Teach me about ITR 325's

[robits325is]

Since the 'best' option is considered when classing the car, I don't see why it matters if the weaker sibilngs are on the same spec line.

Simple is better IMO.

The only problem with simple is that Frankenstein cars are created that exceed the classified model. The sum of the parts becomes greater than intended and an over dog is potentially created.

[shwah]

As long as the desireable systems are considered during classifications (and they are - though I wish my car was classed at the lower 1985 Golf GL power level...), they don't exceed the classified model capability, because they ARE the classfied model.

Please show me one instance of an overdog created within the rules this way.

[JeffYoung]

I don't believe the 2nd Gen RX7 is an overdog in ITS, at all. I've seen top flight ones get beat by ITS Miatas, 190Es, 944S, 240zs, etc.

But the only point I would make in line with Rob's is that I think the earlier chassis were lighter, and that if you can make an S4 chassis work with the S5 engine etc. you get the "best" version of an RX7 that never came from the factory. GTUs gears, wing, brakes, etc. all in the 146 hp package.

It's probably a marginal advantage, but I'd be interested to hear the RX7's guys take on this, because I may be wrong.

[shwah]

Jeff, it may be possible that is the case, but we are certainly not talking about an overdog. At the end of the day, the cars that are built to the limit of the spec line are appropriately competitive, which is the goal right?

[JeffYoung]

Chris, I agree, it's a nit I should not have picked. At least in the case of the 2nd Gen RX7, I think it is a perfect example of a well classed, well developed, very competitive NON-overdog car.

I'm I guess a bit of an IT "modernist" and the added simplicity of having all years of the 2nd Gen model on one line outweighs what little incongruity there is in it.....so, consider this nit dropped.

Jeff, it may be possible that is the case, but we are certainly not talking about an overdog. At the end of the day, the cars that are built to the limit of the spec line are appropriately competitive, which is the goal right?

[dickita15]

The only problem with simple is that Frankenstein cars are created that exceed the classified model. The sum of the parts becomes greater than intended and an over dog is potentially created.

Well in the case of the RX7 that is not true, everything you want is on the GTU model, highest HP, better 5th gear, alum hood and spoiler. Even if they were broken out without the VIN number rule the cars would all be built to that spec.
There are no Frankenstein just all built to the best year.

[Knestis]

The only problem with simple is that Frankenstein cars are created that exceed the classified model. The sum of the parts becomes greater than intended and an over dog is potentially created.

That's not actually the case - simply by definition. The "classified model" is defined by the spec line, not by some year/model/trim level that the manufacturer designates.

And as was pointed out, where the ITAC knows about substantial differences in performance among specs within a line, we try to set the race weight based on the "best" combination. We just went through this conversation with old Volvos, for Pete's sake.

Now, the question of whether we should list SEPARATELY year/model/trim level/whatever different than the "best" option is a VERY good one. But let's not get lost here.

K

[Gary L]

Jeff - I would be of the opinion that we're doin' fine, just the way we are. If you break all those engine/chassis combinations out to separate line entries, IMO you most likely will not end up with significantly more 40 year old Volvo's in IT than you have today.

Kirk - Does your "old Volvo" reference mean you guys (ITAC) finally discussed my letter on the 142/144 "Notes" entry in the ITCS? I had almost forgotten about it to be honest.

[JoshS]

Jeff - I would be of the opinion that we're doin' fine, just the way we are. If you break all those engine/chassis combinations out to separate line entries, IMO you most likely will not end up with significantly more 40 year old Volvo's in IT than you have today.

Kirk - Does your "old Volvo" reference mean you guys (ITAC) finally discussed my letter on the 142/144 "Notes" entry in the ITCS? I had almost forgotten about it to be honest.

Gary, we haven't met since you and I spoke on the phone after the last meeting. We meet monthly.

[Knestis]

We talked about how we'd tackle the "old Volvo question," as part of our ongoing discussion about how to reconcile a lot of requests that have been submitted about ITB cars. It was an example of how there seemed to be lots of different configurations on a given spec line (or split among spec lines) so it was a handy case study in clarifying how we think about them.

We got some input but we're not done with the question.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Josh,

How much do you think port matching is worth?? I bet it's about 4hp..

[madrabbit15]

I think what Gary was referring to was the fact the 140 volvo came in different engine configurations. The high compression bottom ends were delivered carberated, and the lower compression bottem ends were fuel injected. The car never came with high compression and fuel injection. I was told this years ago, but never knew it was true or not.

But when you put all all those configurations on one spec line it allows you to mix and match.


Derek

[Gary L]

I think what Gary was referring to was the fact the 140 volvo came in different engine configurations. The high compression bottom ends were delivered carberated, and the lower compression bottem ends were fuel injected. The car never came with high compression and fuel injection. I was told this years ago, but never knew it was true or not.

But when you put all all those configurations on one spec line it allows you to mix and match.


Derek

But as others have pointed out, if what you say were true, it would be illegal to put FI on the high compression engine, as you would be "...creating a model".

But just for the record, let's be perfectly clear; there was a high compression fuel injected engine, complete with the "right" head and the "right" cam, sold in the 140 series Volvo in the US... the 1971 142E. So purely from a horsepower perspective, everyone (via update/backdate) "builds" a '71 142E, regardless of which of the 6 model years they are using for a chassis. All perfectly legal, no gray area whatsoever.

[Knestis]

I think what Gary was referring to was the fact the 140 volvo came in different engine configurations. The high compression bottom ends were delivered carberated, and the lower compression bottem ends were fuel injected. The car never came with high compression and fuel injection. I was told this years ago, but never knew it was true or not.

But when you put all all those configurations on one spec line it allows you to mix and match.


Derek

Does not.

Update/backdate defines "assemblies" in such a way that, while there will be some potential for mix-and-match, we can't completely cherry pick what we do. For example, we've got to use the entire short block as an assembly. I can't put the OBDII-spec head on my OBDI-spec block. In the Volvo example, the entire block/head assembly has got to stay in one piece. If the later FI "assembly" will bolt to that head, OK. If not, too bad.

(Taking your scenario as a given, for illustrative purposes.)

K

[robits325is]

The only problem with simple is that Frankenstein cars are created that exceed the classified model. The sum of the parts becomes greater than intended and an over dog is potentially created.

I didn't mention the RX-7. Still, this scenario is possible when variations of a car are clumped together.

[shwah]

I didn't mention the RX-7. Still, this scenario is possible when variations of a car are clumped together.

Again, that's not the case if the best aspects of each system on that line are considered when classifying the car. The factors of the cars on the spec line are considered in the process. There were versions of my car with something like 10% less hp stock than the best of the spec line - and yeah I could build that car/motor, but the weight is based on 'doing it right'. So the only real risk is that some cars are slower than they ought to be, not faster.

[lateapex911]

Regarding the multiple models on the same spec line, an example came up recently about the ITS Porsche 911s. Each different listing had the E model and the T model on the same line. They have vastly different hp, although the engines are the same size. The weight was set for the higher powered car, making the T a dog with no home.

So we broke them apart. T's are vastly cheaper due to the E's relative scarcity, and the injection (mechanical) is rather finicky. However, certain year T engines are plentiful, as all the P car guys want to bump up to larger sizes, and the carbs are tunable. Once the weights were set properly, the T makes a more enticing proposition because of cheap plentiful parts.

And, if the weights are set correctly, they will run neck and neck.

The CRB put them both on the same line at the time because they felt nobody would bother racing the more utilitarian T.


As for building hybrids that have a better sum, one thing that needs to be kept in mind is that updating back dating requires whole assemblies. However, I do see a possible issue when a superior injection system can be used on a higher stock compression motor it was never paired with.

[ekim952522000]

In regards to the 92 325 being on it's own spec line I am noticing that the 92's engines and the cars in general are much cheaper(maybe do to there less desirable engine) but it seems to me it would be nice if the 92 was on it's own spec line. Right now the 92 is basically pointless to buy and think about building do to the fact that you would have to update to all the 93 stuff.

[Knestis]

In regards to the 92 325 being on it's own spec line I am noticing that the 92's engines and the cars in general are much cheaper(maybe do to there less desirable engine) but it seems to me it would be nice if the 92 was on it's own spec line. Right now the 92 is basically pointless to buy and think about building do to the fact that you would have to update to all the 93 stuff.

A good example - again, presuming that's all accurate.

...and I *personally* don't think the "can't create a model" language is helpful to the whole exercise. It's way too open to interpretation, and inconsistent with how many of us think about what we're doing. If there are particular things that we do or don't want the rules to allow, we need to make sure that the rules are internally consistent, at the level of detail at which we tend to use them, to make that so. This, instead of counting on an over-broad statement to handle it.

K

[Greg Amy]

...and I *personally* don't think the "can't create a model" language is helpful to the whole exercise...an over-broad statement to handle it.

Hmmm, a rare moment of Knestis/Amy disagreement. I'm not clear what you mean by that, but don't we both agree that minimalist-wording rules that rely on common sense (i.e., non-torturated) interpretation are the best (e.g., IIDSYCTYC?)

That restriction has been there as long as updating/backdating has, Kirk, you know that. And, I think you agree that it was INTENTIONALLY put there along with UD/BD to specifically disallow Frankenstein cars. After all, what other purpose would it have, and, given that, how more specific does it need to be to meet its goals?

It may be that we disagree as to what you can do; in other words, you may be OK with Frankenstein cars (see above your "...[if] the later FI "assembly" will bolt to that head, OK...") But if so, you have disagreement from me, and I suspect you may be a victim of incrementalism of how we ARE doing things versus how we SHOULD HAVE been to the rules.

After all, that "can't create a model" language, while broad, is pretty darn clear...or it's irrelevant, needs to be removed, and let the subsequent results lay as they may...

GA