ITB - what a bunch of crap

[Andy Bettencourt]

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%...

Been hashed to death in other threads. Won't bother to try and explain again the timing and logic. It's a Miata hater issue anyway. It would apply to any car that came accross in the same manner and timeframe and same facts. The process for the 94-95 ITA Miata was as such:

128 * 1.25 = 160 * 14.5 = 2320 + 50 for DW = 2370. Tried to give it 50lbs in total BS 'it's a Miata' weight but the cage rules maxed it out at 10lbs at the time, hence the 2380. Should really be 2370.

Its the way new cars are classed when hp numbers are not known. Same way for the SE-R. 140 * 1.25 = 175 * 14.5 = 2537.5 - 50 for FWD = 2487.5 rounded to 2490.

[spnkzss]

don't cars get drag coefficient numbers? Couldn't that be used for aero?

[Xian]

It's a Miata hater issue anyway.

And right there is where you lost me. Until a couple weeks ago I owned a 97 Miata. Hell, I even looked at building a 1.8 liter ITA car but in the end "picked my poison" and stuck with a Honda This has nothing to do with "hating" anything, it does have to do with fairly applying the rules to all cars classed. Remember "We know what we know"... and what we know is that the Miata's make more than 25% in gains. I'd argue it's closer to 35% than 30% but, regardless, the real figures are more than it was classed at.

[ekim952522000]

.........

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.

This sounds like a great way to handle it to me. After/If this is done would it be to much to ask that a list off all cars that have not been processed be available?

[Andy Bettencourt]

And right there is where you lost me. Until a couple weeks ago I owned a 97 Miata. Hell, I even looked at building a 1.8 liter ITA car but in the end "picked my poison" and stuck with a Honda This has nothing to do with "hating" anything, it does have to do with fairly applying the rules to all cars classed. Remember "We know what we know"... and what we know is that the Miata's make more than 25% in gains. I'd argue it's closer to 35% than 30% but, regardless, the real figures are more than it was classed at.

You have to look at the history of the topic and the facts to understand. There are PLENTY of cars that make more than the initial 25% that was used in the estimate. It's begs the question: how much info do you need, when do you need it and WHAT do you need? The infomation on the CRX and Integra are plentiful. How much information are you citing when you argue it's 35%? This question applies to all cars, not just this specific case.

It's another reason the +/- 100lb group think it should stay. If 25% is estimated and we find out that 27% is more like the number (as long as you answer the quations above) do you make a change? Is that IT or Prod? 28%? 30%?

Tell me how many data points and from where you would like to cite before something is taken as fact.

[Greg Amy]

I do.

+1.

But you guys are probably smarter than that... :cool:

[AjG]

Classic.



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

This board is hilarious… well I wasn’t actually asking for anything Jake, just pointing out that if you reprocess based off a fast car other cars will get lighter and getting lighter is difficult/expensive/impossible in IT. So where does that get you? I’m quite content with my POS and yes losing weight is too expensive for me. I mean where do you draw the line? I know I could call up Minilite or whoever and get some custom magnesium wheels but come on, this is improved touring not pro touring. I’d be embarrassed to even use them. Admittedly my cut off is a bit lower than some with a $3300 total investment in the car but I actually like to race with people, not time trials with a $15,000 IT car. Hee hee. I’d be much more in favor of sheding non-essential crap than adding weight to anyone(don’t want to start that one here). But if your not adding weight and at the same time don’t have many ways to shed weight(imo) then fiddling with weight dosen’t get you too far.

[lateapex911]

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



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.



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.

1- Correct.
2- The time line was:
Stock ECUs. Complaints arise about other cars adjusting timing, jetting, etc.

• Chips allowable. Can't police them anyway.. then, of course, piggybacks get shoved in there. Can't police it, so...
• Anything goes, as long as it's in the stock box. Now it's NASA money for some guys but, it just became an open rule.
• **********************
• The "in the box" restriction was dropped, to encourage the free market and lessen the limitations.

The point in time, highlighted by ****s is where everything was gone over to ensure that process numbers included ECU gains. before that, it was rather random, and the rule created a sort of post classification comp adjustment. Part of the entire GR was laying the groundwork for future initiatives like the ECU rule.

3- The "IT going National concept" has been coming up for years. If you notice, I start just such a thread every year or so, to gauge the membership. This past event was part of a larger package. I do wonder if they wouldn't be smart to make IT National, for the good of the club sometimes. But, at this juncture, the BoD, at least, isn't interested. (At least the majority)

[Ed Funk]

Vote for tGA, he's for "change"

[lateapex911]

This board is hilarious… well I wasn’t actually asking for anything Jake, just pointing out that if you reprocess based off a fast car other cars will get lighter and getting lighter is difficult/expensive/impossible in IT. So where does that get you? I’m quite content with my POS and yes losing weight is too expensive for me. I mean where do you draw the line? I know I could call up Minilite or whoever and get some custom magnesium wheels but come on, this is improved touring not pro touring. I’d be embarrassed to even use them. Admittedly my cut off is a bit lower than some with a $3300 total investment in the car but I actually like to race with people, not time trials with a $15,000 IT car. Hee hee. I’d be much more in favor of sheding non-essential crap than adding weight to anyone(don’t want to start that one here). But if your not adding weight and at the same time don’t have many ways to shed weight(imo) then fiddling with weight dosen’t get you too far.

Well, that's not accurate, entirely. For you, it might not, but that's because of the choices you've made. And you just said you chose not to avail yourself of some of the options you have. Others might take a crappy cheap to get car, then make it top drawer, because they see it as a way to get to the top, and competition is what racing is about. Some decide they want to compete up front, others are happier in the middle. And that's fine.

But, you can't say to a governing board, "Look, I don't want to spend a lot of money here, but i want my car to be competitive, and it's not. It weighs too much compared to others. So, make them all add weight, or allow me to remove things" Which will, in turn cause everyone else to need to do the same, if they wish to be as competitive as they were pre allowance. And that is the dangerous Rules creep scenario.

If you were on the governing board, you'd have a tough time justifying that to everyone slapping in the weight, or needing to remove heater cores, or make lexan windows, or carbon fenders, and on and on. Really, you would.

You're coming at this from the point of view that things haven't been reprocessed. They have. This discussion is about fine tuning, or a second swipe to get things closer. Cars in the front HAVE been slapped with weight. Some weren't classified when the GR took place, but their weights should reflect the framework laid out.

Don't forget that there are FIVE classes. Each class has a performance target/window. The architecture of the framework was to, in each class, come to a target that added weight to the front runners, and removed a reasonable amount from the backmarkers. With 300 cars, it is very very difficult to strike a balance, and have every car happy. Trust me, I was involved, and my car came up short...and that's the way it needed to be. The class/category needs outweighed my personal desires. In your case, you have the opportunity to improve your lot, and it's up to you to chose whether it's worth it to you to take the advantages.

I'm not trying to pick on you, really, but your post focused a light onto some of the issues surrounding the structure, and the limitation of the classifications, and I think some reading this aren[t aware of things that have occurred over the years, or why things are the way they are.

[Catch22]

After brain chewing on this for a while, I'd like to suggest just completely scrapping the "-50 for Bad suspension" from the process.

Why?
1. What is "bad" anyway? It just begs for even more subjectivity.
2. Some cars that have gotten that -50 certainly don't need it. A 1st gen CRX or A2/A3 Golf certainly do not handle "bad."
3. Looks like it gets applied sometimes (A3 Golf... Strut and beam) and not sometimes (CRX... Strut and Beam).
4. There really aren't any contemporary cars that are "Bad." You have to go back farther than the ITCS to get into those.

Just set the baseline as "strut cars" and do the adder for Double Wishbone and Independent designs. Subjectivity removed, and removing it where you can is a good thing.

Just my opinion. I'm sure someone disagrees.

[shwah]

You have to look at the history of the topic and the facts to understand. There are PLENTY of cars that make more than the initial 25% that was used in the estimate. It's begs the question: how much info do you need, when do you need it and WHAT do you need? The infomation on the CRX and Integra are plentiful. How much information are you citing when you argue it's 35%? This question applies to all cars, not just this specific case.

It's another reason the +/- 100lb group think it should stay. If 25% is estimated and we find out that 27% is more like the number (as long as you answer the quations above) do you make a change? Is that IT or Prod? 28%? 30%?

Tell me how many data points and from where you would like to cite before something is taken as fact.

The current process is the current process. It does have subjectivity (still not convinced this is a good - or bad - thing), as noted in power adders most often.

All I am asking is that you don't add more tolerance to the imperfect window that you are already landing in with the process. If it comes out at a weight, put it at the nearest multiple of 5, even if it was only 36#, or 86# away from that.

If a car is assumed 25% during initial classing - say a Daewoo that no one knows anything about - and it turns out to gain 40%, or 29%, or 15% in IT Trim, AND the ITAC can gather data that it deems satisfactory (that is part of the job - make decisions with the information available, including whether the information available is sufficient) to document that fact, then of course change it, a mistake was made, but if a car is reviewed now, is a well known quantity, and is adjusted (or not), the next time it is asked for review you will have the data to back yourselves up and say NO. If the review pre-dates the current era of recording how these things are decided, then IMO you go with what the current group arrives at using the process, since you have no idea what went into the last decision.

The window only serves to exacerbate the known lack of (impossibility of) perfect accuracy in the process.

[Catch22]

We actually have a whole bunch of agreement here, its just hard to realize it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

+1.

But you guys are probably smarter than that... :cool:

Unless the membership thinks we need to diversify geographiaclly, I say yes!!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just my opinion. I'm sure someone disagrees.

I could buy that for a dollar.

[dazzlesa]

my coments were not meant to ask for a weight break on the integra. looking at the formulas and seeing how the civc, golf a3 and the 1.8 miata worked out concerns me.

[Xian]

my coments were not meant to ask for a weight break on the integra. looking at the formulas and seeing how the civc, golf a3 and the 1.8 miata worked out concerns me.

That's how I interpreted it...

FWIW, I've spoken with several other well informed IT racers over the last 2-3 years and the unanimous thought about the 1.8 Miata is that it could be a major overdog... right up until the weight gets re-evaluated based on "what we know".

[Catch22]

I could buy that for a dollar.

Which part?

[CRallo]

so is this thread some sort of record?

or do you guys do this every winter?? and don't you all have jobs?

Vote for tGA, he's for "change"

- worked for Obama... God help us all!

[CRallo]

a few thoughts / responses:

- anyone ever play with one of those computer programs that simulates engine power based on the info/mods that you input?? are any of them advanced to help us approximate the proper power adder for a particular engine?

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

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.

The computer/chip/ECU.

- lots of factors... many have already been mentioned. The ECU is definitely one. many cars come well tuned, some come with very conservative tunes and some come with restrictive redlines...

- a very broad way to answer this question would be: any performance limiting component that you can remove or are stuck with per the rules. I say it this way becuase there truely are many answers to the question.

- I would agree that most modern engines are more "maxed out" or in a higher state of tune and therefore there is less room for improvement...

don't cars get drag coefficient numbers? Couldn't that be used for aero?

- speaking of aero: anyone think about how the heavier car with more power will have the advantage "at speed" when the fight for speed is againt the air and not the weight??

**ducks** :eek: