SCCA National Convention

[gran racing]

Would the S2000 fit into that category?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Would the S2000 fit into that category?

What category?

[gran racing]

This...

Andy what DID you guys do when a car going through the process just didn't work out?

I realize that within the process, there were ways to adjust things if it didn't fit into the straight equasion. I was thinking that providing Mac some background would help explain how the process has flexiblity. "Not working out" is probably the correct term for it, but from what I understand an exception % gain was used (and rightfully so). Just thinking of an example which might help Mac and the CRB understand it better.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This...



I realize that within the process, there were ways to adjust things if it didn't fit into the straight equasion. I was thinking that providing Mac some background would help explain how the process has flexiblity. "Not working out" is probably the correct term for it, but from what I understand an exception % gain was used (and rightfully so). Just thinking of an example which might help Mac and the CRB understand it better.

Gotcha Dave. And that uncovers a very common misconception with the Process. Some people can't seem to understand that is is NOT a formula. The S2000 was classed at 15% because conventional thought processes told us that a NA 2.0 with a specific output of 120hp per liter could not make 25% gains with whay we are allowed to do. The same dynamics allow the ITAC to make other estimates other than the 25% that is used as a baseline.

So again, it's not that the Process didn't work out for the S2000, the Process actually WORKS for the S2000. Its dynamic, not ridged. Just because we use 25% as a baseline for first consideration when there is no data on the table, doesn't mean at all that is what we end up using.

[lateapex911]

To further the thought process, cars like the S2000 are obviously unique. Research has been done to arrive at the 15% estimate. Classing it at a rigid 25% would be silly, and would be like not classing it at all. Nobody with an ounce of common sense would spend the time and money to build a car that would be so overweight.

If a car like that were to have rolled into the ITAC late this summer, it would have been tabled, and a member or members of the ITAC would have conducted research. They would bring their findings and evidence back to the meeting, and the entire ITAC would have reviewed, challenged, and ultimately voted their confidence, person by person on that presentation of evidence. If the vote showed high confidence across the board, the multiplier would be used to then run in the process. After that normal adders would be reviewed and calculated, and a race weight determined.

Within the System, there are procedures on what to do when strange things like that pop up. Cars with multiple HP ratings, cars with odd engine architecture, cars that are know to make less than advertised power, etc. Those procedures exist so the Process can remain flexible, but be applied in a consistent, repeatable and transparent manner.

[seckerich]

This is the one part of this whole equation that bothers me with the CRB and ITAC. In the end everyone in the 2 groups seems to agree on the FWD/RWD adders, the suspension adders, and for the most part the gutless torque subtractors. Why then is it so hard to come together on the HP equation. The CRB wants to use displacement,Valve size, etc to determine HP potential. The ITAC wants to use stock hp times the "expected" gain in IT trim to arrive at hopefully the same number. Both methods have the same places for "educated input" in the classing so have the same level of subjective wiggle room. In the end we could use either if you get to the same number and it is fair and published. Car X is expected to make *** HP in IT trim and then run the rest of the process as usual. Just a suggestion.

[lateapex911]

Steve, I haven't heard anything about valve size in the discussions. I actually do think that's a place to look, when choosing a car, BUT, even it is full of exceptions.

The CRB has just recently drawn it's line in the sand at displacement. But recent history shows inconsistent application of even just that:
-The BMW 528e recommendation we made was to place it in ITB. We have great intel on that engine, and we know it can't hit ITA weight. The CRB rejected the recommendation, stating that the engine displacement was too big for ITB. So, it will have to race overweight in ITA. What's the over/under on the letter from that owner requesting lexan windows?
-Conversely, they rejected the weight of the MR2 variants, and assigned them higher weights, even though their 1600cc size is nothing out of the norm for the class.

Even combining displacement and valve size won't, I think, net you a more accurate gauge of gains in IT trim, because it ignores/assumes all cams, intakes, and heads are equally efficient.

While it's certainly not dead accurate, it is felt that for IT, that stock hp actually reflects those variables, and is a better place to start.