THE BACK ROOM or ....

[quadzjr]

I do understand that is what the ITAC has to assume, but no matter what the car is pushing 100lbs heavy.

atleast the car has been shown to be competitive recently. Imagine driving a car that hasn't been competitive i a very long time that as it was classed was some 300lbs over weight using known hp. Know thankfully I am down to 200lbs over a "theoretical" power to weight (not incuding the mid engine adder).

What you can do is gather information and submit it to the ITAC for review. Gather engine build sheets, dyno plots, etc.. and work with them and not against them. They are in place to help you not hurt you. Like I mentioned I drive a car that I know is over weight. Am I mad at the ITAC? no.. Am I kinda let down/confused.. sorta. Am I happy that they rolled out a published rule set OHH HELL YEAH!

[pfcs]

Originally Posted by gran racing
Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.

[JeffYoung]

Could you explain that in a little more detail please?

Thank you.

[Knestis]

Originally Posted by gran racing
Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.

It's as official as this kind of thing gets - it's a set of operational guidelines but not a "rule" that can be protested. What more could we realistically want?

And as far as "the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent," everyone is allowed their opinion but I cannot conceive of ANY metric by which that is the case. None. And I'm a curmudgeon.

K

[JeffYoung]

It's funny that over the last few weeks, I've heard essentially this same statement from several ITB Volvo drivers in their 50s/60s.

I understand some of the frustration with the rules changes. If I were in IT in the mid 90s, I probably wouldn't be happy with open ECUs and spherical bearings either.

But a blanket statement that things were much better 15 years ago just ain't so, in my view. Classing cars using curb weight? Lobbying behind the scenes for undocumented weight changes?

This process is light years ahead of that, if implemented properly.

Originally Posted by gran racing
Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.

[tnord]

Originally Posted by gran racing
Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.

out with it then.....who are the upset many? what specific allowances are you referring to?

[Andy Bettencourt]

out with it then.....who are the upset many? what specific allowances are you referring to?

Translation for you Trav:

'Back in the day the racing was awesome. Every week we had 10 guys who could win. We raced nose to tail every weekend..."

Translation of that translation:

'We have no idea why cars were fast and why the racing was good. We pretty much all had 50% prepped cars and we all towed in with our station wagons, used 1 set of tires all year and everything was perfect. Then some new cars were classed and a couple of guys prepped them to the limit of the rules and ran away from us.'

[tnord]

no translator needed here. as jeff mentioned, we've already been through this a few times in less than a month.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But the net/net - and the crux of my recent letter, is that if a car smells funny from the get go, it needs to be put under a microscope before slapping a generic 25% on it. The health of ITB and ITC depend on it. Just a due dilligence comment/warning as all.

[tnord]

i'm refering specifically to the volvo, not ITB and ITC as a whole.

[lateapex911]

Translation for you Trav:

'Back in the day the racing was awesome. Every week we had 10 guys who could win. We raced nose to tail every weekend..."

Translation of that translation:

'We have no idea why cars were fast and why the racing was good. We pretty much all had 50% prepped cars and half of us DROVE them to the track, used 1 set of tires all year and everything was perfect. Then some new cars were classed and a couple of guys prepped them to the limit of the rules, invested in fresh and better rubber, got real dampers, took advantage of readily available real race parts, tested and tested, and used...gasp!...data acquisition systems to learn the cruel truth of where they were slow, and ran away from us.'

Time marches on and the world changes.....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Time marches on and the world changes.....

But given the 'Process', we have the ability to try and balance these cars on paper if they don't currently balance. We owe that to everyone. No guarantees mind you, but at least the effort.

[lateapex911]

But given the 'Process', we have the ability to try and balance these cars on paper if they don't currently balance. We owe that to everyone. No guarantees mind you, but at least the effort.

Absolutely. You're preaching to the choir. But I'm talking about the 'style' of racing, or the effort level that's more typical today versus 15 or 20 years ago.
Like say, data acquisition. 15 years ago, it was a F1 level expense, but today, it's commonplace, and one of the better investments to make a car/driver package faster.

[lateapex911]

Originally Posted by gran racing
Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.

Well, I for one think 180 degrees differently.

Phil, cite the examples of the awful creep that have resulted in the less than excellent condition you claim we have now.
And also, cite the "upset many". Who are these people? Name names.

I'll take a crack at two things I bet are some of your beefs.
1- Spherical bearings in the suspension. Just curious, can anyone tell me when the "Bushing material, including that used to moutn a sub frame to a chassis, is unrestricted" rule first appeared? I seem to remember it from my early days in 92, but my GCRs only go back to 2000.
2-the ECU.

I'd like to hear if those are on your list and why, and what else.

But, in terms of the rules governing classification, I'd submit that the world 15 years ago may have pleased some, while others were up the brown river with no paddle, and no hope.* Today's actions and policies by the ITAC are WORLDS ahead than ANY other committee in the club...ever. This is an awesome and unprecedented step. In the past, cars were classed in many different manners. New Golf? It went to ITS, because the OLD one was in ITA. This was not done with every car, but was with some, on a "lets see how it does" basis. And weights? A vertible grabbag of methods were used to set weights, and...once done, they were DONE. Mistake? Class dominator created? Hmmm, class another car a bit light to reduce the problem. The "system" changed, reversed itself and was based on suspect logic at best. MAYbe some racing in some areas was great, but...it was more by luck than design.

*Like me. In ITA the RX-7 was never the big dog, but, it could do ok for itself. Then the CRX got classed....a bit light. And, it turned out that it was way more car once developed than expected. Oops. Oh well. So they classed another to try and blunt the situation. And another. Which meant that the current stakeholders watched their finishing positions erode with every new car classifications. The 'solution' to the classing of an overdog was to raise the entire class performance envelope, without giving all the cars the ability to perform at teat level. Now, maybe it didn't happen in the class YOU were racing in at that time, but that was very much a BIG problem for many. That was the wonderful world of 15 years ago. I like todays world much better. (And, by the way, my car is STILL not properly classed, but I certainly understand why, and wouldn't think of pushing for the world to cahnge around it. The needs of the many.....

[jjjanos]

The 'solution' to the classing of an overdog was to raise the entire class performance envelope, without giving all the cars the ability to perform at teat level.

What cup size do they need?

[preparedcivic]

atleast the car has been shown to be competitive recently.

Nope; that'd be the next gen EF chassis with double wishbones all-around. Classed at basically the same weight, 16 valve head, but TBI so probably 5% less hp.

[quadzjr]

questions in particular about the subjective rules.

My first one, is one that has been brought up many times before. tq.

how come ITB and ITC don't get a adder for low displacement but they do for high displacment? Does low tq not have much of an effect as having high tq?

second. the rules state tq or displacement.. I would assume they would use a weight/tq value to adjust. Much like how peak hp is treated. Has the ITAC assigned those values?

At first I couldn't figure out where the "normal" displacments came from. then I went through the entire ITCS makign note of over and unders in each catagory. And the numbers are close to being right. If you take the whole ITCS the numbers posted are close to the norm. The reason why at first glance I was congused is that if you look at the cars normally run on the weekends they tend to be on the low range of the spectrum. The honda contigent in ITB is stong, the majority of them are 1.5L Though in ITB there was only 3 cars above the threshold. Teh plymoth fire arrow, the fiero, and a certain model year celica. I would say lower it to 2.0L, but there are a SLEW of cars classed with 2.0L that are not actively raced and probably don't make all that much tq. (One reason why I am not a fan of displacement). compared to the tq that a honda 2.0L or a ford 2.3L make.

any input would be appreciated from the ITAC.

[JeffYoung]

I'm not entirely sure what your question is (probably my fault), but as to ITB and ITC, I believe the thinking was there really couldn't be a low torque/low displacement car in a class where most motors were in the 1.3 to 1.8 range. Nothing was "abnormally low," while some motors in B were abnormally high.

[quadzjr]

the posted normal displacment range for ITB is 1.7L to 2.3L. Which according to the ITCS is about right.. not so right from what actively runs however. so while most ITB cars that actually run are between 1.3L and 1.8L, meaning that if there wa a wight break the majority of cars curretly would get one as they are below 1.7L as published in the guidlines.


My question was..

1.) So would you think it would be best to set the norm engine displacment on what is on the ITCS or what actually shows up on track?


2.) has the ITAC determined a low tq, high tq numbers (I assume they are in weight/tq). The rules state they that both tq or displacment would be used.

I agree with what is as currently written I don't think cars in ITB below 1.7L need an adder (subtractor) As this would be the majority of cars run would be entitled to a weight adjsutment. I don't think that is necessary or right. I think lowering upper limit would be more apporiate to reflect what is run.

One idea, (though would totaly change the process). Is something pro racing has done for years.

your weight is set by both your hp and tq. This has been discussed a few times since I have been here and there are some outliners (RX-anything). But beyond that it should work. Maybe that is something Process v.4.2 can use.

[CRallo]

How much thought/math/testing has gone into this torque adder? What concerns me is that most high torque engines cannot rev and therefore must shift sooner and operate at a mechanical disadvantage... Was this taken into account?