January Fastrack

[lateapex911]

On the RX-7, yea moving it to B has it's hurdles, AND it's different than ALL other IT cars as it's the ONLY IT car that, in pure IT prep, has it's own class available to it over 75% of the country, IT7.

And IT7 is pretty popular in many places, and in some cases out numbers (ed) ITA cars at the same event.

So, does it really make sense to move a car to a new class, require it to be recaged, require the drivers to sell the wheels and buy new, AND tires (I have 3 sets min)?
Then there's the problem of the process. Guess what, the ITAC will recalculate the numbers for ITB, so a car that, when you look at the top IT7 drivers in the country, barely (if at all) beats ITB cars, will have weight added.
A process that has rendered it uncompetitive in A will, in all logic, do the same in ITB.

So, with all that, what's the point?
It's better off as is.

[gran racing]

but you can't expect your chassis to be competitive forever.

If the "target" for a lack of better words isn't shifted upwards, which it shouldn't be, why not? If one car can only achieve 18% gain for whatever reason (lack of technology or vice versa), if we're evaluating cars based upon performance potential that shouldn't be a factor.

Charlie, I'm not saying the process is perfect but why can't it work for ITB especially now that they will (hopefully) be reviewed using the same classification method?

[almskidd]

Jeff, I fully accept that you feel the above statement is accurate.
But I'm calling BS on it. (With all no disrespect to you!)

When I was on the ITAC, (and this MR2 thing has been going on YEARS!), various hollow reasons were trotted out defending the absurd factor the MR2 was classed at, and lot's of comical things were stated.
"Its a Toyota Atlantic motor " is one, and that is the SECOND most absurd reason I've nearly EVER heard.
But, the number one big stinking pile of poop was the statement by Peter Keane on one of the con calls. "The deal we made to allow 16V cars into ITB was that they must be classed at the higher factor". That's an exact quote: "The deal we made...."
When I questioned the origin of that 'deal' I found out that refers to stuff that was happening just before my joining the ITAC.

Now if THAT isn't 'shenanigans' then NOTHING is.


I'm with Andy. How can the ITAC, on one hand, say, 25% is the standard default, yet SUPPORT the ludicrous stance that the MR2 motor makes 30 or 35%? IF they require 'EVIDENCE" to waver from 25%, then show us the evidence that supports the 30%!!!

You just can NOT have it both ways.

Q. What car, other than the MR2, was classified assuming 30% IT gains since that "Deal"?

The 92-95 Civic DX is at 38% (4 valves per cyl and SOHC), so that doesnt count and I don't know enough about the rest of the ITB field to know which ones are 4 Valves per cyl.

[lateapex911]

If the "target" for a lack of better words isn't shifted upwards, which it shouldn't be, why not? If one car can only achieve 18% gain for whatever reason (lack of technology or vice versa), if we're evaluating cars based upon performance potential that shouldn't be a factor.

Charlie, I'm not saying the process is perfect but why can't it work for ITB especially now that they will (hopefully) be reviewed using the same classification method?

The ITB case is a unique cluster. In the new beginning, the Volvo was considered to be a central 'bogey car', and it's known performance and specs were distilled into the performance envelope/target for ITB....IIRC. (Andy?)

Then, down the road, we hear complaints from the Volvo guys (years later, a 'new' crop speaks up, somewhat thru the grapevine) that the numbers we used weren't representative of an ...ummmm..legal Volvo. Doncha know?
Well, that's a twist.

But beyond that, I think Jeff is saying ANY chassis can't be competitive forever. Aftermarket support dries up, engines disappear (RX-7), etc etc. And that's FINE. The ONLY way the ancient mariners in Prod have been kept competitive is artificial life support: Billet cranks, full glass bodies, alt heads and who knows what.

[JeffYoung]

Dave, my opinion is we have thing about newer cars -- better suspension designs, better chassis rigidity, better geometry, better aero, better weight distribution, etc -- that are not (and n my view can't be) accounted for in the Process.

I know you can "work with" leaf springs and live rear axles but do we really want a bunch of amateur racers (which is what the ITAC is) trying to balance those attributes on the head of a pin with others.

Eventually, cars from the 70s shouldn't be competitive in IT. Run? Sure. Guaranteed competitive? No.

I'm fighting this battle right now. Modern cars like the Integra and the Miata and the 323 are and are going to continue to be the future of ITS. As it should be if the class is to stay healty. My car is a dinosaur that will eventually not be competitive. I accept that.

If the "target" for a lack of better words isn't shifted upwards, which it shouldn't be, why not? If one car can only achieve 18% gain for whatever reason (lack of technology or vice versa), if we're evaluating cars based upon performance potential that shouldn't be a factor.

Charlie, I'm not saying the process is perfect but why can't it work for ITB especially now that they will (hopefully) be reviewed using the same classification method?

[erlrich]

If the "target" for a lack of better words isn't shifted upwards, which it shouldn't be, why not? If one car can only achieve 18% gain for whatever reason (lack of technology or vice versa), if we're evaluating cars based upon performance potential that shouldn't be a factor.

I'm with Dave on this one - I still don't understand the thinking that any given class will just naturally get faster as it evolves. After all, we know how to slow cars down, don't we? To my way of thinking there is no reason an RX7 couldn't still be a front-running car in ITA.

[Russ Myers]

Gee,,, all this talk of evil old cars makes me feel real good about the Pinto I bought earlier this year. Haven't even had it on the track yet, and y'all want me to go away. Thanks.

Russ

[JeffYoung]

Russ, as a driver of an evil old car, I understand where you are coming from. No one is telling anyone to go away. No one will be denied a place to race.

But it is my personal opinion, and it is smething I have accepted as a driver of a car that was, literally designed in 1970, that eventually my car can't be guaranteed, using a power to weight process, to be competitive in ITS. Race it? Sure. But guarantee it has a shot? Not possible.

Dave, I'm not talking about power issues when I say certain chassis wouldn't be competitive anymore. Power to weight we can deal with. It's other things we can't.

But this is not going to happen overnight. Cars have faded away before (RX3 in ITA springs to mind) and it will happen again.

Jake stated my position well by the way.

Gee,,, all this talk of evil old cars makes me feel real good about the Pinto I bought earlier this year. Haven't even had it on the track yet, and y'all want me to go away. Thanks.

Russ

[quadzjr]

Jeff. I am working on getting a build sheet from the full tilt motor, however I bet that is going to be difficult as those are his trade secrets. One of the dyno's I submitted was his.

If it matters I can send you my build sheet if it matters. where my motor was only 1.25 hp down from his.

I thought the new process was classed at 25% unless dyno evidence proves otherwise. I provided as much evidence as I could find. Even the FProd motor build just barely made the gains expected in IT. Yes most were not "IT" builds.. only one was. It is hard to gather a bunch of IT builds when there is so few running a group of 5 or so run at summit point. The point remains the same, most decent IT builds are making aroudn 103-104 hp. As much as I can do netted me 106.75, and a full on build netted 108hp.

If a car is classed in ITA at 25% if it moves to ITB then it has to be classed at 30%?

i don't like a deal that was made by a person that races in ITB and currently has one of the cars to have.

Current members in ITAC can think 16v motors make 30%.. well some make more and some make less... So.. No mater how much evidence shows the contrary, I am stuck with a deal that was made that had nothing to do with the process? I want the car classed using the new process and no "legacy" stuff.

More specifically on teh 4AGE, in that paper I pointed out the reason why they don't make power in IT trim. No amount of vavles are going to help. The head ports are huge, and the port angles are large, and they don't flow worth a damn (head flow charts in the appendix of the paper). I am not lying or stretching the truth. Obviously my point of view may look a bit biased. However, I challenge for someone to prove anything that I have submitted wrong or biased. I know no one has come out and said I am lying, but looking at everything that was submitted and still believe the contrary, either a person has to think I am lying/wrong or you don't care.

honestly Jeff. I applaud you on staying on here to defend your position. I wish others would do the same no matter what side of an issue you are on, if you vote one way you should be able to defend it.

[lateapex911]

I'm with Dave on this one - I still don't understand the thinking that any given class will just naturally get faster as it evolves. After all, we know how to slow cars down, don't we? To my way of thinking there is no reason an RX7 couldn't still be a front-running car in ITA.

The RX-7 is a unique case. It WAS competitive in ITA, but NEVER dominant. There are those who will argue, but, a good RX-3SP, (or even a well driven /prepped RX-2) always had the upper hand on the 7. THEN came a new wave of (mis) classed cars that put the RX-3 et al in the garage. The CRB fix was to add new cars at the same performance level (Weight changes in IT were, at the time NOT allowed...don't even THINK about it things).

So, in the great Reorg, the slow cars were given breaks, and the fast cars were given weight. But, you can't really take enough weight OFF the RX-7 to be competitive. And, at teh time, IT7 was very popular in many parts of the country, so the desire to move to ITB was nil.
Simply, the needs of the many (ITA) are more important than the needs of the few ( the RX-7)

[lateapex911]

J
i don't like a deal that was made by a person that races in ITB and currently has one of the cars to have.

.

Since this is a matter of public record, I'd like to be as exact as possible. I didn't say Peter MADE the deal. I said he defended the use of the higher gains as being part of the 'deal we made' for 4 valve cars to go to ITB.

Subtle difference, but I just want to be clear.
(I remember it pretty clearly as I was shocked when that was said....)

[JeffYoung]

No problem, and I appreciate all the work -- and you have been polite and informative -- you have done.

For those that don't know, Steve sent in a very compelling, detailed and in my view objective analysis -- includign parts lists, manifold pictures and specs, etc. -- of why the 4AGE is NOT an Altantic motor. Convinced me.

I know it sounds incongruous for me to say I respect and accept the ITAC's decision on the 30%, but at the same time personally feel the MR2 is a key to the future of ITB and is classed incorrectly. But that is where I am. I've seen enough data for me personally to believe the car can't make anywhere near 30%. Others disagree, and I respect that.

Jeff. I am working on getting a build sheet from the full tilt motor, however I bet that is going to be difficult as those are his trade secrets. One of the dyno's I submitted was his.

If it matters I can send you my build sheet if it matters. where my motor was only 1.25 hp down from his.

I thought the new process was classed at 25% unless dyno evidence proves otherwise. I provided as much evidence as I could find. Even the FProd motor build just barely made the gains expected in IT. Yes most were not "IT" builds.. only one was. It is hard to gather a bunch of IT builds when there is so few running a group of 5 or so run at summit point. The point remains the same, most decent IT builds are making aroudn 103-104 hp. As much as I can do netted me 106.75, and a full on build netted 108hp.

If a car is classed in ITA at 25% if it moves to ITB then it has to be classed at 30%?

i don't like a deal that was made by a person that races in ITB and currently has one of the cars to have.

Current members in ITAC can think 16v motors make 30%.. well some make more and some make less... So.. No mater how much evidence shows the contrary, I am stuck with a deal that was made that had nothing to do with the process? I want the car classed using the new process and no "legacy" stuff.

More specifically on teh 4AGE, in that paper I pointed out the reason why they don't make power in IT trim. No amount of vavles are going to help. The head ports are huge, and the port angles are large, and they don't flow worth a damn (head flow charts in the appendix of the paper). Which was also presented in the paper. I am not lying or stretching the truth. Obviously my point of view may look a bit biased. However, I challenge for someone to prove anything that I have submitted wrong or biased.

honestly Jeff. I applaud you on staying on here to defend your position. I wish others would do the same no matter what side of an issue you are on, if you vote one way you should be able to defend it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with Jeff on this. It is certainly conceivable that as cars get 'better', the 'envelope' of the performance of the class bulges a little. Could be brakes, core suspension design, etc that affects this expansion - and can't be taken into account in the Process which as we all know is a glorified power to weight calc.

So lets say that the 1G RX-7 is a car to have in ITA. Engines are virtually gone. Aftermarket support has dried up and moved on. Pretty soon you won't be able to get a windshield or a xxx or a yyy. Natural selection.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Others disagree, and I respect that.

And they disagree based on what? So far, NOBODY has produced ANY evidence even close to 20%. Nevermind 25 or 30%.

[quadzjr]

As for the hoping to stay in ITB. I have been waiting a long time and I have watched other cars get changed around it. I understand it has been a heated discussion and that is why I have been patient.

tell me what fun it would be to drive a car that has a power to weight of 23.8:1 lbs/hp (2525lbs/106hp) against the competition that is in teh low 20:1 to 19:1 lbs/hp range.

I just feel let down. Like when you found out santa was not real.

[Andy Bettencourt]

As for the hoping to stay in ITB. I have been waiting a long time and I have watched other cars get changed around it. I understand it has been a heated discussion and that is why I have been patient.

tell me what fun it would be to drive a car that has a power to weight of 23.8:1 lbs/hp (2525lbs/106hp) against the competition that is in teh low 20:1 to 19:1 lbs/hp range.

I just feel let down. Like when you found out santa was not real.

And you should. Even if the ITAC wants to keep this bogus 30% in ITB rule in place, they should still have enough data to move the MR2 in ITB to a 15% multiplier. That still means you have to get to 113whp to be 'at process power'.

It would bring your weight to 2320 however. And maybe bring some cars into ITB.

[gran racing]

ANY chassis can't be competitive forever. Aftermarket support dries up, engines disappear (RX-7), etc etc.

That's different - we're not talking about aftermarket support and the challenges of building or maintaining a car. If the car is old but there's enough demand, parts will be available.

Now I will buy into the technology impacting cars like Jeff said. Good points. Although those same things impact newer cars too. I recognize that this is probably to a lesser extent so as technology improves.

[JeffYoung]

I'm speaking for others, and that is tricky, dangerous and usually wrong, but if I understand it correctly, it is based on the idea that this engine architecture -- 4V per cylinder -- generally makes this kind of gain. I'm not knocking you, but I would point out the example that you thought most/all inline sixes make 30%. Now, I agree you reached that conclusion based on hard data, whereas that may not be true with the ITB cars.

But those who take that position can do a better job of explaining it to me. Fortunately, we don't have this problem in R/S/A which are the classes where I know far more about the cars involved.

And they disagree based on what? So far, NOBODY has produced ANY evidence even close to 20%. Nevermind 25 or 30%.

[lateapex911]

I'm speaking for others, and that is tricky, dangerous and usually wrong, but if I understand it correctly, it is based on the idea that this engine architecture -- 4V per cylinder -- generally makes this kind of gain. I'm not knocking you, but I would point out the example that you thought most/all inline sixes make 30%. Now, I agree you reached that conclusion based on hard data, whereas that may not be true with the ITB cars.

But those who take that position can do a better job of explaining it to me. Fortunately, we don't have this problem in R/S/A which are the classes where I know far more about the cars involved.

Fine. I've heard that trotted out too.
But are 4v engines dinged to the same effect in A? S?
Crickets.
(Except when the CRX or Teg are pointed out, but those cars weren't weighted based on a theoretical number, they were based on real world data.)

And REGARDLESS.....nobody has posted a dyno sheet on the ITAC forum showing such power is remotely possible.

As I recall, one ITAC member (who moved to the CRB, ) said he knew a guy who made that engine make power. As far as I know, nobody has seen that car run since then, nor have I ever seen the sheet to back up that claim. (Maybe I missed it?)

The MR2 situation has really made the ITAC look foolish. (I should accept some blame for that as my bad math on a con call I ran in Andy's absence when I was working out of a hotel room resulted in the listing, BUT, I suspect if my math had been correct, it would have been stopped in it's tracks by the detractors and objectors. But since the number was what they wanted, it was all fine and good.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

but if I understand it correctly, it is based on the idea that this engine architecture -- 4V per cylinder -- generally makes this kind of gain. I'm not knocking you, but I would point out the example that you thought most/all inline sixes make 30%. Now, I agree you reached that conclusion based on hard data, whereas that may not be true with the ITB cars.

So I don't get why you would trot that out as an arguement. My conclusions - based on hard data, vs. a conclsuion that most multi-valve cars in ITB make 30% without the non-Honda data needed to support a precident-setting rule.

It's someting that has no defense, and is totally against the IT philosophy of old.