is totally against the IT philosophy of old.

[lateapex911]

Andy, you're using the 'generic' "you" right? because Jeff isn't making that point...he's saying OTHERS use that logic/reasoning.

[Knestis]

...Accord LXi/SEi, 2L Golf 3, many others are 12v SOHC.

Bzzt. Wrong. The 2.0 Golf III is an 8-valve four.

First - "What Jake said," re: the deal for allowing 16v cars in B.

Beyond that, when I say "shenanigans," Jeff, I include folks who perpetuate incorrect information absent - or ignoring - any basis in evidence, without "weighting" in any way how evil their intentions might be.

Yeah, it's qualitatively worse if I'm spreading inaccurate information in order to protect my immediate competitive position, than if I do the same thing simply because I think the MR2 is an Atlantic car in sheep's clothing, but functionally it's all just degrees of gray.

And it does NOT matter if I myself recognize that I'm fibbing. I might absolutely believe that those extra valves cannot help but make more HP when we bolt on a header. That changes the tenor of the conversation but doesn't change the substance.

As is typical, Andy's gotten to the nut of the issue. This is all about generalizing what amounts to a single case - the Atlantic engine - to the entire class.

...but write a letter? WHAT IN BLAZES am I proposing? There's no official publication that I can cite. There's no rule I can propose we change. Is the "1.3 multiplier for multivalve cars in B" rule actually codified even in the ITAC's internal practices?

K

[lateapex911]

...but write a letter? WHAT IN BLAZES am I proposing? There's no official publication that I can cite. There's no rule I can propose we change. Is the "1.3 multiplier for multivalve cars in B" rule actually codified even in the ITAC's internal practices?

K

Dude, it's 'the deal', doncha know???

:shrug:

[Knestis]

And they disagree based on what? So far, NOBODY has produced ANY evidence even close to 20%. Nevermind 25 or 30%.

:dead_horse:

...but it's actually WORSE than that.

It wouldn't matter if the "default" gain used in the Process were 20%, 25%, 30%, or 35%. They key is that the first assumption for all cars would all be the same unless compelling evidence made it clear that a different % should be applied to a particular case.

Proponents of the "16v 30% in B" practice aren't changing the applicable "rules of evidence." They are changing the first assumption - the default % - for some cars, as an act of faith, so they don't even HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

Wrong.

Very wrong.

The Process already accommodates any special case. If all of these mystery motors DO make unusual, beyond-IT-standard gains, the system will handle it. To preempt even asking that question is...

SHENANIGANS.

K

[JoshS]

Wow. I have a busy day at work and I see all sorts of yelling and screaming going on over 3 pages.

Stop, just stop.

First of all, yes, the ITAC internal practices are codified, including a 30% standard multiplier in ITB and ITC. Specifically that has nothing to do with the MR2. 30% has been the standard multiplier in ITB for multivalve engines since I joined the ITAC years ago, well before the MR2 was moved in. Don't confuse the issues. The 30% apparently started with the first introduction of those cars into ITB (during the great realignment, maybe?). In any case there are not very many multivalve cars in ITB, and as far as I know, all of them that had their weights assigned since the great realignment were done with 30%. So, 30% is at least consistent with the (post realignment, pre-MR2) past!

The MR2 is one of the many cars still on the list to be reevaluated. It is a long list. The answer there, as Andy said, is to use evidence to argue for a non-standard multiplier (and there's a process for that, mostly of Kirk's invention) -- not necessarily to change the multiplier. Changing the standard multiplier would be a different issue.

Now, in my PERSONAL OPINION: 30% is acceptable to me, for now, because it's consistent with past practice and hasn't appeared to do any harm to anything other than perhaps the MR2 -- and there's a SEPARATE way to handle that car. This "it's just like an Atlantic" thing is a red herring -- I don't tihnk anyone really believes THAT anymore, although I'm not sure. If that was the case, it would be assumed to make at least 100hp more than it does. So drop it. The MR2 still needs to be evaluated. Please be patient. There is so much to do.

Why has 30% been okay for the other multivalves in ITB? Well, my guess is that it compensates for some other advantage that late-'80s/early-'90s Japanese ITB cars tend to have over the rest of ITB that we don't normally pay attention to. Does that mean we should use 30% as a standard? No, of course not, not if that "some other advantage" isn't horsepower. But again, it's what we've been doing for at least 5 years, since before my time. If it's really wrong (again, ignoring the MR2), we'll adjust it. Maybe after we exhaust this huge list of cars to be looked at, and get caught up on the constant list of incoming letters. (At this moment there are 27 letters on our agenda for next week's meeting.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

For the record Josh, this is how it happened:

In Darrin's first cut at writing the Process down in order to present it to the BoD for approval (the great re-alignment) it was written as a guideline that ALL multi-valve cars and cars with electronically controlled cam timing be classed using 30%. In application, it never happened and was not used because in the end not everyone bought into it as a 'rule'.

Take a look at the MYRIAD of multi-valve cars in ITR, ITS, and ITA that were classed in that time frame as proof - all classed using 25% unless there was 'known' info.

Why this IS an MR2 issue is that when it came time to re-process it to ITB, and I was unfortunatley not on that call, it went through as 30%. So, it in fact is NOT consistant with past practice in application, and when we re-wrote V.2 and cleaned up all the crap from that initial outline, it was eliminated.

Hasn't caused any harm? What other cars in ITB have been classed at 30% under this guideline? I can't think of any - and if there are, of course it isn't going to hurt ITB - EXACTLY THE INTENT of those who stand by it with pitchforks. Can you actually justify the concept as it realtes to JUST ITB? I can't even wrap my arms around the arguement for it.

And to close on this because my position is well know by now - MR2 guys have been told to 'hang on' for YEARS.

Ugh. I have the same feeling in my stomach as I did this last year when I submitted my resignation.

[Chip42]

Bzzt. Wrong. The 2.0 Golf III is an 8-valve four.

I stand corrected. (do germans hate valves?)

can someone just explain to me, in simple terms, what's so modern and advanced and scary about a 27 year old toyota engine? or any 4v/cyl motor for that matter? the big gainers I'm aware of are, by and large, BMWs and Hondas of the multivalve configuration.

You can see that STL is the creation of the same minds who perpetrated the above.

who wants to start ITOFV (old four valvers)?

[Ron Earp]

You ITB guys should get together and create a regional rule to allow you to run as you see fit. Or a gentleman's agreement. I'd bet that the majority of the ITB competitors would be fine with it and know it is the right thing to do. This ITB MR2 thing has been going on seemingly forever with little end in sight.

[JoshS]

In application, it never happened and was not used because in the end not everyone bought into it as a 'rule'.

Ugh. I have the same feeling in my stomach as I did this last year when I submitted my resignation.

Andy, you are placing the blame in the wrong place. The fact is, and you just stated them, that a process was codified. That the ITAC deviated from its own practices (and promises to the CRB/BOD) without changing what was codified, was the problem.

We are now doing things right, by writing down how we want to operate, getting it approved, and following through with those plans. We can't make wholesale changes, the changes have to be evolutionary and we need to get buy-in for changes we make.

You may be right that the MR2 and Protege were the first multivalve cars classed in ITB (and there were certainly none in ITC) since the 12V Hondas were done back before my time, I'm not sure. But as for going forward, this is not one of the battles I'm choosing to fight, at least not in the very short term. There are few of these cars and in the specific case of the MR2, we have enough evidence, in my opinion, to fix that by using a non-standard multiplier.

[Chip42]

ITAC - if you fix the MR2 (please!) don't forget to do the same to the FX16 and the Corolla with the 4AGE. same situation, same engine. Geo Prism GSi is a little different, also a 4AGE but not the same one (small port).

[gran racing]

Ron, you've got to be joking right? A gentleman's agreement would just hurt the MR2 drivers in the long run. Hey, weren't you guys just talking something about cheated up Volvos hurting legit cars now? Yeah, how's that doing. I honestly don't know if that's true but easily can picturing it happen to cars. Then you're hurting the drivers who run legally.

Well I've seen Gulick run his IT7 car down south where there are gentleman's rules. Ask him if Jake if he enjoyed that?

I don't know all of the information related to the MR2, but it does seem a bit heavy based on what knowledge I have. How much heavy I really don't know. If it is truly assigned the weight it has now because of an error, that's too bad. Btw Jake, do NOT beat yourself up on that. There's a reason why minutes need to be reviewed and you have a committee.

I sympathise where the MR2 owners are coming from. It's beyond frustrating especially when that cookie keeps getting dangled in front of you then quickly taken away. Trust me, I get it and many others do as well.

[Knestis]

Okay...

So what you're saying, Josh, is that you've reverted back to the OLD "codified" version of the Process. Fair enough.

I find it interesting that THAT version of the Process has been enshrined as the Final Word, when the "deviant practices" of the ITAC during - at least during my tenure - were happening with the tacit approval of the CRB, and given the fact that those guidelines have never actually seen the light of day as far as the membership is concerned.

My objections here are based on the fact that I *never* understood that we should use 30% on these cars. When we made the "MR2 mistake" (the fateful call Andy missed), I started making noise about correcting that screw up the very next month. We talked about it repeatedly and at NO TIME do I recall anyone saying, "That's against the deal." Internally, the rationale for NOT fixing it immediately was that we wanted to tackle ITB in a strategic way, and that our blunder would get tidied up with the bigger mess.

Or maybe I'm just confused.

But that's academic. You're moving forward and managing all of the aspects of the ITAC including the organizational concerns, and that's what really matters. I'm trusting at this point that if the evidence to use an alternate (i.e., not 30%) multiplier on the poor Toyotas - all of them, MR2, FX16, and Corolla - you will go through the process.

I fear that the fact that ITAC members are using their assumptions to drive defending the default suggests that they will ignore even a preponderance of evidence but run the system and we'll see...

How about at least putting this issue at the front of the queue?

K

EDIT - Hey, wait a minute. How can you even USE the "non-standard multiplier" decision-making system developed for v.2...? It's not allowed in the "codified" version of the Process.

[quadzjr]

Josh and Jeff I appreciate your work. I remember when Andy was the ITAC chair and I was under the impression that it was going to get fixed. Then shit hit the fan. and now Josh take the head seat in a position that many would not want. I asked Josh then if he was going to push through and work on the MR2 issue. I was told that it is best not to fight that fight now. So I didn't, Finally a process get's aproved that I fully support. I once again supply as much information as I can find assuming that it was going to be talked about. From what I hear it has to some great extent. This has all been years and the car is still some 300lbs over weight!

I can build a motor that makes 130 to the wheels.. it will however not be legal. I have consulted everyone from Randy Pobst (old firehawk MR2 racer) to engineers at Toyota, and TA engine builders. 30% is not possible period, nor is 25 or 20, or 15 hasn't been achieved yet. I do believe that is someone spent even more dyno time they coudl get to 15%... maybe.

Josh/Jeff though I am hesitant to do so (trade secrets and all that) I can submit a build sheet to the ITAC of my engine that made just under what the highest I have seen if you think that will make a difference. total cost in machining and parts (I researched, set chose cleranaces, assembled, called manufacturers for custom parts) was in excess of 5,500 dollars. If someone were to build this engine for me and done the leg work, I imagine it woudl cost alot more. I have a spread sheet detailing the cost (I share the car with my dad so we split cost 50/50 and actually have cost of entire car build)

If people are interested in seeing the paper I wrote to see if there was any exageration someone can setup a file sharing site that we can put it on. It is a pdf file that isn't too large.

-lastly.. Sadly some MR2 owners are doing just what was mentioned above. Some are running at lower weights under "gentalmen agreements" and forefit there points. I tried telling them just wait, have faith. Some have got tired of breaking hubs every weekend (summit point) and plan on running light next year to just cut down on saftey issue. I don't plan on doing the same, however depending how long it is delayed I will probably play somewhere else. Not that it affects IT at all, and there are so few MR2 drivers.

[rcc85]

WOW!!!

#3394 (Josh Sirota) Reevaluate weight/class of ITB Dodge Daytona
In 9.1.3, ITB, Dodge Daytona 2.2 (84-89), reclassify from ITB to ITC at 2380 lbs. and classify the identical Chrysler Laser, effective 1/1/12. [Note separate Technical Bulletin item to reduce 2011 ITB weight to future ITC weight.]


WOW!!! is right!! There is a Santa Claus!! Looking at this as objectively as I can, I think this is fair. The car would never make process weight in ITB, and ITC needs more cars. As the car is now, I've been racing with the slower ITC cars anyway (and having a good time). Now I need to find 250 lbs to take out of the car...

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB (for now) Dodge Daytona

[Ron Earp]

Ron, you've got to be joking right?

Partially, yes I am.

I'm just a bit saddened by the situation. I'm not an ITB driver so I don't have a dog in the hunt. But I respect all the folks that have weighed in on the thread and what gets my goat is all the man hours that have gone into discussing, debating, and arguing over such a simple little thing.

A lot of intelligent people are spending a hell of a lot of time on this one car in ITB. It seems the general concensus is that the car needs to be adjusted so why can't it just be done? We're not going to the moon or planning for war, we're adjusting the weight on a car in an amateur racing club. A club, by the way, which is supposedly for racers by racers and it seems like it'd be a simple thing to get this resolved. But, then again I thought the proposed motor mount rule was for sure to be adopted given the overwhelming member support and it was shot down.

I know this has to be unbelievably frustrating for those ITB drivers racing MR2s. I feel for you and you've got my respect. I think I'd have voted with my feet and raced elsewhere or threw in the towel and quit the MR2. I hope that the situation gets fixed quickly, although with as long of a wait as you've already had six months might be deemed "quick" in the current climate.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, you are placing the blame in the wrong place. The fact is, and you just stated them, that a process was codified. That the ITAC deviated from its own practices (and promises to the CRB/BOD) without changing what was codified, was the problem.



I'm not going to debate history as it is just one persons recollection vs. anothers (because we didn't have the record keeping the iTAC started a couple years ago). But I will tell you that the 'codification' you speak of was VERY loose. Meaning it was a guideline, not a written rule. Unfortunately, some keep pointing to that 'draft' that Darin used during a presentation as the 'law' and it simply wasn't - as is evident in ALL the ITR, ITS and ITA cars classed and reclassed since the Process was allowed - voted on and agreed to by those same members that are claiming it was 'like that all along'. That is just simple fact, not opinion. The classifications are in black and white in the ITCS.

My beef if with the 30% rule as it isn't based in any reasonable arguement. And I submit it SHOULD be a fight you want to fight as it speaks to so many things that are still broken at the core level. Set the Process FIRST, and get to your requests. You shouldn't be acting on requests knowing there is an issue with the way you classify cars.

I know you and your team will eventually get things ironed out but geez.

Squeeky wheel - OUT.

[JeffYoung]

The people who told you it would be fixed meant it. They thought it would. I did too. You did an outstanding job supplying information and it was discussed at length. Frankly, I failed you. I didn't do as good a job advocating for what I thought was right -- a max of a 20% gain on this car -- as I should have.

I believe the car can't make more than 20%. A full tilt IT build sheet might help me convince others I am right, but it might not, so it is your call if you wish to submit it. If you do, I'll use it as best I can.

Honestly, if I were an ITB MR2 driver, and I wanted to be competitive, I would have bailed on SCCA by now. And that is sad really, the car should be one of teh "core" cars in ITB.


Josh and Jeff I appreciate your work. I remember when Andy was the ITAC chair and I was under the impression that it was going to get fixed. Then shit hit the fan. and now Josh take the head seat in a position that many would not want. I asked Josh then if he was going to push through and work on the MR2 issue. I was told that it is best not to fight that fight now. So I didn't, Finally a process get's aproved that I fully support. I once again supply as much information as I can find assuming that it was going to be talked about. From what I hear it has to some great extent. This has all been years and the car is still some 300lbs over weight!

I can build a motor that makes 130 to the wheels.. it will however not be legal. I have consulted everyone from Randy Pobst (old firehawk MR2 racer) to engineers at Toyota, and TA engine builders. 30% is not possible period, nor is 25 or 20, or 15 hasn't been achieved yet. I do believe that is someone spent even more dyno time they coudl get to 15%... maybe.

Josh/Jeff though I am hesitant to do so (trade secrets and all that) I can submit a build sheet to the ITAC of my engine that made just under what the highest I have seen if you think that will make a difference. total cost in machining and parts (I researched, set chose cleranaces, assembled, called manufacturers for custom parts) was in excess of 5,500 dollars. If someone were to build this engine for me and done the leg work, I imagine it woudl cost alot more. I have a spread sheet detailing the cost (I share the car with my dad so we split cost 50/50 and actually have cost of entire car build)

If people are interested in seeing the paper I wrote to see if there was any exageration someone can setup a file sharing site that we can put it on. It is a pdf file that isn't too large.

-lastly.. Sadly some MR2 owners are doing just what was mentioned above. Some are running at lower weights under "gentalmen agreements" and forefit there points. I tried telling them just wait, have faith. Some have got tired of breaking hubs every weekend (summit point) and plan on running light next year to just cut down on saftey issue. I don't plan on doing the same, however depending how long it is delayed I will probably play somewhere else. Not that it affects IT at all, and there are so few MR2 drivers.

[JeffYoung]

Bob, I did the analysis on the 2.2 Mopars and I'm glad you agree. I really should have asked you if you wanted your car in ITC before I recommended the move to the committee, but I frankly didn't see any other option. THat car has NO chance of making weight in ITB, not even close. It was something like 600 lbs over versus Process weight.

Let me know how it goes. I had an 84 Laser back in the day, and kinda sorta know what you are up against...lol.....


WOW!!! is right!! There is a Santa Claus!! Looking at this as objectively as I can, I think this is fair. The car would never make process weight in ITB, and ITC needs more cars. As the car is now, I've been racing with the slower ITC cars anyway (and having a good time). Now I need to find 250 lbs to take out of the car...

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB (for now) Dodge Daytona

[Andy Bettencourt]

The people who told you it would be fixed meant it. They thought it would. I did too. You did an outstanding job supplying information and it was discussed at length. Frankly, I failed you. I didn't do as good a job advocating for what I thought was right -- a max of a 20% gain on this car -- as I should have.



And when I was there, we were in position to get it voted on when the CRB put the brakes on the whole thing, not just this request.

It HAS been years on this, but I believe that you are in a better place for a result you think is fair than you were a year ago. It will be over soon. :)

[JeffYoung]

I'm a believer in the Process, obivously.

We do realize however that people can disagree with the Process, or want different inputs or standard defaults, etc. without being bad people who are out to destroy IT and turn weight setting into all back room deals right?

I lose sight of that sometimes myself. I get far too dogmatic about the Process, and forget that criticism of it, and debate over it, is a good thing.

Need to remember that. I've yet to encounter anyone in the SCCA, and in particular in regards to IT, that has assumed a leadership role with anything other than a desire to improve the club and category. I may disagree with them, or some of the decisions of the committee on which I serve, but that doesn't make folks I disagree with bad people.

I need to work hard to remember that going forward, because I am absolutely convinced it is true.

[tom91ita]

what are the 27 cars in line for the next conference call? i am not asking to hold anyone accountable as i do not think it likely that all 27 can be discussed in a single call but i would like to know.

also, if changes are are recommended for the 27, when would changes be likely to show up in Fastrack for on-track.

if the MR2 is 1st on the list and changes are recommended and accepted, when would new weights likely take effect? June 2011 or 1/1/2012, etc.

[lateapex911]

I'm not going to debate history as it is just one persons recollection vs. anothers (because we didn't have the record keeping the iTAC started a couple years ago). But I will tell you that the 'codification' you speak of was VERY loose. Meaning it was a guideline, not a written rule. Unfortunately, some keep pointing to that 'draft' that Darin used during a presentation as the 'law' and it simply wasn't - as is evident in ALL the ITR, ITS and ITA cars classed and reclassed since the Process was allowed - voted on and agreed to by those same members that are claiming it was 'like that all along'. That is just simple fact, not opinion. The classifications are in black and white in the ITCS.

My beef if with the 30% rule as it isn't based in any reasonable arguement. And I submit it SHOULD be a fight you want to fight as it speaks to so many things that are still broken at the core level. Set the Process FIRST, and get to your requests. You shouldn't be acting on requests knowing there is an issue with the way you classify cars.

I know you and your team will eventually get things ironed out but geez.

Squeeky wheel - OUT.

Actually Andy, the version (draft) that you refer to, the same one now being chosen as the 'approved by the CRB/BoD' okie dokie version, had a listing of various multipliers based on engine architecture. And it included a step by step process to work the math, add adders, etc. One step below the "choose multiplier step" was the "Check and see if this makes sense" step.
Really...it was called that, or something very close. If it DIDN'T make sense, the inputs were adjusted. So, for a car that was a know dog, even though it had 4 valves, it would get another multiplier.

We know this was used many times.
(V2 addressed the issue of WHEN it could be used, and how evidence should be handled as a policy)

We have debated the MR2 issue in the ITAC, and to be honest, it was always certain members who said:


"It will make power, it's an Atlantic motor." (A preposterous concept and one that shows the owner to be either an idiot or a scam artist)
"It will make power, I know a guy who did it."
"30% is the standard multiplier, that's what the deal was and we're sticking to it."
"Back in the Firehawk days these things flew".



Yet now, in ONE letter, a car gets reweighted for ITB, (the Dodge), and moved (for 2012) to ITC.
HuH???????

So the MR2, which has a HUGE PREPONDERANCE of evidence showing it's WAY overweight, can't get fixed after YEARS of trying, yet, a Dodge that has no evidence I'm aware of gets fixed in one letter.
Clearly there exists the ability to fix a car. Clearly the MR2 needs fixing.

What the hell am I missing here?

It really makes NO sense, unless you start considering lesser than proper motives.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think the path is always paved with good intentions...

But I have to say that I still formly believe that the ITAC should be comprised of actual IT racers. Right now, 2 of the 7 I don't know, 2 don't race IT, maybe 3.

[lateapex911]

The people who told you it would be fixed meant it. They thought it would. I did too. You did an outstanding job supplying information and it was discussed at length. Frankly, I failed you. I didn't do as good a job advocating for what I thought was right -- a max of a 20% gain on this car -- as I should have.

I believe the car can't make more than 20%. A full tilt IT build sheet might help me convince others I am right, but it might not, so it is your call if you wish to submit it. If you do, I'll use it as best I can.



Jeff, I've been there, and I assure you that you've NOT failed ....I've beat the same horse, Andy's argued in it's favor. I'm beginning to suspect that there are members who will, even though they might fail to see they are doing it, ignore logic, reason and evidence, although I can not understand how that could be.
:shrug:

Not. Your. Fault.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with this.

And term limits.


I think the path is always paved with good intentions...

But I have to say that I still formly believe that the ITAC should be comprised of actual IT racers. Right now, 2 of the 7 I don't know, 2 don't race IT, maybe 3.

[tom91ita]

I'm beginning to suspect that there are members who will, even though they might fail to see they are doing it, ignore logic, reason and evidence, although I can not understand how that could be.

actually, that sounds a lot like senior management at work....

they will agree that we should make DDD (data driven decisions), that the asssumptions are correct, that the math is correct but they just do not like the recommendations (often because it makes them or their group look bad/inadequate/ignorant) and so they will not implement the change.

because to implement the change means you have to admit that the team/group/site/company has been doing it wrong.

i will go back to troll status since it is the holidays....

Merry Christmas everyone! i hope you have time to enjoy the company of friends and family this holiday season.

and again, thanks to the ITAC for working this through (particularly the ones that are willing to be engaged in this public forum). volunteers are rarely given the credit they are due.

[gran racing]

Multiple inconsistancies have really bugged me over the past several years. Some made absolutely no sense yet I was told they were spot on, even by people here who are now vocal about the current actions being taken. lol

Hubs....yeah.

[seckerich]

"It will make power, it's an Atlantic motor." (A preposterous concept and one that shows the owner to be either an idiot or a scam artist)
I would say both are true on this comment.

"It will make power, I know a guy who did it."
Prove it and provide the build sheet or shut up. Again a liar or protecting turf.

"30% is the standard multiplier, that's what the deal was and we're sticking to it."
No deals after the way we class cars was changed to a process rather than a POMA--PERIOD!!

"Back in the Firehawk days these things flew".
Against what? Has no relevance to classing against todays cars and our target for the class. These drivers deserve better. They pay their entry fee and deserve the same consideration as 50 drivers in another chassis. Fix it with a proper multiplier and move on to other business, you have the evidence.

[rcc85]

Yet now, in ONE letter, a car gets reweighted for ITB, (the Dodge), and moved (for 2012) to ITC.
HuH???????

So the MR2, which has a HUGE PREPONDERANCE of evidence showing it's WAY overweight, can't get fixed after YEARS of trying, yet, a Dodge that has no evidence I'm aware of gets fixed in one letter.
Clearly there exists the ability to fix a car. Clearly the MR2 needs fixing.

What the hell am I missing here?

It really makes NO sense, unless you start considering lesser than proper motives.[/QUOTE]

Obviously, it was a really good letter:D

Seriously, the case for the Daytona was based on the fact (not an opinion or an estimate)that there are other Dodges & Plymouths in ITB that use the same exact engine and are 300 lbs lighter (the same arguement used for the BMW 320i weight change). Throw in the fact that the car currently classified at 600 lbs over ITB process weight and it's an easy change to support. I could also argue that change for the Daytona is 10 years overdue and it got skipped in the great realignment.

I sympathize with the MR2 racers, but the two cases different.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[benspeed]

Calling out the STAC on the classification of the STU Boxster vs the M3.

BMW STU legal motor is the 3.2L for the 95-99 M3.
E36 performanceVersionPower0–60 mphTop Speed3.0 L-24v I6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-6)Euro210 kW (286 PS; 282 hp)5.4 s[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M3#cite_note-bmwmultiple-5)155 mph (249 km/h)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M3#cite_note-bmwmultiple-5) (electronically limited)U.S.179 kW (243 PS; 240 hp)5.6 s137 mph (220 km/h)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M3#cite_note-6) (electronically limited)3.2 L-24v I6Euro236 kW (321 PS; 316 hp)5.2 s155 mph (249 km/h) (electronically limited)U.S.179 kW (243 PS; 240 hp)5.5 s139 mph (224 km/h) (electronically limited)

Check out the euro spec motor rating at 316hp...gives a glimmer of what this engine does - don't give me the "it's a euro motor rating" story - this engine has shown it can do well more than 316 crank hp. Plus - this is STU with more allowances than IT.

How can the STAC say that the 2.7L Boxster is a reasonable suggestion for STU when it is so far down on power?

MY 2000-04 - 2.7L rating is 225 hp
MY 2000-04 - 3.2L Boxster S is 258 hp doesn't this seem to line up better? (special edition 550 Spyder is 266 hp)


MY 2005-06

2.7L 176.5 kW (240 PS; 237 hp)
3.2L 206 kW (280 PS; 276 hp) Boxster S
MY 2007-08

2.7L 180 kW (245 PS; 241 hp)
3.4L 217 kW (295 PS; 291 hp) Boxster S
Total give to the BMW - COME ON! That is crap! If the BMW can run the 95-99 3.2L which will make over 300 crank hp all day, then the Boxster should be able to run the 2000-04 3.2L which has never even touched 300 crank hp.

Where is the huge fear of Porsche coming from? Sending another letter.... :dead_horse:

STU will = Spec BMW.

[Z3_GoCar]

Calling out the STAC on the classification of the STU Boxster vs the M3.

BMW STU legal motor is the 3.2L for the 95-99 M3.
E36 performanceVersionPower0–60 mphTop Speed3.0 L-24v I6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-6)Euro210 kW (286 PS; 282 hp)5.4 s[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M3#cite_note-bmwmultiple-5)155 mph (249 km/h)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M3#cite_note-bmwmultiple-5) (electronically limited)U.S.179 kW (243 PS; 240 hp)5.6 s137 mph (220 km/h)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M3#cite_note-6) (electronically limited)3.2 L-24v I6Euro236 kW (321 PS; 316 hp)5.2 s155 mph (249 km/h) (electronically limited)U.S.179 kW (243 PS; 240 hp)5.5 s139 mph (224 km/h) (electronically limited)

Check out the euro spec motor rating at 316hp...gives a glimmer of what this engine does - don't give me the "it's a euro motor rating" story - this engine has shown it can do well more than 316 crank hp. Plus - this is STU with more allowances than IT.

How can the STAC say that the 2.7L Boxster is a reasonable suggestion for STU when it is so far down on power?

MY 2000-04 - 2.7L rating is 225 hp
MY 2000-04 - 3.2L Boxster S is 258 hp doesn't this seem to line up better? (special edition 550 Spyder is 266 hp)




MY 2005-06

2.7L 176.5 kW (240 PS; 237 hp)
3.2L 206 kW (280 PS; 276 hp) Boxster S
MY 2007-08

2.7L 180 kW (245 PS; 241 hp)
3.4L 217 kW (295 PS; 291 hp) Boxster S
Total give to the BMW - COME ON! That is crap! If the BMW can run the 95-99 3.2L which will make over 300 crank hp all day, then the Boxster should be able to run the 2000-04 3.2L which has never even touched 300 crank hp.

Where is the huge fear of Porsche coming from? Sending another letter.... :dead_horse:

STU will = Spec BMW.

Happy Festivus....

Come on Ben, surely you know the difference between the euro S50 and USDM S52. The euro S50 is a completely different animal, it's much more like the USDM S54. The USDM S52 has the same head, intake manifold, throttle body, and injectors as my motor, only difference is more more bore and stroke and a bump up on the intake cam.

Acutally, I haven't seen any evidence that any BMW motor will make a 30% gain with an IT legal build. Only way to see those kinds of gains is with a cam and manifold swap.

[RacerBill]

[QUOTE=lateapex911;315836]...

Yet now, in ONE letter, a car gets reweighted for ITB, (the Dodge), and moved (for 2012) to ITC.
HuH???????

QUOTE]

Jake: I have been waiting for over a year to have the Dodge Charger run through the process (it was not run through the process during the realignment) which was delayed until the GCR was changed in order to allow the reweighting of cars that were classed way before the realignment.

The 2.2L Charger was not moved to ITC (the 1.7L is already there) just the 2.2L Dodge Daytona and Chrysler Laser (same 2.2L engine, wider track, wheel base in between the Charger and the Omni, same front suspension, rear susbension basically the same with the addition of a track bar and a diagonal brace - information from the 1984 Chrysler Service Manual). I agree that this was a gift!

[RacerBill]

I'm a believer in the Process, obivously.

We do realize however that people can disagree with the Process, or want different inputs or standard defaults, etc. without being bad people who are out to destroy IT and turn weight setting into all back room deals right?

I lose sight of that sometimes myself. I get far too dogmatic about the Process, and forget that criticism of it, and debate over it, is a good thing.

Need to remember that. I've yet to encounter anyone in the SCCA, and in particular in regards to IT, that has assumed a leadership role with anything other than a desire to improve the club and category. I may disagree with them, or some of the decisions of the committee on which I serve, but that doesn't make folks I disagree with bad people.

I need to work hard to remember that going forward, because I am absolutely convinced it is true.

+1 !!!!!!!!

[Matt93SE]

Partially, yes I am.

I'm just a bit saddened by the situation. I'm not an ITB driver so I don't have a dog in the hunt. But I respect all the folks that have weighed in on the thread and what gets my goat is all the man hours that have gone into discussing, debating, and arguing over such a simple little thing.

A lot of intelligent people are spending a hell of a lot of time on this one car in ITB. It seems the general concensus is that the car needs to be adjusted so why can't it just be done? We're not going to the moon or planning for war, we're adjusting the weight on a car in an amateur racing club. A club, by the way, which is supposedly for racers by racers and it seems like it'd be a simple thing to get this resolved.

+1.
It seems pretty much everyone is in agreement that the car needs to be adjusted, so why can't it just get done so everyone can move on with life?
How many more hours and $$thousands$$ in development do people have to spend to prove to a couple of people that the car can't make the power they originally ASSUMED it would? I've had to eat my words multiple times at work. Yeah it's a stab in the gut of my ego, but I got over it and moved on.....

[benspeed]

Happy Festivus....

Come on Ben, surely you know the difference between the euro S50 and USDM S52. The euro S50 is a completely different animal, it's much more like the USDM S54. The USDM S52 has the same head, intake manifold, throttle body, and injectors as my motor, only difference is more more bore and stroke and a bump up on the intake cam.

Acutally, I haven't seen any evidence that any BMW motor will make a 30% gain with an IT legal build. Only way to see those kinds of gains is with a cam and manifold swap.

So you're telling me that the WC 95-99 M3 STU cars that are putting down 300hp to the wheels are just a pack of cheaters and not using the specified OEM camshaft lift? Garsh....those guys better put OEM cams back in their cars per the rules, right?


B. Engines

1. Engines up to 6 cylinders and 3000 cubic centimeters factory displacement are permitted, plus any others listed in
9.1.4.2.H.

2. All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air metering device (e.g., throttle body) and intake manifold, unless noted
otherwise.


BMW E36 M3 (95-99) 3200 3200 Engines are permitted 0.040
overbore, 0.5 point increase
in compression. Engines
must use the OEM camshaft lift

What do these rules clarifications mean to former WC M3 cars - they all illegal now?

What I'm saying is - why pick the 2.7 Boxster? The 00-04 3.2L Boxster is a better fit.

PS - the E36 kills on the IT performance, you been in hibernation? SIR?

[lateapex911]

[QUOTE=lateapex911;315836]...

Yet now, in ONE letter, a car gets reweighted for ITB, (the Dodge), and moved (for 2012) to ITC.
HuH???????

QUOTE]

Jake: I have been waiting for over a year to have the Dodge Charger run through the process (it was not run through the process during the realignment) which was delayed until the GCR was changed in order to allow the reweighting of cars that were classed way before the realignment.

!

Still, Bill, it was only a year or so. ;)

For those that want to read more, the MR2 debacle is discussed, along with other items in this thread. The CRB will only communicate via SCCA sanctioned boards, so, we had a discussion there.

http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1&TPN=1

[RacerBill]

[quote=RacerBill;315848]

Still, Bill, it was only a year or so. ;)

For those that want to read more, the MR2 debacle is discussed, along with other items in this thread. The CRB will only communicate via SCCA sanctioned boards, so, we had a discussion there.

http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1&TPN=1


Yeah, but when you are a youngster of 65, one year is a MUCH larger percentage of your remaining life expectancy then when you are just 30, like you guys!!!!!!!:D

BTW, I am disappointed at the length of time it is taking with the MR2 issue, never should have gone this long.

[Z3_GoCar]

So you're telling me that the WC 95-99 M3 STU cars that are putting down 300hp to the wheels are just a pack of cheaters and not using the specified OEM camshaft lift? Garsh....those guys better put OEM cams back in their cars per the rules, right?


B. Engine

s

1. Engines up to


6 cylinders and 3000 cubic centimeters factory displacement are permitted, plus any others listed in

9.1.4.2.H.
2. All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air metering device (e.g., throttle body) and intake manifold, unless noted
otherwise.


BMW E36 M3 (95-99) 3200 3200 Engines are permitted 0.040
overbore, 0.5 point increase
in compression. Engines
must use the OEM camshaft lift

What do these rules clarifications mean to former WC M3 cars - they all illegal now?

What I'm saying is - why pick the 2.7 Boxster? The 00-04 3.2L Boxster is a better fit.

PS - the E36 kills on the IT performance, you been in hibernation? SIR?

Yes, to get 300 whp, definetly.

What just got classed in STU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M52#S52B32

What the RoW got:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M50#S50B30

To put a 30% gain in persepctive:

189hp -> 242hp

That's what I should be seeing, what I've seen is:

189hp -> 220hp

To get to 242hp would, at a minimum, require a change in camshafts and a manifold swap.

[gran racing]

On a lighter note, I came across this thread (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15188&highlight=golf)from 2004 that I posted. What comes to mind is something Mike Dickerson told me when I was beyond frustrated with a few items "Think of SCCA as a large slow moving ship that eventually will turn around, but it's gonna take a while."

It's too bad how long things take to happen and seems like by the time it's about to, committee members change and here we need to go through the damn process all over again. I suppose on the positive side, at least it's still slowly making it's way around.

I am thankful that the communication between at least a couple of ITAC members continues on this board. I do commend you for that. Looking forward / hoping? for the day when Fastrack is opened and a slew of cars results are listed and weights redefined using on classification method.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Acutally, I haven't seen any evidence that any BMW motor will make a 30% gain with an IT legal build. Only way to see those kinds of gains is with a cam and manifold swap.

30% gain on the 189hp E36 325 would ONLY be 201whp. The ITAC had dyno sheets from an E36 driver who had a fresh head, stock bottom end, bolt ons and stock ECU at 195whp. And a crap-ton of first hand knowledge of 210whp and up.

We have 323's up here making 200whp.

[benspeed]

Yes, to get 300 whp, definetly.

What just got classed in STU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M52#S52B32

What the RoW got:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M50#S50B30

To put a 30% gain in persepctive:

189hp -> 242hp

That's what I should be seeing, what I've seen is:

189hp -> 220hp

To get to 242hp would, at a minimum, require a change in camshafts and a manifold swap.


[/LEFT]

Yep - I was pulling my stats of Wikipedia too. I agree with this comment from the site:

"Power from the S52B32US is officially quoted at 240 HP but many[who? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] feel that this figure is understated."

But it's not really about the awesomeness of the M3- that's known. I'm Festivusing about the unwillingness to put a competitive Boxster in STU :shrug:

Let's hear from our resident rules experts on what they think regarding the WC M3 cars - we've got folks here in the NE running full on WC cars that can no longer be legal now that the class philosophy has moved away from making this a place for former WC cars. Rules being noted above specific to the M3...

[JeffYoung]

My S52 (00 M Coupe) dynoed at 215 whp stock.

Here's another calc for shits and giggles.

TR8 had 138 stock hp, fuel injected, 133 carb.

I make 172 whp with a pretty much full on IT build (FI using MS2).

That's what? Probably 200 flywheel hp? So, a gain of 67 hp or about 50%?


Yep - I was pulling my stats of Wikipedia too. I agree with this comment from the site:

"Power from the S52B32US is officially quoted at 240 HP but many[who? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] feel that this figure is understated."

But it's not really about the awesomeness of the M3- that's known. I'm Festivusing about the unwillingness to put a competitive Boxster in STU :shrug:

Let's hear from our resident rules experts on what they think regarding the WC M3 cars - we've got folks here in the NE running full on WC cars that can no longer be legal now that the class philosophy has moved away from making this a place for former WC cars. Rules being noted above specific to the M3...

[Russ Myers]

Well then, of course, you're cheating. I mean, it's obvious.

Russ

[Hoof Hearted]

How is the car’s aero package figured when going through "the process"? Is the drag coefficient of a car used (along with HP potential) when it is classed and also to establish its minimum weight?

[JeffYoung]

Sorry?


Well then, of course, you're cheating. I mean, it's obvious.

Russ

[JeffYoung]

It is not....we aren't aerospace engineers..lol...

As someone on this board taught me, CD isn't the real indicator anyway, since you have to factor in frontal area.

There's just no real way for us to include things like aero in a very basic power to weight formula.


How is the car’s aero package figured when going through "the process"? Is the drag coefficient of a car used (along with HP potential) when it is classed and also to establish its minimum weight?

[Hoof Hearted]

It is not....we aren't aerospace engineers..lol...

As someone on this board taught me, CD isn't the real indicator anyway, since you have to factor in frontal area.

There's just no real way for us to include things like aero in a very basic power to weight formula.

Then why would the 83-84 Rabbit GTI have a minimum weight of 2080 while the 8V 83-88 Scirocco is at 2130... ...the two cars share the same "everything" other then the body?

[JeffYoung]

That question has been asked many times.

Send in a letter asking for a correction, and we will consider it.

My personal answer to your question is that there should not be a difference, based on just the information you provided.

[Andy Bettencourt]

That question has been asked many times.

Send in a letter asking for a correction, and we will consider it.

My personal answer to your question is that there should not be a difference, based on just the information you provided.

Back in the first days of V.1, aero was considered. Those two classificiations are the poster children for that. Another item that was pushed aside during the evolution of the process in the non-documentation days. Probably the only classification that had it applied IIRC.

[lateapex911]

yea, aero would be very tricky. As Jeff points out, there are the known figures....which, i some other universe COULD maybe possibly be figured out. But, the deal killer is that IT allows aero mods. So aero is just ignored.

Warts and all.......

[Hoof Hearted]

So aero is just ignored.

Apparently not in the VW MkI case... or ...a 2 second scan of the ITCS of ITB cars shows that the 81-82 Toyota Celica II 2.4 has two weights: 2470 for the coupe and 2510 for the hatchback; same cars other than shape.

[JeffYoung]

There are going to be a ton of inconsistencies in teh ITCS right now.

A lot of cars still classed using the "old" way of eyeballing the curb weight.

Some with older versions of the Process.

Some with the Process.

One of the things we had to do last year, and Josh did a great job leading this effort, is push for the ability to correct the old listings. The existing ITCS ruleset didn't allow that, if the change was made to bring older listings in line with the Process.

We have that ability now. Write letters and we will consider corrections.

Thanks.

Jeff


Apparently not in the VW MkI case... or ...a 2 second scan of the ITCS of ITB cars shows that the 81-82 Toyota Celica II 2.4 has two weights: 2470 for the coupe and 2510 for the hatchback; same cars other than shape.

[Z3_GoCar]

30% gain on the 189hp E36 325 would ONLY be 201whp. The ITAC had dyno sheets from an E36 driver who had a fresh head, stock bottom end, bolt ons and stock ECU at 195whp. And a crap-ton of first hand knowledge of 210whp and up.

We have 323's up here making 200whp.

Sorry, your math is off:

189 * 0.30 ~ 242 * 0.85 ~ 209 whp


If there's no way to reach the target, people will either leave or cheat. That's the lesson from the MR2, and it will be repeated by all in the same position.

[JeffYoung]

Not to sound rude, but there are plenty of 2.5 BMW motors in the SEDiv that make 215whp plus. Legally.

Call up Sunbelt or BWorld and get one.


Yes, to get 300 whp, definetly.

What just got classed in STU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M52#S52B32

What the RoW got:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M50#S50B30

To put a 30% gain in persepctive:

189hp -> 242hp

That's what I should be seeing, what I've seen is:

189hp -> 220hp

To get to 242hp would, at a minimum, require a change in camshafts and a manifold swap.


[/LEFT]

[CRallo]

Apparently not in the VW MkI case... or ...a 2 second scan of the ITCS of ITB cars shows that the 81-82 Toyota Celica II 2.4 has two weights: 2470 for the coupe and 2510 for the hatchback; same cars other than shape.

sometimes other differences exist... For example the Saturn SL2 is listed at a higher weight than the SC2. I've been told that wheelbase and/or Aero was a factor in that... However, my understanding is that in this case, the Sedan was actually rated slightly higher in HP. This was due to a factory header, which of course has no bearing on the IT power, because exhaust is free... But the numbers are the numbers.:blink:

Speaking of the Saturns... Did I hear someone say you can change weights now? or is this restricted?

[Z3_GoCar]

Not to sound rude, but there are plenty of 2.5 BMW motors in the SEDiv that make 215whp plus. Legally.

Call up Sunbbelt or BWorld and get one.

But, I don't have a 2.5, I've got a M52 2.8 alloy block. I wonder if Sunbelt doesn't automaticaly install their hot cams to get that HP.

[JeffYoung]

No, they do not. Legal 2.5.


But, I don't have a 2.5, I've got a M52 2.8 alloy block. I wonder if Sunbelt doesn't automaticaly install their hot cams to get that HP.

[Z3_GoCar]

No, they do not. Legal 2.5.

I know for a fact that my motor wasn't legal, (technically it's still not legal, but I dont feel like recutting the ring grooves for the top ring.) The head's from a S-50 with the attched intake manifold and S-50 cams. I swapped our the S-50 manifold for a M-52 along with the RC-30lb injectors. With the S-50 manifold, cams, missing MAF, custom ECU, and 30lb injectors I had a wapping 190hp at my rear wheels. Now what would you conclude?

So to be IT legal, I installed the correct manifold ( that can't be port matched because it abs, from one that perfectly matched the ports ) correct injectors, and a MAF, still connected to the custom ECU. and lost 12hp and the peak power rpm dropped from 5938 to 5705.

[JeffYoung]

Unforutnately that you aren't getting the power that others have legally gotten out of the 2.5.

I'm not going to rehash years of argument and discussion about this, but there were many 2.5 cars here in the SEDiv legally making 210+ whp.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I know for a fact that my motor wasn't legal, (technically it's still not legal, but I dont feel like recutting the ring grooves for the top ring.) The head's from a S-50 with the attched intake manifold and S-50 cams. I swapped our the S-50 manifold for a M-52 along with the RC-30lb injectors. With the S-50 manifold, cams, missing MAF, custom ECU, and 30lb injectors I had a wapping 190hp at my rear wheels. Now what would you conclude?

So to be IT legal, I installed the correct manifold ( that can't be port matched because it abs, from one that perfectly matched the ports ) correct injectors, and a MAF, still connected to the custom ECU. and lost 12hp and the peak power rpm dropped from 5938 to 5705.

RE: the math - 18% is commonly used for RWD, 15% for FWD or mid-engine as esitimates.

RE: your motor - I would conclude it's soft. 195whp is doable in a freshened motor with just bolt-ons on a 325. Fact proven over and over and over.

[Z3_GoCar]

RE: the math - 18% is commonly used for RWD, 15% for FWD or mid-engine as esitimates.

RE: your motor - I would conclude it's soft. 195whp is doable in a freshened motor with just bolt-ons on a 325. Fact proven over and over and over.

I had the head rebuild and new total seal rings. Funny, you'd think my 0.003 over pistons would result in a bit more of a hp bump. Also, I no longer have the 2.5's intake manifold on so it's no longer port matched.

[JeffYoung]

So yours is a 2.8, not a 2.5?


I had the head rebuild and new total seal rings. Funny, you'd think my 0.003 over pistons would result in a bit more of a hp bump. Also, I no longer have the 2.5's intake manifold on so it's no longer port matched.

[Z3_GoCar]

So yours is a 2.8, not a 2.5?

Yes, 300cc more displacement same oem hp.

[JeffYoung]

I've heard the 2.8 doesn't respond as well to IT prep than the 2.5. That may be part of the problem as well.

Didn't the 2.5 come in your car early on? Call Bworld and get a quote on an IT motor for the 2.5. My guess is you will hear 225 whp for an unrestricted one.


Yes, 300cc more displacement same oem hp.

[Z3_GoCar]

I've heard the 2.8 doesn't respond as well to IT prep than the 2.5. That may be part of the problem as well.

Didn't the 2.5 come in your car early on? Call Bworld and get a quote on an IT motor for the 2.5. My guess is you will hear 225 whp for an unrestricted one.

Nope never had it, the early Z3's were all four cylinders, mine's about the earliest six cylinder built (October '96) only avalible with an alloy block 2.8.

Oh, I also forgot I had the block honed for the new rings with a torque plate.

If I were to rebuild this car for STU, I'd definetly not use this motor as a base and it's a former WC motor.

[Ron Earp]

Nope never had it, the early Z3's were all four cylinders, mine's about the earliest six cylinder built (October '96) only avalible with an alloy block 2.8.

Oh, I also forgot I had the block honed for the new rings with a torque plate.

If I were to rebuild this car for STU, I'd definetly not use this motor as a base and it's a former WC motor.

Sounds like a bum motor, bad ECU mapping, or realistically any number of other problems. Folks routinely (used to) purchase built BMW 2.5L motors that turned 210-220 rwhp on a number of Dynojets around the country. Strong motors for IT when built.

[lateapex911]

I've seen around 200 whp with my own eyes on a half built version, with lots of miles. Going all in on those gets you over 210 easy peasy.

[Z3_GoCar]

Sounds like a bum motor, bad ECU mapping, or realistically any number of other problems. Folks routinely (used to) purchase built BMW 2.5L motors that turned 210-220 rwhp on a number of Dynojets around the country. Strong motors for IT when built.
To get those HP numbers requires the cams from the m3 motor. They have the BMW emblem on them, and unless put on a cam machine, you can't tell the difference. For my motor to get these numbers also requires the 2.5 intake manifold. I bet, since you've got the early m-coupe, you already knew this.


I've seen around 200 whp with my own eyes on a half built version, with lots of miles. Going all in on those gets you over 210 easy peasy.
Jake, was that the 2.5? I don't have one of those, mine has a different intake manifold. It's got 300cc more displacement with the same HP.

[JeffYoung]

James, we are to the point where we just have to say you are wrong and leave it at that.

Yes, the 2.5 can make 200 easy, and 215+ with work. Legally. Without M3 cams. BWorld was aware of that cheat and issued a written warning to the other BMW teams in 04 or 05 that they would protest them if it was clear they were running those cams.

From everything I've heard, and seen, the 2.8 is not a good choice for a BMW motor. The 2.5 makes as much or more power, and the 3.0 makes WAY more power.

[JoshS]

From everything I've heard, and seen, the 2.8 is not a good choice for a BMW motor. The 2.5 makes as much or more power, and the 3.0 makes WAY more power.

Agreed for sure if you're talking about the E36's 2.8 (like James'). The jury is still out on the E46's 2.8 (like mine).

[924Guy]

God, I hate the off-season...

I'm going back to the garage and make some more carbon fiber... reading all this makes me forget just how much better IT is than when I started...

[Z3_GoCar]

James, we are to the point where we just have to say you are wrong and leave it at that.

Yes, the 2.5 can make 200 easy, and 215+ with work. Legally. Without M3 cams. BWorld was aware of that cheat and issued a written warning to the other BMW teams in 04 or 05 that they would protest them if it was clear they were running those cams.

From everything I've heard, and seen, the 2.8 is not a good choice for a BMW motor. The 2.5 makes as much or more power, and the 3.0 makes WAY more power.

-Del-

[Charlie Broring]

what are the 27 cars in line for the next conference call? i am not asking to hold anyone accountable as i do not think it likely that all 27 can be discussed in a single call but i would like to know.

also, if changes are are recommended for the 27, when would changes be likely to show up in Fastrack for on-track.
27 cars! Could this be the realignment or ITB and ITC that is rumored to be coming? Let me ask a hypothetical question about what would better serve the club membership. If a number of older classifications are run through the Process and found to be significantly heavy by this formula, how should we deal with this?

1) Reduce the weight of these older classification. Consider that substantial weight reductions will be expensive or impossible within the IT rules.

2) Achieve balance by increasing the weight of a small number of newer classifications. Consider that this would indicate that the Process formula would need some revision in order to account for these weight changes and maintain consistency in the future.

Which would make for the greatest number of competitive cars and happy drivers in the effected classes?

[JeffYoung]

Are you talking about in IT or in STwhatever?

In IT, we aren't going to make manifold allowances for any cars.

If your car was classed at 30% and it can't make it, send us dyno sheets and build specs and a request to reduce the gain in the Process will be considered.


If you expect the M52 to make the same gain as the M50, then give it the M50 intake manifold, so that we can port match. Otherwise I'm just spinning my wheels trying to pull hp out of a small runner manifold with a smaller plenum that can't be port matched.

If the process hp is reduced to a level that is even close to doable, say 20%. Then I can't make weight, because the car will only get down to about 2650lbs, without composite panels.

[JeffYoung]

I'm not aware of any realignment of ITB or C proposed/coming.

We do now have the rule authority to run all cars through the Process. I personally think the intent now is to do that on a car by car basis as requests come in.

Point 2 is very problematic. Any time we segregate out a small number of cars for special/different treatment, we have run into huge problems (see ITS E36).

If the proposed weight reduction for an older classification is not possible, then the right move in my view is to move that car down a class. So some of running old cars through the Process might have the effect of repopulating ITC with viable race cars. The ITB Daytona is an example of that.

Special rules/weights for a very few cars? That jus screams trouble to me.


27 cars! Could this be the realignment or ITB and ITC that is rumored to be coming? Let me ask a hypothetical question about what would better serve the club membership. If a number of older classifications are run through the Process and found to be significantly heavy by this formula, how should we deal with this?

1) Reduce the weight of these older classification. Consider that substantial weight reductions will be expensive or impossible within the IT rules.

2) Achieve balance by increasing the weight of a small number of newer classifications. Consider that this would indicate that the Process formula would need some revision in order to account for these weight changes and maintain consistency in the future.

Which would make for the greatest number of competitive cars and happy drivers in the effected classes?

[Chip42]

James,

If you have good evidence that the motor doesn't make gains, submit it to the ITAC. not just a statement of your power, but all of your mods, dyno plots, anything else you have, and get others with the same motor to do the same.. expert opinion might help, too. no one wants you to cheat, nor to spin your wheels. IT is a good category for that reason. you might never have a pointy-end car, some just don't fit in well. but they are good guys and honest brokers and will do what they can if you give them the info they need to do so.

[JeffYoung]

Chip said it better than me. Thanks man.

[gran racing]

I personally think the intent now is to do that on a car by car basis as requests come in.

Really? So nothing is being done with the list of cars there were previously discussed? I'm sorry, but you guys are making this extremely confusing and a bit frustrating. Or could someone at least list what cars are under consideration and being run through the process? At this point is sure sounds like many people are thinking that various cars are on the list to be reviewed but in reality that isn't the case. So what exactly is the deal?

Why not publish what current cars are under consideration in Fastrack. That way people will know what's in progress and ensure there's no miscommunication. It would be a shame if people are being patcient and wait even longer just to find out there car isn't even on the list.

Btw, this is NOT just a Dave centric viewpoint about my beloved Golf or Prelude. We all know there's a sizeable list of cars that deserve to be looked at.

Charlie, I think there are certain cars that need to be run through the process and weights adjusted upwards. One example of this is the Golf III (& IV). Instead of moving all other ITB cars down in weight, that car just needs some on it. So in effect like you just stated. There still are plenty of B cars that should have a weight reduction even based on the target that ITB has been using now for a while. I also don't many (any?) changes will be "massive". I know that's a relative term but thinking 300 lbs as my definition.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And I can't restate enough that requesting a weight reduction based on 25% when you KNOW your car makes more is just as much cheating as adding cams or anything else that raises HP outside the rules.

[JoshS]

Guys ... we have 27 outstanding letters from members.

We *also* have a list of existing cars to assess weights/classifications of based on those that have been discussed over the last few years (like the MR2).

Not to worry.

[JeffYoung]

See above -- I forgot Josh has a list of the cars for which previous requests were made -- Tom's ITB CRX, the MR2, others.

Charlie is probably specifically referring to the early Volvos in ITB. They are a cluster. They hp figures for them are gross, if you use net numbers they lose a ton of weight -- probably making the weight unacheivable in B.

Josh has done more work on this than me; he can address it more specifcially I was the 2.2 Mopar guy...lol....


Really? So nothing is being done with the list of cars there were previously discussed? I'm sorry, but you guys are making this extremely confusing and a bit frustrating. Or could someone at least list what cars are under consideration and being run through the process? At this point is sure sounds like many people are thinking that various cars are on the list to be reviewed but in reality that isn't the case. So what exactly is the deal?

Why not publish what current cars are under consideration in Fastrack. That way people will know what's in progress and ensure there's no miscommunication. It would be a shame if people are being patcient and wait even longer just to find out there car isn't even on the list.

Btw, this is NOT just a Dave centric viewpoint about my beloved Golf or Prelude. We all know there's a sizeable list of cars that deserve to be looked at.

Charlie, I think there are certain cars that need to be run through the process and weights adjusted upwards. One example of this is the Golf III (& IV). Instead of moving all other ITB cars down in weight, that car just needs some on it. So in effect like you just stated. There still are plenty of B cars that should have a weight reduction even based on the target that ITB has been using now for a while. I also don't many (any?) changes will be "massive". I know that's a relative term but thinking 300 lbs as my definition.

[tom91ita]

the early Volvos in ITB. They are a cluster. They hp figures for them are gross, if you use net numbers they lose a ton of weight -- probably making the weight unacheivable in B.

the volvos need to stay in B! i can't imagine B without the "volvos from hell" :happy204:

[PSherm]

How about correcting the 2nd gen Neons to include 04-05 models?

[JeffYoung]

Guys -- I know I sound like a broken record, but if you spot an issue in the ITCS (remember, the ITAC is not an expert on every car listed) with a particular make or model, go to www.scca.org (http://www.scca.org) and send us a letter. Will take five minutes, gets into our system and then we can consider it.

Thanks.

Jeff


How about correcting the 2nd gen Neons to include 04-05 models?

[Charlie Broring]

See above -- I forgot Josh has a list of the cars for which previous requests were made -- Tom's ITB CRX, the MR2, others.

Charlie is probably specifically referring to the early Volvos in ITB. They are a cluster. They hp figures for them are gross, if you use net numbers they lose a ton of weight -- probably making the weight unacheivable in B.

Josh has done more work on this than me; he can address it more specifcially I was the 2.2 Mopar guy...lol....
Actually, I was thinking of All the old cars such as the 2002, 320, VW A1&2, Alfa, the Fire Arrow among others Cars that were so evenly matched and made for great competition in ITB until overshadowed by a couple cars moved down from ITA. Cars still racing with both old and young drivers. As I said earlier in this thread ITB is among the classes experiencing difficulty integrating the old and new classifications. ITA is also having an issue of old and new. I expect the few remaining ITC cars will have issues too when overweight big motor ITB castoffs are moved down.

I personally think the Process is a great step forward in Improved Touring. However in some cases it's limitations are having an adverse effect on IT. And instead of acknowledging this and making the Process fit IT it appears that we are changing IT to fit the Process.

I think the case of the Volvo 142 is a perfect example. Until recently it was a class overdog. Now after evaluation by the Process it comes under consideration for a huge weight reduction. The car makes a little over 120 RWHP, what is it's "process" weight? Some of the Volvo guys are going to ask that it be moved to ITC instead of loosing weight ! As I understand it the bogus 142 factory "Net HP" numbers were used as a model to develop the Process formula in ITB. No wonder things are askew.

MR2 is another example. You are going to chase the mystical "Power Adder %" forever and not fix anything.

If you want the process to have the greatest benefit to IT racing you have to be able to work around it's limitations and even adjust it when best serves the club. It is my opinion that the Process needs a bit of tweaking in order to best balance the old and newer cars in ITB and C.

[JeffYoung]

You keep saying we need to change the process, but you don't say how.

How? What factors would you add, given that they must apply to all cars equally?



Actually, I was thinking of All the old cars such as the 2002, 320, VW A1&2, Alfa, the Fire Arrow among others Cars that were so evenly matched and made for great competition in ITB until overshadowed by a couple cars moved down from ITA. Cars still racing with both old and young drivers. As I said earlier in this thread ITB is among the classes experiencing difficulty integrating the old and new classifications. ITA is also having an issue of old and new. I expect the few remaining ITC cars will have issues too when overweight big motor ITB castoffs are moved down.

I personally think the Process is a great step forward in Improved Touring. However in some cases it's limitations are having an adverse effect on IT. And instead of acknowledging this and making the Process fit IT it appears that we are changing IT to fit the Process.

I think the case of the Volvo 142 is a perfect example. Until recently it was a class overdog. Now after evaluation by the Process it comes under consideration for a huge weight reduction. The car makes a little over 120 RWHP, what is it's "process" weight? Some of the Volvo guys are going to ask that it be moved to ITC instead of loosing weight ! As I understand it the bogus 142 factory "Net HP" numbers were used as a model to develop the Process formula in ITB. No wonder things are askew.

MR2 is another example. You are going to chase the mystical "Power Adder %" forever and not fix anything.

If you want the process to have the greatest benefit to IT racing you have to be able to work around it's limitations and even adjust it when best serves the club. It is my opinion that the Process needs a bit of tweaking in order to best balance the old and newer cars in ITB and C.

[JoshS]

Charlie, I don't think the process needs fixing, but some classifications do, especially in ITB. Here's what I think is going on:

The process is based on a power-to-weight formula. To pick the right power-to-weight ratio, each class had a bogie car or two picked, and then the right ratio was reverse engineered from those cars' specs. However, ITB got messed up because the Volvo 142E was picked as a bogie, however, it's horsepower was never published in SAE Net terms, only SAE Gross (Volvo switched to SAE net a year later). So, when other cars had the same ratio applied, they ended up lighter than they should have. Meaning that cars that were considered equal to the Volvo are now slower than more recently-classed cars. Two possible fixes there -- alter the ITB target ratio and make the newer cars heavier, or leave the ratio and make the old cars lighter. No decision on that point but I've been assuming we'd do the latter, as the newer cars are generally the more popular ones at this point. It's clear you'd prefer the former, and I understand that.

[JeffYoung]

Before my time, but that wasn't the only bogie car right? Wasn't the A2 Golf used as well, and maybe others?

The present power to weight ratio for ITB seems to slot in appropriately between A and C, and doesn't "look" off although I agree that should not be the end of the analysis.

Did the use of the Volvo numbers really cause that much of an error? Or was it mitigated by the use of other bogie cars?


Charlie, I don't think the process needs fixing, but some classifications do, especially in ITB. Here's what I think is going on:

The process is based on a power-to-weight formula. To pick the right power-to-weight ratio, each class had a bogie car or two picked, and then the right ratio was reverse engineered from those cars' specs. However, ITB got messed up because the Volvo 142E was picked as a bogie, however, it's horsepower was never published in SAE Net terms, only SAE Gross (Volvo switched to SAE net a year later). So, when other cars had the same ratio applied, they ended up lighter than they should have. Meaning that cars that were considered equal to the Volvo are now slower than more recently-classed cars. Two possible fixes there -- alter the ITB target ratio and make the newer cars heavier, or leave the ratio and make the old cars lighter. No decision on that point but I've been assuming we'd do the latter, as the newer cars are generally the more popular ones at this point. It's clear you'd prefer the former, and I understand that.

[gran racing]

No decision on that point but I've been assuming we'd do the latter,

I imagine that I'm just misunderstanding something. So are what have cars there were reviewed compared to if that decision hasn't been made yet? How was it done for the recent weight adjustment of the Daytona?

[JeffYoung]

The weight change/reclassification of the Daytona was done this way.

Letter came in to review most of the 2.2 Mopars.

I looked at the various configurations (carb, EFI, chassis) and did a summary for the ITAC.

Some cars were close to ITB process weight and just needed a correction (Omni, Charger, etc.). This was done using the existing ITB power/weight target ratio and I think for each car an expected gain of the default 25%.

We then had a problem child with the ITB Daytona/Laser since it needed to lose I think 600 lbs to get to its ITB process weight using the existing process. Given the car's curb weight, it looked impossible for the car to make ITB weight and it was then moved to C.




I imagine that I'm just misunderstanding something. So are what have cars there were reviewed compared to if that decision hasn't been made yet? How was it done for the recent weight adjustment of the Daytona?

[Knestis]

>> As I understand it the bogus 142 factory "Net HP" numbers were used as a model to develop the Process formula in ITB. No wonder things are askew.

Not correct, as I recall the situation.

We're forgetting the step where cars were aligned with the "bogeys" based on best guesses for equivalence, based on observed, on-track performance. The power/weight based Process happened a step later in the evolution of establishing spec weights for IT.

As Jake pointed out, it appears that the Volvos' role as a bogey for that realignment effort was to skew the process, as the representative Volvos that were "competitive" - so set the standard for B - appear in hindsight to have been cheated up. The Process sought to level cars to the established performance envelope, set in part by the Volvos' past performance, but as we got less tolerant of cheating, 142 owners found that they couldn't perform up to expectations.

Illustrative of this is the fact that the ITB track record at VIR is still held by a 142, set back in 2002 by Dave Kerr - at a 2:22.xx. Nothing has come very close to that since...

At least during my time on the committee, we KNEW that we couldn't use quoted HP for cars of that generation and apply the standard multiplier. We never did. That was a huge part of the reason we talked about a "do over" for ITB, top to bottom. We spent a bunch of hours documenting stock values for the entire list of eligible cars.

K

[Gary L]

However, ITB got messed up because the Volvo 142E was picked as a bogie, however, it's horsepower was never published in SAE Net terms, only SAE Gross (Volvo switched to SAE net a year later). So, when other cars had the same ratio applied, they ended up lighter than they should have.

For those unfamiliar with the Volvo B20 series engines, some clarification: it so happens that when Volvo went to SAE net numbers in 1972, coincidentally the B20E ("the" ITB engine) disappeared at the same time in the US market. It was replaced by the B20F, which had a different head casting and was 8.7 to 1 cr vs 10.5 to 1 for the "E". Bottom line... there are no SAE net hp numbers directly available for the engine used as the ITB bogey.

So if we accept the premise Josh outlined above, we have introduced an error of a little over 6%. The factory advertised number used for the '71 Volvo 142E (the only year the B20E engine was available in the US spec 142) would have been 130 hp, and it was indeed a "gross" SAE figure. I've put that adjective in quotes though, because although 130 was certainly not SAE net, it was more conservative than most SAE gross hp claims of the day. If you look at other Volvo B20 series engines that were produced with no mechanical changes whatsoever spanning both ratings periods (up to 1971 vs 1972 and later) and use those comparisons to extrapolate the 1971 B20E SAE net hp number, you come up with something between 121 and 122 hp.

Furthermore, the B20E's were also being produced for the european market (but identical to our target ITB engine), so they were also rated per DIN standards - at 124 hp. As has been discussed on these pages before, DIN can be converted to SAE net; divide 124 by 1.014 and we come up with just about 122 hp... again.

However comma :o:

If we do the IT math - 122 hp * 1.25 * 17.0 = 2592 lbs. (FWIW, I personally think the 1.25 number is pretty close for this engine.) To continue, if we add 50 pounds for double a-arm front suspension, we end up at 2642. The car is currently classified at 2640, or about as close as you can get.

What did I miss? Maybe take the 50 pounds back, due to the truck axle at the rear? You're still only 50 pounds from target - a long ways from 6%.

[quadzjr]

I appreciate the non-shelfish point of view. It is nice to see someone happy with the classification.

[Z3_GoCar]

And I can't restate enough that requesting a weight reduction based on 25% when you KNOW your car makes more is just as much cheating as adding cams or anything else that raises HP outside the rules.

When a full cheater motor only makes a 20% gain I doubt there's any reason to fear a non-cheating motor to even make that much. My rant was fueled by my frustration at a motor that basically makes less power than some ITS cars, with power to weight ratio less than ITA cars. Still, IT has too many other problems where my car's concerned, from the oe dual mass flywheels that can't be either balanced or resurfaced and cost 1/3 more than an aftermarket aluminum one to having to use the oe rubber mounts. Asking for another weight break won't begin to address these kinds of discrepancies.

[Andy Bettencourt]

When a full cheater motor only makes a 20% gain I doubt there's any reason to fear a non-cheating motor to even make that much. My rant was fueled by my frustration at a motor that basically makes less power than some ITS cars, with power to weight ratio less than ITA cars. Still, IT has too many other problems where my car's concerned, from the oe dual mass flywheels that can't be either balanced or resurfaced and cost 1/3 more than an aftermarket aluminum one to having to use the oe rubber mounts. Asking for another weight break won't begin to address these kinds of discrepancies.

My apologies if you thought that was directed at you. There are a few cars in the queue that the owners KNOW make over 25% yet they are requesting a 'do-over' based on an opportunity that they see because there is limited knowledge about the power output.

[JeffYoung]

James, what computer are you running on that car?

[Gary L]

I appreciate the non-shelfish point of view. It is nice to see someone happy with the classification.
Well, actually, I didn't say I was happy. I mean, c'mon! :)

I'm just trying to understand why the math doesn't seem to agree with the earlier conversation... that this car, along with many other older classifications in ITB, would benefit from the process being applied to them. If so, wouldn't the car calculate to a significantly lighter weight?

If it doesn't work on the Volvo, it's probably not going to work on many others. I'll ask again - What did I miss? Or where is the significant error in my calculation?

[gran racing]

There are a few cars in the queue that the owners KNOW make over 25% yet they are requesting a 'do-over' If this is so obvious to you, shouldn't the ITAC know this from their own conclusions?

For myself, Flatout bought the dyno where my car was tuned and the info wasn't given. Originally I wasn't all that thrilled that the info wasn't deleted prior to the purchase, but whatever. The new motor on dynos purchased from the same place shows less hp than the previous one. Grrrr. I've heard reasons why this might be shown on the dyno but not in reality. Who knows; it's just a tuning tool. Right? So even if dyno numbers are provided, or someone "knows" it's making X hp and X torque........

[Andy Bettencourt]

If this is so obvious to you, shouldn't the ITAC know this from their own conclusions?

For myself, Flatout bought the dyno where my car was tuned and the info wasn't given. Originally I wasn't all that thrilled that the info wasn't deleted prior to the purchase, but whatever. The new motor on dynos purchased from the same place shows less hp than the previous one. Grrrr. I've heard reasons why this might be shown on the dyno but not in reality. Who knows; it's just a tuning tool. Right? So even if dyno numbers are provided, or someone "knows" it's making X hp and X torque........

Dave,

I am not talking specifically of anything I have seen or not seen on my computer. I am talking about people who think that they deserve to be 'reclassed' at 25% because its the standard in which 'it should have been done at the beginning'. Not because it's right. Basically it's people who have only been paying half attention or those who are trying to manipulate the system.

[JeffYoung]

That's a good analysis. Every Process run for the old "gross" hp Volvos using the net number has had several hundred pounds come off of them.

Charlie, any thoughts on this?

Also, and Charlie, I hope you don't mind, but in a PM exchange Charlie offered a constructive suggestion on his "how" of dealing with the issues we have in B.

The idea is that the Volvo bogey in ITB, either alone or with other cars, may have ended up skewing the power/weight ratio in ITB. Assuming that we haven't processed most of the cars in B, but just the more popular/front running ones, do we "fix" (if it is in fact off, Gary's post suggests it may not be) the power weight ratio and readjust the already processed cars?


For those unfamiliar with the Volvo B20 series engines, some clarification: it so happens that when Volvo went to SAE net numbers in 1972, coincidentally the B20E ("the" ITB engine) disappeared at the same time in the US market. It was replaced by the B20F, which had a different head casting and was 8.7 to 1 cr vs 10.5 to 1 for the "E". Bottom line... there are no SAE net hp numbers directly available for the engine used as the ITB bogey.

So if we accept the premise Josh outlined above, we have introduced an error of a little over 6%. The factory advertised number used for the '71 Volvo 142E (the only year the B20E engine was available in the US spec 142) would have been 130 hp, and it was indeed a "gross" SAE figure. I've put that adjective in quotes though, because although 130 was certainly not SAE net, it was more conservative than most SAE gross hp claims of the day. If you look at other Volvo B20 series engines that were produced with no mechanical changes whatsoever spanning both ratings periods (up to 1971 vs 1972 and later) and use those comparisons to extrapolate the 1971 B20E SAE net hp number, you come up with something between 121 and 122 hp.

Furthermore, the B20E's were also being produced for the european market (but identical to our target ITB engine), so they were also rated per DIN standards - at 124 hp. As has been discussed on these pages before, DIN can be converted to SAE net; divide 124 by 1.014 and we come up with just about 122 hp... again.

However comma :o:

If we do the IT math - 122 hp * 1.25 * 17.0 = 2592 lbs. (FWIW, I personally think the 1.25 number is pretty close for this engine.) To continue, if we add 50 pounds for double a-arm front suspension, we end up at 2642. The car is currently classified at 2640, or about as close as you can get.

What did I miss? Maybe take the 50 pounds back, due to the truck axle at the rear? You're still only 50 pounds from target - a long ways from 6%.

[JLawton]

If this is so obvious to you, shouldn't the ITAC know this from their own conclusions?

For myself, Flatout bought the dyno where my car was tuned and the info wasn't given. Originally I wasn't all that thrilled that the info wasn't deleted prior to the purchase, but whatever. The new motor on dynos purchased from the same place shows less hp than the previous one. Grrrr. I've heard reasons why this might be shown on the dyno but not in reality. Who knows; it's just a tuning tool. Right? So even if dyno numbers are provided, or someone "knows" it's making X hp and X torque........

At first I though Andy was talking about me!! LOL Then I did the math and said "not even close!!"

[gran racing]

Assuming that we haven't processed most of the cars in B, but just the more popular/front running ones, do we "fix" (if it is in fact off, Gary's post suggests it may not be) the power weight ratio and readjust the already processed cars?

Either way not everyone is going to be happy. I'm not convinced we've processed the more popular/front running cars in B yet. Another reason why I think there should be a date listed in the GCR for when each car is run through the process going forward.

[Z3_GoCar]

James, what computer are you running on that car?

It's got an Electromotive Tec II.

[JeffYoung]

Supposed to be a good system. That's probably not the issue.

[Bill Miller]

Wow, that's some thread! First off, I hope everyone had a good holiday season and a Happy New Year. I started reading this a couple of days ago, and got pulled away. Just got around to finishing it. Unfortunately, I don't remember all the stuff from the previous 10 pages, and I don't have the time right now to re-read them. So for now, here are my two comments based on what I remember about the bulk of the thread:

1) It's acknowledged that twin-cam 16v motors in B and C use a 1.3 power factor, yet that same architecture in A, S, and R uses a 1.25 power factor. If this is truly the way it is, I can't imagine how anyone on the ITAC ever signed off on it. Different power gains for the same architecture, based only on class difference, when the prep rules are the same for all the classes? Really? And you expect people to buy that? Really?

2) The way I read it is, the Daytona / Laser is moving to C next year, but for this year, while it remains in B, it gets to run at the C weight. Is this correct? If so, what kind of shenanigans is that? A car gets its weight set based on a number of factors, including which class it will run in. How do you let a car run in a higher class at the lower class weight? Really? And people are supposed to buy that? Really?

As far as fixing mistakes goes, well, I think most of the folks around here know I how feel about that. Actually, that's not fair. Legit mistakes are just that, mistakes. It's cases where you have somebody in a position of influence, boning specific cars, where it's not a mistake any more. You know, guys that say "It's a 4A-GE, you do know that that's an Atlantic motor, don't you?"

Nice to see everyone again!

[JeffYoung]

Bill, I can't argue with you on 1. I understand where the guys who are advocating 1.3 are coming from, but I disagree with them.

On 2, let us explain. Using teh process, the Daytona/Laser should be at some ungodly low weight in ITB -- like 2000 lbs. They'll never make it, so they are getting processed and going to C. Their "processed" C weight is still LOWER than their present B weight (when it should be much higher if the B weight had been set by the process), but also much higher than what their "process" weight in ITB is. So they should pose no threat to the existing ITB cars.

That's the "why it is ok for one year" explanation. Here's the "why it has to be done this way." Apparently, we were within the deadline for fixing the weight via a technical correction for 2011 but not for moving it to C. So, we decided to give the drivers of these cars -- who were stuck with a weight somethign like 650 lbs over process weight in ITB -- a head start. They can now modify to make their weight in C, run in B this year, and then move to C next.

They won't be competitive in B this year, so no harm no foul.

That's the thinking. No shenanigans, just how it played out.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I can't argue with you on 1. I understand where the guys who are advocating 1.3 are coming from, but I disagree with them.

On 2, let us explain. Using teh process, the Daytona/Laser should be at some ungodly low weight in ITB -- like 2000 lbs. They'll never make it, so they are getting processed and going to C. Their "processed" C weight is still LOWER than their present B weight (when it should be much higher if the B weight had been set by the process), but also much higher than what their "process" weight in ITB is. So they should pose no threat to the existing ITB cars.

That's the "why it is ok for one year" explanation. Here's the "why it has to be done this way." Apparently, we were within the deadline for fixing the weight via a technical correction for 2011 but not for moving it to C. So, we decided to give the drivers of these cars -- who were stuck with a weight somethign like 650 lbs over process weight in ITB -- a head start. They can now modify to make their weight in C, run in B this year, and then move to C next.

They won't be competitive in B this year, so no harm no foul.

That's the thinking. No shenanigans, just how it played out.

Jeff,

What's the logic from those that are advocating for 1.3 only for B and C, and not A, S, and R? I'd really like to see how someone can claim 1.25 for one group and 1.3 for another, when the prep rules are the same, and the architecture is the same.

As far as the Daytona / Laser issue, while I really like to see the process stand on its own, and I'm not really a fan of 'special cases', I'm also pragmatic enough to see where the occasional deviation is warranted. Based on your explanation, I'm satisfied that this indeed is one of those cases. I respectfully withdraw my shenanigans comment and will say that you guys did a nice job of handling a tough situation. I would have liked to see it go straight to C this year, but I understand that there are bureaucracy issues around that.

[Z3_GoCar]

Jeff,

What's the logic from those that are advocating for 1.3 only for B and C, and not A, S, and R? I'd really like to see how someone can claim 1.25 for one group and 1.3 for another, when the prep rules are the same, and the architecture is the same.

As far as the Daytona / Laser issue, while I really like to see the process stand on its own, and I'm not really a fan of 'special cases', I'm also pragmatic enough to see where the occasional deviation is warranted. Based on your explanation, I'm satisfied that this indeed is one of those cases. I respectfully withdraw my shenanigans comment and will say that you guys did a nice job of handling a tough situation. I would have liked to see it go straight to C this year, but I understand that there are bureaucracy issues around that.

Didn't you read my rant's Bill? All manufactures in ITA/ITS and ITR that start with -B- automatically get a 1.3 power adder, even when they only make 1.1% more power :blink:

[JeffYoung]

Well, no. That's not correct. The 4 cylinder BMWs do not get that power multiplier.

Look, the 2.8 as an unknown animal before ITR. It might not make but 25% more. Send in your build sheet and dyno plots, and a request to move it to 25% and it will be considered.

Thanks.

Jeff

[lateapex911]

Didn't you read my rant's Bill? All manufactures in ITA/ITS and ITR that start with -B- automatically get a 1.3 power adder, even when they only make 1.1% more power :blink:

That's not true, and you can remove the "b", and it's still not true.

[GKR_17]

Well, no. That's not correct. The 4 cylinder BMWs do not get [the 30%] multiplier.

Even the E30 M3 was run through at 25%...

[Z3_GoCar]

Well, no. That's not correct. The 4 cylinder BMWs do not get that power multiplier.

Look, the 2.8 as an unknown animal before ITR. It might not make but 25% more. Send in your build sheet and dyno plots, and a request to move it to 25% and it will be considered.

Thanks.

Jeff

So how does a 7 hp difference equate to a 220lb difference between the 1.8 Miata and the 1.9 BMW? Where's the 50lb weight break for having struts? It should be more like a 60lb difference.

As for my motor, expect to see mulitple dyno plots once I get it back togeather.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So how does a 7 hp difference equate to a 220lb difference between the 1.8 Miata and the 1.9 BMW? Where's the 50lb weight break for having struts? It should be more like a 60lb difference.

As for my motor, expect to see mulitple dyno plots once I get it back togeather.

The Miata GETS +50 for double wishbone. Strut cars do not get -50 in addition.

1994 Miata 1.8 = 128hp
1996 Z3 1.9 = 138hp

The Z3 1.9 should weigh 2500lbs in ITA. Write a letter.

If the ITAC had agreed to pass the 'rear' suspension adder, difference would be 80lbs. (2420-2500)

[nlevine]

The Z3 1.9 should weigh 2500lbs in ITA. Write a letter.



The cost of a stamp to lose 100 lbs off of the current spec weight? Not a bad deal (assuming it goes through)..

[Z3_GoCar]

The cost of a stamp to lose 100 lbs off of the current spec weight? Not a bad deal (assuming it goes through)..
Noem,

You can do it electornically now... It's how mine lost 35lbs a year ago.

Andy,

Is the 131bhp not for the BP-ZE motor not for the domestic market?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_MX-5

For the 1994 model year, the first-generation MX-5 was freshened with the introduction of the more powerful 1.8 L (110 cu in) BP-ZE (http://www.improvedtouring.com/wiki/Mazda_B_engine#BP) engine, dual airbags (http://www.improvedtouring.com/wiki/Airbag) and a limited slip differential (http://www.improvedtouring.com/wiki/Limited_slip_differential) in some markets. The chassis was substantially braced to meet new side-impact standards, most visibly by adding a "track bar" between the seatbelt towers inside the car, but also to the front and rear subframes. Also, 1994 and 1995 were the only years in which Mazda offered a light metallic blue paint (Laguna Blue Mica), making these cars rare collectors cars to some. 1994 also saw the introduction of the "R" package, a sport-themed package with Bilstein shocks and subtle underbody spoilers, in addition to the removal of unnecessary items such as power steering. No body style changes were made, however.
The new 1.8 L (110 cu in) engine produced 98 kW (131 bhp), which was then increased to 99 kW (133 bhp) for the 1996 model year. The base weight increased to 990 kg (2,200 lb). Performance was improved slightly, the additional power being partly offset by the extra weight. In some markets such as Europe, the 1.6 L (98 cu in) engine continued to be available as a lower-cost option, but was detuned to 66 kW (89 bhp). This lower-powered model did not receive all the additional chassis bracing of the new 1.8 L (110 cu in). Japanese and US cars were fitted with an optional Torsen (http://www.improvedtouring.com/wiki/Torsen) LSD, which was far more durable than the previous viscous differential.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Noem,


Andy,

Is the 131bhp not for the BP-ZE motor not for the domestic market?

128hp bro.

http://www.miata.net/faq/miatachanges.html

[Gary L]

No dog in this particular hunt, but if we're using either of the references in the last two posts (wikipedia.org & miata.net) as "official" word on the horsepower of a particular make/model, isn't that pissing into the proverbial wind? Just a little?

[Andy Bettencourt]

No dog in this particular hunt, but if we're using either of the references in the last two posts (wikipedia.org & miata.net) as "official" word on the horsepower of a particular make/model, isn't that pissing into the proverbial wind? Just a little?

It's a valid point but I am just citing a reference for the correct number.

116hp 1990-1993
128hp 1994-1995
133hp 1996-1997

[quadzjr]

Jeff, since I don't get to hear from the other people, what is the logic of the other members that B&C multi vavle engines get the 130% but the other classes get 125%?

If the numbers are to represent the percent gain of a possible engine. how does simply changing a car class change it expected gain in IT trim?

not basing anyone I just don't understand.

[Bill Miller]

Jeff, since I don't get to hear from the other people, what is the logic of the other members that B&C multi vavle engines get the 130% but the other classes get 125%?

If the numbers are to represent the percent gain of a possible engine. how does simply changing a car class change it expected gain in IT trim?

not basing anyone I just don't understand.

Magic!

[Knestis]

Jeff, since I don't get to hear from the other people, what is the logic of the other members that B&C multi vavle engines get the 130% but the other classes get 125%?

If the numbers are to represent the percent gain of a possible engine. how does simply changing a car class change it expected gain in IT trim?

not basing anyone I just don't understand.

My understanding is that CURRENTLY it's been necessary to invoke "that's the deal that was made" as the last time some kind of "official" OK of ITAC processes the 16v multiplier was in place. It went in place a LONG time ago (a la first application of multipliers, post-Miller-Ratio math by Darrin et al.) out of fear that newer cars would ruin the balance of power in B.

K

[lateapex911]

I heard about it when we were classing a 16V car in ITB, and the factor came up, and was defended with "That's the deal that was made for 16V cars going into ITB".
Yea, I don't get it either. Logically, I don't get it.
But I do "get it". Don't like it...but I get it.

Oh, on edit, to fill in the sequence of events and timing, neither Jeff, nor Josh were on the ITAC when that 'deal' was made, nor was I. My suspicion was that the very first iteration of the Process listed all 16V cars as getting 1.30. But, the very next line said "Check to ensure the results make sense". Which was done, and very quickly it became obvious that that factor was a bad assumption, and it was dropped. Certain cars were known to meet or exceed that factor but those cars got their weights based on actual real world data, not assumptions, during the GR. By the time the aforementioned car needed classing in ITB, the 1.3 factor hadn't been used as a starting point for 16 V engines in years. So, that 'deal' was before mine or Kirk's or Jeff's time, and I think Andy might have been just added to the ITAc, but he'll know for sure.

[JeffYoung]

Steve, I don't really feel comfortable explaining the position of others, especially one I don't fully understand.

I think I can generically say that the folks who support the 1.3 factor for 16v cars in ITB believe that the 16v cars in ITB have that power potential.

Some of those folks occasionally post here; maybe they will do so and provide more explanation. That's all I really know.

Also, I hope this comes across correctly. It's not that I don't "care" about B and C, because I do. I'm charged with doing what I think is right for all of IT, including those two classes.

But I just don't have a whole hell of a lot of knowledge about those cars, and motors. Kirk, Scott G., Peter Keane, Les Cheney, etc. -- they all have far more knowledge than me, so unless it is an issue I've personally spent a lot of time with (like the ITB MR2 or the Mopar 2.2 motors) I frankly can't say I know a lot about it. I listen and try to vote appropriately, but I'm most often following others lead on issues related to B and C.

My focus/background is on the cars and motors in R and S, and to a lesser extent A, and I feel much more comfortable speaking about them.

Just some background on my background.


Jeff, since I don't get to hear from the other people, what is the logic of the other members that B&C multi vavle engines get the 130% but the other classes get 125%?

If the numbers are to represent the percent gain of a possible engine. how does simply changing a car class change it expected gain in IT trim?

not basing anyone I just don't understand.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The folks that invoked the 'ALL 16V cars get 30%' did so ONLY when a 16V car came up in ITB, not in any other class. Now it's ONLY ITB and ITC? To say so was pure protectionism of ITB at the time. Don't care how anyone else remembers it.

[lateapex911]

Andy do you ever remember any 16V cars getting 30% in ITA? The only ones that got that were based on real world numbers, not assumptions. I'm with Andy, the 30% thing ONLY came up for ITB cars, and THEN the 'defense' was "That's the deal", and "the first iteration of the Process says so". And, "THATs the Process we sold the BoD". Never mind that that version of the process specifically said, "Check to make sure the calculations make sense, these are only guidelines".

I thought it mighty odd how suddenly we had to follow the earliest version, and then ONLY one aspect of it, for ONE class. :shrug: