ITB - what a bunch of crap

[Greg Amy]

so you're rejecting that we end up in the same place even if the car is broken out on a separate line?

I don't know from what rock dug this red herring; as far as I know that option is not on the table (nor should it be). What I'm rejecting is the "logical" course of action that ended up with the 1.8L Miata being formulated using the lower of the two available weights (despite evidence of other cars being treated wholly differently.)

The base problem here is that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too: on the one hand you state we should base weights on stock factory listed power (but only when applied to the earlier 1.8L Miata), yet on the other hand you support adjusting weights based on "what we know" (e.g., CRX and later 1.8L Miata). In the specific case of the Miata, you want the car weighted based on its earlier (lower) rated horsepower. What you're TRYING to (unsuccessfully) convince us is that the actual "known" output of both engines is the same as the 25% adder to the 125(?) hp engine, that the later engine only gets ~18% increase in IT trim. That, my friend, is "known info adjustments", not basing decisions on manufacturer's data and standard formulas.

Absent all that "knowledge", you know that any other car would be - and has been - classified using the higher of the two horsepower figures. Any confusion as to why people see this as favorable treatment...?

If you want to propose breaking out the two cars on separate lines, be my guest! My prediction - a silly-easy one to make - is that the later one will be initially ignored, but in the end the earlier one will eventually get adjusted based on "what we know", just like what happened to the Honda CRX, and they'll both be put back on the same line, this time with the weight calculated using the standard formula on the later car's horsepower figures.

Go ahead: prove me wrong.

GA

[seckerich]

Except you have a mechanical difference there that is NOT free in IT. Those cars have different power potentials in IT. The Miata's do not.

Again, we use what we know to most accurately class cars. In this case, we believe the 128hp number to be the correct one to use given the facts.

Not to beat another really dead horse Andy (and entire ITAC) , but will you guys use the same logic when the 2005 RX8 with the revised lower HP ratings is classed? Same exact mechanical car with realistic HP that was not tweaked by marketing. It was such a sticking point to use the highest number in all the discussions and multipliers. I was told you had to use the highest reported number because the 2004 was being classed. Please note I am just giving you a hard time.

[Conover]

I know this thread has taken a turn, but I can't help myself. If you believe that an engine is stock just because someone didn't bother to clean and paint the outside of the bottom end, your fooling yourself. . .

[Jeremy Billiel]

I don't really know jack about miata's to be honest, but I have heard that miata'a are good for 140-145 whp.

So if they are classified at 128hp *.85 (15% reduction) you would have 108hp at the wheels.

145-108=37 HP gain

37/108=34% gain in power (if you use 140 hp it would be a gain of 30%)

Even at the higher HP ratings, it would be 145-113=32

32/113= 28% gain in power (if you use 140hp it would be a gain of 24%)

In either case, on the surface, it would appear to me that either the car should have a higher multiplier or start off with the higher HP number.

Either scenario would be ok, but one should be applied IMO.

[tnord]

I don't really know jack about miata's to be honest, but I'm going to tell you how much power they make, and how to classify them anyway.

c'mon, really?

[Catch22]

I hate to do this, because it will tangent it even more. But...

I've seen, with mine own eyes, dynojet dyno graphs for a fully built and legal CRX and a fully built and legal 1.6 Miata. Same dyno, same tuner but unfortunately not the same day (nothing is ever perfect).

The results for those two cars are so close on the dyno graph that you could call it statistical noise. Both right at 130whp (don't start racing dynos here and tell me a Miata only gets 124whp on a mustang, thats not the point of this post... Stay focused).

Now... Take into account that the miata was rated at 116 stock and the CRX at 108 (which most people agree is an undercut from the factory and is actually more like ~115).
Now take into account that the CRX gets a weight break for FWD.
Now take into account that they both get weight added for A arm suspension.

Do that math.
Tell us what you get.
Anyone??? Bueeeellller???

Hint: The cars have the same output in IT trim, the same displacement, and the same suspension type.
The difference is FWD vs. RWD, meaning the CRX should come up damned close to 50lbs lighter if the numbers are "right."
Right?
UNLESS... The Miata gets a 50lb break for aero. Then the weight specs should be the same.
Right?

And for the record, these 2 cars are a couple that I personally think should be left alone as-is because they are currently "reasonable and close."

Just a little exercise in taking what we know and working backwards, which is why I don't think this is so hard or apple cart dangerous.

[Jeremy Billiel]

c'mon, really?

"Convienently ignoring anything that doesn't support your distorted view", Travis? Or is it just easier to attack the messenger?

Just sayin.

I can't tell you parts, suspension or anything else. But I do have a similiar view that they are currently overdogs. I have also heard these HP numbers from a very respected source. I am simply doing math!!

[tnord]

i've heard plenty of honda numbers also, but it's all 3rd/4th person type stuff, so i don't start screaming that they need weight thrown at them. are these power numbers you've "heard" directly from the car owner? anything you've seen with your own eyes?

[Xian]

1.6 liter Miata in ITA
116*1.3*14.5=2186.6+50 A-Arms=2236.6

1.8 liter Miata in ITA
128*1.3*14.5= 2412.5+ 50 A-Arms= 2462.5

SNIP

Spec weight for the 1.6 in ITA is 2255 and the 1.8 is 2380

Looks like a case of the 1.6 car being close but the 1.8 car needing weight... this is ASSuming that these cars are only making 30% gains and not closer to 35%. This is also with Zero adjustment for their 50/50 mid-engine like weight bias.

Wheeee!!! This is fun!

I hate to do this, because it will tangent it even more. But...

I've seen, with mine own eyes, dynojet dyno graphs for a fully built and legal CRX and a fully built and legal 1.6 Miata. Same dyno, same tuner but unfortunately not the same day (nothing is ever perfect).

The results for those two cars are so close on the dyno graph that you could call it statistical noise. Both right at 130whp (don't start racing dynos here and tell me a Miata only gets 124whp on a mustang, thats not the point of this post... Stay focused).

Now... Take into account that the miata was rated at 116 stock and the CRX at 108 (which most people agree is an undercut from the factory and is actually more like ~115).
Now take into account that the CRX gets a weight break for FWD.
Now take into account that they both get weight added for A arm suspension.

Do that math.
Tell us what you get.
Anyone??? Bueeeellller???

Hint: The cars have the same output in IT trim, the same displacement, and the same suspension type.
The difference is FWD vs. RWD, meaning the CRX should come up damned close to 50lbs lighter if the numbers are "right."
Right?
UNLESS... The Miata gets a 50lb break for aero. Then the weight specs should be the same.
Right?

And for the record, these 2 cars are a couple that I personally think should be left alone as-is because they are currently "reasonable and close."

Just a little exercise in taking what we know and working backwards, which is why I don't think this is so hard or apple cart dangerous.

Agreed that the 1.6 liter car is classed "close" or "close enough", IMO. The issue here is with the 1.8 liter car... or maybe that's where you were going in a round about way?

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Convienently ignoring anything that doesn't support your distorted view", Travis? Or is it just easier to attack the messenger?

Just sayin.

I can't tell you parts, suspension or anything else. But I do have a similiar view that they are currently overdogs. I have also heard these HP numbers from a very respected source. I am simply doing math!!

Jeremy, you are using rumored hp numbers, not a number that is backed up by years of statistical data. I have never heard of a 1.8 making 145whp. NEVER. If we want to start racing singular dyno plots, I will write up the request for a weight adjustment on the SE-R/NX2000 for you to submit.

Oh, please tell me WHY you think they are overdogs. You have any data to support that? This is what, the 3rd year people have been saying that...where are they all? And make sure it's your mouth moving without Greg's hand up your back...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Not to beat another really dead horse Andy (and entire ITAC) , but will you guys use the same logic when the 2005 RX8 with the revised lower HP ratings is classed? Same exact mechanical car with realistic HP that was not tweaked by marketing. It was such a sticking point to use the highest number in all the discussions and multipliers. I was told you had to use the highest reported number because the 2004 was being classed. Please note I am just giving you a hard time.

I wasn't on that call as you know, but IIRC 238hp is the lowest and most current published number for the RX-8.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Jeremy, you are using rumored hp numbers, not a number that is backed up by years of statistical data. I have never heard of a 1.8 making 145whp. NEVER. If we want to start racing singular dyno plots, I will write up the request for a weight adjustment on the SE-R/NX2000 for you to submit.

I hear you Andy. If there were more SE-R's and NX2000's out there I think that would be a fair arguement. So you have a very stout motor that is making good power. Now lets assume that you were not in your current position. What types of HP do the 1.8L's really make?

[tnord]

I hear you Andy. If there were more SE-R's and NX2000's out there I think that would be a fair arguement. So you have a very stout motor that is making good power. Now lets assume that you were not in your current position. What types of HP do the 1.8L's really make?

i really don't like to talk about other people's power #'s without their permission, but i'll just say one of the most optimized ones i know of isn't even in your rumored range, and gets walked by the hondas.

i heard those integras make AT LEAST 160hp!!!

[Xian]

Travis I saw your post before you went back and edited out the power figure. Suffice to say that that figure you posted is right in line with the 1.8 liter car getting a 25% adder off a "base HP" figure of 133. Not as high as the number Jeremy posted but right in line with the numbers I've heard for these cars. i.e. the car is classed light right now.

[R2 Racing]

So is this a safe representation of the beliefs of these two Miata's?

94-95 - 128hp * 1.25 * 14.5 = 2320 + 50lbs 4WI = 2370lbs
96-97 - 133hp * 1.20 * 14.5 = 2315 + 50lbs 4WI = 2365lbs

So then they should both end up on the same 2380lbs line.

Is this the God's honest belief of those "in the know", that these things just won't make any more power than that?

[Greg Amy]

Jeremy, you are using rumored hp numbers, not a number that is backed up by years of statistical data.

Care to share your "years of statistical data" showing that the later 1.8L Miata makes only 18% improvements in horsepower in IT trim...?

"Just Sayin'".

And make sure it's your mouth moving without Greg's hand up your back...

Having lost the Logic and Reason battle, now you're devolving into Travis Nord tactics...

[Xian]

So is this a safe representation of the beliefs of these two Miata's?

94-95 - 128hp * 1.25 * 14.5 = 2320 + 50lbs 4WI = 2370lbs
96-97 - 133hp * 1.20 * 14.5 = 2315 + 50lbs 4WI = 2365lbs

So then they should both end up on the same 2380lbs line.

Is this the God's honest belief of those "in the know", that these things just won't make any more power than that?

My contention (and others) is that it should be 30% and 25%...

94-95 - 128hp * 1.30 * 14.5 = 2412 + 50lbs 4WI = 2462lbs
96-97 - 133hp * 1.25 * 14.5 = 2411 + 50lbs 4WI = 2461lbs

[tnord]

Travis I saw your post before you went back and edited out the power figure. Suffice to say that that figure you posted is right in line with the 1.8 liter car getting a 25% adder off a "base HP" figure of 133. Not as high as the number Jeremy posted but right in line with the numbers I've heard for these cars. i.e. the car is classed light right now.

no, it's right in line with a 25% adder off of a 128hp base.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Absent all that "knowledge", you know that any other car would be - and has been - classified using the higher of the two horsepower figures. Any confusion as to why people see this as favorable treatment...?

GA

But we have the knowledge. Again, it was formulated using the ONLY available rating at the time. When the higher rating was requested, we used facts and common sense to determine that it was 100% the same car as what was aready listed. Hence the weight. Can't explain it any better or any more. YMMV.

Philisophically, I agree and it is the general rule. But when you know something, you know it.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Ok my 145 number is high. It's probably closer to 140. I will also say that in all fairness, I think we would need more data to make a sure fire bet that the multiplier should be higher. This is no different than the NX2000 or SE-R. So lets see when more Miata's are built how they fare.

Why are there not more ITA Miata's being built?