Actually I couldn't find anyone that made the wheel horsepower that you (and the initial classification) claimed it would, with not only an IT-like build, but with mods that aren't allowed in IT.
Printable View
Why is this so damn hard to fix? It seems that everyone knows it was done poorly and wants the cars "fixed". Hell, I want it fixed so I don't have to read about it anymore. From reading these boards one would get the impression that ITB has tied the entire ITAC up for a year.
Jeff - I appreciate all that you and the others on the side of the mkI MR2 adjustment have done. I'm not asking for the ITAC to fix it. there are those in this world who cannot rationalize the differences between a 1985-89 street car motor and it's full-bore Atlantic counterpart. some of these people are on the comittees and boards that need to validate a change. I've come to terms with that. for the sake of those who HAVE ITB cars, I hope you are successful.
at the moment my car is in limbo. ITB? likely as it's the easiest path to the track, but the goal had switched to STU until august, when the kybosh was put on my JDM 2.0L (MkII 94-97 MR2 2.0L NA, not a BEAMS) plans with the fastrack release. STL seemed a good alternative, but that motor is a grenade and there's very little I like about L when compared to U. toyota has nothing else (viable) that fits in the 2 in these classes unless I go turblow and I wanted to stay NA. so i'm kinda feeling like a man without a country.
My guess is, as to individual cars, we've spent more time on the ITA Miata and ITB in general than all other issues combined.
Understood. I'm speaking totally from a personal perspective here: I think the MR2 should be one of the group of cars that make up the "core" of ITB. I'm perplexed why we can't get to that point, as based on the dyno sheets I've personally seen the car is overweight and doesn't stand much chance in ITB.
Steve Ulbrik submitted a very detailed summary of why the (is it 4AGE?) motor is very different mechanically from the Atlantic motor. It persuaded me.
Again, personally, I am doing what I can to fix what I perceive is an issue with the MR2, but this is committee work and others can reasonably disagree with me. I hope you guys will stay in ITB with these cars, and that once the process plays out they have as fair a chance as any other car in ITB, but I understand if the frustration level has reached its limit.
Thanks guys.
Andy, you know the answer to that and you know my thoughts on this.
Actually, I don't know the answer. I DO know your position, but you just introduced new evidence into the "ITB 30% trial" as it relates to the majority.
If (obviously), the majority of the ITAC thinks that cars classed in ITB that have multi-valve architecture produce 30% as a rule, I would think someone would be able to rattle off a pile of them for us. Since the Alfas and Fiats are non-existant (and if they do exsist, they would be moot data due to previous HP measuring standards) then these are the remaining DOHC cars in ITB:
Geo Prism/Geo Storm
Mazda 626
Mazda Protege ES
Nissan Sentra
Saab 900
Suzuki Swift
Toyoyta FX-16
Toyota MR2
Golf 2.0
Wow. Some real overdogs there.
Time for me to write a letter instead of blathering here. :)
That is appreciated. A letter would be appreciated.
Is the version of the Honda Civic that Scott G. and Jeff Underwood built 4-valve? For that one there is a lot of information (many thanks to Scott on that). For that car I would say there is documentation available, but I'm not as up on Honda engines as I should be and don't even know if it is 8 valve or 16.
Add isuzu stylus XS to that list (4dr version of Geo Storm GSi). it's shown as "OHC" in the ITCS.
many if not all of the Alfas and Fiats are DOHC 2valve motors, too.
but the point remains - these aren't 30% gainers (maybe, MAYBE the swift) most are more likely ~20%. they were "optimized" from the OEM more so than most of the older tech cars. So if anything, the 30% is in the WRONG direction from the nominal gainer. :dead_horse:
ITB was a great ARRC race between 4 valve SOHC 1.5L and 3 valve SOHC 2.0L hondas. SOMETHING is being done right, if selectively.
I'm confused by the above -- sorry guys.
Andy says no 4 valve Hondas in ITB, Chip suggests Underwood and Ruck's cars are? Which is it?
I said no DOHC. I guess we need to slice it up even more for this new 'rule'. . Maybe anything other than 2V is multi-valve in the 'rule'.
IIRC the guideline that was being clung to when saying the MR2 should be 30% was "16V", not 'multivalve' if you want to get techincal.
Isn't Scott's Honda a 12V?
As I recall the discussion it focused on valves per cylinder. I may be wrong. I get lost in some of the lengthy discussions about the smaller Honda/Nissan/Toyota motors. There are people on the committee with a lot more knowledge about them than me.
tKR, underwood etc.. civics are 16v. older ones are 2/3 depending (have to check ITCS and don't have the time). they are all SOHC. I know the 92-95 Civic DX is classed at >25%
Accord LXi/SEi, 2L Golf 3, many others are 12v SOHC
the DOHC list andy provided are all 16v. a lot of the DOHC Italian stuff is 8v.
ITCS should thus list valves/cyl as well as/ instead of cam type and count?
the point remains that as a blanket rule, the 16v at >25% concept fails to be acurate. there are cases where it may be true (some SOHC 16v hondas for sure) but more where it is not (nissan GA16DE, toyoter 4AGE, etc...) and then there are the isuzu twins at different weights neither of which match process (way under 25% for the storm). it's a cluster.
So the net result is that an 'architecture rule' is being based on a small generation of overacheiving 12V Hondas yet it is applied to anything 'multivalve', regardless of MFG, in JUST ITB.
Write your well-founded letters now please. A policy change should result in the MR2 issue going away.
Jeff, I fully accept that you feel the above statement is accurate.
But I'm calling BS on it. (With all no disrespect to you!)
When I was on the ITAC, (and this MR2 thing has been going on YEARS!), various hollow reasons were trotted out defending the absurd factor the MR2 was classed at, and lot's of comical things were stated.
"Its a Toyota Atlantic motor " is one, and that is the SECOND most absurd reason I've nearly EVER heard.
But, the number one big stinking pile of poop was the statement by Peter Keane on one of the con calls. "The deal we made to allow 16V cars into ITB was that they must be classed at the higher factor". That's an exact quote: "The deal we made...."
When I questioned the origin of that 'deal' I found out that refers to stuff that was happening just before my joining the ITAC.
Now if THAT isn't 'shenanigans' then NOTHING is.
I'm with Andy. How can the ITAC, on one hand, say, 25% is the standard default, yet SUPPORT the ludicrous stance that the MR2 motor makes 30 or 35%? IF they require 'EVIDENCE" to waver from 25%, then show us the evidence that supports the 30%!!!
You just can NOT have it both ways.
:shrug:
Letters should be in support of "the process" or in opposition to the inequality of the process as applied to >3v/cyl cars in ITB? as I understand it, "the process" isn't an officially recognized classification mechanism, and this methodology isnt "published".
can a letter to the CRB be in stated opposition to an unrecognized, unpublished rule-making methodology understood to be used by an AC? or did I miss it when the CRB/BoD recognized the ITAC process? where is it published?
Stephen is asking a specific question, and is not getting, I think, the answer he's seeking.
Specifically, I'm betting that what he's really asking is "If you got a request to re-examine the RX-8, would that car be set at 25%?"
Jeff's answer is more generic, and probably is setting alarm bells in Stephens head. Essentially, the 300ZX reweight has set a precedent that the 'evidence' used to initially set the weight was inadequate.
Now, the current RX-8 weight was an adjustment and the result of multiple dyno sheets from unbiased builders building engines to the same ruleset but for a different class. Those numbers had a very high degree of repeatability. And the committee voted it's confidence in those numbers, and it passed. We have records of that vote and the sources.
I would hope that such evidence would not be ignored, either now, while it's a fresh memory, or in the future when the memory is more distant, unless equally compelling contrasting evidence is revealed.
Jeff, Josh, thoughts?
Jake, no offense taken, but I don't see any shenanigans. There are folks on the ITAC who think small 4 valve motors make 30% generally speaking. I don't think they are doing that for an improper reason. It is there fundamental belief about the motor. I can disagree with that, but I don't think there is anything improper in it.
I thought I was clear with Stephen. My understanding is the rule is 25% default unless strong evidence acceptable to a majority of the committee to the contrary. For the RX8, I really think the proces worked. We had a lot of folks looking at it, and a lot of data from a lot of places. You, Josh and Kirk did great work in collecting the data and making sure the process (little p) was done up front, above board and correctly.
On the Porsches, ar you sure the 944S2 and 968 weren't classed at 15%
ITB is the class that has been most impacted by the "Process". It seems that the ITAC and CRB keep scrambling to make the things fit together in "B" and not getting it done. It doesn't apear to me that they "Get" what the problem really is, although it's pretty clear to some of us that have been racing in ITB for a long time.
Now the Club is making wholesale changes in ITB and ITC to try it make the class fit the process, rather then adapting the process to fit the class. With more time and hard work this will eventually sort itself out, however ITB is going to look a whole lot different then it did for the past 20 years. In my mind this goes against the goal of Rule Stability, a highly held value in IT.
The Miata is another car that doesn't fit too well with the Process. That's why it's challenging you.
The Process is like a brand new tool. You don,t know how to best use it or understand it's limitations, but your already rebuilding the whole IT race structure with it. It aslo seems like you already threw out the old tools in your toolbox.
Just a quick response.
The Process has been around for quite some time now. The old method of classing cars was complete BS -- curb weight minus 180 lbs or something? How is that a tool?
You are a Volvo guy right? And so your point is that newer cars are threatening the old in ITB and in the interest of stability we should stop that?
That's true in ALL IT classes including S (mine), and there is nothing we can or should do to stop that.
Devising rules to ensure that 30 and 40 year old chassis are competitive with new ones is THE real road to Prod in my view.
We have a power to weight based system. It doesn't and can't account for all factors. Some cars will just be better than others.
But right now anyway, when I look out and see the type of racing you guys had in ITB at Summit, or the ARRC, I have a real hard time thinking that anything is broken (and that applies to S and A too).
What WERE the old "tools"??
Case: ITA; In '93 (or so) the CRX was added. Based on, exactly what, I don't know. Whatever it was, it resulted in the car being a pretty obvious big dog.
So, the next step was to class a car that could compete. (I get this info from a former CRB guy). And another. Next thing we know, cars that are added are classed at weights that the committee thinks will be competitive with the new top dog.
The result is an entire class being relegated to also ran status. I call this the 'compounding mistakes effect'.
Another 'tool' was the 'next version' of a car going to the higher class. I don't think this was done as an absolute rule, but it seemed like it was a 'norm'.
Then there was a method that Jeff mentioned involving curb weight.
I've looked, and talked to guys involved, and I've never been able to find a long term policy and process. It always seemed to involve "what we know" and "what we see". That mindset has always been, and I'd dare say, still is, a central tenet to the way the CRB and committees work.
Yea, the current system is designed to set up performance targets and envelopes for each class. but it tries to not micromanage (comp adjust) individual cars.
In the long run, old cars will fade. The Volvos were and are contenders in in ITB, but they are ooooold cars. They are becoming few and far between. And with that comes less than dominance. That's teh natural progression. I agree with Jeff, you can't adjust an entire class for one model in the name of stability. Now, if ONE car is classed that resets class records, is the clear and dominant winner wherever it runs, then we have an issue. But I don't see that as an issue in ITB.
I guess that depends upon how one defines evolve. lol At some point when there's a lack of cars to classify for a given class, let it die. That's essentially what's happening now. ITC is slowly dieing off but new blood was introduced with ITR. I don't see that as a horrible thing.Quote:
Classes that don't evolve are destined to whiter and die.
Exactly.
The same happens in other classes. It is happening now in S and that is fine. With the ECU rules and the natural development that occurs over time some older carbed cars, like the Z series, will lose a bit of their competitiveness. Such is life.
Wat? In the SCCA, a class dying due to lack of participation? You mean when like three guys show up for a Prod class at a National? Doesn't happen in the SCCA, a class dying off that is. Class can have two entries and an entire paddock of 600+ people will need to spend a few hours a weekend tending to them.
WOW 4 pages since yesterday,holy crap.
Since the MR2 is the car in question,wasent it originally classed in ITA then moved to ITB,now you want it reweighted or moved again.
Wait for it......
WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST GEN RX7??????????????????????
Why cant that car move to ITB and be a competitive car again? Jake has all the data in his head cause hs super smart about that stuff. Yes it will be beat by the current crop of B cars but it will be at the pointy end of the field. and every squrell finds a nut someday.
Ok done now.
If a car was produced with a turbo and its removed can it run in STU or STL,found a sweet deal on a 3rd gen RX7 roller and need to decide if ST is the place for this chassis.
Dan 77 IT7
Dano, I think most opposition to moving the 1st Gen RX7 (originally an ITS car!) to ITB has been from IT7 drivers themselves.
Plus, it would require moving to a different wheel (15X6) and possibly a recage at the higher ITB weight.
Conceptually Jake has convinced me it is the right thing, but I don't want to support anything the majority of the drivers of a particular chassis don't want.
Cavemen had tools like this... no offense (or not much) to anyone involved, you gotta start somewhere!
Next model of a car trim wise or time wise? Are you refering to something like the ACR Neon being thrown into ITS? Quite laughable looking back on it now, but then again, so are steam cars... lol
Ive always thought the cage issue was gonna be a big hurdle. Now I know.
Good answer. The wheel thing wont make as big an issue as the cage part. Thanks
Dan 77 IT7
Ron, there's a difference between letting a class die and killing it. I don't think SCCA needs to kill them, let it happen naturally. For IT, there's not a big problem finding a place to put these cars where it doesn't require seperate run groups. For the open wheel cars you're talking about, put them in a group where they best fit. Now these drivers may not like what that constitutes, but this is where I think we need to say sorry, but if the class grows we can make changes in the future. I wouldn't want to completely turn them away.
I think that is exactly where we are now, and what Ron is saying. No one is saying "kill" a class. But if it dies a natural death due to lack of interest, so it goes.
On the other hand, I've not been in SCCA long, but there certainly seems to be ebb and flows. ITB is flowing right now, back from what to me looked like the dead a few years back.
Why? Lots of newer chassis options that make it attractive and competitive and varied and fun class to run in.
Right. And I'm saying there is no acceptable fix for that.
I drive a 30 year old chassis in ITS. It has a live rear and drum brakes. Eventually, it will no longer be competitive in ITS as newer cars come in and are developed. I see no real way to fix that with our power to weight process other than a Harrison Bergeronish set of factors, and adjustments and other mess that is what Prod has now.
In my personal view, the older cars (including mine) are on their way out. They can still run, but you can't expect your chassis to be competitive forever. I don't mean SS like car of the year, but I am talking about after 20 years of racing and auto technology moving forward, there just comes a time.
Must be the off season. I find it ironic how some people are quick to say a car should be weighted using 30%, but when people suggest that the car they drive be treated the same way things change.
Tristan, are you going to be able to make the new weight?