June Fastrack Out

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Refer to www.arrc-online.com for each drivers best time for the weekend...

Robert H... 1 39.07

Dan J... 1 40.93

Tha's an ITS RX-7 my friend. Fastest T3 RX-8 in the race was Shannon M.

[GKR_17]

Tha's an ITS RX-7 my friend. Fastest T3 RX-8 in the race was Shannon M.

Check the enduro. The McMasters Rx-8 did finish higher, but did not have the best lap. The Huffmaster Rx-8 ran a 1'39.60 in the enduro, and qualified at a 1'39.07. The best ITR E36 lap for that weekend (including qualifying) was 1'40.93.

[Z3_GoCar]

Andy,

Refer to www.arrc-online.com for each drivers best time for the weekend...

Robert H... 1 39.07

Dan J... 1 40.93

When I look at those results, the first thing I noticed was that only a handfull of racers come from West of the Mississippi, none from any rockie mountain states or the Pacific coast. I wonder what the participation will be like this year, both at the RO's and the ARRC might be a slim year for club racing championships.

James

[Eagle7]

Check the enduro. The McMasters Rx-8 did finish higher, but did not have the best lap. The Huffmaster Rx-8 ran a 1'39.60 in the enduro, and qualified at a 1'39.07. The best ITR E36 lap for that weekend (including qualifying) was 1'40.93.

And the best ITS time was 1:39.56, so now we know that ITR is a slower class than ITS. What was your point again?

[dj10]

Dan,
I noticed @ the ARRC, that the RX-8 T-3 @ 2980# was 1.86sec faster than your ITR e36 BMW.

The RX-8 was competing w/o the benefit of IT preparation & you want to lower the weight?

I guess your talking about Huffmaster in Enduro qualifying? Don't judge a book by it's cover. How does anyone know if I had a good suspension setup for that weekend or not? I only want whats fair. If the weight is fair where it's at, ok, if it's not just give them a fair shake.

Andy, that was a Porsche that beat me not a BMW.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I was looking at the Sprint results, not enduro. And yes, it was the 944S2...sorry!

[Rabbit07]

Process weights for both new listings...

The older DOHC car may have gotten some "real world data" help since there's been a lot of "common wisdom" swirling around the difference between it and the SOHC version for ages. If we started from scratch on the one that's 130# lighter, it would end up the same now if in fact the stock power ratings are identical, since the technologies involved ask for he same multiplier.

K

Then maybe some "real world data" needs to be applied to the Gen2! And if all this lip service about process weight is true then some one please explain why the hell the stratus with the same SOHC engine as the ITA Neon is 550 lbs heavier in ITA!!!!??????? Something is very wrong here!!!!!

[GKR_17]

And the best ITS time was 1:39.56, so now we know that ITR is a slower class than ITS. What was your point again?

The best ITR time for the weekend was a 1'39.11, so no ITS wasn't faster. I certainly expect ITR to get faster as the cars get more developed. However, the E36 doesn't have much room left for improvement. An Rx-8 prepped mostly to T3 specs surely does.

[Knestis]

Guys - do you really, REALLY want to get in the business of comparing single lap times among disparate cars, at one track, on one weekend, with ALL of the other variables not accounted for...???!!

You are our own worst enemies.

And Andy - look up "enabler" in the dictionary. Don't encourage this insanity.

Chris - The recent Neon/Stratus specifications all went through the process. My point was that, if the first generation models did NOT go through the same process - if they got "real worlded" - it would account for the differences.

K

[JeffYoung]

Yes! My car ran a 2:00 there in 2003. It should therefore weigh 10 lbs. Who do I write to?

Guys - do you really, REALLY want to get in the business of comparing single lap times among disparate cars, at one track, on one weekend, with ALL of the other variables not accounted for...???!!

You are our own worst enemies.

And Andy - look up "enabler" in the dictionary. Don't encourage this insanity.

Chris - The recent Neon/Stratus specifications all went through the process. My point was that, if the first generation models did NOT go through the same process - if they got "real worlded" - it would account for the differences.

K

[Rabbit07]

Chris - The recent Neon/Stratus specifications all went through the process. My point was that, if the first generation models did NOT go through the same process - if they got "real worlded" - it would account for the differences.

K

If this is true then "WHY" is the Stratus heavier than the Gen2 ACR Neon that has 20 more HP? I like that there is a formula being used to class cars, but I would like it if it was the same formula for a all the cars in IT!!!!!!!!

If you could, please show me the numbers and how each of these examples works out in ITA

Gen 1 Neon SOHC
Gen 1 Neon DOHC
Gen 2 Neon ACR
95-99 Stratus SOHC

This makes no sense to me why the weights on these 4 cars should be so much different?

[Andy Bettencourt]

IIRC, the Stratus is a misprint. The car that was requested was the 6cyl and thus the weight. Somehow, the 4cyl spec line was copied.

I will look into it.

[Eagle7]

The best ITR time for the weekend was a 1'39.11, so no ITS wasn't faster. I certainly expect ITR to get faster as the cars get more developed. However, the E36 doesn't have much room left for improvement. An Rx-8 prepped mostly to T3 specs surely does.

If it's the same RX-8 that Ray had at MidOhio in August, it's his old Grand-Am car from when they ran with SpeedSource, not a T3 car. I think it was pretty well developed.

[dj10]

If it's the same RX-8 that Ray had at MidOhio in August, it's his old Grand-Am car from when they ran with SpeedSource, not a T3 car. I think it was pretty well developed.

Marty I believe you are correct. He had 2 - RX-8's, 1, a T3 and the other the GrandAm rx-8

[DavidM]

.

Think VERY carefully about this statement. While it's sensible as far as it goes (in terms of the motivation to build and therefore likelihood of seeing cars on the track) this approach codifies competition adjustments (bleah!) EXACTLY like they are implemented in Production - post hoc changes in specification based on on-track performance. Are you ALL ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that you want to go down that road?

I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that I do NOT and I take it as part of my mission on the ITAC to keep us from going there.

K

I'm quoting this post, but I really could've picked just about any of them in this thread. This whole debate illustrates the very slippery slope the ITAC stepped upon when it decided to use real-world numbers in the weighting process. It may (or may not) be a necessary evil, but it muddies the waters big time.

The ITAC has demonstrated it has no issues using real world numbers to bump up the weight of a car. Now they have to use that mindset to drop the weight of a car. How low is too low though? If the car gets weighted to heavy it'll never get the weight dropped because it's impossible to prove a negative (the negative being that the car can't make more power). If it's weighted too light then how do you prove it needs more weight?

PCAs have already been used in IT. They were implemented under the guise of adding weight to cars during the re-weighting, but they were PCAs nonetheless. Anybody thinking PCAs haven't been used should wake up.

The ITAC had better get a handle on how they plan to use real-world data because it's becoming an issue. I stopped reading the discussion concerning periodically re-evaluating cars because it was clear that was going nowhere. If you're going to use real-world data then you had better develop a process for how that data is going to be used.

Of course, as Greg pointed out, the days of people sharing their engine performance information are long gone so I'm wondering how the ITAC plans on getting real-world information. Why would anyone prove their car can make more power if it's going get them weight?

I think the ITAC is attempting to do the right thing, but this is the path that they started down when the grand re-weighting was implemented. The consequences of that are now becoming more apparent.

David

[lateapex911]

David, good points, but, real world data is, of course, the origin of the estimates..

If the first gen RX-7 genre were to be handled the same as , oh, say the average IT car, we'd have 1st gen RX-7s making 137 flywheel, and 116 WHP, and they'd weigh....1993 pounds (assuming they could hit that weight...)

is that what we want?

In some cases, there need to be usage of real world data.

In one case, a car was being examined, as it was already classified. Research was done. Two different engine builders with dozens of that engine built (to IT specs) were contacted, (out of the blue) and they both responded with numbers that were within .5% of each other, In cases where the person requesting classification is supplying the "real world" number, it's obvious that there is a conflict of interest, and those numbers must be treated as such.

[Z3_GoCar]

I completely agree. This is why we need to be very careful using the torque number to set weights. All that actually matters is the hp of the engine in the usable RPM range. In general a high torque motor will have a 'flatter' power curve and won't lose as much power when shifting to a higher gear. But notice the ratio change in the transmission is highly important also. We clearly have an adder for torque, and I thought we had one for good transmission, but I don't hear much talk of it.

Here are 4 examples:

ITR BMW 325i (E36)
2nd-3rd: 33.7% drop
3rd-4th: 26.9% drop
4th-5th: 18.0% drop

ITR Porsche 944S2
2nd-3rd: 32.0% drop
3rd-4th: 26.1% drop
4th-5th: 19.7% drop

ITR Honda S2000
3rd-4th: 21.6% drop
4th-5th: 16.4% drop
5th-6th: 16.5% drop

ITR Mazda Rx-8
3rd-4th: 27.8% drop
4th-5th: 15.8% drop
5th-6th: 15.7% drop

Both of the low torque cars also have better transmissions, especially when you go down two gears from top. In addition, since the ratios are better, they may actually use 4 gears at some tracks where any 5-speed box will only use 3.

As an added thought - those familiar with the ITS Rx-7 know how much better the GTUs 5th gear is. The 0.71 5th gear in that car is a 29% drop, while the 0.76 5th drops 24%. Without that 5% better gear, that car has little chance in a tough field. Notice how much better than that both the S2000 and Rx-8 are for both 5th and 6th gears.

This is an excellant post. One reason torque might not be so important is that you can always gear lower for more wheel torque, but no matter how you gear you can't get more horsepower. The second reason the torque is less important is that both the S2k and Rx8 have red-lines that are 1500-2500 rpm above anything the BMW can get to with out creating vented blocks. So lower gearing for more wheel torque will still result in the same ultimate red-line speed, and end of straight speed. Thirdly, both these cars have the extra usable gear availible in a six speed transmission vs. the five speed.

In the end I the ITAC.

James

[Super Swift]

Eagle 7 & DJ10,

I understand any confusion but the time was turned by their T3 RX-8.

Check out this link
http://photos.hydrous.net/photo.php?photo=19832

Be sure to look at the class designations on the side of the car... ITU & T3...

It might be a F1 car with Mazda livery but I think we need to call a skunk a skunk.

Rotor's are scary fast!!

It's all about power under the curve.

[Eagle7]

Eagle 7 & DJ10,
Check out this link
http://photos.hydrous.net/photo.php?photo=19832

Be sure to look at the class designations on the side of the car... ITU & T3...

Your eyes are a lot better than mine - saw the ITU in another pic but couldn't find the T3. OTOH, I don't know why I'm even responding - this whole discussion is totally meaningless.

[rcc85]

I thought the Stratus weight was way off. So it should be the 2.5L V6 Stratus in ITA at 3000 lbs? That's not a bad engine (Mitsubishi). Not as good as the 3.0L V6 (which I think was about 200 hp) I had in my '02 Stratus coupe, but it could be an interesting build. Hey, maybe that's what happened when they classified the Daytona. They thought it was a V6!!

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona (with a broken engine from Pocono)