Missing Horsepower...

[dickita15]

well jeff, and bill we can all speculate on where the center is based on results but PCAs are not calculated by results so I am looking to get a feel of cars that are right on target by the calculations used by the ITAC.

[Jake]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 1 2005, 12:58 AM
Anything that has been recently classified:

SE-R
Neons
NX2000
2.0 16V GTI
etc.

AB

[snapback]64138[/snapback]

Wow - I didn't think from the title this thread was going to go here again! But here we go...

NX 2515lb 140hp
SER 2490lb 140hp
Neon 2650lb 150hp
GTI 2475lb 135hp

17.7-18.3 lbs/hp

MR2 2370lb 112hp (If I could make weight)
Corolla GTS 2410lb 112hp

21.2 - 21.5 lb/hp

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by dickita15@Nov 2 2005, 12:22 PM
well jeff, and bill we can all speculate on where the center is based on results but PCAs are not calculated by results so I am looking to get a feel of cars that are right on target by the calculations used by the ITAC.

[snapback]64272[/snapback]

Dick,

As I indicated previously, for ITA, there wasn't really a "bogey" car per-se... The RX-7 and MR-2 were TOO outclassed to make it feasible to target them, and the CRX/240SX/Integra were TOO overclassed to use them... It's safe to say that the target falls in the middle somewhere...

So, if you look at the classifications that Andy listed, you'll see what we are aiming at for this class...

[Knestis]

This did indeed seem to be the case - what Darin describes - back when we started doing what was referred to as "Miller Ratio" math. That was the first year I was back in school (so 5 years ago?), and the CRX was emerging a the apple-cart-upsetter. It's a little shocking to me as I sit here that we've actually gotten to a point where the ITAC is using a derivation of those same scribblings.

It's not likely that the archives have survived but it would be fun to resurrect all of those "a formula just WON'T WORK" strands.

There's no question one end of the A continuum has been defined by newly listed S orphans but the top of B is pretty much where it's been for a long time. This leaves a lot of options awash at the bottom of A and - I'll say this for Jake's benefit - there is NO question that the MR2 and its cousins are included there.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 2 2005, 09:23 AM

It's not likely that the archives have survived but it would be fun to resurrect all of those "a formula just WON'T WORK" strands.

[snapback]64277[/snapback]

I stand by the sentiment that you can't use a pure formula WITHOUT taking into account the intangeibles. Those factors can't be locked into a formula that is the same for every car...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 2 2005, 09:23 AM

There's no question one end of the A continuum has been defined by newly listed S orphans but the top of B is pretty much where it's been for a long time. This leaves a lot of options awash at the bottom of A and - I'll say this for Jake's benefit - there is NO question that the MR2 and its cousins are included there.

K

[snapback]64277[/snapback]

I will debate the fact that the newly listed A orphans define the top side. I think they define the 'meat' of the target as we have defined it.

There are cars above that (that we hope to bring back) and cars below that (that we hope to bring up).

The MR2 is a good example of a car that IMHO falls into 'tweener' status. It is seemingly outclassed in ITA (because it can't get light enough to fall into the meat of the class) but may be too much for ITB. So, do you make it weigh what it needs to in ITB with complaints of unsafe ballast and brake issues and additional investment in wheels, etc...?

I say ITB but differing opinions exist. Anbody race one in ITB on 6" wheels at 2500lbs? Is that better than a "corrected" ITA?

AB

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 02:31 PM

I say ITB but differing opinions exist. Anbody race one in ITB on 6" wheels at 2500lbs? Is that better than a "corrected" ITA?

AB

[snapback]64285[/snapback]

There is still the cage issue to deal with on this one...

[JeffYoung]

Doesn't it seem to you guys that right now A is probably one of the most balanced, "best" classes there is? High car counts, well-developed cars but not to the extreme of $50,000 ITS cars, good racing, several makes that can win?

I agree that the issue is two popular underdogs have a hard time keeping up (the MR2 and the RX7), but other than that, it really appears to me the class works and that someone looking to get into it has a number of good options -- NX200/SE-R, 1.8 Miata, 240sx, Integra, and CRX. All seem to be able to compete and win and have different strengths and weaknesses.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 2 2005, 09:23 AM
This did indeed seem to be the case - what Darin describes - back when we started doing what was referred to as "Miller Ratio" math. That was the first year I was back in school (so 5 years ago?), and the CRX was emerging a the apple-cart-upsetter. It's a little shocking to me as I sit here that we've actually gotten to a point where the ITAC is using a derivation of those same scribblings.

It's not likely that the archives have survived but it would be fun to resurrect all of those "a formula just WON'T WORK" strands.

There's no question one end of the A continuum has been defined by newly listed S orphans but the top of B is pretty much where it's been for a long time. This leaves a lot of options awash at the bottom of A and - I'll say this for Jake's benefit - there is NO question that the MR2 and its cousins are included there.

K

[snapback]64277[/snapback]

Damn Kirk, that actually brought a tear to my eye!!! :P And don't for a minute, don't think that I don't chuckly a bit, every time I think about it.

Andy,

Please don't throw the 'wheel investment' red herring out there. I was under the impression that the general concensus was that people would gladly get new wheels, to move from A to B. And IIRC (but it's probably lost in the above-mentioned archives), that was actually your position. And you're talking about adding 130# to the MR2 (2370 -> 2500). Even if you make it 2550# (only 180# more), that's still less than the 2.0 16v VWs got by going from ITS to ITA (2220 -> 2475, + 245#). What's the process say for the AW11 MR2 in ITB trim? I'd say, if it's 2550# or less, MOVE IT!

Oh, and as far as the cage thing goes, people can either re-cage the cars when they move, or they can stay where they're at w/ the understanding that the car will never, ever, be considered for any kind of adjustments, in the future. I have no problem w/ having the same car classed in multiple classes, at different specs. Leave the AW11 MR2 in ITA @ 2370# _AND_ list it in ITB @ 2550# (or whatever the process predicts), w/ 6" wheels. The ITB configuration would be eligible for future PCAs, were the found to be warranted, but the ITA version would be pretty much locked in.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

- I am just asking MR2 guys what their preference is.
- I would buy new 6" wheels...gladly.
- I am a proponent of the MR2 in ITB.
- I would move it if I were King.
- I am not King.
- There is no King - only Knights at a round table.
- Knights at this round table disagree on wenches, kingdoms, RX-7's and MR2's.



Jeff,

I think ITA is the best class we have.

AB

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 07:12 PM
I think ITA is the best class we have.

AB

[snapback]64328[/snapback]

I agree. Let's move my Jensen Healey down there.

Ron

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 07:12 PM
Bill,

- I am just asking MR2 guys what their preference is.
- I would buy new 6" wheels...gladly.
- I am a proponent of the MR2 in ITB.
- I would move it if I were King.
- I am not King.
- There is no King - only Knights at a round table.
- Knights at this round table disagree on wenches, kingdoms, RX-7's and MR2's.



AB

[snapback]64328[/snapback]

What Andy said! He and I are "eye to eye" on this one... (Knights, fighting side-by-side for the just... the adjusted... the adjustable... hopeless... and the overestimated... )

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 12:33 PM
There is still the cage issue to deal with on this one...

[snapback]64306[/snapback]

of course in the pole i did of cages in the mazda section half had bigger cages.

and I agree that ITA in our area is the best class there is but with the first rate guys we have running in acuras and 240s the rx7's and mr2s have to settle for 8th being a good day.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 03:12 PM
Bill,

- I am just asking MR2 guys what their preference is.
- I would buy new 6" wheels...gladly.
- I am a proponent of the MR2 in ITB.
- I would move it if I were King.
- I am not King.
- There is no King - only Knights at a round table.
- Knights at this round table disagree on wenches, kingdoms RX-7's and MR2's.



Jeff,

I think ITA is the best class we have.

AB

[snapback]64328[/snapback]

Wenches? You guys have wenches? Damn!!!

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 2 2005, 07:22 AM
I know, I know! Pick me! Pick me!

It's the AMC Spirt!!! :P

Seriously, given that the ITAC folks have stated that the Acura/Nissan/CRX are above the target, I'm somewhat at a loss as to what the existing examples are. My best guess is the 1st gen. RX7.

[snapback]64262[/snapback]

Guess again, LOL!

Dickita is making a point...in the 'negative space' way,

[Jake]

Wow - this is a first, I think we're all in agreement. For the record, I was unable to find more than 1 ITA Toyota in the country that would have a cage problem. Plus it would be much cheaper to buy 6" wheels than to purchase the unobtainium that would be required to bring my 87 MR2 down to even the current spec weight. Lowering the current minimum would be an insult. Ironically, if current MR2's were to get below the spec weight most of them would have to put in a new cage of the smaller tubing diameter to get there.

On a personal note, ITA in NER is AWESOME! Great racers with good attitudes, big fields, and close racing. While, I believe that putting the Toyotas in B is the right thing to do because it intruduces a cheap to run and fun car that might be competitive - It would be a little sad leaving my buds in ITA.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 12:33 PM
There is still the cage issue to deal with on this one...

[snapback]64306[/snapback]

I know it's a not new idea, but I SERIOUSLY think we/you should consider optional classing for "tweener" cars and those who may/may not either wish to change wheels and/or cages. Class these tweeners cars in BOTH classes with different weights and cage requirements, and let "the market" decide where they work best. This solves two issues:

- does not obsolete those cars with the "wrong" wheels and/or tires
- gives the competitor the choice if they DO want to move

There's nothing in the rules against it, it's VERY easy to police (you can easily see the wheels and the cage construction), and it fits very nicely in the philosophy of the class. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 2 2005, 05:34 PM
Wenches? You guys have wenches? Damn!!!

[snapback]64365[/snapback]

You think we do this for FREE???



AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 3 2005, 09:37 AM
I know it's a not new idea, but I SERIOUSLY think we/you should consider optional classing for "tweener" cars and those who may/may not either wish to change wheels and/or cages. Class these tweeners cars in BOTH classes with different weights and cage requirements, and let "the market" decide where they work best. This solves two issues:

- does not obsolete those cars with the "wrong" wheels and/or tires
- gives the competitor the choice if they DO want to move

There's nothing in the rules against it, it's VERY easy to police (you can easily see the wheels and the cage construction), and it fits very nicely in the philosophy of the class. - GA

[snapback]64461[/snapback]

Greg,

I am down. How many 'tweeners' do we have?

ITA RX-7 12A?
ITA MK2 MK1?

AB

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Nov 3 2005, 06:37 AM
I know it's a not new idea, but I SERIOUSLY think we/you should consider optional classing for "tweener" cars and those who may/may not either wish to change wheels and/or cages. Class these tweeners cars in BOTH classes with different weights and cage requirements, and let "the market" decide where they work best. This solves two issues:

- does not obsolete those cars with the "wrong" wheels and/or tires
- gives the competitor the choice if they DO want to move

There's nothing in the rules against it, it's VERY easy to police (you can easily see the wheels and the cage construction), and it fits very nicely in the philosophy of the class. - GA

[snapback]64461[/snapback]

I agree with Greg on this one. Class the tweener cars 2 ways. This will allow new cars to be built were they may actually be competitive. These would be new investment folk rather than reinvestments. I think you would find that over time the cars would move where they could compete.