March FasTrack is up

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'll keep this as simple as possible...

You DO NOT have anyone on the ITAC that had any clue what the Civic DX could do in terms of HP when you classed it.
You didn't. You couldn't have, because I'm pretty sure nobody ever built one. You could guess, but you could also guess on the Protege. Right?

So... You just said...
"When we DON'T know, we use 25%."

But you used 35% for the Civic, based on some untested, unknown assumptions.
Then you added even more weight for the DW suspension.

See Andy. Thats Bias.
A bias you DIDN'T apply to the Protege.

See?
Thats why I'm busting your balls.

PS - What exactly was the penalty for the double wishbone in the "process?"
100lbs might be reasonable for a 175hp ITS car, but I'd go out on a limb and say its excessive for a 100hp ITB car.

I gave you numbers. Give me some numbers.

Sorry man, we just don't agree. You think we are within 5hp of your goal by sheer luck? I asked you what your realistic goals were to proactlively validate the ITAC estimate. You say we DON'T have anyone with the knowledge yet you are 'pretty sure' nobody has built one? Come on. How is it you have a goal of 105whp when YOU have never built one? See how those two things don't mesh? Did you factor in power AT ALL when you decided you thought you could build a car that could win? Of course you did.

Every car gets 25% unless we have some other knowledge - plus or minus. Do you think it's bias when the S2000 gets 15% and the 325 BMW gets 30% in ITR? Nope.

Your car has a process weight of 2240. Power in IT-prep with a 100% build was estimated at 128. Pretty darn close to your 123 goal in which anything above that would be gravy. That gives you a base weight of 2189. Add 50 for DW and you get 2239 rounded up to 2240.

There ARE people who have told me that 50lbs for a DW car is just not enough, so opinions vary on that. Like I told someone last night via PM, this thing is not perfect, we all know it. We are trying to 'cluster' cars, not hit a bullseye...because the 'process' isn't good enough...but it sure as hell has a bunch of people building and racing cars that have never been considered.

In the end, I am sure we will end up agreeing to disagree on the power number applied. I am just the messenger. We rely as a committee on the collective knowledge, of which on Honduhs, I have none.

[flaboy]

Well i'm thinking good bye ITC vw...and build my 94 Protege i have.

Tim

[JamesB]

Givin that bunnies are harder and harder to find when you smash one up, why not go with something later model. If it can do well it could turn out fun. Heck, ever since the mini got classed in B I been dreaming of building one. I just don't have that kind of money lying around and I have two good mk2 golfs preped for ITB, both easilly and legally got down under the min weight. (to the point that my roller coaster ride of loosing and gaining 20# has nearly burnt me from one season to the next last year.)

[ddewhurst]

Scott, Bob Clark is connected with King MotorSports.

[Catch22]

You think we are within 5hp of your goal by sheer luck?

Yes. I do.
And you are within 5hp on the top end of my top end. So it really isn't THAT close now is it?

And for the record, I'm not saying the Civic is too heavy. What I'm saying is that (in my opinion) the process was not fairly applied.
I don't care if Bob is associated with King Motorsports, Mugen, OPM, or Mr. Honda himself. I'm betting he's never built, tested, or even SEEN a D15B2 Honda IT motor.
Yet a whopping 35% was used. A full 10% higher than other "unkinowns" like the Protege.

Not remotely kosher in my opinion.

Because of my experience, I'm probably one of the most knowlegeable people in the country in terms of what this motor can make, and even I don't KNOW. Certainly not enough to saddle it with a 35% tag.
This thing might make 110whp. It also might make 99. We just don't know. As far as anyone can tell I'm building the first one EVER.

And by the way, using Andy math 99whp would be about a 27% increase. Thats a long way from 35% when you are talking about power numbers that aint all that big in the first place.
10 horsepower is a big deal in classes like ITB and ITC.

Just sayin.

[ScotMac]

I have to agree w/ Andy here. They made a decision based on the knowledge they had. That is all we can ask. They thought that the dx engine could do 35%, and now we have an example that is "going to be about 32%". Sounds like the ITAC did a good job.

[tnord]

I don't care if Bob is associated with King Motorsports, Mugen, OPM, or Mr. Honda himself.

Because of my experience, I'm probably one of the most knowlegeable people in the country in terms of what this motor can make.

I love it.

[DavidM]

So what happens when the 25% HP gain estimate is used to weight a car and then it turns out you can actually get 35% out of it? Does the weight of the car get changed? What happens if the 25% estimate is used and the car can only make 20%? Does the weight get changed? How bout if 35% is used and it can only do 25%?

If the ITAC plans on using real HP numbers from built cars (which they clearly do) then they had better put in place a process to re-evaluate the weight of cars every year or two based on current data.

David

[Catch22]

I have to agree w/ Andy here. They made a decision based on the knowledge they had. That is all we can ask. They thought that the dx engine could do 35%, and now we have an example that is "going to be about 32%". Sounds like the ITAC did a good job.

Is it just me?
Am I not typing clearly?

I'm pretty sure I never said it is "going to be about 32%."
That is the goal. The upper target. The "HOORAY!!!"
And we have no idea if we can actually GET IT. But we're trying.

See... We don't KNOW.
Neither does the ITAC.

Thats my point. I'll try to make this as clear as possible...
Didn't KNOW with the Civic... 35%
Didn't KNOW with the Protege... 25%

The actual results don't matter here. It doesn't matter if my finished car makes 95, 105, or 115whp. The point is that the process wasn't applied fairly in this case.
See...?

I can't make it any clearer than that. And its like arguing with the referee anyway. So I guess I'm done.

[Catch22]

I love it.

I'm sure you do.
But I've built/tuned a maxed rules D15B dual point motor. I'm pretty sure nobody on the ITAC has. I'm also pretty sure there are only a handful of folks in the country that have done this, and THAT was on the D15B1 motor in ITC.
It IS NOT the same animal as the multi point D15 and D16 motors, so the same rules and knowledge should not apply.

If I'm wrong, and there actually was some experience and data on the table when this was done, I apologize in advance.
But I'm guessing if there was, Andy would have already let me know that. He hasn't. And I'm not sure where that data would have come from since I'm pretty sure nobody has ever built a full rules D15B2 motor.

So head on back over to where there is more at stake and stop slumming with us amatuer scrubs m'kay? You can pull quotes and use them out of context over there.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So what happens when the 25% HP gain estimate is used to weight a car and then it turns out you can actually get 35% out of it? Does the weight of the car get changed? What happens if the 25% estimate is used and the car can only make 20%? Does the weight get changed? How bout if 35% is used and it can only do 25%?

If the ITAC plans on using real HP numbers from built cars (which they clearly do) then they had better put in place a process to re-evaluate the weight of cars every year or two based on current data.

David

David,

There is wording in the ITCS that allows changes to be made if a mistake is made that results in a shift in a classes balance.

Any 'new' data that resulted in anything less than 100lbs of weight 'correction' have not been considered in the past.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm sure you do.
But I've built/tuned a maxed rules D15B dual point motor. I'm pretty sure nobody on the ITAC has. I'm also pretty sure there are only a handful of folks in the country that have done this, and THAT was on the D15B1 motor in ITC.
It IS NOT the same animal as the multi point D15 and D16 motors, so the same rules and knowledge should not apply.

If I'm wrong, and there actually was some experience and data on the table when this was done, I apologize in advance.
But I'm guessing if there was, Andy would have already let me know that. He hasn't. And I'm not sure where that data would have come from since I'm pretty sure nobody has ever built a full rules D15B2 motor.

So head on back over to where there is more at stake and stop slumming with us amatuer scrubs m'kay?

Scott,

Please stop. Don't state the ITAC doesn't have the info as fact and then ask for forgiveness IF you are wrong. You can't have it both ways.

I don't have the specific experience. We rely on the collective group. I can't talk in exacting detail from memory on what Bob has seen, built, tested, run in different config for LP Prod, mixed and matched, flow tested, learned from King, etc.

Done.

[tnord]

So head on back over to where there is more at stake and stop slumming with us amatuer scrubs m'kay?

sorry buddy, you're the only one with the ego big enough to think that. after all, you were almost World Champion ITC driver, on top of being Honda motor super genious.

[Catch22]

You can't have it both ways either Andy.

Oh. Wait.
I guess you can.

[Greg Amy]

If the ITAC plans on using real HP numbers from built cars (which they clearly do) then they had better put in place a process to re-evaluate the weight of cars every year or two based on current data.

+ eleventy billion

[924Guy]

Woah, wait a minnit... you guys are dickering over +/- 5whp in the numbers here?!?

Is it really reasonable to expect that IT classifications and weights are going to be that exact???

I thought I (fairly recently) heard that it was felt that anything less than a 100# adjustment in weight of a car is basically noise. Well, surely something like +/- 5whp is about the same, no? Just how accurate is your dyno anyway???

Besides, and I won't ever claim to have paid much attention to the plight of the ITB Hondas, I think with anywhere from 100-110whp and a weight of around 2250 isn't gonna get you any sympathy from this side of the court... you've still got nearly 400lbs of advantage over this crappy old strut-suspensioned car with the same output... please... methinks thou doth protest too much!

[ScotMac]

Is it just me?
Am I not typing clearly?

I'm pretty sure I never said it is "going to be about 32%."
That is the goal. The upper target. The "HOORAY!!!"
And we have no idea if we can actually GET IT. But we're trying.

See... We don't KNOW.
Neither does the ITAC.

Thats my point. I'll try to make this as clear as possible...
Didn't KNOW with the Civic... 35%
Didn't KNOW with the Protege... 25%

The actual results don't matter here. It doesn't matter if my finished car makes 95, 105, or 115whp. The point is that the process wasn't applied fairly in this case.
See...?

I can't make it any clearer than that. And its like arguing with the referee anyway. So I guess I'm done.

Yes, it is just you. I put the "going to be about 32%" in quotes, because it was an exact quote from YOU.

[lateapex911]

David, as Andy pointed out, there are mechanisms in place to fix grievous errors. For the record, most cars are classed based on certain assumptions that relate to the "genre" of engines. Old crappy POS American OHV motors, rotaries, inline 4s with DOHC, etc.

In certain cases real world info is used, but it is used very infrequently, and only when the numbers have high confidence. (As in multiple independent sources, and those sources are beyond reproach, AND they match up)

That said, we all need to step back and remember where we came from, and the original goals of the whole exercise. Four or so years ago, things were in, shall we say, disarray, with a lot of lapses of logic in the classing. Simply, over the years, there was a lack of consistency, and frankly, for the majority of IT's history, the CRB has been in charge of classing, and they flat don't have the time to devote to the task. Hence, the Ad hocs were created.

The goal was to create a process that had structure and repeatibility, and that aimed to class cars based on empirical numbers, and reasonable esitimates. And the goal of the output was to get the cars grouped together so that different cars had better chances of running at the front at different tracks. Multi marque racing, with HUNDREDS of classified cars that need to fit in 5 classes...it's not easy. Perfection was never a goal, BUT, trying harder to get close ...really close, was.

Looking back these 4 short years shows how far we've come. Is it perfect? NO! Will it ever be? NO!

Our goals are to be consistent, to class cars fairly, where the builds are able to be accomplished by mere mortals. Kirk pointed out some of the subtleties of the classing process, like deciding whats reasonable to expect folks to do to achieve minimum weights. Some people feel that if a car can be gotten to min weight in a certain class via any method, it belongs in that class. Those methods include aluminum fasteners in every location possible, dipping and stripping the chassis, custom wheels, minimal cage,minimal fuel cell, carbon seat, hollow sway bars, and so on. Others feel thats silly, and think cars should be classed where folks can make the target weight without going to such extremes. The "can it make weight" question is tricky, and of course, requires a combination of real world knowledge and reasonable estimates based on logical assumptions. (mid engine 80s car with a cheap interior = not much to lose. late 90s BMW with high spec trim level, =lots to lose).

In the end though, we have to work with what we know, and within the guidelines we've established. Keep in mind though that horsepower estimates for a particular genre of engines are often lofty....it takes work to get there....but builders often surprise even us.

In this case, I find it ironic that the complaint is that the estimate is so close to the self proclaimed expert's number.

[Z3_GoCar]

...In certain cases real world info is used, but it is used very infrequently, and only when the numbers have high confidence. (As in multiple independent sources, and those sources are beyond reproach, AND they match up)

....In the end though, we have to work with what we know, and within the guidelines we've established. Keep in mind though that horsepower estimates for a particular genre of engines are often lofty....it takes work to get there....but builders often surprise even us.

In this case, I find it ironic that the complaint is that the estimate is so close to the self proclaimed expert's number.

So, when Matt Kessler built Doc Bro's motor and was only able to get 136hp at the wheels, that's not a reason to reevaluate the horse power potential of this model? Seems to me that's a shortfall of 15-20hp, isn't that significant enough to reexamine the assumption of what's possible?

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, when Matt Kessler built Doc Bro's motor and was only able to get 136hp at the wheels, that's not a reason to reevaluate the horse power potential of this model? Seems to me that's a shortfall of 15-20hp, isn't that significant enough to reexamine the assumption of what's possible?

James

Two issues:

First, these in-exact number excersizes are done using DynoJet figures. The Doc's numbers are from a Dyna-Pack. If you do the traditionally accepted conversion, he is right in the zone - without a programmable ECU. That's conservatively 148whp on a Jet (using 9% - some say 12%). Back out to get projected crank numbers (again conservatively using 15% losses instead of 18%)? 174ish. Target process hp for the Z3? 175.

Second - take the other Kessler-creation. Greg's 156whp (IIRC) SR20. Also Pack numbers. This time on the 'plus' side of the estimate.

Neither car gets re-evaluated because they are singular examples without the sheer quantity of backup we would need to change a spec retroactively. It would also need to fall under a PCA where it was changing the balance of power in ITA, which I don't think it has. Successful? You bet, but not unbeatable.

At the end of the day, we try and get everyone into the same pocket of performance. It can never be exact, but we will use what we know when we are sure we know it. In the two above cases - I am not sure of anything given two individual examples with nothing else.

I hope that makes sense.