June 2012 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

Prelims are out:

5/07/12- Preliminary Minutes (http://www.scca.com/assets/May2012prelimMinutes.pdf)
5/07/12- Preliminary Tech Bulletin (http://www.scca.com/assets/TB12-06MayMeetingJuneFastrack.pdf)

[Andy Bettencourt]

ITA
1. #7633 (Christopher Childs) Increase weight of 1.8 ITA Miata
In ITA, Mazda MX-5 / Miata includes R (94-97), change the weight as follows: 2460

[erlrich]

ITA
1. #7633 (Christopher Childs) Increase weight of 1.8 ITA Miata
In ITA, Mazda MX-5 / Miata includes R (94-97), change the weight as follows: 2460

Damn...we really need one of those little popcorn-munching smilies for this one :D

It is nice to see the ITS 240SX get a break, maybe we'll see a few more out there now. :023:

[JeffYoung]

Neal Harrison is building one. I think that car has potential, Chris Newberry's was FAST.

I don't think the Miata change will generate any discussion. Nope. None. I'm sure of that.

[Greg Amy]

I don't think the Miata change will generate any discussion. Nope. None. I'm sure of that.
Quite interested to hear the back story and support behind it. - GA

[JeffYoung]

Mostly started due to the CRB's disagreement with the use of the lower stock hp number for the car, and the inconsistency in doing that with the Miata versus all other cars in the ITCS.

I initially did not want to change this since it has been debated ad nauseum, but ultimately voted yes (I think the vote was unaminous).

There was no pressure from the CRB to do one thing or another, but they did raise the issue with us.

[Ron Earp]

What's next? Limit the Honda's rpm to 5500?


Yessir. Being as how my car only needs to rev to 5200 RPM I propose 5200.

Jeebus, are we really going to have to read page after page of ITA Miata minutia (no offense to quoted poster)? The situation has been debated for years. Bridge, water under it, and all that. Other cars get processed at the highest rated hp, this one should be no different.

[Greg Amy]

Mostly started due to the CRB's disagreement with the use of the lower stock hp number for the car, and the inconsistency in doing that with the Miata versus all other cars in the ITCS.
Fair enough, and I agree. And the Miata will still be the kick-ass ITA car to have. It's what I would build, bar none.

I officially, formally, and publicly discontinue any and all bitching about the how the Miata weight was done in ITA.

- GA

[MMiskoe]

Sorry for asking dumb questions, but what is the underlying reason for not allowing cars to run in different IT classes at different weights? I understand that there are potential problems that the driver would have to deal with in terms of wheel size between classes (ITA to ITB etc). But as long as the car is compliant, why does this keep getting shot down? It seems that if you wanted to run your ITA miata in ITS at a lower weight, go for it.

Is there some real reason for this or is it another washer bottle? I'm hoping somone can provide the cliff notes.

[Knestis]

As someone who argued against double-listing, it's a solution to a non-problem, with lots of minor downsides that add up to make it more trouble than it's worth.

** Our classes are confusing enough as it is, without people having to figure out if that's an ITB Golf II or an ITC Golf II

** If (when) something like the ITS Nissan 240 weight changes, it would have to propagate to two classes rather than one. A change can't always be accommodated within the "bucket" established for a class (e.g., if it would make it too heavy for a given rollcage tubing size, or be impossibly low).

** We already have outlier issues, in terms of light cars or big engines, and dual listing will create more of them - cars already outside (or at minimum, right on) the limits of the class, made super-light or extra heavy to fit.

** At the end of the day, it doesn't give anyone anything they don't already have...

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

So this is going to be a long post, and I ask everyone to read it and REALLY try and understand it. I also challenge any ITAC or CRB member to bring forth any reasonable arguments. Anyone who agrees with the philosophy of the change (like Greg), I would like to hear their arguments as well. Maybe I am missing something. It should always be the job of the committees to put in the work and class things as 'right' as they can.

First off, this classification is NOT inconsistent with the way other cars are classed because it is DIFFERENT. Read that again. It's different. I am going to lay out some generic scenarios for you in an effort to try and reduce the Miata bias.

Take car A. Car A had a body style run from 1990-1993. From 1990-1992, it had 130hp. In 1993, they tweaked the intake manifold and the cams and the new rating was 140hp. Now, if the 1990-1992 car was classed first, it would be classed based on the 130hp number. You would then have a choice as the CRB. Add another spec line because the cars are different, or combine them at the higher HP because the items that make the extra 10hp are not legal to change in the lower HP version - and then allow the UD-BD so that the lower HP car can actually make a real base number. Following me? It's a mechanical change that CAN be done to can extra HP in IT trim.

Now, take car B. Car B had the same body style run and the same HP change. But the extra 10hp came from a tuned set of headers and a low restriction exhaust. Are we saying that the new stock HP is the way to class this car. HELL NO. Why? Because those mods are already taken into account in the IT weight calculation. Follow this logic:

Lets say for arguments sake that there are 4 things that contribute to a cars 25% potential increase in IT trim (just using round numbers to make it easy. We know every car responds differently). Air intake 5%, exhaust 10%, B&B - port and compression 5%, and ECU 5%. There is your 25%. If a car gets a bump in stock HP SOLELY because of one of these, you have not increased it's potential HP in IT trim. You can not argue this. In the above example, all you did was erode the 10% increase in an optimized exhaust, you did not add 10hp to the baseline number. So you COULD use the higher number to class it but you would then have to reduce the potential % gain the car will get - netting the same original weight.

Take the 2 versions of the 2nd gen RX-7. One had 146hp and one had 160hp. That 14hp difference was made up of basically 3 key items. A MAF instead of an AFM, different intake manifold design and higher compression rotors. All three things that you can not change in IT. These cars COULD be on different spec lines with TOTALLY different HP in IT trim.

NOT true with car B above. Those cars have exactly the same HP potential in IT trim. There is nothing 'mechanical' that you can change that would bump the base hp of the early car up to that of the later car. When I say this, we need to be clear. This 'something' has to be a feature that is not otherwise allowed to be changed in IT. In other words, something you could UD-BD to that would bump the HP.

Another example. Let's say Nissan had a 240SX 'Type S' at 140hp and a 240SX 'Type R' at 160hp. All they changed was the exhaust and the ECU. The Type S is already classed. Then the Type R comes in and all it has is optimized equipment under the IT rules. There is NOTHING different in the two cars in built IT trim. You DON'T bring the bottom car up to the top car and THEN add the 25%, because you would be forcing the car to actually gain about 43% in order to make it's process power.

Even more simply (because this is very hard to explain), Car A has 130hp. Honda does a Type R version with a factory optimized IT package. It now has a rated 162hp. You wouldn't take the 162hp version and class it at 25% additional power because the Type R version has used up 100% of the IT gain and there is ZERO more to get.

So to bring it back to the Miata, this is exactly what happened. The 128hp car was classed, then later, the 133hp car was requested. When you look at the differences, the cars are identical except for an ECU tweak. Since this is an allowed mod in IT, it renders the improvement 100% moot when discussing potential in IT trim. And THAT folks is how cars are classed at the core level. Potential hp in IT trim. The change in ECU adds nothing to the base HP as it affects HP in IT trim. If it were a larger TB or something you could not legally change, then yes 100%. So if you wanted to use the 133hp number for 'consistency', go ahead, but you must compensate with a lower potential gain in IT trim, say using 20%...which gets you to withing 5lbs of where the car is classed now (figuring 2370 because of the old slush 10lbs). But this is silly because it would be very hard to pinpoint the % of one modification under the rules...so you simply use the standard 25% on the correct number.

One thing that should concern us all is that this line of thinking has been debated and voted on at the ITAC level. It is codified in the Ops manual and had seemingly been accepted by the CRB for over a year now. So effectively, the CRB has decided that (which is their right I suppose) that the Ops manual is out the window for this car but yet it holds firm on it even when it's wrong (see DW adder in ITR). Sweet. We should all be happy with the inconsistency.

So there is data that shows the Miata makes more than 25% but less than 30%. Ok, fine. A weight change based in THIS line of thinking is actually the unprecedented kind. 25% to 27% on a motor like this is 2.5 crank HP...or 2whp. Anyone who wants to adjust the weight of a car based on 2whp is nuts. Let's be real here.

This isn't a Miata issue, it's an issue about whats the right way to class a car. To the Miata, I am not aware of any dyno sheets that show the Miata to be capable of 25% on top of the 133hp number that already includes a % for ECU (as described above). Interestingly, 128hp @ 30% and 133hp at 25% are almost identical. So the Miata is getting classed at a number not yet represented in any dyno data and at a level that doesn't make sense.

It's obvious the Miata is a lightning rod but we need to be worried about classing decisions that make sense because we have put forth effort and thought instead of seeing what we think we see.

If you have a real need to add weight to the Miata, then do it in a way that is consistent and makes potential sense. It's probably more than the sum of it's parts...so add in another variable that not many cars have - like a rear DW adder. I proposed it, it was shot down. This would add an additional 50lbs to the Miata while legitimately trying to quantify a real difference in it's contemporaries - EXACTLY what an adder is suppose to do.

[lateapex911]

Mostly started due to the CRB's disagreement with the use of the lower stock hp number for the car, and the inconsistency in doing that with the Miata versus all other cars in the ITCS.

I initially did not want to change this since it has been debated ad nauseum, but ultimately voted yes (I think the vote was unaminous).

There was no pressure from the CRB to do one thing or another, but they did raise the issue with us.
I'm trying to think of examples Jeff, where there has been a car that was classed at X power, then a later version was classified with X +5hp (or 10, 15, etc) that was the result of a change of an IT allowed mod.

I'm coming up empty. Clearly the CRB and the ITAC have examples, or there would be no claim of inconsistency. Can you cite them for us?

[shwah]

I'm trying to think of examples Jeff, where there has been a car that was classed at X power, then a later version was classified with X +5hp (or 10, 15, etc) that was the result of a change of an IT allowed mod.

I'm coming up empty. Clearly the CRB and the ITAC have examples, or there would be no claim of inconsistency. Can you cite them for us?

ITB Golf 2? Was classed at 100hp. Later available as 105hp. Now classed as 105hp with 30% expected IT gain. Or at least that's the story. The weight never really changed, but the multiplier was presented when weight clarification was requested...

[shwah]

OK. What the heck is "required wiring rendered redundant by allowed modifications (i.e. engine management harness)"?

Can that be translated into English. Is this the same body that seems to think that you can physically change the wires and where they go to and from in the engine wiring harness, to enable sequential fuel injection, whether wiring supporting such was there from the factory or not?

The request was simple. If the wires DO NOT DO ANYTHING ON A LEGAL IT CAR let us take them out. Why not leave it simple?

[Ron Earp]

The request was simple. If the wires DO NOT DO ANYTHING ON A LEGAL IT CAR let us take them out. Why not leave it simple?

Just build your car like that and call it a day. Motor legal, suspension legal, drive line legal, race over min weight - go have fun.

I have no idea why the wording can't be simplified to something that does what every IT-builder ends up doing. If I were IT Czar there wouldn't be a rule on wiring beyond something like "Cars need wires, use some." All that said, I probably have more wires than the average IT car since mine still wears a tag and will continue to wear a tag.

But, make sure you're using the rules to the full advantage, examples:

*AC systems can be removed in part or entirely" - In a Mustang the entire assembly of heater core, evaporator, etc. is called "Air Conditioning". Wires make that make any of that work are part of the AC, therefore, they are part of the system and can be removed.

*Mustangs without power windows, theft systems, ABS, aux lights, and other optional equipment exist therefore I can remove all the wiring on my car because there are examples that don't have those items.

As you know pulling apart the harness is a major pain in the butt. But it is worth it. We got about 11 or 12 lbs out of optional crap on the first pass. There is 1.5 to 2 lbs I left in because I was afraid to pull due to the safety/theft interlock system.

[Chip42]

OK. What the heck is "required wiring rendered redundant by allowed modifications (i.e. engine management harness)"?

Can that be translated into English. Is this the same body that seems to think that you can physically change the wires and where they go to and from in the engine wiring harness, to enable sequential fuel injection, whether wiring supporting such was there from the factory or not?

The request was simple. If the wires DO NOT DO ANYTHING ON A LEGAL IT CAR let us take them out. Why not leave it simple?

to avoid unforeseen issues. remove wiring to items you are allowed to remove, effectively allowing you to remove that entire system from the car. you got what you wanted.

but with allowed ECU and related engine wiring harnesses, as well as the existing open rules for wiring of fans, switches, gauges, and the like, we wanted to be sure that the minimal harness being used (you can debate the legality of that specific harness separately) doesn't result in the full stock harness being removed. the last thing we want to see is a squirt on a harness and a small loom for the datalogger and driver controls, with 6 or 7 wires from the stock chassis harness sticking around to connect to the head and tail lights. it's still IT.

[CRallo]

V8 F-Bodies are classified using the higher hp number even though the increase was due to an exhaust change. :/

[JLawton]

<warning: This is all about ME>

RE: Miata weight........... We hashed this out years ago. Lots of bitterness, anger, name calling (and I'm not being dramatic here). I admit, I was one of the early complainers........... so after years and years of battling Miata's in ITA and getting my ass kicked, I finally break down and buy a Miata. And fucking two months later weight might be added????? You.....have ........got......to.....be.....shittin'..........m e..............

[Andy Bettencourt]

V8 F-Bodies are classified using the higher hp number even though the increase was due to an exhaust change. :/

V8's are an anomaly. The CRB at the time was deathly afraid of them, requiring 30% on top number no matter what and this was before the policy was written. Any 'extra' arguing on the V8's could have lead to their non-inclusion. I, for one, hope that the ITR V8's get cleaned up.

What cars are you talking specifically about Chris?

[gran racing]

Oh man. THIS is going to be a good thread, I can just feel it.

[Knestis]

What Andy said.

This is, at the end of the day, a "someone just thinks it needs more weight because they saw a fast one" adjustment. It's not consistent with past practice or the Process as applied and codified in the ops manual.

K

[CRallo]

Just build your car like that and call it a day. Motor legal, suspension legal, drive line legal, race over min weight - go have fun.


*Mustangs without power windows, theft systems, ABS, aux lights, and other optional equipment exist therefore I can remove all the wiring on my car because there are examples that don't have those items.

As you know pulling apart the harness is a major pain in the butt. But it is worth it. We got about 11 or 12 lbs out of optional crap on the first pass. There is 1.5 to 2 lbs I left in because I was afraid to pull due to the safety/theft interlock system.


Ron, what if the vehicles with out the options had the same body harness?

[Z3_GoCar]

Damn...we really need one of those little popcorn-munching smilies for this one :D

It is nice to see the ITS 240SX get a break, maybe we'll see a few more out there now. :023:

:eatpop:
http://images.bimmerforums.com/smilies/eatpop.gif

[Ron Earp]

Ron, what if the vehicles with out the options had the same body harness?

That can happen. As far as my experience with Mustangs goes we think all were wired for cruise, but, not all were wired for theft, power windows, keyless, etc.

Remove what you can based on the assembly. You can gut the window and mechanisms when you put in NASCAR bars, so take the wires with it. I'm sure if you go through just about any IT car with a fine tooth comb you'd probably come up with some sort of wiring violation. Everyone tries to be legal but in the end I'm sure you could nitpick something on about every car. That's why "Race cars need wires, use some." would be a nice IT sentiment.

Motor, driveline, suspension, min weight. Have fun.

[CRallo]

V8's are an anomaly. The CRB at the time was deathly afraid of them, requiring 30% on top number no matter what and this was before the policy was written. Any 'extra' arguing on the V8's could have lead to their non-inclusion. I, for one, hope that the ITR V8's get cleaned up.

What cars are you talking specifically about Chris?

I understand that, I'm just afraid about what it will take to change an already established number...

The 305 TPI GM's. Some of the HP gain between years was from a dual cat option which eventually became standard. I have documentation and it is available to all online. Writing a letter about this is on my list of things to do...

[JeffYoung]

The ITS V6 Mustang stock hp changed over the course of its run, and I believe the higher number was used.

The ITS RX7, same.

My car, same.

The reason for not going with the lower hp number is justifiable. That puts the ITAC and the CRB in the position of having to figure out whether a manufacturer's stock published hp number change was due ot something that is free under the IT ruleset or not. I know that may be clear on the Miata (well, I don't actually know, but I trust Andy on this point), but I don't think it will be clear at all on other cars and there is NO other car in the ITCS that I am aware of that was classed using the lowest stock hp on the spec line.

So I'm actually in general agreement with the criticism of the use of the lower stock hp number for the ITA Miata. I'm not really in agreement with revisiting this after having beaten it to death a few years back but that is what it is.

More importantly, I think we have more dyno data on the ITA Miata than any other car except the MR2. 5-6 sheets from two of the top builders in the country among others.

So let's say the car makes actual whp in the 135 range, which seems to be the case. Using our known hp formula, which effecitvely eliminates the debate over the low v. high stock hp numbers, we get this:

135/.82 * 14.5 +50=2440, or 20 lbs less than the new weight. In my opinion, that is where the car should be and since that is closer to 2460 (the new weight) than 2380 I voted ok on the adder even though I am very concerned about stability and a growing desire on our part (me included) to go back and dick around with hard fought prevoius decisions.

I also personally do not agree with another "sum of its parts" type adder. Those things will build up like barnacles on the hull of the process and kill it eventually. We are way, way better off with far fewer subjective adders than more.

Note this was not a on track peformance based SWAG. Did on track performance influence the decision to look at the car again? Yes. Did it result in the change? No. The real driver for the change was the use of the low stock hp number.

Chris S. -- I see you still don't get the meaning of "modify." So it goes. In any event, we consider your proposal, spent a fair amount of time debating it, and crafted a rule that gave you what you wanted while at the same time addressing some concern our folks had. That rule is clearly written and says if you the rules allow you to modify/alter a part of the harness, but not remove it as a part of an allowed removal of an attendant part, you keep the original redundant wiring. Chip laid it out well. I would think a "thanks for working on my request in your free time and on weekends" woud be appropriate here, but I know that's not the Internet way.

[marka]

Howdy,

Here's the thing I don't get as a newbie. IIRC, you're the same guy that told me that the '95-'99 SOHC Neon was known to make such good power that it couldn't be processed at 25% like the standard.

So whatever. You'd think more top folks would be jumping over themselves to get into such an overdog, but... Whatever.

With as popular as the ITA miata is (let alone SM), why in the hell are we talking about stock HP and not "as built for IT" HP? Surely there are plenty of examples around?

To me, this looks like someone recognized what everyone knows... I.e. if you want the best ITA car you buy a miata. And they found an excuse in the process that some folks like to think is wonderful and impartial and all to put a little more weight on it. So... Whatever. Whether you call it a rear DW adder or a process change because of a different stock hp rating or whatever the hell you want to call it, it sure seems like everyone is starting with "the miata is dominant, lets figure out a way to get more weight on it".

Mark


So this is going to be a long post, and I ask everyone to read it and REALLY try and understand it. I also challenge any ITAC or CRB member to bring forth any reasonable arguments. Anyone who agrees with the philosophy of the change (like Greg), I would like to hear their arguments as well. Maybe I am missing something. It should always be the job of the committees to put in the work and class things as 'right' as they can.

First off, this classification is NOT inconsistent with the way other cars are classed because it is DIFFERENT. Read that again. It's different. I am going to lay out some generic scenarios for you in an effort to try and reduce the Miata bias.

Take car A. Car A had a body style run from 1990-1993. From 1990-1992, it had 130hp. In 1993, they tweaked the intake manifold and the cams and the new rating was 140hp. Now, if the 1990-1992 car was classed first, it would be classed based on the 130hp number. You would then have a choice as the CRB. Add another spec line because the cars are different, or combine them at the higher HP because the items that make the extra 10hp are not legal to change in the lower HP version - and then allow the UD-BD so that the lower HP car can actually make a real base number. Following me? It's a mechanical change that CAN be done to can extra HP in IT trim.

Now, take car B. Car B had the same body style run and the same HP change. But the extra 10hp came from a tuned set of headers and a low restriction exhaust. Are we saying that the new stock HP is the way to class this car. HELL NO. Why? Because those mods are already taken into account in the IT weight calculation. Follow this logic:

Lets say for arguments sake that there are 4 things that contribute to a cars 25% potential increase in IT trim (just using round numbers to make it easy. We know every car responds differently). Air intake 5%, exhaust 10%, B&B - port and compression 5%, and ECU 5%. There is your 25%. If a car gets a bump in stock HP SOLELY because of one of these, you have not increased it's potential HP in IT trim. You can not argue this. In the above example, all you did was erode the 10% increase in an optimized exhaust, you did not add 10hp to the baseline number. So you COULD use the higher number to class it but you would then have to reduce the potential % gain the car will get - netting the same original weight.

Take the 2 versions of the 2nd gen RX-7. One had 146hp and one had 160hp. That 14hp difference was made up of basically 3 key items. A MAF instead of an AFM, different intake manifold design and higher compression rotors. All three things that you can not change in IT. These cars COULD be on different spec lines with TOTALLY different HP in IT trim.

NOT true with car B above. Those cars have exactly the same HP potential in IT trim. There is nothing 'mechanical' that you can change that would bump the base hp of the early car up to that of the later car. When I say this, we need to be clear. This 'something' has to be a feature that is not otherwise allowed to be changed in IT. In other words, something you could UD-BD to that would bump the HP.

Another example. Let's say Nissan had a 240SX 'Type S' at 140hp and a 240SX 'Type R' at 160hp. All they changed was the exhaust and the ECU. The Type S is already classed. Then the Type R comes in and all it has is optimized equipment under the IT rules. There is NOTHING different in the two cars in built IT trim. You DON'T bring the bottom car up to the top car and THEN add the 25%, because you would be forcing the car to actually gain about 43% in order to make it's process power.

Even more simply (because this is very hard to explain), Car A has 130hp. Honda does a Type R version with a factory optimized IT package. It now has a rated 162hp. You wouldn't take the 162hp version and class it at 25% additional power because the Type R version has used up 100% of the IT gain and there is ZERO more to get.

So to bring it back to the Miata, this is exactly what happened. The 128hp car was classed, then later, the 133hp car was requested. When you look at the differences, the cars are identical except for an ECU tweak. Since this is an allowed mod in IT, it renders the improvement 100% moot when discussing potential in IT trim. And THAT folks is how cars are classed at the core level. Potential hp in IT trim. The change in ECU adds nothing to the base HP as it affects HP in IT trim. If it were a larger TB or something you could not legally change, then yes 100%. So if you wanted to use the 133hp number for 'consistency', go ahead, but you must compensate with a lower potential gain in IT trim, say using 20%...which gets you to withing 5lbs of where the car is classed now (figuring 2370 because of the old slush 10lbs). But this is silly because it would be very hard to pinpoint the % of one modification under the rules...so you simply use the standard 25% on the correct number.

One thing that should concern us all is that this line of thinking has been debated and voted on at the ITAC level. It is codified in the Ops manual and had seemingly been accepted by the CRB for over a year now. So effectively, the CRB has decided that (which is their right I suppose) that the Ops manual is out the window for this car but yet it holds firm on it even when it's wrong (see DW adder in ITR). Sweet. We should all be happy with the inconsistency.

So there is data that shows the Miata makes more than 25% but less than 30%. Ok, fine. A weight change based in THIS line of thinking is actually the unprecedented kind. 25% to 27% on a motor like this is 2.5 crank HP...or 2whp. Anyone who wants to adjust the weight of a car based on 2whp is nuts. Let's be real here.

This isn't a Miata issue, it's an issue about whats the right way to class a car. To the Miata, I am not aware of any dyno sheets that show the Miata to be capable of 25% on top of the 133hp number that already includes a % for ECU (as described above). Interestingly, 128hp @ 30% and 133hp at 25% are almost identical. So the Miata is getting classed at a number not yet represented in any dyno data and at a level that doesn't make sense.

It's obvious the Miata is a lightning rod but we need to be worried about classing decisions that make sense because we have put forth effort and thought instead of seeing what we think we see.

If you have a real need to add weight to the Miata, then do it in a way that is consistent and makes potential sense. It's probably more than the sum of it's parts...so add in another variable that not many cars have - like a rear DW adder. I proposed it, it was shot down. This would add an additional 50lbs to the Miata while legitimately trying to quantify a real difference in it's contemporaries - EXACTLY what an adder is suppose to do.

[JeffYoung]

Mark, that is basically where I am at. We have good dyno data on this car, showing 135 at the wheels. Which means in reality they probably make more...

But I digress. At that number, using known hp process in the Ops Manual (which dispenses with the low/high stock hp issue), we get 2440 for this car.

That's what I would have done, and since that was closer to 2460 than 2380, I voted 2440.

[preparedcivic]

Another example, and this one should be near and dear too:

ITA 2nd gen CRX Si. '88-90's were advertised at 105hp. '91's at 108. We all know they make way more than 30%. That would be an interesting one to see the weight math on.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The ITS V6 Mustang stock hp changed over the course of its run, and I believe the higher number was used.

The ITS RX7, same.

My car, same.

Horrible examples Jeff as defined in my post. Each of them has non-IT changable parts that make up the base HP difference. The later car with the better parts has a real base increase that you can ad the full 25%+ to and get your number. NOT the case with the Miata. It's a non-argument, it's simple math.


The reason for not going with the lower hp number is justifiable. That puts the ITAC and the CRB in the position of having to figure out whether a manufacturer's stock published hp number change was due ot something that is free under the IT ruleset or not. I know that may be clear on the Miata (well, I don't actually know, but I trust Andy on this point), but I don't think it will be clear at all on other cars and there is NO other car in the ITCS that I am aware of that was classed using the lowest stock hp on the spec line.

Doesn't make it not right and doesn't relieve the ITAC from putting in the work to get things right. See Type R IT option from Honda example. How would you class that car?




More importantly, I think we have more dyno data on the ITA Miata than any other car except the MR2. 5-6 sheets from two of the top builders in the country among others.

So let's say the car makes actual whp in the 135 range, which seems to be the case. Using our known hp formula, which effecitvely eliminates the debate over the low v. high stock hp numbers, we get this:

135/.82 * 14.5 +50=2440, or 20 lbs less than the new weight. In my opinion, that is where the car should be and since that is closer to 2460 (the new weight) than 2380 I voted ok on the adder even though I am very concerned about stability and a growing desire on our part (me included) to go back and dick around with hard fought prevoius decisions.

I also personally do not agree with another "sum of its parts" type adder. Those things will build up like barnacles on the hull of the process and kill it eventually. We are way, way better off with far fewer subjective adders than more.

So you would rather use dyno data that is in the +/-3whp range to set a weight instead of waiting until development took the car (if ever) to the nearest 5%? Holy shit talk about micro managing. THAT is no consistent with stability.


The real driver for the change was the use of the low stock hp number.


The CORRECT hp number given how we class cars. You simply don't tack on the full 25% to a car that has a factory mod eating into that gain already. Now the car is classed at a number it has never proven to attain yet you have more dyno sheets on it than anything. Super.

I can see why people would look at this funny at first but this is so simple and DOES require some work and some info but what's right is right. If you (the collective you) don't want to put in the work, then let someone else who does. I hate the 'extra work' argument. Again, sweeping statement, not aimed at any one ITAC member.

[Knestis]

Mark, that is basically where I am at. We have good dyno data on this car, showing 135 at the wheels. Which means in reality they probably make more...

But I digress. At that number, using known hp process in the Ops Manual (which dispenses with the low/high stock hp issue), we get 2440 for this car.

That's what I would have done, and since that was closer to 2460 than 2380, I voted 2440.

If this is a dyno sheet-based adjustment, we need to be clear and honest about it, rather than suggesting it is a correction based on a policy to use the higher published number.

K

[JeffYoung]

Andy, we had a good call about this last night. You make good points. However, they often get lost in a failure to recognize there is another side to things in many cases.

It is NOT easy in every case to determine why stock hp changed. I do not think that is a good position to back us into having to do.

Kirk, what drove this change was the low/high stock hp number. I voted for it because that number came out within 20 hp of what I believe the car should weigh based on the dyno info we have (most I've seen for a car other than the MR2).

[Andy Bettencourt]

Howdy,

Here's the thing I don't get as a newbie. IIRC, you're the same guy that told me that the '95-'99 SOHC Neon was known to make such good power that it couldn't be processed at 25% like the standard.

So whatever. You'd think more top folks would be jumping over themselves to get into such an overdog, but... Whatever.

And since it was processed 'correctly' it isn't an overdog. See how that works?


With as popular as the ITA miata is (let alone SM), why in the hell are we talking about stock HP and not "as built for IT" HP? Surely there are plenty of examples around?

So you need to read the post more in depth. The whole point is about HP as built for IT. These two motors have the same potential in IT trim, and you base it on the lower number because the higher number is a direct result of an IT-allowable modification that eats away at the 25% expected gains.


To me, this looks like someone recognized what everyone knows... I.e. if you want the best ITA car you buy a miata. And they found an excuse in the process that some folks like to think is wonderful and impartial and all to put a little more weight on it. So... Whatever. Whether you call it a rear DW adder or a process change because of a different stock hp rating or whatever the hell you want to call it, it sure seems like everyone is starting with "the miata is dominant, lets figure out a way to get more weight on it".

Mark

This isn't about the Miata as a competitive car in ITA, it's about getting the way we class cars 'correct'. I don't care about the weight either. I am on record as having proposed an additional adder that would have resulted in +50 for my car. I don't care, I just submit what I think is right for the class. This decision is based on flawed math and results in a classification that is not attainable even though the ITAC has tons of dyno info. It's mind boggling.

Just as mind boggling as the reluctance to move the MR2 and and potential 'correction' to the ITB Accords back to 25%. One case we have the sheets but we ignore, the next case we have the sheets so we fight for change...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, we had a good call about this last night. You make good points. However, they often get lost in a failure to recognize there is another side to things in many cases.

It is NOT easy in every case to determine why stock hp changed. I do not think that is a good position to back us into having to do.



No it's not easy. Nobody said it was. The ITAC does it's best to determine if there needs to be two spec lines or one. They research, they collect data from classification requestors. If they miss something that comes of age later, they correct it. I simply don't see how this is a problem. Other than 'it's not easy', I haven't read one single 'other side'.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If this is a dyno sheet-based adjustment, we need to be clear and honest about it, rather than suggesting it is a correction based on a policy to use the higher published number.

K

And I am ALL FOR dyno sheet adjustments. It's fair and the right thing to do. But as we tried to codify when I was on the ITAC, at what threshold do you trigger an adjustment? This mid-way between 25% and 30% is 2whp people.

My suggestion has always been the nearest 5%. 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, etc. Until you hit that next level, you stay the same. It eliminates the dyno noise and demonstrates enough of a difference to warrant a change yet still be 'stable'.

[marka]

Howdy,


And since it was processed 'correctly' it isn't an overdog. See how that works?


We certainly agree that the ITA Neon isn't an overdog. That's for damned sure.

:-)

Mark

[marka]

Howdy,



This isn't about the Miata as a competitive car in ITA, it's about getting the way we class cars 'correct'.

Well, its good that 'correct' is in quotes.

I think the point regarding "how will the ITAC know why the hp bump was there" is a good one.

This process is NOT going to be perfect. In this case it seems like you're arguing more for the sake of making one tiny part of the thing perfect for one particular car without thinking about all the rest of the imperfections and ignoring that the end result is a reasonable weight on the car.

I don't see how the process should include "figure out if the hp gain was due to an IT legal modification and then if so 2nd guess the manufacturer" unless we're talking about a _big_ miss. In this case, its an 80 lb miss (assuming you're right about why it changed) and its in a direction most people seem to be ok with.

Whatever.

Mark

[JeffYoung]

Other than 'it's not easy', I haven't read one single 'other side'.

Andy, your a good friend, and I love you man and all that stuff but this right here is a problem.

"It's not easy" means we have a much higher chance of screwing things up and geting them wrong.

Manufacturers LIE about stock hp. They get it wrong. And they aren't clear or are deceptive about why changes were made. And we are supposed to dive into that and figure it out?

As far as the known hp side of the process goes, I think it is rather simple. When we have accumulated enough data for a car to be weighed using known hp, we do that. And then we don't change it just because a new dyno sheet comes in. We change it if our 'on track" trigger causes us to look at the situation again, take another look at new dyno data, and give it another go.

Using the known hp numbers we have, this car is light. Not a lot, but some. After this change, I hope it is never touched again unless/until we have a true overdog situation on track -- and we do not, even at 2380 and even though the car is slighlty light.

[tnord]

Hey peter keane - in case you missed it on roadraceautox.com -

[Overt profanity edited out. This ain't RRAX - GA]
tnord edit - GO SIT ON AN UPSIDE-DOWN STOOL AND TRUCK YOURSELF!

the rest of you can fill in the blanks of what REALLY happened from there.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, your a good friend, and I love you man and all that stuff but this right here is a problem.

"It's not easy" means we have a much higher chance of screwing things up and geting them wrong.

Manufacturers LIE about stock hp. They get it wrong. And they aren't clear or are deceptive about why changes were made. And we are supposed to dive into that and figure it out?

As far as the known hp side of the process goes, I think it is rather simple. When we have accumulated enough data for a car to be weighed using known hp, we do that. And then we don't change it just because a new dyno sheet comes in. We change it if our 'on track" trigger causes us to look at the situation again, take another look at new dyno data, and give it another go.

Using the known hp numbers we have, this car is light. Not a lot, but some. After this change, I hope it is never touched again unless/until we have a true overdog situation on track -- and we do not, even at 2380 and even though the car is slighlty light.

OK, we will agree to disagree on what is right based on it's relative difficulty.

So see my post above in response to Kirk's. I am all about dyno-weighting when the info is there. There is plenty of info that suggests 27% on 128hp. Where I think you are making a HUGE mistake is trying to slice and dice 2-3whp. You need to set up thresholds. At these HP levels, the nearest 5% is enough but not crazy.

[Chip42]

Adding to what jeff says.

some cars DON'T make 25%
some make MORE than 25%

some hp numbers change, sometimes because of "IT" legal changes to the car as stock, sometimes because of component part changes, sometimes because the OEM lied and got called on it...

SAE changed power rating certicfications to "certified" in ~2005. see the brochure (http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/brochure.pdf). lots of cars "lost" hp after this change, toyota and honda most notably.

years ago, SAE went from Gross to Net hp. some cars we only have good info for in DIN. mostly these are the old and slow (i.e. ITB) cars, but they still come up and they still must be dealt with.

Mazda over reported power on later miatas with variable valve timing and RX8s. ford has gotten caught doing the same at least once. it happens, and we dont' always know about it.

put all of that together, and you can see that "25% over lowest number" isn't an objectively better rule than "25% over highest number"

the miata fell in the middle. we moved it up. love it or hate it, that's what we did.

we are STILL looking at the MR2. I've got one, so I'm not trying to look liek I'm playing favorites, but it is frustrating.

the Accord... I'd rather not discuss.

[shwah]

Chris S. -- I see you still don't get the meaning of "modify." So it goes. In any event, we consider your proposal, spent a fair amount of time debating it, and crafted a rule that gave you what you wanted while at the same time addressing some concern our folks had. That rule is clearly written and says if you the rules allow you to modify/alter a part of the harness, but not remove it as a part of an allowed removal of an attendant part, you keep the original redundant wiring. Chip laid it out well. I would think a "thanks for working on my request in your free time and on weekends" would be appropriate here, but I know that's not the Internet way.

Jeff - maybe it seems more clearly written to folks that participated in the discussions. Of course I appreciate the time and effort that the ITAC puts into this and every other issue. I probably don't say that enough. Sorry about that.

If you look at the resulting rule with a fresh set of eyes, it sure looks a lot more complicated than it needs to be.

That will bring different interpretations from different folks about things like "modify" allowing the addition of completely new pieces rather than changing existing ones. Is there some perceived risk/advantage to removing wires that do not carry current in an engine harness versus any other point in the car? If there is already a rule stating that something cannot be removed, doesn't that make it ineligible for removal if we just say if a wire does not do anything within the rules, and is not specifically required by the rules you can take it out?

[Andy Bettencourt]

put all of that together, and you can see that "25% over lowest number" isn't an objectively better rule than "25% over highest number"

the miata fell in the middle. we moved it up. love it or hate it, that's what we did.



And the point is because you actually have the information, you don;t have to be objective. You can be CORRECT.

Unprecedented to reset a weight to above what the dyno sheets tell you. It's a great day in IT.

[StephenB]

First off, this classification is NOT inconsistent with the way other cars are classed because it is DIFFERENT. Read that again. It's different. I am going to lay out some generic scenarios for you in an effort to try and reduce the Miata bias.

Take car A. Car A had a body style run from 1990-1993. From 1990-1992, it had 130hp. In 1993, they tweaked the intake manifold and the cams and the new rating was 140hp. Now, if the 1990-1992 car was classed first, it would be classed based on the 130hp number. You would then have a choice as the CRB. Add another spec line because the cars are different, or combine them at the higher HP because the items that make the extra 10hp are not legal to change in the lower HP version - and then allow the UD-BD so that the lower HP car can actually make a real base number. Following me? It's a mechanical change that CAN be done to can extra HP in IT trim.

Now, take car B. Car B had the same body style run and the same HP change. But the extra 10hp came from a tuned set of headers and a low restriction exhaust. Are we saying that the new stock HP is the way to class this car. HELL NO. Why? Because those mods are already taken into account in the IT weight calculation. Follow this logic:

Lets say for arguments sake that there are 4 things that contribute to a cars 25% potential increase in IT trim (just using round numbers to make it easy. We know every car responds differently). Air intake 5%, exhaust 10%, B&B - port and compression 5%, and ECU 5%. There is your 25%. If a car gets a bump in stock HP SOLELY because of one of these, you have not increased it's potential HP in IT trim. You can not argue this. In the above example, all you did was erode the 10% increase in an optimized exhaust, you did not add 10hp to the baseline number. So you COULD use the higher number to class it but you would then have to reduce the potential % gain the car will get - netting the same original weight.



I have NOT read all the threads in this thread but I wanted to quickly point out that this IS NOT DIFFERENT than what has been done in the past. I am sure you have not forgotten the Audi yet have you? I will not Re-Hash the past for those that don't know, use the search function and you will see that this is EXACTLY the same scenario with the same outcome.

Take car A or B. Car A and B had a body style run from 1990-1993. From 1990-1992, it had 130hp. In 1993, they tweaked the car in some way (doesn't really matter how) and it now has 140hp. Now, if the 1990-1992 car was classed first, it would be classed based on the 130hp number.
WHAT IF THE 1990-1992 car NEVER EXISTED... then how would you classify the 1993 car? I suspect that if the 90-92 car never existed then the 1993 car would be classed heavy based on the performance increase that it is capable of (based on your arguement) which results in cars like the MR2.


I hate to say this but I honestly think this is consistant within the class AND it is not different than past decisions.

Stephen

[lateapex911]

Andy understands the details of the situation well, and the specifics are important.

Nobody has pointed out an example that is exactly the same as the Miata.
The Camaro that Rallo points out was NOT classed, and THEN had a new year added to the spec line with a higher hp number. That car was a cluster, and there were people on the CRB that did NOT want it in IT. (One member felt it was too easy to cheat up. He demanded high horsepower be used to base our math on, and a high torque adder, in order to 'counter' the cheating 'issue'. That car leaves a bad taste in my mouth because I feel like there was a 'deal' made. OK, if we use a high factor, and a high tq, can we at least classify it?. The ned result is actually lower than some people wanted. As Jeff says, committee work is about compromise)

Other examples trotted out here are not relevant because the changes have been mechanically based, (intake manifolds, etc) that aren't IT prep items.

When we hashed this out in committee, it was codified that this was essentially the first such car with this unique set of circumstances and timing, and that going forward, if the situation arose again, it would be handled the same.

I'm bothered that the CRb saw fit to charge the ITAC with reversing itself.
I'm also bothered that the ITAC rejected the Double Wishbone on the rear driven wheels adder when Andy brought it up in committee, and later when it was proposed. We hear how the Miata is greater than the sum of its parts...a gestalt car. 50/50 weight distribution and the double wishbone rear are factors mentioned time and again. Well, my RX-7 is 50/50, and trust me, it aint no miata! I understand the desire to keep the process simple, but this DW adder is so black and white and so relevant, I'm sad it didn't get incorporated.

What really happened here is that clearly the CRB member(s) decided the Miata was too much game for (the Mosers?) on track, and pushed the ITAC to figure out a way to add weight. Sorry, it's soo easy to see between the lines. The power thing is a convenient excuse.

[StephenB]

Nobody has pointed out an example that is exactly the same as the Miata.

Oops you missed my post... did you forget the Audi?

Stephen

[tom91ita]

Jake,

i agree with most everything but i think this is independent of the Mosers.

[JoshS]

And I am ALL FOR dyno sheet adjustments. It's fair and the right thing to do. But as we tried to codify when I was on the ITAC, at what threshold do you trigger an adjustment? This mid-way between 25% and 30% is 2whp people.

My suggestion has always been the nearest 5%. 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, etc. Until you hit that next level, you stay the same. It eliminates the dyno noise and demonstrates enough of a difference to warrant a change yet still be 'stable'.

I haven't read through this whole thread, but ... Andy, I think you still don't fully understand the use of dyno-based weight assignments.

When you use a dyno-based weight, you STOP TALKING ABOUT STOCK HP AND PERCENTAGES. You use either approach A or approach B, not a hybrid. Approach A is stock horsepower + a percentage, and approach B is you use dyno horsepower corrected to crank hp.

If you choose to use dyno results, you just use them. You don't then go back and compare that number to stock, or "pick a percentage gain". You just use it.

[lateapex911]

Jake,

i agree with most everything but i think this is independent of the Mosers.

Mmmm, I dunno. Read the thread over on RRAX. An awful lot of talk about one or two ARRC races. Add that to some comments by a former ITACer, and reading the current ITACers statements, and ....Smoke...fire...and all that.

[lateapex911]

I haven't read through this whole thread, but ... Andy, I think you still don't fully understand the use of dyno-based weight assignments.

When you use a dyno-based weight, you STOP TALKING ABOUT STOCK HP AND PERCENTAGES. You use either approach A or approach B, not a hybrid. Approach A is stock horsepower + a percentage, and approach B is you use dyno horsepower corrected to crank hp.

If you choose to use dyno results, you just use them. You don't then go back and compare that number to stock, or "pick a percentage gain". You just use it.

Are you reading Andy to be saying that you DO use a number when you know it, BUT, that he thinks that you only use it if it bumps the gain 5%? Thats what i'm reading.

So, I THINK he's saying he'd like to see a hp bump of about 6 or so (based on 5% of 130), before he'd want to use it. (Because 2-3hp is dyno noise)

[lateapex911]

Oops you missed my post... did you forget the Audi?

Stephen

Yea, but the Audi was originally weighted pre process, then, there's the whole debate about the numbers being legit, and the whole head thing...that car makes my head explode!

[JohnW8]

So the formula is based on a 25% hp improvement over Stock 1.8L hp or is that advertised 1.8L hp or dynoed 1.8L HP or crank HP or Wheel HP? I ask because I've never seen a 128-133HP stock, factory fresh Miata.... ever.

My original 92 miata 1.6 was listed at 116hp but on a dyno it peaked at 97hp.
I'll make the assumption that the 1.8's are the same. That car now has a 2001 VVt engine that is claimed to be in the 145hp range stock, but mine with I/H/E and ecu just barely makes 144 peak. So the claimed number and real numbers don't seem to be very accurate.

Some of us are new to this and weren't around when all the initial arguing was done.

I was pissed off about this initially because of the randomness of it. If changes are made to the weight of the car why not wait until the end of the year or prior to the beginning of a new season? You know during the off season when people are working on their cars anyway.

[Xian]

Another example, and this one should be near and dear too:

ITA 2nd gen CRX Si. '88-90's were advertised at 105hp. '91's at 108. We all know they make way more than 30%. That would be an interesting one to see the weight math on.
Hi Rob,

Not sure if this got answered already... the 2nd Gen CRX is an example of "backwards math" to arrive at the weight. During the Great Re-alignment, the Si was determined to be "the bogey" for ITA performance. The ITAC used "what we know" dyno examples of the car to determine how much the engine was under-rated from the factory and therefore bump the weight by 110#'s, IIRC.

All of this is by my best recollection and I wasn't heavily involved in the technical side of The Process at the time... anyone else can feel free to chime in with additions/corrections.

Christian

[Andy Bettencourt]

I haven't read through this whole thread, but ... Andy, I think you still don't fully understand the use of dyno-based weight assignments.

When you use a dyno-based weight, you STOP TALKING ABOUT STOCK HP AND PERCENTAGES. You use either approach A or approach B, not a hybrid. Approach A is stock horsepower + a percentage, and approach B is you use dyno horsepower corrected to crank hp.

If you choose to use dyno results, you just use them. You don't then go back and compare that number to stock, or "pick a percentage gain". You just use it.

I agree. But when that gain is only 2.5% higher than where you are at, do you still use it or do you actually have to hit a threshold that prompts a change? The issue here is that I thinks it's ridiculous to make a change unless you can show a 5% error minimum. Then you can set it wherever you want. I probably didn't word it well but meant 'from 25 to 30, 30 to 35. etc. If you have a 25% car that now shows 33%, go ahead and set it at 33% and document your new baseline...but don't reset a 25% car that shows 27%.

Or did I make that less clear that I originally typed it?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Oops you missed my post... did you forget the Audi?

Stephen

As Jake said, this car is not the same in that there are two different documents claiming different stock hp. 110 vs 120 IIRC. Nobody can agree on what is the correct figure.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I was pissed off about this initially because of the randomness of it. If changes are made to the weight of the car why not wait until the end of the year or prior to the beginning of a new season? You know during the off season when people are working on their cars anyway.

I will go on the record as saying I don't care when a change is made. If's its the right thing to do, its the right thing to do. We aren't a National class and we aren't racing for the gold medal so it's really no big deal. I would think that the 'other' cars in class would feel it's better to correct asap than wait.

[JoshS]

I agree. But when that gain is only 2.5% higher than where you are at, do you still use it or do you actually have to hit a threshold that prompts a change? The issue here is that I thinks it's rediculous to make a change unless you can show a 5% error minimum. Then you can set it wherever you want.

Ahh, I see your question. We never really codified an answer to that question, and so I don't know the answer.

My personal take is that (ack!) I agree with Mark Andy. At this point, the Miata is a perfect example of a car where we know a lot and we could credibly just go ahead and use the "known horsepower method", regardless of the difference from the existing classification. Remember that the use of that method requires the commitee's confidence in the dyno data to be quite high. If there's enough confidence in the dyno numbers, why not use it?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ahh, I see your question. We never really codified an answer to that question, and so I don't know the answer.

My personal take is that (ack!) I agree with Mark Andy. At this point, the Miata is a perfect example of a car where we know a lot and we could credibly just go ahead and use the "known horsepower method", regardless of the difference from the existing classification. Remember that the use of that method requires the commitee's confidence in the dyno data to be quite high. If there's enough confidence in the dyno numbers, why not use it?

So I am with you again in theory. But are you suggesting that a 2-3whp difference from the original estimate is enough to make a change? You wouldn't adopt any minimum threshold? 1whp? 2whp? All these are ok? I think that is ridiculous and it sets a horrible precedent. Horrible.

[spawpoet]

My original 92 miata 1.6 was listed at 116hp but on a dyno it peaked at 97hp.
I'll make the assumption that the 1.8's are the same. That car now has a 2001 VVt engine that is claimed to be in the 145hp range stock, but mine with I/H/E and ecu just barely makes 144 peak. So the claimed number and real numbers don't seem to be very accurate.
.


I thought the 1.6 was 116 crank hp from the factory, while the dyno number you are mentioning should be wheel hp. I know my old CSP miata was just about 100 hp, and that was at the wheels.

[lateapex911]

Ahh, I see your question. We never really codified an answer to that question, and so I don't know the answer.

My personal take is that (ack!) I agree with Mark Andy. At this point, the Miata is a perfect example of a car where we know a lot and we could credibly just go ahead and use the "known horsepower method", regardless of the difference from the existing classification. Remember that the use of that method requires the commitee's confidence in the dyno data to be quite high. If there's enough confidence in the dyno numbers, why not use it?

Well, if they refused to accept the REAMS of info on the MR2 that showed a max of what 11-12%, and they used 25% as a factor, then I'd certainly think that similar evidence showing 2.5% should be viewed with similar skepticism.

I GET that this car is a concern because of the fact that it could be an overdog (although ITAC guys have stated that currently they don't think it is) and it demands vigelence, but, I also think that if you are going to accept evidence for one then you really have to for another.

[lateapex911]

So the formula is based on a 25% hp improvement over Stock 1.8L hp or is that advertised 1.8L hp or dynoed 1.8L HP or crank HP or Wheel HP? I ask because I've never seen a 128-133HP stock, factory fresh Miata.... ever.

My original 92 miata 1.6 was listed at 116hp but on a dyno it peaked at 97hp.
I'll make the assumption that the 1.8's are the same. That car now has a 2001 VVt engine that is claimed to be in the 145hp range stock, but mine with I/H/E and ecu just barely makes 144 peak. So the claimed number and real numbers don't seem to be very accurate.

Some of us are new to this and weren't around when all the initial arguing was done.

I was pissed off about this initially because of the randomness of it. If changes are made to the weight of the car why not wait until the end of the year or prior to the beginning of a new season? You know during the off season when people are working on their cars anyway.

The basic Process takes stock crank hp and adds a 25% factor. So, in theory, the IT crank hp of the 1.8 should be 160 crank. Assumed IT RWHP (ITAC uses 18% as a deduct when discussing in RWHP, 15% for FWHP), would be 132.

Jeff says they have settled on it making 135 RWHP in IT trim based on their evidence.

So, thats three more HP than the Process predicts for the 1.8 at 128 stock crank. ITA is 14.5 lbs per hp, so 3 * 14.5 is 43.5 more pounds, based on Jeffs evidence. 2380 + 45 = 2425.

[preparedcivic]

I sort of knew that. Hence the something like 43% adder this car has.

I'm in the camp that doesn't see 80lbs slowing an ITA Miata down much, particularly at momentum/speed maintenance tracks.

And on edit, there are a bunch of cars that still have inconsistent power adders applied. Having been in the rules making business, that is the ITAC's and CRB's perogative. Those decisions just need to be defensible.


Hi Rob,

Not sure if this got answered already... the 2nd Gen CRX is an example of "backwards math" to arrive at the weight. During the Great Re-alignment, the Si was determined to be "the bogey" for ITA performance. The ITAC used "what we know" dyno examples of the car to determine how much the engine was under-rated from the factory and therefore bump the weight by 110#'s, IIRC.

All of this is by my best recollection and I wasn't heavily involved in the technical side of The Process at the time... anyone else can feel free to chime in with additions/corrections.

Christian

[JohnW8]

The basic Process takes stock crank hp and adds a 25% factor. So, in theory, the IT crank hp of the 1.8 should be 160 crank. Assumed IT RWHP (ITAC uses 18% as a deduct when discussing in RWHP, 15% for FWHP), would be 132.

Jeff says they have settled on it making 135 RWHP in IT trim based on their evidence.

So, thats three more HP than the Process predicts for the 1.8 at 128 stock crank. ITA is 14.5 lbs per hp, so 3 * 14.5 is 43.5 more pounds, based on Jeffs evidence. 2380 + 45 = 2425.

Thanks for the explanation Jake. Since this process comes up with 2425 where does 2460 come from?

[Greg Amy]

Non-sequitor from another thread...


Well, one change that will happen as a result of the ITA Miata weight gain is the loss of the SM crossover guys, as they will now be REALLY illegal for ITA if they don't bolt in enough weight to make the new 2460 number. I'd guess they'll all go to ST instead...So expect ITA numbers to drop further.
Maybe it's time to re-visit that whole "allow other categories into ours" thing.

I was personally opposed to Improved Touring allowing Spec Miata cars into IT under their own category specs, mostly because I saw that there were a number of mods allowed in SM that are decisively non-compliant in Improved Touring, and I saw with that a dilution of the "purity" of the class philosophy. However, even taken as a whole there's not really anything in there that would make an SM higher performance than a built ITA Miata.

Plus, my experience in Super Touring with that has generally been positive (noting, of course, that very little in SM is non-compliant in STL).

Granted, Speccers are fast, developed little rockets, and the top-flight versions will likely run at the pointy end of the ITA field (especially on Hoosiers now). But if they can resist the temptation to "cheat" in ITA (run the appropriate restrictors) it could be a ticket to getting ITA numbers back up (though little comfort to those non-Miata ITA guys that are going to get their tails whacked by a hoard of Spec Miatae...) I'd even consider supporting the '99+ crowd into ITA with appropriate SM weight and restrictors.

Someone want to list the items allowed in Spec Miata that are non-compliant in Improved Touring? - GA

[JohnW8]

Someone want to list the items allowed in Spec Miata that are non-compliant in Improved Touring? - GA

1. De-powered racks

[lateapex911]

Non-sequitor from another thread...


Maybe it's time to re-visit that whole "allow other categories into ours" thing.

I was personally opposed to Improved Touring allowing Spec Miata cars into IT under their own category specs, mostly because I saw that there were a number of mods allowed in SM that are decisively non-compliant in Improved Touring, and I saw with that a dilution of the "purity" of the class philosophy. However, even taken as a whole there's not really anything in there that would make an SM higher performance than a built ITA Miata.

Pl - GA

Actually IT does not allow SMs into the category. There's no provision that they may run. Many are, in fact entering and running illegally, and nobody is saying anything, or protesting.
Key is, of course, that in our area, no SM has been able to knock off the top dogs, and the mid packers haven't felt displaced.

[Greg Amy]

Actually IT does not allow SMs into the category.
I understand that; that's why I'm suggesting it could be revisited... - GA

[JIgou]

1. De-powered racks

2. Allowance of Torsen diff (and the associated larger carrier) in the 1.6L SMs

3 - maybe? Mechanism of changing the timing on 99+ Miatas

[Chip42]

just to clear up the math:

current ITCS classification: 2380
standard process math using stock hp
128 (low number): 2370 (128*1.25*14.5+50)
133 (high number): 2460 (133*1.25*14.5+50)

"known horsepower method", assuming 135RWHP: 2440 (135/0.82*14.5+50)

jake's math is off on 2 counts, the ITCS weight doesn't match process math at any level, and the change of 3 whp is closer to 4 crank, assuming an 18% driveline loss. IT weights are calculated using crank or assumed crank HP (using a 15% or 18% loss from WHP - 18% has a prop shaft, 15% is transverse)

so the new classification is 20 lbs heavier than the "known" whp, which is 70 lbs heavier than the process math for the 128 chp number. some ITAC members didn't have confidencce in the dyno data enough to fall back that 20 lbs, so we went ahead and ran it at the higher OEM published number. for those of you keeping score, that assumes a 136whp, 1 more than the known. well within dyno noise and NOT worth an argument. in reality, this is the process working, it's just a fucking lightning rod car so it gets all the cloak and dagger paranoia.

IF we had followed the known hp route (which was the minimum we would consider) AND voted to add the 50lb rear SLA ("double wishbone") suspension adder Andy asked for a while back, then we would have had a new weight of 2490 lb. I think in the long run this is just a lot of noise and wont amount to any measurable, on-track changes.

The REAL issue getting people worked up here the casuation of the change, not the change. the cause was a lot of interest from a lot of people both in and outside of the SCCA's rulemaking hierarchy. letters came and letters went. we all know who wrote the letter that finally got the nod for a weight change. we all know who his friends and customers are. we all know who recently (re)joined the CRB. Connections LOOK obvious so everyone WANTS to make a mountain out of this. in reality there was some attention from on high, but NOT a lot of pressure, that led us to reconsider this listing. we did NOT "cave" or "fold" though we did allow that interest to push us to revisit this when we historically had simply dismissed the requests. I can tell you for damn sure the car was not going to come out of that discussion at less than 2440 (known hp).

you want black helicopters and stuff? look at ITB accords and MR2s. the miata was pretty cut and dry.

[lateapex911]

just to clear up the math:

current ITCS classification: 2380
standard process math using stock hp
128 (low number): 2370 (128*1.25*14.5+50)
133 (high number): 2460 (133*1.25*14.5+50)

"known horsepower method", assuming 135RWHP: 2440 (135/0.82*14.5+50)

jake's math is off on 2 counts, the ITCS weight doesn't match process math at any level,
.

Uh, yea, good point. I forgot the 2380 number came at a time when there were built cars to be considered and cage rules had a weight break that we needed to consider. The cage rules have since changed, freeing up weight changes.

[Xian]

I sort of knew that. Hence the something like 43% adder this car has.

I'm in the camp that doesn't see 80lbs slowing an ITA Miata down much, particularly at momentum/speed maintenance tracks.

And on edit, there are a bunch of cars that still have inconsistent power adders applied. Having been in the rules making business, that is the ITAC's and CRB's perogative. Those decisions just need to be defensible.

Heck, 110#'s didn't slow down the CRX's... they went through front brakes, bearings, and hubs faster but they didn't really get any slower. [popcorn]

[lateapex911]

Heck, 110#'s didn't slow down the CRX's... they went through front brakes, bearings, and hubs faster but they didn't really get any slower. [popcorn]

Do we really know that? Were there back to back sessions run with, without and with the weight to confirm?
I remember getting a scathing letter from Robert Moser who was not happy and felt the cars were worthless after the weight addition. And calls from his crew chief. (Ear is still ringing, LOL) But, King built new engines, intakes were changed, ignitions were changed, and I think they clawed back lap time.

But, I think it was bit by bit. I suspect, if they were allowed to remove the weight, and they developed for that setup, they'd be faster over the course of a race.

[Andy Bettencourt]

just to clear up the math:

current ITCS classification: 2380
standard process math using stock hp
128 (low number): 2370 (128*1.25*14.5+50)
133 (high number): 2460 (133*1.25*14.5+50)

"known horsepower method", assuming 135RWHP: 2440 (135/0.82*14.5+50)

jake's math is off on 2 counts, the ITCS weight doesn't match process math at any level, and the change of 3 whp is closer to 4 crank, assuming an 18% driveline loss. IT weights are calculated using crank or assumed crank HP (using a 15% or 18% loss from WHP - 18% has a prop shaft, 15% is transverse)

.

The 2380 comes from 2370 + an attempt at the time to add 50lbs for 'more than the sum of it's parts'. Since SM conversions at the time could only be 2380, only 10lbs was added - thankfully. It would have been a bad decision on our part. Thank god for the documentation work over the past few years.

And no, it's not the causation of the change, its the WAY you changed it. Against Ops manual and the result sets a weight that no dyno sheet supports. It's bogus on two counts, no matter how 'close' you argue it is based on dyno data. The issue is not with the Miata weight, it's with the method. For a car that gets 'updated' like this in the future, the precedent has been set to screw up the classification.

[Chip42]

If 20lbs and 1whp is a "screwed up" classification, then what the hell do you call the half of the ITCS that has far greater divergence from actual HP (above or below) and gets NO attention and NO noise???

this is not a big deal. we did not overturn years of hard work and let the CRB decide what we do and how we do it. you only want to think that. let go, it's OK. everything is working pretty damned well. thank you for a good process and system. Thank you for beating a hole into the CRB/ITAC paradigm barrier thorugh which we can comunicate. it's still working.

[JeffYoung]

Ahh, I see your question. We never really codified an answer to that question, and so I don't know the answer.

My personal take is that (ack!) I agree with Mark Andy. At this point, the Miata is a perfect example of a car where we know a lot and we could credibly just go ahead and use the "known horsepower method", regardless of the difference from the existing classification. Remember that the use of that method requires the commitee's confidence in the dyno data to be quite high. If there's enough confidence in the dyno numbers, why not use it?

Which is basically what I did personally in justifying my vote, to me, so I could live with it.

From the dyno sheets I've seen, and we have more than on any car other than the MR2, we see "very good" builds in the low 130s and "top notch" builds in the 135 range.

135/.82 x 14.5 = 2390 + 50 = 2440, or 20 lbs below where it is. Jake, you did the math a bit wrong (it's bad if you can't out math a lawyer! lol....). Andy, saying this car is set higher than what the dyno data shows is kinda sorta correct. It's 20 lbs higher, and on top of that given that the submitted sheets show 135, I'm pretty sure somewhere somone has one 1.5 hp higher.

THIS - the above -- is why I'm not too worked over this. The car is very close to what the process spits out on a known horsepower calculation. I don't like the instability issues with dicking with this again after having beat it to death before, but if we were going to make a change this one is not only in the ballpark, it's very close to what the process provides.

[Kyle Freiheit]

[QUOTE=Chip42;336500]just to clear up the math:

current ITCS classification: 2380
standard process math using stock hp
128 (low number): 2370 (128*1.25*14.5+50)
133 (high number): 2460 (133*1.25*14.5+50)
QUOTE]

Huh, Didn't know that 5hp was worth 90lbs in ITA. Interesting.

Kyle

[lateapex911]

Which is basically what I did personally in justifying my vote, to me, so I could live with it.

From the dyno sheets I've seen, and we have more than on any car other than the MR2, we see "very good" builds in the low 130s and "top notch" builds in the 135 range.

135/.82 x 14.5 = 2390 + 50 = 2440, or 20 lbs below where it is. Jake, you did the math a bit wrong (it's bad if you can't out math a lawyer! lol....). .


I didnt do the math, which was the issue, LOL. I did the post math, then added it to the existing weight. Errr except the existing weight isn't the pure process weight.
I design. Others add, ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

If 20lbs and 1whp is a "screwed up" classification, then what the hell do you call the half of the ITCS that has far greater divergence from actual HP (above or below) and gets NO attention and NO noise???

this is not a big deal. we did not overturn years of hard work and let the CRB decide gwhat we do and how we do it. you only want to think that. let go, it's OK. everything is working pretty damned well. thank you for a good process and system. Thank you for beating a hole into the CRB/ITAC paradigm barrier thorugh which we can comunicate. it's still working.

So the issue is that your end is justifying the means.

There are issues here. First, the Ops manual was ignored for this re-weight. That is a warning sign for us all. Second, some are trying to justify the weight as 'correct-enough' based on dyno data. Another huge warning sign. Why? Because it's ridiculous to re-weigh something if you don't have data outside the area of statistical noise. If you want to hang your hat on the dyno numbers, then you would have to say that you would vote yes for a correction on any car that you had confidence made just 3whp more than the process estimated it could. Holy crap.

There has to be a threshold that you have to hit before you make a change. It's just common sense. What is yours Chip? 1whp? 2? 3? If a cars process weight is based on 140whp and you get sheets that nail it to 142whp, are you saying you would recommend a 20lbs increase (using ITA)? Sounds like you are.

Let's stop trying to justify this reprocess and just admit where it came from. Going around the Ops manual and then saying 'well it would be within 40 lbs if we used dyno data' is just a load of manure. If you think it's the right thing to do to recommend a change to a cars weight based on 3whp over it's target, I think you are nuts.

I'll start collecting dyno sheets for you guys for some other cars so you can really do some work.

It's not about the weight on this car guys. It's about 2 totally flawed arguments trying to justify an action that was pushed on you from above, based largely on a video. Miata now, anyone could be next. Ops manual means nothing. Sorry if that offends people who I consider friends with high integrity like Jeff and Chip but the facts are the facts.

I left the ITAC because the CRB bought into what we were doing, then snapped. They let us design and administer a process. Once we wanted to write it down so that it could be transparent and pass it on to future committees, they got cranky and started using factors never considered to shoot down recommendations. Liesons never communicated with the other CRB members what we were doing, how and why. When they heard it for the first time, they were skeptical because it was so foreign from what they do in all the other classes. That was their right to do but I certainly wasn't going to hang around while they took shots in the dark and I took the heat. It's come full circle IMHO.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm pretty sure somewhere somone has one 1.5 hp higher.

THIS - the above -- is why I'm not too worked over this. The car is very close to what the process spits out on a known horsepower calculation. I don't like the instability issues with dicking with this again after having beat it to death before, but if we were going to make a change this one is not only in the ballpark, it's very close to what the process provides.

I bet there are some 1.5 lower too. Saying that you have a high level of confidence in 135whp is just fine. I would agree. I could have that extra 1whp if I wanted to start eating away at my gorgeous torque curve.

I would be MUCH happier if we would have just said, the Miata is winning a ton of races, we have dyno data that suggests 135whp is very accurate so we are resetting the weight to 2440 because 1, its more accurate than the 25% and 2, it's a good political move for the class because many feel the car is the only car that can win. Still pissy mind you, but only from an owners standpoint, not from a process standpoint. If the ITAC wanted to codify those small increments as triggers for change, I would say you are crazy but as long as it was written down and repeatable...go for it.

Dicking with the Ops manual and using an incorrect hp number to re-run just doesn't pass the smell test because it has no evidenciary standard.

[Knestis]

Again, Andy has explained my concerns really well while I was off doing other things.

If it's a "what we know" dyno sheet adjustment, just say it, but we'd better be ready to do exactly the same thing with other dyno sheet evidence (see also, MR2). To do one but not the other is institutionalizing a lie.

K

[TStiles]

I think STL just picked up about 50 new competitors

[Rabbit07]

I think STL just picked up about 50 new competitors

:happy204::happy204::happy204:

[lateapex911]

Exactly. ^ Procedures and processes. They matter.

I could support adding 50 for a DW adder (as well as it's applied to other cars) AND adjusting for known power. So I'd actually respect a higher weight.

But reading between the lines here has left a bad taste in my mouth. Admittedly, I have seen what Andy described regarding CRB inputs so I'm predisposed to understanding the ITAC's dilemma.

I really don't have issues with the actual number, but I wish the path to get there was better.

[marka]

Howdy,



Dicking with the Ops manual and using an incorrect hp number to re-run just doesn't pass the smell test because it has no evidenciary standard.

Hey, can you provide proof that the incorrect hp # was the original one, vs. the later one after ECU tweaks? Based on the compression # stuff, it sounds to me like the original motor probably stood to gain more than the process assumption, if you bumped the compression to the legal limit since the original motors didn't have what the oem spec said they should.

You guys crack me up. Nobody gives a shit that the Miata got some weight in ITA. Most everyone seems to think that's better for parity. Instead, you'd rather it was justified by handwaving method #2 instead of handwaving method #1. Even though they come out within 20 lbs of each other.

Mark

[lateapex911]

You're right, Mark, guys like Kirk have NO idea how to implement policy.

[Kyle Freiheit]

This may or may not be the right place for this question but here it goes.

I have been out of ITA for awhile so go easy on me.

If we are "sorta" "kinda" using published crank HP #'s with a 25%(1.25)HP increase assumption and 14.5lbs/HP multiplier and then adding or subtracting another arbitrary weight to equalize based on a "some of the parts" argument, can someone explain some of the other weights in the class?

ITA 1.6L Miata 116HP @ crank. Current Weight- 2255, Calculated weight(116*1.25*14.5=2102.5lbs)
Not that a 1.6 miata could get there but I guess the 1.6 miata gets 150lbs of "some of the parts" weight

ITA CRX 105HP @ crank. Current Weight-2250, Calculated weight(105*1.25*14.5=1903lbs or 105*1.30*14.5=1979)

[Andy Bettencourt]

This may or may not be the right place for this question but here it goes.

I have been out of ITA for awhile so go easy on me.

If we are "sorta" "kinda" using published crank HP #'s with a 25%(1.25)HP increase assumption and 14.5lbs/HP multiplier and then adding or subtracting another arbitrary weight to equalize based on a "some of the parts" argument, can someone explain some of the other weights in the class?

ITA 1.6L Miata 116HP @ crank. Current Weight- 2255, Calculated weight(116*1.25*14.5=2102.5lbs)
Not that a 1.6 miata could get there but I guess the 1.6 miata gets 150lbs of "some of the parts" weight

ITA CRX 105HP @ crank. Current Weight-2250, Calculated weight(105*1.25*14.5=1903lbs or 105*1.30*14.5=1979)

I'm not sure anyone has the energy right now to go over the process. Do a search and you may find what you are looking for. Or search for the Ops manual. it lays out how cars are classed (or in this case, supposed to be classed)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Howdy,



Hey, can you provide proof that the incorrect hp # was the original one, vs. the later one after ECU tweaks? Based on the compression # stuff, it sounds to me like the original motor probably stood to gain more than the process assumption, if you bumped the compression to the legal limit since the original motors didn't have what the oem spec said they should.

You guys crack me up. Nobody gives a shit that the Miata got some weight in ITA. Most everyone seems to think that's better for parity. Instead, you'd rather it was justified by handwaving method #2 instead of handwaving method #1. Even though they come out within 20 lbs of each other.

Mark

Not sure what you are looking for here. The 1.8L Miata was classed on two different spec lines in ITS way back when. The 94-95 cars were requested for a reclass, and at the time, the CRB was very conservative on these small multi-valve cars in ITA. Since they had no real documented way to weight these cars, the newly born Process was used to justify to them that these new cars were in the same ballpark on paper as the cars in the class. See also: Great ReAlignment

The 1.8 car came down at 2380 (10lbs more than process as described in a previous post). A year later, someone requested the 96/97 cars...that is what sparked the entire discussion and review of either combining them or having different spec lines. If they had different spec lines, nobody would have built a 96-97 because of power potential, weight and the VIN rule that was in effect not technically allowing you to do so. The rest is history.

On the second part of your question, the original motors with the 'soft' pistons did NOT make 128hp. A quick trip down Shrowroom stock and Spec Miata history books will uncover tons of information. Mazda fixed the issue mid-run of the 128hp cars. When you order new crate motors from Mazda, doesn't matter what year you ask for 94-97, you get the same stuff. In 1996, they went OBD-II and it bumped hp by 5. One additional electronic sensor, and there you are.

So to answer directly, the early early motors may have had more to gain, but they were 1/2 a point down and were soft on the HP to begin with so there is no net gain. Not sure what you are trying to prove there.

On your last point, you are obviously missing the point that it's not about the weight. 80lbs? I don't care. What I do care about, as someone who has a ton of blood, sweat and tears invested in IT and the Process, is that no matter what has happened in the past, what is written, what is agreed to, etc...the CRB still would feel compelled to ram a decision down the ITAC's throat even though it was against policy (or that the ITAC would go out-of-policy to satisfy a directive they didn't believe in). That is what it is I guess. The ITAC could have just recommended weight via known dyno data and added 40 or 60 or whatever, and it would have been, although aggressive and unprecedented at that level, well within ops manual protocol.

Then, less upsetting but still, is people justifying the RESULT by saying "well if we did it with dyno numbers it would be within 'X' pounds so don't worry about it. We guess what? The HP is so close to the target that the ITAC would have never done that on their own so it's a stupid platform for an argument. It's one procedural mess-up trying to justify another. Like I said before, I would have rather been told, "The CRB wanted us to address the Miata and the perception of the competitive balance of ITA. We looked at the Ops manual and we determined that with known HP, the car should weigh 2440, a 60lb increase over current weight, a 70lb increase over proper original process weight."

Then I don't whine for a couple days on the Ops manual, the process and a ram-rod job...I just whine for a couple hours as a typical driver who has to go buy lead and develop a new set-up. See? It's about the Category, not the Miata.

I have only talked with one guy who is all cranked up about the increase. Seriously, whoop tie-do. But people need to understand that this is about what everyone here has been asking for for years - and Josh and Jeff and team had given them in a final format - a documentable and repeatable process for which cars are classed and re-classed. It's the cornerstone of the category an it's popularity IMHO.

I know that is beating a dead horse for many but it can't be explained enough to those who haven't been here for the long haul.

[marka]

Howdy,


Not sure what you are looking for here.


Nothing really. I was mostly just making a comment on how it looks to me.



On your last point, you are obviously missing the point that it's not about the weight. 80lbs? I don't care. What I do care about, as someone who has a ton of blood, sweat and tears invested in IT and the Process, is that no matter what has happened in the past, what is written, what is agreed to, etc...the CRB still would feel compelled to ram a decision down the ITAC's throat even though it was against policy (or that the ITAC would go out-of-policy to satisfy a directive they didn't believe in). That is what it is I guess. The ITAC could have just recommended weight via known dyno data and added 40 or 60 or whatever, and it would have been, although aggressive and unprecedented at that level, well within ops manual protocol.


IIRC, didn't someone say the ITAC voted unanimously to do this? I'm not saying the CRB didn't influence / direct / whatever here, but based on the descriptions of what happened, it sure seems like the ITAC was a partner, not an unwilling participant.

My "newbie outsider" read on this is that the _old_ ITAC members are bummed that the new folks are doing stuff their own way. Which is your right and all, of course. But to me, its literally "hand waving method 1 vs hand waving method 2". At the end of the day, how the weights are assigned doesn't seem to matter a hell of a lot if we don't care about actual on-track performance.

Mark

(who, fwiw, has been the "old AC member who disagrees with what the new AC is doing", but on the Solo side of the club. I get that its frustrating. Mostly I'm just trying to give you a "not as invested" perspective on how it looks to me.)

[erlrich]

I think STL just picked up about 50 new competitors

Why is that?

[tom91ita]

This may or may not be the right place for this question but here it goes.

I have been out of ITA for awhile so go easy on me.

If we are "sorta" "kinda" using published crank HP #'s with a 25%(1.25)HP increase assumption and 14.5lbs/HP multiplier and then adding or subtracting another arbitrary weight to equalize based on a "some of the parts" argument, can someone explain some of the other weights in the class?

ITA 1.6L Miata 116HP @ crank. Current Weight- 2255, Calculated weight(116*1.25*14.5=2102.5lbs)
Not that a 1.6 miata could get there but I guess the 1.6 miata gets 150lbs of "some of the parts" weight

ITA CRX 105HP @ crank. Current Weight-2250, Calculated weight(105*1.25*14.5=1903lbs or 105*1.30*14.5=1979)

fwiw, i think the 90-91crx si had a better cam and was 108 hp. and then the crx si might also be getting the ITB multivalve factor of 1.35 ;)

[lateapex911]

Why is that?

Because all the SMs who double dip in ITA aint gonna want to bolt in ballast so that they can at least get across the scales legally (ignoring all the other 'issues' with SMs in ITA), and they will just go double dip in STL or STU instead.
Greg Amy rubs his hands together cackling over the increased participation numbers that the STL class will see.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why is that?

Because the SM double-dippers from ITA will now have to add weight to be 'legal'. It's now much easier to check the STL box during registration to get extra track time.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Howdy,



Nothing really. I was mostly just making a comment on how it looks to me.

Well I am giving you some information to shape that 'look'.




IIRC, didn't someone say the ITAC voted unanimously to do this? I'm not saying the CRB didn't influence / direct / whatever here, but based on the descriptions of what happened, it sure seems like the ITAC was a partner, not an unwilling participant.I'd like to see that quote but I know for a fact that the ITAC has rejected requests for the addition of weight to this car and those rejections were pushed back asking them to 'look at it again' and were guided as to how to do so. Jeff Y is on record multiple times in threads as saying he didn't want to change it.


My "newbie outsider" read on this is that the _old_ ITAC members are bummed that the new folks are doing stuff their own way. Which is your right and all, of course. But to me, its literally "hand waving method 1 vs hand waving method 2". At the end of the day, how the weights are assigned doesn't seem to matter a hell of a lot if we don't care about actual on-track performance.

Mark

(who, fwiw, has been the "old AC member who disagrees with what the new AC is doing", but on the Solo side of the club. I get that its frustrating. Mostly I'm just trying to give you a "not as invested" perspective on how it looks to me.)This has SOME truth to it. In the case of the C4 classification, the ITAC runs a weight up that includes an extra 50lbs for DW's when no car in ITR has them - but because the Ops manual says 'that's how we are supposed to do it' (forgetting or ignoring the transcription error in the manual). Yet in this case, the Ops manual gets ignored. The beauty of IT for the past 5 years or so has been the process and in recent years the documentation and publication of that process. But deals like this diminish the work of past and current AC's.

But the CRB is king. There are THEIR classes and the AC's only advise. I keep having to tell myself that. :)

[Greg Amy]

Because all the SMs who double dip in ITA aint gonna want to bolt in ballast so that they can at least get across the scales legally (ignoring all the other 'issues' with SMs in ITA), and they will just go double dip in STL or STU instead.
Greg Amy rubs his hands together cackling over the increased participation numbers that the STL class will see.
Easy, son. Any "cackling" that may be coming from this corner is purely from the entertainment value of the way-over-the-top, oh-my-God-the-sky-is-falling reactions from people on this board, maybe-not-so-coincidentally primarily from ex-ITAC members that quit in indignant protest of the system, and are now all pissed off that the system ain't following their vaunted lead...

Shocked. Shocked I am.

I've made my peace with the ITA Miata long, long ago. Mostly by leaving ITA. - GA

On edit: then they followed me into STL....NEMESIS!!!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg Amy rubs his hands together cackling over the increased participation numbers that the STL class will see.

Beat me to the other post by a minute.

Won't see much National participation bump. Regional yes, National no.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Easy, son. Any "cackling" that may be coming from this corner is purely from the entertainment value of the way-over-the-top, oh-my-God-the-sky-is-falling reactions from people on this board, maybe-not-so-coincidentally primarily from ex-ITAC members that quit in indignant protest of the system, and are now all pissed off that the system ain't following their vaunted lead...

Shocked. Shocked I am.



It's not about following anyone's lead Greg. It's about what we all wanted, almost everyone to a man, a document that was transparent and repeatable. We have it, and it's being ignored. It's about the precedent that sets and the implications to stability. Simple.

[jjjanos]

The CORRECT hp number given how we class cars. You simply don't tack on the full 25% to a car that has a factory mod eating into that gain already.

I think they do. Let's say someone manufactures a perfectly optimized-IT trim car. It isn't going to be classified with a 0% HP gain multiplier. The car is going to get the default multiplier unless and until there is sufficient evidence to show that the default is in error.



Now the car is classed at a number it has never proven to attain yet you have more dyno sheets on it than anything. Super.

Which would be evidence that the multiplier being used is incorrect, but apparently the powers that be didn't think it was sufficient.

[Greg Amy]

It's not about following anyone's lead Greg. It's about what we all wanted, almost everyone to a man, a document that was transparent and repeatable. We have it, and it's being ignored. It's about the precedent that sets and the implications to stability. Simple.
You left because the system wasn't working the way you wanted. Now you're crying and stomping your feet because the system is not working the way you wanted.

:shrug:

This is how committees, and Congress, democracy, and politics in general works. Or doesn't.

Do you expect that all my vision and work that I'm putting into Super Touring will be followed religiously once I leave the committee? I certainly don't. The best I can hope for - HOPE for - is that I present a vision that stands through time. But once I'm gone it's all fair game.

And for me to sit there and cry about it is pointless.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think they do. Let's say someone manufactures a perfectly optimized-IT trim car. It isn't going to be classified with a 0% HP gain multiplier. The car is going to get the default multiplier unless and until there is sufficient evidence to show that the default is in error.

Well they do if they don't have any information. If they 'know' it's fully optimizd, they would make an adjustment like the S2000 or Type R etc.




Which would be evidence that the multiplier being used is incorrect, but apparently the powers that be didn't think it was sufficient.

If by incorrect you mean 25% vs 27%, sure. But no car have even been sliced up like that. Never.

Again, using the Ops manual, you could have just said, 'in the interest of class equity, we are changing the weight on the Miata to 2440 based on known dyno numbers.

Done.

[Xian]

This may or may not be the right place for this question but here it goes.

I have been out of ITA for awhile so go easy on me.

If we are "sorta" "kinda" using published crank HP #'s with a 25%(1.25)HP increase assumption and 14.5lbs/HP multiplier and then adding or subtracting another arbitrary weight to equalize based on a "some of the parts" argument, can someone explain some of the other weights in the class?

ITA 1.6L Miata 116HP @ crank. Current Weight- 2255, Calculated weight(116*1.25*14.5=2102.5lbs)
Not that a 1.6 miata could get there but I guess the 1.6 miata gets 150lbs of "some of the parts" weight

ITA CRX 105HP @ crank. Current Weight-2250, Calculated weight(105*1.25*14.5=1903lbs or 105*1.30*14.5=1979)

As others have referenced, there's a "process" with adders and subtractors for stuff like FWD/struts/DW's/etc. IIRC, the 1.6 Miata comes out about where it should weight wise under the process.

The CRX (as I posted earlier in this thread) was a result of "what we know" where the weight was adjusted on real-world, IT legal, verified HP. It got 110# back in 05 as a result of this.


then they followed me into STL....NEMESIS!!!!

No escaping them! :blink:

[Andy Bettencourt]

You left because the system wasn't working the way you wanted. Now you're crying and stomping your feet because the system is not working the way you wanted.

:shrug:

This is how committees, and Congress, democracy, and politics in general works. Or doesn't.

Do you expect that all my vision and work that I'm putting into Super Touring will be followed religiously once I leave the committee? I certainly don't. The best I can hope for - HOPE for - is that I present a vision that stands through time. But once I'm gone it's all fair game.

And for me to sit there and cry about it is pointless.

Well there are some grey area's there. STL has a vision, not an Ops manual. Visions can drift, I get that. Hell I was part of that in the pre-document days of IT. I get it and it's a fact of life.

I am complaining because the CRB has allowed the ITAC to develop a document outlining how things work, and then are ignoring it. I stand by that 100%. See it how you will.

[Xian]

Do we really know that? Were there back to back sessions run with, without and with the weight to confirm?
I remember getting a scathing letter from Robert Moser who was not happy and felt the cars were worthless after the weight addition. And calls from his crew chief. (Ear is still ringing, LOL) But, King built new engines, intakes were changed, ignitions were changed, and I think they clawed back lap time.

But, I think it was bit by bit. I suspect, if they were allowed to remove the weight, and they developed for that setup, they'd be faster over the course of a race.

I don't disagree... you also have changes to track surface, weather differences from ARRC to ARRC, tire compound/construction changes, etc. My point was that a well-sorted and driven CRX was at the front of the pack before the weight and still is/can be with the weight. Would it be theoretically faster without the weight? Probably... but the weight didn't relegate them non-competitive or really impact their on-track performance/finishes.

Do I think that an equally well-driven/prepped Miata is the better car? Sure do. If for no other reason than weight distribution and consumables. It's less likely to break/burn-up stuff during a race than the FWD cars are.

PS
The intake/ignition stuff was, IIRC, b/c of legality rulings... again, they made the power back via different, legal methods.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The CRX (as I posted earlier in this thread) was a result of "what we know" where the weight was adjusted on real-world, IT legal, verified HP. It got 110# back in 05 as a result of this.



And for the record, changes were only made to cars that needed +/- 100lbs because anything less was deemed at the time (by the majority of the ITAC) as noise.

[Xian]

And for the record, changes were only made to cars that needed +/- 100lbs because anything less was deemed at the time (by the majority of the ITAC) as noise.

You sure? I thought the ITA Integra's got something like 70-80 #'s? I could be mis-remembering though...

[Kyle Freiheit]

Andy,
I actually think I get where you are coming from but it seems to me the OPS manual(finally read it) still leaves a bunch of room for fudge factors(on purpose?:shrug:). Whether we fudge the weight with "known HP vs theorhetical gain HP" is semantics, no?

Kyle

[marka]

Howdy,


I think they do. Let's say someone manufactures a perfectly optimized-IT trim car. It isn't going to be classified with a 0% HP gain multiplier. The car is going to get the default multiplier unless and until there is sufficient evidence to show that the default is in error.


...unless its a Neon. In which case FUCK YOU.

:-)

Mark

(don't bother to reply, I'm joking.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,
I actually think I get where you are coming from but it seems to me the OPS manual(finally read it) still leaves a bunch of room for fudge factors(on purpose?:shrug:). Whether we fudge the weight with "known HP vs theorhetical gain HP" is semantics, no?

Kyle

Good document huh? Josh and team did a nice job on it.

I am not sure there is much fudge room in there but feel free to call me out on that. 25% multiplier if you don't have solid info, actual power if you do. Firm adders for physical properties, etc. The only thing with a heavy level of subjectivity would be the torque adders IIRC.

I am sure I am missing something. Maybe your definition of fudge is different than mine. I consider fudge to be a change for changes sake and not with documentation.

[Kyle Freiheit]

Andy,
Yep, I think the OPS manual is well written. I like that there are firm numbers in place to show how a min weight can be established but lets be honest, its still not fully transparent as to why a GCR min weight is what it is.
What I mean, is that if you take every car and backtrack the math on every IT car you should basically come up with a HP number that the ITAC thinks a car should reach or has published numbers for, right? Are they going to tell us which is the case? Should they?

Kyle

[lateapex911]

Andy,
I actually think I get where you are coming from but it seems to me the OPS manual(finally read it) still leaves a bunch of room for fudge factors(on purpose?:shrug:). Whether we fudge the weight with "known HP vs theorhetical gain HP" is semantics, no?

Kyle

It's all fudging, to a degree. I mean cars are being manipulated to create a fair race. But the ops manual was done to make it consistent. IF > then logic. So that two cars that came in 6 years apart would get the same weight with the same inputs. So that committee members wouldn't argue that they just 'know' that car will clean up so it HAS to get more weight. The whole 'what we know' thing gets to be stacked errors and things go AWOL quickly. Even if the classing system isn't perfect, it makes the mistakes in a consistent and repeatable manner, and the end result is fair to all.

Another important factor was the quantification of standards of evidence. ONE dyno sheet from an unknown source is not 'known hp'. Multiple dyno sheets from multiple sources on engines built to IT specs but run in a different series that are under 1% apart in numbers IS 'known hp'.

When I was on the ITAC, and we had evidence, we listened to the presentation of evidence, had some questions and answers and discussions, then I polled the members and each one gave a confidence factor from 0% to 100%. IIRC if the average wasn't 75% or higher the evidence wasn't accepted. A case like the second one above would get an average vote of over 90%. (there's always one guy who's skeptical and gives a low percentage just because he doesn't know the source of the evidence first hand.....)

I was a proponent of having a dedicated website where the ITAC minutes and voting records were 'published' for the public to see. My thinking was that the members are the ultimate bosses, and there should be nothing happening in a meeting that should be hidden from the membership. And publishing voting records is a great way to show the members that people are voting responsibly. It would help eliminate suspicions of self serving behavior and would involve the membership in the process. I'm not pleased to say this, but I heard things on committee that, if the person saying them knew would be part of a public record, would never have been said or pursued.

As far as I was concerned, a major factor in the club is transparency and avoiding even the appearance of hanky panky. Sunshine is the best cleanser.

[Kyle Freiheit]

Jake,
Thanks for the insight. I feel as Andy does that the way they increased the weight wasn't consistent with how weights are made and therefore a bad precedent. That being said, the end weight is probably not to far off.

Kyle

[lateapex911]

Agreed Kyle.
IT should be noted that IT is the only category in the club with such a system in place. Most other categories are 'actively managed'. In other words, a weight is set for a car in X Prod, and then the letters come form the competition saying it's too light, or from the models owners saying it's too heavy. Both sides make cases. The Prod comittee and the CRB 'observe' and then manage the weight if they think a car is going to win too often or by too much or whatever. Obviously, if you have the appropriate dictator this can work, and work well, but also, its a system ripe with ways to go off track. It's much better when the number of cars is small.
ST does is in a hybrid manner. You choose an engine, and them multiply by a weight factor. Trouble is, the engines are stock based and intake and head components are stock, which will affect power and could result in a 'one horse show'. Too early to tell, and it's a great ruleset and an interesting approach.
In IT, we use the Process in an attempt to remove human elements. There are more than 300 cars classed in 5 classes, so managing all of them and setting weights with a volunteer committee that changes over the years created some issues. Remember too, that it had been cast in some ancient stone rulebook that once set IT weights could not be changed, only the car could be reclassed. Documentation through the years was essentially non existent, and the 'systems used' were not documented either. Having a repeatable Process for such a large category where cars are 'plug and play' was seen as a way to get things in order, and by large it's been pretty successful.
But getting it instituted was a uphill battle as the club and CRB culture was 180 degrees opposite: Set weights, see what happens, watch on track, and adjust. Kudos to the members of the CRB who were forward thinking and let the 'experiemnt' happen. And the culture of SCCA though the years has been loath to set things in writing for all to see. HUGE props to the ITAC and CRB for getting the Ops Manual published.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,
Yep, I think the OPS manual is well written. I like that there are firm numbers in place to show how a min weight can be established but lets be honest, its still not fully transparent as to why a GCR min weight is what it is.
What I mean, is that if you take every car and backtrack the math on every IT car you should basically come up with a HP number that the ITAC thinks a car should reach or has published numbers for, right? Are they going to tell us which is the case? Should they?

Kyle

Jake explained well. As to your second question, yes and no. Unfortunately, there are 3 'kinds' or classifications out there.

1. Cars that were never run through the process. Mostly older cars nobody runs and has no interest in. These cars tend to be pre-SAE Hp cars where using the pulbished HP number would result in a much-to-high weight.

2. Process V.1 classifications. Cars that were run through the grinder with a process that was written as a guideline using much of what you see in the Ops Manual.

3. Process V.2 classifications. Cars that are being run through via Ops Manual. Things like a change from a fixed weight by class to a % for FWD and the elimination of some of the more subjective adders. Also the implementation of a 'confidence factor' like Jake described that we developed when I was there too. IMHO it has the ability to be nice and tidy when used.

All involved know it is not a perfect scenario. Estimations on HP in IT prep can be off, who knows how accurate compensations for suspension, layout, torque, etc are. The idea is to create a set of classes based on a target power to weight for each and then make fixed compensations based on physical properties...all to try and get 'close', but to do it the same way every time so even though we can agree nothing is 'right', it's all 'wrong' the same way, each time.

[JeffYoung]

Yes, I initially opposed this change because we had already hashed out and voted on once the issue driving it (low/high stock hp). I still don't like the fact we changed the weight on this car after having discussed this issue to death and voted on it internally over a year ago, and that is exactly what I said on our internal board.

It's not fair at all to say we are ignoring the Ops Manual. It does not say we MUST use the low stock hp on a spec line. It says we are supposed to look at it and decide if there is enough evidence to establish that the change was due to something that was 'free" under the IT rules. Then we are allowed to use the low stock hp.

We choose not too. Andy disagrees. But we are NOT ignoring the Ops Manual. It has some flexibility in it, on this issue and others.

I agree with Greg pretty much 100%, which as most know is rare. I am tired -- very tired - of exITAC folks leading the charge on nitpicking every decision we make going forward. We operate as a committee. We have different viewpoints on things. That means our decisions on policy issues are not going to line up 100% with everyone's grand view for IT. And this committee is different and has different views from the past ones.

I personally HATE the FWD modifier and the way it was implemented. And yet I dutifully apply it every time we class a FWD car and -- guess what? -- IT hasn't died because my vision of integrity and consistency and logic wasn't followed.

Probably 99% of what we do follows the Process and the Ops Manual. And on the very rare occasion where there is an issue, EVERY TIME it gets trotted out as end of the world, sky is falling, Chicken Little nonsense.

This is the stuff that wears out and burns out committee members. It's not the hours we spend on committee, or on our own doing research, it's getting flambed here and other places over TWENTY POUNDS.

Or because we chose to add weight one way rather than another.

I was almost a casaulty of the ITAC purge back in early 2010. Josh asked me to stay, as did Dick, and I think probably went to bat to kept me with folks who didn't want me on. In the course of discussions with Josh and Dick, they made me realize something -- we had a lot of ideologues on that committee, my self included. And maybe that was what was needed at the time to get something as radical as the process through.

But being an ideologue is dangerous because it really limits your ability to see other view points and work on a committee.

The Miata is not a sky is falling issue. The Accord might be. Why one is getting the attention it is and the other not so much is telling.

[lateapex911]

Yes, I initially opposed this change because we had already hashed out and voted on once the issue driving it (low/high stock hp). I still don't like the fact we changed the weight on this car after having discussed this issue to death and voted on it internally over a year ago, and that is exactly what I said on our internal board.

It's not fair at all to say we are ignoring the Ops Manual. It does not say we MUST use the low stock hp on a spec line. It says we are supposed to look at it and decide if there is enough evidence to establish that the change was due to something that was 'free" under the IT rules. Then we are allowed to use the low stock hp.

We choose not too. Andy disagrees. But we are NOT ignoring the Ops Manual. It has some flexibility in it, on this issue and others.

I agree with Greg pretty much 100%, which as most know is rare. I am tired -- very tired - of exITAC folks leading the charge on nitpicking every decision we make going forward. We operate as a committee. We have different viewpoints on things. That means our decisions on policy issues are not going to line up 100% with everyone's grand view for IT. And this committee is different and has different views from the past ones.

I personally HATE the FWD modifier and the way it was implemented. And yet I dutifully apply it every time we class a FWD car and -- guess what? -- IT hasn't died because my vision of integrity and consistency and logic wasn't followed.

Probably 99% of what we do follows the Process and the Ops Manual. And on the very rare occasion where there is an issue, EVERY TIME it gets trotted out as end of the world, sky is falling, Chicken Little nonsense.

This is the stuff that wears out and burns out committee members. It's not the hours we spend on committee, or on our own doing research, it's getting flambed here and other places over TWENTY POUNDS.

Or because we chose to add weight one way rather than another.

I was almost a casaulty of the ITAC purge back in early 2010. Josh asked me to stay, as did Dick, and I think probably went to bat to kept me with folks who didn't want me on. In the course of discussions with Josh and Dick, they made me realize something -- we had a lot of ideologues on that committee, my self included. And maybe that was what was needed at the time to get something as radical as the process through.

But being an ideologue is dangerous because it really limits your ability to see other view points and work on a committee.

The Miata is not a sky is falling issue. The Accord might be. Why one is getting the attention it is and the other not so much is telling.

Good points all, Jeff.

At the time of the 'purge', I could see you leaving, but I'm glad you stayed. You've been a key member of the ITAC, and you are an active racer who travels a bit, so your views aren't one track.
Anyway, regarding the Accord. Not a big thing...yet. I think the reason nobody is saying anything is that it's not really 'out'. Nobody really knows whats going on.
I've gleaned together this:
Peter Keane was on the ITAC, then the CRB. Then he joined the ITAC again. Now he's back on the CRB. He raced Acccords in ITB for several years with his brother, who won the ARRC, IIRC. He has since sold his but his brother still races his Accord. When he was on the ITAC he was the guy who championed 'the deal' to allow multivalve cars into ITB, IF they were factored at 30%, not the standard 25% as they would if they were classed in ITA, or ITS.
Peters car had been processed previously. Recently, somebody requested that the Accord be run through again, and that the 'proper' factor be applied, and it was done.
Now, I understand that Peter has requested that the car be RE classified at a lower weight, and has submitted dyno sheets to prove the engine doesn't make the 30% the Process predicts such a multivalve engine will make...(.but only in ITB.)

Thats my background based on what I have inferred from my reading of the two boards.
To my eyes, it's an ironic and troubling development, if I'm to be honest, as Peter was a staunch defender of the 30% factor and has argued heavily against the MR2s being given any break on their weight which was set at 30% until just recently when it was lowered to 25%.
My knowledge is that the ITAC has received reams of information showing that car makes MAYbe 12%, from multiple sources and credible ones at that, as well as having Chip, an MR2 expert on the board, but Peter has insisted on con calls that, 'Its a Formula Atlantic motor", and rejects the claims that it can't make power.

In my eyes, if the MR2 is denied being adjusted to 'known hp' or run at 15%, then the Accord better be rejected too.
If the Accord is reclassified at a lower weight reflecting the data presented, then the MR2 better be adjusted as well.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I'm troubled by the appearance of a CRB member who seems to protect his turf a bit too aggressively.

I am reacting to the information as I have gleaned it, but that information could be wrong, and my reactions could be off base. So I'd appreciate any filling in or corrections to my admittedly third hand info. (in some cases, in other cases I've been on the con calls and heard things first hand)

[Andy Bettencourt]

It says we are supposed to look at it and decide if there is enough evidence to establish that the change was due to something that was 'free" under the IT rules. Then we are allowed to use the low stock hp.

We choose not too. Andy disagrees. But we are NOT ignoring the Ops Manual. It has some flexibility in it, on this issue and others.

Ok, fine. Can you tell us why you chose not to? One would think that the facts are there and it would be a no-brainer. Your insight as to why would help us all.

And it's ok to say 'We rejected the letter to add weight and the CRB asked us to reconsider. They then suggested we run it through the process at the higher stock HP "just like every other car in the ITCS". Maybe it's just a case of the CRB forcing you to do something and you finding a way to get it done.



The Miata is not a sky is falling issue. The Accord might be. Why one is getting the attention it is and the other not so much is telling.First off, nobody knows about the Accord issue. It's not telling at all. If you want it to get attention, trot out the facts on this board and see what happens.

As has been said before, this was an issue of an apparent end-around on the Ops Manual. Based on your answer to the question above, people can make their own decision. The Miata may be a crack in the dam, people are just trying to stand up for what's right before the crack gets bigger.

On edit: Lets be clear on what happened when I was on the committee. We didn't have nearly the level of recording and standards as we did toward the end of my tenure. So I have seen both sides and how much better it is now. The influence 'experts' had on decisions and how we took them as gospel wasn't great for the class - it was way better than nothing, but still not great. IT was the 'it's good enough with no backup' era before the process.

[tom91ita]

RE: Accord issue?

did it gain 100#'s by getting the ITB 1.3 factor?

when i used it in my comparisons for the crx si, i think it was at 2550. and then it appeared to be right at a 1.25 factor

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27792

[Andy Bettencourt]

RE: Accord issue?

did it gain 100#'s by getting the ITB 1.3 factor?

when i used it in my comparisons for the crx si, i think it was at 2550. and then it appeared to be right at a 1.25 factor

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27792

Yes. It was classed at 25% and I think that number is very accurate based on what I have HEARD they make. When the 30% multi-valve rule was put in ITB, it got re-done at 30% per the Ops Manual.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think we are pretty much hashed out on the Miata weight and it's validity. Smart people will disagree.

I will be running the new weight on Memorial Day weekend for fun against the class at 2380. It will help my Goodyears heat up faster. :)

[JeffYoung]

For me, you are going to have to have rock solid 100% proof that a change in hp was due to something that is free in IT.

There is a lot of information out there on the 128 to 133 jump and in my mind it's not crystal clear. To you it is. We disagree. The Ops Manual allows us the flexbility to do that without one side screaming that the other is ignoring the rules.


Ok, fine. Can you tell us why you chose not to? One would think that the facts are there and it would be a no-brainer. Your insight as to why would help us all.

And it's ok to say 'We rejected the letter to add weight and the CRB asked us to reconsider. They then suggested we run it through the process at the higher stock HP "just like every other car in the ITCS". Maybe it's just a case of the CRB forcing you to do something and you finding a way to get it done.


First off, nobody knows about the Accord issue. It's not telling at all. If you want it to get attention, trot out the facts on this board and see what happens.

As has been said before, this was an issue of an apparent end-around on the Ops Manual. Based on your answer to the question above, people can make their own decision. The Miata may be a crack in the dam, people are just trying to stand up for what's right before the crack gets bigger.

On edit: Lets be clear on what happened when I was on the committee. We didn't have nearly the level of recording and standards as we did toward the end of my tenure. So I have seen both sides and how much better it is now. The influence 'experts' had on decisions and how we took them as gospel wasn't great for the class - it was way better than nothing, but still not great. IT was the 'it's good enough with no backup' era before the process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

For me, you are going to have to have rock solid 100% proof that a change in hp was due to something that is free in IT.

There is a lot of information out there on the 128 to 133 jump and in my mind it's not crystal clear. To you it is. We disagree. The Ops Manual allows us the flexbility to do that without one side screaming that the other is ignoring the rules.

So what research did the committee do to validate the information? One call to Wheeler would have your answer. Or one call to Mazdaspeed.

This isn't open for interpretation here Jeff. It's fact. There is NO factory information out there that jump from 128 to 133 was due to anything other than ECU. The piston change was to bring the early motors up to the actual advertised CR, which it was below. All that is out there.

I'm done. Gets worse every time I open this thread. If any Mazda lurkers want to help validate this issue go ahead. Price is out there.

[tnord]

Jeff -

It's reasonable to not believe *anything* on the internet. Instead call Tim Buck at Mazda Motorsports. Call Sam Henry at Springfield Dyno. Heck, call Jim Drago on the CRB/East Street Automotive. they can all tell you about the power being from the ECU.

[Kyle Freiheit]

Anyone ever pulled the restrictor plate off of a top level 94 1.8L Spec Miata on the dyno? How many HP is the RP robbing? I have seen a pretty good 94 1.8L pull low 120s on a dynojet(same dyno where good 1.6s are low 120s).

Kyle

EDIT: My SM buddy has pulled his RP on the dyno and says for him it was worth 4hp or so. That would put a good Spec miata built 1.8 motor at mid to high 120whp on a Dynojet.

[Chip42]

I'm really over the miata discussion. YES the CRB ASKED us to look at it. we decided that EVEN THOUGH the change was small, we should look at the higher HP, lower HP and Known HP numbers. we did. there was not confidence that the dyno plots were accurate and NOT leaving something on the table. so we went ahead and just ran it at the higher number, because that added 1 whp over the dyno plots and EVERYONE on the call that night signed off on it.

compromise, using the ops manual. with CRB involvement but NOT directing things.

the dam is holding.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ok, I'll let it die. I have dealt enough with Chip and Jeff to know that I like them and trust them. I am so invested in the decision from EVERY angle that it's tough not to just keep responding to every rumor, thought process and procedure. I don't have to agree with it and that is fine.

As always, thanks to Jeff and Chip for staying on here and bashing these things out like Jake and I did when we were in their shoes.

As Lawton said today, 'I admire your persistence...got a new truck...can't wait for the NHMS race...bringing the family...let's pull up our panties and race!'

You got it.

[highwayracer]

That's it? :shrug:

I just made more popcorn....

[quadzjr]

And I am ALL FOR dyno sheet adjustments. It's fair and the right thing to do. But as we tried to codify when I was on the ITAC, at what threshold do you trigger an adjustment? This mid-way between 25% and 30% is 2whp people.

My suggestion has always been the nearest 5%. 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, etc. Until you hit that next level, you stay the same. It eliminates the dyno noise and demonstrates enough of a difference to warrant a change yet still be 'stable'.

**not about Miata** What happens when you are over 10% away from your classed percentage? Which in ITB is approximately 100lbs for every 5% I am halfway between 10 and 15 have to fight to get the car down form 30 to 25. A few months ago I put in more data to back up a letter. I hope that it is resolved soon.

It was my impression from talking to multiple members on the ITAC over the past few years I have been working to correct this error. That if "known hp" is used and you end up between two numbers you get rounded up. I am not going to stop developing my car. Heck my motor is a time bomb, that i built for the sole purpose of putting to bed what the motor car do in IT trim. Obviously there is always "something" that can be done to any build, but still counting pennies when we are off by dollars.

[JLawton]

As Lawton said today, 'I admire your persistence...got a new truck...can't wait for the NHMS race...bringing the family...let's pull up our panties and race!'

You got it.

OK, you're paraphrasing just a little! :)


But it's true. Screw the 80lbs. I've got way more opportunity "fixing" the driver than I do worrying about 80lbs................. "Shut up and drive!!!" Let's go race!!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

**not about Miata** What happens when you are over 10% away from your classed percentage? Which in ITB is approximately 100lbs for every 5% I am halfway between 10 and 15 have to fight to get the car down form 30 to 25. A few months ago I put in more data to back up a letter. I hope that it is resolved soon.

It was my impression from talking to multiple members on the ITAC over the past few years I have been working to correct this error. That if "known hp" is used and you end up between two numbers you get rounded up. I am not going to stop developing my car. Heck my motor is a time bomb, that i built for the sole purpose of putting to bed what the motor car do in IT trim. Obviously there is always "something" that can be done to any build, but still counting pennies when we are off by dollars.

So the MR2 is still in limbo. Tough to know where they are on that. It's a 3-4 year issue.

Now on what you describe, I am not sure it's been codified in the Ops manual but I can tell you from recollection what has been considered. When you use 'known hp' for a weight increase, you use the exact number to reset as the baseline. So lets say it's classed at 25% and it's proven to be about 32%. They would use a dyno number they were confident the car could achieve, back into a crank number and then multiply through. Typically, no change has been made when known numbers are within 5% of the current number but there is nothing codifying that either. We tried to at one point when I was there but we must have gotten derailed. It's amazingly time consuming to have to write down and lock in procedure for every little nuance of a thought process.

In the case of a weight reduction or 'proving a negative', they would look at the dyno sheets and then probably round up to the nearest 5% to allow for any further development. So in the case of the MR2, if they has a slew showing 11-13% gains, going from 25% to 15% would be an easy vote IMHO (actual number may vary).

[Chip42]

So the MR2 is still in limbo. Tough to know where they are on that. It's a 3-4 year issue.

...
In the case of a weight reduction or 'proving a negative', they would look at the dyno sheets and then probably round up to the nearest 5% to allow for any further development. So in the case of the MR2, if they has a slew showing 11-13% gains, going from 25% to 15% would be an easy vote IMHO (actual number may vary).

there are a PILE of letters on the MR2, basiclaly steven and the whole MARRS contingent have written in, and obviously it's an issue that I want addressed, too. the biggest problem lately is a shrinking ITAC memebrship, other issues that are "easier" jumping ahead in line, CRB interest changing the priorities further, etc...

there's also the "political" side of the thing, the car has a realistic floor weight of ~2300 lbs, give or take. 15% puts it at 2240, 20% at 2335, and 25% (current weight) at 2430. the dyno data we have is conclusive in proving the negative, but not in establishing the actual potential (based on expressed confidences and oppinions by members) so we will be picking a 5% step rather than working back from a "known" wheel number. 20% is still heavy, 15% is for all intents unachievable, even if "correct" per the above. some members have expressed difficulty with the idea of a 190# adjustment. no doubt the CRB will do a double take on it as well. setting an intermediate weight breaks from process and is a precedent we do not want to set, and adjusting to 20% still leaves the cars realisitially 35# above their actual minimum achievable weight AND 95+ over correct weight per process.

it's a PIA. and it's not getting the attention it needs.

if I were king, we'd class it at 15% and move on, but I do understand the other members' concerns, and I am biased. then again, if I were king, the process would be a lot more complicated and involve torque and stuff, becasue I'm not prone to developing simple solutions (though I try). The Process works REALLY well in ITA up to ITR (even with the disagreements between ops manual and established cars in R, and we are investigating). ITB and C see such HUGE weight swings for small changes in power that it leads a lot of overweight cars, some of which are still observably very fast on track. that on-track observation leads to foot dragging to make changes. cue viscious cycle.

[spnkzss]

I gave up after 6 pages. :dead_horse:

I do have a question that concerns me a lot more than a weight add that WILL NOT slow the miata down in the least bit.

Why June 1? Why not wait till the off season. A weight change mid year seems outside IT Philosophy.

[Greg Amy]

A weight change mid year seems outside IT Philosophy.
Intra-year weight changes are decisively within the authority of the CRB, along with tire sizes and restrictors... - GA

[quadzjr]

I would not Settle for 20%. That is way off the hp mark. I have built a fiarly stout motor utilizing everything possible within the rule set. A custom header built to burns mathmatics, a tuned ECU, super light oil. and I make what 2hp more than a guy with a bone stock motor, stock computer, with off the shelf header and intake. How much more capability do they think the motor has. Knowing what I have submitted to the ITAC I would really like for them to let me know the smoking gun that is going to net the huge gains that I have not implemented.

from a HP standpoint I am at 107.9hp (with crap for torque but another story and most within the IT community that I am aware of). Most guys of the IT guys are in the 103 to 106 range. as you can see the majority of the 4AGE IT community is running aroudn out there at 10% gains.

as a brief rundown for expected wheel hp for gain percentage.

10% 104.72
15% 109.48
20% 114.24
25% 119.00
30% 123.76

Remember the reason why the car needs an 190lb break is because it was classed with a multivalve 30% number that had nothing to do with the engine performance. If anybody has information stating what I have is false, skewed, or incorrect please let me know. If anybody on the ITAC has any information on ways to make more power (additional to the build sheet I submitted). I would be very interested. If you have a point of contact that I can talk to that has information to bridge the over 10whp gap I would also be very appreciated.

If there is no research or data on IT or similiar builds please make a decision just like you did for the miata. Give us a weight number to shoot for. It is true that the cars will have a very hard time, and the later cars if at all possible, to get down to 15% weight. Remember if you were to use the dyno plots the car would be classed at 13% weight. Adding weight to MR2 because of achieveable weights,is just putting the MR2 at another level still way off from being competitive.

Class the car at 15% (which we still have yet to achieve) and let us work to get the cars down to weight. Classing based on possible weight for the MR2 might not be the case for the other 4AGE powered cars (AE86, FX16)

The 4AGE powered community is growing very tired of being uncompeitive because of politics that is no fault of their own.

[JohnW8]

Why June 1? Why not wait till the off season. A weight change mid year seems outside IT Philosophy.


This was my biggest gripe. My car was already overweight... so what's a few more pounds. IF the ITA Miata argument has been going on for years then this change shouldn't have been a June 1st surprise. The need to now redo half of what I did in the off season is a PITA. (Engine #3 was the other half). I don't have scales or a trailer so I need to borrow both and burn another weekend or two to make this adjustment. I suppose the CRB has the right to make these rule changes but considering this is amateur racing it might be less painful if announcements like these are made during the off season. Either before the season begins, when most of us are working on our cars anyway, or after the season ends when changes are likely needed anyway. I like to get the car ready to go for the season (4-5 races) then only have oil changes and nut and bolt sessions between races because in the Spring and Summer, off weekends are hard to come by.

[JoshS]

When you use 'known hp' for a weight increase, you use the exact number to reset as the baseline. So lets say it's classed at 25% and it's proven to be about 32%. They would use a dyno number they were confident the car could achieve, back into a crank number and then multiply through. Typically, no change has been made when known numbers are within 5% of the current number but there is nothing codifying that either. We tried to at one point when I was there but we must have gotten derailed. It's amazingly time consuming to have to write down and lock in procedure for every little nuance of a thought process.

In the case of a weight reduction or 'proving a negative', they would look at the dyno sheets and then probably round up to the nearest 5% to allow for any further development. So in the case of the MR2, if they has a slew showing 11-13% gains, going from 25% to 15% would be an easy vote IMHO (actual number may vary).

Andy, you are still misleading the masses, unintentionally. Either you use stock horsepower and a gain (not based on dynos!), OR you use dyno power. If you are mentioning "percentage gain" *and* dyno power in the same breath, you are doing it wrong.

The reason for this is that if the dyno-based expected horsepower differs dramatically from the published-spec-based expected horsepower, it might not be the gain that was in error -- it might be the published spec. So you can't go futzing with the gain or comparing gains from one car to another.

So there should never be any "round up to the nearest 5%" discussion, ever. The Ops Manual makes this all pretty clear.

To remind everyone, to download the IT Ops Manual:
1) Go to scca.com
2) Log in to your account
3) Go to "Resources->File Cabinet"
4) Ops Manual link is under "Club Racing"

[quadzjr]

So there should never be any "round up to the nearest 5%" discussion, ever. The Ops Manual makes this all pretty clear.

To remind everyone, to download the IT Ops Manual:
1) Go to scca.com
2) Log in to your account
3) Go to "Resources->File Cabinet"
4) Ops Manual link is under "Club Racing"

If that is the case. ITAC. Do you want me to write another letter to classify the car at known power at 13%?

[Marcus Miller]

If that is the case. ITAC. Do you want me to write another letter to classify the car at known power at 13%?


Nah, that right thar is a formula Atlantic motor :dead_horse:

[JoshS]

If that is the case. ITAC. Do you want me to write another letter to classify the car at known power at 13%?

No, that wouldn't be the right approach. The right approach would be to ask them to use the "known horsepower" method and assign the weight based on the highest-available credible dyno horsepower.

Again ... you don't back into a multiplier based on dyno horsepower. If you are going to use dyno horsepower, you simply ignore stock power and multipliers, and just use the dyno power, converted to crank horsepower.

[Chip42]

there is established precedent, though not explicit in the ops manual, to use a multiplier OTHER than 25% (or the "default" 30% ITB/C multivalve or as currently CRB imposed on V8s in ITR) when evidence shows the gain potential to be other but ACTUAL wheel hp to be unknown. S200s and other 4cyls in ITR are good examples.

in the case of the MR2, it's not all about proving HP any more (there are still doubters on comittee, and well, PK), it's the fact that dropping the car to 15% (based on above precedent and dyno data showing ~13% to be the max to date) means 190# publsihed min weight change from the current (25%) weight, or 285# since the change was made from 30% roughly a year ago. there's a feelign that even if that passed the membership sniff test (not everyone is aware of the details) that it would not pass CRB muster. I disagree with politically derived decisions when good mathematics exist, but there you go. fWIW, 108whp becomes 2210 lbs in ITB, assuming 15% driveline losses. functionally no different than a 15% classification as only a car driven by an 8 year old will get that light.

[shwah]

I would hope that any use of actual wheel hp would rely on more than a single data point, or at least more than one dyno to generate numbers on that engine. I do not know anything about what data is or is not in front of the ITAC, but we do all know how easy it can be to tweak dyno numbers - whether via ecu tuning, tires/wheels, correction factors etc. Enough variables that can have an impact of significant weight in ITB and C that someone could honestly inadvertently submit flawed data (low or high).

[JoshS]

there is established precedent, though not explicit in the ops manual, to use a multiplier OTHER than 25% (30% ITB/C multivalve or as currently CRB imposed on V8s in ITR) when evidence shows the gain potential to be other but ACTUAL wheel hp to be unknown. S200s and other 4cyls in ITR are good examples.

You are right, of course, and it is discussed in the Ops Manual:

If nothing is actually known about this engine when built to the limit of the IT rules, but yet, the ITAC believes that the 25% or 30% number is in error, then one ITAC member should present a case as to what the correct “power multiplier” should be, and then the remaining ITAC members should each register a “confidence vote” in that number. If collectively the ITAC believes with 75% confidence that the alternate number is likely to be more accurate, then that number can be used. Note that if dyno results are being considered, then the “known horsepower” method should be used, and not the “published horsepower” method.

Note the first and last sentences though. In any case, there's nothing really wrong here as the Ops Manual is a set of guidelines, not a set of fixed rules.

[Chip42]

I would hope that any use of actual wheel hp would rely on more than a single data point, or at least more than one dyno to generate numbers on that engine. I do not know anything about what data is or is not in front of the ITAC, but we do all know how easy it can be to tweak dyno numbers - whether via ecu tuning, tires/wheels, correction factors etc. Enough variables that can have an impact of significant weight in ITB and C that someone could honestly inadvertently submit flawed data (low or high).

we ABSOLUTELY need more thnaa single car/dyno combination for compensation. it makes life hard for the people who drive "oddball" cars, unfortunately.

[JoshS]

I would hope that any use of actual wheel hp would rely on more than a single data point, or at least more than one dyno to generate numbers on that engine. I do not know anything about what data is or is not in front of the ITAC, but we do all know how easy it can be to tweak dyno numbers - whether via ecu tuning, tires/wheels, correction factors etc. Enough variables that can have an impact of significant weight in ITB and C that someone could honestly inadvertently submit flawed data (low or high).

Also from the Ops Manual:

Care should be taken that the highest dyno numbers seen are used, and that cars classed by this method should be at the limit of the IT rules. ... It is expected that the committee would bring with them a healthy amount of skepticism when it comes to reviewing dyno sheets. One should take into account the source of the info, the shop that ran the dyno, information about how well-prepared the car and the engine car, who did the build, and any hidden motives of anyone involved in providing the data. In the best of circumstances, dyno results are hard to trust as they can be extremely variable even when all conditions are the same.

And beyond that, the committee is to have a registered "high confidence" in the dyno numbers, and having just a single dyno sheet should not instill high confidence in anyone.

[lateapex911]

I HATE two aspects of the situation with the MR2 as Chip describes it. (Well, more actually if you count the absolute BS that members of the various committees have given that car by stonewalling and being general jerks over it, but I digress)

1- The "It will look bad if we drop the weight too much" argument
Really? It looks REALLY bad that EVERYONE knows it's a huge clusterfuck now, and the PTB think it's going to look bad to FIX it? Talk about missing the point and lacking perception of the situation! I suppose those who don't want the mistake 'exposed' are concerned with the people out there who don't know the backstory, but really, A: how many can there be that have missed this saga? and B: Do we really care more about the disinterested casual observer who's not been paying attention for 4 years or the actual guys investing time and money into club racing that have been getting screwed for year after year???

Secondly, if you KNOW you are wrong, and you try to hide the amount of your error, you lack integrity. Thats shitty, Sorry, it is. I get that sometimes things are grey, and we are on committees, but, if there are members who wish to mess with the numbers to make themselves look less bad: Please stop, just do the math and let it free.
(And i should point out that I'm guilty in this whole thing as well. I should have done more and been a bigger PIA over it when i was on the ITAC. But as Jeff points out, you have to compromise on committees. In my defense I know I went over the edge sometimes and pissed off the CRB over other cars, (and I'm sure this one as well) but, I am among the guilty on this car.)

2- The 'it can't make minimum weight " argument: I have experience in this. As basically one man 'teams' we all bring to the race our collection of talents. Lets face it, the guys who can drive AND wrench AND manage AND fabricate AND invent are going to do better than those who can merely drive. So, achieving minimum weight is a skill set.
My car (1st gen RX-7 ) is in a similar situation as the MR2. Processed properly for ITA, it would weigh less than it's current 2280. OF course getting the weight set in the GCR to even 2280 was a battle. And I remember members of the the committee saying things like "No sense going lower, it's unattainable", and "We shouldn't set it too low, it's just makes us look bad".
I went along, because campaigning for your own car is a conflict of interest, but I really don't like the concept.

Set the weight where it should be. If it's less than achievable, oh well. Heck the committee sets HP above what has been proven possible ALL THE TIME, so why should they do the opposite for weight?? Makes no sense policywise. (I understand that low weight costs money, but we can not control spending to any real degree)
In my own case, I'm 220 pounds with helmet and boots and suit on, and I'm rolling over the scales at 2290 with some extra gas. Hmmm, so actually, my CAR is UNDER weight (Assumed driver weight is 180) And guess what? If I wanted, I can get more weight out. Like 40 or more pounds. And I personally could stand to lose weight, at least 10 pounds. So, I could be rolling across the scales at 2240 or 50.

To the committee and the CRB:
DO the right thing on this car:
Set the weight where it should be. Let THEM worry about getting there. If you get a letter asking for plastic windows because they can't make weight, just say, no. (If you want, add a line in the response that says, "Hey, at least you never have to worry about roiling in a pound light and getting DQ'ed")

Set the weight where it should be. Who CARES if it's a big drop, It's WAY over now. FIX it, and move on. It's the ONLY way to save face and it's the right thing to do. Period.

To the ITAC: What IS the right weight? If I were on the committee, I'd be consistent. Remember the RX-8? We got sheets showing what was it, 212.5 hp and 213 hp? And we set the weight based on 215, to guard against future power creep? Do the same thing with the MR2. Round up a touch. Then do the math, and walk away, and you will never have to revisit it again, and you will get applause from the people who know what has happened over the years.

[quadzjr]

I HATE two aspects of the situation with the MR2 as Chip describes it. (Well, more actually if you count the absolute BS that members of the various committees have given that car by stonewalling and being general jerks over it, but I digress)

1- The "It will look bad if we drop the weight too much" argument
Really? It looks REALLY bad that EVERYONE knows it's a huge clusterfuck now, and the PTB think it's going to look bad to FIX it? Talk about missing the point and lacking perception of the situation! I suppose those who don't want the mistake 'exposed' are concerned with the people out there who don't know the backstory, but really, A: how many can there be that have missed this saga? and B: Do we really care more about the disinterested casual observer who's not been paying attention for 4 years or the actual guys investing time and money into club racing that have been getting screwed for year after year???

Secondly, if you KNOW you are wrong, and you try to hide the amount of your error, you lack integrity. Thats shitty, Sorry, it is. I get that sometimes things are grey, and we are on committees, but, if there are members who wish to mess with the numbers to make themselves look less bad: Please stop, just do the math and let it free.
(And i should point out that I'm guilty in this whole thing as well. I should have done more and been a bigger PIA over it when i was on the ITAC. But as Jeff points out, you have to compromise on committees. In my defense I know I went over the edge sometimes and pissed off the CRB over other cars, (and I'm sure this one as well) but, I am among the guilty on this car.)

2- The 'it can't make minimum weight " argument: I have experience in this. As basically one man 'teams' we all bring to the race our collection of talents. Lets face it, the guys who can drive AND wrench AND manage AND fabricate AND invent are going to do better than those who can merely drive. So, achieving minimum weight is a skill set.
My car (1st gen RX-7 ) is in a similar situation as the MR2. Processed properly for ITA, it would weigh less than it's current 2280. OF course getting the weight set in the GCR to even 2280 was a battle. And I remember members of the the committee saying things like "No sense going lower, it's unattainable", and "We shouldn't set it too low, it's just makes us look bad".
I went along, because campaigning for your own car is a conflict of interest, but I really don't like the concept.

Set the weight where it should be. If it's less than achievable, oh well. Heck the committee sets HP above what has been proven possible ALL THE TIME, so why should they do the opposite for weight?? Makes no sense policywise. (I understand that low weight costs money, but we can not control spending to any real degree)
In my own case, I'm 220 pounds with helmet and boots and suit on, and I'm rolling over the scales at 2290 with some extra gas. Hmmm, so actually, my CAR is UNDER weight (Assumed driver weight is 180) And guess what? If I wanted, I can get more weight out. Like 40 or more pounds. And I personally could stand to lose weight, at least 10 pounds. So, I could be rolling across the scales at 2240 or 50.

To the committee and the CRB:
DO the right thing on this car:
Set the weight where it should be. Let THEM worry about getting there. If you get a letter asking for plastic windows because they can't make weight, just say, no. (If you want, add a line in the response that says, "Hey, at least you never have to worry about roiling in a pound light and getting DQ'ed")

Set the weight where it should be. Who CARES if it's a big drop, It's WAY over now. FIX it, and move on. It's the ONLY way to save face and it's the right thing to do. Period.

To the ITAC: What IS the right weight? If I were on the committee, I'd be consistent. Remember the RX-8? We got sheets showing what was it, 212.5 hp and 213 hp? And we set the weight based on 215, to guard against future power creep? Do the same thing with the MR2. Round up a touch. Then do the math, and walk away, and you will never have to revisit it again, and you will get applause from the people who know what has happened over the years.

That you, Pretty much sums up my rants over the past few years. I bolded the last part just to show that I would like to make that point.

People are skeptical, as you should be as a law making or in the case of the ACs law proposing to the CRB. What I cannot figure out for the life of me is that there has be no evidence EVER that discredits anything that I have stated on here about the 4AGE paper. I have submitted cliff notes version SAE (society of automotive engineering) documents written by the engineers that designed the engine in Japan in 1983-84. I have submitted over a dozen dyno sheets, engine builds. I have asked the ITAC to do their own research. NOTHING of any credibility that is pertinent to IT level builds only comments

-"It's a formula atlantic motor" (which I submitted a paper detailing the differences between the two engines)
-"I know a guy that made power" (I have asked for years for any information on this name, owner, builder, etc..and recieved nothing. If a person did infact "make power" then why would that person refuse the opportunity to make a substancial amount of money by building this motor for atleast a dozen people?)
-"It was fast in firehawk" (Yes in 1985 it was..after that NOBODY ran the dang thing. I talked to Randy Pobst on this as he tried to competitively run one. He gave up as he said the car was just too slow (though he said it was a fun car to drive, got with a new team and won first year out in a honda. Besides that Firehawk was basically SS. Most of the things people did to cheat are legal in IT. It is apples to ornangss. much the same as the FA comment.)

So at some point in time when someone says the earth is round.. you have no data proving otherwise, damit the earth is round!

[Chip42]

At the end of the day, we (and all ACs) have to get these recommendations through the CRB. if they don't agree, it gets sent back.

at what point do you pick the "lesser" of evils over the empirically correct but politically untenable recommendation? we do WANT to fix this. there is disagreement on what is "right" (some are having isues with the amazingly low power potential from a motor with not impressive specific output in the first place) and there is known to be a history of significant skepticism within the CRB. one known and particularly boisterous skeptic has recently been reseated. that makes this harder to get done.

re: those who don't know the details - I've met at least one regualr entrant with a 4AGE Corolla (AE86) who was unaware of the weight break his car recieved MONTHS after it came into effect. I know many MANY established and knowledgable players who look at the MR2 and say "damn that thing ought to be one hell of a B car!" and then have to hear me tell them all about the maybe-if-you-work-really-hard 108 whp at 7200RPM, 310°F oil temp suffering, lead floored hand grenade that IS the MR2. Further, there are places like FL where a certain Grabber Blue MR2 does pretty well because it's the one Steve has been developing and driving. it is a far more thurough build than much of its competition, yet they run nose to tail if not ahead of it. to drop nearly 200 lbs from it could lead to significant noise making in the regions ITB crowd who only know what they see on the track. NOT everyone with an oppinion and high interest level pays attention to the saga and the minutia, particulalry when it gets hashed out on page 8 of a thread like this one. I'm not defending the idea of political apeasement or palletability over what is mathematically verifiably correct, but I do understand WHERE the fear of the decision seeming to be biased or unpopular is coming from :blink:

I think all of the roughly 10-12 ITB MR2 racers in this country would be happy (not satisfied, but grateful none the less) with a 95lb drop in the min weight, but every one of them knows we should be lighter by virtue of the power to weight nature of the class, and to give them anything but the truly valid weight would be a disservice.

that the MR2s don't have the torque (even less so the torque to weight) of much of the class means that even if they did make the minimum weight at 15%, they'd likely still get beaten by the established cars at many tracks, particularly those with slow corner exit speeds. they aren't the only cars in such a situation and I'm not trying to make an argument for changing the way we class cars - this is a warts and all situation - I'm just pointing out that even if the MR2 WERE classed at 2240 lbs (15% gain, which I feel to be appropriate) it would STILL be at a marginal disadvantage MUCH of the time. of course it should do very well where handling trumps power and brakes are stressed, as it does well in both counts. strengths and weaknesses. It's sportscar racing.

[lateapex911]

At the end of the day, we (and all ACs) have to get these recommendations through the CRB. if they don't agree, it gets sent back.

at what point do you pick the "lesser" of evils over the empirically correct but politically untenable recommendation? we do WANT to fix this. there is disagreement on what is "right" (some are having isues with the amazingly low power potential from a motor with not impressive specific output in the first place) and there is known to be a history of significant skepticism within the CRB. one known and particularly boisterous skeptic has recently been reseated. that makes this harder to get done.

.
I hear you, and agree that you are in a tough position, between a rock and a hard place.
I find it troublesome that the guy you are referring to has a vote in the matter, and even a voice, really. He's got way too much stake in the game, having been a former ITB driver, and his brother who he's close to still campaigns an ITB Accord. It's a conflict of interest, and even if it's argued that its no longer technically a conflict of interest, he should still recuse himself for appearances sake.
Its just not acceptable to have members of the CRB operate in that manner IMO.

Of course, if I were on the ITAC, I'd be getting flak and being told to resign again, so, yea, my opinion aint worth much, LOL

[Butch Kummer]

Chip42 - I don't believe I've ever met you, but if I did I believe we'd get along fine! I very much like the fact that you (and Jeff & Josh) are willing to come on here and explain the reason decisions were made, particularly those that appear to defy logic. I have to do that all the time in my position as well, and if I ever do meet you I'll certainly buy you the adult beverage of your choice! :023:

[Chip42]

Chip42 - I don't believe I've ever met you, but if I did I believe we'd get along fine! I very much like the fact that you (and Jeff & Josh) are willing to come on here and explain the reason decisions were made, particularly those that appear to defy logic. I have to do that all the time in my position as well, and if I ever do meet you I'll certainly buy you the adult beverage of your choice! :023:

Thanks Butch. we've been in the same place a bunch, but I don't think we've been introduced. I'll be sure to correct that next time I have the opportunity, and make sure I take you up on that beverage.

[Chip42]

I hear you, and agree that you are in a tough position, between a rock and a hard place.
I find it troublesome that the guy you are referring to has a vote in the matter, and even a voice, really. He's got way too much stake in the game, having been a former ITB driver, and his brother who he's close to still campaigns an ITB Accord. It's a conflict of interest, and even if it's argued that its no longer technically a conflict of interest, he should still recuse himself for appearances sake.
Its just not acceptable to have members of the CRB operate in that manner IMO.

Of course, if I were on the ITAC, I'd be getting flak and being told to resign again, so, yea, my opinion aint worth much, LOL

What annoys me the most is that despite my significant disagreements with the guy, I really do admire him and I know that he wants whats best for the club. we just differ in our views as to what that is.

[quadzjr]

So the same person that told me that I was stuck at 30% and tough luck. Is now the same guy that is somehow involved with this again? If he does not have data , proof, etc.. sorry. I refuse to be held back by politics or a "feeling" in the abscence of data. How can one person over run the entire board?

Shall I write a letter to the CRB asking to prohibit this action? I have also talked with him in years past and they guy is smart.

Hell You took off 130lbs based on data on teh ITB CRX last year, and no whinning no politics. That is alot of weight.. That same car just drove around me in the straight at RRR. No contest.. You choped off large chunks of weight in higher classes with no issues. Why is this one F-ing car an issue.

[quadzjr]

To me it sounds alot like a study that was done with monkeys that I learned during my lean/6 sigma class. Not saying the ITAC is monkeys.. but the premise is familiar.

cliff notes.

Put a group of monkeys in a room with a ladder and at the top of the ladder a bananna.

When a monkey grabbed the bananna they would turn on sprinklers on the monkeys not on the ladder. Very quickly after that if a monkey went to grab the bananna they were pulled back and/or beat up. Eventually nobody ever tried to get the bananna.

replace a monkey in the room for a new monkey. the new monkey would immediately go after the bananna and get beat up by the other monkeys.

Continue replacing older monkeys with new ones. They reduced beating up new members and started vocally stopping the new monkeys.

At the end of the experiment you have a room full of new monkeys. None of them had ever seen what happens when you grab the bananna and none of them had ever tried to grab it either...

[Knestis]

http://www.thisweekinphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/051098072-03-sausage-making.jpeg

[Flyinglizard]

The MR 2 and the 16V vW , both cant make a lot more power than stock. 5-6 is max. This is because the stock exhaust systems are really good, and the computer is fairly good. Both have very mild cams and simply wont turn the RPMs to cover the weight.

The ITb prepped, 8V VW, makes the same torque and often will out pull the 16V, at the same weight. I have raced all three cars, without cheating up any of the values.
The MR 2 has very little torque and can make a very small improvement over it stock out put.

The normal IT adder is not valid for a well designed ,fairly modern engine. The exhaust , intake, and computer have gotten a lot better than the old crap that most old us are racing.
The VW 8V can pick up maybe 12- 15 hp with a good exhaust, compression and carefull assembly. The 16V has no room for these improvements. It is really good as is. same for the Toy 16v.

FWIW I dont see how the Hondas got dropped into ITB. They were pretty good in ITA. That is why my IT car is now a Prod car.

[Xian]

The Honda's that "got dropped into ITB" were the smaller engine, uncompetitive in ITA versions of the Civic. The ones that were competitive in ITA are still classed there. I don't know specially which MK # all the VW's are but the model that Kirk has seems to be awfully stout in ITB...

Christian

[shwah]

Kirk's A3 (aka Mk 3) VW has been stout since it was dropped from A to B. The A2 was stout before that, and can still compete in the right situation. The A1 is very competitive right now, but no one is really running one.

[JeffYoung]

http://www.thisweekinphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/051098072-03-sausage-making.jpeg

Kirk! Stop posting pictures of your penis!

[Knestis]

The only junk in that photo came off of a boar and it's been ground up nice and fine...

K

[JeffYoung]

The Miata deal sealed it for me. We have more data on this car than any other in IT I think. 5-6 dyno sheets at least from 4 different cars.

Known hp is it. If I don't vote it that way here, I'm a hypocrite.

[Chip42]

WRT the MR2 / 4AGE siblings, I'm fine calling it 15% rather than trying to nail it down at 108-109. it's really irrelevant as 15% is lighter than realistic for most of the cars out there, and it leaves room for discovery.

Also, I need to be clear that the above comments about politics are the framing of the issue - it's still in committee, as anyone with a pending letter should be aware (you get an email when your letter has been moved to the CRB from any advisory Committee). The CRB has not had a chance to comment either way on the 4AGE/MR2 this time around. I hope all of my comments, based on past evidence, are NOT reflective of current moods, though I'm sure in making those comments I didn't help the cause any.

moving on...

[steve b]

there is established precedent, though not explicit in the ops manual, to use a multiplier OTHER than 25% (or the "default" 30% ITB/C multivalve or as currently CRB imposed on V8s in ITR) when evidence shows the gain potential to be other but ACTUAL wheel hp to be unknown. S200s and other 4cyls in ITR are good examples.

in the case of the MR2, it's not all about proving HP any more (there are still doubters on comittee, and well, PK), it's the fact that dropping the car to 15% (based on above precedent and dyno data showing ~13% to be the max to date) means 190# publsihed min weight change from the current (25%) weight, or 285# since the change was made from 30% roughly a year ago. there's a feelign that even if that passed the membership sniff test (not everyone is aware of the details) that it would not pass CRB muster. I disagree with politically derived decisions when good mathematics exist, but there you go. fWIW, 108whp becomes 2210 lbs in ITB, assuming 15% driveline losses. functionally no different than a 15% classification as only a car driven by an 8 year old will get that light.

I agree and for that reason I'd be THRILLED tosee them adjust the weight based on a 20% gain. When the ITA weight was 2270, I could never get down below 2350. The dyno sheets are WELL below a 20% gain so everyone should be comfortable with assuming a 20% gain. Class the car at 2335 and I'll still go out a little over weight, unless I stop eating pizza and donuts (which will never happen).

I got tired of reading after about the 6th page of this thread and jumped to the end. But the only thing I could think of as the argument went on about "car A weight" and "car B weight" a few model years later was "what if the engineers got it right on the first model and there was no more potential gain?"... like in say....an MR2?

[JeffYoung]

Isn't your car a winner now?

100 lbs!

Seriously, congrats on the win.....

[ajmr2]

Yes, Steve won a race at VIR, which is great. He'd be the first to point out that NONE of the ITB big dogs in the MARRS series showed up. Hell, I won 2 races last year at the National at Summit Point becuase NO ONE showed up in ITB. IT cars were invited to fill out the poor turnout. All I had to do was survive my group.
The implication is that the MR2 is fine as is. And that's been the problem for 15 years.

[lateapex911]

Jeff doesn't think that, nor is he implying that Art.
Jeff is not the droid you are looking for.....

[ajmr2]

I'm certainly not singling out Jeff. I have expressed my appreciation to him in the past for his support and even tempered explanations of what goes on in the ITAC and CRB. I do have to point out that I sent 2 letters to the CRB, one in December 2011 and one in January 2012, neither of which has moved out of the ITAC, a least according to the letter tracking page on the SCCA website.
The point I was trying to make is that we are still where were were with the MR2 15 years ago. IMHO, the MR2 could have gone directly to ITB without the added 255 lbs, and we would not have it bubbling back to the top countless times. All we've ever asked for is fairness not based on some unproven HP assumptions.

[Chip42]

Art and steve,

we're working it. I promise. a letter that hasn't moved is better than a letter with a no action required recommendation (in this case).

and while you guys in your MkIb cars will be happy with 2335/20%, the MkIa guys in the SE can get to ~2300 and would like to see 15% as the nominal value (and even THEN it's higher than it "should" be, though the cars can't make min weight so it's not really worth woryin about, like for you at 20%). either way, that's not the driving force of the discussion. it's a resonable (though to us with the cars that might be a frustrating term) concern about power potential. while there is a ton of evidence about the lack of gain in IT trim, the fundamentals of the motor are known to make much higher power with very little effort, like a pair of DCOE Webbers. it's simply a matter of getting everyone involved to understand that IT rules aren't worth much in this case. it's unfortunately not all that easy sometimes. no malice, just reasonable people with different expertise and experiences expressing reservations with such an outlier.

and yeah, a lot of cars come out with engines that are well sorted from the factory and make small gains. then again, some manufacturers tweeked their calibrations for HP numbers before 2005 and actually published numbers that were 10+% higher than actual as-delivered output (thus SAE certified hp). sometimes they under report, make soft (IT allowance type) changes, make hard changes... cars like late 80's hondas were corked from the factory and IT mods really wake them up while cars like ours gain as much from a full IT build as a CRX gets from an air filter and pipe.

it's a lot to keep up with. in the case of a miata or other WELL KNOWN quantity it's pretty easy to identify reliable sources of information. not so much so for less popular car like, say, an 87 suzuki.

[ajmr2]

Thanks, Chip. I know you're doing what you can. Please forgive me for occasionally venting, but I've been at this a long time. I've tried to keep my ITB MR2 buddies optimistic when I press them to send in their letters, but they're also tiring of it.

[Knestis]

The problem in this instance is not doing the homework or making a cogent case. It's about convincing a very small number of specific individuals who serve as gatekeepers to the proposed correction.

Chip suggests "no malice" but I will stand by my point - made many times over the past several years about this and other key proposed corrections to ITB cars - that even the appearance of impropriety has done the Club, the ITAC, the CRB and members' views of the processes and practices applied no small amount of damage.

K

[Chip42]

The problem in this instance is not doing the homework or making a cogent case. It's about convincing a very small number of specific individuals who serve as gatekeepers to the proposed correction.

Chip suggests "no malice" but I will stand by my point - made many times over the past several years about this and other key proposed corrections to ITB cars - that even the appearance of impropriety has done the Club, the ITAC, the CRB and members' views of the processes and practices applied no small amount of damage.

K

that's fine, but the committee hasn't made a recommendation yet... it's not YET a CRB/ etc... problem. if or when it becomes one, I'll let ya know. right now it's some of the guys on the ITAC asking questions and other things getting ahead of it (the latter I'm not thrilled about but it is what it is)

[Greg Amy]

Final June 2012 is here:

http://www.scca.com/assets/12-fastrack-june.pdf

Here's an interesting and unexpected tidbit...

"Add STL as a National Championship for the 2012 Runoffs, if approved by the Board of Directors, effective immediately upon approval. STL will run with STU at the Runoffs in 2012."

Methinks Keene and Drago really want to duke it out for a National championship this year... ;)

[mossaidis]

thanks tGA. it would interesting to read Cutter's letter...

9. #7724 (Mat Cutter) class consolidation
Thank you for your letter and your efforts. The CRB appreciates your thoughtful and articulate comments. These comments will be forwarded to the Board of Directors.

[shwah]

there are a PILE of letters on the MR2, basiclaly steven and the whole MARRS contingent have written in, and obviously it's an issue that I want addressed, too. the biggest problem lately is a shrinking ITAC memebrship, other issues that are "easier" jumping ahead in line, CRB interest changing the priorities further, etc...

there's also the "political" side of the thing, the car has a realistic floor weight of ~2300 lbs, give or take. 15% puts it at 2240, 20% at 2335, and 25% (current weight) at 2430. the dyno data we have is conclusive in proving the negative, but not in establishing the actual potential (based on expressed confidences and oppinions by members) so we will be picking a 5% step rather than working back from a "known" wheel number. 20% is still heavy, 15% is for all intents unachievable, even if "correct" per the above. some members have expressed difficulty with the idea of a 190# adjustment. no doubt the CRB will do a double take on it as well. setting an intermediate weight breaks from process and is a precedent we do not want to set, and adjusting to 20% still leaves the cars realisitially 35# above their actual minimum achievable weight AND 95+ over correct weight per process.

it's a PIA. and it's not getting the attention it needs.

if I were king, we'd class it at 15% and move on, but I do understand the other members' concerns, and I am biased. then again, if I were king, the process would be a lot more complicated and involve torque and stuff, becasue I'm not prone to developing simple solutions (though I try). The Process works REALLY well in ITA up to ITR (even with the disagreements between ops manual and established cars in R, and we are investigating). ITB and C see such HUGE weight swings for small changes in power that it leads a lot of overweight cars, some of which are still observably very fast on track. that on-track observation leads to foot dragging to make changes. cue viscious cycle.

Just curious - if the thing really makes 15%, but can't get to that weight, why is it not an ITC car like the Volvo and the New Beetle?

Though looking at the MR2s running for the ITDC they are pretty competitive right now. Maybe the ITAC has it right now, and we just have not watched long enough to see it.