June Fastrack Out

[dj10]

isn't the E36 ~65hp shy of the RX8 in stock form?



i'm trusting that they have good information that the 238hp is accurate.

as different as the RX8 is from the S2000, they couldn't be anymore the same from my perspective. both of them make pretty big hp from the factory (for the performance target of the class), both double a-arm, both gutless on the bottom and run well up top, both probably won't gain much from IT modifications, and both are classed at a weight that make me not particularly interested in one.

BMW Stock E36 325 has published 191 crank HP.

[jrvisual]

2008 GCR 9.1.3.C Paragraph 6
"During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as—but not limited to—manufacturer’s published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a “performance compensation adjustment” shall be made. Any performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle’s fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established."


If the weight is low you can correct it in the first 4 years. If the weight is high you won't have any data to correct to because you won't have any cars on which to base the correction. Bringing a car in at a perceived or true underdog weight kills that car. Bringing it in as a perceived or true overdog weight allows for adjustment for a balanced multi-make class.

[shwah]

Sorry - late to the party. Long day of meetings etc.

So Josh isn't hanging out here by himself, here's the details on how we documented the specification process.

238*1.15*11.25-100=2979.13

And here's a request: Please consider that it is possible for the ITAC to get multiple "real world" data points for a single make/model under consideration, each of which is submitted by someone who has absolute confidence in his figures, and all of which are different. I am NOT pointing a finger at Steve - he clearly has a ton of experience and I've met nobody who's said he's anything besides a completely straight shooter - but are you all sure that you want us making classification/specification recommendations to the board based on our subjective judgments of the merits and qualifications of the various "experts" submitting data to support particular positions?

How do we resolve to an entire IT class field that we made a weight classification for the 2004 Putzmobile based on the most expert input possible, when that guy happens to be building them for customers?

YES - he is in the best position to know what's what about his car.

NO - we can't "Know" (with a capital K, like the capital T in "Truth") if he's fibbing to us or not, even if he's the most trustworthy guy in the paddock.

BUT - he doesn't have to be fibbing to us for it to create a problem for the entire process, the ITAC, and the Club. Just the simple appearance of impropriety is enough to mess things up far worse in the long term than if we miss the weight of a single classification by 100#.

We got the MR2 listed in B - FINALLY - at its process weight of 2525 pounds. The reason that took MONTHS is that we got sucked into trying to use "real world evidence," motivated by the desire to make the best decision possible. I think that by the time we were deep into it, we had "proof" from people that seemed knowledgeable and trustworthy, that the car COULD make its ITA minimum weight, that it could NOT, that it didn't make "predicted IT gains" with a full build, and that it did. We clearly can't believe everyone so what do we do?

It's terribly dangerous to step on the slippery slope of putting cars on dynos. Jeff asks about a 325-to-RX8 comparison using "proven" horsepower but we don't have any protocol in place that we can use to "prove" anything in any way that is beyond reproach. While that process might well have gotten this one closer to it's "correct" weight, is it a process that we can use for all future classifications? And can apply retroactively to all currently listed cars, so they are getting the same "fair" treatment?

Do you really want the ITAC to solicit input from any and all interested parties (that tend to break out into two camps - the drivers who want to race the car in question and those against whom they'll be racing) and give the nod to the ones who make the most compelling presentation?

At the end of the day, clarity, repeatability, and transparency were the priority. We have some areas where we can tweak (e.g., the 1.15 multiplier, 100# torque subtractor) and in this case we used those tools as we believed best. I'd hope that you'd at least grant your ITAC members that they're trying to maintain the integrity of the process, and respect the fact that they put that ahead of trying get the weight of this particular car adjusted to closer than the 3-4% difference in weight that we're talking about here.

Finally, I'll echo the concern that we don't yet have an completely satisfactory way to account for torque. Having some experience with it, I believe that this is the Golf's "secret weapon." It's other cars' Achilles heel. In neither case do we adequately consider that as a variable (I don't think). But until/unless we adopt a revised process, I'm still very confident that sticking to the one we have is best for us all over the longer term.

K

I hope that all of those points are considered when you guys get back to my request. I have not heard any request back for additional/different information...

[JeffYoung]

I thought the uproar over the NX2000 numbers was a bit silly, and confirmed by on track results. Your car is fast, and a few SE-Rs that have been around for a while are fast, but you were no more dominating than the CRX and Integra and 240sx and Miata had/have been.

That said, how is your position on dyno numbers (which is personally understandable) good for the club as a whole? Actual corrected data is used to fix problems with outliers and overdogs. I think it is healthy to share it, and good for IT. Not knocking you, but just want a bit more explanation:

1. How can the process ever be totally objective? If it is just a plug in numbers equation you get things like the CRX, and my car in ITA.

2. Don't you think it is better to put the numbers out there and defend them, than just have people guessing and speculating, perhaps even more unfairly?

Which is exactly why "known" numbers are never going to get "known" again, at least from me. And, thus, the process is broken again.

Before this "known process" was known, I was a big proponent of revealing horsepower dyno numbers. I truly believed at the time the process was an objective one, with very little "fudge", thus there was no advantage/disadvantage to having this information public (and I found it silly to worry about it).

However, after development in preparation for the '06 ARRC I revealed my NX's dyno numbers to this board, and was taken to task by many folks, both in public and in private. Many people wrote letters to the ITAC/CRB and to ITAC/CRB individual members demanding performance correction to my car. It was during that fracas I found out that, in fact, "known" dyno numbers are being used for weight corrections in vehicles.

It was at that moment my stance changed. From now on, absolutely NO ONE outside the immediate development team will know what dyno numbers we get unless that dyno number reveals performance values below the expected values. In other words, we will use low numbers to our advantage when we can, but you'll never, ever know if we get numbers better than the process specifies.

And that, my friends, is called "unintended consequences".

Just sayin'...

GA

[JeffYoung]

I think it is actually 189.

The problem comes from actual whp after a full build.........subject of big nasty debate, same as the RX8.

BMW Stock E36 325 has published 191 crank HP.

[tnord]

to someone building a car and spending lots of money it is serious business.

i feel like there's a little more to this statement than just the words on the screen.

[Greg Amy]

...how is your position on dyno numbers (which is personally understandable) good for the club as a whole?

It absolutely is not, Jeff. Never said it would be. But, let's face it: as a competitor, my concerns are not for the Club as a whole, but for my personal competitive advantages. Simply put, I compete not for the Club, but for myself, and I am completely unashamed of that.

Unfortunately, the system is designed expecting each competitor to work for the Club as whole. While that's a wonderful utopian ideal, that's not how reality works. The base problem with such a system is that it is predicated upon the free sharing of information among motorsports competitors, something that causes them to work against their own competitive advantages, all without a way to enforce that should someone choose not to participate (in the commune? Sorry, couldn't resist... )

How can the process ever be totally objective? If it is just a plug in numbers equation you get things like the CRX, and my car in ITA.

Then the CRX and our car get moved up/down a class and re-weighted for that new class. Physics is neat that way.

If that doesn't work, then the process needs to be re-designed.

Don't you think it is better to put the numbers out there and defend them, than just have people guessing and speculating, perhaps even more unfairly?

Why would I POSSIBLY want to subject myself to that? What possible advantage/reason would I have for doing that, unless I just like arguing on Internet boards and writing letters to the CRB to defend my position (and, despite evidence to the contrary, I really don't...)? If I keep my mouth shut, then no matter what people THINK I can at least always reply "you don't know what the hell you're talking about".

I personally don't have a self-confidence problem where I'm worried about what people think about my driving versus the performance of the car. As long as I'm tarnishing your butt, I really don't care if you think it's the car and not me. What it all comes down to is the checkered flag and who gets there first.

Face it, Jeff, this isn't a big beautiful world where we all get along, working together for a common good. This is competition, by design an antagonistic process where people work for their own individual advancement. The rules process should be designed with that in mind...

GregA, looking forward to building an engine for the 'Teg and, regardless of the result, keeping it to himself...hey, just sayin'...

[tnord]

Simply put, I compete not for the Club, but for myself, and I am completely unashamed of that.

and no one expects anything less from you.

can you not see the big picture? if you only fight for your own personal interests without any regard to what's good for the class as a whole, or even the club as a whole, where does that lead you?

[Greg Amy]

...where does that lead you?

Victory circle? 'Course, I'd not expect you to understand...

[tnord]

Victory circle? 'Course, I'd not expect you to understand...

do you feel like a big man now?

[Greg Amy]

do you feel like a big man now?

Actually, yes. And this Internet forum thread didn't change it one whit...

Travis, you got issues...

[dj10]

I think it is actually 189.

The problem comes from actual whp after a full build.........subject of big nasty debate, same as the RX8.

Your right Jeff, I was think E46 325. sorry

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg's point is a valid one, from a personal perspective. But we all must understand that a singular set of dyno numbers changes nothing. Greg could have told us that his car makes 200whp. So what? Is it a trigger to start collecting data? Probably but if you are going to try and do your best for the category as a unit, you have to 'know' that the numbers are suspect. Suspect in that it would be a single data point with no validation on legality, repeatability, or really anything.

The dyno stuff *I* put stock in are numbers based on years of experience and evidence. Not lows, not highs, but the numbers the experts know cars can make. If they are outside the standard 25%, then I submit we NEED to use them or else we end up with one car classes. That, I can document very easily.

So it's not about a big, happy family where everyone is sharing info. It's about making educated decisions with known information that can be documented and backed up. I submit it isn't perfect but I would rather have 25 cars 'correctly' classed out of 30 instead of 5. It's best-effort stuff...no gurantees, just an honest best effort.

[JeffYoung]

I'd go a bit further. We all want to win and are competitive. We wouldn't be doing this otherwise. At the same time, I don't want to win at the expense of running a category/class, and I think that is true of most of us. If a car is a known overdog, with repeatedly numbers to back it up, due to a classing erro I would want that car "fixed" whether it was someone else's, or my own.

Yes, that sounds a bit like a comp adjustment, but here I just have faith that the current ITAC and current IT culture will only allow this to happen in rare circumstances. But part of making that process work is at least somewhat open sharing of information.

Greg's point is a valid one, from a personal perspective. But we all must understand that a singular set of dyno numbers changes nothing. Greg could have told us that his car makes 200whp. So what? Is it a trigger to start collecting data? Probably but if you are going to try and do your best for the category as a unit, you have to 'know' that the numbers are suspect. Suspect in that it would be a single data point with no validation on legality, repeatability, or really anything.

The dyno stuff *I* put stock in are numbers based on years of experience and evidence. Not lows, not highs, but the numbers the experts know cars can make. If they are outside the standard 25%, then I submit we NEED to use them or else we end up with one car classes. That, I can document very easily.

So it's not about a big, happy family where everyone is sharing info. It's about making educated decisions with known information that can be documented and backed up. I submit it isn't perfect but I would rather have 25 cars 'correctly' classed out of 30 instead of 5. It's best-effort stuff...no gurantees, just an honest best effort.

[jjjanos]

If the weight is low you can correct it in the first 4 years. If the weight is high you won't have any data to correct to because you won't have any cars on which to base the correction. Bringing a car in at a perceived or true underdog weight kills that car.

Oh, it is even worse. If someone actually builds the car, chances are he won't be part of the in-crowd/the cool kids/the BMOCs. So, when he builds the car and finds out that the car has been classified as an underdog, his concerns will be dismissed because either a - it's just one car and that's not a large enough sample on which to make a decision or b - he "...really hasn't put together a top-notch, full-built effort because we don't know who the hell he is."

[JeffYoung]

I agree with that. Unlikely a full tilt one will get built at that weight so the car is "stuck."

The flip side is true too though. If it came in light, like the E36 did, the top notch builders would be all over it, build a bunch of cars that would win out of the box, etc....of course then we do have a means of correction.

[lateapex911]

Sometimes things are black and white, but, going in, I knew this was most definitely not.

The ITAC really has to use stock hp ratings...can you imagine the uproar if it got out that we were using some, but not others? Sheeesh. And we think THIS is bad...if Mazda's doing something loophole-ish to get that number and it's not what the engine really makes, well tough nuggies. Sorry. They win some and lose some with that approach.

As for expected gains/real world numbers, the rotary is a great example. First gens, second gens, the Renesis and the new one are all distinctly different "genres", even though they are all rotary. Now, if we categorized all piston engines in the same bucket, and applied XX% factor to them all, we'd be in a mess, right? We have to apply different build factors to different engines. We try to do that by engine genre...but honestly, while that aspect creates some consistency, it can also fail. Inline 6s and high strung fours and old American smogged up POSs don't respond the same. There are some old American smogged up POSs that actually weren't that bad, while others sucked, and can make huge gains once freed from the smog gear, but they get the same factor. Choose wisely son, and you can find a bit of gold in the hills. But be careful, there's no guarantee.

In this case, we went with a low build number, stock hp and a break for TQ. Personally, I think that the Renesis is very similar to the S2000 in that it is maximized from the factory, and my feeling is that both cars are too heavy, but, the process was done consistently, and with reasonable methods.

The club has gotten into trouble in the past when it listened to "trusted" friends who submitted "secret" numbers...then went out and whumped everybody in the mis classed car at the Runoffs. And the club took huge and deserved grief for listening to that person...not because of the result (which was bad) but because of the clear conflict of interest status, and the principle.

I hear a lot of arguments above that make me think I'm on the Prod board...but none of us want to be Prod right? It's a slippery slope, and each one of us has our "line" that we are willing to walk to on the way, and while mine might be at the 10 foot mark, I have to respect those who stop at the 7 foot mark.

Again, we got input on this car and the numbers were all over the place..nearly a 500 pound "recommended" weight spread, and curiously, the weights aligned with the competitive desires of the letter writers (see Amy above). We did the math, and the result was in line with other classifications sharing similar conditions (S2000), and falls in between the extremes.

[lateapex911]

I agree with that. Unlikely a full tilt one will get built at that weight so the car is "stuck."

The flip side is true too though. If it came in light, like the E36 did, the top notch builders would be all over it, build a bunch of cars that would win out of the box, etc....of course then we do have a means of correction.

And (devils advocate talking here), you know that, like the BMW, there would be a huge cry of "Foul! You are punishing us for doing better work than anyone else because WE are superior". And, "This is a competition adjustment".

I got a phone call late last fall after a certain car won a major IT race from the winners builder who said we did exactly that ...we punished them unfairly for being superior in the first place....over two years ago.

And how many BMWs stayed and raced after the "adjustment" and how many left? (Answer more left than stayed) But...how many ITS competitors were lost before that because of the overdog status of half built BMWs? (Answer, hard to say, but it was clear we had issues and you, Jeff, will be the first to agree that ITS has taken two years to rebuild but is very healthy now, arguably way healthier than 3 or 4 years ago, right?) (Some of the letters we got from guys winning in the E36s with junkyard motors defending their builds was hilarious)

Point being that there are costs on both sides of the coin. (And doing the accounting for those costs depends highly on your position)

[77ITA]

I don't really see a problem with the RX-8 considering all the other ridiculous "calculations" in ITR.

I'm glad to see the 2nd Gen Neon has been classified. Is the weight listed for the ACR and R/T a typo thought? 2780 seems way excessive for that car. Its over 100 lbs higher than the SSC weight and 130 lbs heavier than the 1st Gen DOHC Neon which has the same stock HP rating.

I agree, Greg. It's great to see the cars classified (as they're obviously not going to do anything in SSC any longer), but with personal experience on the subject I can't understand the weight of the R/T and ACR either. If anything but equal in weight, the Magnum engine cars (R/T and ACR) could use to be a bit lighter than the 1st generation DOHC cars due to their poor handling characteristics. At least in IT trim competitors can put some real springs under the car and fix what hindered them so badly in SSC.

[madrabbit15]

Back to the ITR and the V8s vs. the M3.........

I guess I am having a hard time understanding how a M3 is bad for the class but a v8 mustang or camaro is good for the class. Both have insaine Hp potential in IT trim. True, the v8s are the lower HP versions with gobs of torque, but it only takes bolt ons to make them breath. So the weight would still need to be close to 3500# to make them fit. Is this any better other than it might bring some people into the class? If someone can explain this to me I would very much appreciate it, because up to now, I cannot see how in the world it makes sense.