sorry......i HAD to do this..
400!!!!!!!
Printable View
sorry......i HAD to do this..
400!!!!!!!
I assume that was Dan Jones that brought this up from the initials in his screen name. Thanks for the compliments. Can I use that testamonial in my next print ad for Ludwig Motorsports? :DQuote:
Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 22 2005, 04:44 PM
How do you know what power he's making?? Have you seen his dyno sheets? Again, we are trying to look at things from an mechanical and physical angle to the greatest degree possible, with observation of known qualtities as supporting or conflicting evidence.
[snapback]60984[/snapback]
Last time the car was on a dyno it put down all of 166. That was on a Superflow dyno. Not Dynojet or Mustang so it adds another variable into the equation. I'll link that graph if anyone wants a look. That number was with an A/F ratio no leaner than 12:1. Our pressure regulator was giving us fits. With the regulator fixed and with fuel control we were able to get a proper A/F ratio. We never got the car back to the dyno but the SOTP difference was night and day. I'd bet the farm that engine was in the meat of the 175 range. Alas, that's just conjecture because that engine will never see a dyno. We had a coolant hose fail in August. The engine lost just enough coolant that the combustion chamber temps went up just enough to detonate wiping out the front rotor and housing.
Funny thing? Good story, worth the read IMO. That engine was an absolutely legal 10/10th deal. I'm the builder but even Speedsource really can't give you anything as far as hard parts that engine didn't have. It runs on a completely stock ECU. After it blew we went with our spare. Calling the spare a junkyard engine is being nice. The engine was pulled from a 110k mile street car and then sat on my buddy's back porch, in the elements, for three months. Long enough to stick a side seal and lose compression on the front rotor. I disassembled it, cleaned it up so it would look the part, and put it back together with a new soft seal kit. All the apex and side seals were original to the engine as were the springs. The engine now doesn't make enough cranking compression to start off the starter. It literally makes 50psi of cranking compression. Mazda replaces street engines under about 80. I've built engines that make 120 before they are fired for the first time meaning no time to seat in and start making compression. This engine sucks!! We had to push start it for every session two weeks ago at Mid-Ohio. It obviously "feels" softer than our old engine. And I'm sure it is but why waste dyno time to prove it? My point? With this engine we ran within 2/10th of our fastest lap at Mid-Ohio (1:43.6 in qualifying, 3/10 under the race record) and ran under the track record at Grattan (though Rob Huffmaster went even faster and claimed the record that weekend). So just to play devil's advocate...how much does all this horsepower talk really mean? :D
Uh Jake, you may want to check the post number on that. :bash_1_:Quote:
Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 23 2005, 03:14 AM
sorry......i HAD to do this..
400!!!!!!!
[snapback]61029[/snapback]
the driver variable is what is so hard to calculate...there are many fast high dollar guys in ITS with the bimmer so that makes it harder yet...as many saw a place to race a current fast car for the class...yes i think it is an overdog, but what did people think when the gen 2 rx-7 came to bat? it destroyed everything out there...maybe some adjustments need to be made but i think the scca may have jumped on the restrictor without proper testing or knowing the potential with the restrictor. if all cars in all classes were as developed as some of the bimmers out there we would have world challenge. I have an 8/10ths car and do pretty well on my local tracks, but have some driving work to do at away ones. does that make my car an overdog? I know all regions have some cars that are fast and some slow (I have seen some bimmers in my rear view before with bimmerworld on them) so driving has to play a large variable in the equasion. all this banter about high numbers can only be resolved with someone tearing down their car to make sure it is legal then dynoing the thing to see the raw numbers...with scca tech witnesses...then make a decision. enough back and forth with quotes and accusations. I like this website and dont think we should drive people away from it with trash talk. we are here for our HOBBY! lets just have fun and make rash tech based decisions at the top so we can continue. It really is very simple if you put all aside and look at it. :023:
Based on the way the ITAC recommends classifications, it's actually VERY easy to calculate... It's cancels completely out of the equation...Quote:
Originally posted by zracre@Sep 23 2005, 12:04 PM
the driver variable is what is so hard to calculate...[snapback]61034[/snapback]
Am I a good judge of character or what!!!?? :023: You sure can use it in your testamonial Chris.Quote:
Originally posted by C. Ludwig@Sep 23 2005, 09:42 AM
I assume that was Dan Jones that brought this up from the initials in his screen name. Thanks for the compliments. Can I use that testamonial in my next print ad for Ludwig Motorsports? :D
Funny thing? Good story, worth the read IMO. That engine was an absolutely legal 10/10th deal. I'm the builder but even Speedsource really can't give you anything as far as hard parts that engine didn't have. It runs on a completely stock ECU. After it blew we went with our spare. Calling the spare a junkyard engine is being nice. The engine was pulled from a 110k mile street car and then sat on my buddy's back porch, in the elements, for three months. Long enough to stick a side seal and lose compression on the front rotor. I disassembled it, cleaned it up so it would look the part, and put it back together with a new soft seal kit. All the apex and side seals were original to the engine as were the springs. The engine now doesn't make enough cranking compression to start off the starter. It literally makes 50psi of cranking compression. Mazda replaces street engines under about 80. I've built engines that make 120 before they are fired for the first time meaning no time to seat in and start making compression. This engine sucks!! We had to push start it for every session two weeks ago at Mid-Ohio. It obviously "feels" softer than our old engine. And I'm sure it is but why waste dyno time to prove it? My point? With this engine we ran within 2/10th of our fastest lap at Mid-Ohio (1:43.6 in qualifying, 3/10 under the race record) and ran under the track record at Grattan (though Rob Huffmaster went even faster and claimed the record that weekend). So just to play devil's advocate...how much does all this horsepower talk really mean? :D
[snapback]61030[/snapback]
In all honesty I have no idea what kind of hp my BMW makes, this is the 1st yr. running the car and I've never had it on any dyno. I'm not worried so much about how much torque & hp the engine is putting out (although a strong engine is important). I'm very happy that I have a car that has a great handling charteristics, great brakes and is very forgiving. The HP will come as I develop as a driver. "CHEATING IS NOT AN OPTION"!!
dj
Dan Jones
Unless I have missed an up date in the GCR or SportsCar, the beginning of the IT section specifies that the SCCA does not guarantee the competitiveness of a car.....PERIOD!!! That sword cuts both ways...no guanantee to be competitive, no guarntee to be over competitive. We takes what we gets and plays nice. :rolleyes:
Chuck
So they shouldn't even "try?"Quote:
Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 23 2005, 04:25 PM
guarantee[snapback]61060[/snapback]
Just because its not guaranteed?
"Ooops, we screwed up the weight on this car when we classified it, but we never guaranteed anything so... Screw you guys, we're going home."
Hey... That sounds alot like the way things used to be.
I really didn't like it very much. How about you?
So, Scott, you want to pound people into submission...you left ITS for the same reason I did....my original car was not competitive. We both went another route and continued to race...at least one of us doesn't bitch about everything that comes up. :bash_1_: CB
In case you haven't noticed Chuck, that was then, this is now.
If then was now, I'd very likely not sell my ITS car.
Then there was little to no hope. Now there is plenty.
Me... Bitch?
I write letters, make suggestions, send in dyno sheets, and offer constructive ideas.
Thats not bitching. Bitching is never being happy and never lending a hand to help
Bitching is also running your mouth (keyboard) not realizing that folks are TRYING to make changes and improvements. That sort of bitching looks kind of like this...
Unless I have missed an up date in the GCR or SportsCar, the beginning of the IT section specifies that the SCCA does not guarantee the competitiveness of a car.....PERIOD!!!
No Scott, this is bitching....helping is doing something to help the SCCA...like serving on your region board, being a chief instructor at a DE, running a SARRC race, organizing membership meetings, etc.
Sitting behind the keyboard and bitching is just that, bitching! No one wants to be responsible for what they do or the hand they are given...they want to change things to their benefit. I guess some things in life never change. I'm through. CB
Quote:
Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 23 2005, 12:25 PM
Unless I have missed an up date in the GCR or SportsCar, the beginning of the IT section specifies that the SCCA does not guarantee the competitiveness of a car.....PERIOD!!! That sword cuts both ways...no guanantee to be competitive, no guarntee to be over competitive. We takes what we gets and plays nice. :rolleyes:
Chuck
[snapback]61060[/snapback]
You're right Chuck, that's what the ITCS says. But what exactly does that mean? Does that mean that cars get thrown into a class, and that's it, you can never do anything to it? I don't think so. Otherwise, why was there language in there about reclassification, etc.? What my interpretation is, is that they won't necessarily do anything to help a car. Operative word there, is necessarily. Doesn't say they won't ever do anything, just that they don't have to.
Quote:
Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 23 2005, 07:53 PM
helping is doing something to help the SCCA...
like serving on your region board
Well, I've done that. Had to quit when I moved 4 hours away from Atlanta.
I wish I still could be on the board. I enjoyed it.
being a chief instructor at a DE
Well, I was going to do that this weekend, but my stepdaughter prefers I go with her to her track meet and be a nice parent type thingy. I hope thats OK with you.
I have instructed at several SCCA schools though, and will probably instruct in February at the Roebling double school.
I sincerely hope that meets your criteria. If not I'll try harder.
running a SARRC race
Now I have never done this. Maybe I should give it a shot.
organizing membership meetings
Didn't organize them, but I have loaded my car up and carried it out to a public spot on a Saturday afternoon and manned a booth.
Again, I hope thats good enough to be counted as a contributing member of the club in your eyes. If not, I promise to try harder in the future.
So, Chuck...
You like to interject your $.02 into these little classing discussions. When was the last time you sent some data into the ITAC? A dyno chart maybe?
I've done it. Several times. For cars that aren't even in my class. You know, to try to "help."
ITAC members have told me they appreciate it and that it helps. I dunno, maybe they are just being nice and actually wish I'd just quit pestering them.
Again, I'm sorry for all the trouble. Hopefully I can be a better member in the future.
For what it's worth, here is my interpretation...Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 23 2005, 08:56 PM
You're right Chuck, that's what the ITCS says. But what exactly does that mean?
[snapback]61077[/snapback]
"We will spec your car as closely as we can to the class targets and within the class performance envelope... The "competitiveness" of your program will be up to you..."
;)
:023: :happy204: :smilie_pokal:Quote:
Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 23 2005, 05:16 PM
For what it's worth, here is my interpretation...
"We will spec your car as closely as we can to the class targets and within the class performance envelope... The "competitiveness" of your program will be up to you..."
;)
[snapback]61081[/snapback]
hey!
i think I just saw a pig flying!!
;)
(Positive and constrctive feedback appreciated)
Quote:
Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 23 2005, 05:15 PM
.....ITAC members have told me they appreciate it and that it helps. I dunno, maybe they are just being nice and actually wish I'd just quit pestering them.
........[snapback]61080[/snapback]
I'm sure I speak for all on the ITAC when I say that we appreciate well thought out requests, submissions and information.
Whatever you want to send Catch, we'll read and discuss.
Darin, THANK YOU.
Bill..."thrown into a class" I think is a slight oversimplification:)
Scott: You have had a problem with me and everything I have said for a couple of years. That is the reason I usually don't post after you but unfortunately I allowed myself to be drawn in this time. Everyone please excuse me for this lapse in judgment.
See ya'll on the track. Chuck
Fellows, maybe it is time to start a new thread. To go a step further, maybe it was time to start one a long time ago, but this jabbing at specific indivduals is not useful and has nothing to do with a BMW 325i in ITS, and surely absolutely nothing to do with a IS300 in ITs.
It looks like the ITAC is looking at the BMW in ITS and that is a proper thing to do given the responses to the thread. Nothing is going to happen for awhile, but at least folks are on the case and I for one really appreciate the open nature of the discussion and folks from the ITAC posting on this thread.
Ron
Quote:
Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 23 2005, 10:37 PM
Scott: You have had a problem with me and everything I have said for a couple of years.[snapback]61086[/snapback]
News to me.
If you check you might actually find a few people that'll tell you how I told everyone around me that was complaining about Barber Registration last year that you were doing a fantastic job under the circumstances.
And you guys DID do a fantastic job. It was noticed and appreciated by those of us who understand that a 3 hour line for registration isn't necessarily all the registrars fault.
Most folks that think this have never done any registration work, which by the way, is another thing I've done. 'Cause I like to help.
See, I'm trying.
I'm just all chock full'o'help.
PS - I'm also currently trying to drum up membership to start a SCCA Chapter in South Georgia. I think that counts towards a few "help the club" points. At least I hope it does, I'd hate to do all this work for nothin'.
Now, back to climbing to the 500th post about how heavy the poor pitiful <sniffle> BMWs are about to be...
How is it an oversimplification Chuck? It's pretty damn obvious that there was no objectivity applied to the E36 classing in ITS. Otherwise, how do you explain a car that makes 11 more hp than the E36 (both stock numbers) ends up over 500# heavier?Quote:
Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 23 2005, 06:37 PM
Darin, THANK YOU.
Bill..."thrown into a class" I think is a slight oversimplification:)
Scott: You have had a problem with me and everything I have said for a couple of years. That is the reason I usually don't post after you but unfortunately I allowed myself to be drawn in this time. Everyone please excuse me for this lapse in judgment.
See ya'll on the track. Chuck
[snapback]61086[/snapback]
As far as the 'no guarantee' thing goes, long before PCAs were a twinkle in anyone's eye, comp. adj., in the form of reclassification, have been around. That meant that cars could be moved down or up. Ask the Accord folks how they felt when they got moved from B to A. Problem is, there's no place above S to push the E36. So maybe they should just push them out. No need to worry about dyno numbers, no need to worry about an overdog car, no need to worry about whiny drivers that think they're entitled to run an overdog because it got slid in at the wrong weight, and no need to deal w/ 20+ page threads on the IT board!
The ITAC has developed a pretty objective process, that's being applied to ALL IT cars. Doesn't really matter how things were done in the past, that's how they're being done now. I feel pretty safe in saying that the vast majority of the people on this board, myself included, think that that is a VERY good thing for the future of IT.
Some cars will get weight, some cars will lose weight, some cars may go up a class, some cars may (and have) gone down a class. Some cars won't change a bit (that's probably the majority). Point is, it's objective, and everybody's playing by the same rules. If you don't like the outcome, work w/in the system to get the process changed. The alternative is to take your car and your $$ elsewhere. People have done it before, and people will do it again.
Touche'
Exactly right as right can get! This has turned into a real piss and moan contest! I haven't seen this kind of cat fight since "Desperate Housewives"! :bash_1_:Quote:
Originally posted by zracre@Sep 23 2005, 12:04 PM
the driver variable is what is so hard to calculate...there are many fast high dollar guys in ITS with the bimmer so that makes it harder yet...as many saw a place to race a current fast car for the class...yes i think it is an overdog, but what did people think when the gen 2 rx-7 came to bat? it destroyed everything out there...maybe some adjustments need to be made but i think the scca may have jumped on the restrictor without proper testing or knowing the potential with the restrictor. if all cars in all classes were as developed as some of the bimmers out there we would have world challenge. I have an 8/10ths car and do pretty well on my local tracks, but have some driving work to do at away ones. does that make my car an overdog? I know all regions have some cars that are fast and some slow (I have seen some bimmers in my rear view before with bimmerworld on them) so driving has to play a large variable in the equasion. all this banter about high numbers can only be resolved with someone tearing down their car to make sure it is legal then dynoing the thing to see the raw numbers...with scca tech witnesses...then make a decision. enough back and forth with quotes and accusations. I like this website and dont think we should drive people away from it with trash talk. we are here for our HOBBY! lets just have fun and make rash tech based decisions at the top so we can continue. It really is very simple if you put all aside and look at it. :023:
[snapback]61034[/snapback]
I disagree....to some extent, there has been some personality conflicts, but it has returned to the center, and has some great posts...Dave Grans made me spit my dinner...it rocked, LOL.
Also, some interesting factiods have come to light, some good policy statements have been made, and some peoples opinions have been outed.
All in all, one of the better threads..
If you want some bickering, find the "New Beetle in ITC" thread, LOL... ;)
You're right. How soon I forget. I even got my foot shoved into my mouth on that one. I'd hoped it had died. That said, there have been some vicious things said and personality attacks made on this thread that really amaze me. If the tempers that have flared here were displayed on the track (thank goodness they don't), then the race stewards would be really busy dudes...for a change.Quote:
Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 24 2005, 03:03 AM
I disagree....to some extent, there has been some personality conflicts, but it has returned to the center, and has some great posts...Dave Grans made me spit my dinner...it rocked, LOL.
Also, some interesting factiods have come to light, some good policy statements have been made, and some peoples opinions have been outed.
All in all, one of the better threads..
If you want some bickering, find the "New Beetle in ITC" thread, LOL... ;)
[snapback]61096[/snapback]
I'm still waiiting for someone to build one of those beetles and come obsolete all us ITC guys. Oddly, it hasn't happened yet.
Wait... i forgot that the whole Beetle thing happened back when VW was pulling the strings of the ITAC and the comp board. Now its apparently Mazda, so... Carry on.
And I still haven't been beaten by a Fiesta.
Maybe next year.
:P
Sadly, I have. To my defense, my alternator shot it's goo. Until then, I had him by several seconds. I still hang my head in shame, though. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 24 2005, 03:14 AM
I'm still waiiting for someone to build one of those beetles and come obsolete all us ITC guys. Oddly, it hasn't happened yet.
Wait... i forgot that the whole Beetle thing happened back when VW was pulling the strings of the ITAC and the comp board. Now its apparently Mazda, so... Carry on.
And I still haven't been beaten by a Fiesta.
Maybe next year.
:P
[snapback]61099[/snapback]
Uh, why do you have a gooey alternator? Am I missing something?Quote:
Originally posted by charrbq@Sep 24 2005, 03:30 AM
my alternator shot it's goo.
Or is it a Louisiana thing that I wouldn't understand? Have we hit 400 yet?
I need another beer..... :blink:
429!!!!!!Quote:
Originally posted by Racerlinn@Sep 24 2005, 09:44 PM
Have we hit 400 yet?
[snapback]61117[/snapback]
You forgot one cut off, what if it was set at 40 years, then kept at 40? In 3 years the '68s are no longer allowed to race. How many people are racing anything made in '68 anyway? It gives anyone who's racing a really old car a chance to know the deadline is comming up without immeaditely being canned, any 71's have 5 years left and ect. This also keeps people looking for the newer car, and allows for performance creep. It'll also allow for things like SMG and drive by wire throttles. Maybe Vintage should pick up used IT cars as a source for car classes? After all how many pro cars are being built from street chassies? Isn't campagaining an IT car give it a peddigree? I'd say if it survives it does.Quote:
Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Sep 21 2005, 09:57 PM
Looking at putting in a cutoff date for car eligibility I looked at the recent results from the MARRS labor day event. Based on the results adding a cutoff date would result in the following percent reduction in the field.
Cutoff 30 25 20 15
ITS 12% 18% 18% 53%
ITA 7% 20% 47% 87%
ITB 53% 65% 76% 100%
ITC 8% 69% 85% 100%
So you can see that even a 25 year cutoff immediately decimates the ITB and ITC fields. ITA would be cut in roughly half in five years. Overall it looks like a cutoff date would significantly including several top ten cars in each ITB and ITC with only a 25 year cutoff.
I don't think an arbitrary year cutoff makes any more sense than using stock horsepower and curb weights to class cars. This is only one data point but I hope the ITAC, CRB does a lot of research before they put o lot of cars out to pasture.
[snapback]60880[/snapback]
James
Actually quite a few cars from the 68-75 time frame are still racing in IT, some very competitively:
240z, 260z
510
Volvo 142
Opel GT and Manta
Pinto
BMW 2002
We start losing RX7s THIS YEAR if we adopt a 25 year rule (and my Triumph, I might add). 944s in 2008.
Not sure running cars off by rule is good policy. Running them off because no parts exist, different story and I think totally appropriate.
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 26 2005, 12:57 PM
Not sure running cars off by rule is good policy. Running them off because no parts exist, different story and I think totally appropriate.
[snapback]61187[/snapback]
Guys... This is a pointless direction for this conversation... The ITAC has NO intention at this time of putting any further restrictions on the age of the vehicles that are eligible for IT... The limit now is 68, and I don't anticipate revising that anytime soon... We have more important things to deal with...
Me and my old car thank you.Quote:
Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 26 2005, 01:23 PM
Guys... This is a pointless direction for this conversation... The ITAC has NO intention at this time of putting any further restrictions on the age of the vehicles that are eligible for IT... The limit now is 68, and I don't anticipate revising that anytime soon... We have more important things to deal with...
[snapback]61190[/snapback]
Thanks, me too. Why kick'em out, if people can scrounge and get them on track let them at it!
Oops double post see below....
The reason I susgested a 40 year limit is that it wouldn't start untill 2008, then once it did start you could anticipate it's arrival. Let's face it there are a lot of cars that could be classed if the natural progression was that ITS moves to ITA, ITA to ITB and ect. This accounts for the dreaded performance creep and also rules creep due to technology changes. Just for conversation sake, how about a 45 year limit, wouldn't start untill 2013. There are cars from the late 90's that havn't been classed yet because they're outside of the current envelope. That's the original intent of this thread. How do you keep the current classes and allow for performance creep? Add a Uber class is one way, another is planned progressive retirement. The Uber class means splitting up a limited number of drivers and still doesn't account for technology creep. Ron, I agree that to all of a sudden de-class a car wouldn't be right, but what if you could anticipate it comming. You and I both know you can keep your JH running a long time even without any parts, that's what a CNC center is for after all. :023: for rescuing your JH from the boneyard that's a real piece of work.Quote:
Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 26 2005, 06:23 AM
Guys... This is a pointless direction for this conversation... The ITAC has NO intention at this time of putting any further restrictions on the age of the vehicles that are eligible for IT... The limit now is 68, and I don't anticipate revising that anytime soon... We have more important things to deal with...
[snapback]61190[/snapback]
James