Problem Cars

[lateapex911]

Charlie, I don't think I'm arguing as much as highlighting issues.

I did see those BMWs at Summit. And I saw a guy who hasn't been to Summit bring his stuff.

(Andthe next statement isn't to toot my own horn, but there's a point to be made)

Did you see a guy bring an RX-7 who had never run Summit and set a track record that was nearly a half second under the existing record? (That was two years old, I'm told). I guess the other cars in the class aren't competitive, right? Maybe the 'new' car needs weight. Yea, well, they are ALL RX-7s. (IT-7s).

So, was my car faster? Why? Was I faster? Why?

Same thing can be said for ITB.

And I watched an ITB BMW win the ProIT race at NJMP the very next weekend. And he beat the controversial Blethen Audi.

Here's what I'm saying. Some of you guys want to "add a little weight" as you said, to the overdogs in ITB. (In your case)
I ask you, HOW? How do we know Tristian was legal? or Dave Gran? Or that the BMWs weren't/were on the fresh rubber? Could Randy Pobst get in my car and run faster? Hell yea! How about in the BMWs? I bet he could. And I bet Penske could wring more performance out of them too.
HOW do you tell the membership that 50/100/150/whatever pounds is right?
HOW do you do that repeatedly?
How do we know what we think we know, and how do we apply it objectively, transparently, and with repeatability???

That's NOT a rhetorical question, help us by answering it. But make sure your answers pass the sniff test. If you answer, "We trust you", that's a fail. WE won't be in the position forever, or even into the moderate future. Heck, there are some that want us to rotate out now.

[Knestis]

Thanks for that, Jake! The IT7 NEEDS MORE WEIGHT...!!!!

The other people at the Jet Blue terminal bar at JFK are wondering why I'm laughing my ass off...

K

[Gary L]

What if, just for example, MK3 VW's, ex ITA Honda's, and Porsche 924 are "Problem Cars" that showed up the older previous top dogs in ITB most everywhere. Would you rather fix this problem, or say "ITB changed, get with the new order and build a WV".

But Charlie - if some of the "previous top dogs" (like the 142) have NOT been run through the process, shouldn't that take priority over monkeying with the cars that have?

You wanna write the letter, or should I?

[Bill Miller]

Interesting that the Volvo 142 is one of the model cars for ITB. I know that the 142 makes a lot less horsepower then many think. I suspect that Volvo may have been a little optimistic with the published specifications, as was common back when the car was built. It does however benefit from a very wide, flat power band which makes it accelerate better then its peak horsepower would suggest it could. It may be a perfect example for the imitations of classifing cars based on published peak horsepower.

Possibly using the 142 as a "bogie" explains why the newly classified ITB cars were a second or so faster then all the older previous front runners at the Labor Day MARRS races. And why the ITB lap record that stood for over 10 years at Summit is suddenly being reset every race by the same newly classified cars. From my limited perspective the "Process" has resulted in a loss the long standing parity in ITB.

Charlie

That speaks volumes. In that time, the track has been repaved, and DOT tires have gotten better.

/edit Last I looked, this is the 6th year that the Mk III Golf has been in ITB. Not exactly what I'd call 'newly classified'.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill highlighted the key points perfectly. A 10 year record can never be broken? The track has been repaved. Geez.

Is it possible that the top drivers have just migrated to newer equipment because its easier to find parts, good donors, ect? Point in fact - take a look in this months Sports Car - the article about Eric Curren. He takes his dads 142 out once or twice a year at LRP during a test day and runs WELL under the ITB track record...times in fact that would make some ITA guys jealous.

The point is that there is SO MUCH in play here that it really is not appropriate to say that the old stuff is being rendered uncompetitive, it just may be that because there are a few more decent choices, the new hotshoes are building different stuff.

[gran racing]

Charlie,

Summit Point could be a good example for us to discuss the impact of using that as a performance indicator / classification tool. If comparing results of cars that attended the event, a few things I’d want to know are - the level of car prep, information about the tires used throughout the event, driver experience and ability, and other information that may have played a role.

Shame about those slow old BMW 2002's.

Using on track performance without knowing more information about the cars or drivers, one might come to a conclusion that weight needs to come off the 2002s after looking at the Summit Point results. However on the flip side, the exact opposite could be concluded after looking at different results – the Mid Ohio IT Fest. I was absolutely amazed with the amount of power the 2002s had there! I was in their draft, had a good run, and they easily pulled away from me on the straights.

Volvos…I keep thinking back to a test day I attended last year at Lime Rock. Paul Curran whose a damn good racer was at the event with his son Eric. Paul was getting the car around pretty quick and running times that would have him near the front. His times were in the low 1:04s. Nothing was changed with the car, same tires, same conditions. His son Eric jumped in the car, did just a few laps and holy shit. Eric was turning 1:02.7s (which is below the track record). Note: just saw Andy post this too. lol

Even with the same exact car, using on track performance could easily produce different results in how the car should be classed.

But Charlie - if some of the "previous top dogs" (like the 142) have NOT been run through the process, shouldn't that take priority over monkeying with the cars that have? You wanna write the letter, or should I? Gary

Bingo! If you’re running a car that hasn’t been through the process, write a letter and ask for your car to be run through it. Having cars be classified by the same process is important.

[tnord]

i'm wondering why everyone thinks that should on track performance be used in any way.....that it would have to be used for every car at every event. don't you think it's more reasonable to think that they'd consider results from IT Fest and ARRC almost exclusively?

[Bill Miller]

But Charlie - if some of the "previous top dogs" (like the 142) have NOT been run through the process, shouldn't that take priority over monkeying with the cars that have?

You wanna write the letter, or should I?

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.

[Knestis]

>> ... His son Eric jumped in the car, did just a few laps and holy shit. Eric was turning 1:02.7s (which is below the track record).

Eric Curran obviously needs more weight.

K

[gran racing]

Travis,
While those events are great, there are many cars that don’t show for one reason or another. Even then, there are too many variables.

Bill,
When I submitted my request to have my car run through the process, my thought was at least now it’ll be classed using criteria other cars were. Seeking consistency, explainable, and a fair classification for various cars – that’s what motivated me to write my letter.

[tnord]

......and "The Process" can obviously account for 40 years and 400 cars across 5 classes without fault.

[spawpoet]

>> ... His son Eric jumped in the car, did just a few laps and holy shit. Eric was turning 1:02.7s (which is below the track record).

Eric Curran obviously needs more weight.

K

Or he's a cheater

[tnord]

Travis,
While those events are great, there are many cars that don’t show for one reason or another. Even then, there are too many variables.

i agree there are a lot of variables, i just don't think that when discussions of using "on track performance" come up it's fair to talk about it in terms of any car anywhere in the country on any weekend. because in practice were it to actually happen i'd be pretty confident the results to be used would only really come from those two (and T-Hill maybe) events. to say otherwise i think is a scare tactic used to push an agenda.

[lateapex911]

.............. to say otherwise i think is a scare tactic used to push an agenda.

Just to be clear, there are no ITAC guys here promoting the use of on track performance as anything but a trigger to look at he cars physical characteristics more closely.

[tnord]

I'm aware Jake.

[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.

[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.

[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.