ITB - what a bunch of crap

[dazzlesa]

when my intgra went up to 2595 from 2480 and i have to race a 2380 lb car that should be 2555lbs at lime rock, good luck. it makes me crazy. i love the racing but this is nuts.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Now sure why you feel compled to play games, but since you'll get your jollies from it the suspension on my car is a double wishbone and the rear uses transverse arms with conventional MacPherson struts.


Our goal after a full build (engine, tuning, tranny, yadda, yadda) for this car was 110 at the wheels. We got 112. Then again, according to you "if you want to use singular dyno sheets, then all hell breaks loose" so I'm not sure why you are asking. Oh, was that you way of replying on my previous question where I was curious how the gain % is determined?


Ready for the next riddle Andy.

Dave, you asked for justification on why your car was 100lbs more than a MKIII Golf. I am helping you understand what went through the process. Why is that playing games? You sit there and write letters asking for a correction on the MKIII, yet you don't seem to want to hear the information or do a real comparision. I am just acting as the messenger for you.

The Honduh guys on the call predicted 30% gains on your motor. Take that number and add in 50lbs for double wishbone and you have 2431lbs. Not sure where the 19-20lbs came from, but it would be something that I would like to 'correct' if we were allowed to go to town on the ITCS and scrub each car down to +/-5.

Still waiting for someone to step up and run their numbers on the ITB cars listed - or at least recommend what THEY would do with them. It may seem easy to some but when you actually look at whats in front of you, it gets cloudy REAL fast. The potential for a singular car to run roughshot over a class is HUGE.

[Catch22]

Andy, posting for Blake, who says your earlier Porsche 914 numbers are wrong.

He says that the 1.7L 914 is in ITC at 2080 and the 2.0L is in B at 2260. I haven't double checked that.

As far as what we "know"...
If we KNOW a 1.6 liter, MPFI, 16v Honda motor can do 35%, then its reasonable to apply the same thing to a 1.6 liter, MPFI, 16v Mazda motor. Right?

BUT, if you have a knowlegeable Mazda person in the loop that says "Nope, the Miata does 25% because of xxxx factor" then you call that knowlege as well, and maybe split the difference and do it at 30%.

The info has to come from somewhere. Use all the tools you have and go for it.
Again... Perfection is not the goal. Reasonable is the goal, and I see that as VERY attainable.

[JoshS]

but yes, sequential injection > dual point injection > carbs.
16V > 12V > 8V.
OBDx > vacuum advance.

I'm just starting to read today and haven't read the whole thread, but I've gotta disagree with the concept expressed here. Yes, it's true that new technology tends to make more horsepower than old technology. But that difference is already built into the stock hp of the car.

The question is -- what kind of technology differences cause one car to gain X% in IT trim, while another gains Y%?

It's things like restrictive exhausts (which can be changed out). It's not inherently true that a 4V engine will gain more in IT trim than a 2V engine. Unfortunately, manufacturers don't publicize that their cars have restrictive exhausts, so it's very hard to predict how an IT build will affect horsepower, and I just don't buy that newer, higher-tech engines will gain more. In fact, I think in most cases they are likely to gain LESS.

[lateapex911]

The Pinto was reprocessed last year and the weight went from 2490 to 2340.(thanks itac)
Numbers are:
92hp x 1.25 x 17(itb) + 50 (a-arm)= 2005 lbs oops…hmmm math wrong?
92hp x 1.45(“smogged up '70s POS” ???) x 17(itb) + 50(a-arm) = 2333 lbs
I actually think 2340 would be a pretty good weight.
The problem, even at 2340 pounds, is in actually loosing the weight.
If the VW Golf is accurately Processed, and is being used as the standard for ITB, and is already a pretty good car( being generous here) then a lot of cars are going to end up loosing weight when reprocessed. But the problem in IT is that you can’t actually take anything off the car! (heater cores for example) So then you end up with a very narrow obtainable weight range. Unless of course you ADD weight to the typically faster/friendlier subjectively(?) process-ified cars, and that probably ain’t gonna happen.

Classic.

IIRC when we got some letters on this, the suggestions were across the board as to what was wanted. One letter, (and I'm not suggesting it was about Pintos) requested a weight break for his ITB car, but went on to say that no matter what, don't move it to ITC, because the writer didn't like the guys in ITC.

Sometimes you just can't have your cake and eat it too....

Not to pick on this fellow, (no name/sig, so sorry, I can't be more polite), but.....

Has the car been on a diet? What does the driver seat weigh? What tires are used? What do the wheels weigh? Type of radiator? Stainless header and exhaust? Light weight hardware in all locations? Simple door bars to allow gutting doors? Hollow sway bars with aluminum arms? And I could go on.

And don't respond with "That stuff costs toio much, or takes too much time..."

Listen, I run an old crappy car. It got a weight break. The car can get to that weight, (thanks to the list above) maybe 10 pounds less, but even that isn't enough. It is what it is. The ITAC can not add 100 or more pounds to every car on the ITA list in an effort to make a few specific cars like mine competitive. The cost of such a change would be borne by EVERYONE, while only benifitting me, and a couple others. No, that's crazy.

On the other hand, when we did the GR, we added weight to a small goup of cars to bring them in line with the process. And look at the complaining. Rick Benazic is STILL bitching (see his posts in THIS thread, LOL) about how the weight ruined his car, yet that same model car just won the ARRCs.



Again, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

My position:

• Do away with the 100 pound window of change. Round to the neatest 5.
• Adjust cars on a proactive basis within the ITAC (Cars that are known issues), AND adjust cars based on member request.
• Continue to fine tune the process, and DOCUMENT. And sure, publish the math.

[Catch22]

Still waiting for someone to step up and run their numbers on the ITB cars listed - or at least recommend what THEY would do with them. It may seem easy to some but when you actually look at whats in front of you, it gets cloudy REAL fast. The potential for a singular car to run roughshot over a class is HUGE.

I may do it later, but right now frankly I'm tired of doing what seems to be a windmill chasing exercise.

But I will say this one more time... If the math doesn't work or gives you a wonky number that you KNOW isn't right on an older car, then THAT is knowlege... It is now a tool to be used.
Do more research, figure out "why," and document why you got the result you got. Maybe it is a smogged up crapmobile that will get 45% in IT prep. Thats the whole "hard part" in gaining knowlege.

But arbitrarily applying HUGE modifiers to Honda B because Honda A made those numbers IS NOT knowlege. Thats lazyness or bias or both.

And again, don't worry about the 1974 Wonky Coupe 4000 unless someone makes the request.

[Catch22]

My position:

• Do away with the 100 pound window of change. Round to the neatest 5.
• Adjust cars on a proactive basis within the ITAC (Cars that are known issues), AND adjust cars based on member request.
• Continue to fine tune the process, and DOCUMENT. And sure, publish the math.

Great.
Do it.

[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


1.6 liter Miata in ITB
116*1.3*17= 2563.6+50 A-Arms =2613.6

1.8 liter Miata in ITB
128*1.3*17= 2828.8 + 50 A-Arms = 2878.80

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!

[dazzlesa]

jake

sorry for still bitchin. but if the process is not consistant than there is plenty of room for bitchin. my car is not ruined. i use my cars as examples. the procees should be used across the board for the good or bad of all cars.
i do love your position.
rick

[jjjanos]

The question is -- what kind of technology differences cause one car to gain X% in IT trim, while another gains Y%?

The computer/chip/ECU.

[lateapex911]

Excellent addition to the process. Provide an independent and reproducable metric for aero for all classified vehicles. We can debate whether this car should get 50lb reduction, but we cannot debate that its aero value is X. (See mid- vs front- adder. The amount of the adder is debatable. Whether a car is mid- or front-engined is not)......

What triggers the review? The new ECU rule. The multipliers are no longer valid given the extra HP that FI cars can get versus Carb cars. Based on the idea that the process weight is the 100% developed weight, virtually all cars with an ECU are underweight. I've been told that if I wanted to spend gobs of money on the right ECU, my 91HP stock car with a 25% multiplier can pick up an extra 5% HP.

The board granted the realignment on a once only basis. It also created the category as a regional-only category and seemed to be more than willing to ignore that absolute.

1- On aero: Please do provide an independent and reproducable metric for aero.

2- Wrong. All ECU cars are not underweight. ECUs have been "free" since, what '97 or so? Perhaps certain makes and models needed NASA money to institute the ECUS, but they were available, and the process took that into account.

3- Really?? Last I checked, IT only runs at Nationals on a restricted basis. We're still a regional class. Unless I've been asleep for a few years.

[Ron Earp]

This is also with Zero adjustment for their 50/50 mid-engine like weight bias.

Wheeee!!! This is fun!

Sure sounds like fun. Let me try:

1999 1.8L Miata in ITS, 140 stock hp. You guys like the 35% gain for the Miata, I do too so:

140 x 1.35 x 12.9 = 2438 lbs. Now, what about those adders: +50 for the front suspension and...

The 1999 1.8L Miata should weigh in at 2488 lbs, or 2490lbs. That is 115lbs more than the spec weight now, 2375. Seems like the 1999 ITS Miata will need some adjusting. I was worried about the ITS Miatas in 2009, little did I know I just had to calculate them out of the running.

[lateapex911]

when my intgra went up to 2595 from 2480 and i have to race a 2380 lb car that should be 2555lbs at lime rock, good luck. it makes me crazy. i love the racing but this is nuts.

But Rick, first, defend that position...show me the numbers. And don't just choose one car to compare it to, do it for a cross section.

Second, Lime Rock is totally irrelevant. We can't set weights based on one track.

Guys, the cream will rise, Period. And that cream might be different at different tracks. We all can't have our cake and eat it too. In other words, if we expect to win, sometimes we have to have the right car, the right prep and the right driver at the right track. We can't always be holding back money, or deciding we want to race a certain brand, or whatever.

If, for example, I want to win at Lime Rock, and I want to stick with my Mazda roots, I might have to get over my "I want to race on a budget" issue, and get over my "Miatas are gay" viewpoint.

(AND, I'll have to learn to be a better engineer, a better team manager, a better funding source, and, yes, a better driver)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, posting for Blake, who says your earlier Porsche 914 numbers are wrong.

He says that the 1.7L 914 is in ITC at 2080 and the 2.0L is in B at 2260. I haven't double checked that.

Cool. I was going from the old spreadsheet RacerJake had done that has all the cars in the ITCS in it.

As far as what we "know"...
If we KNOW a 1.6 liter, MPFI, 16v Honda motor can do 35%, then its reasonable to apply the same thing to a 1.6 liter, MPFI, 16v Mazda motor. Right?

Nope. If you know anything about Mazda engines, you know that the ports are tiny compared to their Hondah counterparts. That is one of the reasons you don't see very much gain with a header. Just because things look alike on paper doesn't mean they are alike. Again, another reason that each car needs to be looked at individually. Sometimes we spend huge amounts of time on calls debating the adders.

The info has to come from somewhere. Use all the tools you have and go for it.
Again... Perfection is not the goal. Reasonable is the goal, and I see that as VERY attainable.

Agreed...and as I have done before, I may call you for a sanity check.

[Andy Bettencourt]

when my intgra went up to 2595 from 2480 and i have to race a 2380 lb car that should be 2555lbs at lime rock, good luck. it makes me crazy. i love the racing but this is nuts.

And this is why half the ITAC stays off IT.com. We now have an ITA driver who is taking a weight pulled out of thin air from someone else and using it as fact and justification why he can't keep up at a singular track. Whooo-hooo! WinnAr!

I hope we will implement what Jake wants to do above. It's what a few of us want to do...with the exception of turning the adders into a % as an addition. Anyone want ON the ITAC? Might be a few openings this January!!!!

[R2 Racing]

17 pages and almost three hours later, I made it! I MADE IT!!!! (It's ok, I've been laid off!) Now, onto my lowly opinions.

A couple pages back it was said:
double wishbone = +50lbs
strut = +0lbs
other = -50lbs

Andy went on to say that the A3 would get the -50 subtractor because despite being strut in the front, it has a beam in the rear. Ok, so the beam rear trumps the strut front to become simply "other", not being four wheel strut, and warrant the -50lbs. Ok, got it. (BTW, in this comparison, so would the ITB CRX/Civic Si as it too is strut front and beam rear.)

Where my problem lies is that the later "double wishbone" Honda CRX/Civic/Integra's are getting +50 when they are in fact not four wheel double wishbone. The front is (loosely), but the rear uses a rear trailing arm with a singular upper and lower arm. Yes, it is independent, but it's not double wishbone. So shouldn't that make it not worthy of the +50?

That leads to the core issue, are the right terms being used here? Am I more correct in stating it this way?
Four wheel independent suspension = +50lbs
Four wheel strut independent suspension = 0lbs
Other = -50lbs

Sorry if I appear to be being a pain, but I just thought that needed to be clarrified.


I also agree with Giles, Jake, et al. that this +- 100lbs thing is too much. If I came to find out that my car was classed 95lbs over it's process weight while another guys car was classed 95lbs under it's process weight, and that was A-OK with the ITAC, I'd be pissed. That's not acceptable. +- 5, maybe 10lbs I could live with. Address that first, and then we can worry about "torque adders" and whatever else adders that have been talked about here. Get everyone on the same playing field through the exact same process, and then we can worry about going from there.


Lastly, Rick, your Integra is still quite competitive at 2595lbs. If you take it at a 1.25 power adder, +50 for four wheel independent, and -50 for FWD, it's over weight. If you take it at a 1.35 power adder, the +50 for "4WI", and the -50 for FWD, it's under weight. Knowing what I know about the real kinds of gains this engine can get, it's about spot on.

[Catch22]

Anyone want ON the ITAC? Might be a few openings this January!!!!

I do.
But first I need to have some discussions with some current members (you, Kirk? Jake?) about my work hours and if we think they could be an issue.

I don't want to get on the committee and then either be an absent member or have to immediately resign because I'm always at work during the con calls and critical discussions.

[jjjanos]

1- On aero: Please do provide an independent and reproducable metric for aero.

Which is why it won't/shouldn't be used. We can't get a metric on this.

2- Wrong. All ECU cars are not underweight. ECUs have been "free" since, what '97 or so?

Not in the mood to search through every fast track on SCCA, but was under the impression that the allowance for alternate chips in the original housing was more recent than '97. I also doubt that the process weight took this into account for the older cars that weren't deemed a-priori as out of whack.

3- Really?? Last I checked, IT only runs at Nationals on a restricted basis. We're still a regional class. Unless I've been asleep for a few years.

It is, but the recommendations from the CRB task force on fixin national racing said that should be changed. Clearly things that are settled and on which the books are closed are not so settled or closed.

[Z3_GoCar]

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

Uh, you're using the wrong inital hp on this one, it should be 133hp. I know that the gain was from an upgaded ecu. Two things, you could update to the new ecu, secondly, there's still got to be more to be had even in the stock ecu. The results are:

133*1.3*14.5 = 2506 50lbs for A-arm = 2556 => 2555lbs

[Xian]

Uh, you're using the wrong inital hp on this one, it should be 133hp. I know that the gain was from an upgaded ecu. Two things, you could update to the new ecu, secondly, there's still got to be more to be had even in the stock ecu. The results are:

133*1.3*14.5 = 2506 50lbs for A-arm = 2556 => 2555lbs

Whooops! My bad, 128 was the figure I found via a quick search. I thought I had seen higher HP figures but couldn't remember for sure. Thanks!

As you pointed out, this makes it worse all the way around... if it "only" makes a 25% gain then it should still weigh in around 2460 but is spec'd at 2380. So it's between 80-175#'s light at a minimum. And even more if the engine makes over 30%...