September fastrack

[JLawton]

I find a lot of people talk about needing weight breaks or being reclassed that don't have 10/10ths cars. You can't guess where your car should be unless it's got a pro built. Unfortunately the rules weren't made based on what the majority of the engines can get for power or what most people can afford........Remember, there are guys out there who are spending $6-$10K (and up to $25K for a Jon Millage 944 engine) for there engines. These engines are the bench marks.

It sucks but that's reality...............

[Rabbit07]

I find a lot of people talk about needing weight breaks or being reclassed that don't have 10/10ths cars. You can't guess where your car should be unless it's got a pro built. Unfortunately the rules weren't made based on what the majority of the engines can get for power or what most people can afford........Remember, there are guys out there who are spending $6-$10K (and up to $25K for a Jon Millage 944 engine) for there engines. These engines are the bench marks.

It sucks but that's reality...............
[/b]

I would say that this is the reason why some cars are more popular in IT than others. There are some cars that seem to be competitive without spending lots of $ and others that are equally competitive, you just have to spend the big bucks.

Spec Miata seems to be loosing its appeal due to the rising costs of staying competitive.

The longer a car is classed and being raced the faster they seem to get. People figure out what it makes them go.

[Bill Miller]

You want a 2550lb MK1 MR-2 in ITB on 6" wheels? 250lbs of ballast sound like something you want to add?
[/b]

Andy,

What about that pig of an ITC car on 6" wheels (VW N? Has anyone built one of these things? Give the cars dual classification and be done with it. Let the people choose where they want to race the car (and at the corresponding weight).

And if a 113hp stock Pulsar looks like an ITB car, a 90hp stock Rabbit GTI should look like an ITC car. IIRC, you (the ITAC folks) said that the process weight for a Rabbit GTI in ITC was ~2250#. That's 70# over the old, pre-process ITB weight. Sure wouldn't have taken a ton of ballast to get it to ITC.

The AW11 MR2 belongs in ITB, and has for quite some time. With the TVIS in place (which I don't think you're allowed to remove, although, I've heard some argue it's part of the emission control system), you're just not going to make that much power. How much more does RWD get you over the FWD FX16 w/ the same motor?

And really Andy, you've got some nerve telling people they're too close to issues.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And really Andy, you've got some nerve telling people they're too close to issues. [/b]

Well Bill, if you had any clue about this specific situation, you wouldn't have said that. But you don't, and you couldn't help yourself. [Sigh]

[Andy Bettencourt]

What about that pig of an ITC car on 6" wheels (VW N? Has anyone built one of these things? Give the cars dual classification and be done with it. Let the people choose where they want to race the car (and at the corresponding weight).[/b]

Did you know that the NB is classed just below it's curb weight? The CRB isn't into dual classifications yet.

The AW11 MR2 belongs in ITB, and has for quite some time. With the TVIS in place (which I don't think you're allowed to remove, although, I've heard some argue it's part of the emission control system), you're just not going to make that much power. How much more does RWD get you over the FWD FX16 w/ the same motor? [/b]

Show us some data.

Look, it's close. Damn close. Some think it should move, some don't. It 'fits' in ITA under the current structure. It could 'fit' in ITB at 2500+ lbs. The decision was made to hold it in A due to the ability to make its ITA weight and a consideration that 250+lbs of ballast just isn't a great idea.

Like it or not, right or wrong, I hope we can all see the logic behind the decision.

[Jake]

The MR2 can make it from what we have learned.
[Devils Advocate hat off]
[/b]

I hate logging on from vacation - but wifi seems to me in every hotel lately. I need to make 2 points, and I will try to make the respectfully.

1. You are wrong here. The MR2 cannot make the weight set in ITA. Show me one LEGAL car that makes 2270 with a 180lbs driver and I'll shut up. It just can't. My car sits at 2430lbs with me in it, and I would LOVE to put some more bracing in the cage. Don't tell me I need to put 300lbs in it. Ask MR2 owners - the vast majority are ready to bolt the lead in. Many have cars heavier than mine. I took a LOT out to make the weight I'm at.

2. Your FX16 argument makes the assumption that the Corolla with the 4AGE is properly calssed at 2455. While I agree that that's probably perfect process weight - the 4AGE does NOT make any power with a IT build. I have seen data from multiple 4AGE's that were built by reputable IT builders (ones that also make forumula atlantic motors) and they do not get anywhere near the power gains that larger VW/Honda/Nissan motors can get.

The fact is that the cars have been around for 20 years now. If someone could have figured out how to make more than 110hp at the wheels by now, they would have. If someone could have figured out how to make the car better than midpack in ITA, they would have. Why else would nobody drive them anymore?

It's a complete shame that these cars are nearly absent from IT racing these days. I'll argue that no car is easier on tires and more reliable - but because of incorrect classing, they're not even considered as a race car.


<--- back to vacationing with the family.

[JeffYoung]

Jake, not quibbling, but see Steve B&#39;s post above. He appears to be able to make weight in Peter Doane&#39;s old car, with a 205 lb driver.

I do agree the issue here appears to be horsepower, or the lack thereof. While I also agree that you would think someone would have attempted a full on 100% IT build (ECU, compression, port matching, dyno workon the exhaust, etc.) on the motor, I&#39;ve still yet to see anyone say definitively that it HAS been done. Has it? If so, and if the result is still 110 at the wheels, then you have a car that is on the border between A/B and any move to B needs to be CAREFULLY monitored to avoid dumping an overdog into B. Some of the recent moves between S and A, and A and B, have created "instant winners" which is not necessarily a good thing.

[Greg Amy]

Riddle me this: why is it that the ITAC, and by extension the CRB, require people to prove a negative before making changes? Yet, when positives are proven nothing is done? Anyone, with any modicum of commonly-available (yet rarely-used) logic, knows that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Take this MR2 example: EVERY time someone (usually people intimately familiar with the car) says "the car can&#39;t make the power" or "we can&#39;t make the weight" &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; come back and say "prove it." In other words, YOU spend the exorbitant amount of money to prove it cannot be done before we&#39;ll even consider changes. Of course, what if someone was STOOPID enough to spend that money, what&#39;s to keep &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; from coming back and saying &#39;no, you didn&#39;t prove to us you did EVERYTHING, we still don&#39;t believe your demonstrated power is all that can be done you need to spend more money and you&#39;ve not done everything you can to remove the weight&#39;? Or worse, they say "you&#39;re right, but the car is properly classified as-is"? Then, all that money that was spent to try and prove this negative will have been totally and completely WASTED.

Which idiot among us is willing to take on THAT risk? I think the odds are better at the casino dollar slots...

Yet, when there are other proven cases that a car makes much more power than the process indicates, with the same amount of resulting conflict, thus a proven positive, nothing is done to change it?

It&#39;s these kind of arguments that frustrate &#39;the masses&#39; and make &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; look really, really silly...as long as the process is written (or enforced) such that negatives must be proven before changes are made - and proven positives are not addressed - no one will be satisfied and &#39;they&#39; will continue to look stonewalling and stubborn.

"Hey, I&#39;m not sayin&#39;, I&#39;m just sayin&#39;..." (copyright 2007, Scott Giles)

[Rabbit07]

Riddle me this: why is it that the ITAC, and by extension the CRB, require people to prove a negative before making changes? Yet, when positives are proven nothing is done? Anyone, with any modicum of commonly-available (yet rarely-used) logic, knows that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Take this MR2 example: EVERY time someone (usually people intimately familiar with the car) says "the car can&#39;t make the power" or "we can&#39;t make the weight" &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; come back and say "prove it." In other words, YOU spend the exorbitant amount of money to prove it cannot be done before we&#39;ll even consider changes. Of course, what if someone was STOOPID enough to spend that money, what&#39;s to keep &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; from coming back and saying &#39;no, you didn&#39;t prove to us you did EVERYTHING, we still don&#39;t believe your demonstrated power is all that can be done you need to spend more money and that you&#39;ve done everything you can to remove the weight&#39;? Then, all that money that was spent to try and prove this negative will have been totally and completely WASTED.

Which idiot among us is willing to take on THAT risk? I think the odds are better at the casino dollar slots...

Yet, when there are other proven cases that a car makes much more power than the process indicates, with the same amount of resulting conflict, thus a proven positive, nothing is done to change it?

It&#39;s these kind of arguments that frustrate &#39;the masses&#39; and make &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; look really, really silly...as long as the process is written (or enforced) such that negatives must be proven before changes are made - and proven positives are not addressed - no one will be satisfied and &#39;they&#39; will continue to look stonewalling and stubborn.

"Hey, I&#39;m not sayin&#39;, I&#39;m just sayin&#39;..." (copyright 2007, Scott Giles)
[/b]

Well put

[Andy Bettencourt]

Riddle me this: why is it that the ITAC, and by extension the CRB, require people to prove a negative before making changes? Yet, when positives are proven nothing is done? Anyone, with any modicum of commonly-available (yet rarely-used) logic, knows that it is impossible to prove a negative.[/b]

Yes, you have to prove a negative - but how else do you do it? As to the &#39;nothing is done when a positive is proven&#39;, I submit you are wrong.

Take this MR2 example: EVERY time someone (usually people intimately familiar with the car) says "the car can&#39;t make the power" or "we can&#39;t make the weight" &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; come back and say "prove it." In other words, YOU spend the exorbitant amount of money to prove it cannot be done before we&#39;ll even consider changes. Of course, what if someone was STOOPID enough to spend that money, what&#39;s to keep &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; from coming back and saying &#39;no, you didn&#39;t prove to us you did EVERYTHING, we still don&#39;t believe your demonstrated power is all that can be done you need to spend more money and you&#39;ve not done everything you can to remove the weight&#39;? Or worse, they say "you&#39;re right, but the car is properly classified as-is"? Then, all that money that was spent to try and prove this negative will have been totally and completely WASTED.[/b]

I would love to hear your ideas for improvement on the situation - given the fact that we DON&#39;T DO comp adjustments. The simple fact is that in other forms of racing, they inch toward parity using on-track data and political posturing. I fail to see how we can do this without incorporation CA&#39;s in some way.

The classification process makes some assumptions. We CAN NOT just take peoples word for these things. We need to see proof. Using your example: One MR2 CAN make weight and the owner says that isn&#39;t the issue. One says it&#39;s impossible. What is your move now? Who do you believe? It&#39;s a tough situation. I don&#39;t know Jake all that well but I know that he classes his car in PTF when he runs NASA. That means it basically has nothing done to it except tires, shocks, springs and bars. It&#39;s very hard for me (personally) to take his comments with 100% acceptance when another guy, who HAS a full build, says it can be done.

One other point. If the situation is that you do have to prove a negative (because we don&#39;t want to get into CA&#39;s and constant tweaking), and you haven&#39;t sunk the money in yet - THEN DON&#39;T. If you think you know the answer before the question is asked, save your money. If the car was popular enough to actually have some data that could be considered a trend (like the 9448V), then steps can be taken...but until a pile starts forming, we aren&#39;t set up to use ONE GUYS dyno sheets to make a change. It&#39;s not right to do so. Some amount of verification and checks/balances must be used. Inside this framework, the assumptions must be stuck to until they are proven otherwise, no?

Yet, when there are other proven cases that a car makes much more power than the process indicates, with the same amount of resulting conflict, thus a proven positive, nothing is done to change it?[/b]

Nothing is done? What examples are you talking about? Like the BMW? Poorly excecuted but the effort was there and the final product turned out well. Now that most cars have been run through the process, we shouldn&#39;t have the problem...and if we do, PCA&#39;s can (and will) be used.

It&#39;s these kind of arguments that frustrate &#39;the masses&#39; and make &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; look really, really silly...as long as the process is written (or enforced) such that negatives must be proven before changes are made - and proven positives are not addressed - no one will be satisfied and &#39;they&#39; will continue to look stonewalling and stubborn.

[/b]

Hogwash. Take the lead and lay out a plan for us here that doesn&#39;t include comp adjustments on the negative side - and show me some examples of proven positives that have developed conflict.

These parameters CAN be changed if they burn people up - but the core philosophy of the class would have to be revamped - no? I think THAT would wreck the class.

Actually, the more that I think of it, in NASCAR, GAC, SWC - they ALL have to prove a negative before the sanctioning body makes a change. The difference is that they are more willing to make small changes because they are making an effort to balance everything on the head of a pin. Here, we aren&#39;t shooting for that kind of parity (because we can&#39;t give individual cars special allowances) so change needs more data to support it.

[Doc Bro]

Riddle me this: why is it that the ITAC, and by extension the CRB, require people to prove a negative before making changes? Yet, when positives are proven nothing is done? Anyone, with any modicum of commonly-available (yet rarely-used) logic, knows that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Take this MR2 example: EVERY time someone (usually people intimately familiar with the car) says "the car can&#39;t make the power" or "we can&#39;t make the weight" &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; come back and say "prove it." In other words, YOU spend the exorbitant amount of money to prove it cannot be done before we&#39;ll even consider changes. Of course, what if someone was STOOPID enough to spend that money, what&#39;s to keep &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; from coming back and saying &#39;no, you didn&#39;t prove to us you did EVERYTHING, we still don&#39;t believe your demonstrated power is all that can be done you need to spend more money and you&#39;ve not done everything you can to remove the weight&#39;? Or worse, they say "you&#39;re right, but the car is properly classified as-is"? Then, all that money that was spent to try and prove this negative will have been totally and completely WASTED.

Which idiot among us is willing to take on THAT risk? I think the odds are better at the casino dollar slots...

Yet, when there are other proven cases that a car makes much more power than the process indicates, with the same amount of resulting conflict, thus a proven positive, nothing is done to change it?

It&#39;s these kind of arguments that frustrate &#39;the masses&#39; and make &#39;the rulesmakers&#39; look really, really silly...as long as the process is written (or enforced) such that negatives must be proven before changes are made - and proven positives are not addressed - no one will be satisfied and &#39;they&#39; will continue to look stonewalling and stubborn.

"Hey, I&#39;m not sayin&#39;, I&#39;m just sayin&#39;..." (copyright 2007, Scott Giles)
[/b]

Greg,

This has been something I&#39;ve been griping about for sometime. The problem is that it takes exponential volumes of money to prove a negative. I&#39;ll hijack to the Z. Wrote the letter, response....tabled for further research, YET, I&#39;ve never been contacted, my data point has not been studied and to my knowledge the only thing the Z has received is passification. We&#39;re not talking about an old car here, in fact it&#39;s one of the more recent cars classed, from a traditionally strong manufacturer. However there aren&#39;t a lot of data points on the car (I&#39;m the only dumb one...even with all that schooling...sorry Mom) and that works AGAINST me. Now if I were breaking records right out of the box would the car have been scrutinized more?...you bettcha. Why was the car originally classed (through the process) at 2675 then lowered to 2600 without provocation? Did the "process" change? If "no" then what in the original classification was arbitrary?

The issue with the MR.2 is interesting because there are many more data points than the Z3 however, there is ONE data point showing it&#39;s possible to hit weight and that works AGAINST the car. How is this possible??? One data point hurts me (because it&#39;s not statistically significant) and one data point hurts the MR2? (equally not statistically significant) AB says some amount of verification needs to be done...well where is it? Where is the verification of the one "light" MR2. Where is the verification of the "185 HP M44 engine"? As I said I&#39;ve gone through the process for the Z3 and the "verification" that the ITAC speaks of has not occurrred, no contact, no request for build sheets (as mentioned higher up on the thread) no request for dyno sheets....no contact by the ITAC at all.....NONE? This is verification and checks and balances???

Yet we give the Fiero the option of swapping out entire subframe assemblies......where was the verification on that one??? (I&#39;m sorry Ben, it&#39;s not a personal attack)


FLAME AWAY, I CAN TAKE IT !!!!


R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob,

What about when you and I have talked SPECIFICALLY about your car and your build? Do you want something on ITAC letterhead? Your car still doesn&#39;t have a programmable ECU so I fail to see how it is held up as &#39;all that can be done&#39;. We also haven&#39;t done a dyno day so you can understand that your 135whp on a DynaPak is SIGNIFICANTLY higher on a DynoJet. I will load my car and drag it to CT to show you the difference. 145whp on a DJ can easily be extrapolated to 175+ crank for a RWD car.

As to the &#39;breaking records&#39; out of the box comment...while not out of the box, Greg&#39;s NX went through the process and was developed well. 3 track records and an ARRC win later - is it being scrutinized at all? Nope. It is what it is. Strong some places, not so much in others.

AGAIN, the process uses ASSUMPTIONS and averages. It&#39;s a flawed process, we all know that. But until information comes down to prove otherwise, our hands are tied - unless we want to totally revamp and go the way of comp adjustments.

And THAT my friends, is the REAL way to Prod-like problems.

[Doc Bro]

Andy,

No selective memory here. I live with my state of affairs, I also live with the notion that people make mistakes including, and especially, me. I also specifically use that filter to evaluate others. The fact that you and I have had conversations about my ECU, while you have a yet unsolidifed ECU rule in front of you (for how many months now?) is pointless. Then you use that against me, (and by the way totally avoid THE POINT that I was making in that post) to further your stance that my car is underdeveloped. Who is developing an ECU program (with so many variables undefined) right now????? But, to remain on the Z3 (instead of the data point issue) we all know of a well developed m44 with a well done ECU....is that data point being looked at?? I think the dyno day statement is also garbage... I mean seriously, is that your (collectively) response to any competitor who questions the ITAC.....are you offering to dyno the Miata at a "dyno day" to anyone, anywhere? If (obviously) No, then enough&#39;s enough with that line.

I know your job is thankless and I&#39;m sorry to get in on this BUT, the inconsistencies in the message KILL me.

R

[Greg Amy]

Andy, not a personal attack, but I believe your base logic is flawed. Allow me some leeway here without getting offended.

...given the fact that we DON&#39;T DO comp adjustments.[/b]

Let&#39;s start a little out of order here and address this one. A big one.

This statement is out-and-out false. The elephant in the room here is the Honda CRX: you have decisively comp-adjusted this car. Ergo, the process is in place for it to be done for other cars. Horse out of the barn, cat out of the bag, Pandora&#39;s box, whatever allusion/metaphor you want to use. It&#39;s already a done deal.

Please don&#39;t counter that it&#39;s a "unique" situation and &#39;that car would be over-dominant at 1100 pounds&#39; or "how&#39;d you like to race against that car". I agree with you there, that it would be dominant, but that&#39;s not the point. The POINT is that comp adjustments ARE done, and this is the one big example that I&#39;m currently aware of.

So, since it&#39;s already happening, there&#39;s nothing - other than ITAC and CRB backbone in willing to be honest with the membership - to keep it from being hard-codified.

Yes, you have to prove a negative - but how else do you do it?[/b]

Through a continuation of the comp adjustments process that&#39;s already in place.

In order to encourage competition of specific vehicles, such as the AW11, you need to offer them a carrot, an incentive. Most cars that are in ITA today showed flashes of brilliance even before full prep, such as the handling potential of the CRX and Miata, the power potential of the NX2000, and the overall goodness of the Integra. Each of these examples showed promise prior to someone sinking in a sheizhole of money. As of right now, the MR2 does not have that.

So, toss them a carrot, see what happens, with the listed caveat that if shown to be excessive it will be dialed back in the future. Ergo, instead of asking them to prove their negative, you&#39;re giving them the opportunity to prove your positive.

No one is going to reasonably spend money to prove a negative, but many, many folks have illustrated they&#39;re willing to sink family fortunes to prove a positive.

We CAN NOT just take peoples word for these things. We need to see proof.[/b]

Wait a sec: you do this already, but only on the positive side! How do you know my NX2000 can&#39;t actually put out 175 horsepower? Have you actually seen my car get dyno&#39;d? Were you there when Kessler was building the engine and potentially chose to leave out some mods for fear of getting one of those non-existent comp adjustments? Have you actually seen my suspension design in detail, and verified I can&#39;t do more? Were you present at all test days to ensure I can&#39;t significantly run faster than I already am?

Of course not. So, why is it you&#39;re so willing to accept positives, yet so loathe to accept negatives?

Bottom line: you (ITAC/CRB) don&#39;t have the resources to verify all claims. You just can&#39;t do it. Therefore, you should be as willing to accept negative comments as positive ones, yet you choose to cherry-pick what you wish to accept/believe.

One MR2 CAN make weight and the owner says that isn&#39;t the issue.[/b]

And you&#39;ve personally reviewed all aspects of that car to ensure it&#39;s 100% completely and totally legal? You know for a fact that this one single example is truly an all-out 100% legal possibility, with no illegal removal of any weight? (No insult intended to Peter, I&#39;m simply using it as an example.)

Of course not. Yet you are quick to accept this example as "proof" of possibility while ignoring numerous other claims of impossibility. What&#39;s up wid dat?

I don&#39;t know Jake all that well but I know that he classes his car in PTF when he runs NASA. That means it basically has nothing done to it except...[/b]

I understand that, but doesn&#39;t that prove my point? Why would Jake spend the money to try and do an all-out IT effort - and thus get moved to PTE or D - when 1) there&#39;s no reason to believe the end result would change in ITA and 2) he doesn&#39;t need to make those changes to compete effectively in NASA PTF?

Toss him a carrot, Andy, and you might get your answer.

If the car was popular enough to actually have some data that could be considered a trend (like the 9448V)...[/b]

Yet another poor example. Both NASA and PCA tossed that car a bone with their spec series, encouraging people to do 100% builds on the car. With that encouragement, you have hard data to use for deciding who well the car will perform.

With the AW11 you gots squat. Rumor, innuendo, expectations, cold formulas. But really no hard data.

Carrot.

...we aren&#39;t set up to use ONE GUYS dyno sheets to make a change.[/b]

But, yet, you&#39;re willing - indignant, even - to use "one guy&#39;s data" to stand pat on weight...?

...in NASCAR, GAC, SWC - they ALL have to prove a negative before the sanctioning body makes a change.[/b]

A HORRID, HORRID - and terribly insulting - example, Andy. In "NASCAR, GAC, SWC" the competitors are being PAID BY MANUFACTURERS to prove that negative.

You get me sponsorship from Toyota and I&#39;ll have your AW11 data for you in about 4-6 months, Andy. Until then I encourage you to remember we&#39;re amateur club racing and, unlike most, not in this with a profit motive...

Greg

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

No selective memory here. I live with my state of affairs, I also live with the notion that people make mistakes including, and especially, me. I also specifically use that filter to evaluate others. The fact that you and I have had conversations about my ECU, while you have a yet unsolidifed ECU rule in front of you (for how many months now?) is pointless. Then you use that against me, (and by the way totally avoid THE POINT that I was making in that post) to further your stance that my car is underdeveloped. Who is developing an ECU program (with so many variables undefined) right now????? But, to remain on the Z3 (instead of the data point issue) we all know of a well developed m44 with a well done ECU....is that data point being looked at?? I think the dyno day statement is also garbage... I mean seriously, is that your (collectively) response to any competitor who questions the ITAC.....are you offering to dyno the Miata at a "dyno day" to anyone, anywhere? If (obviously) No, then enough&#39;s enough with that line.

I know your job is thankless and I&#39;m sorry to get in on this BUT, the inconsistencies in the message KILL me.

R [/b]

The point Rob, is that you claim your car can&#39;t make the power, yet you haven&#39;t gone all the way. Simple. That supports Greg&#39;s issue with proving a negative for sure, but I just don&#39;t know of any other way right now to do it within IT.

As I have explained, the assumptions set a baseline which is used to wet weight. We don&#39;t HAVE data points that prove the assumption is accurate, that is why it IS an assumption. It&#39;s not an inconsistancy, it&#39;s a FLAW - but a neccasary flaw given our contraints as a category.

The dyno day thing is FOR YOU. You talk about your 135whp and the lofty and impossible &#39;175hp&#39; M44. My point is to show you that comparing a Pak to a Jet foolish...and I will show you that with a side-by-side comparison. Dollars to donuts your car out performs mine on the same dyno on the same day - even in it&#39;s current configuration. THEN, when you run around 145whp on a Jet - it can be reasonably said that your motor makes &#39;process power&#39;. No?

I would love to hash around a better way to class cars. But when you (a collective you) design it, remember that we don&#39;t do CA&#39;s. If there is a better way, let&#39;s get it done. Who is first?

[Doc Bro]

Dollars to donuts your car out performs mine on the same dyno on the same day - even in it&#39;s current configuration.
[/b]

Ya think???? You also get the weight break that goes with that..............

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

No problems, it&#39;s going to turn into a philisophical debate.

Let&#39;s start a little out of order here and address this one. A big one.

This statement is out-and-out false. The elephant in the room here is the Honda CRX: you have decisively comp-adjusted this car. Ergo, the process is in place for it to be done for other cars. Horse out of the barn, cat out of the bag, Pandora&#39;s box, whatever allusion/metaphor you want to use. It&#39;s already a done deal.

Please don&#39;t counter that it&#39;s a "unique" situation and &#39;that car would be over-dominant at 1100 pounds&#39; or "how&#39;d you like to race against that car". I agree with you there, that it would be dominant, but that&#39;s not the point. The POINT is that comp adjustments ARE done, and this is the one big example that I&#39;m currently aware of.

Sorry, you are wrong. Just plain wrong. Or maybe your definition of a comp adjustment is different than mine. When the CRX&#39;s weight got changed, it was one of 16 cars. Those 16 were a result of a myriad of cars that HADN&#39;T been run through the process, getting run through the process. It was all done in an effort to set the bar back to zero. To be fair to those cars like your that were getting classed using a process and getting weight set. Neon, SE-R, NX2000 were among the first IIRC. Well low and behold, when the process was used - as it is used for everyone - some cars popped up real light and some popped up real heavy. Those cars were reset to their process weight. You say a comp adjustment, I say a re-evaluation using newly set standards to be used going forward. But this has been explained many times before.

So, since it&#39;s already happening, there&#39;s nothing - other than ITAC and CRB backbone in willing to be honest with the membership - to keep it from being hard-codified.

Sorry, disagree. It was a one-time &#39;reset&#39; that was done when a classification process was FINALLY developed. No preceident setter IMHO.

In order to encourage competition of specific vehicles, such as the AW11, you need to offer them a carrot, an incentive. Most cars that are in ITA today showed flashes of brilliance even before full prep, such as the handling potential of the CRX and Miata, the power potential of the NX2000, and the overall goodness of the Integra. Each of these examples showed promise prior to someone sinking in a sheizhole of money. As of right now, the MR2 does not have that.

and...

So, toss them a carrot, see what happens, with the listed caveat that if shown to be excessive it will be dialed back in the future. Ergo, instead of asking them to prove their negative, you&#39;re giving them the opportunity to prove your positive.

Here is where we come together - sort of. Excluding our polar opposites on whether comp adjustments are being used now, this is something the membership should consider and weigh in on. DO WE WANT TO OFFER CARROTS to certain cars in order to incent people to develop them? I could be on board with this, in theory, but we would also have to agree that should that carrot prove to create an overdog, it has to be taken away as you have stated.

Wait a sec: you do this already, but only on the positive side! How do you know my NX2000 can&#39;t actually put out 175 horsepower? Have you actually seen my car get dyno&#39;d? Were you there when Kessler was building the engine and potentially chose to leave out some mods for fear of getting one of those non-existent comp adjustments? Have you actually seen my suspension design in detail, and verified I can&#39;t do more? Were you present at all test days to ensure I can&#39;t significantly run faster than I already am?

Nope - you are wrong. What example do you have where we have made a change without a pile of evidence from multiple sources all verifying each other? Do I believe your car makes a ton of power? Sure but I refuse to recommend a change to it based on one claim. I can&#39;t verify you aren&#39;t cheating or haven&#39;t fudged the numbers...so why would I accept a positive. Do I believe your car is out of process WRT power? You bet...but that means NOTHING when trying to validate it.

[quote]Of course not. So, why is it you&#39;re so willing to accept positives, yet so loathe to accept negatives?[/quote]

Not sure you have given an example of an out of order willingness to accept a positive and not a negative. So far, we have been talking about three cars that only singular data points exist. The BMW, the MR2 and your car. All that have not had changes made.

Bottom line: you (ITAC/CR don&#39;t have the resources to verify all claims. You just can&#39;t do it. Therefore, you should be as willing to accept negative comments as positive ones, yet you choose to cherry-pick what you wish to accept/believe.

See above.

And you&#39;ve personally reviewed all aspects of that car to ensure it&#39;s 100% completely and totally legal? You know for a fact that this one single example is truly an all-out 100% legal possibility, with no illegal removal of any weight? (No insult intended to Peter, I&#39;m simply using it as an example.)

Of course not. Yet you are quick to accept this example as "proof" of possibility while ignoring numerous other claims of impossibility. What&#39;s up wid dat?

The point is (and again it&#39;s a flaw) that we don&#39;t make a move until we have enough evidence. Unfortunatly, the &#39;non&#39; move is also a &#39;no&#39; - which is a move in reality. So it&#39;s not so much acceptance of one over the other, its that there are two conflicting data points - so you stick with your assumptions until you have enough data to feel like you can make the right choice. Seems very logical to me.

I understand that, but doesn&#39;t that prove my point? Why would Jake spend the money to try and do an all-out IT effort - and thus get moved to PTE or D - when 1) there&#39;s no reason to believe the end result would change in ITA and 2) he doesn&#39;t need to make those changes to compete effectively in NASA PTF?

Toss him a carrot, Andy, and you might get your answer.

And this is where we are looking at a philisophical change in direction. How do we decide what cars get the carrot? Outline that in writing for me so I can forward it to the people who we tell their cars are hitting the Bullseye of the class they are in now...like the guys who just sent us a letter asking us to move the ITA Neon to ITB with just 100 more lbs @ 2550 because he hasn&#39;t seen any win yet.

Yet another poor example. Both NASA and PCA tossed that car a bone with their spec series, encouraging people to do 100% builds on the car. With that encouragement, you have hard data to use for deciding who well the car will perform.

Actually no. If you were familiar with the rules you would know that these classes are much more restictive than IT in terms of engine prep. There are many Porsche guys who have sent in data for IT builds.

With the AW11 you gots squat. Rumor, innuendo, expectations, cold formulas. But really no hard data.

Carrot.

No argument there...that is why we go with the assumption. You wanna start throwing carrots? Fine, lets debate the parameters on who, what, and when.

But, yet, you&#39;re willing - indignant, even - to use "one guy&#39;s data" to stand pat on weight...?

Sorry you see it that way. Explanation above. Two conflicting data points does not a change make.

A HORRID, HORRID - and terribly insulting - example, Andy. In "NASCAR, GAC, SWC" the competitors are being PAID BY MANUFACTURERS to prove that negative.

Easy on the drama. Insulting? No. It&#39;s just how others do it. Even the other classes within the SCCA do it. IT just happens to be a harder ship to turn in that regard - and I would submit that is a large portion of the stability and popularity of the class.

So - do we want to start throwing carrots? Bones? Incentives? Maybe another thread is in order.

(Edit - sorry for the formatting - I am trying to track down the error - bolded to make it easier.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ya think???? You also get the weight break that goes with that..............

R
[/b]

The point Rob is that we will prove that your car can - and even DOES make &#39;process power&#39;. 145whp on a DynoJet ~ 175crank hp.

Unless I am mistaken, you have been claiming that it is impossible. It sems pretty dang possible to me.

[Doc Bro]

The point Rob is that we will prove that your car can - and even DOES make &#39;process power&#39;. 145whp on a DynoJet ~ 175crank hp.

Unless I am mistaken, you have been claiming that it is impossible. It sems pretty dang possible to me.
[/b]

Let&#39;s just cut to the chase.

Using the formula as explained to me:

138 (stock hp) *1.25 (estimated IT gain)=172.5 hp

172.5 hp * 14.5 = 2501.25 (weight)

2501.25 -50 lbs (for struts) = 2451.25 class weight......

even if I add 50 back for brakes that&#39;s 2500....even if I go even farther and add another 50 for RWD that&#39;s still only 2551.

Car is 2600. Are you telling me my car gets 150 for brakes and RWD to make it 2600 and gets NO deductions for that rear suspension design (or aero)? Car should be 2450-2500 using YOUR formula.

R

[924Guy]

I will answer to one and only one item in this thread - should "carrots" be thrown out there to encourage development of certain cars.

Why should they? What would be the reasons/justifications? Shouldn&#39;t the process work well enough (and personally, I think it&#39;s more functional than broken these days - will never be 100% regardless, that&#39;s not a realistic target) that there will always be more than one choice of winning car per class? Then it&#39;s down to personality quirks if you choose to pursue one over another - and that&#39;s essentially how it&#39;s always been, even in Solo, right?

And if you choose to develop something, out of sheer personal perversion, that is not likely to be a class-leader - you are left to your own devices. FURTHERMORE, if you are so dedicated to that specific car - like, say, a 924 - that you&#39;re willing to put all the time, money, and effort into it to build just the perfect 10/10ths build with no promise of reward, then it would seem like the ITAC would then be able to use your progress/results as a strong indication that perhaps that car is misclassed, or at the wrong weight, etc.

If you want someone to pay you, figuratively, for developing a given car... well, then, talk to the manufacturer. Seems to work with Mazda, definitely don&#39;t waste your breath with Porsche though... beyond that, you&#39;re on your own!