ITS e36 BMW

[chuck baader]

Out of curiosity, there were quite a few ITS BMWs running in SEDIV before the implementation of the SIR. I want to know what killed the car. Non competitive HP, engine problems, lack of tune, etc.? Any comments. Thanks, Chuck

[Andy Bettencourt]

Out of curiosity, there were quite a few ITS BMWs running in SEDIV before the implementation of the SIR. I want to know what killed the car. Non competitive HP, engine problems, lack of tune, etc.? Any comments. Thanks, Chuck

I am willing to bet it was a combination of the following:

- SIR not working as promised (was sold to CRB/ITAC as a devise that would only affect HP above a certain level when in fact it tool away a very linear % from all build levels)
- Full build needed to achieve power to weight target
- New ITR class at less weight and no restriction

I would check to see if those cars got mothballed or they went to ITR. I bet most went to ITR, some went to NASA and some went to BMWCCA.

[JeffYoung]

I started racing during the era of the unrestricted E36, which you had to see to believe. Rookies showing up and nearly winning the SARRC championship in year one (STeve Stubbs). Top flight drivers going 2-3 seconds faster in the E36 than they did a year before in a top flight other make S car (Whittel). And so on.

And they did pretty much all disappear at once.....why? Combination of factors.

1. All serious BMW efforts save the Robertsons hit a wall all at once. Stubbs really only wanted to play for a year or two in SEDiv and went to BMWCCA. The Shavers, one of them passed away. Carlos GArcia destroyed his car at Roebling. Bimmerworld had just moved on to World Challenge. Sunbelt had basically wound down their IT program.

2. The perception was that the ITAC was screwing the BMW, and a lot of folks just threw up their hands and quit. They did not realize it was the CRB that advocated the SIR (not that this was a screwing, just misguided in my view), not the ITAC.

3. THere were some initial power and driveability problems with the SIR. However, no one fully developed it.

4. From OUTWARD APPEARANCES it seemed to me that the few remaining ITS E36s were reasonably competitive - Mark Andrews and the Robertsons - although development on them seemed to stop while RX7, Z car, Mustang, Miata, and TR8 development continued. We are now running close to teh same times the unrestricted E36s did years ago.

5. THe easy button is not to prep an ITS E36 and tune around the SIR, but rather to build one for ITR and go there.

I still think the E36 could be very competitive in ITS in the SEDiv. Would take some work, but it has a great suspension, good brakes and that 1:1 5th gear.

[chuck baader]

Jeff, from what I have seen, the SIR pretty much killed the ITS version as I never see one run in SEDIV.

Going to ITR is certainly a choice, but the tire budget gets doubled!! If I build one I would prefer to stay on the 15 X 7 wheels.

Any thoughts to how the CRB could be prompted into revisiting the SIR?

And finally, the unrestricted BWS's times have been eclipsed most everywhere, which leads me to believe it was not actually an overdog, but several extremely prepared cars in fields of not so prepared cars.

[JeffYoung]

Jeff, from what I have seen, the SIR pretty much killed the ITS version as I never see one run in SEDIV.

Going to ITR is certainly a choice, but the tire budget gets doubled!! If I build one I would prefer to stay on the 15 X 7 wheels.

Any thoughts to how the CRB could be prompted into revisiting the SIR?

And finally, the unrestricted BWS's times have been eclipsed most everywhere, which leads me to believe it was not actually an overdog, but several extremely prepared cars in fields of not so prepared cars.

Lots of incorrect in that post unfortunately Chuck.

The fact is NO ONE really tried hard with the SIR, and even without doing so, at least two E36s remained fairly competitive with (rumors) 190ish whp. Which at 2850 is still reasonably competitive with teh rest of ITS. And that is without any real tuning on the SIR.

Actually, the unrestricted BMW times have NOT been eclipsed most everywhere. They still hold the track record at Summit and VIR.

In their day, those cars were tremendous overdogs. 215-220 whp at 2850. What's happened is that shock and spring tuning, brake pad performance, and engine development on other cars have started to catch up.

I never favored teh SIR over weight, but weight on the 325 in ITS would be somewhere around 3270 lbs I believe at 215 rwhp.

WRite a letter and we will consider it though. I think the SIR is out of place in ITS

[chuck baader]

"at least two E36s remained fairly competitive with" who and at what tracks. And 2 out of how many that were built? SIR killed the car, period.

"They still hold the track record at Summit and VIR. " two tracks I'm not familiar with. Road Atlanta (the ARRC) and other SEDIV tracks, I believe, have been eclipsed. Furthermore, in my and many other's opinion, if they don't show up at the ARRC, they don't exist.

"What's happened is that shock and spring tuning, brake pad performance, and engine development on other cars have started to catch up." reinforces my point of development. The e36 was the first car to benefit greatly from the ECU rule and prompted the CRB to kill the ECU rule. Development:026:


"190ish whp. Which at 2850 is still reasonably competitive with the rest of ITS" Until you realize that the RX7 has about that much HP at 2680!

[JeffYoung]

"at least two E36s remained fairly competitive with" who and at what tracks. And 2 out of how many that were built? SIR killed the car, period.

"They still hold the track record at Summit and VIR. " two tracks I'm not familiar with. Road Atlanta (the ARRC) and other SEDIV tracks, I believe, have been eclipsed. Furthermore, in my and many other's opinion, if they don't show up at the ARRC, they don't exist.

"What's happened is that shock and spring tuning, brake pad performance, and engine development on other cars have started to catch up." reinforces my point of development. The e36 was the first car to benefit greatly from the ECU rule and prompted the CRB to kill the ECU rule. Development:026:


"190ish whp. Which at 2850 is still reasonably competitive with the rest of ITS" Until you realize that the RX7 has about that much HP at 2680!

Let's start from the bottom. No, ITS RX7s don't make that kind of power. You've been misinformed. 180, maybe slightly more, is the best they will do. And they are at a huge torque disadvantage to the BMW.

Kill what ECU rule? Everyone has a free ECU now. Everyone takes advantage of it. The VANOS on the E36 did I agree react better to ECU tuning than expected, hence the overdog problem

I repeat: 215-225 whp at 2850 was a HUGE problem. THE single biggest overdog in IT in the last 15 years.

The Robertsons ran their E36 (Taylor and Grafton and their dad) for sometime after the SIR was implemented. THey weren't happy about teh SIR, but they remained reasonably competitive. Mark Andrews ran his car in the CenDiv and I raced against it in the TR at Nashville. Roughly equivalent power it seemed.

I do agree the SIR killed the ITS E36 because it levelled the playing field and people were racing the car because it was the easy button overdog. Those people looking for the easy button -- rather than doing the hard work I've done or Eckerich has done or STeve Parrish or Ron EArp or the ISC guys with the Miatas -- bailed because they didn't want to do the work.

No one that I know has spent any real time developing the SIR. The car may be very compeittive with it if they do. SOme think the SIR really won't impat overall power when tuned right (the Robertsons disagree).

And stop with the homer "if it isn't at the ARRC it doesn't exist" nonsense. The days of the ARRC being the measuring stick for IT competitiveness ended years ago. There is better compeittion in the NEDiv and the SEDiv in ITS than at the ARRC now.

[JeffYoung]

So let's be clear here. I'm fine with the ITAC revisiting the SIR. I think it was a mistake and I agree with your basic premise that it killed the E36. It did, but it did so because at least in significnat part because people did not TRY to work with it. They punched the easy button and went to ITR or BMWCCA.

I would actually support the SIR coming off the car, but understand you are looking at a 3280 race weight. I'm sure there will be griping about that.

We are NOT going to back to 2850 and no SIR, which was a mess. We had a car making 215 whp at least at 2850, and probably more for some of the best examples.

So yes, the SIR would be reconsidered by the ITAC but not in the context of a whitewashing of the history regarding the E36 based on the misconception that the car was NOT an overdog. It was.

[lawtonglenn]

.... ITS RX7s don't make that kind of power. You've been misinformed. 180, maybe slightly more, is the best they will do. And they are at a huge torque disadvantage to the BMW....


Actually we have not yet seen 180... 174, 176 yes, but not 180
and while not totally wrung out, our cars are pretty well sorted

.

[JeffYoung]

THere are a couple kicking around down here at 180.

[preparedcivic]

Actually, the BMW to have in ITS is an E46 323i at 3000lbs. No SIR, and if the VANOS is cracked correctly I've heard something close to 220 at the wheels. There are some up here in NEDiv and a few more getting built.

[Knestis]

...and once ITR is fully propagated with good builds, the unrestricted e36 is going to face some serious competition. R is a long way from being maxed out, as a class.

K

[JeffYoung]

Actually, the BMW to have in ITS is an E46 323i at 3000lbs. No SIR, and if the VANOS is cracked correctly I've heard something close to 220 at the wheels. There are some up here in NEDiv and a few more getting built.

THis is correct. There was one in the SEDiv built to the max and it was almost impossible to beat (and very well driven).

[lateapex911]

During my time on the ITAC, I was involved in the SIR testing, and implementation. Watching a car run with different SIRs on a dyno was painful. I told Dowie I was at best on the fence, and not impressed with the data we had as being conclusive. I reported same essentially within committee. The ITA didn't recommend the SIR.

I also reached out to BMW big dogs. They hated the SIR, and some that I spoke with were seriously pissed with the club at the change. They'd done their homework, in their eyes, and were now being singled out and punished. They said FU, and took their balls and money and moved on to other greener pastures. Others who spoke up and were winning races were doing so with junkyard motors. They went BMWCCA racing, also pissed at the comp adjustment.

So, I think the SIR "helped" make people tip their decision scales. certainly it caused a few to flat quit the club in disgust. I remember thinking at the time that we'd lose a bunch, but that number would be less than the number of OTHER ITS guys that would quit if nothing was dome about the E36. The wound was open and bleeding because of E36 clusterfuck classing before the SIR....The initial classing, the subsequent lowering then raising of the weight was bungled to begin with, and the SIR was the straw that broke the camels back. The SIR was considered in my mind, an amputation, one that the CRB felt was the best option.

Up in the NE, the Maynards persevered with the SIR, and had fits. Dowie, and others helped, and gradually they got better, ultimately becoming competitive. Keep in mid the tracks they mostly ran were Lime Rock and NHMS.

Glenn, the top edge for the ITS car is 180. Have you seen Huffmaster run an ITS 7 at road Atlanta? If not, you'll be a changed man.

[JeffYoung]

In the long run, the E36 had to be fixed. It was killing ITS at 215 (or more) whp and 2850. Car counts have come back up and the racing is very competitive now.

I'd love to see the E36 back in S at the higher weight.

Chuck, if we did recommend removing the SIR and reprocessing the car, would you consider running it at 3270 or so?

[chuck baader]

"n the long run, the E36 had to be fixed. It was killing ITS at 215 (or more) whp and 2850. Car counts have come back up and the racing is very competitive now." Agreed...killing the car certainly brought back ITS numbers which may or may not have unintended consequences but it worked.

Jeff, the numbers I was hearing during the ITS BMW discussions were 190ish for the SpeedSource cars, and 230ish for the Sunbelt cars. At that, the BMW was certainly a gross overdog.

Run one at 3270? I don't think so...I really don't think it would be competitive at that weight simply because of the limitation on wheels/tires. In addition, you would have to run some 300+ pounds of ballast and I don't feel that is safe.

[JeffYoung]

Those numbers are higher than what is pretty commonly accepted for these cars, and don't jive with what I see on track. 180 is abou max for an RX7. 225 was the reported best for an E36 with 210-215 more "normal."

Running the E36 through the process at 215 puts it at 3270 or so without the SIR. It would be competitive at that weight, just not an overdog. I'd like to see the cars come back to ITS but obvoiusly at 2850 and 215 whp they'd cause big problems.

[JIgou]

Our car is under-prepped and under-driven, but rolls across the scales at a bit over 3,000 lbs with driver no matter where we go, and that's even with the horse jockey in the driver's seat. I have more....leeway, should we say?

I've wondered about just how much "development" we could throw at the SIR and intake tract, especially since the IT rules don't spell out the full SIR implementation the way the GT rules do with regard to compliance testing and stall and all of that good stuff. Sam Henry is probably lucky we're not closer to him or I'd be tempted to put this thing on the dyno even more.....

The bottom line is that we love the ARRC, and will figure out some class to run in....but as-is, we're probably done with ITS. Before we spend the bucks to chase a mythical HP number breathing through the SIR, we'll spend similar bucks to swap the powerplant for something that starts with an "S" instead of an "M", then go get thumped in STU....but with another 80 HP on tap.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Appropriate weights for a RWD ITS car with no other adders at the following WHP:


170: 2675
180: 2830
190: 2990
200: 3146
210: 3305
220: 3460
230: 3620

[Andy Bettencourt]

Running the E36 through the process at 215 puts it at 3270 or so without the SIR.

It does? Can you show that math. I may be rusty. I get 3382 rounded down to 3380.

[JeffYoung]

Error on my end on the multiplier. Your number is right.

[JeffYoung]

Appropriate weights for a RWD ITS car with no other adders at the following WHP:


170: 2675
180: 2830
190: 2990
200: 3146
210: 3305
220: 3460
230: 3620

AND -- Andy has exposed the latent lurking "problem" in ITS, which remains fairly well balanced. The class multiplier is too low.

Z cars make 170-175 whp. They were never expected to. Race weight is 2430 to 2460 (I think), not 2675.

Miata is at 160ish. Never expected that. Race weight is 23xx not 25xx.

My car? 180ish whp. RX7s, same. Sould be in the 2900 range, not 2680 and 2560 (I race at 2710 right now).

And so on.

We've been lucky that all cars have developed upward in unison but the numbers are way off what actual rwhp figures would generate.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So if you brought the multiplier from 12.9 to 12.25 you would get this:


170: 2675 --------> 2540
180: 2830 --------> 2670
190: 2990 --------> 2840
200: 3146 --------> 2990
210: 3305 --------> 3135*
220: 3460 --------> 3285*
230: 3620 --------> 3435*

* I submit there should be nothing in ITS making 210whp+

[JeffYoung]

So if you brought the multiplier from 12.9 to 12.25 you would get this:


170: 2675 --------> 2540
180: 2830 --------> 2670
190: 2990 --------> 2840
200: 3146 --------> 2990
210: 3305 --------> 3135*
220: 3460 --------> 3285*
230: 3620 --------> 3435*

* I submit there should be nothing in ITS making 210whp+

Correct, those cars should go into ITR.

That sure looks a lot more like "reality" above.

[Greg Amy]

* I submit there should be nothing in ITS making 210whp+


Correct, those cars should go into ITR.
In which case, the discussion of the E36 325 in ITS is a moot point. Kill the SIR-equipped E36 from ITS.

GA

On edit: if we'd had ITR back then, that would have never happened in the first place. This is one of the car's that begat ITR's genesis...make it go away.

[Andy Bettencourt]

That sure looks a lot more like "reality" above.

Make it so number 1.

[JeffYoung]

In which case, the discussion of the E36 325 in ITS is a moot point. Kill the SIR-equipped E36 from ITS.

GA

On edit: if we'd had ITR back then, that would have never happened in the first place. This is one of the car's that begat ITR's genesis...make it go away.

Agree 100%. SIR has no place in IT.

[chuck baader]

OK, when the SIR was added, the e36 was a gross overedog. Since then, several cars have been developed to equal or exceed the original e36 so must we revisit the whole group (ITS) to once again establish parity? The SIR has been around 5-6ish years and it has taken the group that long to catch up? And that means those who want to compete with the car must rely on 5-6ish year old rules to limit their performance?

And what Jake said is how I remember the discussion going forth. Most just gave up!! Other things I heard were that the SIR either killed the power below competitive levels, or people blew motors....and that is not a cheap motor to rebuild!!

Another point, the e46 323. Same motor, but with double vanos, 3000#, same brakes, better aeor....yes the car to build at this point.

[JeffYoung]

OK, when the SIR was added, the e36 was a gross overedog. Since then, several cars have been developed to equal or exceed the original e36 so must we revisit the whole group (ITS) to once again establish parity? The SIR has been around 5-6ish years and it has taken the group that long to catch up? And that means those who want to compete with the car must rely on 5-6ish year old rules to limit their performance?

And what Jake said is how I remember the discussion going forth. Most just gave up!! Other things I heard were that the SIR either killed the power below competitive levels, or people blew motors....and that is not a cheap motor to rebuild!!

Another point, the e46 323. Same motor, but with double vanos, 3000#, same brakes, better aeor....yes the car to build at this point.

What is it exactly that you are asking for?

[Greg Amy]

Rules really haven't changed since then. But we now have better shocks (at lower prices), better cages (designs are a lot more clever), better engine management (open ECU and sensors), and - most importantly - better tires since the early aught's (anyone want to go back to RS3s? Didn't think so.) Just imagine what a fully-built and continued-to-be-developed E36 would be like today, had not everyone "gave up" (or went to ITR) because of the SIR.

As I noted above, the CRB tossed in the SIR to reign in that car, as an alternative to simply telling it to go away. Trust me, the latter was a definite consideration (that or ~500 pounds). And that got us all to talking about a class faster than ITS in order to bring in all these cars that had no other place to go. Voila: ITR.

There's a couple of seriously-developed and well-driven ITS E46 323 up here in New England, built and campaigned by one of the groups that used to campaign the E36 325is in the bad old days (Autotechnic (http://www.autotechnic.net/Dealer-Websites/Auto-Technic-LLC/Rindex.aspx)). And they are doing quite well... - GA

[chuck baader]

Either revisit the great revision on the e36 or classify it the same as the e46 323, at 3000#

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, when the SIR was added, the e36 was a gross overedog. Since then, several cars have been developed to equal or exceed the original e36 so must we revisit the whole group (ITS) to once again establish parity? The SIR has been around 5-6ish years and it has taken the group that long to catch up? And that means those who want to compete with the car must rely on 5-6ish year old rules to limit their performance?

And what Jake said is how I remember the discussion going forth. Most just gave up!! Other things I heard were that the SIR either killed the power below competitive levels, or people blew motors....and that is not a cheap motor to rebuild!!

Another point, the e46 323. Same motor, but with double vanos, 3000#, same brakes, better aeor....yes the car to build at this point.

First, you need to look at the ITR times for E36's to more accurately gauge where ITS E36 development would or could be should it kept moving like the other cars. You are comparing cars at different points in time which is not fair.

Second, the 323 has a stock HP rating of 172hp. Can't be exactly the same motor as the 189hp 325.

[Greg Amy]

What is it exactly that you are asking for?
Send out a "what do you think?" on pulling the classification of the E36 with the restrictor in ITS. See if anyone is actually still running it.


Either revisit the great revision on the e36 or classify it the same as the e46 323, at 3000#
Chuck made me laugh.

How about instead, we get some dyno sheets on the E46 323 and consider increasing its weight accordingly, or tossing it into ITR at an appropriate weight? If it's pulling in over 210 pounds as you claim, it does not belong in ITS.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Either revisit the great revision on the e36 or classify it the same as the e46 323, at 3000#

We already know the 323 is light. I have NOT seen dyno sheets but I can tell you that when one rolls by our S2000 at 205whp on the straights, it's got at LEAST 200whp. Reprocessed today at 12.9, it's 150lbs light. Using the napkin re-do I did above, it would be almost spot on but some stuff would get lighter. And if 200whp is soft for that car, it should weigh more.

Taking control of the cams via ECU is HUGE...if the 323 and the 325 can make the same whp, they should both be in ITR.

But if the 325 makes 220+ as we KNOW, ain't no way it's an ITS car.

[chuck baader]

OOPS...e45 has M52TUB25 motor and the e36 has the M50B25. The later motor is, in fact, less powerful than the earlier, and less responsive to IT upgrades.

I realize I am comparing cars from different times, however, there just aren't any R cars running at the tracks where I run to observe. The only R car I have seen more than one is Kips Porsche and he and Huffmaster put on a great show last year...that would be an ITS RX vs. ITR Porsche.

[JeffYoung]

Kip's car is obviously very well built and extremely well driven. However, I don't think he's gone less than 2:14 at VIR in it.

On the other hand, Skeen ran an ITR E36 at 2:11 or 12. That's about 2 seconds less than the ITS record (2:14) set by Chet Whittel in the Sunbelt E36.

That seems spot on for a "modern" E36 on new dampers, ECU tuning, tires and brake pads.

[JeffYoung]

Either revisit the great revision on the e36 or classify it the same as the e46 323, at 3000#

Huh? We know the car makes 215 whp so its process weight is 3300 or so. That's the only non-SIR option available other than ITR.

Sounds like you are looking for ANOTHER BMW overdog...lol.....

[JIgou]

In just this two-page thread, I've seen 215, 220+ and 230 quoted as the "known" horsepower level for an E36.

The discussions I've had with others who used to, but no longer, run an E36 325 said 215 was the top dog number, and those engines were only capable of that for a short period of time.

Is there legit, non-marketing-based dyno data floating around that can put THIS portion of the discussion to rest?

[Bill Miller]

So if you brought the multiplier from 12.9 to 12.25 you would get this:


170: 2675 --------> 2540
180: 2830 --------> 2670
190: 2990 --------> 2840
200: 3146 --------> 2990
210: 3305 --------> 3135*
220: 3460 --------> 3285*
230: 3620 --------> 3435*

* I submit there should be nothing in ITS making 210whp+

Yep


Correct, those cars should go into ITR.

That sure looks a lot more like "reality" above.

Double Yep


In which case, the discussion of the E36 325 in ITS is a moot point. Kill the SIR-equipped E36 from ITS.

GA

On edit: if we'd had ITR back then, that would have never happened in the first place. This is one of the car's that begat ITR's genesis...make it go away.

Exactly. The overdog status of the E36 325 in ITS was probably the single biggest impetus for the formation of ITR. And ITR has been around long enough, the dual classification of the E36 325 should be removed. If nothing else, it takes away ammunition from those that support dual-classification of more cars. I was honestly surprised that there was no sunset date on the dual classification, when it was announced.


Agree 100%. SIR has no place in IT.

I said that when the original Process was published / adopted, and it had the SIR language in it.

[JeffYoung]

In just this two-page thread, I've seen 215, 220+ and 230 quoted as the "known" horsepower level for an E36.

The discussions I've had with others who used to, but no longer, run an E36 325 said 215 was the top dog number, and those engines were only capable of that for a short period of time.

Is there legit, non-marketing-based dyno data floating around that can put THIS portion of the discussion to rest?

Here's what I know -- Jake has the real scoop.

The ITAC saw dynos in the 215 range. There were strong rumors that others had seen Sunbelt cars make 225 on a dyno but no sheets were kicked around.

[bamfp]

In just this two-page thread, I've seen 215, 220+ and 230 quoted as the "known" horsepower level for an E36.

The discussions I've had with others who used to, but no longer, run an E36 325 said 215 was the top dog number, and those engines were only capable of that for a short period of time.

Is there legit, non-marketing-based dyno data floating around that can put THIS portion of the discussion to rest?

I worked for Sunbelt turning this time period. The average hp for these was 215whp. The most I ever saw was 227whp. But dyno varies.

[lateapex911]

I worked for Sunbelt turning this time period. The average hp for these was 215whp. The most I ever saw was 227whp. But dyno varies.

The ITAC 'settled" on about 217-220 as a 'mainsteam' real deal number.
And don't forget, they had tq, esp compared to the RX-7.

The thing was they were rated artificially low from the factory, (The "Process" didn't really exist and there was no easy "fix" for that), and the ECU rule allowed "anything that could fit in the box", which, in that cars particular case, meant a read deal ECU, AND the thing made big gains, compared to 90% of the rest of the ITCS cars on an ECU change.

It was a perfect storm that tested the system that was in place, and the REAL solution was to get the f outa ITS, but...there was no place to put it. Hence ITR was birthed...it was needed and under consideration anyway, but SCCA was loath to add classes. The E36 helped illustrate the need. Necessity is the mother of invention.

[chuck baader]

I would support removing the car from ITS altogether.

[gpeluso]

Chuck,
I have a 1999 323i with a standalone .... Got a few other engine options for the car too... You are welcome to purchase all... Ran the car in NASA and scca with a m54 325 motor in ITR ... But have M52tu 328 and 323 motors ...top notch cage ...

I give u REAL #'s. m52tu motors Suck ! M50 makes more power and better. The car belongs in ITS and I believe at 2900..

I am currently having my rx7 motor rebuilt .

Greg

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think we can safely use 215whp for a top build on a 325. If you wanted to drop the SIR in ITS, you would be looking squarely in the eye at 3380lbs.

In ITR, the car is VERY aggressively classed, potentially to a fault. That same 215whp should be 2950lbs. Classed using a 30% multiplier gets you to 2765lbs and a target of just 201whp.

[Xian]

Yeah, I've often thought that it's pretty aggressively classed versus some of the other stuff in ITR... it weighs only 5# more than the FWD Acura TSX. As much of a Honda fanboi as I can be, I know which one of the two that I'd pick (and it wouldn't have a stylized "A" on the nose).

[JeffYoung]

Anybody know why it wasn't classed at "what we know" rwhp in ITR?

I do not.

[Xian]

Anybody know why it wasn't classed at "what we know" rwhp in ITR?

I do not.

WAG? So that the E36 owners weren't pissed off... again. :blink:

Edit:
Wasn't Giles involved in some of the ITR stuff way back when?

[Bill Miller]

Edit:
Wasn't Giles involved in some of the ITR stuff way back when?

I forget who exactly was on the ITR 'committee'. I know it was Kirk, myself, Jake, Jeff Young, Ron Erp, George Roffe, Andy Bettencourt, and I think Greg Amy. Beyond that, I can't recall.

[gt40jim]

I am not worried about telling our numbers. Dan Jones car (ITR spec e36 with a handful of lap records) BEST ever was 208 rwhp with aftermarket ecu and single vanos. Again dynos DO vary. Doc is a touch lower due to exhaust system. NO bullshit. 220 :wacko: P.S. Gregs e46 is nice Chuck...

[JeffYoung]

Dynos vary, and so do the quality of engine bills. Emoticon all you want, but you just had one of Sunbelt's engine builders post here saying 215 was average and 227 best.

Christian, ITR essentially came about this way. Folks had talked about a class above ITS, but more because of the Z32 300zx than anything, which the CRB/ITAC had refused to class.

But that was mostly talk. The guy who actually got things going was Ron. Over Christmas in 2006 I think, he put together a spreadsheet with the first listing of ITR cars, and then I added some and also wrote the ITR proposal doc.

At that point, someone decided that an ad hoc committee on this board would be a good idea, so we on our own put one together. I think Bill's list above is correct on members, although Scott was on it too.

Best committee I've ever been on. We motored through the list, made some decisions on various cars and got the shit done. Sent it in to the ITAC, and then the CRB/Bod and approved.

The only hitch was the process was in its infancy and the way final weights were set - including the E36 -- was inconsistent and never clear to me (I was not on the iTAC at the time).

[Tristan Smith]

Well knowing what my car makes HP wise, and reading the numbers here for the E36, there needs to be a shit-metric-ton of weight put on that car, or weight taken off mine.

But since there are not a lot of places to take weight off of mine, throw some lead at that thing.

[JeffYoung]

By the numbers it certainly looks like it.

[Bill Miller]

Dynos vary, and so do the quality of engine bills. Emoticon all you want, but you just had one of Sunbelt's engine builders post here saying 215 was average and 227 best.

Christian, ITR essentially came about this way. Folks had talked about a class above ITS, but more because of the Z32 300zx than anything, which the CRB/ITAC had refused to class.

But that was mostly talk. The guy who actually got things going was Ron. Over Christmas in 2006 I think, he put together a spreadsheet with the first listing of ITR cars, and then I added some and also wrote the ITR proposal doc.

At that point, someone decided that an ad hoc committee on this board would be a good idea, so we on our own put one together. I think Bill's list above is correct on members, although Scott was on it too.

Best committee I've ever been on. We motored through the list, made some decisions on various cars and got the shit done. Sent it in to the ITAC, and then the CRB/Bod and approved.

The only hitch was the process was in its infancy and the way final weights were set - including the E36 -- was inconsistent and never clear to me (I was not on the iTAC at the time).

Hard to believe it was that long ago Jeff. I guess that's why I forgot about the Nissan. I think there were some other cars that got turned down because the exceeded the performance envelope of ITS, but I'm not totally sure. Some flavor of the 944 IIRC.

And I agree, it was a great group to work with. For the most part, there was no BS, and we all were on the same page, and just got shit done. I was even more impressed at how fast it got through the system and was approved. I guess we did it right.

[JeffYoung]

It was a great experience Bill. Shows what a small focused group in ABB can do if given some leeway to do it.

[Ron Earp]

Well knowing what my car makes HP wise, and reading the numbers here for the E36, there needs to be a shit-metric-ton of weight put on that car, or weight taken off mine.

But since there are not a lot of places to take weight off of mine, throw some lead at that thing.

I believe ITR needs to be realigned. Probably not a popular opinion, but I believe that the class was somewhat crippled from the start by using the E36 as a benchmark for the class. I also think a couple of cars received estimated power levels that were too high.

I'll have to look through some of the early ITR spreadsheets I have and see what the initial power estimates looked like on the ITR E36. It could be they were the figures that were adopted in the end, hard to say.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I believe ITR needs to be realigned. Probably not a popular opinion, but I believe that the class was somewhat crippled from the start by using the E36 as a benchmark for the class. I also think a couple of cars received estimated power levels that were too high.

I'll have to look through some of the early ITR spreadsheets I have and see what the initial power estimates looked like on the ITR E36. It could be they were the figures that were adopted in the end, hard to say.

I can tell you. 30% was used on all the I6's and the 300ZX in ITR. The 325 was classed VERY aggressively at 30%. Nobody on the CRB was willing use 40%, which is about 216whp.

[JeffYoung]

But they would use it for implementing an SIR on the car in ITS? Inconsistent it seems to me.....

Ron is right about the E36. We took a car with 190 stock horsepower, or at the very bottom of the ITR "curve" and used it as the baseline for the class.

If the power to weigh multiplier of ITS is adjusted down then the car may fit back in S.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But they would use it for implementing an SIR on the car in ITS? Inconsistent it seems to me.....

Ron is right about the E36. We took a car with 190 stock horsepower, or at the very bottom of the ITR "curve" and used it as the baseline for the class.

If the power to weigh multiplier of ITS is adjusted down then the car may fit back in S.

It will never fit in ITS. Even if you placate those who don't believe the Sunbelt/215whp number and use 210whp, it's 3305 today at 12.9 or 3140lbs at 12.25 like I suggested above. It's simply too much hp for ITS for those driving them to be comfortable with adding that much weight.

Using 210whp in ITR gets you to a more reasonable 2880lbs which is still light by some peoples math. Using the 'what we know' rules in the Ops manual and given how we have sliced and diced 1-2whp lately, it could easily get reclassed at 215whp or 2950lbs.

[JeffYoung]

And at 12.0 it would be closer to 3000, and probably very raceable at that weight.

I don't buy the "won't race" at those weights. The Z32 got stuck with a big weigt and a few folks are racing them, at essentialy the same wheel hp as the 2750 E36.

[Chip42]

what's this talk of dropping the Power/weight in ITS? if we did that, we should run the whole category down and drop the slow cars down a class. that means wheel issues for the A-B cusp, changed weights for everyone, new decals for some, loss or gaining of competitiveness, and a lot of other things that tickle the grumpy zones in people.

ITR in general is not enough faster than ITS. I'd rather fix R as a whole (at minimum do as we have discussed in the past and rerun everything to a single process, picking the least change inducing while most equitable compromise). ITR is small, newer, known to be a bit "off" and has low enough subscription right now that we could move it up a tick to make it work without rocking the boat for everyone in IT. it would force the little cars out to S, and I'm FINE with that, as I'm sure most (the?) Celica driver(s) would be. if the E36 Bimmer is classed light, we should look at that, too. Maybe even reindex it as the benchmark based on known power to weight and bring the rest of the class in line. the only car I worry about if ITR were reweighted lighter is the S2000. How much ballast does the Flatout car run, AB?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't buy the "won't race" at those weights. The Z32 got stuck with a big weigt and a few folks are racing them, at essentialy the same wheel hp as the 2750 E36.

It's a wheel issue and a lead issue. Remember, 7" wheels in ITS. Then add in 400lbs of lead.

And why would you if you had ITR?

[Andy Bettencourt]

ITR in general is not enough faster than ITS.

Maybe in your area it's not but as the 325's get built again like they are here, and cool stuff like RX-8's, S2000's and 968's...it's a much faster class.



the only car I worry about if ITR were reweighted lighter is the S2000. How much ballast does the Flatout car run, AB?150lbs with video set-up and full cool suit...and an OEM hardtop.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j374/FOM09/300lbs.jpg

[StephenB]

are you saying my rx8 would lose more weight or get dropped to ITS? I spent 2 years worth of extra income to build that car specifically for ITR. the car legally will be hard to lose more weight. I am about 80 pounds over now but will be taking out the heater and some other stuff this summer. legally I don't think it can get much later than the process weight. I will be really pissed if I drop to ITS. ITR is 1 of the higher subscribed classes in the northeast when talking about purpose built cars not crossovers.

Stephen

[JeffYoung]

what's this talk of dropping the Power/weight in ITS? if we did that, we should run the whole category down and drop the slow cars down a class. that means wheel issues for the A-B cusp, changed weights for everyone, new decals for some, loss or gaining of competitiveness, and a lot of other things that tickle the grumpy zones in people.

ITR in general is not enough faster than ITS. I'd rather fix R as a whole (at minimum do as we have discussed in the past and rerun everything to a single process, picking the least change inducing while most equitable compromise). ITR is small, newer, known to be a bit "off" and has low enough subscription right now that we could move it up a tick to make it work without rocking the boat for everyone in IT. it would force the little cars out to S, and I'm FINE with that, as I'm sure most (the?) Celica driver(s) would be. if the E36 Bimmer is classed light, we should look at that, too. Maybe even reindex it as the benchmark based on known power to weight and bring the rest of the class in line. the only car I worry about if ITR were reweighted lighter is the S2000. How much ballast does the Flatout car run, AB?

See above. I need to do a write up for the ITAC. We've been VERY lucky in ITS, but have a problem brewing.

Basically, all of the "contenduhs" make significantly more than Process power. 240/260/280z, Miata, RX7, TR8, Integra, Mustang, 944s, 323. ALL of these cars are probably at least two hundred lbs light on their spec weights as a result. We've got parity because we are fortunate that all of these cars exceed process power by ROUGHLY the same amount.

But if we ran them through using a what we know number, they'd all gain a few hundred (if not more) pounds.

So do we adjust their weights up, or do we adjust the multiplier down so as not to disrupt the class?

The "unfairness" is going to become a reality as newer cars like the Sube or the Solstice come into ITS and can't make anywhere near the gains as the cars listed above.

It needs to be discussed.

[Chip42]

are you saying my rx8 would lose more weight or get dropped to ITS? I spent 2 years worth of extra income to build that car specifically for ITR. the car legally will be hard to lose more weight. I am about 80 pounds over now but will be taking out the heater and some other stuff this summer. legally I don't think it can get much later than the process weight. I will be really pissed if I drop to ITS. ITR is 1 of the higher subscribed classes in the northeast when talking about purpose built cars not crossovers.

Stephen

unless it is beating process power now then yeah, that's what's being discussed here. I don't see much of anything changing in the very near future and you would be on my go-to list for info on the RX8 in R when I started to collect data, so you'll know if and when I do that something is being reviewed.

everyone take a deep breath - there is NO current action though I do see Jeff's points and agree in principle if not on the specific numbers.

[JeffYoung]

are you saying my rx8 would lose more weight or get dropped to ITS? I spent 2 years worth of extra income to build that car specifically for ITR. the car legally will be hard to lose more weight. I am about 80 pounds over now but will be taking out the heater and some other stuff this summer. legally I don't think it can get much later than the process weight. I will be really pissed if I drop to ITS. ITR is 1 of the higher subscribed classes in the northeast when talking about purpose built cars not crossovers.

Stephen

Not at all. No specific action is being discussed, and I've just identified what is a problem with S and a less serious one with R.

At the power output of the RX8, I don't see anyway it would end up in S so I don't think you have anything to worry about, even if we had agreed to make a recommendation to the CRB.

Sorry to cause any concern, not my intent. But there IS a problem brewing in S that will need to be addressed at some point. My preference would be to do it with as little disruption to the class as possible, and that probably involves a change in the power multiplier.

[StephenB]

thanks guys! I want to stay in ITR :)

[JeffYoung]

And to be clear, that -- what the guys actually driving the car want -- is outcome determinative to me on deciding which class a "tweener" goes into.

[lateapex911]

are you saying my rx8 would lose more weight or get dropped to ITS? I spent 2 years worth of extra income to build that car specifically for ITR. the car legally will be hard to lose more weight. I am about 80 pounds over now but will be taking out the heater and some other stuff this summer. legally I don't think it can get much later than the process weight. I will be really pissed if I drop to ITS. ITR is 1 of the higher subscribed classes in the northeast when talking about purpose built cars not crossovers.

Stephen

No can do on the heater my friend, unless I've missed a new allowance.
I'm sure you can find the weight.
And no way will they send you to ITS. That car is VERY solidly documented with respect to actual "what we know" power. 213 IIRC.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am not sure why guys are freaking out. Read the posts a little more carefully. The point that Jeff is making is that the top cars are out of whack with anything that would be a new classification OR anything that was on the number.

By adjusting the number down, all the cars he listed would then hit the target 'better', the cars that were 'on target' and anything newly classified would get a weight break.

Just a concept.

[CRallo]

But that wouldn't fix the "ITS is too fast" problem... Or has that ship sailed?

[Andy Bettencourt]

But that wouldn't fix the "ITS is too fast" problem... Or has that ship sailed?

ITS isn't 'too fast', its just a simple inequity concept within the multiplier right now.

Even if you 'corrected' the multiplier, ITR would still be a full lb/hp better in power to weight, often with better suspension and bigger wheels/tires. ITR just needs time to develop.

If I get out on LRP with Steve's S2000 this year, I fully expect to be under a minute after a test day and a race weekend. This is all on V.1 EVERYTHING. Shocks, springs, bars, exhaust etc. Real speed takes YEARS of development in both chassis, driver and engine. And it NEVER stops. I think with a better driver, another season of development that car could go low-mid 59's.

[callard]

Once again, I want to chime in about the Porsche 911 in IT- S. It cannot make near the process horsepower and carries 200 pounds of ballast. I'm in favor of changing the weight calculation.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Once again, I want to chime in about the Porsche 911 in IT- S. It cannot make near the process horsepower and carries 200 pounds of ballast. I'm in favor of changing the weight calculation.

Fair enough. Do me a favor (as I love these cars), detail all of the engine mods you have done and the resultant whp.

[lateapex911]

Once again, I want to chime in about the Porsche 911 in IT- S. It cannot make near the process horsepower and carries 200 pounds of ballast. I'm in favor of changing the weight calculation.

If you mean the basic ITS calculation with the pounds per hp factor as the variable, don't bother.
You might lose weight, but everyone else will as well, and you will be right back where you started.

The issue with the car is that the ITAC, (Peter Keane at the time) didn't want to accept the real output that they make. He said they could do better, and reminded us all that fuel pumps are free. (Including mech injection)

I tried as hard as I could and the number you see is as far as they were willing to bend.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If you mean the basic ITS calculation with the pounds per hp factor as the variable, don't bother.
You might lose weight, but everyone else will as well, and you will be right back where you started.


Well, sort of. All those cars Jeff mentioned exceed process power. If the multiplier were to change, and those cars classed with 'what we know', their weight largely stays the same while everyone else would go down.

AGAIN!!! This is just banter and a concept. No actions of proposals currently I am sure.

[lateapex911]

Ahhh, yes, gotcha. Trouble is that lots of folk wouldn't make the new weight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ahhh, yes, gotcha. Trouble is that lots of folk wouldn't make the new weight.

That would be part of an analysis I am sure. If people can't make weight the ITAC would have to decide what is best for the class, moving those cars down to ITA or weighting 'up' the cars that are out of spec in ITS.

[Bill Miller]

Well, sort of. All those cars Jeff mentioned exceed process power. If the multiplier were to change, and those cars classed with 'what we know', their weight largely stays the same while everyone else would go down.

AGAIN!!! This is just banter and a concept. No actions of proposals currently I am sure.

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the process account for deviating from the class multiplier, on a case-by-case basis if the "what we know" data are compelling? Or is the feeling that since there are so many cars that exceed process power, that the class multiplier is off? I saw what, 5 or 6 cars listed as exceeding process power, out of how many cars are classified in ITS? It sounds like addressing the individual outliers would impact less cars (and drivers) than changing the class multiplier (Miller ratio).

[Chip42]

if roughly 5 classifications, accounting for 80+% of the cars on track are above process power, then you adjust the CLASS power/weight multiplier to keep them at weight WITH their current power output, and move the other cars in line (they lose weight). if a car gets too light to achieve, discuss dropping it to A.

Bill, the process allows for deviations on a case by case of the power gain mutliplier or to bypass that step entirely, going to "known hp" but the resultant classification will still be fed through the class p/w number (miller ratio). so if that is "high" in that the majority of cars on track exceed their target hp, this is one way to fix it. the other way would be to weigh those fast cars down to the existing miller ratio, which would mean lead in the majority of the cars on track. I prefer option A, and think this is a very good conversation to have.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the process account for deviating from the class multiplier, on a case-by-case basis if the "what we know" data are compelling? Or is the feeling that since there are so many cars that exceed process power, that the class multiplier is off? I saw what, 5 or 6 cars listed as exceeding process power, out of how many cars are classified in ITS? It sounds like addressing the individual outliers would impact less cars (and drivers) than changing the class multiplier (Miller ratio).

A good point and the effects need to be thought out. Even if 6 line items are out of whack, if 90% of the cars on grid are running those 6 cars, then you could argue either way.

Each of those cars most certainly could be adjusted quickly with minimal fallout on the rest of the class.

[JeffYoung]

A good point and the effects need to be thought out. Even if 6 line items are out of whack, if 90% of the cars on grid are running those 6 cars, then you could argue either way.

Each of those cars most certainly could be adjusted quickly with minimal fallout on the rest of the class.

Bill's point is a good one, but the answer is clear.

The vast majority of ITS cars that actually run and are competitve are in the "make more than process power" category. So adjusting the multiplier to THEM, rather than them to the multiplier will be the least disruptive way of fixing this.

Right now, new cars coming into S are going to get stomped in my opinion. New motors won't make the gains we see with the older ones and they will be at a disadvantage.

Chuck on the Porsche, submit a build sheet and dyno data and we'll see what we can do. I agree with Jake that car was not evaluated properly during initial classing.

[Bill Miller]

Chip, Andy, and Jeff,

I certainly see your point, and thought about that when I was typing my earlier post. But, I look at it like this, maybe that's the reason that so many people are running those cars, because they make more than process power. Kind of like when there were so many E36 BMW's in ITS, it was the EASY button.

Now, I do understand that it's 5 or 6 cars, as opposed to just one, but I don't see how adjusting the multiplier helps any of the other cars. Am I missing something, or doesn't it just shift the window? Changing the multiplier isn't going to do anything to get a VR6 Golf* any closer to an Acura or a Miata.

*I have no idea how competitive a VR6 Golf is in ITS, it just wasn't one of the cars on the list, so I used it as an example, rather than going to the ITCS and picking one.

So Jeff, I don't understand how adjusting the ITS multiplier is going to help new cars coming into ITS to not be at a disadvantage. And then there's the whole issue of cars being able to make weight. It's always easier to make a car heavier than it is to make a car lighter. And I know the option to go to ITA is there, but what if all your buddies are running in ITS, and your car gets moved to ITA, you shouldn't have to change cars to keep racing with your buddies. As Mike said, it's supposed to be about having fun.

So I don't think the point is that clear Jeff (and I do see solid arguments on both sides), so as Andy says, it would need to be looked at pretty hard.

My initial thought, would be to add weight to the cars exceeding process power, just to avoid bumping anyone to ITA or giving them a weight that was not achievable. To me, I see that as penalizing them because a group of cars responded better than expected to an IT build.

[JeffYoung]

Trust me when I say there is no easy button in making a Z car or a Miata or a 944s or a TR8 or a Mustang or an RX7 or an Integra exceed process power. No one is turning out turn key versions of these things ready to win races. The people who have gotten them where they are have done it they way Andy describes, with a lot of money and work on their own.

Adding several hundred pounds to all of those cars -- the ones actually running in ITS right now and the ones that were for the most part actually running in ITS before the E36 showed up -- would kill the class. I really think that is the key part of what you are missing. Essentially, for all pracical purposes, ALL of what really "is" ITS makes more power than the gain number assigned to them now.

The "fix" is to lower the power to weight multiplier in ITS, assign higher gain percentages to those cars, and the default to new cars coming into the class. That will balance the older cars versus the new, without dumping a few hundred pounds of lead on all of the cars in S.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I do race in S, I pay attention to the cars that are out there in the SEDiv and elsewhere, and I can tell you right now adding 200-300 lbs to the Z cars (marginal brakes as is), the RX7s (stressed to the max at 2680), my car (same), the Mustangs, Miatas, etc. will result in cars being parked just on the "hope" that new cars will be built.

Answer is clear.

[seckerich]

Answer is real clear. We park them or leave. We have spent many thousands of dollars making 5 hp gain over 10+ years. It is up to the new cars in the class to do the same homework and development to make those same gains. We made process power forever until we got good with the ECU and exhaust, etc. Same for the Z, Miata, TR8, etc. Telling me you will wipe that out to let new cars come in with a leg up is not encouraging. You claim all the front runners, maybe 6 makes ,make more than process power. That is not an accident. That means that over time every car in the class if developed to full potential will reach those gains. Now you want to move the bar? You toss lead at a car and now it means new shock valving, springs, bars, etc. Not to mention different rear gear ratio. Do you just sit around and say "what is working in IT today we can screw with" after seeing very close racing among all the very developed cars? Christ you guys would F up a wet dream given enough time.

[chuck baader]

Excellent Steve...I'll second that.

[JeffYoung]

Answer is real clear. We park them or leave. We have spent many thousands of dollars making 5 hp gain over 10+ years. It is up to the new cars in the class to do the same homework and development to make those same gains. We made process power forever until we got good with the ECU and exhaust, etc. Same for the Z, Miata, TR8, etc. Telling me you will wipe that out to let new cars come in with a leg up is not encouraging. You claim all the front runners, maybe 6 makes ,make more than process power. That is not an accident. That means that over time every car in the class if developed to full potential will reach those gains. Now you want to move the bar? You toss lead at a car and now it means new shock valving, springs, bars, etc. Not to mention different rear gear ratio. Do you just sit around and say "what is working in IT today we can screw with" after seeing very close racing among all the very developed cars? Christ you guys would F up a wet dream given enough time.

You absolutely 100% missed the point of my post which is exactly what you are saying. I'm trying to head off ANY weight increases to the front runners in S simply because most of them worked hard and now exceed process power. I absolutely agree with you we all worked hard to get where we are, and for all of us 200 lbs probably means we park the cars.

SERIOUSLY GUYS. Read this stuff and understand it before starting with the sky is falling stuff. It's pretty frustrating to have someone misread your post literally 180 degrees wrong.

[seckerich]

I understand, it is called Production car racing.

You let guys build cars and spend many years developing them to be front runners. You listen to the new guys coming in that have very little time invested and you seek to level the playing field. Front running cars (read 90% of the class) get weight added until the new cars get faster as they do their homework and see the same gains. Now you have a bigger problem because they are now faster given the new "standard" and all the current cars are no longer competitive. They get pissed and leave.

You set a realistic target with your less than perfect process and expect most cars can hit it. Some will fall short, but most will meet or exceed the target. That is racing. Moving the bar now is a comp adjustment to every front running car in the class no matter how you sell it. If a TR8 can exceed target, anything can with enough work. You move the numbers to back into a weight now on 90% of the cars running and your glorious process is now a joke as well as any future classifications.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The 'glorious' process has always been this:

Take a guess on power in IT-trim, set weight. If guess was wrong (to the point where it is statistically significant) and there is solid documentation to support it, use solid documentation to re-run through the process.

It's happened to plenty of cars over the life of the process, certainly none more shocking that the first 'great realignment'.

[Chip42]

Just to be clear, again, this is a discussion with the community, NOT an actual action being taken at the ITAC level nor higher that we are aware.

I am not advocating a need to change, only my preference between the scenarios to address that change should it be decided upon.

however, I DO disagree that "every car" in the ITCS will reach the same gain with development, some cars simply wont. and others will. the ones that are easy, like the BMW, will generally get slapped quickly with a lead trophy. the ones that make incremental gains over a long period deserve to keep the benefit of what they find and they will and have found more than just horsepower, so even "equalizing" the class via a few gain changes and lowering the miller ratio wouldn't overnight the slow cars to hero status.

There are realities with new cars coming in and while we might be incorrect in our assumption of gain and have ways to fix that on a car by car basis without changing the class base, we have the additional "issue" that no one has brought up with new cars that are far more powerful than they were 10 and 20 years ago (or "IT fields"). we are currently cramming these guys into A,S, and R, often with a LOT of weight. moving the class number would mean an easier and more attractive fit for MANY of the newer tweener cars. if we can do that AND keep the existing base running competitively, we have done well.

again - NOTHING is in the works. just a conversation.

[seckerich]

Unless it is a Miata right? :rolleyes:

[seckerich]

The 'glorious' process has always been this:

Take a guess on power in IT-trim, set weight. If guess was wrong (to the point where it is statistically significant) and there is solid documentation to support it, use solid documentation to re-run through the process.

It's happened to plenty of cars over the life of the process, certainly none more shocking that the first 'great realignment'.

Except you are saying you "guessed" 90% of the active class wrong. I would call that either a SWAG or natural evolution of development that everyone has to go through. If you missed us all that bad to start with, then again in the great realignment, you will miss again with new cars.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Unless it is a Miata right? :rolleyes:

What is this referring to? ITA Miata has been both realigned (1.6) and 'corrected' (1.8).

[JeffYoung]

I understand, it is called Production car racing.

You let guys build cars and spend many years developing them to be front runners. You listen to the new guys coming in that have very little time invested and you seek to level the playing field. Front running cars (read 90% of the class) get weight added until the new cars get faster as they do their homework and see the same gains. Now you have a bigger problem because they are now faster given the new "standard" and all the current cars are no longer competitive. They get pissed and leave.

You set a realistic target with your less than perfect process and expect most cars can hit it. Some will fall short, but most will meet or exceed the target. That is racing. Moving the bar now is a comp adjustment to every front running car in the class no matter how you sell it. If a TR8 can exceed target, anything can with enough work. You move the numbers to back into a weight now on 90% of the cars running and your glorious process is now a joke as well as any future classifications.

I understand that. The flip side is that if all the "old cars" make in some cases way more than process, and new cars can't, then we are stuck with a class that never gets new blood.

I don't know what to do. I see this as a coming shit storm in S, which right now has in my opinion the best multi-marque racing in the SCCA. But the storm clouds are brewing as all of the competitive cars are pushing 20 or 30 years old, and no new-new cars are being built.

I'm hearing it more and more from people: they are astounded at the rwhp numbers the S cars make.

I am afraid something is going to be done after I leave the ITAC by people who don't understand the cars, the work we put in, etc. that will be terrible for the class (no offense to Bill but adding 200-300 lbs to the front running six or seven chassis in ITS will kill the class dead).

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'll still want a 240Z!!!!! :)

[JeffYoung]

If a TR8 can exceed target, anything can with enough work.

I don't think this is a correct statement and it is important to understand why.

We are seeing with newer cars with higher compression, better valve trains, stock piston coatings, better ECUs and spark, and so on, that the "easy" gains cars from the 70s and 80s saw just aren't there.

I certainly didn't know it at the time, but just one look at a stock TR8 motor with its air pump and injection lines back of exhaust gases back into the heads and terrible stock manifolds and so on that there was a ton of gain to be had.

[seckerich]

I understand that. The flip side is that if all the "old cars" make in some cases way more than process, and new cars can't, then we are stuck with a class that never gets new blood.

I don't know what to do. I see this as a coming shit storm in S, which right now has in my opinion the best multi-marque racing in the SCCA. But the storm clouds are brewing as all of the competitive cars are pushing 20 or 30 years old, and no new-new cars are being built.

I'm hearing it more and more from people: they are astounded at the rwhp numbers the S cars make.

I am afraid something is going to be done after I leave the ITAC by people who don't understand the cars, the work we put in, etc. that will be terrible for the class (no offense to Bill but adding 200-300 lbs to the front running six or seven chassis in ITS will kill the class dead).

And I will counter with the fact that you can give any of us the newer cars and put the same amount of development in them and we will win with them too. Further you are looking at rear wheel numbers that take into account the full use of rules in lubricants, etc to limit driveline loss. Everything adds up to power to the ground, not just hp gains. Look what Zolt has done with gearing and other development to the integra that was supposed to be too slow for the class. Reset the bar for the class and the E36 screwing will look like a blip compared to the exodus you will see.

This is not a matter of taking our toys and going home because we are unhappy, it will be a full loss of faith in IT and the supposed rule stability you have preached for years.

You may see 225 on a E36 but that is an unproven outlier on the edge of pro built no holds barred 12/10 ths car with everything done. That does not mean it holds up to be classed by that "known" number when 210-215 is the norm. There are examples of every other make with mythical power that everyone knows until it comes down to what dyno, on what day, with what correction. :023:

[Xian]

No dog in the fight but this is where my head was going as I read thru the thread...


I understand, it is called Production car racing.

You let guys build cars and spend many years developing them to be front runners. You listen to the new guys coming in that have very little time invested and you seek to level the playing field. Front running cars (read 90% of the class) get weight added until the new cars get faster as they do their homework and see the same gains. Now you have a bigger problem because they are now faster given the new "standard" and all the current cars are no longer competitive. They get pissed and leave.

You set a realistic target with your less than perfect process and expect most cars can hit it. Some will fall short, but most will meet or exceed the target. That is racing. Moving the bar now is a comp adjustment to every front running car in the class no matter how you sell it. If a TR8 can exceed target, anything can with enough work. You move the numbers to back into a weight now on 90% of the cars running and your glorious process is now a joke as well as any future classifications.

The absence of new-new car builds doesn't mean that they won't make the same gains as the top 6 S-cars. What it means is the same thing it's always meant in every class... lemmings. That car is winning races. That car looks competitive. Ima build that car. It's older, depreciated, and somewhat formulaic. WHY would anyone pick a newer, unproven chassis just to pour years and cubic dollars into prep when they can pick a proven winner?

I'm not trying to take the wind out of your sails or say that "watching" the class performance envelope isn't a good idea (it is) but maybe, just maybe, the idea of what "top build" gains should be is at fault? Maybe a top build should make more like 40% gains vs. 30%? I'd wager that this is the first time in history that IT cars have had folks pushing the envelope of development as consistently as we've seen. Add this to all the modern (and somewhat affordable) techniques for extracting power and you have what we've got now... cars making 40% gains. Think about it... we've got data acquisition, access to header/exhaust programs, cheap DIY ECU options, etc, etc. 20 years ago and the stuff being used in IT wouldn't have been at all uncommon in a "Pro Series" if at all.

Lightening up the cars the rest of the ITS field has the same net effect that "lead trophies" from the Runoff's USED to have in Prod. They cleaned up their act as the entire category lay on the death bed... I hope IT(S) finds a way to encourage new cars/builds/racers without resorting to the same sort of weight jiggering that almost killed Prod.

[JeffYoung]

And I will counter with the fact that you can give any of us the newer cars and put the same amount of development in them and we will win with them too. Further you are looking at rear wheel numbers that take into account the full use of rules in lubricants, etc to limit driveline loss. Everything adds up to power to the ground, not just hp gains. Look what Zolt has done with gearing and other development to the integra that was supposed to be too slow for the class. Reset the bar for the class and the E36 screwing will look like a blip compared to the exodus you will see.

This is not a matter of taking our toys and going home because we are unhappy, it will be a full loss of faith in IT and the supposed rule stability you have preached for years.

You may see 225 on a E36 but that is an unproven outlier on the edge of pro built no holds barred 12/10 ths car with everything done. That does not mean it holds up to be classed by that "known" number when 210-215 is the norm. There are examples of every other make with mythical power that everyone knows until it comes down to what dyno, on what day, with what correction. :023:

So we are clear, here is the problem I'm trying to avoid. Guy builds Subaru RS for ITS. Does no development, goes out, gets his ass kicked. Writes to the ITAC and says "reprocess my competitors, they are all making too much power.

RIGHT NOW, if we used to the Process AS IT STANDS -- and I think this is what you guys are missing (you too Christian) -- on the Z car, the RX7, the TR8, the Miata, the Mustangs, the 944s, the Corrado, the Prelude, the Integra, all of them -- ALL OF THEM gain several hundred pounds based on known developed rwhp.

That's the problem. I don't want all of those cars to race heavier than they are now. But I want to avoid the conundrum we will have if someone asks us to reprocess even one of them because it will throw things for a huge loop.

[JeffYoung]

No dog in the fight but this is where my head was going as I read thru the thread...



The absence of new-new car builds doesn't mean that they won't make the same gains as the top 6 S-cars. What it means is the same thing it's always meant in every class... lemmings. That car is winning races. That car looks competitive. Ima build that car. It's older, depreciated, and somewhat formulaic. WHY would anyone pick a newer, unproven chassis just to pour years and cubic dollars into prep when they can pick a proven winner?

I'm not trying to take the wind out of your sails or say that "watching" the class performance envelope isn't a good idea (it is) but maybe, just maybe, the idea of what "top build" gains should be is at fault? Maybe a top build should make more like 40% gains vs. 30%? I'd wager that this is the first time in history that IT cars have had folks pushing the envelope of development as consistently as we've seen. Add this to all the modern (and somewhat affordable) techniques for extracting power and you have what we've got now... cars making 40% gains. Think about it... we've got data acquisition, access to header/exhaust programs, cheap DIY ECU options, etc, etc. 20 years ago and the stuff being used in IT wouldn't have been at all uncommon in a "Pro Series" if at all.

Lightening up the cars the rest of the ITS field has the same net effect that "lead trophies" from the Runoff's USED to have in Prod. They cleaned up their act as the entire category lay on the death bed... I hope IT(S) finds a way to encourage new cars/builds/racers without resorting to the same sort of weight jiggering that almost killed Prod.

See, when you say a "top build SHOULD make 40%" you are effectively agreeing me, so long as you are saying that "a top build should make 40% and still stay the same weight using the Process."

Because the only way to do that is change the class multiplier to reflect the reality of the situation. ALL of the front running cars in ITS, due to a shit ton of hard work and money spent, make more power than expected.

[gpeluso]

I guess what I do not understand is why so many are scared of dyno's.... The actual number doesn't matter but how it is relative to other cars. This is not a cheap sport. Why are we only responsible as a competitor to question others.... ? Who enforces the rule book? What about the guy who wins a lot of races and is called a cheater? Clearly GrandAm has a rule book but they still throw cars on dyno's to see if anything stands apart... Or even a reason to question the car or to see if there initial process is wrong. I think we could get past certain things like...... Guys feeling the need to used stronger parts in valve train to prevent costly failures .... Maybe they shouldn't be running rpms so high..... Maybe it is a true problem with that car.....

I think as a competitor it would be cool to know that weekend how much power people have and don't compared to you..... It could also hurt your feelings when you get beat. Why not publish hp targets.

Steve, I do see your point about hard work in finding power, but if you find 225whp for a RX7 is that good for IT? I just made up a ridiculous number , I know that is not to be true.

You guys do a great job. I just wish all the hard work that goes into writing rules could be followed with simple checks. It sounds like Greg Amy tried something like this with the whistler at a race.... I forget what his findings were but all must have been happy with the results... I really think this would help so many great drivers out there get more credit for their great driving and minimize the criticism some get. If I believed all the stories I heard I would think everybody cheats... And that just can't be true.... Like in everything , a few ruin things for many some times. There are more good people in the world than bad.

Keep up the good discussion ... Communication is good..... Opinions are good.... And then let the decision makes do their thing. Be proud if a rule is written because you used your skills to engineer something that surpasses what was thought not to be achievable .

Greg

[JeffYoung]

It's a good discussion and it needs to happen, even if the end result is we do nothing (which I would prefer).

I 100% favor rules stability. I'm just afraid of someone addressing this problem who doesn't race in ITS and doesn't understand the dynamics of the class.

[Greg Amy]

I guess what I do not understand is why so many are scared of dyno's.... The actual number doesn't matter but how it is relative to other cars.
Not true, really. Per "the process", if a particular engine is found to consistently be making more than "process" power ("what we know") then it's pretty much the ITAC's/CRB's responsibility to re-classify the car using this "what we know".

It's for this reason that very few are willing to release their actual dyno numbers, unless of course they're making LESS than "process" power...in that case those numbers get tossed around for free...

- GA

[Chip42]

what we are discussing here is a way to preserve parity long term. of all the classes in IT, ITS has the least problems. we certainly don't need to mess with it right now. but if most of what's running is over their classification power/weight, then the process isn't capturing those cars like it's suppsoed to and Jeff is correct that there will be a tipping point. if they are more than 5% past their classification gain, they should be corrected - that's not a rule change so much following the "rules" we already use. it's stability long term. yeah, right now that's irrelevant, through a lot of hard work there's good competition and good cars.

but if another BMW situation rolls around, a major overdog, we'd try to do what the process says to do and rerun it with known HP, or a gain that gets it close. it goes from overdog to out of the fight, becasue the "real" class target is 30+% gain, or whatever is actually being made. ditto an underdog - IF a car can't hit the "real" targets with development, then we don't have a rule to fix the situation, as the process tries to get stuff reasonably close to 12.9 lb per ACTUAL hp. I don't like it, but it COULD become the problem Jeff imagines, and it's worth discussing. his idea to change the process to reset the ITS miller ratio so the current crop of ITS cars on track stay at their current weight is a pretty fair way to do that so long as the ITAC/CRB/Membership STAY ON TOP OF DEVELOPMENT and continue to reclassify cars if and when they "need" it.

this isn't pro race rotation, using comp adjustments for the express purpose of weighing down the current generation of cars making them uncompetitive with the next generation once sorted (and thus keeping turnover high and the cars relevant). it's setting EVERYTHING, new and old, to the same band on the spectrum and keeping it there. it's the whole reason for the process.

if this means that the development goes away "because it won't pan out in the long term," then I don't know a solution other than to say "make shit up and leave it alone." a no-adjustments, ever, system could be as random in it's classification as desired. curb weights, hat pulls, asking my 2y.o. kid... wouldn't matter, the target is the top, whatever that is, and you build what you think can get there and sort it until it does or you give up. if that's preffered, fine. we can clean up the process language and remove the evaluation language from the ITCS and have much shorter con calls. I think it will Kill IT in the long run. changing agressively NOW could kill IT in the short term. the secret is to find a balance to impliment as needed.

please keep the ideas and comments flowing.

[Bill Miller]

Trust me when I say there is no easy button in making a Z car or a Miata or a 944s or a TR8 or a Mustang or an RX7 or an Integra exceed process power. No one is turning out turn key versions of these things ready to win races. The people who have gotten them where they are have done it they way Andy describes, with a lot of money and work on their own.

Adding several hundred pounds to all of those cars -- the ones actually running in ITS right now and the ones that were for the most part actually running in ITS before the E36 showed up -- would kill the class. I really think that is the key part of what you are missing. Essentially, for all pracical purposes, ALL of what really "is" ITS makes more power than the gain number assigned to them now.

The "fix" is to lower the power to weight multiplier in ITS, assign higher gain percentages to those cars, and the default to new cars coming into the class. That will balance the older cars versus the new, without dumping a few hundred pounds of lead on all of the cars in S.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I do race in S, I pay attention to the cars that are out there in the SEDiv and elsewhere, and I can tell you right now adding 200-300 lbs to the Z cars (marginal brakes as is), the RX7s (stressed to the max at 2680), my car (same), the Mustangs, Miatas, etc. will result in cars being parked just on the "hope" that new cars will be built.

Answer is clear.

Believe me Jeff, I hear what you, Steve, etc. are saying. And you guys make compelling arguments for not adding weight to the current ITS front-runners. And you're absolutely right Steve, it's not fair to marginalize the folks that have put in cubic time and cubic dollars to develop their cars. You've convinced me that my initial take is probably not the best one. Well presented sir.

And Jeff, I think your suggestion that I bolded is a solid compromise. Figure out what the new Miller Ratio would be given a 35% gain for those cars (unless of course, you "what we know" says it really is closer to 40%) to keep their weights where they are, and re-process the rest of ITS at the standard 25% (or "whatever we know" says it should be). Doesn't marginalize the hard work and money that they front runners have put out, and gives someone that wants to run something else a shot.

But one thing I would make perfectly clear, is that once your car is shown to develop consistently more than process power, expect your multiplier to change, and you will get a lead trophy. And yeah, I know, this is getting dangerously close to 'competition adjustments'.


Not true, really. Per "the process", if a particular engine is found to consistently be making more than "process" power ("what we know") then it's pretty much the ITAC's/CRB's responsibility to re-classify the car using this "what we know".

It's for this reason that very few are willing to release their actual dyno numbers, unless of course they're making LESS than "process" power...in that case those numbers get tossed around for free...

- GA


Greg makes a very valid point about the "what we know" wording in the IT Ops manual.

I agree with you Jeff, not an easy solution. Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that any of the current top ITS cars were an EASY button. I was referring to the E36 325 pre-SIR.

[Xian]

See, when you say a "top build SHOULD make 40%" you are effectively agreeing me, so long as you are saying that "a top build should make 40% and still stay the same weight using the Process."

Because the only way to do that is change the class multiplier to reflect the reality of the situation. ALL of the front running cars in ITS, due to a shit ton of hard work and money spent, make more power than expected.

Agreed. So, if the class multiplier changes, what happens to all the cars that we don't "know" are making 40%? Do they stay the same or get a weight break?

[JeffYoung]

Agreed. So, if the class multiplier changes, what happens to all the cars that we don't "know" are making 40%? Do they stay the same or get a weight break?

They get a break, which is Steve's legitimate complaint/issue.

[Xian]

They get a break, which is Steve's legitimate complaint/issue.

Yep, and my gripe as well... who's to say they can't/won't make the gains if the time and money went into the development?

[benspeed]

So I'm sitting in a bar and thinking about cubic dollars and development and not many can beat my effort. There are still some IT'S guys who can give my top 9.5/10 ITR at a run because these kids can fucking drive the shit ou of a car and have money to wreck.

Why is there never enough chat about who cAn fucking drive and it's always about the car?

Ps can't wait to stomp all of you now that I put a new ecu in my car it makes so much Hp you will cry :-)

Ben

On edit the stomping will come from the better driving more than the ecu :-)

[JeffYoung]

Yep, and my gripe as well... who's to say they can't/won't make the gains if the time and money went into the development?

Well, the way the system/Process works -- the one we all bought into 4-5 years ago and all were committed to like a religion (and I include myself in that somewhat snarky comment) -- those cars get assigned a gain variable based on a 25% default with movement up or down if additional information shows they can make more or less power.

It's the subjective part, the soft spot, in the otherwise very objective process. Greg is certainly right that there is no incentive to disclose "above Process power" -- other than a sense o fairness and a desire to keep the racing as competitive as possible. We've been lucky so far in the sense that we've always been able to figure out if a car was an over or under Process power, but I agree the whole deal is starting to look more and more like Prod based comp adjustments and that is terrible for the category.

I'm not sure what the answer is at this point.

[Chip42]

I'm not sure what the answer is at this point.

reprocess everything at 40%

that'll get the dyno sheets in.

seriously, if keeping it like it is is what everyone wants, let ST have the new cars and let IT become vintage racing. all good things...

[Ron Earp]

So I'm sitting in a bar and thinking about cubic dollars and development and not many can beat my effort.

However, this is exactly the sort of thinking that gets people writing "My Borgwald GT only makes an 18.5% gain and my effort is maxed out. I need a weight break." But we're all guilty of the thought if we're honest with ourselves. There is always more to do, always. Any one of us can look at another's build and suggest an improvement.


reprocess everything at 40%

that'll get the dyno sheets in.


It'd get dyno sheets in but unfortunately we would probably receive the sheets from a competitor's developmental point before the final iteration.



Jeff stated:


"RIGHT NOW, if we used to the Process AS IT STANDS -- and I think this is what you guys are missing (you too Christian) -- on the Z car, the RX7, the TR8, the Miata, the Mustangs, the 944s, the Corrado, the Prelude, the Integra, all of them -- ALL OF THEM gain several hundred pounds based on known developed rwhp. "

No doubt if we applied the process with dyno hp that these cars would gain weight. Of the lot the only one that could take the weight is the Mustang since it is already racing at 300 lbs over weight. The Mustang spec weight needs to be up around 2725 to 2750 lbs anyhow. The rest of them, they could take very little, if any, additional weight.

But, do we really have a problem? There aren't many new cars with 150-190 stock horsepower that fit into S. We've had three notable additions that I can recall, the Pontiac Solstice, Mazda MX5, and the Subaru RS. Two of the three were not produced in large numbers and I suspect none have been built for ITS. Certainly there are MX5s for ITS but based on what I've seen I'm more worried about them running away with the class than the class running away with them. The low effort builds we've seen have been impressive. How's an MX5 going to respond with a serious development effort? I think it'll hold its own.

And if one or two examples of the Subaru or Pontiac show up, and don't compete well, we're not going to turn ITS upside down to make them competitive. At least I hope we're not going to do that. With a new chassis and build there are incredibly steep, and expensive, learning curves to be climbed. I know, and I'm nowhere near the end. The owners of the Subarus or Pontiacs will have to realize where they are in relation to other ITS cars with decades of development.

[lateapex911]

I guess what I do not understand is why so many are scared of dyno's.... The actual number doesn't matter but how it is relative to other cars. This is not a cheap sport. Why are we only responsible as a competitor to question others.... ? Who enforces the rule book? What about the guy who wins a lot of races and is called a cheater? Clearly GrandAm has a rule book but they still throw cars on dyno's to see if anything stands apart... Or even a reason to question the car or to see if there initial process is wrong. I think we could get past certain things like...... Guys feeling the need to used stronger parts in valve train to prevent costly failures .... Maybe they shouldn't be running rpms so high..... Maybe it is a true problem with that car.....

I think as a competitor it would be cool to know that weekend how much power people have and don't compared to you..... It could also hurt your feelings when you get beat. Why not publish hp targets.

Steve, I do see your point about hard work in finding power, but if you find 225whp for a RX7 is that good for IT? I just made up a ridiculous number , I know that is not to be true.

You guys do a great job. I just wish all the hard work that goes into writing rules could be followed with simple checks. It sounds like Greg Amy tried something like this with the whistler at a race.... I forget what his findings were but all must have been happy with the results... I really think this would help so many great drivers out there get more credit for their great driving and minimize the criticism some get. If I believed all the stories I heard I would think everybody cheats... And that just can't be true.... Like in everything , a few ruin things for many some times. There are more good people in the world than bad.

Keep up the good discussion ... Communication is good..... Opinions are good.... And then let the decision makes do their thing. Be proud if a rule is written because you used your skills to engineer something that surpasses what was thought not to be achievable .

Greg

it almost sounds like you'd like to put the class on a dyno after a race. Might be fun. But, if I'm driving a car equipped with an ECU, I assure you I'll have a separate map that will be in effect for the dyno run, if needed, to ensure my car makes Process power at best.

I'd do it to protect myself from a dyno that makes odd number or isn't consistent. (In dynoing my last car, I'd say I got more dyno numbers that were suspicious or flat out wrong (180 ft lbs of tq for a 12A rotary? I wish!) ) as well as to protect my hard work. I think most of us would.

Unless there was language in the supps, or the class regs stating otherwise, such as they have for the Boxster spec class. (I think).

Gregs Whistler check was purely a displacement check I think, and was well received...it didn't pin down your hp, or your actal displacement or comp ratio, it merely was a red flag that was intended to ID gross issues.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So I'm sitting in a bar and thinking about cubic dollars and development and not many can beat my effort. There are still some IT'S guys who can give my top 9.5/10 ITR at a run because these kids can fucking drive the shit ou of a car and have money to wreck.

Why is there never enough chat about who cAn fucking drive and it's always about the car?

Ps can't wait to stomp all of you now that I put a new ecu in my car it makes so much Hp you will cry :-)

Ben

On edit the stomping will come from the better driving more than the ecu :-)

Simple, because we never talk about lap times and results. We only talk about factors that get run through the calculation.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Right now, there technically isn't a problem because most of the cars on grid have exceeded the process numbers so there is little outcry. I don't think there is an immediate action needed.

[JeffYoung]

It's coming from a couple of the MX5 guys now.

We'll see how it pans out. I would prefer we do nothing as well, but if we get a request in to reprocess the Z cars or the RX7 or the 99 Miatas or my car or the INtegra or the Mustangs or the 944s or the 323 or the Corrado or the Prelude or the Integra (the list could go on), we've got an issue.

[gpeluso]

Jake,
I have raced in classes that are based on hp to weight ratio and the dyno was at the track..... Everything can be cheated... Just takes more work.... Standalone guys will get extra looks at... Sometimes at these races all ports needed to be taped over to avoid some types of reflashes..... Nothing perfect but can be used to scare people or help keep parity that's all...
Trust me... The more people with standalones the more people know tricks.....

Do you realize a person with a standalone can have traction control just by limiting throttle in certain conditions? I have not even heard of IT guys picking up on this stuff yet. Yes I have even seen guys have the ecu programmed to retard timing if the front wheels are not moving. Some organizations are starting to use traqmate data to compare competitor to competitor.. Once again same day relativity ....... You should hear the arguments about that due to cars running higher downforce compared to others that are not .

I personally wish a dyno was at more races just for the ability to find out problems or fine tuning with ecu.. My bmw has a standalone not because I wanted it but due to the fact the car would go into limp mode and it was the only way to get rid of traction control legally ... We pulled fuses ... Remove one or 2 sensors and before we new it... The car would not go over 50 mph. Better yet the drive by wire would sometimes be on a huge delay.. Haha was not a fun year. We learned a lot but $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Greg

[Ron Earp]

Standalone guys will get extra looks at... Sometimes at these races all ports needed to be taped over to avoid some types of reflashes..... Nothing perfect but can be used to scare people or help keep parity that's all...
Trust me... The more people with standalones the more people know tricks.....


You do know that some factory ECUs have more capability than Motecs, Megasquirts, Wolf, Electomotive, and other standalone units? I've got a factory ECU that I can change programs with a switch. On the fly. While the car is running. And it doesn't skip a beat, and it could make far less hp if one of the three loaded programs were instructed to do so. A standalone ECU doesn't require any more, or less, scrutiny than a factory ECU.



Do you realize a person with a standalone can have traction control just by limiting throttle in certain conditions? I have not even heard of IT guys picking up on this stuff yet.
Greg

Yes, IT guiys have heard of such things. Slew rate based traction control with ignition cut/retard has been cheated up and installed in MSD boxes since the mid-90s. We discussed it on this board back in 2004/2005 as I recall. How many people do you know running MSD boxes? About anybody with a carbed car and more than a few with ECU based cars run MSDs. And, of course, folks can have traction control in stock and standalone ECUs.

If you're worried about cheating a dyno isn't going to solve it. It might help, but the real way to stop cheating is for competitors to police one another. It is a time honored technique that works when employed.

[gpeluso]

Ron,
Not really talking about cheating...... More about keeping parity with new and old....
Yes I know these things can be fudged. Yes I know about factory ecu capabilities. I just want IT to have a bright future and not become vintage racing. There is going to be a point with some of our top cars have issues finding legal parts. My rx7 tranny parts are getting tougher.. Look at 15x7 wheels that are not miata 4x100( getting slim pickings ) . Just want to help find a way to help the rule makers move forward... Get rid of the easy button car options.
I know everything can be cheated. Nothing will be perfect. It is just really cool to have different makes running for wins and using your cars strength against anothers weakness and certain cars better at certain tracks.

What's really cool is that there is no manufacturer politics in 5+ yr old cars like you see in some of the national classes.

Thanks guys... Just want to go to the track
Greg

[callard]

We found on the Benz that the stock ECU had six ignition maps depending on the country to which the car was going to be sent. None were near as good as what we did with a Microsquirt.

[benspeed]

Hey Ron - I'm not saying that you quit working on the car or beg for adjustments. I'm saying that driver development really makes the big difference at the pointy end of the field. Got to recognize that once the big gainers have been done...putting the time into practice is where the payoff is, especially data aq- that's why some of these young hot shoes up here in ITS can run with the R guys - they are working driver programs.

I think most focus way too much on the car...

[lateapex911]

^ And thats coming from a Porsche guy!

I remember setting a track record but putting a wheel or three off later in the race and my crew guy was congratulating me, and I said, "Thanks, but put Bill Auberlin in this thing and it would be a whole different story"..

He responds, "Theres not enough $ in the world to make Bill drive your car"

True that! LOL

But your point is well taken.

ITAC assumes that a Huffmaster is driving all cars.

And we can't whine about cars if it's all in the drivers hands. ;)

[JeffYoung]

Hey Ron - I'm not saying that you quit working on the car or beg for adjustments. I'm saying that driver development really makes the big difference at the pointy end of the field. Got to recognize that once the big gainers have been done...putting the time into practice is where the payoff is, especially data aq- that's why some of these young hot shoes up here in ITS can run with the R guys - they are working driver programs.

I think most focus way too much on the car...

Without doubt driver development is important. NOt knocking Ron in anyway, but right now I'm a second or two faster in his car than he is, for one reason only - he basically took two years off to build it while I get racing, a lot, and got better at it. He'll catch up soon enough if he gets his butt to the track more....lol...

But I think after a few years of running hard, other than the occasional Huffmaster or Brian Price, the car DOES matter. I think right now, at the front in ITS, if you swapped me, or Steve eckerich, or Steve Parrish, or Chuck Hines or Kent Thompson, or Harold Corbin, or Matt Reppert or Zsolt between our respective 3-4 cars, you'd see pretty near the same lap times. And at that point, the car really does start to matter, and 5 hp makes a big difference and learning to set up the car matters, and so on.

[quadzjr]

As ron said it..

It'd get dyno sheets in but unfortunately we would probably receive the sheets from a competitor's developmental point before the final iteration.


What is done/can be done to sort through prevent this? I am sure the ITAC receives bogus information and dyno plots from other sources that show drasitc differences. In my little pond with slower ITB (than ITS) cars.. I think there is overdogs.. all of them have torque.. something that the process does not pay attention to. When an ITB car in an ITA/ITB split start field starts dead last passes 20 cars in the first lap, 13 the next, passes for 3rd by then end of lap 3.. then broke. It ran a lap faster the the leaders (well driven protege, and MKII VW) while passing those 13 cars on lap two. another discussion for another time.. but there are overdogs.

[seckerich]

Just getting back to this after the planning meeting at Jekyl Island. I get what you guys are talking about with all the front cars in ITS pushing out the top of the 25%. Problem is that we all are. If that is the case and you agree that after so many years of development a full tilt ITS car will go closer to 30 - 35 % then that is the number you adjust ITS to for new cars. The group over a very broad range of makes have in your eyes proven it is possible, and no overdog exists. Do not toss the new MX5 in as needing help after the way they pulled us at CMS, I know those cars and the gains. If you move the lbs/hp you give an incredible advantage to all new classifications rather than address the power gain multiplier.

[Knestis]

... When an ITB car in an ITA/ITB split start field starts dead last passes 20 cars in the first lap, 13 the next, passes for 3rd by then end of lap 3.. then broke. It ran a lap faster the the leaders (well driven protege, and MKII VW) while passing those 13 cars on lap two. another discussion for another time.. but there are overdogs.

"Overdog" is not synonymous with "cheater."

K

[JeffYoung]

Just getting back to this after the planning meeting at Jekyl Island. I get what you guys are talking about with all the front cars in ITS pushing out the top of the 25%. Problem is that we all are. If that is the case and you agree that after so many years of development a full tilt ITS car will go closer to 30 - 35 % then that is the number you adjust ITS to for new cars. The group over a very broad range of makes have in your eyes proven it is possible, and no overdog exists. Do not toss the new MX5 in as needing help after the way they pulled us at CMS, I know those cars and the gains. If you move the lbs/hp you give an incredible advantage to all new classifications rather than address the power gain multiplier.

See! This is far more productive than just ripping me a new one....lol....

Ok, this is actually a good idea. Move the CLASS multiplier down from 12.9 to reflect what the current cars do but ALSO assume a 35% gain in ITS class wide (not just "multi-valve" or something) unless proven wrong.

[Xian]

See! This is far more productive than just ripping me a new one....lol....

Ok, this is actually a good idea. Move the CLASS multiplier down from 12.9 to reflect what the current cars do but ALSO assume a 35% gain in ITS class wide (not just "multi-valve" or something) unless proven wrong.

Yep. And that's what I was getting at by asking how we know that these other cars won't eventually see the same sort of gains given an equal application of time and money. *BUT* nobody on their right mind will build something taking that level of development vs the "easy path" of running a developed car (see my comment about us being lemmings ;) ).

Folks will build a new chassis/car if they have an emotional reason or if they think the car holds a competitive advantage (or a least parity). Otherwise, you'll just see more of the same builds.

[Chip42]

"Overdog" is not synonymous with "cheater."

K

Deuce Keane isn't usually accused of cheating. I know you know his record, but track records, ARRC wins, and many CFR/SARRC wins are his in that accord. he ran near fastest lap of race in the early laps before breaking last november. previously he reset the sebring long course record in early 2012. he is good, he knows that track, etc... so there's a lot of "grey" hidden in these details, but the car is F'ing fast and we "know" it's classified right per process based on known HP numbers vs. classification (hell, it could weight LESS and still be run correctly if we wanted to be picky about it). And that fact rubs people the wrong way, which is too bad if they haven't done their part in catching up to the development curve but justified if they really have.

the process does appear to have some issues in ITB, aside from just being hard to use on cars from 40+ years worth of listings. that's one of the reasons we're pulling all of the B data we can to try and get the whole class into one process to see what, if anything, needs to change. as you know, listings in B come from many years and many methods of classification. we need to see apples to apples before we do anything. FWIW though, almost everything I see running these days HAS been classified under the published process.

[Chip42]

Yep. And that's what I was getting at by asking how we know that these other cars won't eventually see the same sort of gains given an equal application of time and money. *BUT* nobody on their right mind will build something taking that level of development vs the "easy path" of running a developed car (see my comment about us being lemmings ;) ).

Folks will build a new chassis/car if they have an emotional reason or if they think the car holds a competitive advantage (or a least parity). Otherwise, you'll just see more of the same builds.

I'd bet there would be an equal amount of resistance to changing the default multiplier and class pwr number together. its effectively a null change, which I understand is good, but there's absolutely ZERO reason to believe that having an "S" on the door changes IT gain potential. the stuff up there now, and doubtless some of the cars we don't see or which are new, will beat 25%. but many others don't and won't. just like in any other class.

asking the CRB and ITAC to do more due diligence in the initial classification to try and get a better feel for expected gains than just using a blanket 25% might be fair (and I'd be willing to sign up to that), but assuming everything we put into that bucket will make 30% or more is not.

[lateapex911]

I'd bet there would be an equal amount of resistance to changing the default multiplier and class pwr number together. its effectively a null change, which I understand is good, but there's absolutely ZERO reason to believe that having an "S" on the door changes IT gain potential. the stuff up there now, and doubtless some of the cars we don't see or which are new, will beat 25%. but many others don't and won't. just like in any other class.

asking the CRB and ITAC to do more due diligence in the initial classification to try and get a better feel for expected gains than just using a blanket 25% might be fair (and I'd be willing to sign up to that), but assuming everything we put into that bucket will make 30% or more is not.

Agreed.
How much power is Zsolt making, for example?

[seckerich]

Agreed.
How much power is Zsolt making, for example?

Depends if you are asking about version 2.0.3.6.9.1-23/9 or his mad scientist motor builders early example. :D

All joking aside Zolt is a good example of getting a "whole package" to the next level. They are getting the final drive perfect for the track, etc.

I can get different rear wheel numbers on the dyno just running Volks compared to a 12 pound wheel. I would imagine most all the numbers the ITAC and others are tossing out for discussion are wheel HP and have as much to do with driveline friction as they do with pure HP gains. We just get more to the ground. Reason the Mazda guys get so upset when you mention weight is we have to spin these motors stupid high to get and torque and we are at the limit of gearing.

[Chip42]

agree or disagree with what's being discussed, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that adding weight to the front runners (i.e. mazdas) is a favorable conclusion. I'd say no matter what that any change that shake out from this very much not official discussion would not include added weight to the top runners of more than 10 lbs or so in order to make the math fit the revised classification process.

the ITS RX7s aren't egtting any heavier.

[JeffYoung]

agree or disagree with what's being discussed, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that adding weight to the front runners (i.e. mazdas) is a favorable conclusion. I'd say no matter what that any change that shake out from this very much not official discussion would not include added weight to the top runners of more than 10 lbs or so in order to make the math fit the revised classification process.

the ITS RX7s aren't egtting any heavier.

Yeah, but the problem Christian and Steve identified is that if you change the class multiplier and then corect the front runners to their actual individual gain, but default the new cars at 25%, you are penalizing development.

Maybe a higher default is a good idea. Put the number up there and then let people prove it is too high. Of course that is a discentive to a build......

Tricky issue this one.

[JeffYoung]

Depends if you are asking about version 2.0.3.6.9.1-23/9 or his mad scientist motor builders early example. :D

All joking aside Zolt is a good example of getting a "whole package" to the next level. They are getting the final drive perfect for the track, etc.

I can get different rear wheel numbers on the dyno just running Volks compared to a 12 pound wheel. I would imagine most all the numbers the ITAC and others are tossing out for discussion are wheel HP and have as much to do with driveline friction as they do with pure HP gains. We just get more to the ground. Reason the Mazda guys get so upset when you mention weight is we have to spin these motors stupid high to get and torque and we are at the limit of gearing.

Different wheels, different fluids, different clutches/PPs, all kinds of things can affect rwhp on my car by 4-5 hp at least. Hell, if I don't set the rear drums correctly, I've seen a 7-8 hp LOSS just based on that alone.

[Chip42]

Yeah, but the problem Christian and Steve identified is that if you change the class multiplier and then corect the front runners to their actual individual gain, but default the new cars at 25%, you are penalizing development.

Maybe a higher default is a good idea. Put the number up there and then let people prove it is too high. Of course that is a discentive to a build......

Tricky issue this one.

development is only penalized if the end result makes attempts to put developed and undeveloped cars at the same laptime. the goal here is to put developed cars back into the strata we define as "correct as classed" or move that definition to fit them. if "we" really believe that 25% gains are a real nominal expectation (and it's as resonable a value as one could use to blanket a mix of cars like this) then that value is the one to use. anything exceeding gets pulled back, stuff that can't get there gets a bump. with data, when agreed upon, etc...

or like I said earlier, we could hold ourselves to a higher standard of discovery and do some real footwork to see what an engine might gain. it's difficult, and a real known answer on a new car would be imossible to determine exactly, but we could get a better feel for it, and make better assumptions than just throwing 25% (or 30, or 35) at everything that comes accross the "desk".

the point is to get a developed car into the right range. right now as you describe it, there are many above the indicated potential, so reset the goal. added development should get you higher in that box, lack of development means lower inside or below the box. make decisions based on what we know from actually well developed builds and expect the same work for any car (i.e. not lowering the target to make it more accessible). yes, that can put off new development for some, but those people still have the option of riding coat tails to a great degree using a known platform, and I'm sure that the OPMs, Flat Outs, and ISCs of the world will be more than happy to help them do so.

[seckerich]

I think the real point is are we really over the 25% at the motor or are we all just getting more out of the total package. I admit to not having an ITS build on the engine dyno in forever. Now I am curious. I will get back to you with real numbers (minus the usual BS factor we all use). :023:

[Chip42]

generally when presented with dyno data we take whp and work it backwards from 87% loss (RWD) or 85% (FWD, transverse midengine). rarely but on occasion we do see engine dyno numbers.

new stuff is based on published chp.

the calculated or published chp number is what we evaluate %gain against and establish a weight. if you make a determined 30% gain in a front engine RWD car, you could be making more or less depending on actual driveline losses. it'll never be a perfect and 100% impartial system, but we can try.

[Knestis]

Deuce Keane isn't usually accused of cheating. I know you know his record, but track records, ARRC wins, and many CFR/SARRC wins are his in that accord. he ran near fastest lap of race in the early laps before breaking last november. previously he reset the sebring long course record in early 2012. he is good, he knows that track, etc... so there's a lot of "grey" hidden in these details, but the car is F'ing fast and we "know" it's classified right per process based on known HP numbers vs. classification (hell, it could weight LESS and still be run correctly if we wanted to be picky about it). And that fact rubs people the wrong way, which is too bad if they haven't done their part in catching up to the development curve but justified if they really have.

the process does appear to have some issues in ITB, aside from just being hard to use on cars from 40+ years worth of listings. that's one of the reasons we're pulling all of the B data we can to try and get the whole class into one process to see what, if anything, needs to change. as you know, listings in B come from many years and many methods of classification. we need to see apples to apples before we do anything. FWIW though, almost everything I see running these days HAS been classified under the published process.

A very good example and pertinent to any conversation like this. Deuce sets the bar in B, with the whole package - development/engineering, preparation, tire budget, driver skill, the whole enchilada. I don't have any reason to believe he's a cheater but that's even more important - a particular car/driver combination kicking ass is equally NOT the definition of "overdog."

That generation of Honda should be pretty much in the sweet spot of the Process (e.g., not a '70s-era smogged up POS that who knows HOW it will respond to IT preparation). It's also about the same age/technology as several other make/model examples that have shown competitiveness when well developed and well driven.

If he starts at the back and passes a bunch of less prepared, less talented people, that's COMPETITION doing what it's supposed to do.

K

[Bill Miller]

development is only penalized if the end result makes attempts to put developed and undeveloped cars at the same laptime. the goal here is to put developed cars back into the strata we define as "correct as classed" or move that definition to fit them. if "we" really believe that 25% gains are a real nominal expectation (and it's as resonable a value as one could use to blanket a mix of cars like this) then that value is the one to use. anything exceeding gets pulled back, stuff that can't get there gets a bump. with data, when agreed upon, etc...

or like I said earlier, we could hold ourselves to a higher standard of discovery and do some real footwork to see what an engine might gain. it's difficult, and a real known answer on a new car would be imossible to determine exactly, but we could get a better feel for it, and make better assumptions than just throwing 25% (or 30, or 35) at everything that comes accross the "desk".

the point is to get a developed car into the right range. right now as you describe it, there are many above the indicated potential, so reset the goal. added development should get you higher in that box, lack of development means lower inside or below the box. make decisions based on what we know from actually well developed builds and expect the same work for any car (i.e. not lowering the target to make it more accessible). yes, that can put off new development for some, but those people still have the option of riding coat tails to a great degree using a known platform, and I'm sure that the OPMs, Flat Outs, and ISCs of the world will be more than happy to help them do so.

Chip, you're essentially talking about competition adjustments. (I'll save Kirk from saying it. BLEH!). But, I'm not sure what other way there is around correcting cars that don't make a 25% gain (either too high or too low). And using 'what we know' during the classification process is a defacto comp. adj., and yes, it punishes development. I guess the important question is, how close do you want the cars in IT to fit the regression line for their given classes? If you're trying to level the playing field, then yes, development gets penalized. And using whp gets at not only engine development, but driveline development. You have to ask yourself if that's the ultimate goal of IT.

I see both sides of the argument. On one hand, you want things to be balanced, and the competition to be good, but on the other, you penalize the folks that spend the time, money, and effort to improve their entire package. Tough spot.

[JeffYoung]

Chip, you're essentially talking about competition adjustments. (I'll save Kirk from saying it. BLEH!). But, I'm not sure what other way there is around correcting cars that don't make a 25% gain (either too high or too low). And using 'what we know' during the classification process is a defacto comp. adj., and yes, it punishes development. I guess the important question is, how close do you want the cars in IT to fit the regression line for their given classes? If you're trying to level the playing field, then yes, development gets penalized. And using whp gets at not only engine development, but driveline development. You have to ask yourself if that's the ultimate goal of IT.

I see both sides of the argument. On one hand, you want things to be balanced, and the competition to be good, but on the other, you penalize the folks that spend the time, money, and effort to improve their entire package. Tough spot.

Exactly.

[seckerich]

To a point Bill you are dead on. If you have one car running away with everything and the build is good, but not great, you have to ask questions. What we have is a class that seems to have crept up as a whole. The goal is close racing among different cars. Some would argue that if the rules are fair and cars are properly classed every one in the GCR could win. I doubt that will ever happen and you can't even get that close in "spec" Miata or SRF with single marque racing. I don't want to win because I have an overdog, any more than I want to lose because I am racing against one. Top builds in ITS are closer than any other class in IT with different cars better at different tracks. Screw that up and you repeat history. I promise I could give my car to Speedsource and David would find a few more tricks I have missed.

[JeffYoung]

Exactly again. We are in such a sweet spot right now in ITS with so many chassis that have just slight advantages at different tracks. 944s, 323, E30, Mustang, RX7, Miata, 240/260z, 280z, 280zx, 300zx, 240sx, TR8, Corrado, Prelude, Integra, Civic all can and do run up front.

The question is how to keep it that way as long as we can.

[Bill Miller]

Exactly again. We are in such a sweet spot right now in ITS with so many chassis that have just slight advantages at different tracks. 944s, 323, E30, Mustang, RX7, Miata, 240/260z, 280z, 280zx, 300zx, 240sx, TR8, Corrado, Prelude, Integra, Civic all can and do run up front.

The question is how to keep it that way as long as we can.

Until someone comes along and makes a big enough stink about why you're (the ITAC) not using 'what we know' to correct the cars that are documented to make more than a 25% gain.

[JeffYoung]

Until someone comes along and makes a big enough stink about why you're (the ITAC) not using 'what we know' to correct the cars that are documented to make more than a 25% gain.

Which is why I raised this issues...because that stink is starting to be made.

[Knestis]

...at which point the stink may be ignored. The Process MAY incorporate "what we [think we] know," but it does not HAVE to.

Kirk

EDIT - Bleah!!

[Bill Miller]

...at which point the stink may be ignored. The Process MAY incorporate "what we [think we] know," but it does not HAVE to.

Kirk

EDIT - Bleah!!

With all due respect Kirk, if that happens, the whole thing is pretty much out the window. The whole idea behind using 'what we know', was to address the cases where there was a significant deviation (up or down) from the expected 25% gain. If you've got documentation out there that supports that you've got cars making significantly more than expected hp, and the ITAC chooses not to use it, what's the point of even having a process? It's really no different than it was in the old days.

Look at it from the perspective of the new guy that reads the ops manual, knows that the Borgward GT makes closer to a 35% gain, but is spec'd based on a 25% gain. He knows that there's documentation that supports the 35% gain, provides it to the ITAC, and asks for a re-process. In the end, he gets told "Nope, but thanks for playing. Please accept our lovely consolation prizes." How is that any different than the old perception that certain cars got preferential treatment because of who was driving them, or who that driver happened to know?

Or better, how do you handle the case of the guy who's car got re-processed based on 'what we know', and got a nice 150# lead trophy for his effort, but you don't process other cars based on the same information, when it is out there?

I guess it's a question of staying true to the first principles of an objective classification process or pissing off a group of people because they were able to wring more out of their cars than anyone thought was possible?

I totally agree that it's a really tough spot, and I don't envy Jeff, Chip, or anyone else on the ITAC, for having to deal with it.

[Knestis]

Allow me to be less flippant and restate: The stink can be ignored if the there isn't a preponderance of data in which the ITAC has a high degree of confidence. It's semantics but "what we [think we] know" should get applied based on the data, not the volume of the complaining about the data.

Y'all will no doubt recognize that I don't have a lot of confidence that we ever truly know what think we know...

K

[Bill Miller]

Allow me to be less flippant and restate: The stink can be ignored if the there isn't a preponderance of data in which the ITAC has a high degree of confidence. It's semantics but "what we [think we] know" should get applied based on the data, not the volume of the complaining about the data.

Y'all will no doubt recognize that I don't have a lot of confidence that we ever truly know what think we know...

K

That, I agree with completely. :023:

[lawtonglenn]

...but is spec'd based on a 25% gain. He knows that there's documentation that supports the 35% gain, provides it to the ITAC, and asks for a re-process. In the end, he gets told "Nope, but thanks for playing. Please accept our lovely consolation prizes."


um... why would anyone ASK for an INCREASED weight reprocess on a car they were preparing? :shrug:

.

[Bill Miller]

um... why would anyone ASK for an INCREASED weight reprocess on a car they were preparing? :shrug:

.
Nobody said it was his car.

[Knestis]

um... why would anyone ASK for an INCREASED weight reprocess on a car they were preparing? :shrug:

.

Because they thought it might be good for the category to be more accurately balanced...?

Kirk (who requested that the weight of HIS car be "re-run" knowing that the Process would spit out a CORRECT WEIGHT higher than what was required)

EDIT - Frankly I think anyone who plays weight games or uses politicking to gain an advantage, rather than trying to win in fairly classed cars is a is a big, fat wuss.

K

[StephenB]

is a big, fat wuss.

K

Hahahah I couldn't resist... so they are fat and can't get their car down to process weight so in fear of others building the same car they raise the weight of the car so they are equal to others that may build and run the same type of car? TOTALLY kidding but I thought it was funny :) I know htat is now what you implied at all!


Stephen

PS: I think this has been a good healthy discusion. Glad it's happening, even if nothing changes at all, at least things are being discussed and hashed out in a civil pro-active way!

[Chip42]

Y'all will no doubt recognize that I don't have a lot of confidence that we ever truly know what think we know...


Noted. I agree that the "top" is usually unknown, but the average can be determined. if the "fast cars" are known, with confidence, to be making AT LEAST some gain greater that 25%, then reprocessing is "correct". Jeff's proposal is interesting in that it seeks to reset ITS based on these cars' current weight, their known gain, and a new weight factor to make the math work.

likely truths:
1) the ACTUAL gain of the top runners will remain cloaked in secrecy, so will liekly still be a few ticks above "what we know" and maintain the advantage of development.
1b) newly developed cars which exceed their expected gain will need to be tracked dilligently, and the understanding of adjustment should be made clear to soften the "lead trophy" feelings.

2) the power to weight gap to ITR will shrink, likely forcing more of these changes to reset R in relation to S. guys who can't drop ballast will be unamused (RX8, celica). I think the gap back to A will be fine, and on track it will remian unchanged (top cars stay at current weight).

3)it will change the tweener car status for the top half of IT. cars that become too light in ITR might be sent to ITS "heavy" assuming gain potentials in the 25% range are real peaks. guys who built cars to run in a certain group will most likely NOT want this.

4) we still will not have addressed the looming realities of modern stock drivetrains: sequential transmissions, diesels, direct injection gas engines, turbos, and combinations of these, which could force FURTHER adjustments to IT's weight and classing structure in order to stay relevant. we have ~3-5 years before this becomes a REAL problem.