Nov. FasTrack is out

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by mgyip@Oct 5 2005, 01:56 PM
I would go race the darn car if I hadn't been "assisted" into a tire wall over Labor Day. 10/10ths effort? For me, that's about 5/10ths effort since I'm mostly DIY and perpetually broke BUT that doesn't stop me from having fun. If I wanted to win, I would have taken the car-whore approach and driven whatever was winning. Since my 1.8 is already way overweight, I'll test your theory that the 1.8L is 50 lbs too light as it's currently classed.

[snapback]61820[/snapback]

DUDE! THAT'S THE SPIRIT!! You go for it!!

Me thinkist that your situation is not far removed from many of us out here!

If you are having fun, then you are on the right track...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 5 2005, 12:40 PM
Darin,

I don't want to get into anything over this, I'm just trying to understand. Assuming that the Process weight for the 1.8 16v Golf/Jetta is 2270# (adding the 50# that you mentioned), is 12 hp really worth 200#?

[snapback]61811[/snapback]

Bill, et.al.,

The process works by estimating the "potential" HP based on the factory HP, if no other information is known (i.e.: dyno sheets, previous experience, etc.)...

The way this is done is to estimate potential in terms of a percentage increase over stock hp with IT prep... This seems to yield acceptable results in most cases...

If you have two motors and you multiply each stock hp output by the same percentage, the difference between the two increases...

So, the 12hp difference noted above actually becomes about 15.6 hp difference with IT-Prep, and this is indeed worth at least 200#... According to the process...

Seems reasonable if you consider that extra displacement and torque potential, etc., of the larger motor...

You'll see this same pattern with the Miatas, or just about any other recently classified car...

Hopefully this helps...

Again, the car is right where it needs to be... A very nice addition to ITA I think...

[dyoungre]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 5 2005, 01:29 PM
This issue isn't unique to VW's. It is perfectly even across all classes and marques. Let's all keep in mind that sometimes we compare apples to oranges...when I say that, I mean cars that are classed or re-classed using the process then are compared to cars that have been in the books for a while.

ITA example. The Integra vs. the NX2000. The 1.8 Integra was in the class and then the SE-R/NX2000 came in. Using the process, the NX2000 came in heavier than the Integra. Same stock HP, less HP potential, and a less sophiticated suspension...

Seems like a bad move at the outset but the 'process' is the first step. 'Correcting' other classifications within the context of the new, repetable process is the next step - awaiting BoD support.

AB

[snapback]61816[/snapback]

So if I extrapolate, the 'Formula' was not designed for cars to be competitive with current top dogs, but with today's top dogs being reigned in? It makes sense - first you give the unhappy a place to play by correcting the severe underdogs, then you take on the more controversial - reigning in the happy, potentially making them less happy.

Am I reading in too much?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by dyoungre@Oct 5 2005, 12:50 PM
So if I extrapolate, the 'Formula' was not designed for cars to be competitive with current top dogs, but with today's top dogs being reigned in? It makes sense - first you give the unhappy a place to play by correcting the severe underdogs, then you take on the more controversial - reigning in the happy, potentially making them less happy.

Am I reading in too much?

[snapback]61834[/snapback]

The targets needed to be slightly south of top guns in each class or else the mid and bottom get further away as new stuff is inserted. If have a chance to put a large sampling through the process, the top cars should come down and the lower cars should come up...assuming everything else being equal. And we ALWAYS have to assume that...

Be glad to talk more about it over a beer at the NARRC!!!

(edit) The top only 'come down' and the bottom only 'come up' if there was a problem with the weight to begin with...

AB

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by dyoungre@Oct 5 2005, 12:50 PM
So if I extrapolate, the 'Formula' was not designed for cars to be competitive with current top dogs, but with today's top dogs being reigned in? It makes sense - first you give the unhappy a place to play by correcting the severe underdogs, then you take on the more controversial - reigning in the happy, potentially making them less happy.

Am I reading in too much?

[snapback]61834[/snapback]

That kinda sounds like what's going on. And you know, that's probably a good thing. Otherwise, makes it too hard to get the bottom of the class closer to the top. Moving things closer to some middle point is a great approach!

I'll give you guys (the ITAC), things are looking good!! Nice job.

And I think the cars will be nice in ITA (that's why I asked that they be moved)

[benspeed]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 4 2005, 03:52 PM
http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/Fil...1-fastrack.pdf

[snapback]61741[/snapback]

I agree - moving SSB/C to Touring 3/4 would be a fine move.

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 5 2005, 04:53 AM
I just re-ran the numbers... It's PERFECTLY classified in ITA now... I can't BELIEVE you are complaining about this...

[snapback]61806[/snapback]

I think you know what concerns me.... If you apply the same potential percentage to every car classed, what do you do for one's that don't/can't be upgraded to that percentage? Example... most cars come with horible cast iron exhaust manifolds, part of the upgrade hp that you get in IT is by replacing them. Now along come a car that has a nice tubular equal length manifold, really close to what you could get custom welded up. Great upside, you don't have to spend the money for a manifold. Downside is it's about as optimized as it's going to get, so less power gain for IT tune, and the weights perfectly set based on getting power that's not there Sure you don't class any class busters, but on the other hand the new guy's now over weight and not competitive with any of the other guys. Call me skeptical, but I don't think there's 160hp in an IT tuned M44. Now how do I prove it...

James

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Oct 11 2005, 01:05 AM
If you apply the same potential percentage to every car classed, what do you do for one's that don't/can't be upgraded to that percentage?

[snapback]62250[/snapback]

The simple answer to this is... "But we don't..."

% increase is applied based on a number of factors:

How optimized from the factory

History

Engine design/style, number of valves, etc.

etc...


Without access to a dyno for every motor, and optimized example of every motor, etc... We have to make some assumptions. We're not... NOT... going to get everyone just right... BUT, EVERYONE will get the same level of consideration and be processed the same, and this should get everyone a lot closer to where they should be...

Honestly... I don't believe for a moment that most of us can drive a car well enough, or have prepped it well enough, to tell the difference in 50, or maybe even in 100lbs... depending on the car... We're doing our best to get things close, and that's about all you can really expect... And, I think that I'd personally rather class a car a little too heavy, then class just ONE too light... We've all seen how much that can upset things...

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 11 2005, 11:44 AM
... I don't believe for a moment that most of us can drive a car well enough, or have prepped it well enough, to tell the difference in 50, or maybe even in 100lbs

That there is as good as it gets and I contintue to be pleased to hear stuff like this. The whole idea of this game - I think - is to get the cars close enough based on mechanical attributes that the deciding factors in any given racer are (1) driver skill, (2) set up ability, (3) car preparation - and other factors in decreasing importance. Car CHOICE should not be at or near the top of that list and that's what the current ITAC seems to be trying to accomplish.

K

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 11 2005, 07:44 AM
Honestly... I don't believe for a moment that most of us can drive a car well enough, or have prepped it well enough, to tell the difference in 50, or maybe even in 100lbs... depending on the car... We're doing our best to get things close, and that's about all you can really expect... And, I think that I'd personally rather class a car a little too heavy, then class just ONE too light... We've all seen how much that can upset things...

[snapback]62263[/snapback]

Interesting, when you put this up against what some of the E36 drivers were saying about adding weight to their cars. I'll have to go back and read the thread, but IIRC, there were claims that 100 or 150 # would make the car a total dog.

For the most part Darin, I think you're right. I do think, that are probably more people that could tell the difference than you think. Certainly fewer w/ 50# than w/ 100#. And the problem w/ looking at specific weight values, is that the next percentage change depends on the starting weight for the car. For example, a 100# change is a 3.33% change for a 3000# car, but a 5% change for a 2000# car. I certainly don't think I'm any great shoe, but I'm pretty certain than I could feel the difference in 100#, in say a Rabbit GTI. And I'm very certain that the lap times would be different, w/ and w/o the weight. Could I do it w/ 50#? Can't really say for sure. I'd like to think so, but only the watch will say for sure.

For a reasonable gauge at the effect of weight changes, I think it's valid to look at the performance of production cars, before and after post-Runoffs' comp. adj. (assuming of course, that they're weight-only adj.).

All that being said, as more data come in, the more the ITAC classification process will get refined, and the better it will be. And that can only mean good things, and better competition (and a wider variety of 'good' cars) in IT. Keep it up guys!

[JLawton]

I agree, the direction the board is going is great!!


So.........can we take a look at the early GTis??

[R2 Racing]

The new ITA VW you guys are talking about = 2.0L, 4 cylinder, 135hp stock, with a 2475lb race weight.
My ITA '92 Integra = 1.8L, 4 cylinder, 140hp stock, with a 2480lb race weight (and actually weighs about 2560 with me in it).


Uhhhmmmm.......I guess VW's must just not have as much potential as those darn Honda's, right? I'll stick with my original opinion; the ITAC is doing a great job!

[Bill Miller]

Not quite sure what you're saying, but it would seem that the Integra is light. Only 5# extra for 5 hp extra. If you use the the VW 1.8 16v and 2.0 16v numbers, the Acura should probably be closer to 2550#.

[turboICE]

Good it wasn't just me, because when I read the post I thought the intro was an argument for a heavier Teg as well...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 11 2005, 02:05 PM
Not quite sure what you're saying, but it would seem that the Integra is light.

[snapback]62277[/snapback]

The Integra is light... and, it would seem that the 1.8L Acura motor has more "potential" than the VW with IT prep... You can't always look at just the displacment... I really wish we had the tools to look at things like B/S Ratios, Volumetric Efficiency, etc... but we don't have those kind of resources readily available... So, we'll just keep doing what we are doing, which is the best we can...

Thanks for the support guys... I really hope that all this will be rewarded at the December BoD meetings! Call your local BoD members and tell them to support the ITAC's proposal!

[zracre]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 11 2005, 10:05 AM
Not quite sure what you're saying, but it would seem that the Integra is light. Only 5# extra for 5 hp extra. If you use the the VW 1.8 16v and 2.0 16v numbers, the Acura should probably be closer to 2550#.

[snapback]62277[/snapback]

how long has the teg been in ITA? It seems to be called an overdog an awful lot...GTI's consistently win ITB so is that an overdog as well? I think time is a factor in the decision as well....there is alot of discussion that "my car is too heavy boo hoo". The teg has been there for years and has not always been a winner. now that people are spending time and money to develop a good car it is now an overdog. There needs to be class standards. The 240sx (160whp??!!) is competitive and fast on the same level as the integra and there are a few more in the pipeline (1.8 miata) that should fill in the blank spaces in the classes. I agree with comp adjustments, but shouldnt we be using the winners of the class as the standard and not the underdogs? I think bringing the weight down on some older developed less competitive cars seems a better choice than penalizing people that spend time and money to reach their goal. I tried to get the weight reduced on my ITB Rabbit GTI to no avail...so I sold it to buy something newer and more competitive...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by zracre@Oct 11 2005, 03:07 PM
...but shouldnt we be using the winners of the class as the standard and not the underdogs?

[snapback]62283[/snapback]

NO! What you are suggesting is to make the maximum amount of adjustments to the class... the maximum disruption to the specifications... and MAXIMUM chance of really screwing things up! We'd especially like to avoid the last one there!

Look at it this way... PRIOR to the 240SX, the CRX/Hondas, and the Acuras being classified in ITA, there was a different group of cars that would be considered "competitive"... These newer classifications "disrupted" the "competitive balance" of the class...

There are a couple ways to deal with this.

One... you attempt to bring everyone up to the level of those newer classifications...

Two... You pick a "mid-point", and bring the bottom and top towards it...

If you analyze the specs/classifications, you'll see that number two is the option that requires the fewest adjustments to the specs, and therefore, the least amount of disruption for the majority of the competitors... and fewere adjustments mean fewer errors that would further disrupt the competitive balance...

There are cars behind you that have worked just as hard to be competitive, but simply aren't... Just because you run up front, doesn't mean you worked any harder than the guy 5 spots back...

This isn't about "penalizing" anyone or any car... it's about getting the specifications back in line across the board... There are cars classified that, given decent prep, should, and DO, win... and there are those that, given the same level of prep, never will...

[Bob Burns]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 11 2005, 09:32 AM
I really hope that all this will be rewarded at the December BoD meetings! Call your local BoD members and tell them to support the ITAC's proposal!

At least one of whom is listening.

Bob Burns
Area 4 Director (interim)
former Comp Board member
former ITAC chairman
email: area4scca (at) rlburns.net

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Bob Burns@Oct 11 2005, 04:39 PM
At least one of whom is listening. ...

That's kind of cool, huh? Thanks, Bob!

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 11 2005, 10:32 AM
I really hope that all this will be rewarded at the December BoD meetings! Call your local BoD members and tell them to support the ITAC's proposal!

[snapback]62282[/snapback]

What exactly is the proposal? I generally like to know what I am expressing support for before contacting my local politician oops! BOD member supporting or against something.