How does 7hp=220lbs??

[dominojd]

It's easy to cheat when everyone assumes you are legal!!!
[/b]

He finally admitted it publicly. :P

[Knestis]

There are soom "yeah, buts" to be considered here however, Jeff...

** In both cases, we are assuming that the cars from which data were collected are legal. Since the presumption is innocent until proven guilty by protest, the temptation is to assume they are all OK. However, protests are frankly rare enough that popular opinion in the culture is that "everyone cheats - it's just a question of how much." This alone makes the entire question of using "real data" suspect.

** It is fundamentally hard to prove that something does not exist. Nobody has proven that there's NOT intelligent life on other planets and that they've been probing Earthings' anuses for thousands of years - therefore, I believe that they exist. You can argue all day about this but ultimately, I can't be proven wrong. However, I could be proven right - supporting my contention that They Are Out There, proving the naysayers wrong - with the release of just one body from Area 51. The Turdler example is even worse than this because the outcome measure of the effectiveness of a "full build" is power. The absence of power could be evidence of (1) lack of a full build, or (2) lack of the desired outcome, as assessed by that measure - there's NO way to tell just from looking at the evidence from a distance. It requires very systematic definition of what the INPUTS might be and the documentation thereof. And it isn't just about receipts since the real returns on an engine build come from tuning. PLUS there are a huge number of variables that influence the greater outcome that we all tend to see - on-track performance. Arguments about a lack of POWER are supported with evidence about LAP TIMES, compounding the problem.

** Jeff makes a good point about the self-fulfilling prophecy issue! But there are other organizationa/social/cultural influences that confound things. Consider for a moment, example 3:

3. 1995 Elron Scientolo G - listed in ITA based on a predicted 145whp as an ITA car. Problem is, there's no aftermarket for the car, the suspension is a cheap knock-off of the early swing-axle Corvair, and it's as attractive as the backend of an overweight female gibbon in heat. Only one has ever been raced but it kicked everyone's butts. The car has survived a major protest tear-down so accusations of cheating have diminished, but other ITA entrants are sharpening their pitchforks.

Hmm?

Andy's out but I still think it's convenient that the outlier examples that keep coming up tend to be oddballs in terms of their specific layout. In his most recent post, we have two pollution-choked V layouts, of greater displacement than we typically deal with in a given class. Apply "local knowledge" to the general attribute? Not so awful, probably. But yeah - sometimes we get to attributes specific enough that they define a single instance...

K

[lateapex911]

What arguments can be used to justify changing the weight in each case?
What criticisms can be appropriately leveled at those arguments?
What assumptions have to be made in each example? That might be applicable to both examples?

I've made these examples a little less complicated than real life but they are still illustrative. One uses data to try to 'prove' that something has happened - that a car has (at least) met its expected power output - whereas the other tries to 'prove' that the same thing has NOT happened. The latter is a much tougher prospect.

K [/b]

EDIT: Of course, Kirk posts while I typed away, making mine rather redundant, but I'll leave it anyway...

Ah Kirk, I'm such a sucker.

1- In the case of the overdog, an examination needs to be made as to how those numbers are being made. Lots of data...the more the better. Pro builders would be consulted. Data can be gotten in many ways. As many know, we've been down that road in the past.

2- Obviously, in the case of the underacheiver, it's a much more difficult task. Proving a negative. But again, the more data, the better. Eventually, some peice of information might yeild not just the true situation, but, more importantly to me, the "why" behind it.

In both cases of course, you need to examine the data with a very critical eye. Is the data acheived consistently? In a scientific manner? Is it comparable? And...the biggest one of all...is it real?

Considering the source is paramount.

In the end, there may, or may not be enough data to make a call.

I feel that the ITAC needs to be consistant, of course. I also think it needs to keep scrupulous notes so that future versions of the ITAC can operate in the same manner.

But...and while I understand the arguement of those who cry that such things as the Feb addendum are unfair penalties, I really feel that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

It's ironic that the CRX was trotted out in this case, because that one car ...or should I say...that one classification...singlehandedly put more cars on blocks than any other in ITA. When it was classsified, people were amazed at how fast they actually went. Cries of protest and suspicions of cheating were common. But, back then the weight was cast in stone. So, in order to avoid a one car class, they added other cars at weights they though would be competitive against the new king.

I talked to the then head of the CRB about it, and explained to him the unrest I was hearing. People were pissed that what was once a class where several models had a legit shot at a win was now an entirely different class! And all the once competitive cars were essentially backmarkers. He agreed with the analysis, but his response was, essentially, "too bad" make those cars faster, or get a new car. "Thats racing"....

But why!? Why does it have to be that way??? How wasteful! No system is perfect...thats obvious, but with the old way, if somebody made one little error in estimation..(And why do people expect estimates to always be perfect??... they are ESTIMATES, LOL), and hundreds of cars were screwed.

The new way seeks to use a careful and repeatable estimate process, and, where clear real world evidence exists, it is used to acheive parity.

Fortunaltley, estimation mistakes are pretty few and far between, but there have been some blunders, and as we all remember, the E36 qualified in that department. I took much crap, spent many days off, and spent much of my own money on that car to try and right the wrong, and I was only one of the people on the case. When the evidence was gathered, the answer was obvious.

Unfortunatley, in the case of one off cars, compiling the needed data takes longer.

In any case, I feel strongly that our system, while not perfect, is better than any I have seen that is charged with creating parity amongst such a large group and variety of cars.

[Tristan Smith]

"I still stand by my statement. Even God driving this car on the right track couldn't make it competitive at it's current weight."



Thats just silly. Bob Stretch drove the same car I do, and I would say at the time, that my Sunbelt Motor was probably not too far off his Rebello motor in terms of horsepower. The car preps were pretty similar. BUT, he always spanked me at my home track, Road Atlanta.
The reason was simple. He was a better driver. He was able to race almost every weekend in one type of car or another, and it showed. There is no substitution for seat time. Clearly I am a mediocre driver, but even I get better during a season where I race often and consistently. So don't be so sure that someone else couldn't make your car more competitive.

Even the 100lbs they added to the 240sx really hasn't dramatically change my lap times. Granted, in my case it really only added about 30lbs, because I couldn't/didn't get in down to min. weight anyway, and I don't know of many of the 240sx guys that could.

[Banzai240]

Well.... It's nice to know that after a year away... I could jump right back into these discussions as if I had never left...

It's always good for a chuckle when people take the driver out of the equation...

[Z3_GoCar]

That's exactly my point! I would think that you would NOT want a rule that does this...
[/b]

Hey Darin,

Welcome Back. I hope you've been having fun

James

[Chris Wire]

Well.... It's nice to know that after a year away... I could jump right back into these discussions as if I had never left...
[/b]

Darin, welcome back! You probably started this whole thing, and we just don't know it yet!

As for the rest of you guys......

I love you all, but you guys could over analyze a dog crapping in the backyard!

Why did he crap there?
Was it time for him to crap?
Is his crap output reasonable considering his intake in the past 12 hours?
Is there a way to calculate the flow rate of crap given specific repeatable data?
Is it 'cheater' crap or can it be presumed to be legal?
How is his crap output compared to other dogs in the neighborhood?
Is there special treatment involved given his diet?
Can his diet be altered to bring his crap inline with others in the neighborhood?
Or should we even endeavor to do so?


...or is it just crap in the backyard someone has to clean up? And on and on and on.....

Let's not get ourselves to the point of ruining the best racing class (and racing) in the club with this excercise.

[DavidM]

Andy still has not responded to the question of what other adders were put ont the 240sx to put 100 extra pounds on it? But even with the 100 extra pounds on the 240sx I am ok with it.
[/b]

I thought adding 100 lbs sucked. My car was pretty close to min weight at 2530. I have two 45 lb weights on my floor pan (with probably 10 lbs in mounting hardware) and weighed 2660 after a race, which I started with a full tank. I could easily start with a little less gas and be at 2630. My driving sucks so it's hard to say how much time 100 lbs cost. I'd be curious what sort of times Bob could run in it.

I think the 240SX got adders for rear wheel drive and engine displacement. Maybe something else? I have a dyno sheet showing 144 hp, which is pretty much right at process gain. A Miata made 140? The 240 has a big torque advantage, but the 240 is classed at 2630 lbs and the Miata at 2380. One of those numbers would seem to be a little off. I'd love to unbolt one of the weights I have or maybe the Miata needs some. There didn't seem to be any issues adding weight back in the grand re-weighting. Why is there now? Supposedly the cage issue is no longer a problem as it could be grandfathered for existing cars.

I didn't bitch about having to add 100 lbs as I thought the whole process by which it was done was a good thing. I think the 240 got somewhat screwed, but I'm biased. I will definitely bitch about the process not being applied equally to other cars resulting in a good deal less weight, however.

I'll go back to lurking now.

David

[stevel]

I have a dyno sheet showing 144 hp, which is pretty much right at process gain.
[/b]

Which is pretty much 10hp less than what a full build would get you. And you forget to mention that the torque was probably north of 150 ft/lbs also. Huge difference!! If you're going to throw numbers out there and argue them, don't leave out the key ones. What's your point?


s

[JeffYoung]

Uh...Steve, he mentioned the torque advantage.

David's point is the correct one. Yeah, we are all biased and we can construct arguments that our cars, relative to others, have been treated unfairly. David admits that (hell, we all do it).

But he concludes by saying what concerned us all at the start of this -- why was the later Miata run through the process differently than all other cars? I'm satisfied with the explanation, but others are not, for a variety of reasons that have validity.

[DavidM]

Which is pretty much 10hp less than what a full build would get you. And you forget to mention that the torque was probably north of 150 ft/lbs also. Huge difference!! If you're going to throw numbers out there and argue them, don't leave out the key ones. What's your point?
s
[/b]

This is a dyno sheet that I got with the car from Bob for a tuning session he did. I'm just reporting the numbers. Are you saying Bob didn't have a full build and didn't know how to tune a 240SX? If you have a dyno sheet for an ITA 240SX showing 150+ HP I'd love to see it as I may just give that engine builder a call. And yes, the torque was above 150.

Back to your regularly scheduled program.

David

[kevin22]

I also just lurk and read, I have always been interested in ITA, I race SM now but would consider ITA if I lost interest in SM. But this post has really pointed out something that is very troubling. Is there a formula that is applied evenly? doesn't seem to be. And I beleive most people agree that the current weights for several cars are unfair, yet seems like nothing can be done. Are the guys on the ITAC board also racers in ITA? if so, seems like a big conflict of interest.

[JLawton]

I also just lurk and read, I have always been interested in ITA, I race SM now but would consider ITA if I lost interest in SM. [/b]

Don't let this thread scare you off..........

Hey, I have the biggest disadvantage of anyone, I drive a GM for Christ sake!! I should should get a 200lbs break just for that!!

But I still have blast and wouldn't go anywhere else!!

[lateapex911]

I. Are the guys on the ITAC board also racers in ITA? if so, seems like a big conflict of interest.

[/b]

Not to be a wise ass, but would it be better if the guys on the ITAc were Prod racers?

The ITAC is made up of a variety of members, both geographically, and racingwise. In an effort to be open, they are: (in no particular order)

Bob Stretch- (SWest)former ITA Nissan racer, current ITA Miata driver, plus a gazillion other things, including a succesful stint on World Challenge.
Andy Bettencourt. (NewEng)Regular poster....Former ITS racer, current ITAC chair and ITA Miata driver.
George Roffe(Swest) occasional poster here. ITS 944, multi year karting, and also races a Nissan Se-r
Lee Graser- (Midwest) Honestly, I'm not sure what lees racing these days
Les Chaney- (Mid Atlantic coast) ITB Volvo driver, alos FP driver
Josh Sirota (Nor Cal) Also posts here, BWM ITR driver
Marshall Lytle (DC area) Posts here too. BMW ITS and ITR racer
Bob Clarke (Upper Mid west) Posts here as well. ITB Honda guy, also GTlite? Or GT3? Honda racer
Jake Gulick (thats me)(New Eng) ITA and IT7 racer.

As you can see, its a varied group, with nearly every class covered, and the country well represented. Some guys have great in depth car knowledge, others really know the ways to wrench and get a car faster, others just know the racing business, and some have great policy skills and can wrote rules. Even more unusual, more ITACers post on fowums like this in an effort to communicate and keep abreast of the siiituations. I don't think the SCCA member has ever seen such an open window into the workings of his club, as they do now, and I'd venture the ITAC has probably been the most proactive in that area..

With 9 guys, conflicts of interest are quickly erased, and when it comes time for a vote on something that affects a person directly, that person will recuse himself.

On top of that, there are always two..and sometimes 3 CRB members listening in and discussing things. As a matter of fact, what was once considered SCCAs redheaded stepchild category, (IT) has produced a pretty fair number of CRB members, most recently Chris Albin (ITB and GP) as well as Peter Keane (ITB, and various other pro racing) have been plucked from our committee to serve on the CRB.

The entire point of the Advisory committees was to get guys who were "in the trenches" so to speak, to bring forth real world knowledge and expertise. The CRB can not possibly have the intimate knowledge needed to guide each category at a micro level. I thiink that the IT world is now, compared to as few as two or three years ago, a massively improved place.