June Fastrack Out

[RSTPerformance]

Look closely Raymond. It is only for cars with the fuel tank inside the axles. Rear mounted still require a cell.

It also requires you keep the bumper I think... Its at least a step in the right direction... A cell is probably more dangerouse than a stock tank in an Audi/VW or MR2...

I am trying to think... Sorry for my lack of knowledge but what popular cars have the fuel tank outside the axles? I really have no idea where they even are in a miata for example...

Raymond

[JoshS]

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore the 325i question. It all happened before I was on the ITAC but it seems pretty straightforward. 189 hp, 30% multiplier.

FWIW, my personal belief is that we could do a better job of taking torque into account. Unfortunately, changing the approach would probably require another big realignment. My car happens to be one that has slightly more torque than hp.

[JeffYoung]

Josh, the 325i question is this:

1. Assume that the E36 325i makes 210-215 rwhp, or the number that was thrown out as a "good" (but not best) build during the whole ITS/E36 debate.

2. Assume the ITR RX8, fully build, is proven to make the same horsepower.

Would you support a reclassification at 2680, which is the same weight as the E36 minus the 100 lbs for lack of torque?

[JeffYoung]

Josh, if we are using "Deep Throat" sources of information for cars, I have two thoughts about that:

1. One it really concerns me because the classing process should be as open as possible and if information is being used to class a car, we should know who it is coming from and how it was arrived at.

2. On the other hand, I understand that doing that may cut off the ITAC from some valuable information.

As a reasonable compromise, can you tell us (a) generally what types of folks you talked to (no names)...were they racers? engineers? sales guys? and (b) what specific information did they give you about the Renesis, why they believed the 238 number and how they rectify that with the dyno plots that you can pick of the web by simple google searches?

I can't share the details because I promised not to, but we didn't just "preserve the process." I personally spoke to some people at Mazda who know this car very well, and was told very clearly that the 238hp is a real number on an engine dyno.

I know you don't believe it. And I'm sorry I can't give more details, but the reason is because the people in question don't want to be questioned on internet message boards. Imagine yourself in their shoes.

238 is the number. I think arguing the 15% multiplier, or the (lack of) torque adjustment, is totally reasonable. We went with those for consistency with the process. The S2000 is very similar in those regards, and although owners grumble about the weight, people ARE building them.

As far as arguing the veracity of the stock 238hp number, I'm not going to engage that discussion any further.

[pballance]

As a member (not as an ITAC member), I'm curious ... I would like to see a different dyno test than any that I've ever seen.

I'd like to see a dyno test that shows both raw (not SAE-corrected) *and* corrected numbers for a truly bone-stock RX8 and a bone-stock pick-your-piston-engine car on the same dyno on the same day. I have been led to believe by someone who knows these cars well that the correction factors tend to skew the results on a Renesis.

I will offer up a bone stock '04 RX8 for the test and also '04 RX8 with catback exhaust and Konis as the only change for testing. ECU has only been touched by factory software.

[seckerich]

Josh, the 325i question is this:

1. Assume that the E36 325i makes 210-215 rwhp, or the number that was thrown out as a "good" (but not best) build during the whole ITS/E36 debate.

2. Assume the ITR RX8, fully build, is proven to make the same horsepower.

Would you support a reclassification at 2680, which is the same weight as the E36 minus the 100 lbs for lack of torque?

That would be way light for the RX8. It has a 6 speed with about the same upper spread as the E36 and other ITR cars with a good suspension and brakes. I had been led to believe that it was going to be classed at around 2850# which would have been safe to see how well they performed. It has raced in other series at about 150# less than the BMW with very close competition. I only use the BMW because it was the "target" for ITR but the 944 is very similar. The multiplier is the big factor here. Given known data the E36 got 30%. S2000 got 15%. RX8 has been proven to be about 8% in full IT build with Motec M600 and 4 years of tuning. 10% would be safe and can be backed up by just about any reputable tuner in the country. I can bet I have at least a fair amount of knowledge in this area after working for the Mazda factory team for the entire life of the RX8. At 10% it would have brought the car to 2950# with the 100# break for low torque. I would spend the money to build that car and the process is in place to adjust it if it was wrong. We have a snowballs chance of getting it fixed downward.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with you on the weight -- I think I asked for 2850 or 2800 (can't remember) in the proposal. I made the analogy to the E36 and the resulting weight if you used a direct comparison to make a point.

That would be way light for the RX8. It has a 6 speed with about the same upper spread as the E36 and other ITR cars with a good suspension and brakes. I had been led to believe that it was going to be classed at around 2850# which would have been safe to see how well they performed. It has raced in other series at about 150# less than the BMW with very close competition. I only use the BMW because it was the "target" for ITR but the 944 is very similar. The multiplier is the big factor here. Given known data the E36 got 30%. S2000 got 15%. RX8 has been proven to be about 8% in full IT build with Motec M600 and 4 years of tuning. 10% would be safe and can be backed up by just about any reputable tuner in the country. I can bet I have at least a fair amount of knowledge in this area after working for the Mazda factory team for the entire life of the RX8. At 10% it would have brought the car to 2950# with the 100# break for low torque. I would spend the money to build that car and the process is in place to adjust it if it was wrong. We have a snowballs chance of getting it fixed downward.

[shwah]

Look closely Raymond. It is only for cars with the fuel tank inside the axles. Rear mounted still require a cell.

Not for me. If i keep the rear bumper, I can run my stock tank out back. At this point I can literally take my ITB car out in HP and lose badly without making any changes. Whoopty doo. I'll still not be interested in not competing.

[Knestis]

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

[Z3_GoCar]

I can't share the details because I promised not to, but we didn't just "preserve the process." I personally spoke to some people at Mazda who know this car very well, and was told very clearly that the 238hp is a real number on an engine dyno.

I know you don't believe it. And I'm sorry I can't give more details, but the reason is because the people in question don't want to be questioned on internet message boards. Imagine yourself in their shoes.

238 is the number. I think arguing the 15% multiplier, or the (lack of) torque adjustment, is totally reasonable. We went with those for consistency with the process. The S2000 is very similar in those regards, and although owners grumble about the weight, people ARE building them.

As far as arguing the veracity of the stock 238hp number, I'm not going to engage that discussion any further.

Josh,

First, and slighly off topic congratulations on the Roundel Readers Rants.

I think that Josh has found a key person in Mazda and doesn't want to out her/him, it's his professional duty to keep his source in the dark. I perfectly understand his position and have been there myself.

James

[JeffYoung]

Well and fairly stated.

Without specifically disclosing the source, can you tell us who other than the data Steve and I presented was consulted in confirming the 238 stock hp figure?

I get the feeling from Josh's post that people were in fact consulted to confirm the 238 and whp numbers, and to contradict what was submitted with the proposal.

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

[Knestis]

I speak only for myself on this but, if I ever did know what all of the sources said, I promptly forgot. It's my orientation showing through but to me, "Josh's people" don't carry any more weight than you (Jeff), where submitted evidence is concerned. For that reason, I kind of let those conversations happen without letting them significantly influence my thinking.

Now, ITAC members' opinions differ on this, just as is the case with the membership more broadly, but I pretty firmly believe that the point at which we even GO LOOKING for more information beyond the published number, is the point at which we've made the mistake. All that stuff only serves to befuddle. I didn't need any "proof" that the stock number is correct. Others might well have - just like others still might have been convinced it is too low. The consensus recommendation to the CRB reflects a compromise position among the committee membership.

K

[seckerich]

I speak only for myself on this but, if I ever did know what all of the sources said, I promptly forgot. It's my orientation showing through but to me, "Josh's people" don't carry any more weight than you (Jeff), where submitted evidence is concerned. For that reason, I kind of let those conversations happen without letting them significantly influence my thinking.

Now, ITAC members' opinions differ on this, just as is the case with the membership more broadly, but I pretty firmly believe that the point at which we even GO LOOKING for more information beyond the published number, is the point at which we've made the mistake. All that stuff only serves to befuddle. I didn't need any "proof" that the stock number is correct. Others might well have - just like others still might have been convinced it is too low. The consensus recommendation to the CRB reflects a compromise position among the committee membership.

K

I respect you Kirk, but to suggest it is any less relevant to back into the RX8 by known numbers as has been done to class every other rotary is disengenuous. You took known numbers and backed into the ITS RX7 weight and classification. You backed into the E36, 89CRX, and many others. Please get off your "greater good" high horse on this car. You missed this by quite a bit more than any 3-4%. To you it is just statistics, to someone building a car and spending lots of money it is serious business. Please feel free to show that any of the data I provided is less than accurate. I bumped all the numbers upward in the proposal to cover possible errors. As noted in previous posts feel free to post the highest numbers anyone claimed for the car and we can filter out the data. I know this posting is a waste of time because the time to ask for more data or dispute mine was BEFORE it got classed. Thanks.

[JoshS]

Steve,

ITR gets a huge benefit -- it was created after the great realignment. Nothing in that class (I assume, I wasn't around for its creation, and neither was Kirk) was "backed into" ... every classification is pure process. It's a huge benefit over the older IT classes, which are still carrying some baggage from the dark days.

I don't see any reason to corrupt it.

The point is that it's just plain safer to use published numbers and tweak what we CAN tweak -- multipliers and adders. We are not responsible for the published numbers, but the process assumes their accuracy, for better or for worse.

In this case, we used the multipliers and adders in the best way we could, by applying them consistently with other cars already classed. I'll state it again ... that's the only thing that you really could possibly have a beef with (and yes, I understand you think we should have used 10%).

BTW, you bumped the numbers up in the proposal? Why wasn't your name on the proposal? To refresh your memory, you wanted us to use 220hp with a 10% multiplier. That's 2722 lbs. To do so was just inconsistent with the existing similar cars. We chose to use the published horsepower (not a derived number), 15% for consistency with other highly-tweaked cars, and give it a further negative adder (again, for consistency.) Frankly I think we did a good job, and definitely the best we could.

I am done with this thread. Seems like the ITAC can't win. You guys gripe if we don't tell you how we think, and you gripe if we do. Sheesh. The antagonistic comments about deep-throat sources, dart boards, chicken entrails, etc, doesn't give any of us any credit for a very difficult job and frankly is not likely to get me to ever be transparent again. I really thought you guys were above that stuff. Guess I was wrong.

[seckerich]

Steve,

ITR gets a huge benefit -- it was created after the great realignment. Nothing in that class (I assume, I wasn't around for its creation, and neither was Kirk) was "backed into" ... every classification is pure process. It's a huge benefit over the older IT classes, which are still carrying some baggage from the dark days.

I don't see any reason to corrupt it.

The point is that it's just plain safer to use published numbers and tweak what we CAN tweak -- multipliers and adders. We are not responsible for the published numbers, but the process assumes their accuracy, for better or for worse.

In this case, we used the multipliers and adders in the best way we could, by applying them consistently with other cars already classed. I'll state it again ... that's the only thing that you really could possibly have a beef with (and yes, I understand you think we should have used 10%).

BTW, you bumped the numbers up in the proposal? Why wasn't your name on the proposal? To refresh your memory, you wanted us to use 220hp with a 10% multiplier. That's 2722 lbs. To do so was just inconsistent with the existing similar cars. We chose to use the published horsepower (not a derived number), 15% for consistency with other highly-tweaked cars, and give it a further negative adder (again, for consistency.) Frankly I think we did a good job, and definitely the best we could.

I am done with this thread. Seems like the ITAC can't win. You guys gripe if we don't tell you how we think, and you gripe if we do. Sheesh. The antagonistic comments about deep-throat sources, dart boards, chicken entrails, etc, doesn't give any of us any credit for a very difficult job and frankly is not likely to get me to ever be transparent again. I really thought you guys were above that stuff. Guess I was wrong.

Not above asking relevant questions and as a member of any commitee that decides matters of competition you are expected to be transparent. I never provided any data of stock 220 but did give extensive evidence of very minimal gains in IT trim. I understand the process has been used for all the ITR cars and I have been around since the "dark ages". Everything I have posted and asked about has been disputing your assumed 15% gains. If you did not receive the dyno sheets I provided I am sorry. I only expected them to be one data point and would be interested to hear how for off they were to other numbers you got. I mentioned the backing in to some of the car classifications to show that the multiplier has been tweaked many times in special cases, and on every rotary currently classed. Only difference is that every other rotary got a higher multiplier. A rotary is not an S2000 but I see your point. I am done with this as well. It is DOA in my mind and was a waste of time to get classed. We asked for the last year to have a chance for honest open debate on the car and have a chance to provide whatever the ITAC needed. I have been very respectful in my discussion and have stayed away from anything personal. I have praised you guys many times in the past for your work. Have to take the good with the bad. You knew you were going to get some heat on this car so don't act so surprised. It is a complicated classing. Just don't complain in a year or so when it is still all BMW and a lone 944 in ITR.

[Knestis]

>> You took known numbers and backed into the ITS RX7 weight and classification. You backed into the E36, 89CRX, and many others. Please get off your "greater good" high horse on this car.

Actually "I" did not. That all happened prior to my joining the ITAC and I was very uncomfortable with those decisions as a member not involved in them, and continue to be worried about the practice in general.

And I'm NOT disputing your data, Steve: I'm disputing - personally, since I don't speak for the committee - the entire process of trying to use "known" data. Ask any of the other ITAC members - I'm a pain in their butts in this respect.

One thought, that we might take away from this?

If someone has information to add to the process, they need to do it through official channels with a request to the CRB, with whatever information they can provide available for public scrutiny. The INSTANT we get into committee members digging for data on their own, people sharing dyno sheets in confidence, etc. we are screwed.

I'm sure there's more but work beckons...

K

[924Guy]

Glad to see the MR2 in B - long overdue (not to slag on the ITAC, but it was pushed away for so long)...

[Greg Amy]

[The ITAC] took known numbers and backed into the ITS RX7 weight and classification. You backed into the E36, 89CRX, and many others.

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

[spdmonkey]

I can't count the number of times over the past several years where someone has said something along the lines of Mazda runs the SCCA... Maybe that attitude is changing a bit or maybe its payback time.

[Greg Krom]

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.