March FasTrack is up

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,



You're the one that's putting inflection on it, it was a simple, straight-forward question. Your initial response was the one that was looking for a fight.

Bill, Read post #23. Enough said.

So much for an objective process. And whatever happened to just doing what was right? And since Kirk brought it up, where did the requestor ask for the car to be classed?

You are the one looking for the fight Bill. This IS what we think is right. When I say that just because they LOOK alike on paper - and that they may not be - tells you that we look at more than just the numbers. In this case, the numbers showed either a really light ITB car or a solid ITC choice. Upon tight examination, it was determined that the ITB weight was not reasonable and it was an ITC car. Not really sure why you would have a problem with that logic.

The requestor asked for it to be classed in ITB. What if the orginal requestor of the Golf III to be classed in ITC? Makes no matter to the ITAC really, its a request for a car to be classed. The car goes through the process and lands where it makes the most sense - hopefully smack in the wheelhouse of the class structure we have defined for us. Just because a specific class is asked for - really means little. Would you rather we declined the classification in whole because they 'predicted' the wrong class? I really have no idea what your beef is.

Tell us all this Bill - what isn't "right" about this classification - or are you using it to complain about some VW classification?

[Bill Miller]

OK now I am going to have to go and weigh an 8V Jetta or two this year. I have a few friends with 2d and 4d street cars. I will report back when I get a chance to scale them.

Chris,

I don't think it really matters what the cars actually weigh. It's my understanding that the process is based on published numbers. And the curb weight is not really the point here. What's the point is, is how do you end up w/ two cars that are essentially equals on paper end up 140# apart, were they to be in the same class? But the even bigger question is, why aren't two cars that have such similar physical attributes in the same class?

[Bill Miller]

Bill, Read post #23. Enough said.




You are the one looking for the fight Bill. This IS what we think is right. When I say that just because they LOOK alike on paper - and that they may not be - tells you that we look at more than just the numbers. In this case, the numbers showed either a really light ITB car or a solid ITC choice. Upon tight examination, it was determined that the ITB weight was not reasonable and it was an ITC car. Not really sure why you would have a problem with that logic.

The requestor asked for it to be classed in ITB. What if the orginal requestor of the Golf III to be classed in ITC? Makes no matter to the ITAC really, its a request for a car to be classed. The car goes through the process and lands where it makes the most sense - hopefully smack in the wheelhouse of the class structure we have defined for us. Just because a specific class is asked for - really means little. Would you rather we declined the classification in whole because they 'predicted' the wrong class? I really have no idea what your beef is.

Tell us all this Bill - what isn't "right" about this classification - or are you using it to complain about some VW classification?

You know what Andy, your comments aren't worth a response. But you are sticking w/ your MO of shouting people down that don't drink your kool-aid.

[Knestis]

I might be suffering from the Kool-aid but the piece of the puzzle that seems to be the hardest - in my LIMITED experience - is the "what can/should/will the car weigh in race trim?" question.

And even with FIVE buckets to put them in now, it sure seems that a lot find themselves in never-never land between two classes. We do the math and lo and behold! It's an ITB- car! (You had an ITC+ when I added up the scores, but you cleaned the white board for extra credit points.)

The question of "Fat in [lower class] or way light in [higher class]?" becomes one that has to get dealt with in qualitative terms, often with big doses of philosophy heaped on top.

It's easy cheezy up to THAT point but I hadn't anticipated that it gets a lot more challenging pretty quick thereafter. Cars of different eras lose different amounts of weight with IT prep, some are inherently heavy, published curb weights are of limited value in the real world, we don't collectively have much experience (or ANY) with some cars, we have differing opinions about how hard owners should have to squeeze to make weight, drivers are bigger than the mythical 180# that's dominated that part of the math for a long time, and - to complicate our lives even more - we really want to make the decision that is most likely to lead to healthy grids and good racing.

Which would attract more entries? A good ITC Protege at a readily achievable weight, or a challenging ITB Protege that could only make weight with a jockey driving and every bit lightened to the Nth degree? Ask two people and you get two answers.

Someone needs to request some classifications that end up under the fat part of the curve, in any class please.

K

[Catch22]

So why didn't you just come out and say that Andy? But, since you threw out the numbers,

1991 VW Jetta, 105hp, 110 lb-ft SOHC, FWDer w/ struts, curb weight of 2600+# ITB spec wt of 2280# (2100# w/o driver).

One car car drop 500+# yet another can't drop ~400#? And where's the 140# weight difference come from, given that they're both similar power output and drivetrain / suspension configurations?

Like I said Andy, I'm all for more cars in ITC, but please be consistent w/ how the cars are classed.

Oh, and the same year GTI that's listed in ITB has almost the same curb weight as the Protege, but it also weighs in @ 2280# in ITB.

And it took wailing and gnashing of teeth to get the 92hp Civic DX moved from ITA to ITB.
And it has to weigh 2240lbs in ITB?

Geez guys. A double wishbone suspension isn't THAT good. Seriously.\

Don't get me wrong. I'm not intending to point and pick and make people feel bad. But stuff like this makes me feel that for as far as we've come in IT rulesmaking, we still have a long way to go.

BTW - As a former ITC driver I don't like that Protege there. I know what my former top car did on the dyno, and I'm guessing a fully built Protege will cover that by about 20 horses. And thats a conservative guestimate.
Just sayin.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You know what Andy, your comments aren't worth a response. But you are sticking w/ your MO of shouting people down that don't drink your kool-aid.

New Years resolution: start sending you copies of the PM's I get when I respond to you.

[Bill Miller]

New Years resolution: start sending you copies of the PM's I get when I respond to you.

So why didn't you just let one of the other ITAC members field the question?

The question of "Fat in [lower class] or way light in [higher class]?" becomes one that has to get dealt with in qualitative terms, often with big doses of philosophy heaped on top.

Kirk,

It would seem that the New Beetle would have lent some decent insight into that one. Tack on some of that weight difference between the ITB process weight of the Protege and the ITB race weights of similar cars, and all of a sudden it's not such a 'way light' ITB car.

Maybe Chris' question about ITB process weights for the Mk II and Mk III Golf/Jetta is relevant. Where's the 140# difference between the Protege and the Mk II Golf/Jetta come from? Can't all be for a close-ratio box.

[Catch22]

2375 in ITC (2195 without driver) or 2140 in ITB (1960 without driver)

So a 5 speed 103hp Protege goes to ITB at 2140.
And a 5 speed 92hp Civic goes to ITB at 2240.

So... The car with 11 LESS horsepower has to weigh 100lbs more?
Really?

OK. You're right. I have a dog in this fight because there is a Civic under construction in my garage. But I have to admit that this pisses me off.
You don't have to be a genius to see that either the "process" wasn't equally applied to the Civic or there is WAY too much penalty given for a double wishbone suspension.

Seriously guys. That is pretty wrong right there.
I'd love to see the actual calculations that got us to that result.

BTW - In the interest of full disclosure, I requested the Protege classification. Looked like a good ITB car to me, so obviously the "process" I thought I grapsed isn't so much in my grip.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Scott, let me ask you this question before I give you an answer. You MUST answer honestly...

What are your WHP targets for your project?

Remember, there is a TON of Honda knowledge (not me) on the ITAC. You answer low, and I get to call BS.

[Catch22]

I'll bet that ton of knowledge isn't as much knowledge as Blake and I have with a DUAL POINT Honda motor.

The answer is "I'll be thrilled with 105 dynojet whp." Anything more than that will be very unexpected gravy.

If anyone thinks it can make more, I'd love for them to build me a LEGAL motor.
If the folks on the ITAC didn't take the dual point injection into account when doing the classification... Shame on them. I made the info available.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The point is that the 92hp motor you have there has the legal capacity to run WELL outside the standard 25% increases...and the ITAC knows it. It was classed accordingly.

Just another example of why this ain't a formula. The ITAC uses what it knows, when it knows it.

[Catch22]

BTW Andy, because I like you and don't want to ambush you, I'll tell you something before you call "BS" on my numbers...

A few years back when I first started requesting the DX go to ITB, we did a little experiment with my ITC car and its fully built Sunbelt motor.
The only difference between the motor in the ITC Civic Standard and the ITB Civic DX is the cam and the ECU. Otherwise they are identical. So we put a DX cam and stock ECU in my motor and dyno'd it.
The untuned (other than timing) result was 99whp.
In fully tuned ITC trim it did 89whp.

So I've already done this once, and got 99whp. The only legal things left to do with that 99whp is optimizing cam timing (retarded by head decking) and some potential ECU work.
But since nobody does ECU work for the dual point, thats a DIY megasquirt sort of X factor.

So knowing what we know, we think 105 is going to be about right give or take a pony or two.
Got anybody on the ITAC with more knowledge than that?

[Catch22]

The point is that the 92hp motor you have there has the legal capacity to run WELL outside the standard 25% increases...and the ITAC knows it. It was classed accordingly.

Just another example of why this ain't a formula. The ITAC uses what it knows, when it knows it.

No.
It doesn't.

You guys got it wrong.
Sorry. You did.
It should weigh no more than 2175, which is what I suggested last year.

I couldn't get over 25% out of this motor if I cheated.

But... Whatever.
It'll still be a good car. Just not anywhere with long straights.

Scott, who thinks maybe the ITAC doesn't have the Honda knowledge it thinks it has, which is unfortunate.

edit: PS - Before you go claiming that the 70hp ITC car jumped to 89 (a 19hp gain) at the wheels but the 92hp ITB car only goes to 105 (13hp) you need to understand that the stock intake and exhaust on the Civic Standard (ITC) is comically tiny. Thats not the case with the DX (IT.
See... More knowledge.

I gots lots of knowledge, and I share all of it freely. I guess you guys just decided to put me in the "I can only get 175whp out of my E36" category and ignore it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Show me how 105whp isn't more than 25% over 92 stock crank...seriously - my math could be wrong.

Here is what I get:

92 * 1.25 = 115 crank. .85 for FWD losses on the rollers = 97.75whp

Your 105whp target = 123+ crank hp. That's alomst a 34% increase, no?

I am having trouble reconciling your 105whp target on a 92 crank hp motor vs. your "I couldn't get over 25% out of this motor if I cheated." comment - topped off with the 'we got it wrong' statement as fact. It IS late, I could be FUBARing this math for sure.

[Catch22]

Sorry. I misunderstood how you did your math. I thought you were adding 25% to the stock rated number.

So you are saying that you guys somehow decided the Protege *couldn't* do those kind of numbers?
Help me out here.

Show me the Protege "process" vs. the Civic "process." You said you would if I shared my numbers.
I shared my numbers.
You're gonna have to show me how the car with 11 less stock hp ended up 100lbs heavier via the "process." I'm not gonna get it if you don't show me.
I guess I'm kinda dumb.

[Bill Miller]

Show me how 105whp isn't more than 25% over 92 stock crank...seriously - my math could be wrong.

Here is what I get:

92 * 1.25 = 115 crank. .85 for FWD losses on the rollers = 97.75whp

Your 105whp target = 123+ crank hp. That's alomst a 34% increase, no?

Since you like to play this numbers game Andy, and since Scott was kind enough to give us his expected hp, how about you do the analysis on the Mazda?

103hp stock + 25% gain from IT prep is ~129chp, less 15% driveline loss puts you ~110. That' still more than Scott's Civic, and the Mazda is 100# lighter. Double wishbone suspension is worth 125 - 150#?

And there are plenty of other cars you can analyze. Starting to look more and more like the Mazda should be an ITB car at somewhere between 2225 and 2250#. That's ~150# of the published curb weight. Hardly what I would call 'unachievable'.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The point is that we used numbers we know to be true and realistic in the classification of your car and we used the 25% 'estimate' for the Protege because we have no such knowledge base. Same way it's been done since the process was created.

Your car has the very realistic potential to make 35%+ over stock. The ITAC knows it and was classed accordingly.

Your car with 35% = 124.2
Protege with 25% = 128.75

And add in weight for the suspension that you say "will likely be the best handling car in the class".

It's really tough to apples to apples this stuff.

(edit to add) I guess I also have a hard time believing that 2240 is so wrong but 2175 is right on per your suggestion. Has is come down to 65lbs? Sixty Five???

[Catch22]

The point is that we used numbers we know to be true and realistic in the classification of your car and we used the 25% 'estimate' for the Protege because we have no such knowledge base. Same way it's been done since the process was created.

Your car has the very realistic potential to make 35%+ over stock. The ITAC knows it and was classed accordingly.

Your car with 35% = 124.2
Protege with 25% = 128.75

And add in weight for the suspension that you say "will likely be the best handling car in the class".

It's really tough to apples to apples this stuff.

I hate to call you out Andy, but I have to because you are applying things to situations when it meets the needs of your argument and ignoring them when it doesn't.

So you are trying to tell me you guys KNEW the Civic DX could do 35%?
How? Who has ever built one?
Seriously. Who?

You can't apply what you know about the CRX/Civic Si because thats a completely different motor. And if you tell me "its a Honda thing" I'll just turn around and ask you why you didn't apply Miata gain rules to the Protege (and clearly if you went with 25% you didn't do that).

Seems like a LOT of bias going on there. Sorry Andy. Thats what it looks like.
You assigned 35% to the Honda based on what?
You assigned 25% to the Protege based on what?

And by the way, and I thought I made this clear before, 105 will just THRILL us. I'm not sure its actually going to happen. But if we don't get it nobody can.

PS - I'll also note in every one of your post about my car's numbers your numbers creep up slightly. Its already gone from "almost 34%" to "35%."
At the end of the day its probably actually going to be about 32%. I know of 2 ITA Miatas that got over 30%, so what happens if you apply THAT number to the Protege?

Apples to apples IS hard.
But unbiased apples to apples is admittedly also very hard.

PS - I'm not trying to bust your balls. I'm just not buying what you're selling.
I told you I didn't really agree with the 2240 well before I decided to build a car (anyway), but this Protege thing seriously solidifies my feelings on the matter.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I hate to call you out Andy, but I have to because you are applying things to situations when it meets the needs of your argument and ignoring them when it doesn't.

So you are trying to tell me you guys KNEW the Civic DX could do 35%?
How? Who has ever built one?
Seriously. Who?

You can't apply what you know about the CRX/Civic Si because thats a completely different motor. And if you tell me "its a Honda thing" I'll just turn around and ask you why you didn't apply Miata gain rules to the Protege (and clearly if you went with 25% you didn't do that).

Seems like a LOT of bias going on there. Sorry Andy. Thats what it looks like.
You assigned 35% to the Honda based on what?
You assigned 25% to the Protege based on what?

And by the way, and I thought I made this clear before, 105 will just THRILL us. I'm not sure its actually going to happen. But if we don't get it nobody can.

PS - I'll also note in every one of your post about my car's numbers your numbers creep up slightly. Its already gone from "almost 34%" to "35%."
At the end of the day its probably actually going to be about 32%. I know of 2 ITA Miatas that got over 30%, so what happens if you apply THAT number to the Protege?

Apples to apples IS hard.
But unbiased apples to apples is admittedly also very hard.

PS - I'm not trying to bust your balls. I'm just not buying what you're selling.
I told you I didn't really agree with the 2240 well before I decided to build a car (anyway), but this Protege thing seriously solidifies my feelings on the matter.

No issues here. Questioning the process is always something that will happen and we can handle.

- There is plenty of Honda knowledge on the ITAC. Bob clark is our lead guy.
- Who is applying anything to do with the Si? It's a different scenario that may have the same result - possible, right?
- Miata is a DOHC, this is a single cammer - why compare them?
- On the 105whp: I asked you for a number, you gave it to me - and it validated +/- 3hp our educated estimate
- Bias? Just trying to apply what we know. When we DON'T know, we use 25%. Funny how half the builders tell us we are boneheads for using such a high number and half laugh at such a low figure. The system is NOT perfect. We can only go by what we know and best guesses from there.
- I don't think my numbers are creeping at all. I used YOUR number to get to 'almost 34%' to illustrate that your math was way off and I said we knew the car had the potential for 35%+ when we classed it. Different contexts.
- Not sure why you keep using the Miata as an example...but guess what? We KNEW the 1.6 could make 30% more than stock - and that is WHAT WAS USED in it's classification.

Hey dude, bust away. At least you are being polite about it!

[Catch22]

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.