ITAC Math..... where would this fall??

Let the prognosticating begin. :blink:
Any guesses where this might end up? Not listing car make / model for unbiased guesses.....

Engine
SOHC 4 cycl w/ variable valve timing
Displacement 2378cc
Bore / Stroke 87 x 100
Compression Ratio 9.5 : 1
Valve Size (I / E) 34mm / 30.55mm

Chassis
Curb Weight 2880 lbs.
Wheel Base 102.4"
Wheel Diameter 16"
Track Width 57.9"
Front Suspension Type MacPherson
Rear Suspension Type Multi-Link

Brakes
Front vented disc 277mm
Rear solid disc 262mm

Gear Ratios
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
3.58 / 1.95 / 1.38 / 1.03 / .82

Wheels
16x6 46mm offset
5x114.3 bolt pattern

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclipse2Lancer

Let the prognosticating begin. :blink:
Any guesses where this might end up? Not listing car make / model for unbiased guesses.....

Engine
SOHC 4 cycl w/ variable valve timing
Displacement 2378cc
Bore / Stroke 87 x 100
Compression Ratio 9.5 : 1
Valve Size (I / E) 34mm / 30.55mm

Chassis
Curb Weight 2880 lbs.
Wheel Base 102.4"
Wheel Diameter 16"
Track Width 57.9"
Front Suspension Type MacPherson
Rear Suspension Type Multi-Link

Brakes
Front vented disc 277mm
Rear solid disc 262mm

Gear Ratios
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
3.58 / 1.95 / 1.38 / 1.03 / .82

Wheels
16x6 46mm offset
5x114.3 bolt pattern

---

Missing so much key data. HP? Torque? RWD? FWD?

sorry.....
FWD, no LSD, 162hp / 159tq

>> ...Not listing car make / model for unbiased guesses.....

I don't have the spreadsheet (I'm at work) and Andy will probably turn the math around pretty quick, but can we PLEASE get past silliness like the above?

If you HONESTLY think the current ITAC is doing business like you infer by this comment, (1) don't ask questions like this (because you should NOT trust our answers), and (2) petition the Board for our removal...

...or stop perpetuating stupid myths.

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

>> ...Not listing car make / model for unbiased guesses.....

I don't have the spreadsheet (I'm at work) and Andy will probably turn the math around pretty quick, but can we PLEASE get past silliness like the above?

If you HONESTLY think the current ITAC is doing business like you infer by this comment, (1) don't ask questions like this (because you should NOT trust our answers), and (2) petition the Board for our removal...

...or stop perpetuating stupid myths.

K

---

:o

1) I don't know who is even on the ITAC, and how is that perpetuating myths?
2) Currently don't even Club Race, just shopping options.
3) why attack someone on the interwebs you don't even know?

Wow.....didn't mean to get anyone's panties in a bunch. :shrug:
But why would that information be prudent?

But since you are obviously offended by my not including the year/make/model -- 2004 Mitsubishi Ralliart Lancer

Feel better?

I think Kirk coined the term 'napkin math' and I will use it again. What it means is that without dilligent research and proper review, this is just an estimate based on this little bit of info.

Figure about 2510 in ITS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclipse2Lancer

Any guesses where this might end up? Not listing car make / model for unbiased guesses.....

---

I think what Kirk was getting at is that the weight isn't a "guessing game". The ITAC employs a formula to determine weight based on things like FWD/RWD, stock HP, suspension design, etc. To withhold the make/model b/c of percieved potential bias is to insinuate that you think the ITAC would purposely mess with the math when calculating weight. This really just isn't the way things work...

No worries though, I'm sure Kirk or Andy will get you an answer shortly (FWIW, they're both on the ITAC as are several others on this forum).

Christian

edit:
Looks like Andy has already thrown a figure out there. That weight sounds pretty "good" for a FWD ITS car. The Lancer wouldn't be my first choice but it doesn't sound any worse than any other FWD'er in the class. :)

ITS x2!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xian

I think what Kirk was getting at is that the weight isn't a "guessing game". The ITAC employs a formula to determine weight based on things like FWD/RWD, stock HP, suspension design, etc. To withhold the make/model b/c of percieved potential bias is to insinuate that you think the ITAC would purposely mess with the math when calculating weight. This really just isn't the way things work...

No worries though, I'm sure Kirk or Andy will get you an answer shortly (FWIW, they're both on the ITAC as are several others on this forum).

Christian

edit:
Looks like Andy has already thrown a figure out there. That weight sounds pretty "good" for a FWD ITS car. The Lancer wouldn't be my first choice but it doesn't sound any worse than any other FWD'er in the class. :)

---

Thanks for that response and explanation.

I understand this is a web forum and not an "official" answer. Some people have told me it would probably be ITA, but when I looked at the current list in the GCR, I personally thought ITS.

Wanted to get other opinions. Didn't expect someone to get offended by it. Sorry if it did. :cool:

Thanks for the guesstimate, Andy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclipse2Lancer

Wanted to get other opinions. Didn't expect someone to get offended by it. Sorry if it did. :cool:

!

---

Being new to the game, you've missed a LOT of history....... And you stepped blindly onto the hornets nest!!



You're also going to have to wait another 5 years for it to be eligible for IT.......

Maybe Showroom Stock??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLawton

Being new to the game, you've missed a LOT of history....... And you stepped blindly onto the hornets nest!!



You're also going to have to wait another 5 years for it to be eligible for IT.......

Maybe Showroom Stock??

---

2004 is eligible for the 2009 Season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLawton

Being new to the game, you've missed a LOT of history....... And you stepped blindly onto the hornets nest!!



You're also going to have to wait another 5 years for it to be eligible for IT.......

Maybe Showroom Stock??

---

Hornets nest indeed. :)


But wait another 5 years?
From the GCR:
"Cars from the previous four (4) model years and the current model year will not be eligible. No car older than a 1968 model of any listed vehicle will be accepted for Improved Touring competition. Turbocharged/Supercharged
cars are not eligible for Improved Touring competition."

So a 2004 is eligible in 2009, no? Current M/Y is 2009. Previous 4 model years are 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005. Did I miss something?

edit.....Andy beat me to it. :D

ITAC member no. 2 agrees with ITS and Andy's napkin math. We'd need to take a closer look at it, but that looks ballpark right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xian

I think what Kirk was getting at is that the weight isn't a "guessing game". The ITAC employs a formula to determine weight based on things like FWD/RWD, stock HP, suspension design, etc. To withhold the make/model b/c of percieved potential bias is to insinuate that you think the ITAC would purposely mess with the math when calculating weight. This really just isn't the way things work...

---

Precisely.

We've been working VERY hard to fix the misconception that some makes/models are going to get "biased" treatment. That you'd even feel the need to suggest that leaving that information out was necessary is a powerful indication that it occurred to you that it would bias the response. That's not fair and it's worse to encourage others to think the same thing.

I'll be the first (okay, second or third) to admit that I get pissy about this stuff sometimes but it doesn't take much to perpetuate negative stereotypes, even in the face of ongoing efforts to do them in. I get frustrated.

K

Re-read the thread

Nevermind my stupid post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt

2004 is eligible for the 2009 Season.

---

Where the hell have I been?? <scratching head>

^^
Damn Saturn "way back" technology!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

Precisely.

We've been working VERY hard to fix the misconception that some makes/models are going to get "biased" treatment. That you'd even feel the need to suggest that leaving that information out was necessary is a powerful indication that it occurred to you that it would bias the response. That's not fair and it's worse to encourage others to think the same thing.

I'll be the first (okay, second or third) to admit that I get pissy about this stuff sometimes but it doesn't take much to perpetuate negative stereotypes, even in the face of ongoing efforts to do them in. I get frustrated.

K

---

Frustration understood.
Had I known that I was in effect submitting this information to many of the ITAC instead of a public forum, I would have included the info in the first post. I have no idea what the perceptions are..... I'm all "brand new". Maybe I should just stick to working races then?

Was trying to avoid the "It's a Mitsubishi.... so it can't be fast, ITC." or "why even try with that"...type comments. :)
Not trying to ruffle any political feathers here at all.

No worries. Welcome to the Club! You made it through the hazing process... :)

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

No worries. Welcome to the Club! You made it through the hazing process... :)

K

---

Sweet! I don't even feel "violated" at all, either. :happy204:
Now pass the beer bong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

>> ...Not listing car make / model for unbiased guesses.....

I don't have the spreadsheet (I'm at work) and Andy will probably turn the math around pretty quick, but can we PLEASE get past silliness like the above?

If you HONESTLY think the current ITAC is doing business like you infer by this comment, (1) don't ask questions like this (because you should NOT trust our answers), and (2) petition the Board for our removal...

...or stop perpetuating stupid myths.

K

---

I have seen it happen.

"Well that is an XYZ MKR3 with X.XXL and car XYZ MRZ6 with X.XXL is currently classed at 2,500lbs. NO way in heck I would class XYZ MKR3 at 2400lbs, even though that is what the formula says and that is using the "base" multiplier"

So maybe make and model isn't everything, but it is clear that some members can't just look at the data and give a number.

That was then, this is now. CURRENT ITAC members don't have that kind of latitude, to POOMA a number based on what they are feeling.

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

. . . to POOMA a number based on what they are feeling.

K

---

POOMA - I love it! Fully plan to steal this one. As far as you know are you the first to use the acronym, or have you seen it elsewhere? (If you're not sure, feel free to POOYA.) :happy204:

Steve Ulfelder
Flatout Motorsports

I *think* I coined it but I thought the same thing about an entirely accidental allusion I wrote in a junior high school English paper, about people being players on a stage... :)

I probably just soaked it up somewhere without actually noticing.

K

You mean the one that Neil Peart wrote?

Dewhurst, lay off the Jake! He's a good man, and I mean that.

I've followed this thread with interest. I do want to say that, my personal position (and not that of the ITAC) is a bit different in some regards. I do think that member driven requests, supported by membership, with appropriate evidence of that support, that do not go to what I call IT "core values" (stock engines, stock bodies, stock suspension pickup points, stock trannies, etc.) are things the ITAC should look into and, barring any obvious unintended consequences, support for the sole reason that membership wants it and it doesn't hurt the core of the category.

I see washer bottles and properly defined (I hear Greg wincing now..lol) jacking plates as being examples of this.

But, I am just one voice on a committee and there is a reason for that. We should necessarily move slowly and deliberately, and a committee generally ensures that we do. Also, amazingly enough, I'm not always right -- more reason to have committee members there with more knowledge and foresight than me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclipse2Lancer

Sweet! I don't even feel "violated" at all, either. :happy204:
Now pass the beer bong.

---

Ha ha! What is this, a swim team?? ;)

And Jeff, thanks! Nice sentiment, wrong thread...Mr Dewherst made his objections and such known in the other thread.
(probably better left untouched, I can see the direction isn't peachy, LOL)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eclipse2Lancer

Was trying to avoid the "It's a Mitsubishi.... so it can't be fast, ITC." or "why even try with that"...type comments. :)
.

---

I think one of the reasons we all like to run IT is becasue the difference in the cars. The "odd balls" are cool! (OK, so I'm a little biased!)

POOMA*......... I like it!!




* Kirk Knestis