March 09 Fast Track

[RacerBowie]

I personally think R cars should end up consistently in the 2:09s at VIR, maybe in the 8s. That class has a recipe to be REALLY fast once good cars with good drivers and development start to show up.

[dj10]

Mid-Ohio
ITA: 1'42.9 Moser
ITS: 1'42.6 Ehmer
ITR: 1'43.4 Jones
T3: 1'42.2 (S2000) Gilsinger
T3: 1'42.7 (Rx-8) Huffmaster

Please don't add more classes in an attempt to validate your position. ITS/ITR times that are similar at Mid Ohio to ITA/G Prod times are pathetic. By the way, I knew the ITA, ITS, ITR names before you posted the names.

BTW, my time in ITR was run with a car that had a full tank of fuel and not my best tires on the car.

"To further muddy the on track data debate, an ITR 325 went 2:10/11 at VIR this weekend, with Ricky T. running a 2:14.9 in a Z3 2.8 to use as a benchmark against the 325."

Jeff, there were only 2 ITR cars, a Acura and Z3?? What other 325 was there?

[GKR_17]

Actually, the RX8 was classed on the very high end of the "matrix" the proposal laid out,

That proposal threw the process in the trash and went for power-to-weight based on competitor supplied dyno data. Now that you're on the ITAC I would expect a little more strict adherance to procedure.

Through the process, this car got the lowest gain multiplier, based on the lowest published stock hp, it got the largest subtractor for low torque (without any adder for the best-in-class transmission), and no adder for double wishbone suspension. I'd say that's about as low as you can go and still claim to have used the process.

The process isn't based on track performance, but if you want to make ajustments after the car is classed, then you need on-track data to justify the change (not to mention the required time frame) as the rules require. Or do we just call this another realignment and change the weight of any car any time we want? If you agree with that, then why bother with the process anyway, because you're headed straight back to the old mystery closed-door system.

I for one, would like to see the process parameters used for each car noted on it's spec line.

[lateapex911]

That proposal threw [sic]the process in the trash and went for power-to-weight based on competitor supplied dyno data.

Through the process, this car got the lowest gain multiplier, based on the lowest published stock hp, it got the largest subtractor for low torque (without any adder for the best-in-class transmission), and no adder for double wishbone suspension. I'd say that's about as low as you can go and still claim to have used the process.

Actually,:

1- Should we have used the higher hp ratings Mazda was sued for using, which were known to be incorrect? No. So lets no phrase it like there was a choice. (Critics note that even the ratings we used are wrong. it can't go both ways, guys!)

2- It's gain multiplier was higher than some felt appropriate, and is not the lowest. It's the same as used for the S2000.

3- It was given the standard toque adder (subtracted)...and it's tq is about 10 more than the ITS Rotary....wildly deficient compared to many ITR cars

4- It got no adders for anything else, because, in that class, its other components don't stand head and shoulders above what is common.

I for one, would like to see the process parameters used for each car noted on it's spec line.

That won't happen, but the ITAC is looking into a web based listing that would shed light on each listing.

Again, this car is tough. We didn't use the actual dyno sheets we had to class the car because of standards of evidence. They were given to us by people who were trusted, but....because there were conflicts of interest, they couldn't be used. We have continued to search out other sources to confirm or verify, and we've endeavored to find neutral parties in that search.

Along with that search, the ITAC has taken steps to structure it's standards of evidence, so that it can be consistent and transparent in it's actions.

[GKR_17]

2- It's gain multiplier was higher than some felt appropriate, and is not the lowest. It's the same as used for the S2000.

Yes, it shares the 15% multiplier with the S2000. But that is the lowest multiplier.

As for the torque, what actually matters is torque multiplied by RPM. Yes, they have less torque, but they also turn more revs than most. Couple that with class leading transmissions and you have a package much better than one torque value would imply.

[JoshS]

Yes, it shares the 15% multiplier with the S2000. But that is the lowest multiplier.

The Porsche 968 also appears to get a 15% multiplier.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Couple that with class leading transmissions and you have a package much better than one torque value would imply.

What specifically about these transmisisons make then 'class leading'? Other than they break all the time in Grand Am, I don't know what might make them good...

[JeffYoung]

Dan, Michael Moorefield's former ITS 325 went 2:11 consistently in the ECR with Michael Skeen (of Setup fame) driving.

Grafton, I've always enjoyed talking to you, but you are just flat out wrong. And it's clear you didn't read the proposal. We provided a matrix with two axes -- on the one side was actual stock horespower (since 2 years ago the actual stock horsepower was in doubt) and on the other was expected IT gain (also in doubt).

WE AT ALL TIMES USED THE PROCESS TO RECOMMEND CLASSING THE CAR. I personally was not sure what the actual "real" inputs were because of the above doubt.

Using that matrix, process weights varied from as low as 27xx to as high as just over 3000. Car came in near the top of the matrix.

I know you guys have some issue with Mazdas; that's fine. I actually hate the buzzy things too. But to say the process was not used in our proposal, and in classing the car, is just wrong. It was. The problem with the ITR RX8 has always been the uncertainity involved w/stock hp and gain on the Renesis.

Quite honestly, given what that unrestricted ITR 325 ran at VIR (in fact, what was essentially an ITS car a few years back), I'd think you guys in the Porsche camp would be far more "Fear the VANOS" than "Fear the Rotor."

Again, nothing personal -- have always enjoyed talking to you, but to say we didn't use the process in the proposal and in classing the car is just wrong. You may disagree with teh inputs we used, and in fact you do, but the process was used.

That proposal threw the process in the trash and went for power-to-weight based on competitor supplied dyno data. Now that you're on the ITAC I would expect a little more strict adherance to procedure.

Through the process, this car got the lowest gain multiplier, based on the lowest published stock hp, it got the largest subtractor for low torque (without any adder for the best-in-class transmission), and no adder for double wishbone suspension. I'd say that's about as low as you can go and still claim to have used the process.

The process isn't based on track performance, but if you want to make ajustments after the car is classed, then you need on-track data to justify the change (not to mention the required time frame) as the rules require. Or do we just call this another realignment and change the weight of any car any time we want? If you agree with that, then why bother with the process anyway, because you're headed straight back to the old mystery closed-door system.

I for one, would like to see the process parameters used for each car noted on it's spec line.

[seckerich]

For just comparison and nothing else, Grand Am RX8 times at VIR were 2:10 at the fastest with Sylvain and averaged about 2:11. That was at 2650#. Not a class killer.

[GKR_17]

What specifically about these transmisisons make then 'class leading'? Other than they break all the time in Grand Am, I don't know what might make them good...

Look at the RPM drop when shifting, here are 4 examples:

ITR BMW 325i (E36)
2nd-3rd: 33.7% drop
3rd-4th: 26.9% drop
4th-5th: 18.0% drop

ITR Porsche 944S2
2nd-3rd: 32.0% drop
3rd-4th: 26.1% drop
4th-5th: 19.7% drop

ITR Honda S2000
3rd-4th: 21.6% drop
4th-5th: 16.4% drop
5th-6th: 16.5% drop

ITR Mazda Rx-8
3rd-4th: 27.8% drop
4th-5th: 15.8% drop
5th-6th: 15.7% drop

Both of the low torque cars also have better transmissions, especially when you go down two gears from top. In addition, since the ratios are better, they may actually use 4 gears at some tracks where any 5-speed box will only use 3.

As an added thought - those familiar with the ITS Rx-7 know how much better the GTUs 5th gear is. The 0.71 5th gear in that car is a 29% drop, while the 0.76 5th drops 24%. Without that 5% better gear, that car has little chance in a tough field. Notice how much better than that both the S2000 and Rx-8 are for both 5th and 6th gears.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Small compensation for 60 less ft/lbs of torque and a rediculously narrow power band . Spec for spec, even at the same weight the cars are a toss up. GAC RX-8 are prepped in excess of ITR and the times just aren't there with pro drivers and ultimate prep. We have enough independent data to make a much better decision on power potential in IT trim. Stay tuned!

[NORRIS]

How do the Hoosiers that they run in Grand Am compare to the Hoosiers we run in IT?

[cjb25hs]

How do the Hoosiers that they run in Grand Am compare to the Hoosiers we run in IT?

They are slower from what I have heard.

[tnord]

We have enough independent data to make a much better decision on power potential in IT trim. Stay tuned!

is it not even going to hit 15%?

i'm disappointed that (IMO at least) the car is not listed at a competitive weight, but i fully understand the pickle the ITAC is in with this car. if that were to change, i think this is the car that could be the spark that lights the ITR fire.

[Knestis]

Some of these arguments could be more typed more efficiently:

"Me."

"No, me."

"No, me!"

"ME!"

"Me, me, meeee!"



K

[lateapex911]

Some of these arguments could be more typed more efficiently:

"Me."

"No, me."

"No, me!"

"ME!"

"Me, me, meeee!"



K

Yea, but at least this version of this particular discussion (version IX, for those keeping track) is civil and polite...