Escort GT/LXE to ITB? [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

tderonne

09-12-2012, 12:13 PM

There's been so many changes to ITA in the last few years I finally see it as time to ask for the ITA Escort GT/LXE to be dropped to ITB. I just wrote the request to the CRB.

I'll flesh it out a little here. Support it if you see fit and write to the CRB.

Escort GTs have never been competitive in ITA, that's a given, but competitiveness isn't guaranteed it IT, we all know that. "The Process" has done A LOT to even things out and give more cars chances. "The process" did revise (lower) the weight of the Escort a couple years back. However, the new weight isn't achievable. 2325 for a car that weighs 2500 without driver is too low. It's an early 90's grocery getter that just doesn't have a lot of weight to pull out. The later cars, '94-'96, did have airbags, but they were even heavier. Add in the newer classifications to ITA and it's really a dog. A lot of the cars that Escorts did run with in ITA have been moved to ITB.

There are Mazda Proteges in both ITA and ITB with the same engine and same or similar platforms. I'm not familiar with the Proteges, but I suspect they are lighter. That's true of other Mazda/Ford twins, the Mazda version are lighter. The ITA classified cars are all at 2325 and the ITB car is at 2645. I think an ITB Escort GT at around 2600 pounds make sense. Have to put a little weight back in, but it should give it a better shot to be competitive.

Yes, I have one for sale. A friend of mine wants it, and I'd still work on it. Probably even drive it now and again. If I let him buy it. Just had to throw that in, should anyone question my motives.

JLawton

09-12-2012, 01:56 PM

I am FAR from an Escort expert, only that I have raced against them. But doesn't the GT have the same engine as the 1.8 Miata? The performance gains out of that engine are way too much for ITB.......... no matter how much weight you throw at it.

tderonne

09-12-2012, 02:07 PM

It is a lot like the 1.8 Miata engine. But different cams, different intake manifold, different... It actually has the 1.6 Miata airmeter, which is limits airflow on the 1.6 Miata. And there is already a 1.8 Protege IN ITB, that ship has sailed.

Good input though, thanks.

Terry Hanushek

09-12-2012, 02:56 PM

Jeff

I am FAR from an Escort expert, only that I have raced against them. But doesn't the GT have the same engine as the 1.8 Miata?

This may be like saying that the MR2 has the same engine as Formula Atlantic :D There are a lot of performance enhancing / performance inhibiting factors beyond the basic iron.

Terry (with absolutely no Escort expertise)

dickita15

09-12-2012, 03:27 PM

Terry (with absolutely no Escort expertise)

Are you sure you have never been with an "escort" Terry. :D

Andy Bettencourt

09-12-2012, 03:36 PM

And there is already a 1.8 Protege IN ITB, that ship has sailed.

Good input though, thanks.

But it's not the DOHC 16V motor that is in the GT and Miata. That SOHC motor has 103hp stock.

Any 125hp motor is pressing it for ITB...but having said that, if it can't make weight then it should go up. We had 2 in the area, I will ask what they weighed.

JeffYoung

09-12-2012, 03:43 PM

At 127 stock hp, it is roughly 2645 in ITB.

tderonne

09-12-2012, 04:12 PM

But it's not the DOHC 16V motor that is in the GT and Miata. That SOHC motor has 103hp stock.

Protege ES has a 1.8 DOHC FP-DE.
http://www.clubprotege.com/wil/tech/3ginfo.htm

It's at 2645 pounds makes me think it's 127 HP too.

pitbull113

09-12-2012, 06:26 PM

If you move the Escort GT you have to move the 92-94 Protege. No way the Pro makes weight at 2325. I'd gladly run ITB at 2645

gizmo83

09-12-2012, 07:13 PM

We ran an 1991 Escort GT in ITA. The car was 150 lbs over weight with everything out that we could find, including side window glass. The car was never going to be competitive with the Acuras, Miatas and CRX's in ITA. With a re-built race engine and alot of work and money (and seat time) we had it down to 1.05 at LimeRock. It wasn't going much further!! Maybe ITB is where it belongs!
I am not sure where Dan's car was at weight-wise but I am sure he was also over weight!

BullFish

09-12-2012, 09:03 PM

Just weighing in with my .02 worth... which probably isn't worth even that much! I raced against this exact car with my (then classed) Toyota FX-16 with the 4age twin cam engine, which is now classed in ITB. I was able to beat this particular car (granted his wife was driving it at the time, but she isn't exactly a slouch behind the wheel), and my FX wasn't extremely developed. I also had a developed ITB Prism, also with the 4age engine, and ran similar times to this Escort with that car. To me, it belongs in ITB, and 26xx sounds about right for weight..

Now if I could only get the CRB to shed some pounds off of my 2760 Beetle in ITC... :blink:

Kristian

Aged racer

09-12-2012, 09:21 PM

I run a 2000 Protege in ITB- stock HP is 122. As noted above, it is not the Miata 1.8 engine.

FWIW, had to add weight back to get to 2645 (lotta weight). Chunky little beast as well, punches a big hole in the air.

Not lobbying against this- ITB needs more cars.

Steve

Terry Hanushek

09-12-2012, 10:54 PM

Dick

Are you sure you have never been with an "escort" Terry. :D

Never one from Ford :D :blink: :rolleyes:

Terry

924Guy

09-13-2012, 07:50 AM

At 127 stock hp, it is roughly 2645 in ITB.

Passes the sniff test for me.

Timmah - you provided the nice spreadsheet that helped me get the 924 moved - maybe just time to resubmit??

You know what they say - write the letter!! :024:

wepsbee

09-13-2012, 09:13 AM

But it's not the DOHC 16V motor that is in the GT and Miata. That SOHC motor has 103hp stock.

Any 125hp motor is pressing it for ITB...but having said that, if it can't make weight then it should go up. We had 2 in the area, I will ask what they weighed.

I tried to pull every last ounce I could and was still over 100+ above weight. Engine is a workhorse giving me no problems whatsoever over 4 seasons. I was able to kinda sorta keep up on the straights but in the turns I was a goner. Suspension and weight really put this car in the outclassed category. Great car to learn on but not a podium finisher.

wepsbee

09-13-2012, 09:17 AM

Thinking...thinking......thinking.......If the EGT goes to ITB, maybe sticking with the Integra in ITA might not be the way to go HMMMMMMMMMM:rolleyes:

Andy Bettencourt

09-13-2012, 09:56 AM

It's at 2645 pounds makes me think it's 127 HP too.

What Jeff is saying is that if the ITA version gets moved to ITB, that is about the weight it would land at.

wepsbee

09-21-2012, 12:10 PM

Anyone think this reclassification might happen?
Would like to know before I try and get rid of the one I have.
Built up pretty good and would hate to get rid of it if it
goes to ITB.

Knestis

09-21-2012, 12:50 PM

Someone needs to submit the official request. Work with the ITAC to know what documentation is required to support it, and make it happen.

K

Chip42

09-21-2012, 01:00 PM

pitbull113

09-21-2012, 01:08 PM

I wrote a letter as well requesting a move for both the egt and the pro to ITB.

dgragu

09-22-2012, 11:28 AM

I think some of the ITB guys should start chimming in. The list of cars that have been moved down is really starting to mess up the ITB fields. The Volvo, BMW, and older vw have been very competitive with each other for many years. The scca moves down the newer vw, Honda prelude, Honda CRX and now the older cars can not compete. It seems to me all we are doing is Making ITB into ITA. There were long standing itb records that not only got beat but got crushed by these cars that have dropped down to B. It is very discouraging that a BMW 2002 that has been a winning car from the start of the class can no longer compete for the win.

Ralf

09-22-2012, 05:39 PM

I know what you mean. Take a look at the results from my last race. I'm still a slouch, but Albin isn't. Jason is in a CRX with second hand Hoosiers.
http://www.mylaps.com/results/showrun.jsp?id=2421571&perclass=1

Knestis

09-22-2012, 07:16 PM

a request is in, and that's a start. what we will need are build sheets, dyno data, weights, and from more than one car (the more the merrier). we have not yet had a chance to discuss as a group or with the PTB.

Seems like a math problem based on stock figures. Why would anyone have a full-on build - let alone dyno data - on a car that's patently not a good answer for the class it's in?

I think some of the ITB guys should start chimming in. The list of cars that have been moved down is really starting to mess up the ITB fields. The Volvo, BMW, and older vw have been very competitive with each other for many years. The scca moves down the newer vw, Honda prelude, Honda CRX and now the older cars can not compete. It seems to me all we are doing is Making ITB into ITA. There were long standing itb records that not only got beat but got crushed by these cars that have dropped down to B. It is very discouraging that a BMW 2002 that has been a winning car from the start of the class can no longer compete for the win.

This conversation got had 10 years ago. Variance in performance can be accounted for by all kinds of factors other than make/model - old or new.

There are places where the ITB lap record still stands from before the "new cars" got added simply because they were set by cheater cars. Standards of preparation among the best turned-out cars in the class have improved. Tires are better. In some regions, the standard required to be competitive before the (not so) Great Realignment simply wasn't very high because local drivers arrived at a level of detente that they were all good with. When I first built my MkIII Golf, it wasn't competitive. I had to work hard on the car and my driving to get up front.

I have zero question that a fully developed, well driven 2002 can run up front in the best ITB field. Problem is, nobody is doing it. Drivers doing fresh builds find newer cars more attractive, so they are more likely to go 100% on them than on cars with older technology that are harder to find parts for.

It's not all about the model car. It never has been.

K

Charlie Broring

09-22-2012, 08:42 PM

Knestis

09-22-2012, 09:33 PM

I can't speak to "don't know how to prep" but across the range of entries, I don't believe that they are pushing the limits on engineering, preparation, or driving. But that's not the point.

I argue with your contention that "BMW 2002s are no longer competitive." That's simply an overstatement not supported by evidence. It's fair to say that, considering the current state of play, and factoring in budgets, tire choices, development, driver skill, and the dozens of other factors that make a difference, the 2002 chassis doesn't have a demonstrated advantage among the limited sample available for study.

If the MkIII Golf were somehow magical, why do we see 2, 3, or even 5 seconds of lap time variance among the examples at any given race? Because other factors matter more than the badges on the box that the driver and racey parts are in.

When Jeff Underwood beat up on the MARRS field in 2010, it wasn't because he was in a Civic. It was because of a combination of the best engineered car in the field, and one of the best drivers in the paddock. If there had been a dozen of the same make/model of car in the field, rather than ONE example, some would have been fast, others very slow, and many in between.

I went faster that same year than I ever had at Summit Point. Why? Because I puckered up my butt and quit driving like I was loping around during the 12 hours. Why wasn't the fact that I was mired in the back half of the field in previous visits "proof" that the MkIII Golf is NOT competitive...? Why isn't the fact that 2002s - and VOLVOS - went as fast or faster than me evidence of the same thing? If it's all in the car, how come Tristan is a second faster than me pretty much everywhere we've raced in the same kind of car?

Because other variables make a bigger difference.

K

jjjanos

09-22-2012, 11:53 PM

Kirk, let me see if I have this right. BMW 2002's are no longer competitive in ITB because the owners don't know how to prep and develop their cars. If only they could prep them as well as you do, then they would be able to win again.

That right?

I think it isn't that they don't know how to prep their cars. It is more of a matter that they haven't. I spoke to someone who I trust to know what a fully prepared 2002 can generate and the number they gave me was spot-on for the process weight. I trust this person because they have built, crewed and raced such a car.

I know of drivers who, in the same breath they are telling me that they cannot keep up the new mis-classed are telling me how their tires are old, the motor needs freshening and their shocks probably need rebuilding. It doesn't generate much sympathy that something is wrong in ITB.

So, unless the HP-gains for the newer cars is understated or the process is missing a critical variable, there's no unfair advantage.

callard

09-23-2012, 12:25 AM

Knestis

09-23-2012, 09:16 PM

Back in the day, there were a bunch of good running 2002s. Then the VW Golf got 2 seconds faster. Then what the Golfs did was made legal by the CRB. Then the 2002s got two seconds faster based on California acquired parts. But the CRB has never made that legal. There's another half dozen things that are questionable but the 2002 has had its time in the sun - better prep/driver is not the answer for this car.

Sorry, but what did the CRB "make legal?" There are no special allowances in the GCR for the Golf II. And California parts are legal in IT, at least as long as update-backdate rules are followed. Contrary to some opinions, it's not actually a foreign country out there. :)

K

Chip42

09-24-2012, 09:24 AM

Seems like a math problem based on stock figures. Why would anyone have a full-on build - let alone dyno data - on a car that's patently not a good answer for the class it's in?
there's that. but there are examples. without decent data, selling the BP, or "miata" engine in the escort GT/LXE and protege into ITB at anything less than a high gain will be difficult for some to swallow. I'm going off my previous interactions here, we haven't had any group conversations about it yet at the ITAC level, much less with the CRB.

if accepted at 30% numbers, that's 2750 lbs of car. cage rules vs 2700 lbs mean that if any got built at that point they would have a heavier cage (not grandfathered with the lighter one) and would then have MORE trouble getting to a lighter weight than they already do, should one be warranted.

if 2750 is what the requestors want, I'm fine with it, but I'd put it out for member input to find out before I voted up or down.

It's not all about the model car. It never has been.

I think it isn't that they don't know how to prep their cars. It is more of a matter that they haven't.

I feel for the guys who have been watching the fields grow faster but these points have to be read again and again. old cars are less attractive platforms for full tilt builds under the modern paradgms (lack of rust free shells, spares, replacement parts,etc...), thus old cars tend to be old builds done to old paradigms - and as indcated, often with old, worn parts. further, old builds tend to have old prep habbits to go along with them. there might be inherant "oldness" to the cars on levels not captured by the process (maybe chassis rigidity, suspension geometry, whatever...) but that's NOT something I think we should be getting into from a rulesmaking perspective. If IT were to become "protectionist" of old cars, it will do so at the expense of relevance and of the newer cars. it's mor eimportant to be fair with all cars, and let the level of prep and effort be the targets rather than forcing partiy from what's out there. the latter approach goes inverted far too easily, like when someone decides to up their game in a previously slow car, and takes WAY too much administration (given the club level racing aspect) to keep it straight.

if you like driving your old car as is, please keep doing so. the point here is to have fun. if you don't like getting beaten, up your game. if you still can't manage to be competitive, then maybe there's somethign to the argument and the car might need to be addressed.

callard

09-24-2012, 11:00 AM

Kirk, I'm referring to mucking with the innards of the computer on the FI cars - not legal then was freed up. As for California parts, I'm talking about illegal carb mods sold by a CA company - and bought by many 2002 drivers.

Knestis

09-24-2012, 12:32 PM

Ah, thanks. That does clarify it for me.

K

shwah

09-24-2012, 02:13 PM

I am concerned about the pace of recent change, and proposed changes in ITB. I used to feel that my car was on the tail end of the pointy end and that I could continue to compete with a legit effort. There was an obvious power to weight deficit with the fast cars to have. At this point I am not sure I can even do that after what I have seen of some of the recently changed/moved cars.

I still don't think we have an effective method to validate what we "know" about a given cars power gain and want to see that improved before making more changes.

Chip42

09-24-2012, 02:39 PM

no one's talking baout changing ITB, or any rule. just moving 1 or 2 cars (in this thread, there may be more cars, and often are rules requests) from A to B. if we do it right, everyone keeps the same theoretical chance of winning they had previously, except that the cars moving down should have a chance, where previously they did not.

parity is the point of the classiifcation process. you know that as well as anyone. if you feel otherwise, I'd very much like to know what, in particular, has you worried.

shwah

09-24-2012, 03:43 PM

if we do it right, everyone keeps the same theoretical chance of winning they had previously, except that the cars moving down should have a chance, where previously they did not.
I am not convinced that this is what IS happening. Thus I am not comfortable continuing on this path until we know that we are getting it right.

Said the guy that greeted the first discussion about moving MR2s into ITB with a "welcome to the class we are glad to have you" mentality.

Chip42

09-24-2012, 04:22 PM

the premise of The Process is power (Crank HP) vs. weight (with some minor adders/subtractors as you know). if we are getting that right (the data suggests that we mostly are) and there is not relative parity in the cars as classed, then the premise fails.

is the premise wrong? I'm not a zealous adherant to "the process" fundamentals, I'm a zealous adherant to running everything fairly and to the same standard - and I use the process as defined by previous ITACs to do so. FWIW, I think it's pretty damned good. It's biggest failing in ITB (from what I can see) is that too many classified cars have not been run through. I honestly feel that we can only see what fundamental process input, if any, needs changing when there has been some settling time with the whole class "realigned." until the second part happens, the first part can't start from a good baseline.

but I'm not going to block the addition of cars based on the above. the process is what we base all of this on, and while I'm willing to address that process if demonstrated to be needed, I am not willing to put the class in a bubble and wait for that time.

IF the fundamentals need changing, I'm likely the loudmouth most willing to take on such a cause.

shwah

09-24-2012, 04:55 PM

The part of the process that is lacking is how we quantify the power gaIn we "know" a car makes. There are enough pounds per HP in this class that getting this wrong makes a big impact. We have simply moved the arbitrary element of the process from weight assigned to hp estimated, with much more swing in competitiveness if you get it wrong.

Chip42

09-24-2012, 05:43 PM

shwah

09-25-2012, 08:57 AM

I completely agree about some cars being off, but I also think more cars are "too heavy" than are too light (accross all processed cars in IT, not ITB specifically), if only by a little bit. what we "know" to be "right" are only some of the cars, but they're the ones we have data on.

and I'd much rather have an "arbitrary" hp target against which to later measure a car than an arbitrary weight which has no real associated metrics behind it. at least this way we can verify and adjust in line with the process philosophy, though that does take some asking for input from the membership, and it can be impossible to get that information if a car is over target, as no one wants to lose their advantage.

I hear you - but remember that 5hp off = 85# off, and if you end up 5 low on a cars power assumption people will not beat a path to your door to correct it. We don't often get to see the evidence offered to support a known power level, and when we do, I don't often trust that it is legit, because of conflicts of interest. Not sure if there is a good way to get around that.

The only way is to continue to treat the process as a process, not a formula, and use judgement at times (as much as we the members will cry foul), to get it right, whether the first time, or after the fact correcting a mistake.

When we see cars go to the ARRC and run at the very front, while their engine stumbles at some point every single lap, and then hear calls to remove weight based on the process - I get worried. When another verson of that same car shows up and runs away from what has been a very competitive car/prep/driver package like happened at MPH last month I wonder if it is even worth my while to look for that last hidden hp or 2.

Flyinglizard

09-25-2012, 09:57 AM

Is this the same board that put the weight of the Rocco and the GTI the same?
How can it be trusted, when you have very good data showing that 50-75# is needed between the cars and they even them up.

I have been dong a lot of aero drag testing. ( For the Chumper)
But the Rocco/Golf is next.

Chip42

09-25-2012, 12:13 PM

mike, the process is power to weight with some adjusters. Aero is not one of them. Same motors, same driveline config, same weight.

Chris, I assume You are referring to bp miatas. They're good cars, and this is where the process really becomes a bit unpopular. We do try to get power numbers for fast cars to rexamine. Its a tough spot. But we'd usually rather not adjust than adjust blind. Not a perfect system.

Flyinglizard

09-25-2012, 12:52 PM

How can you ignore 20yrs of results??
Same car, 6in lower, with 8* better windshield angle.
It is about 80# faster than the Rabbit, @ 110hp.

My Wife will tell you the same thing just looking at the cars.
Please fix stupid stuff like that. Thanks, MM

JeffYoung

09-25-2012, 05:13 PM

Aero is not a process factor and shouldn't be. There is no easy way to quantify it unless you have frontal area and cd numbers for 300 different car in the ITCS. Good luck with that.

We'd make far more mistakes accounting for aero than leaving it as is.

And no, your wife can't look at a car and tell it needs 80 lbs for aero. Only the production guys can do that......

JeffYoung

09-25-2012, 05:20 PM

Kirk, let me see if I have this right. BMW 2002's are no longer competitive in ITB because the owners don't know how to prep and develop their cars. If only they could prep them as well as you do, then they would be able to win again.

That right?

Come on Charlie. When we asked you questions about the prep level of the Volvos at Summit, we got answers like:

1. Data acquisition isn't for club racers (since it costs the same as a set of tires, I'd suggest it is)
2. We figured out spring rates on our cars 20 years ago.
3. High dollar shocks? Don't need them.

And so on.

The problem is not that the older cars can't compete, it is that the drivers want prep levels circa 1995. And that is not going to happen.

Charlie Broring

09-25-2012, 06:44 PM

Come on Charlie. When we asked you questions about the prep level of the Volvos at Summit, we got answers like:

1. Data acquisition isn't for club racers (since it costs the same as a set of tires, I'd suggest it is)
2. We figured out spring rates on our cars 20 years ago.
3. High dollar shocks? Don't need them.

And so on.

The problem is not that the older cars can't compete, it is that the drivers want prep levels circa 1995. And that is not going to happen.
Jeff, my memory from my brief time on the committee is that you only heard what you wanted to hear. I guess this confirms it.

I also remember that neither the committee nor the CRB wanted to hear what I had to say about the the impact on the class of the cars that were moved down from ITA.

Flyinglizard

09-25-2012, 07:15 PM

Jeff,
What Iam saying is that over the period of the last 20yrs. the cars have shown to be about 70-80# apart.
50# spread has been since the beginning.
The Rocco is just plain faster @ the same weight. No one that runs VWs will dispute that.
I just dont see how the ITAC can say they are moving foreward, without looking at real world results that have very hard numbers over a long period of time.
Makes no sense and is just incorrect.
The CD is around the net . aero can be measured. It is what I do. The windshield angle is the single most important value.
I have the same Rocco that I built 20yrs ago. Now runs HP.

JeffYoung

09-25-2012, 07:51 PM

Jeff, my memory from my brief time on the committee is that you only heard what you wanted to hear. I guess this confirms it.

I also remember that neither the committee nor the CRB wanted to hear what I had to say about the the impact on the class of the cars that were moved down from ITA.

No, we all listened, asked questions, and talked with you. At length. Over and over. And you were never able to answer questions like the ones I posed above.

I ask again, does your 100% developed Volvo have data acquisition in it?

Does it have a Burns or other computer designed exhaust system?

When is the last time you worked on spring rates?

What shocks do you run?

How many test days a year do you run?

Because "Tristan Herbert in an overdog Golf" is really "Tristan Herbert in a Golf who does all of those things listed above." And we never really got a straight answer from you if the "older cars" in ITB that needed so much help did the same.

jjjanos

09-25-2012, 08:11 PM

Aero is not a process factor and shouldn't be. There is no easy way to quantify it unless you have frontal area and cd numbers for 300 different car in the ITCS. Good luck with that.

True. Calculating the exact aero allowance is all-but impossible. That being said, two cars whose internal components are identical, except that one is shaped like a piece of plywood and the other like a F1 car probably shouldn't carry the same weight -- if the goal is parity when processed.

We'd make a different set of mistakes accounting for aero than leaving it as is.

FTFY. It remains to be demonstrated whether there would be more mistakes.

JeffYoung

09-25-2012, 08:23 PM

I don't disagree with some of that. BUT:

1. The goal is not parity. The goal is to get cars "roughly equal" and let prep level and driving skill sort things out.

2. If we give the Golf/Rabbit whatever it is an aero break vis a vis the Scirocco, making it "fair" versus that car, what about the rest of ITB? Aren't we giving the Golf/Rabbit and aero break that it may not deserve against say a 2002? And if we give the Scirocco a penalty, aren't we giving it a penatly against other cars that have better aero than the Roc?

That -- point (2) -- is the problem in looking at one classification in the ITCS versus a single other classification.

Andy Bettencourt

09-25-2012, 09:24 PM

Jeff is on the money. Remember, the goal isn't the bullseye. It's the 'target'. Can't be any other way unless we start farking around with Prod-style adjustments.

Flyinglizard

09-25-2012, 10:39 PM

JeffYoung

09-25-2012, 10:49 PM

To do this well, or better than it has been in the past, you should look at the real world results when they are available.
If Jeff and Andy, Chip, are on the ITAC they are ignoring the real world data to fit their "process".
When there are plenty of cars with good data, please dont discount the data. At the same time, when there are lots of cars running well, often all are cheating and moving the bar with bad data. (IE; I buy lots of ITB Golfs and have not found any legal ones. The latest has holes drilled in the front bumper..)

You already lowered the weight of both cars, allowing them to be close. The weight was heavy for 15yrs. but always has been 50# apart .
Dont ignore the obvious. Please dont sit on an error to fit your ego, adjust when an mistake has been made.
Thankless job no doubt. Thanks for doing it.

FWIW;
The windshield angle is the biggest part of real world sedan race aero. The mirrors , tires, front end, all can be changed , but not the glass and overall sq/in. (I advise to lower the rear end on the VW to reduce the glass angle for that reason).
I have been doing lots of "wind table"( I have an airplane and a front end lift, you do the math:) testing, along with coast down testing to reduce actual drag .

Again , My cars are all running HP now at the same weight as the Golf.( so your error has no effect on me). I saw an opening for the Rocco there and we were pretty close to lap times before we took out the weight .Plus the tires are free.

I do have an old 1.7 Rocco.

Nobody is ignoring the obvious. We are telling you this issue has been discussed, at length, at it was collectively decided that it was too hard to get aero "right" on all cars. So we don't consider it, and we aren't going to to consider on an individual pair of cars when doing so could mess with their competitiveness vis a vis the rest of the class.

It's not an error. It is a choice and I'm very confident it is the correct one.

While I appreciate your posting, you seem to have a "I've seen it all" attitude based on a small subset of cars you've seen in your area. I can assure you in other regions the vast majority of cars are entirely legal. But the critical point is we cannot -- CANNOT -- make rules based on "real world" observations of illegal cars.

Last, "real world" observations are fraugh with, to use your term, error. Car prep, driver prep, driver having a bad day, and so on -- all things that affect an "on track" observation that we can't and won't account for in the Process.

Flyinglizard

09-25-2012, 11:28 PM

I have raced IT for 20yrs.Built/setup/crewed, maybe 25-40 IT cars.

The Rabbit and Rocco have been 50# apart for 20yrs.
Now you have obsoleted the Rabbit. Simple as that.

JeffYoung

09-25-2012, 11:54 PM

No sir, we did not. I've learned from 10 years of racing IT and working on 8, 10, 12 IT cars that yes, 50 lbs matters, but driver skill, car prep and many other factors matter more.

It's that simple.

And I'm sure, if I spent the time to figure it out, I could find some advantages the Rabbit has over the Roc that aren't accounted for in the Process.

jjjanos

09-26-2012, 12:13 AM

I don't disagree with some of that. BUT:

1. The goal is not parity. The goal is to get cars "roughly equal" and let prep level and driving skill sort things out.

1. Define roughly equal. Define prep level. If cars were to be roughly equal, they would be processed at their stock HP (and the guys who IT-Prep their cars rise to the top) or with a standard IT-prep gain, unless and until proven otherwise. HP multipliers wouldn't be set here or there in a willy-nilly matter by the production class biases of dinosaurs.

2. WTF do you do about a car that simply is bettermiataas it comes from the factory? HP right on the process prediction, yada-yada-yada... The process is screwed. There's no justification to throw weight on the car since the process-driven HP:weight ratio is exactly as predicted.

2. If we give the Golf/Rabbit whatever it is an aero break vis a vis the Scirocco, making it "fair" versus that car, what about the rest of ITB? Aren't we giving the Golf/Rabbit and aero break that it may not deserve against say a 2002?

Wrong metric. The definition of fair isn't whether giving something to the Golf is unfair to the 2002 (assuming the 2002 deserves one as well). The definition of fair is whether the Golf is fairly classified versus the ideal ITB classification. Same/Same for the Roc. Either the car with crappy aero is classified too heavy or the car with good aero is classified too light. How the car is classified versus other cars in ITB is irrelevant since the goal is to give each each car its ideal ITB classification.

Opening the ECUs was the death knell of the carb cars and while I understand that the old rule, as written, couldn't be enforced, I think there were other options to forestall illegal ecus that didn't require the anything goes world we have.

JeffYoung

09-26-2012, 12:44 AM

Roughly equal is all set using the same process, which has imperfect inputs. Meaning, we get roughly equal cars.

You do nothing about a car that is simply "better." You can't quantify it and you are more likely to muck things up if you try. That's a choice we've made and by empirical observation, we still have 5, 7, 9, more chassis that can win in S, A and B.

Absolutely correct metric because you are saying exactly the same thing. You don't compare Car A to Car B to determine "fair." You compare it to the class. We don't use aero as a modifier for ANY cars, which is why granting Car A an aero modifier due to a perceived disadvantage vis a vis Carb is 100% wrong.

What other options besides open ECUs were there?

The only class where I don't see any more carb'ed cars running up front is ITA (although there aren't any in R). S -- Z cars. B -- 2002s, etc.

Still though, the fact is those cars are OLD. there are fewer of them, and there was no real way using the process to quantify the advantage an open ECU gives. Peak power? No, not unless something else changed. Area under the curve? Sure, but how are going to quantify that?

jjjanos

09-26-2012, 01:38 AM

You do nothing about a car that is simply "better." You can't quantify it and you are more likely to muck things up if you try. That's a choice we've made and by empirical observation, we still have 5, 7, 9, more chassis that can win in S, A and B.

Empirical observation? Something, something... on-track performance. And I think there is a growing consensus that ITA stands for A car is dominant.

Absolutely correct metric because you are saying exactly the same thing. You don't compare Car A to Car B to determine "fair." You compare it to the class.No, it's not the same thing. You are saying that one should compare it to the current performance of the class. I'm saying one should compare it to the ideal performance of the class. If the Rabbit is too heavy based on its aero for that ideal, then it matters not whether any other car also is too heavy based on their aero. Not the same.

We don't use aero as a modifier for ANY cars, which is why granting Car A an aero modifier due to a perceived disadvantage vis a vis Carb is 100% wrong.I think you are combining two issues. Aero and the obsolescence of Carb cars. Not using an aero modifier is a choice -- a deliberate omission given that aero is one of the factors listed in the GCR for classification
During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as – but not limited to – manufacturer’s published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency.Claiming that since you cannot get it correct, you shouldn't adjust for it is disingenuous. 1. Not including any adjust at all is simply the converse of the above. Instead of potentially creating a winner by misapplying an aero adjustment, the process creates winners by the misapplication of zero aero adjustments.
2. The goal is to get as close to perfection as possible -- two cars have identical components and one is a plow. It's clear that the plow should weigh less. Applying something is better than applying nothing. Especially since the adjustment is likely to be marginal.
3. Y'all got the exact, nailed down, 100% correct maximum HP of every car built to a 100% IT-prep build?

What other options besides open ECUs were there?I think you have replaced the chip in your ECU. Here's my $25 protest fee and his brand new/factory reconditioned ECU with the correct factory part number right on it. Put it in your car. I get your old, used and beat-up "stock" ECU. I'm out $25 and the considerable cost of the ECU and I get a used ECU that isn't worth crap (unless it's got a a really cool illegal chip in it and I'll be more than happy to sell that to someone in a class where it is legal, but you don't have an illegal chip, do you?)

The only class where I don't see any more carb'ed cars running up front is ITA (although there aren't any in R). S -- Z cars. B -- 2002s, etc. The 2002s run up front when the ECU cars stay home. How many carb ITB cars were on the podium at IT Spectacular? How many at the ARRC?

Still though, the fact is those cars are OLD. there are fewer of them, and there was no real way using the process to quantify the advantage an open ECU gives. Peak power? No, not unless something else changed. Area under the curve? Sure, but how are going to quantify that?You're confusing perfectly quantifying the impact with attempting to adjust for it. The pursuit of perfection often impedes improvement. The rules were changed and the change put some cars at a disadvantage and some cars at an advantage -- what was that you said about imperfect aero adjustments? If I was in the first group, I'd be pissed off, especially if I felt that nothing was done to adjust for it.

ITB is healthy now because there's been an influx of newer cars and the driver's of the older cars haven't (yet) gone off to vintage like it appears the organization would implicitly like them to do.

JeffYoung

09-26-2012, 02:51 AM

Andy Bettencourt

09-26-2012, 07:57 AM

So I think we all 'get' the problem here. It is exemplified by the fact that two cars, with identical input factors for the Process, weigh the same. A factor that the ITAC and CRB agree is too subjective (aero) provides one car with an advantage over the other. This is fact.

But we have to realize that just because this example 'clearly' shows one should weigh more than another to be equal, most of us agree that it doesn't matter. Here is why:

As Jeff stated, while it may be simple to think that in a vacuum these two cars should weigh different amounts, it is a much larger picture. You would be either giving the Rabbit an aero subtractor or the Rocco an aero adder. NEITHER of which are part of the Process. If it were, the ITAC would have to develop standards to which each car would be measured to determine if it got this applied to it as well.

As has been discussed much before, this is a virtually impossible task coupled with the fact that we are allowed to modify 'aero' in the rules. No adders or subtractors should be based on stock figures, they need to be based on figures 'with IT mods' if you really want them to mean something. So let's calculate the aero of everything with best-of-breed splitters and air-dams, measure windshield angles on everything and come up with an angle that is 'good and bad'...ummm, no.

So while we can all certainly understand that in this instance a 'flaw' in the Process is highlighted, the goal is NOT to get as close to perfection as possible. It was and I think still is, to set a group of parameters and get everyone onto the same playing field, not to try and stack everyone in the center of said field, right on the 50 yard line.

That would be GREAT if it happened, but with the wide range of cars in the ITCS I just don't see how you could do so without having dedicated metrics for brake size, aero, transmission ratios, HP and torque under the curve, steering box ratios...and on and on.

And just like in Pro Racing...part of this 'world of perfection' would have to be straight up competition adjustments to correct what you got wrong. And good luck trying to determine in this world of IT if that was driver, prep, car or any combination therein.

On edit: If we want to argue that the Process needs to be more granular because situations like this are not acceptable, then a real strong methodology needs to be proposed and adopted inside the Process to accommodate.

Flyinglizard

09-26-2012, 09:55 AM

Major parameters that determine sedan race-abilty;
Chassis estimator/ dynamics , IE does the chassis suck?
1) dynamic outside front tire loading This figure is in #. Add both front weights .( for our purpose of relative value)
This is the major limit for actual turn speed and brake performance. Less front weight allows the car to turn faster and stop better. The actual geometry( wheel angle of 3-10degrees turned) and brake size has very little to do with real world performance ,it is basic physics of dynamic # per sq in of rubber.

2) Roll center/vertical CG value. Lower is better, esp rear roll center. The rear roll picks up the inside front tire, slowing the car,adding to outside load,see #1.

Subset, aero
3)Windshield angle; lower is better. IT rules have the same size wheels/tires airdam . The major value not moved is the glass angle. Big value with 100 -125hp, Huge impact in top gear. Huge impact in top gear**

4) sq/in of involvement; smaller car has less sq in, smaller window lets less air inside, resulting in less involvement.etc.
Smaller car makes smaller hole in air.

Powertrain; Eng,gears.; est HP /cc, lower factory value to cc leaves more room to build HP.
1) #/ cc.; acceleration estimator.
Valve area per CC, determines operating RPM range. cam timing etc.

2)gear box. determines time in torque range

The areas thatITAC should look at ; IMO

#per CC
Est HP per #
Throttle body size area/ to CC.
front weight
Aero sq in and windshield angle .
rear roll center/vertical CG

Based upon prior statements. The A 1 ,VWs should all weight the same, the Honda CRX and sedan should weigh the same .

Based on real world observation and 20yr.history, the VW were very close together with a 50# spread. The Civic/CRX is close with a 100# spread .
Why mess with success? that already existed? Move the cars weight together, keeping the spread. Logic should prevail. When real word observation has more value than an equation..

Its like the baseball coach messing with my kid that was hitting .435 .Those kids can do whatever theywant.

Again you guys can do whatever you want, but make improvements not back track.

I always say that either you are part of the solution or part of the problem. I would be happy to assist with aero estimations.
To do so you need a "zero car" target car. I use the Golf Mk 2 as I have 4or 5 and can get a decent repeatable value for it and the Jetta.
My Rocco has no front bumper at this point.

jjjanos

09-26-2012, 10:43 AM

This post just confirms why you have zero impact on club racing. You are completely incapable of the words "I agree." You take issue with EVERY assertion I make because, well, that's your nature. You are a smart guy, but irrelevant, because you didn't get that "how to win friends and influence people" the rest of us got.

You want someone to agree with everything you say -- go talk to mirror. My concerns with the process has nothing to do with you saying it. I've had the same discussion with Kirk. If I agreed with it, I wouldn't have chimed in here.

In short, people have valid concerns about the outcomes of the Holy Process and your answer is they should be thankful we used lube.

The Process is not perfect. It's not meant to be. It gets cars close, and using a gut check of empirical observation it works. It's that simple. That one sentence answers about 99% of your beef above, which veers all over the place but in short just wants something we can never have: perfect classing of cars.I agree (happy now?), we probably cannot get perfection. We certainly can move towards it. We know that aero matters. We know that torque matters.

A car that has too much weight because there is no adjustment for these known factors is no different than a car that has too little weight because the wrong adjustment was applied. Both weights are wrong. The only question is which has the largest deviation from the correct weight. Declaring that we can't make an adjustment for this because we might get it wrong is disingenuous because by already accepting that aero or torque matters concedes that the weight on the car is wrong.

And your ECU fix? Yeah. Good luck finding a sock ECU for some of the cars on grid. 1. Good luck finding spare body panels/fenders for some of the cars on the grid. We still require these and the people who race these cars find them. Where there is a will, there is a way.
2. I think you underestimate what people will and can do if they think that Robert Reflashed-ECU is running an illegal ECU. Moreover, if parts for a car are so rare, then, most likely, so will be those cars. I acknowledge and accept that the rule might not work for all cars. The current rule suffers the same problem. The open-ECU rule helped those cars with ECUs and hurt those that do not.

jjjanos

09-26-2012, 11:06 AM

But we have to realize that just because this example 'clearly' shows one should weigh more than another to be equal, most of us agree that it doesn't matter. Here is why:

First - thank you for an actual reply.

No adders or subtractors should be based on stock figures, they need to be based on figures 'with IT mods' if you really want them to mean something.Valid point.

...to set a group of parameters and get everyone onto the same playing field, not to try and stack everyone in the center of said field, right on the 50 yard line.Which is fine and great for a regional-only class with a uniform set of national rules. It's less fine if the goal is to spend a week in Wisconsin or where-ever that big event will be next.

...having dedicated metrics for...
On edit: If we want to argue that the Process needs to be more granular because situations like this are not acceptable, then a real strong methodology needs to be proposed and adopted inside the Process to accommodate.Dedicated - maybe yes, maybe no.

We already have a methodology in the Process that can be used. It's the one used to deviate from the default stock-HP multipliers. Here is the formula-generated weight of the Nash Torpedo. Here is the formula-generated weight of the Nash Billboard. They are identical because they run an identical power train. Do we think that identical builds driven by Michael Schumacherferrari will generate the same outcome? Yes/No. How much weight needs to be addedto /come off the Torpedo/Billboard to make you comfortable that Michael Schumacherferrari will perform the same in the cars?

It's not perfect and it runs the risk that the 'wrong' weight will be on the car that gets the adjustment - but we already have that "problem." It certainly won't work in a world where those setting the weights feel that everything needs to be formulaic (except for the HP multiplier). We already trust the committee to adjust HP multipliers on gut instinct and some data. I acknowledge that the system isn't repeatable as who sits on the committee will determine whether a car gets an aero/brake/torque adjustment, but that's also the case for whether a car gets an HP-multiplier adjustment. (I do acknowledge that there is more data in the HP-multiplier adjustment.)

RacerBowie

09-26-2012, 12:18 PM

God I'm glad I bought a ChumpCar.

JeffYoung

09-26-2012, 01:02 PM

God I'm glad I bought a ChumpCar.

See this right here? This is what this constant dickering over the Process breeds. Bowie's sentiment is 100% justified.

Over the last 10 years, the ITAC has faced two daunting tasks:

1. Fundamental change to an objective process the likes of which SCCA had not really seen before; AND

2. Once that change was in place, locking down the Process AND STOPPING LEADERSHIP/MEMBERSHIP FROM CONSTANTLY DICKING WITH IT IN THE NAME OF IMPROVEMENT.

Jjanos, I'm all for improvement and I do understand that you are offering your thoughts in the name of improvement.

But I think -- strongly -- that the biggest improvement we could have in IT right now is NO MORE CHANGE FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME.

We are running the risk of running people (like Bowie, dedicated IT guys) off due to instability. The Miata (his car) is a good example. A few years back we vote to leave it at its current weight. A few years later we add 80 lbs due to a correction that was discussed and rejected by a previous ITAC.

Not good.

RacerBowie

09-26-2012, 01:35 PM

To Jeff's thoughts:

I've been an IT racer since 1999. I started crewing for an IT car in 1996, in HIGH SCHOOL. IT has been what I've known and wanted to do that whole time. Not a stepping stone, rather the goal point.

In 2007 I wadded up my ITA 1.6 Miata. I had raced it (among other borrowed or shared cars) for 9 seasons at that point. The rules had changed precisely 3 times in that period that I can remember:
1) ECUs opened up.
2) 15" wheels
3) 50lbs was added to that car during "The Great Realignment"

As I'd been running the car for a long time I hemmed and hawed (and had some life changes) and didn't get anything built for over a year. I thought about building a Miata for ITS (still wish I had), thought about building another 1.6 with what I had left, and then ended up building a 1.8 Miata for two reasons:
1) Loyalty to Mazda/economies of the parts I had leftover from the crashed car
2) Perception that the 1.8 was slightly better than the 1.6 and would race more competitively with the Integras and CRXs and whatnot. My thought here was that this would be due to torque, not power-to-weight.

Before the car is even done people are going crazy on the internet about changing this or changing that, so I did some digging around and determined things weren't that bad, things were stabilizing out, etc. There are still noises, but I'm building a car so I just unplugged for a while and worried about my own stuff.

So the car is built and we drag it out and start sorting it out and it does ok... nothing special. But I'm hearing more and more constant internet and racetrack noise about how these dominant ITA 1.8 Miatas are ruining everything.

Then I'm having teething pains, problems with the engine builder (oh, that's me) and problems with the driver taking longer than expected to get back up to pace (damn, me again) but the one constant is the bitching.

Start getting things close this year and BOOM, mid-year 80lb lead trophy. Grand. Sure makes me wish I hadn't just pissed all this money into a moving target.

All of that above stuff is just life, and that's fine, except for this is a HOBBY and supposed to be fun... and over the past 4 months or so I've found myself avoiding checking this board, and avoiding rules discussions on The Sandbox... and looking to other pastures. STL piqued my interest for a while, and still does, but that's some racing that has the potential to weigh on the checkbook pretty damn heavily really quicklike. Running Prod locally might be ok, but same deal there, because I've met me and I know I like to give a full effort to whatever I'm doing.

Then I started talking with some buddies that are running ChumpCar. Those guys are having a BLAST and being very competitive, and you know what? They aren't spending all that much money and are driving A LOT.

Yes, Chump/Lemons has warts too. Dictatorships and whatnot. But having been through this for sooooo long, maybe it is time to unplug from what I thought I would always want to do and try something else? Maybe I'll like it, maybe I won't. Maybe I'll run some of both next year, which is the current plan. Or maybe I'll put the ITA car up for sale and find somewhere else to play. Somewhere that at least FEELS more stable. I neither am able or willing to play somewhere that the target keeps moving.

edit: What it comes down to is this sad fact: I'm WAY more excited and interested to tear into this 22 year old crapbox Honda that makes all of 100 hp than I have been about working on my "real" racecar in over a year. My buddy Matt Reppert's the same way. That's two recent ARRC winners that are wandering off, being sick of hearing the bitching.

Enough rambling, back to work.

Flyinglizard

09-26-2012, 01:43 PM

RacerBowie

09-26-2012, 01:47 PM

The Chumpcar deal is no rules. The target has moved 10 sec. @ Sebring. Fast lap this year was 2:36. You need an E 30- E 36 or big Jap V6 to stay near the top 10.

ITAC, if you are ignoring the aero input, you are simply doing it wrong. Stop what you are doing . The VW example is simple y wrong. Get a new "process."

Except for the 1.8 liter pair of MX3s that are in contention for every race, or the 1.8 liter DA integra that won the 24 hour at VIR, or...

edit: he doesn't get it, never mind, signing off.

JeffYoung

09-26-2012, 01:48 PM

ITAC, if you are ignoring the aero input, you are simply doing it wrong. Stop what you are doing . The VW example is simple y wrong. Get a new "process."

Why, because it is easy to get right on one car?

You apparently missed years of history where folks way smarter than me, and you, hashed out the Process with input from racers, the CRB, etc. Aero was discussed at length and rejected as a factor that we simply could not consider accurately when processing cars. Done. Correct, too. And close, full fields of S/A/B cars seems to prove it.

Last point. It's rather arrogant to tromp in here and tell us/the previous ITAC that we are "simply doing it wrong" and to "get a new process" when thousands of man hours of have been put into trying to get it as right as is realistically possible.

Flyinglizard

09-26-2012, 02:15 PM

Funny. I was asked about 12yrs ago about the very cars we have been talking about.
" Mike Do you think that the Rocc and Rabbit GTI are good with 50#?"
"yes. they are about right with 50#".

JeffYoung

09-26-2012, 02:26 PM

And there you have it! We should just put you in charge to handle all car weighting/Process issues.

Flyinglizard

09-26-2012, 02:33 PM

I'd be happy to help.esp with the aero .
My airplane flies @ 38mph.

JeffYoung

09-26-2012, 02:35 PM

Airspeed of an african swallow?

Coconut or no coconut?

shwah

09-26-2012, 02:40 PM

T
Start getting things close this year and BOOM, mid-year 80lb lead trophy. Grand. Sure makes me wish I hadn't just pissed all this money into a moving target.

The target moves when the standard of performance is moved around you in your class too. This is my concern. The Protege, the Honda (Underwood style) and the MR2 all have the potential to significantly change the standard of performance in ITB. Before anyone starts in, I get that with development we continue to improve. I expect that, and have poured, and will continue to pour my efforts into that. Right up to the point that the target moves so far that I will be better off converting to HP or FP and playing somewhere that I can expect a consistent level of competition.

To be clear, I am NOT taking my ball and going home, but I can see a scenario where I decide to do that.

There were a number of lively conversations here and elsewhere about the MR2 in ITB, and how it could not make enough power to compete at the current weight. About how it cannot even make 15%, and should be classed as such (even though it allegedly cannot get to that weight - which tells me it is an ITC car based on current precedent). Then I see one show up at Road America for the first time and run close to a lap record set by someone running "the car" to have at that time (Golf 3) at their home track (has thousands of laps there), while I was pushing him for the entire race (and missing the lap record by .2s). Now I imagine the same car classed at 15%, losing lots of weight, and wonder why I would even show up. The same car ran well at ITFest, and plans to be at the ARRC. I am happy for the guy that he has put together a solid effort, and really developed the hell out of his car, and don't want to take anything away from that, but also don't want to see weight taken off of a very fast car based on unsubstantiated claims that it can't make power and can't get to the lower weight anyhow.

The Protege that showed up a few years ago at the ARRC was by many accounts an SS car. That may or may not be true, but many commented on how it was not yet developed, yet it ran very fast and competitively against many of the best.

Underwood was very competitive when he took is car to the ARRC for the first time, and we were not surprised because of the quality of the build, and the level of existing development he leveraged, as well as new development that he completed. Yet when I watched the in car video from that race, the car stuttered routinely while it was making up ground on the leader after making a mistake. When someone gets the engine management right on that car it will fly. But IIRC we just took weight off of that car (correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is the same type of car that ran away from Albin last month at MPH).

I get the issues of using on track performance as a single input to classification, but I don't get ignoring empirical data - that is every bit as valid and reliable as dyno sheets, if not more so (cannot fudge seconds with a correction factor) and making a sniff test before/after making changes.

In light of these examples of recent additions/changes to ITB, I am reluctant to support the ITAC moving more cars down from A, until we figure out what the performance envelope will be, and how we will land cars there AND correct them if we miss it.

ShelbyRacer

09-26-2012, 03:37 PM

As the newest member of the ITAC, I can testify to one major thing here:

There is a LOT of debate, investigation, data collection, further discussion, reanalysis, more debate, etc. that goes on over each individual issue. In two calls, I have already developed a tremendous respect for those on the committee, AND for the ones who came before, who left us with a pattern to follow to guide the discussions and give us a great point at which to start for each car. We don't all agree. We do all listen and participate. From the beginning, I was given respect and a chance to participate, not the old "shut up for the first six months and just listen". Several members of this committee are willing to participate in these forums despite concerns from many people. You all have more input than you realize at times, but I can also assure you that even if you were on the committee, you may not get your way all the time, even if you're sure it's the Right Thing To Do (TM).

Now, the points below are MINE, not necessarily those of the ITAC (disclaimer disclaimer disclaimer)...

Mike- your points about aero are valid concerns, but I think, as a few here have said, you're adding a level of complexity that would do more harm than good. One more variable is one more chance to mess things up. Unlike other adders, aero is MUCH more dependent upon track design (achievable speeds). Also, your situation from 12 years ago was one of the problems at the time. Things were done (from my understanding) SOLELY on what "feels" right, and perhaps one or two friends were consulted who would confirm that feeling, thereby making everyone feel better. Many of those feelings put us with the disparity we are still sorting out today. Yeah, they may have gotten one right, but what about the tens that weren't?

Jeff (Janoska)- I like you. I get it. But damn dude, even when you make a decent point, you ram it in so hard (no lube?) that it gets lost. If you and I hadn't met face to face, I'd say you were a new identity for another hard-charger (cough-Weisberg-cough). In the end, he didn't get it. I hope you do. I hope to make it to Summit in October, so try to look me up if you're there.

That all said, I'm bound and determined to make sure of one thing- I don't want to earn the title of "one of those guys on the ITAC when everything got screwed up". I want to be a good custodian of the class. I'd suggest that if you feel your idea has merit, you send it in to be discussed officially. In what I've seen since I've been here, nothing gets decided on these forums. I'm also with Jeff (Young) in that I think we need to stabilize some things to see where it all shakes out.

JeffYoung

09-26-2012, 04:22 PM

Good post. We are lucky to have Matt on the committee.

Knestis

09-26-2012, 05:10 PM

... There were a number of lively conversations here and elsewhere about the MR2 in ITB, and how it could not make enough power to compete at the current weight. About how it cannot even make 15%, and should be classed as such (even though it allegedly cannot get to that weight - which tells me it is an ITC car based on current precedent). Then I see one show up at Road America for the first time and run close to a lap record set by someone running "the car" to have at that time (Golf 3) at their home track (has thousands of laps there), while I was pushing him for the entire race (and missing the lap record by .2s). Now I imagine the same car classed at 15%, losing lots of weight, and wonder why I would even show up. The same car ran well at ITFest, and plans to be at the ARRC. I am happy for the guy that he has put together a solid effort, and really developed the hell out of his car, and don't want to take anything away from that, but also don't want to see weight taken off of a very fast car based on unsubstantiated claims that it can't make power and can't get to the lower weight anyhow.

You'll note that the MkI Rabbit GTI that ran as fast at this year's 'fest as the MkIII cars was found to be non-compliant. Scott Giles cited that very example in an old thread I saw recently about the 2010 IT Festival, as evidence of that car still having some life in ITB and not being a C car.

That's the problem with samples of n=1.

...which really gets at the nut of the issue. For the zillionth time, we cannot be changing stuff based on observed on-track performance. As much as folks want to trust their eyes, we have absolutely no freaking idea about what is making the car go as fast as the watch says it goes.

K

shwah

09-26-2012, 06:21 PM

I understand what you are saying Kirk. Rightly or wrongly a car that goes to the fest and arrc is one that I am more likely to expect to be legal. Regardless, I do not see it as any more definitive than a single dyno sheet. There are just as many uncontrolled variables in both types of data they way we do it now.

Also - read what I said again. I did not say to make changes to a car based on track performance. I did say that the performance of 3 recent (relatively) changes to the B class suggest that we are not getting it right, and maybe we should stop making changes until we figure out what is really happening. Big difference.

I think that it is equally incorrect to say that you should always adjust based on track performance, or to say that you should never do so. Absolutes are not real.

Chip42

09-26-2012, 06:27 PM

IT rules are pretty well sorted out, and I can't see allowing any sort of changes other than pidly things like that washer bottle or the coolant tank in the survey on the home page, and then only with a demonstrated need, not just "because racecar".

my views on the process and my role on the ITAC:

1) I'm not a process disciple myself, but I am a member of a committee which has an operations manual, and I follow it as though it were scripture. If I were around when it was written, I would have argued for some things to be different, but I have no objective to change it in any meaningful way (I DID have a part in getting the language on the 30% thing revised, and I'm happy about that). that manual codifies a process that has had very good results in S and A (which were realigned), and among recently classed cars at least, mostly very good results in B (so demonstration of a functional process). I think R is good, too, though car counts are still low in most places.

B ) Any significant issues with the process can only be identified when ALL cars in a run group are run through as accurately as possible AND there is time to settle out and see what rises and falls. if Aero, or brakes, or torque, or some other thing needs to be addressed, that baseline will GIVE you the data needed to address it AS CORRECTLY AS POSSIBLE. any other attempts to change the process, despite what anyone may percieve to be its shortcomings, are just going to make parity worse as some cars get "fixed" and some don't.

iii) To that end, when a car doesn't get a fair shake (it is way off the process numbers) it deserves to be re-examined based on evidence, and it's listing corrected BY THE PROCESS if found to be in error. I don't care if the car has been classed for 20 minutes or 20 years. I dont' want to see lead trophies, or weight changes done to anything other than data-driven process outputs. cars that are too fast or too slow because the committee was wrong are bad for the class and category, and skew the reuslts of any attempt to identify what needs changing if and when such an effort is undertaken. cars that are "too fast or too slow" on track but correct to the process as best as can be determined should stay as is.

quatro) ITB has not been reprocessed 100%. this is a problem with regard to old car / new car parity.

About the very strong MR2 running ITNT (including IT Fest):
I need to find out more about this car. It's driven by Nick Engels of TX region, if anyone knows anything about it, please share. If I / others / the ITAC have wrong information (and we have a LOT of it) about the MR2's potential, that would be good to know. If he is not 100% legal, that would be very useful info as well.

to Jeff Young - Supermodels probobly don't give very good blow jobs. they arent' used to things larger than a cigarette going into their mouth...

jjjanos

09-26-2012, 08:11 PM

But I think -- strongly -- that the biggest improvement we could have in IT right now is NO MORE CHANGE FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME.

I guess I don't view taking 25/50 lbs off a car because we know it is at a disadvantage vis-a-vis a car with an identical drive train as a rules change. I would say allowing spherical bearings, or carbon fiber hoods or wings as a a rules change. The first impacts one car and the second impacts everyone.

I look at the CRX and its uglier twin Civic and I know the cars shouldn't weigh the same. The Civic is a dead-man walking if the CRX gets in its draft and the same is true if the Civic tries to draft the CRX. How much should come off the Civic -- I haven't a clue, but even if 25lbs isn't enough, at least its a bone.

The older cars have a legitimate beef regarding the rules change. They built cars under one set of rules and then the targets moved to their disadvantage and they've been told -- tough or throw gobs of money into prepping your car (with no guarantee that you'll be equal) to compete with a car that isn't going to have to go through the same effort and cost. It would be one thing if we always had an open ECU rule, but we didn't.

The Miata shows the weakness of the Process. I agree, the Miata shouldn't have had weight put on it based on the Process. I still think it needed it because of the things the Process doesn't include and that's the weakness of excluding things that cannot be nailed down with a specific number.

The MR2 is a problem. There's more than enough dyno information to suggest that it has an IT-multiplier issue. That being said... Doug Kinser built an excellent prep MR2 under the heavier weight and both ran up-front with the dreaded VWs, but also was beating them (IIRC) both times he ran the car.... and then he broke a front hub both times on a car that never had a history of breaking hubs. (The consensus was the car just couldn't carry that much weight as a race car.) What little I know of Doug makes me believe his car was legal.

Knestis

09-26-2012, 09:12 PM

Chip42

09-26-2012, 09:39 PM

I absolutely do NOT agree that we should ever use non-standard multipliers based on a single dyno sheet either. I can't conceive of a situation where that would warrant the extremely high confidence numbers necessary to make that happen.

K

+11ty

gran racing

09-26-2012, 10:13 PM

The scca moves down the newer vw, Honda prelude...

Just sayin' - Very well developed Prelude for sale - $6,900 (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30711)

Refreshed head is in the garage awaiting to be bolted in. ;) I'd also place money if I'm in it next year, it'll be going faster. Time to man up Charlie. Old tires isn't going to do it anymore. Or again, the "easy button: ain't that expensive above especially considering how much more money was spent developing / building it.

I have zero question that a fully developed, well driven 2002 can run up front in the best ITB field. Problem is, nobody is doing it.

I raced against one at the Glen last year and we had a fantastic battle racing right with each other. Totally either of our races. I got lucky that he made a mistake; that's it.

shwah

09-26-2012, 10:32 PM

Knestis

09-27-2012, 07:18 AM

1. I'm on record as believing we should apply a standard multiplier, shut up, and go racing.

2. That's not how it went down.

3. Write a letter.

K

CRallo

09-27-2012, 08:53 AM

Warts and all. Horses for courses. etc. etc.

That said, while we are on the topic... An aero adder would not be much different than a torque adder, so why not?

On the original topic, regarding how the car is classified: any dyno sheets for serious builds? Regarding the apparent lack of success, any highly developed cars with extensive testing?

Flyinglizard

09-27-2012, 09:20 AM

The aero is so important with these cars. I spent a week cost down testing my last car. The initial coast down from 60-45 was 14.8 sec. My ending value was 17.5. sec.
This turned into around 400rpm, or 8-9mph.

Just dropping the rear of the Mk 2 Golf,2in, increases terminal speed about 2-3mph.
Funny, one of the racing games( Forza) comes up with the same values.

I Think that I could do a very simple equation using the glass angle/ width/ total height. It would be based upon a "zero car". Any cars outside of the standard value
( way better or way worse) could be addressed fairly easy.

Chip42

09-27-2012, 09:23 AM

A fixed-weight aero adder, like that used for torque, sounds fine. a way to apply it based on data showing better or worse aero than the norm for the class requires data that is not easily available for many cars, and statistics for the classes that we don't have. It's not really all that useful if we can't apply it.

gran racing

09-27-2012, 09:35 AM

Do you then judge aero with or without the allowable splitter and "undertray"? If a car that doesn't have as good areo stock, could that be overcome with a high quality IT allowed system?

We can infer what types of engine builds will produce what HP gains. I really don't think IT is a place to attempt this on aero.

Flyinglizard

09-27-2012, 10:09 AM

My short equation will assume that all of the allowed front aero is done. It will look only at the basic shape presented to the air.
It should only bump a # if the car varies much(10%) from the Norm/zero car.

It will be simply a % drag change from the norm ( I would use the Mk 2 Golf for the ITB norm), of the glass/surface area. Cars way better or way worse would bump the numbers. The adjuster could just be a percent value , times the car overall value.

I have not done the equation yet, But I dont see any reason it could not be done pretty well.

The values should hold up fairly well at different tracks also . As the poor Aero cars are also taller, affecting the cars at handling tracks near as much as top speed tracks.

If you look at published CD values large pieces of drag are the front tires, mirrors, etc account for around 50% of the CD. My equation will assume that all of these are equal.

The input #s needed are; hood height, glass angle , width in the middle of the glass , overall height.

Sorry about the poor reading/ writing as I am pretty heavy ADD. MM

StephenB

09-27-2012, 10:31 AM

where would you get all your info for your equation?

Also could you please use the equation and give us some examples. I would like to see the Golf2, Golf3, Volvo, Opel GT, Alfa Romeo (conv.), Audi Coupe, Prelude, 2002, 318, civic done through your equation then I can give input with more validity.

To be honest I really really think that it doesn't matter at our level of racing. Way to many other variables to worry about... like your reaction time from the gas to the brakes for example. but after you give us some data on the above examples maybe I can be swayed...

Stephen

StephenB

09-27-2012, 10:41 AM

maybe some one with powers on this site can split this aero thing into another thread?

JeffYoung

09-27-2012, 10:48 AM

Aero, by the seat of my pants driving, seems to matter about 110 or so. Total guess, that's what it seems like. So I agree aero matters.

Now, tell me where and how we are going to get "aero specs" for each of the 300 cars in the ITCS. You have a myopic focus on two cars which really highlights how impractical this exercise is.

This is not prod. We are not here to balance cars on a pin head. We get the power to weights close, and we apply some very basic adders/deducts (and I was with Kirk back in the day -- opposed to all of them) and you move on.

You start trying to calculate torque under the curve (the only way to do a fair torque adder/deduct) or aero like Lizard suggests and you are quickly stuck in a morass of minutiae.

Knestis

09-27-2012, 11:13 AM

...and EVERY additional variable that gets put into the mix is an invitation for monkey business - whether intentional or not.

"It matters" is a very different thing than, "we can manage it" or "it matters more than a lot of things we can't control for."

As someone who knows a little more about aerodynamics than the average Club Racer, I think it's a tangle with lousy benefit/cost returns, which we should stay FAR away from.

K

EDIT - Readers' Quiz Time!

How much difference do you think this air dam made at Road Atlanta, in back-to-back testing with the stock configuration? It included a to-the-max undertray:

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/2010/ARRC10.JPG

Here's stock...

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/vir0902.jpg

K

Flyinglizard

09-27-2012, 11:21 AM

My airplane flies @ 35-36mph.
http://pou.guide.free.fr/connaitre/gretchen/gretchen_mike_ogren.html
So yes it matters. But Only if you want it to

It occurs to me that i have lots to work with.
2 Mk 2 Golfs, One Jetta roadster, 1 SM miata, 1 Rocco. All take the same wheels/tires, all have the free running calipers. Big burps in drag( either way) will show up.

6000ft of runway.

Yes, I will need the input data listed above .
I have lots to do either way.
Not considering aero , big mistake IMHO.
But I spend a lot of time addressing it. Most dont.

ShelbyRacer

09-27-2012, 11:27 AM

Except for the fact that, as Dave alluded, some of these issues can be tackled with IT mods. How do we compensate for a car with large frontal area, and therefore what appears to be a drag handicap, that can drop it's ride height more than another car with a better stock drag that can't go much lower? What about the significant CD gain from an air dam on a car that had a poor stock CD, versus a negligible gain on another car with a good factory CD because of better air control? It seems to me that the cars that would stand to receive the biggest handicap are the cars that would benefit the most from a full application of the rules and some significant development work.

Oh, and then there's the question of even getting good numbers to begin with. In a quick check, I found that the "officially claimed" CD on the 1988 Rocco is .38, while the 1988 Golf is .34 from the same site.

Mike- your "formula" appears to concentrate on the front of the car. What about the rear? I realize that IT mods have little effect there, but stock shape does.

As Chip said, I don't object to the concept of an adder, I just question a way to apply it accurately and consistently.

Flyinglizard

09-27-2012, 11:46 AM

The simple equation addresses the frontal area by the glass width, hood height, overall height..
The back of the car is similar in size as the front.

RE air dam; speed neutral, +-2, down force positive, should have more front bite and a lower lap time.
Still could go faster if you used my DRS. :)

jjjanos

09-27-2012, 12:49 PM

Ignoring aero and torque creates a set of rules created winners and losers. Which, if the allowable modifications had been set in stone and left unchanged would leave those who want to build one of the losers with no basis to complain. We've changed the rules on what can be modified and that has impacted the list of winners and losers after they've already tossed in their ante and matched on the first round of bets.

If the true aero penalty on a car is 75lbs, then allowing that car to remove anything less than 75lbs is a win. The current cars in the aero win list get "hurt", but I don't have sympathy for them because IMO eliminating an unfair advantage is not the same as eliminating an unfair disadvantage.

Do you then judge aero with or without the allowable splitter and "undertray"? If a car that doesn't have as good areo stock, could that be overcome with a high quality IT allowed system?

It's got to be after the allowed IT prep and that might make it more difficult to get the adjustment perfect. I'm not certain whether it makes moving the system closer to perfect impossible.

To be honest I really really think that it doesn't matter at our level of racing. Way to many other variables to worry about... like your reaction time from the gas to the brakes for example. but after you give us some data on the above examples maybe I can be swayed...

We don't process the Miata and a Chrysler K car to equate the performance+ ability of Price in the Miata to the ability of someone who would want to drive a K-car. Isn't the goal to equate what driver X can do in the Miata with what driver X can do in the K-car?

Aero, by the seat of my pants driving, seems to matter about 110 or so. Total guess, that's what it seems like. So I agree aero matters.

Is that at 110% or at 110MPH? :D Because if it's the latter, I can tell you it matters in a C car at a lot lower velocity.

Now, tell me where and how we are going to get "aero specs" for each of the 300 cars in the ITCS. You have a myopic focus on two cars which really highlights how impractical this exercise is. You (the ITAC) don't. The default is NADA on the omitted variables. If a car already is classified, then those wanting the change better bring the blue dress. If the car isn't already processed, then those asking for it either show that the glove fits or the car doesn't get the subtraction. Isn't that how deviations from the default HP-multiplier work on cars never before classified?

Insufficient or no evidence on additional/reduced gains under an IT-build gets you the default. Same could happen for aero -- you want it, produce the evidence otherwise it isn't even considered and the ITAC isn't going to ask for it.

Chip42

09-27-2012, 01:16 PM

except that we dopn't have a baseline to compare that submitted data against. we need to have an idea of what the drag (and more importantly, drag to hp) of the class is so we could modify a car's weight to compensate. we can measure mass. we can measure hp. so those are really good things to base such a process on, and we can find out when we're right and wrong because we can go back and measure them again later.

adding aero to the mix does nothing but create more winners and loosers.

and FWIW, the rocco and GTI are both "heavy" by process, and I think the realistic floor weight on the rocco is above that number. if someone writes a letter, we could maybe fix that, given support. self correcting problem. moving along.

jjjanos

09-27-2012, 02:18 PM

except that we dopn't have a baseline to compare that submitted data against.

Pick it arbitrarily.
ITR: Honda S2000
ITS: Triumph TR8
ITA: Honda CRX Si
ITB: BMW 2002
ITC: Yugo GV

Car <> modifier is based on deviation from the drag:IT-HP of the "base" car.

How did the ITC hp:weight ratio get set? Certainly nothing to do with the cars actually in the class (who will need to lose 20-50% of their mass if reprocessed).

Chip42

09-27-2012, 02:38 PM

ITC's process variables are wrong. no argument.

ShelbyRacer

09-27-2012, 04:28 PM

Funny. I was asked about 12yrs ago about the very cars we have been talking about.
" Mike Do you think that the Rocc and Rabbit GTI are good with 50#?"
"yes. they are about right with 50#".

I would like to see that on the real world, there is a measurable difference between these two cars. I couldn't get MkI numbers, but for MkII cars-

88 Golf GTI- .35 CD and 1.91m^2 frontal = .6685 m^2 drag area

88 Rocco- .38 CD and 1.74m^2 frontal = .6612 m^2 drag area

When looking at the two cars, *I believe you* when you say the Golf should be lighter because of an aero issue. HOWEVER, the numbers don't seem to bear that out. According to those numbers above, the aero is about 1% worse on the Golf, equating to about 25 lb. of weight reduction, not 50. And then what about all the other areas on track when lighter weight is another advantage? Is throwing 50 or 100 lb at the "slipperier" car to slow them on the straightaway going to also affect them other places? Yes. And at the slow, technical tracks, it's a double whammy because you'll never have the straightaway to gain and make up for the loss you suffer through every corner...

I think there are some other significant unaccounted factors that should be addressed long before aero. Even on those factors, I'm not sure the cost/benefit ratio is going to make it worth the risk...

Knestis

09-27-2012, 06:31 PM

Andy Bettencourt

09-27-2012, 07:36 PM

According to those numbers above, the aero is about 1% worse on the Golf, equating to about 25 lb. of weight reduction, not 50.

First off, great post by Kirk above.

Second, the math above is simple in a vacuum but who could ever say that a 1% difference in 'areo' should be 100% linear to a 1% difference in weight? Should cars with 10% more HP weight 10% more? Should cars with a 5% more brake rotor size weigh 5% more?

It's an impossible task.

ShelbyRacer

09-27-2012, 09:35 PM

Please don't think I was in any way trying to make a statement about what I thought was right or wrong. Andy and Kirk you actually made my point. By trying to "simplify", we could make things exponentially worse.

JeffYoung

09-27-2012, 10:36 PM

I think that last few posts have clearly demonstrated the problems with this proposition.

Flyinglizard

09-27-2012, 11:14 PM

jjjanos

09-27-2012, 11:26 PM

"Weight" is mass, which factors into the mass-momentum math of performance, in terms of acceleration in ANY direction - fore, aft, left, and right.

Aero drag can be measured in pounds or horsepower (negative, of course).

The two have NOTHING to do with one another - that is, decreasing weight does NOT make a car more slippery...

What we're doing here is trying to make up for an apple shortage in our pie factory by shopping for oranges.

There's LITERALLY no way to do the math to convert Cd and frontal area in to some equivalent volume of lead bolted to the floor of a car.

There is literally no way to rely on a precise formulaic, here are your inputs and you don't need to do any thinking to generate that result. Drag is increasing with velocity in a non-linear fashion.

...the application of that kind of pseudo-scientific "evidence,"...

We already rely on a pseudo-scientific process.

Please be kind enough to provide the exact formulas and data used to check the accuracy of those same formulas that are the basis for the already adopted adders used in the scientific method to process the cars. If I recall correctly, weren't these determined via software whose internal workings could be correct or determined by newts?

Please be kind enough to provide the scientific calculations that demonstrate that equating HP:weight ratios alone generates similar performance. As observable data are viewed as taboo, the actual outcomes of IT races are not permitted to be submitted as validation.

Don't sell the process as the equivalent of plotting a ballistic trajectory.

Knestis

09-27-2012, 11:45 PM

You make the mistake of assuming that I am going to try to defend the Process with claims of accuracy or certitude. I wouldn't ever do that because its value is that it doesn't TRY to be "valid" - in the sense that it spits out perfectly "right" answers. It's more important - and I've been arguing this online for a dozen or so years now - that it be "reliable." Repeatable, transparent, and diddle-proof. I'd propose that pretty much everything we've done to try to make it "better" has ultimately been a small step in the wrong direction.

K

JeffYoung

09-27-2012, 11:52 PM

I'd propose that pretty much everything we've done to try to make it "better" has ultimately been a small step in the wrong direction.

K

Read! Understand!

CRallo

09-28-2012, 12:24 AM

So?

EDIT - Readers' Quiz Time!

How much difference do you think this air dam made at Road Atlanta, in back-to-back testing with the stock configuration? It included a to-the-max undertray:

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/2010/ARRC10.JPG

Here's stock...

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/mk3.2/vir0902.jpg

K

JLawton

09-28-2012, 07:33 AM

I could simply take the base car, and come up with cars that are 1)the same, +-10%
2)Way better, -11% or more
3) way worse, +11% or more.

It not rocket science. Just a relative value resulting in a usable adder based upon # per hp that you come up with, times aero value.

Not a big deal , just crude numbers that would move 50# here and there.
Too many engineers trying to live in a perfect world that doesnt exist.
let me know. I have plenty to do.
MM

Mike, first off (with no disrespect), you need to get a girl friend.......... and if you're married.......... you need to get a girl friend................... :)

90% of the drivers in IT are not good enough or consistant enough to make a difference with 50 lbs more or less. We're not pros. I consider myself a so/so driver and i can't tell the difference in handling when I have a full tank of gas and an empy tank of gas. Again, if 90% of the guys say they can tell the difference........... I call bull shit.......

And to figure aero on 300 cars?? Our energies as a class are better spent else where............

And we won't EVEN start discussing how most of the cars out there are NOT even 10/10ths builds.......... seriously???? 50 lbs??? Let it gooooooooooo.

gran racing

09-28-2012, 07:49 AM

LMAO!!!

90%? You're being way too nice.

One area that I think still should play into the equasion more is torque. I recognize this has been discussed several times already though.

Kirk, I know the point you're getting at but do think there are benefits to be had with a well constructed air dam / undertray design. Some cars have features that would make it more beneficial than others. Take for instance my Prelude. It would be very interesting as we (Gulick and I) looked at it and thought there's some really good potential.

Knestis

09-28-2012, 08:42 AM

...point being, you are "looking" and "thinking" and aero doesn't play that way. We were "sure" that the Talledega-spec air dam would make Pablo faster at RA. It made (drum roll please) exactly NO measurable difference in DL1 data in back-to-back sessions on the same day.

We already have way to many opportunities for people to be "sure" of things about IT cars, just by looking. "That car can make more horsepower." "That head will never flow as good as this one." "That suspension is a fustercluck and won't ever work." "Miatas are magic."

Adding opportunities for subjective determinations of aero drag is a fool's errand. And make no mistake that reverse-engineering decisions from on-track performance is precisely that - subjective.

K

Flyinglizard

09-28-2012, 11:33 AM

Jeff, thanks. You are very funny. A guy races a Miata and would give away 50#? BS.
50# in my Miata is 1+sec on Sebring.
The Rocco is the same weight as the A 1 Rabbit, not the Golf-2. The G 2 has 12 more HP,not the same car at all.
FWIW the A1 cars are both heavy around 60#, the G2 is pretty close, the MK 3 is 50-60light.
#/CC

Kirk, what did my est say? maybe spot on. There is a reason that I did not ask for air dam info, just the total sq in and hood line height, glass angle.

The front dam that works, needs to be snow plow shaped and at least 6 in front of the bumper area. Email me for pics if you want . Not legal for any SCCA stuff.

Try this tho;
Take the same golf. Raise the rear 2in . run the car watching terminal V.
Lower the car until the axle hits the body. Run
the same pass. You will have a hard 2-3mph gain.(info from my book)

Some stuff matters, some doent. I am pretty good at the stuff that does.
I will go back to fixing my Chumpcars/HPcars
Ignoring aero is still a mistake.