ITB - what a bunch of crap

[dickita15]

Just out of curiosity how long is the list of cars that we have not used the 25% adder?

[lateapex911]

Oh, and guess what guys...

Even IF.... even if the Miata IS off......lets say, just for giggles, that we redo it to the higher base, and we get toss in an adder (why not, you'll see my point in a second): we could wind up with 2457.

So what happens then?

Nothing.

That's within a hundred pounds.

First things first, write your letters if you want adjustments to be made for less than 100 pounds. I suggest you recommend an amount, or a percentage.

[Greg Amy]

Dyno results are irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of initial classification. The ex-Amy SR20 is a prime example of that.

Andy, you cannot possibly make me defensive to get me to back off of this or change the conversation. If you want to reclassify the SR20 then do it, write the letter. I'll send you dyno plots for evidence. 'Course, now it seems the conversation has changed from "well it got here through this method" to "hey, others are making more than 25%, so why can't I???"

Always something...

Bottom line: you're gaming the system with the Miata, plain and simple. Just about everyone besides you and Nord believe that.

And you know what's really a shame about all this? If you classified the Miata's weight based on the correct, higher horsepower, that car is good enough to where it probably wouldn't significantly affect its performance (if at all). But you'd accomplish one big result: you'd quickly shut-the-F-up of your detractors. But you won't do it; you won't even bring it up for discussion in the ITAC. You certainly won't voluntarily race at the higher weight to prove otherwise, because you know the results.

You have an advantage in that it's apparently "stare decisis", and I suppose everyone else will just have to go eat cake...but don't think that's going to satisfy the masses, Marie.

GA

[Xian]

Oh, and guess what guys...

Even IF.... even if the Miata IS off......lets say, just for giggles, that we redo it to the higher base, and we get toss in an adder (why not, you'll see my point in a second): we could wind up with 2457.

So what happens then?

Nothing.

That's within a hundred pounds.

First things first, write your letters if you want adjustments to be made for less than 100 pounds. I suggest you recommend an amount, or a percentage.

All true. I sent my letter last night.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, you cannot possibly make me defensive to get me to back off of this or change the conversation. If you want to reclassify the SR20 then do it, write the letter. I'll send you dyno plots for evidence. 'Course, now it seems the conversation has changed from "well it got here through this method" to "hey, others are making more than 25%, so why can't I???"

Always something...

Bottom line: you're gaming the system with the Miata, plain and simple. Just about everyone besides you and Nord believe that.

And you know what's really a shame about all this? If you classified the Miata's weight based on the correct, higher horsepower, that car is good enough to where it probably wouldn't significantly affect its performance (if at all). But you'd accomplish one big result: you'd quickly shut-the-F-up of your detractors. But you won't do it; you won't even bring it up for discussion in the ITAC. You certainly won't voluntarily race at the higher weight to prove otherwise, because you know the results.

You have an advantage in that it's apparently "stare decisis", and I suppose everyone else will just have to go eat cake...but don't think that's going to satisfy the masses, Marie.

GA

Maybe there are two arguements going on then. It's about the validity of the initial classification of the 133hp Miata...not about dyno sheets and what cars (any car) really make once they have been on track for 3 years.

If the later car made more hp in IT trim than the early car, I would have voted for a higher weight for both...and would have since updated/backdated my car...but they don't. FACT.

(Edit - no need to get snippy.)

[jjjanos]

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

But since Miata people tend to revel in our own Ghey-ness, it seems to substantiate even further that the people who know the cars don't think they are overdogs.

i'd like to see you guys answer your own question.

why aren't there more miatas being built?

Not that there's anything wrong with it, but...

They are having too much fun ice dancing?
Between Dancing with the Stars, Project Runway and Top Designer repeats, there just isn't enough time in the day to go into the garage?
The chiffon racing seats are on back-order?
Still in mourning over Mr. Blackwell?

This thread needs a serious dose of levity.

[Ed Funk]

This thread needs a serious dose of levity.

I had some un-levity bread once, it was really flat!

[Greg Amy]

(Insert head-thumping-on-wall icon here)

If the later car made more hp in IT trim than the early car, I would have voted for a higher weight for both...and would have since updated/backdated my car...but they don't. FACT.

You're either trying to divert the debate - again - or you TOTALLY miss the point.

No one is saying they don't make the same horsepower in IT trim. No one. Look around, find it if you disagree. I'll wait.

...

OK, that said, you need to understand that while no one disagrees with you on that point, that everyone's disagreement with your initial classification process is that you based it off the wrong number. You chose the lower number instead of the higher number, ostensibly because "it was already there". But, you made that decision off the radically misguided position that 1) the later car would make no more horsepower than the earlier car; **AND** (that's an "and", as in "additionally") 2) the earlier car fit "the process" accurately.

One we have no argument with.
Two you were wrong about.

In reality of FACT, the 133hp car fits "the process" far more accurately, in that its horsepower gains in IT trim fit right into your sacred little process. Go ahead, show us the math you've no doubt already done, where you reverse-calc the power number you actually attained back to a stock horsepower number. I would be STUNNED to discover that it doesn't come damn close to 133 horsepower.

Funny how that worked out.

So, wash, rinse, repeat your excuses all you want, but you blew it with the Miata classification, and you won't change it because a) you won't admit you were wrong, and b) you enjoy a personal advantage by that initial error.

If I raced at 2460 and won, there would be something else you would find to bitch about, no doubt.

Au contraire, mon frere: I'd be quite please, because not only would I, as a friend, get to enjoy watching you win but I'd also be proven "right".

Win-win.

GA

[lateapex911]

(Insert head-thumping-on-wall icon here)



Au contraire, mon frere: I'd be quite please, because not only would I, as a friend, get to enjoy watching you win but I'd also be proven "right".

Win-win.

GA

Many consider "I told you so" to be a semi advanced form of btching...

[tnord]

Andy, you cannot possibly make me defensive to get me to back off of this or change the conversation.

we know you will never, ever, drop your miata bitterness no matter what the situation, you don't have to tell us again.

If you want to reclassify the SR20 then do it, write the letter. I'll send you dyno plots for evidence. 'Course, now it seems the conversation has changed from "well it got here through this method" to "hey, others are making more than 25%, so why can't I???"
GA

take your pick greg, use either arguement, it's shit either way. they used the best knowledge that was available to classify the car which is the same as is done for other cars, and you can't do anything to show why the 25% adder is wrong.

and for all your claims that it's only the two miata guys arguing against your rhetoric, it's only Honda guys saying that the car is classified wrong.

[Greg Amy]

Many consider "I told you so" to be a semi advanced form of btching...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg, you are trying to use numbers that are known NOW to fit yor argument that the later car fits the process. Seems disingenous to the original arguement.

Let me try this another way.

Some people have an issue with this because they think it is not how the other classifications work. In other words, cars are classed based on the highest hp rating on its spec line and this is somehow special treatment. In reality, this situation is TOTALLY different.

In the case of the RX-7 or the Teg or (insert applicable car here), the lower hp car has the ability to UD/BD to the higher HP level. That is NOT the case here. All the early cars would get saddled with the weight of the higher hp without any way to get that hp back. It would be like the 86 RX-7 having to run the 146hp motor at the 160hp weight. It would be like the 1990 Teg having to run the 130hp cams at the 140hp cams weight. It's not right...but they can UD/BD to get the power to match the weight. The 94/95 Miata can't UD/BD to that power rating as a base.

So my conclusion would be to list them seperatly in the ITCS. Does this logic make sense?

[Greg Amy]

In the case of the RX-7 or the Teg or (insert applicable car here), the lower hp car has the ability to UD/BD to the higher HP level. That is NOT the case here. All the early cars would get saddled with the weight of the higher hp without any way to get that hp back....The 94/95 Miata can't UD/BD to that power rating as a base.

Okay, now you've lost me. Two questions to clarify:

- Was the Integra and the RX-7 (as examples) classified using the higher or the lower horsepower number?
- Wasn't it you that said the Miata was the same exact everything except for the ECU (which is legal to change in IT)? That the whole reason it was done this way was because it was "100% the same car"?

If so, then how is it that the earlier car could not be updated to the "higher" horsepower if the higher number was used for clarification?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Okay, now you've lost me. Two questions to clarify:

- Was the Integra and the RX-7 (as examples) classified using the higher or the lower horsepower number?
- Wasn't it you that said the Miata was the same exact everything except for the ECU (which is legal to change in IT)? That the whole reason it was done this way was because it was "100% the same car"?

If so, then how is it that the earlier car could not be updated to the "higher" horsepower if the higher number was used for clarification?

Good questions.

- The Teg and the RX-7 are classed using the higher hp numbers. There are mechanical differences in the engines that, when ud/bd is applied, the earlier car can get to the laters cars base hp number.

- Yes, I guess. Not sure your point but I was trying to explain (justify) it a different way. The way it was decided was that the later car couldn't make more hp in IT trim than the early car with IT prep (a number that IS used in the classification) so it made sense to keep the listing as is.

This attempt at explaining my logic was to say it is not fair to the early car because it can't ever recover the 5hp difference that saddles it with the extra 90lbs because the difference that accounts for that hp is open in IT. So my conclusion is to break them apart because this situation is not the same as other lower/higher hp cars on the same spec line. You should be able to build the lower hp car into the higher hp car for them to be on the same spec line...no?

[JeffYoung]

Ok guys, the tone here has gotten out of hand - this isn't the "brown" (roadrace) board. Andy's not advocating his position based on some personal basis. I'm 99% sure he'd still win with 75 more lbs in the car. I disagree with the rational he's using on the Miata weights but some of the stuff above is out of line.

Let's keep the debate to the numbers.

[Jeremy Billiel]

I just saw this is the latest fastrack

" 4. ITA – Help the 1.6 Miata (Whitton). The car is appropriate as classed."

LMAO......

[Knestis]

...Go take a look at any Scirroco classified - 16v in ITA, 1.8 8v in ITB, whatever. ...

I don't have any insider knowledge on these cases but it's completely conceivable to me that they could have ended up misaligned for the same reason that many of the other misalignments happened - they were listed/spec'd at different times by different people, thinking about different things. Even if one of those things wasn't specifically aero.

But as I said, I don't know. And my comment about aero as a factor was a normative, "what I think we should do" kind of statement - NOT an explanation of what has gone before.

K

[nsuracer]

All this discussion about Miatas is making my eyes roll up into my head. Why don't we just create ITM and they can all just go play by themselves. Seriously, my only gripe is that there are just so many of them and they are in about every class. And that is not really a gripe.........Getting back to what this thread strarted out about, does anyone know where on the internet one might access old Road Tests? I have tried to Google them without success. AS I was one of those who volunteered to do some of the ITACs leg work on running cars thru the process, I would like to get good data on those cars. Any Ideas?

Miatas: They handle like "Sports Cars". They make everything in the world for them and there is a world of knowlege out there about them. Even if they were slow (which they are not) they would be a good choice. Many of our cars are converted grocery getters that will never attain that level of handling. They are just easier to drive.

[CRallo]

so uhh... what was today's progress on the subject??

wait, what was the subject?

[Xian]

does anyone know where on the internet one might access old Road Tests?

Funny you should ask... take a look for a post by "Subrew" part way down in this thread (same topic, different site): http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=20651

He mentions that

FWIW, I have Road and Track magazines dating back to the first year of publication. you know, the old ones that had awesome data panels showing all the weights, power levels, carb sizes etc. I grew up reading those time and time again. If a chart listing all that info would be useful, I would gladly put something together, and include hard copies of the tech data panels to support the data.

Sounds like he may be a great resource...

Christian