Problem Cars

[Gary L]

Gary,

Not saying which way it will go, because I have no idea, but what are you going to do / say, if it comes back and says the current weight is below the process weight? I don't think it's a given that just because something wasn't run through the process, that it's for sure going to lose weight when it is. I'm all for running every car through, and going w/ that weight (w/ a pragmatic eye). To me, the variable w/ the largest 'window' is the power estimate. I don't think anyone will argue w/ the fact that some cars make more, and some cars make less, than the 'standard' gain percentage that's used in the process. There's a significant enough variation in the motors from marque to marque that I don't think anyone thinks they all respond the same to an IT build. That's where the pragmatic eye comes in.

If the weight stays the same or goes down, great... I'll prolly stick with the Volvo and just keep truckin'. If the weight goes up significantly, we know we need to work on plan "B". What ever that is.

But to be honest, I would be very surprised if there was a significant change (prolly 50 lbs or less) one way or another, on a "processed" 142.

[Rabbit07]

I have one, no bias here.

DOHC Neon @ 2650, the SOHC is @ 2450. The SOHC is a mildly competitive car with better response to IT mods. The DOHC makes more power stock, but dosn't see the power gain that the SOHC sees in IT trim. The SOHC still is only a 3rd place car at best. I say lower the weight on the DOHC and see what happens?

[lateapex911]

I have one, no bias here.

DOHC Neon @ 2650, the SOHC is @ 2450. The SOHC is a mildly competitive car with better response to IT mods. The DOHC makes more power stock, but dosn't see the power gain that the SOHC sees in IT trim. The SOHC still is only a 3rd place car at best. I say lower the weight on the DOHC and see what happens?

Chris, I'm not picking on you...really. But that's a classic quote.

So, based on your paragraph, you say lower the weigth and see what happens. How much? 100 pounds? 50? 150?
How should we tell the members we came up with that? "Chris said so"? How would you feel if Jake said his RX-7 only made 100 hp, and suggested a 100 pounds off? And "See what happens"?? How do we judge what happens, by what yardsticks. How will we really KNOW what happens?

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I hope you see the point. We hear often things like "Everybody knows the Dohc doesn't make the same gains as the Sohc", or the "1.6 engine is not intake limited like the 1.7, everyone knows that". Yet, "Everyone knows" is the 'data' we get.

The internet is always accurate....

The questions above are serious. If anyone can answer them in a repeatable, robust, transparent and non subjective manner, please, please do so.

We act on issues when we can document the data, and our members EACH vote a confidence percentage. We need a minimum percentage to accept the data. So, we are MORE than happy to get data, but we HAVE to scrub it down. It's not easy to either submit effective data, or to examine it, but we owe it to the members to be vigilant when we stray off the standard.

[tnord]

How do we judge what happens, by what yardsticks. How will we really KNOW what happens?


The questions above are serious. If anyone can answer them in a repeatable, robust, transparent and non subjective manner, please, please do so.

i think some are starting to come to the conclusion that what the ITAC is trying to accomplish with the process under the current lanscape is just not feasable.

it's a good guide, and probably works 90% of the time, but i think some of us are fooling ourselves in how well it should work. lets be honest here. the process is an educated guess the same way in that "lets take 30lbs off the DOHC Neon" is an educated guess.

25% power adder is a guess
FWD weight break of 100lbs (2%?) is a guess
DWB adder is a guess
live axle is a guess
mid engine adder is a guess
brake adder/subtractor is a guess
torque adder is a guess

"you guys" have just come up with a formulaic, formal, repeatable way to make your guesses, but to think it's going to work for the absurd amount of cars listed i think is a bit silly. don't get me wrong, these are all good things and its very helpful to future ITACs and current competitors to know just what's going on.

PS - I'm all for delisting cars that aren't actually run to make this a somewhat more manageable task.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The point is to classify everyone using the same guess, then let people pick their weapon.

[tnord]

The point is to classify everyone using the same guess, then let people pick their weapon.

i know that's the intent, but i think it's coming to light that it's just not doable.

it's been brought up many times before that there are certain cars that the process fails. Honda S2000, Mazda RX8, most any Porsche derivative, 1st gen RX7 as putting the cars at uncompetitive weights. it's a bit silly to think that it can't create an overdog scenario either, like this Audi example that keeps getting trotted out.

and not all cars get the same guess anyway right?
some get different power multipliers, some get weight breaks for different physical characteristics, some get weight added. i agree that "codifyng" this methodology is a good thing, as it helps consistency now and in the future, but i think you have to recognize that it won't work 100% of the time.

i think it can work MOST of the time, but not ALL of the time.

[JeffYoung]

Travis, give us an example of an overdog that has not been corrected using the process (ignore the SIR on the ITS 325, and assume it had gotten "process weight") or that could not be corrected using the process.

Are there any out there?

[RacerBill]

i know that's the intent, but i think it's coming to light that it's just not doable.

it's been brought up many times before that there are certain cars that the process fails. Honda S2000, Mazda RX8, most any Porsche derivative, 1st gen RX7 as putting the cars at uncompetitive weights. it's a bit silly to think that it can't create an overdog scenario either, like this Audi example that keeps getting trotted out.

and not all cars get the same guess anyway right?
some get different power multipliers, some get weight breaks for different physical characteristics, some get weight added. i agree that "codifyng" this methodology is a good thing, as it helps consistency now and in the future, but i think you have to recognize that it won't work 100% of the time.

i think it can work MOST of the time, but not ALL of the time.

I would not say that "the process fails". I would say that the results are more accurate in some cases than others. That said, I am really torn between changing the 'formula(s)' for one car, or not (and that is what you are really doing when you say 'lets add 100 lbs to the Fabulous Trashwagon' or 'lets take away 200 lbs from the 1998 Boojum'.

Friendly question for the ITAC. Do you have a spreadsheet with all the cars that have been run thru the process are listed with all of the adders and subtractors? If so then if you change one or more of those parameters, for all cars, you could see what it would do for the weights by making that change. This may be a way to fine tune the process and not be making a change the benifits/hurts a particular car. Just a thought.

And I'll say it again, I really appreciate what the ITAC has been able to accomplish, and encourage them to keep it up (even if I don't get my jacking plates ,errr frame repair, and have to tape up my windshield washer bottle ).

[lateapex911]

it's been brought up many times before that there are certain cars that the process fails. Honda S2000, Mazda RX8, most any Porsche derivative, 1st gen RX7 as putting the cars at uncompetitive weights. .

Just to clarify,
S2000 -we just don't know. The class is very young, and people think that they aren['t willing to gamble on that car. But it hasn't proven to have failed that car. And lets not trot out the "nobody is building one, therefore it fails" argument. Nobody is building 75% of the cars listed! Yet.

Mazda RX-8. Tough case, when Mazda lies about the stock power. If we have hard data, we might take a closer look, can't say for sure, but there hasn't been a solid case made for the car yet.

A 968 is doing very well in ITR in the NE, and he has yet to pre the car all the way.

1st gen RX-7 is known to be a bit heavy in ITA, but there's no sense setting it 'right' in ITB, as the car is raced happily in IT-7. The solution came too late for that car. In that sense the process fails it, but it could be rectified. But the 'fix' is worse than the existing situation. (A move to B, and the attendant swap to 6" rims)

[cjb25hs]

I have one, no bias here.

DOHC Neon @ 2650, the SOHC is @ 2450. The SOHC is a mildly competitive car with better response to IT mods. The DOHC makes more power stock, but dosn't see the power gain that the SOHC sees in IT trim. The SOHC still is only a 3rd place car at best. I say lower the weight on the DOHC and see what happens?

I agree with Chris, since I run a neon as well. The other sanctioning body only adds 50lbs to the DOHC over the SOHC. 2500 and 2450lbs respectively.