October fastrack is out

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by tderonne@Aug 22 2005, 11:48 AM
All right. I'll say it.

Why would somebody take a Nationally legal SM and turn it into an Regional only IT car? What am I missing here? (Not that I'm against an overall flow to the rules vs. prep level, I just don't see where SM fits in.)

If you're trying to encourage multiple entries of the same car at a regional, they can already do that, SM cars are legal in ITA and ITS now.

[snapback]58798[/snapback]

I will answer that:

The reputation that SM has for contact - AND the new National status, many think the affordability of the class will go away as you will need a pro motor to compete etc.

AB

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by planet6racing@Aug 22 2005, 05:46 PM
Sorry, should have been more clear. By "...you guys..." I meant that the non-members of the ITAC that were saying that the 1.8L miata should be heavier because it has a 1.8...

The Saturns are classed perfectly. The only thing holding my car back is me!

[snapback]58809[/snapback]

Bill,

I posted that for the benefit of everyone else... I knew what you were trying to say!

[Jake]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 22 2005, 05:18 PM
Oh, and as for the MR-2 vs. the Miata... I think the MR-2 makes a LITTLE more than 128hp in IT Trim... I have it on pretty good authority that it's capable of a little more... but I've made a promise to keep the exact numbers classified....

[snapback]58805[/snapback]

I suppose it depends on what you consider for drivetrain losses - but the best builders in the country (...er Canada I should say) have only squeeked out a dyno-tuned 108 to the wheels in a legal, built to the hilt, ITA spec MR2. And that compares to about 140 to the wheels for an ITA Integra, and 125 to the wheels in the ITA CRX.

[Jake]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 22 2005, 05:05 PM
The "process" would also say that the MR-2 would need to have some "adders" for handling and brakes, so you can't look at just HP figures alone... It "should" be able to outhandle and outbrake a Miata given equal prep...

[snapback]58801[/snapback]

I really don't understand why. Miata's have nearly a perfect 50/50 weight distribution and full double wishbone suspension. There's no reason why a Miata should be inferior in either braking or handling.

[DavidM]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 22 2005, 12:18 PM
First, I can't recall anyone worrying about Multiple Entries... The ITAC is concerned with IT, not helping SM race in IT, 944 Cup race in IT, Sentra-Cup race in IT, etc...

That being said, there is a big up-side to classifying cars that exist in large numbers in a competitive configuration...

I'm still a relative newbie, but this particular classification process (not necessarily the end result) seems strange. If the ITAC is concerned with IT then why would the SM cage come into play at all? The ITAC should go about their business classifying the car and if it so happens that the weight makes it easy for SM cars to come into ITA then cool. However, the weight of the SM cage should only be an afterthought and should not have *any* influence on the classified weight. If this is how things went at the ITAC then good. The original post does not give that impression however.

The line about classifying cars that exist in large numbers is somewhat concerning as well. This somewhat implies that the 1.8 Miata was given special treatment. I hope and don't think that was the case, but I think the ITAC members should ask themselves if the process would have been the same if it were a different, less popular car. I'm all for getting more cars into IT, but I don't think cars should be given special treatment to do it. That may have unintended consequences down the road.

David

[tderonne]

Thanks Andy and Darin. Some points I didn't consider. Making IT more attractive to anyone does make sense. Maybe "old" SM will find a home here. And SM weights coming from outsidethe SCCA doesn't really make a difference, but I do see how that was a Board call. Does kind of tie your hands though, eh?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by DavidM@Aug 22 2005, 01:28 PM
I'm still a relative newbie, but this particular classification process (not necessarily the end result) seems strange. If the ITAC is concerned with IT then why would the SM cage come into play at all? The ITAC should go about their business classifying the car and if it so happens that the weight makes it easy for SM cars to come into ITA then cool. However, the weight of the SM cage should only be an afterthought and should not have *any* influence on the classified weight. If this is how things went at the ITAC then good. The original post does not give that impression however.

The line about classifying cars that exist in large numbers is somewhat concerning as well. This somewhat implies that the 1.8 Miata was given special treatment. I hope and don't think that was the case, but I think the ITAC members should ask themselves if the process would have been the same if it were a different, less popular car. I'm all for getting more cars into IT, but I don't think cars should be given special treatment to do it. That may have unintended consequences down the road.

David

[snapback]58815[/snapback]

The ultimate goals is to attract new cars and new drivers to IT without upsetting the competitive balance.

AB

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by DavidM@Aug 22 2005, 06:28 PM
This somewhat implies that the 1.8 Miata was given special treatment. I hope and don't think that was the case, but I think the ITAC members should ask themselves if the process would have been the same if it were a different, less popular car.

[snapback]58815[/snapback]

That's easy to answer... YES... this car was given "special treatment"... But it was done within the process... You guys keep missing the point of all this... which is that these classifications are done with as much REAL data as we can get our hands on, but in the end, we have to make some estimations... The biggest estimation is how much HP output a car is capable of with IT-engine prep... In many cases, if you are off by 5-hp, your weight will be different by over 70lbs...

In many cases... actually MOST cases, we balance what real dyno or equivalent information we have available with making some estimations... So, is it better to underestimate or overestimate??? Does the Miata gain 25% or 30% with IT-Prep??? 35%??? 20%??? The difference for the Miata between a 25% increase and a 30% increase is almost 7hp... That's over 100lbs of weight difference using a wt/pwr scheme...

So, as part of the process, we look at info that's available, then analyze the level of development, and make an educated guess, usually... well, again, almost always, leaning on the side of overestimation, and we set a HP figure...

The Miata was classified using this as part of the process and I can again assure you that it is classified almost perfectly for ITA...

AND, the other part of this you keep missing is that we UNDERSTAND that there is a POSSIBILITY that we might have underestimated it's potential... If you looked at the real numbers, I think you'd see that it's not really likely, and it's going to take a LOT of development for this to happen, but it is acknowledged that it's possible... and in the event that this proves to be the case, we have the option of giving the car a restrictor to get it back in line...

If you compare this classification to the CRX, or Integra, or 240SX, I think you'll find that it definately NOT the top dog in the class by any means...

Honestly, I've explained all of this as best as I can, and I don't know what more I could say to make you all understand... The bottom line is that the car now is fit VERY nicely into ITA, and it was done using the same, consistant process that we've used for all the other cars that were classified or moved over the past year... AND the way that cars will be done in the future...

Oh, and one more item... It's exactly THIS type of "confusion", or questioning of "my car vs. the newly classified one" that makes publishing an official classification "formula" counterproductive... There are very few racers out there who are objective enough to accept the "process" for what it is, and of course, everyone always seems to believe that their dyno doesn't lie...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Jake@Aug 22 2005, 06:18 PM
I really don't understand why. Miata's have nearly a perfect 50/50 weight distribution and full double wishbone suspension. There's no reason why a Miata should be inferior in either braking or handling.

[snapback]58814[/snapback]

50/50 STATIC weight distribution... I'm sure you understand the advantages of having the engine in the back of the chassis... What is the weight distribution of the MR-2???

Also, if the "best engine builders in the country" are only getting 108 at the wheels, they may be leaving something on the table... If you use a 15% factor for drivetrain losses, that's quite a bit lower than the dyno numbers we've been given...

That being said... there is NO DOUBT that the MR-2 needs a lot of help in ITA... all I can tell you at this point is that the ITAC is aware of this and is working on it...

[gran racing]

Why would somebody take a Nationally legal SM and turn it into an Regional only IT car? What am I missing here? (Not that I'm against an overall flow to the rules vs. prep level, I just don't see where SM fits in.)

National doesn’t mean that it is better then Regional. Many people would prefer to race with a group of cars that have their own strengths and weaknesses. I love the fact that some cars competing in a class might be faster down the straight but the other car can get them under braking or in the corners. It adds to the racing strategy games. To me, a spec class seems a bit more boring in this regard. The only thing I see that National has over Regional is the televised Runoffs. Get coverage of the ARRC…

It is too bad it isn't as simple as thowing a couple heavy sand bags in the boot of the MR2.

[lateapex911]

I think that we will see some Miatas "crossing over", not just in SM trim, but converted to ITA trim...the SM thing is VERY serious at the top levels....

Daniels ran, (and this is two years ago) over 200 dyno runs testing various configuratios of engine components, and hired a Trans Am suspension engineer to go test with him to help understand the strengths, the weaknesses and the best usage of the SM suspension.

I think that we'll see some guys who decide it'a all just too much for them gladdly play in IT.....A

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by DavidM@Aug 22 2005, 02:28 PM
I'm still a relative newbie, but this particular classification process (not necessarily the end result) seems strange. If the ITAC is concerned with IT then why would the SM cage come into play at all? The ITAC should go about their business classifying the car and if it so happens that the weight makes it easy for SM cars to come into ITA then cool. However, the weight of the SM cage should only be an afterthought and should not have *any* influence on the classified weight. If this is how things went at the ITAC then good. The original post does not give that impression however.

The line about classifying cars that exist in large numbers is somewhat concerning as well. This somewhat implies that the 1.8 Miata was given special treatment. I hope and don't think that was the case, but I think the ITAC members should ask themselves if the process would have been the same if it were a different, less popular car. I'm all for getting more cars into IT, but I don't think cars should be given special treatment to do it. That may have unintended consequences down the road.

David

[snapback]58815[/snapback]

Some comments on this...

The car was discussed without any regard for cage weights etc, and pure numbers were hashed out. It wasn't a short process...hours were probably spent over it. Once the dermination of the target weight was nailed down...(and trust me, "nailing" might not be the proper term, LOL) only then did the cage issue get discussed. If I recall correctly, our HP gain estimate was pretty conservative (in other words, it's doubtful that we'll see the number exceeded), and the amount of weight that was needed to make the car fit witout having them need to re-cage was 12 lbs. (IIRC)

At that point it seemed like with the numbers that close, it was worth discussing the desire to make the option exist for the SM guys. Remember, the ITAC has on its con calls, a liason from the CRB, and subjects like this are discussed, so that we are NOT operating in a vacuum....if the CRB thought this was not to their liking it would never have happened, but they are trying to make things "make sense" where it's possible..and this seems like a perfect opportunity.

I'm not sure I see the downside...

IF it's a bad move and it cleans up, we can address it...and if it relieves some overcrowding in SM run groups, and adds car counts and to the fun in IT, its a big picture win win.

I agree that if it didn't fit the process it shouldn't have happened, but I think it did fit the process.

[whenry]

There are several forces at play in this process. 1) the '99 miata has been approved for SM and in Pro SM, the '06 MX5 will be the preferred model; 2) with National classification, SM will become even more competitive if the Runoffs is your goal(only the top 10 from each division will receive automatic invitations; otherwise send in your $$ to SCCA and see if you are permitted to attend); and 3) ITA status has changed dramatically in the last 10 yrs as the FI cars were introduced. This re-class merely gives Mazda a model that has a chance of competing.
It is funny that I was contemplating turning my SM into an A car even before the change.

[dickita15]

Originally posted by dickita15@Aug 22 2005, 07:24 AM
I wish the ITAC could do what they fell is right and maybe grandfather existing cars on cage tube diameter.

[snapback]58769[/snapback]

darin please accept my apoligy for starting this storm.

to quote Richard Nixon " I know you think you know what you think I said but what you do not relize is what I said is not what I meant"

I do understand the process and I should have said I wish the ITAC had the freedom to do what they felt was right to make cars fit and maybe the CRB could consider grandfathering existing cages on cage tube diameter.

I know that this problem is frustrating the ITAC form making otherwise great classing decisions. As was pointed out tweeners like the MR2 and Rx7 could be dealt with effectivly if the CRB could be convinced to make changes here.

the CRB need to overhaul cges rules at some point and I would think this should be a point of discussion for them.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by dickita15@Aug 22 2005, 09:08 PM
darin please accept my apoligy for starting this storm.

[snapback]58834[/snapback]

Dick,

NO worries dude... I'm cool with all this... You guys deserve to have at least an attempt made to help you understand what's happening... That's all I'm trying to do (and Jake, and Andy, etc...)...

The cage rules are fine, really... there needs to be a breaking point somewhere... these cars just happen to all on the line... I think we can work within the framework we have... Just takes a little time to get everything in place...

[Jake]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 22 2005, 07:52 PM
50/50 STATIC weight distribution... I'm sure you understand the advantages of having the engine in the back of the chassis... What is the weight distribution of the MR-2???

Also, if the "best engine builders in the country" are only getting 108 at the wheels, they may be leaving something on the table... If you use a 15% factor for drivetrain losses, that's quite a bit lower than the dyno numbers we've been given...

That being said... there is NO DOUBT that the MR-2 needs a lot of help in ITA... all I can tell you at this point is that the ITAC is aware of this and is working on it...

[snapback]58824[/snapback]

1. MK1 MR2 is about 45/55 STATIC

2. 108 @ wheels. I think my source may be the same as yours, you just need to check some of the assumtions in your data.

3. Yes - and we appreciate the work you are doing. I think EVERY move that has been made has been EXCELLENT. And I apologize for bringing this thread down to a "what about me" thing again. Rome was not built in a day, and if they had tried to do it in a day - it would have fallen much sooner. Keep up the good work.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Jake@Aug 22 2005, 07:10 PM
And I apologize for bringing this thread down to a "what about me" thing again. Rome was not built in a day, and if they had tried to do it in a day - it would have fallen much sooner. Keep up the good work.

[snapback]58849[/snapback]

No worries here either....

As the newest member of the ITAC, I am not as well versed as say, Darin, (just to choose one) as to the total workings and recent history, but I will say that I am very impressed at the attitude displayed by most of the members.

Our last con call, for example started at 8, and ended after 1AM.

The MR2 hasn't been forgotten, and I think that you will be impressed at the amount of attention it, and all the cars in IT are getting. It is a HUGE task, but the ITAC is working hard at it.

I am sure that mistakes may be made along the way, and I KNOW there will be perceived mistakes, LOL, but I think the big picture strategy is SUPER SOUND, and I am thrilled to see it being enacted.

Stay tuned.....

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Jake@Aug 22 2005, 11:10 PM
2. 108 @ wheels. I think my source may be the same as yours, you just need to check some of the assumtions in your data.

[snapback]58849[/snapback]

The only assumption that I've made has to do with drivetrain losses, but the numbers I have are flywheel, and they are considerably higher than what you are stating...

Again, we don't race dynos, so it's really hard to pin down the exact numbers, but I assure you that we are doing the best we can with what we have available... We all wish we could make it perfect, but that's just not possible, so the next best thing is to get things reasonably close...

[Z3_GoCar]

Maybe I'm just to new, but it seems to me that the real problem is "tweeners," Cars that aren't competitive in the higher class and class blowers in the lower class. To bring an example from autocrossing, my car was reclasses last year from C-stock to E-stock, the only other car in that class is the 1.6 Miata. It seems like the real class blowers are the Honda/Acura's, althought I understand one of the few to break their donination was a 1.6 Miata. I understand that the 1.8 isn't competitive aginst the 1.6 in spec miata, at they don't have the adjustable rear sway bar, the intake restrictor chokes them down more than the 1.6'ers, and besides Sunbelt doesn't make a 1.8 motor.

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Aug 22 2005, 07:59 PM
Maybe I'm just to new, but it seems to me that the real problem is "tweeners," Cars that aren't competitive in the higher class and class blowers in the lower class. To bring an example from autocrossing, my car was reclasses last year from C-stock to E-stock, the only other car in that class is the 1.6 Miata. It seems like the real class blowers are the Honda/Acura's, althought I understand one of the few to break their donination was a 1.6 Miata. I understand that the 1.8 isn't competitive aginst the 1.6 in spec miata, at they don't have the adjustable rear sway bar, the intake restrictor chokes them down more than the 1.6'ers, and besides Sunbelt doesn't make a 1.8 motor.

James

[snapback]58860[/snapback]

The 1.8 in Spec Miata is competitive now. The FRONT bar is what isn't adjustable (but bigger than the 1.6's), the intake restrictor chokes them down to WHERE the 1.6's are and Sunbelt DOES build a 1.8. BSI has built and marketed plenty of them. They have a year of development under theor belts on that motor. A $6K bill will get you one at your door.

Having said that, tweeners are a problem. It's tough to work with them because they can't be built light enough to fit in a higher class and they are heavy and too 'powerful' for lower classes...

AB