FWD vs RWD: Adders, Subtractors, and Weight, Oh my...!

[ekim952522000]

"Prelude VTEC; -11lbs"

190*1.25*11.25-2.08% = 2616 = 46lbs heavier than it is right now?
190*1.25*11.25-100=2571

[Greg Amy]

Greg...what are you using for evidence that your car is 50lbs 'heavy'?

Experience, Andy. Mechanical knowledge. Understanding of, and experience with, front-wheel drive dynamics. Observations of amateur and professional series that take parity seriously (try to find a series with otherwise-nearly-equal cars where the weight difference is less than 200#). "Gut" feel based on all of this.

Prove me wrong, Andy.

So what, pray tell, do you base your position on that I'm wrong, Andy? "Cause that's the way we do things"?

I recognize I'm in a tough position here. I think the subtractor's wrong, you don't. You drive a RWD car, I don't. You're on the ITAC and in all the committee meetings, I'm not. I have reasons to try and get it right, and you've got nothing but hassles from your RWD brethren if you try. You know that as long as you throw up yet another road block for me to hurdle, it just kicks the can down the road. Fine, it's crystal clear you hold all the cards.

Coupled to the fact I'm really getting tired of all the silly non-equitor arguments assaulting my patience and intelligence (Tristan, I'm game for adding weight to FWD cars in rainy conditions as long as you agree to add the same amount in the dry. You're writing a letter on that today, right?) For several days now I've been grilled, asked to support a position that no one else (well, no rear-wheel-drivers, anyway) seems to understand or believe. Each time I prove I'm right or support my position, someone else comes up with something else to argue about.

OK, I "get it".

Personally, it's not that important to me. I thought you wanted to know the real scoop, maybe learn something useful in the process. I have no misguided ideals that this particular car has a gnat's chance in this class (pretty much any FWD car is handicapped at ITS and ITR power levels, which is why most pro organizations give FWD cars extra prep "bones" to make them competitive). I simply used my personal example(s) as an outlying illustration of what I'm trying to explain to you, not as a lever to get the rules changed.

Regardless, you've got the data, you know my position. You may have even learned something in the process. The ball is now in your court for you to decide if you want to do the right thing.

GA

[tnord]

The ball is now in your court for you to decide if you want to do the right thing.

the right thing from whose perspective? you want to base adjustments on experience? i have experience in both FWD and RWD cars. In fact, my miata and the CRX i drove in an enduro have the same power +/- 3hp. i had never driven a FWD car on track my entire life, and first session out, on corded 3 year old hoosiers, i turned a lap within .3 of my own best in my miata, and .1 off of where the owner qualified. that's my experience

your calling out the rest of us for disagreeing with an add'l weight adjustment for the same reasons you are for it. believe it or not greg, just because people disagree with you does not make them idiots. do you really think that Ron, Jeff, Andy, Jake, etc don't have the ability to hold the same level of mechanical knowledge that you claim to?

[dickita15]

Honest question: there seems to be some agreement here that ITS and ITR FWD cars need more of a break due to the problem of higher horsepower cars putting too much stress on the front tires because of weight distribution and the front tires doing all the work. There is also a feeling from some R cars will need more that S cars. Is this higher need by the R cars at all mitigated by wider wheels and by extension tires allowed in ITR?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Experience, Andy. Mechanical knowledge. Understanding of, and experience with, front-wheel drive dynamics. Observations of amateur and professional series that take parity seriously (try to find a series with otherwise-nearly-equal cars where the weight difference is less than 200#). "Gut" feel based on all of this.

Prove me wrong, Andy.

I am not here to prove you wrong Greg. I am asking you to prove yourself RIGHT.

So what, pray tell, do you base your position on that I'm wrong, Andy? "Cause that's the way we do things"?

You aren't listening. I am not telling you that you are wrong. I am WAITING for you tell me something other than 'because I said so'.

I recognize I'm in a tough position here. I think the subtractor's wrong, you don't. You drive a RWD car, I don't. You're on the ITAC and in all the committee meetings, I'm not. I have reasons to try and get it right, and you've got nothing but hassles from your RWD brethren if you try. You know that as long as you throw up yet another road block for me to hurdle, it just kicks the can down the road. Fine, it's crystal clear you hold all the cards.

I recognize you are in a tough position too. Knowing you, knowing that you are always playing the 'game' and knowing that you are a smart guy with plenty of experience, all I want is for something I can bank on if I bring this up in a meeting. The LapSim stuff is way better than anything we have seen or used. It seems to point to 150 as being pretty good. That is where I am now, still waiting for any more info.

Coupled to the fact I'm really getting tired of all the silly non-equitor arguments assaulting my patience and intelligence

Dude, you are the king of the smart ass comment...

For several days now I've been grilled, asked to support a position that no one else (well, no rear-wheel-drivers, anyway) seems to understand or believe. Each time I prove I'm right or support my position, someone else comes up with something else to argue about.

Point me to your proof and I will shut up. The fact that your car is effectively at 150lbs right now and you see that as 'proof' that it needs another 50lbs is not proof at all. What you are doing (in my mind) is taking your on-track experiences and applying the results. Yet the car is not developed in the HP department. Add that hp you will find into that SIM and see how much theoretical improvment you might get - assuming you want to compare lap times with Jeff...which I hope you aren't doing.

Personally, it's not that important to me. I thought you wanted to know the real scoop, maybe learn something useful in the process. I have no misguided ideals that this particular car has a gnat's chance in this class (pretty much any FWD car is handicapped at ITS and ITR power levels, which is why most pro organizations give FWD cars extra prep "bones" to make them competitive). I simply used my personal example(s) as an outlying illustration of what I'm trying to explain to you, not as a lever to get the rules changed.

Regardless, you've got the data, you know my position. You may have even learned something in the process. The ball is now in your court for you to decide if you want to do the right thing.

GA

And you finish out just like you started. 'I know it all, I tried to educate you for years, the info is obvious'...

I must have missed the data. All I remember is that you said it wasn't fruitful to provide data because you could make it look however you wanted.

There are plenty of us on the ITAC that want things to be right. We just need something to run with...and I can honestly tell you that I don't think you have given us anything. My sincere apologies if I missed it.

[Greg Amy]

Seriously, guys, I'm way done with this. There's really nothing else I can offer. Just take it for what it is.

I had to laugh out loud, though (honestly, not sarcastically!) I'd forgotten about Nord's tendency to stand behind the bigger folks and stick his head out once in a while, yelling "YEAH! WHAT HE SAID! TAKE THAT!"



No, really. I'm done now. Beer time!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Beer time!

+1. Drinking is better.

[ekim952522000]

Honest question: there seems to be some agreement here that ITS and ITR FWD cars need more of a break due to the problem of higher horsepower cars putting too much stress on the front tires because of weight distribution and the front tires doing all the work. There is also a feeling from some R cars will need more that S cars. Is this higher need by the R cars at all mitigated by wider wheels and by extension tires allowed in ITR?

Ya know that is a really really good point.....Seriously

This may even explain why the 50lbs seems to work for both ITA and ITB.

on that note maybe it should should end up more like.

ITR - 150
ITS - 150
ITA - 50
ITB - 50
ITC - 0

Thoughts?

[Knestis]

...I'm not buying this "for the good of the category" campaign BS at all. this is all about personal agendas and egos.

Damn. Secret's out. It's all part of my secret plan to get more weight added to my car.



Every math problem I've done around an initiative I support - displacement-specific HP factor, weight-based FWD adder, eliminate "bad rear suspension" subractor - even strict application of the process we have in place - has achieved exactly that, relative to others in ITB cars...

K

[tnord]

Seriously, guys, I'm way done with this. There's really nothing else I can offer. Just take it for what it is.

I had to laugh out loud, though (honestly, not sarcastically!) I'd forgotten about Nord's tendency to stand behind the bigger folks and stick his head out once in a while, yelling "YEAH! WHAT HE SAID! TAKE THAT!"



No, really. I'm done now. Beer time!

Fuck off Greg.

or maybe it's just because I haven't had time to even shit the last two weeks from work priorities, and just today I got caught up on the topic. i'll gladly call out your ego as motivation whenever I see it, you know that.

"I can't win every race....the process must be wrong!!!"

same shit, different class.

[lateapex911]

I recognize I'm in a tough position here. I think the subtractor's wrong, you don't. You drive a RWD car, I don't. You're on the ITAC and in all the committee meetings, I'm not. I have reasons to try and get it right, and you've got nothing but hassles from your RWD brethren if you try. You know that as long as you throw up yet another road block for me to hurdle, it just kicks the can down the road. Fine, it's crystal clear you hold all the cards.

Coupled to the fact I'm really getting tired of all the silly non-equitor arguments assaulting my patience and intelligence (Tristan, I'm game for adding weight to FWD cars in rainy conditions as long as you agree to add the same amount in the dry. You're writing a letter on that today, right?) For several days now I've been grilled, asked to support a position that no one else (well, no rear-wheel-drivers, anyway) seems to understand or believe. Each time I prove I'm right or support my position, someone else comes up with something else to argue about.

OK, I "get it".


GA

Greg, I have to call BS here. Really, even if it throws you over the edge into a real hissy fit.

You don't "get it"

Read back...people, believe it or not, can have different opinions than you, and some might even have legitimate points. Dick brings up the excellent point that ITR cars are allowed much wider rims.

I'm insulted that you've ignored my posts, which have supported your concept. But hey, it seems to me, from your comments, that just because the entire world isn't jumping on your exact numbers right away that you are crying that nobody supports you.

Well, don't be greedy, you've gotten plenty of support here from both sides of the aisle, and I for one have agreed with your general position. So has Andy.

I think this has been, with certain exceptions, a respectful discussion, and I see a lot of good coming from it.

Step back my friend, breath deep. Relax.

[lateapex911]

on that note maybe it should should end up more like.

ITR - 150
ITS - 150
ITA - 50
ITB - 50
ITC - 0

Thoughts?

I'm cool with that, I guess, but I might bump ITR up to 175. I'd really have to look at the numbers closely -that's just my gut. But hey, we're all cool with doing things because our gut says to right??

[tnord]

Damn. Secret's out. It's all part of my secret plan to get more weight added to my car.




K

sorry Kirk, that wasn't directed at you.

[Knestis]

sorry Kirk, that wasn't directed at you.

But I'd respectfully suggest that there are others who are in the same situation as I am.

I've had quite literally hundreds of conversations about these issues with Greg and, while you're going to need to take my word for it, he looks at them as objectively as anyone I know. He's a complete academic about this business.

K

[ekim952522000]

I'm cool with that, I guess, but I might bump ITR up to 175. I'd really have to look at the numbers closely -that's just my gut. But hey, we're all cool with doing things because our gut says to right??

I could see that making sense.

ITR - 175
ITS - 150
ITA - 50
ITB - 50
ITC - 0

Could I get some opinions on how how people feel about the FWD strut cars getting 50lbs off but no other cars in ITR getting any adjustment for suspension?

[tnord]

But I'd respectfully suggest that there are others who are in the same situation as I am.

I've had quite literally hundreds of conversations about these issues with Greg and, while you're going to need to take my word for it, he looks at them as objectively as anyone I know. He's a complete academic about this business.

K

you're probably right, there are others in this thread who really are trying to improve the class. my comment was really for Greg, as many would've probably guessed.

sorry, i don't take your word for it.

hey, even i think the theory is correct. heavier and more powerful FWD cars should get more of a weight break than an 80hp civic dx. i even put in the time and effort to do the math and provide the results a few months ago. but are we really up to 100lb break for ITS/R already and some want to double that? sheesh. the ITR Integra Type R is what, 2500lbs and change? and how heavy are those 94+ ITA integras? yeah....i don't think doing it strictly by class is a good idea.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I could see that making sense.

ITR - 175
ITS - 150
ITA - 50
ITB - 50
ITC - 0

Could I get some opinions on how how people feel about the FWD strut cars getting 50lbs off but no other cars in ITR getting any adjustment for suspension?

It is a different approach but the thought process is that the cars in ITR are all pretty advanced compared to a lot of IT cars. When you throw a car like the RSX Type S in there, we tried to balance it out by giving it (and any other car like it present or future), that -50lb 'adder'.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But I'd respectfully suggest that there are others who are in the same situation as I am.

I've had quite literally hundreds of conversations about these issues with Greg and, while you're going to need to take my word for it, he looks at them as objectively as anyone I know. He's a complete academic about this business.

K

Objective or not Kirk, he either simply wasn't reading what was being written or he had some pre-conceived notions of what other people 'thought' that resulted in post #202 which was way off base.

Assuming that he isn't ever going to provide any data to support what he 'knows to be gospel', I have to continue to formulate opinions based on the excellent work Mike has been doing...and that is fine!

Like I said all along, give me something to work with if you want me to work with something!

[ekim952522000]

..........i don't think doing it strictly by class is a good idea.

Travis I agree with what you're saying above the reason I have been focusing more on the idea of by class. is I think it would be more likely to get the go ahead by the ITAC.

I really do think picking a "bogey" for a class then using a adjusted pw/wt ratio is a better way to do it. But am not sure if it has as good of chance of going through.

I am really liking the 150lb thing for ITR if we adjust the pw/wt for FWD cars in ITR to 10.585. it gives the celica exactly a -150lb deduct. then the legend would get a -191lb deduct. the process weight I have shown is before any adders or subtractors so it would be up to the ITAC if they still wanted to apply the -50 for struts after runing it through the process. I think this is the most fair way to handle the situation but is also a kind of radical to change to the way things have been done.


Process FWD

--------------------------------------11.25-- 10.585
Toyota Celica GTS (00-02) ------- 2531-- 2382 -150
Honda Prelude (93-96) ------------2672 -- 2514 -158
Acura Integra Type R (98-01) ----2633 -- 2477 -156
Honda Prelude (non SH) (97-01)- 2813 --2646 -166
Acura RSX-S (2002) -------------- 2813 --2646 -166
Acura Legend (91-95) -------------3234 --3043 -191

[lateapex911]

Process FWD

--------------------------------------11.25-- 10.585
Toyota Celica GTS (00-02) ------- 2531-- 2382 -150
Honda Prelude (93-96) ------------2672 -- 2514 -158
Acura Integra Type R (98-01) ----2633 -- 2477 -156
Honda Prelude (non SH) (97-01)- 2813 --2646 -166
Acura RSX-S (2002) -------------- 2813 --2646 -166
Acura Legend (91-95) -------------3234 --3043 -191

Mike, just so everyone is clear, the current process would subtract 100 fro FWD across the board on these cars.

So, what you're model proposes is a method of adjusting each model on a sliding scale. i like that, because it's rather blind.

Your result, for example, would remove an additional 66 pounds off the Prelude from it's current process weight, and 50 off the Celica, correct?