It's here...

[Andy Bettencourt]

http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/06-2...ck-addendum.pdf

[Matt Rowe]

First, I want to say congratulations and thank you to all the ITAC members for working on this. I think it's a big step forward.

Now for the second guessing.

Okay, so looking down the list of affected cars I have to ask. Did every currently classed car get run through the process? It appears that the list is biased to the cars that are either newer or more popular. Am I reading too much into things? Could this also be a case where the CRB selectively allowed/disallowed changes line by line? There were only 43 weight adjustments and 4 cars that were moved to a different group. Out of 300+ cars classsed I doubt those were the only changes needed, especially when the older cars are the ones more likely to be classed under different assumptions etc.

Again, thank you and please don't take these comments as overly critical. I'm just trying to understand IF there was any preference given to newer or popular cars and what the reasoning behind that might be.


On edit:

Looking at the line

If the car is not on the list, we have no legitimate data showing a need for adjustment or the car is no longer run in SCCA events.

I take that to mean the types of car I am thinking of did not have enough legitimate data. Does that mean that submitting such data would be well received? That sounds too much like opeing the door to the kind of lobbying that production deals with.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 20 2006, 11:45 AM
First, I want to say congratulations and thank you to all the ITAC members for working on this. I think it's a big step forward.

Now for the second guessing.

Okay, so looking down the list of affected cars I have to ask. Did every currently classed car get run through the process? It appears that the list is biased to the cars that are either newer or more popular. Am I reading too much into things? Could this also be a case where the CRB selectively allowed/disallowed changes line by line? There were only 43 weight adjustments and 4 cars that were moved to a different group. Out of 300+ cars classsed I doubt those were the only changes needed, especially when the older cars are the ones more likely to be classed under different assumptions etc.

Again, thank you and please don't take these comments as overly critical. I'm just trying to understand IF there was any preference given to newer or popular cars and what the reasoning behind that might be.

[snapback]71404[/snapback]

Matt,

Good question. All the cars were looked at. The issue is that we had to determine what line to draw in the sand in terms of when we wanted to recommend a correction. In MY mind, when a car was ~100lbs out of whack according to the process, it got separated and looked at very closly for inclusion on this list with a new number (up or down).

Some exceptions to that thought process exist. The 1.6 Miata only gains 50 or so pounds. I thought that was a good idea for a couple reasons. 1. The process says it should weigh that, and 2. There are enough Mazda-conspiracy-theorists in this club that I wanted to make sure we were where we needed to be on that car, especially seeing as how I think there will be an exodus from SM in the near future. I can expound on this more if it gets anyones panties in a bunch.

I can't say this enough, we aren't trying to balanace the category on the tip of a pin here, we are just trying to have each car looked at through the same pair of glasses. I think it is a great basis from which to move forward.

YMMV.

AB

[JeffYoung]

Andy, and everyone, thanks for the great work.

Am I reading this right -- no weight on the E36, but a bigger restrictor?

The 944s got the help they need. Hope that brings them out en masse.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Jan 20 2006, 12:04 PM
Andy, and everyone, thanks for the great work.

Am I reading this right -- no weight on the E36, but a bigger restrictor?

The 944s got the help they need. Hope that brings them out en masse.

[snapback]71410[/snapback]

As to the SIR on the BMW...there were two options:

1. Raise the weight of the E36 325 to where the process said it should be
2. Restrict the HP of the E36 325 to where the process said it should be given it's current weight.

SIR technology has been proven in other classes. It's not so much the size of the RP in this case as it is the size AND design. Mathamatical calculations are being used (and verified) to size the SIR. More info can be had with a little help from Google. PLEASE don't think this is just a simple reduction in restrictor size. Do the research on the technology before you simply state it is x% smaller, etc.

The BMW's should not get any slower if they were using a proper RP this year. This technology just prevents cheating and mandates the HP levels, given a weight target. As with any RP however, it has much less effect on lower RPM charateristics (like torque) than it does higher RPM charateristics, like HP. The BMW should now fit the process without potential for monkey business. If it is still the car to have in ITS, then it is the car to have. It fits the process...period.

AB

[stevel]

Nice job Andy and all!

I think this is a step in the right direction and ITA is going to be awesome this year! Lots of different guys at the front and lots of close racing. Can't wait!

steve

[RacerBill]

Originally posted by stevel@Jan 20 2006, 01:07 PM
Nice job Andy and all!

I think this is a step in the right direction and ITA is going to be awesome this year! Lots of different guys at the front and lots of close racing. Can't wait!

steve

[snapback]71412[/snapback]

Thanks to the entire ITAC!

Stop by my paddock anytime at Mid-Ohio or IRP this year for a cold one!

[Bill Miller]

Yeeee Haaaa! Nice work guys!!!

Here's the meat of the IT stuff. Effective 2/1/06

ITS
1. BMW 325i/is (2 & 4 door) (92-95), p. 18, change the specs to read as follows: Notes: Trunk mounted fuel cell with no larger capacity than
stock. 27mm SIR required and must comply with GTCS section 17.1.2.F.4.i.10.
2. Ford Contour V-6 (non-SVT) (1995), p. 18, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2730.
3. Mazda RX-7 (13 (84-85), p. 19, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2350.
4. Nissan/Datsun 260-Z (73-74), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2480.
5. Nissan/Datsun 280-Z (75-78), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2505.
6. Nissan/Datsun 280-ZX 2+2 (79-83), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2530.
7. Nissan/Datsun 280-ZX (79-83), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2530.
8. Nissan 200-SX V-6 (1987), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2725.
9. Nissan 300-ZX (84-88), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2725.
10. Nissan 300-ZX 2+2 (1986), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2725.
11. Porsche 924-S (86-88), p. 21, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2575.
12. Porsche 944 (2V) (83-88), p. 21, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2575.
13. Toyota Supra (82-85), p. 22, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2750.
ITA
1. Acura Integra 1.6 (86-89), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2200.
2. Acura Integra (90-93), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2595.
3. Acura Integra (GS/LS/RS (3 door) (94-00), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2620.
4. BMW 318 (E36) (92-94), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
5. BMW 318ti & Club Sport (1995), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
6. BMW 318ti Sport (96-99), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
7. BMW 325e/es (2 & 4 door) (84-87), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2550.
8. Honda Civic Si (88-91), p. 26, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2250.
9. Honda CRX Si (88-91), p. 26, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2250.
10. Mazda MX-5 / Miata (90-93), p. 27, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2255.
11. Mazda Protégé LX (90-93), p. 27, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2280.
12. Mazda Protégé ES (95-98), p. 27, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2280.
13. Mazda RX-7 (12A) (79-85), p. 28, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2280.
14. Mitsubishi Eclipse (95-98), p. 28, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
15. Nissan 240-SX / S13 (89-90), p. 28, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2630.
16. Plymouth Laser / Eagle Talon / Mitsubishi Eclipse 2.0L, p. 29, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2500.
17. Pontiac Fiero GT & Formula V-6 2.8 (1988), p. 29, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
February Addendum 2006 SPORTSCAR F-55
18. Toyota Celica GTS (86-88), p. 30, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2500.
19. Toyota Corolla GTS (84-85), p. 30, correct the model years to 84-87.
20. Toyota Corolla GTS (86-89), p. 30, correct the model years to 88-92, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2300.
21. Toyota MR-2 1.6L (85-89), p. 30, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2270.
22. Volkswagen Jetta GLI (1991), p. 31, add the 92 model year.
ITB
1. Ford Mustang 2.3 (79-93), p. 34, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2550.
2. Mazda MX-6 (88-91), p. 36, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2530.
3. Toyota Celica III 2.4 (83-85), p. 40, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2350.
4. Toyota Celica III GTS (83-85), p. 40, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2425.
5. Volkswagen Rabbit GTI (83-84), p. 41, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2080.
6. Volkswagen Scirocco II 8V (83-88), p. 41, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2130.

[Bill Miller]

And here are the reclassifications:

Item 1. Effective 11/1/06, reclassify the ITB Plymouth Horizon 1.7 (1978-79) to ITC at 2,050 lbs.
Item 2. Effective 11/1/06, reclassify the ITB Plymouth Horizon TC3 1.7 (1979-80) to ITC at 2,110 lbs.
Item 3. Effective 11/1/06, reclassify the ITS Mazda MX-3 V-6 to ITA at 2,510 lbs
Item 4. Effective 11/1/06, reclassify the ITS Toyota Celica GT Coupe & Liftback (1989-93) to ITA at 2,590 lbs.

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

I'll say it again. Nice job by you, Darin, George, Peter, Jake, and the rest of the ITAC. I know this took a lot of hard work, and IMHO, is a major step forward in the history of IT.

Now, let the games begin!! :P

[turboICE]

Picked up 100 pounds, but until I see otherwise I will say good to the overall process - and I will say great job on the effort put in on the project.

ITA battles should be real interesting in 2006.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, not griping at all, just trying to understand: why not adjust the weight?

A single make SIR seems against class-philosophy to me. Correcting the weight to where it should be -- just don't see the downside to that.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Jan 20 2006, 11:28 AM
Andy, not griping at all, just trying to understand: why not adjust the weight?

A single make SIR seems against class-philosophy to me. Correcting the weight to where it should be -- just don't see the downside to that.

[snapback]71419[/snapback]

Andy,

Please don't take this this wrong way, but I'm inclined to agree w/ Jeff on this one. And that's based on the way the PCA section of the ITCS is worded. Certainly lead impacts all areas of the car (acceleration, braking, lateral load), so more lead is going to cost more in terms of tires and brakes, as well as increase lap times.

Here's my concern. What happens when someone requests their whiz-bang puddlebee classified? Is there a targeted max. weight for the class, or will it be spec'd based on the potential output in IT prep? If the goal is to set a max hp AND a max weight upper bound for ITS (doesn't matter for ITA-C, as the cars could be moved up a class), then I think the SIR is absolutely the best way to go. I don't think it benefits anyone to saddle a car w/ boat loads of lead, when you have an alternative technology to help control lap times.

So, if the goal is a max weight of 2850# and a hp output of 200 (don't know if that's what it is or not), for a 14.25 lb/hp ratio, would that whiz-bang puddlebee, that makes 225hp, come in at 3205#, or would it come in @ 2850# w/ a SIR that would limit output to 200hp? Clearly the end result is the same, in terms of lp/hp, but @ 3205#, that w-b puddlebee is going to use up brakes and tires faster than a 2850# E36 w/ the SIR.

[turboICE]

As someone who just picked up weight I am seeing plenty of downside on additional brake and tire wear, changed dynamics in suspension geometry and handling. I think it can be pretty easy to get into the downside of weight adds doing more than to adjust power to weight potential. At some point it makes more sense to decrease the power than to add weight, IMO. Unless the argument is that they are so advantaged in handling and braking that you want to impact that as well as power to weight.

[stevel]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 20 2006, 05:33 PM
As someone who just picked up weight I am seeing plenty of downside on additional brake and tire wear, changed dynamics in suspension geometry and handling. I think it can be pretty easy to get into the downside of weight adds doing more than to adjust power to weight potential. At some point it makes more sense to decrease the power than to add weight, IMO. Unless the argument is that they are so advantaged in handling and braking that you want to impact that as well as power to weight.

[snapback]71421[/snapback]

Ed, don't worry about it. Our camp is actually excited about this change. Why? Because we were a good 70lbs overweight to begin with and the cars were still competitive with the Acura's (most of which were at weight I believe). We just couldn't get them down to weight with the hatchback version of this car. So, with the Acura's gaining 125lbs and us (our 240's anyway) only gaining 30 or so lbs. Our guys will be even more competitive. And seeing that at times we were running at 2600lbs brakes were not a problem (with the right pads they could actually outbrake the Acura's with there small brakes) and they still handled like a dream, and depending on the corner of the track, sometimes better than the Acura's. I know our two 240 drivers are looking forward to this.

steve

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by stevel@Jan 20 2006, 09:21 PM
We just couldn't get them down to weight with the hatchback version of this car.

[snapback]71455[/snapback]

Definately an ancillary benefit of the adjustment upward, is that the hatchback is now a viable option for ITA... That means more cars available!

Let's face it... As long as it's competitive, it's always easier, and usually less expensive, to build a car that needs to be heavier, as opposed to one that needs to be lighter...

Maybe you guys won't be getting so cold on those late fall or early spring race days! (meaning... you can keep your heaters in tact, etc... )


Thanks for all the positive, and optimistically negative, feedback guys... We are trying out best, and have our fingers crossed that this works the way we've been thinking it will... I hope you all see that it was an honest effort to get things in balance... Hopefully that is what we have done...

Now... GO BUILD THOSE CARS!

[turboICE]

The puddlebee may not be classed as it is beyond the performance envelope of IT? I don't know just a guess based on my limited understanding.

Knowing what we do today about the performance potential of the E36 would it have been classed in ITS as within the performance potential?

Purely an uneducated guess (but I am trying to learn) but maybe it shouldn't have been classed in IT but now that it is here doing the best possible with it?

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 20 2006, 11:56 AM
The puddlebee may not be classed as it is beyond the performance envelope of IT? I don't know just a guess based on my limited understanding.

Knowing what we do today about the performance potential of the E36 would it have been classed in ITS as within the performance potential?

Purely an uneducated guess (but I am trying to learn) but maybe it shouldn't have been classed in IT but now that it is here doing the best possible with it?

[snapback]71423[/snapback]

Well, I asked this, because I was thinking of the '86.5 - '87 3.0 7M-GE engine rated @ 200hp. The car is spec'd @ 3380#. Maybe it's just a case of nobody racing one.

Please don't get me wrong, I think the ITAC have done a great job!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

We gave the CRB both options, they went with the SIR.

The outside performance envelope is dictated primarily by the stock/IT-prep hp of a car. Anything that is 200+ stock hp is pretty much outside the envelope. You COULD place anything in IT with a SIR but...

This car and situation is an anomoly...treat it as such.

AB

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 20 2006, 11:08 AM
We gave the CRB both options, they went with the SIR.

The outside performance envelope is dictated primarily by the stock/IT-prep hp of a car. Anything that is 200+ stock hp is pretty much outside the envelope. You COULD place anything in IT with a SIR but...

This car and situation is an anomoly...treat it as such.

AB

[snapback]71427[/snapback]

Does this mean there's a chance of classing the 2.8l Z3 in ITS?? Stock it's at 189 hp?? Maybe I should finish that classification form and send it in.

James