And AGAIN, this was simply a draft that we never used like it was law.
An example other than the 'multi-valve' singling out? 'Modern ECU cars'. That was never defined nor was it ever applied.
EVER.
Getting a headache. Ugh.
Senior Member
And AGAIN, this was simply a draft that we never used like it was law.
An example other than the 'multi-valve' singling out? 'Modern ECU cars'. That was never defined nor was it ever applied.
EVER.
Getting a headache. Ugh.
Senior Member
Yes, that was the original 'guideline'. which was refined to remove subjectivity and increase repeatability and transparency over the years.Originally Posted by Knestis
I DO like the rotary line though...and wish it were followed.
100hp x 1.45 =145 x 14.5 = 2100.
Live axle, strut based, low tq...not even the mid engine adder applies.
Current weight 2280...down from the previous 2380.
Granted, making 2100 would be tricky, but, I know I can go under 2280...
So, even though the document is very specific about the 12A, it's another example of the fact that it was a guideline, not a 'rule'
Last edited by lateapex911; 02-20-2011 at 11:47 PM.
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
New England Region
lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com
Senior Member
And there are two 13B's. The 86-91 car was classed using 30%. And that car was one of the very FIRST test cases when even developing the Process.
It should be abundantly clear that that first document was simply a guideline, developed primarily to provide Darin a script as he explained the goals of the ITAC to the BoD/CRB on a con call.
Last edited by lateapex911; 02-20-2011 at 11:46 PM.
Senior Member
People have said the process failed the
Rx7? Sounds like we failed it...
Last edited by CRallo; 02-21-2011 at 12:26 AM.
Chris Rallo "the kid"
-- "wrenching and racing" -- "will race for food!" -- "Onward and Upward"
Senior Member
That one is complicated. The car was originally classed in ITS!
Over the years, it became clear it was outclassed there and it moved to A. Even there, its power to weight ratio gradually became less and less competitive.
Part of the pre-process answer to this was IT7, and a lot of cars moved there, which again complicated things. Those cars had a great place to race on 13X7s and with a cage built to light weight specs.
Now, using the process, the car is a B car. But moving it to B would require guys who've run 7" wide wheels to buy 6" wheels, and many cages would probably be illegal at the higher B weight.
Again, complicated.
NC Region
1980 ITS Triumph TR8
Senior Member
That's kind of the central theme of my point, in case anyone missed it.
K
Senior Member
Not to mention, almost impossible to find......
Bill Stevens - Mbr # 103106
BnS Racing www.bnsracing.net
92 ITA Saturn
83 ITB Shelby Dodge Charger
Sponsors - Race-Keeper Data/Video Aquisition Systems www.race-keeper.com
Simpson Performance Products - simpsonraceproducts.com
Senior Member
Subjectivity trumps repeatability and transparency. We might learn that a 1.6 multiplier was used on the car because these people felt the gains were greater and had a high level of confidence in those gains. Why they hold those beliefs we don't get (bye-bye transparency). With repeatability we get all cars equipped with the Nash A4a5d-2 engine getting the same multiplier (good) but, gosh darn it, the Nash A4a5d-2a engine gets a different treatment despite virtually identical architecture because some people have a high confidence-level (i.e. bias) of a higher multiplier.
I realize I'm discussing the catechism with the Pope here. You asked me to document my calculations and I did. Courtesy would suggest that you do at least what you requested of me. You'll note that Mr. Young provided sources (though I've tried to stay away from Wiki).
No shit the actual multipliers are different -- the published weights make that clear. I'm saying they shouldn't be.Why do you think what one weight is at has ANYTHING to do with another weight? The mulitiplers are different.
So the document that was posted at the start of this thread is gibberish? The mathematical formula in that document is just a red-herring because it all depends on applying some subjective multiplier on the car -- debate, confidence-levels, etc. The end result will be people deciding on a weight and then arguing for an engine multiplier that gets closest to that weight.AGAIN, the bhiggest reason you can't just 'know' the process and think you 'know' a weight a car should be at. It takes debate, data review and a vote.
As I scan my distant memory, I believe it was because the first gen CRX was, at one time, an OK to good ITA car. It was dropped down to B and everyone knows the CRX needs more weight. Doesn't matter whether it is in IT, Prod or GT, doesn't matter whether it is the first gen CRX or the second gen CRX (an entirely different car) -- it needs more weight because of the magical powers that are created through the synergistic effects of the words HONDA and the letters CRX. Hell, if Yugo produced the Goslow CRX model, the CRB would want to throw weight on that too.
The draft is meaningless. Either the document posted here is the "process" or it isn't. That document says multi-valved. The ITAC set this in stone and these are the implications.
Senior Member
I'm going to take the liberty of paraphrasing what I *think* is the theme of the above, Jeff - that you want the system to be formulaic rather than subjective.
I agree with you...
...but it becomes a matter of degree. I wasn't going to squawk about because this is a MUCH better situation than we've ever had in the category, but I do worry a little that the "Published Horsepower" and "Known Horsepower" approaches seem to have risen to have equal billing. I would be more comfy with an approach that leaned more toward the former.
Not enough to throw this baby out with the bathwater, though.
K
Senior Member
I think it either needs to be formulaic or subjective. Allowing both is worse than either because it allows bias to enter the classification process and gives cover for that bias behind an objective formula.
Currently, IMO, ITB and ITC weights created an excellent and level playing field for most of the cars. The MR2 was and may still be a problem and I think some of the VWs are way too light given the current weights in ITB.
When I look at the 4 most popular cars in DCR, the CRX, the Volvo, the 2002 and the MR2, I see cars that are essentially equal and one that last year was a basket case given its weight (and might be beyond help). Now, it appears that balance has been upset.
The process, as given, results in some of the most popular cars (at least here) either losing lots of weight or being stuck with multipliers that seem absurd and being relegated to obsolescence, not because they are obsolete, but because the new rules changed and the older car rules didn't or won't.
Look at the CRX... same basic geometry as the Accord and the idea of the Accord multiplier is being treated as heresy.
Senior Member
Actually you infered in your post that I pulled the 120hp out of my ass. I simply stated the HP (known, so you could recalculate) in the first post. I treated your post with the same respect you treated mine. I had no idea we were now required to cite sources for HP numbers when they are indeed widely known. So be it.
Why? Based on architecture? I suggest that is a trigger but not the end-all. Intake manifold design, compression ratio, throttle body sizing, etc, etc preclude such hard line assumptions. The early smaller motor was classed using the old-style of 'what was known' in terms of WHP.No shit the actual multipliers are different -- the published weights make that clear. I'm saying they shouldn't be.
It's not meaningless in that it influenced the current Process - INCORRECTLY. My point is that some of the PTB have referenced that original draft when hard-lining policy...in an INCORRECT and INCONSISTANT (see previous facts and history) manner. And the elephant it has created is the 'multi-valve for ITB and ITC' issue.The draft is meaningless. Either the document posted here is the "process" or it isn't. That document says multi-valved. The ITAC set this in stone and these are the implications.
I love that the Process is documented, we worked on that for half a year when I was on the ITAC...and at that point, the CRB was just so scared of: 1. it getting out or 2. How it pigeon-holed them into a no-fudge situation or 3. they never REALLY listened during the con calls to believe in the progression of the document
I suspect it is partly all 3.
Senior Member
And....we can't look to the existing "balance" (of unknown legality, prep level and skill) of a few cars in one series at one track in the country to determine if the apple cart has been upset.
The 2002 will be "fine" if processed.
So, to get to the nub of it, let's just lay it out: the real issue here is that the Volvo 142 (a popular car in MARRS and to a lesser extent at VIR) was used as a bogey car for the class using bogus/illegal power numbers.
That caused, in the minds of some, the power to weight number in ITB to be too high.
Interestingly though, it seems to fit, very well actually, the newer cars in ITB, like the Mk III Golf, the Civic, the Accord, the Prelude, etc.
Leaving us with two choices:
1. Adjust the Volvo 142 to the class. This would entail having it shed weight in ITB, to go to probably unobtainable weight, OR have it moved to C.
2. Adjust the class to the 142. This would entail adding significant weight to the other popular cars in the class.
Other than at one track in one region, I think (2) will do far more damage to ITB than good.
But I am interested in hearing competing viewpoints.
NC Region
1980 ITS Triumph TR8
Senior Member
This would be laughable it if weren't so incredibly stupid and dangerous.
(Not you, Jeff - the suggestion of the latter choice.)
I can't imagine why this should even be CONSIDERED. If it's an agenda for someone on the CRB or ITAC, their motivations are seriously suspect. If they drive a Volvo, it's putting their personal interests WAY ahead of what's good for the category, so it rises to the level of an impeachable offense in my eyes.
K
EDIT - Sorry, I'm back already. This is insane. There's got to be a TON of "what we know" about the 142, in both legal and cheated up forms. Run it through the Process and if it can't make ITB weight given its REAL WORLD capacity to make power, then it's a C car.
Last edited by Knestis; 02-21-2011 at 12:16 PM.
Senior Member
To talk you down a little:This would be laughable it if weren't so incredibly stupid and dangerous.
(Not you, Jeff - the suggestion of the latter choice.)
I can't imagine why this should even be CONSIDERED. If it's an agenda for someone on the CRB or ITAC, their motivations are seriously suspect. If they drive a Volvo, it's putting their personal interests WAY ahead of what's good for the category, so it rises to the level of an impeachable offense in my eyes.
K
EDIT - Sorry, I'm back already. This is insane. There's got to be a TON of "what we know" about the 142, in both legal and cheated up forms. Run it through the Process and if it can't make ITB weight given its REAL WORLD capacity to make power, then it's a C car.
It's not just about the Volvo. The arguements stem from what was on the grids in yesteryear. 2002's, Volvo's, FireArrow's, GTI's, etc. The arguement isn't about 1 car, it's about the new crop vs the old crop. 'Entry-fee paying members' over the last 2 decades feel like the 'new' ITB has left them behind - not in terms of prep and driving (because we are all Mario Andretti in our heads) but because of power to weight calculation errors.
Senior Member
In general that is true, but the 2002 and (I think) the A2 GTI can make weight at their lowered process weight in ITB (I think per the above the 2002 is only going to lose 70 lbs).
In my view, this is all about the Volvo becuase it can't get down to its process weight in B with realistic legal hp numbers. The guys driving it don't want to go to C (which I understand).
Which leaves us in something of a dilemma.
Since the driver preference is to stay in B, my inclination is to vote to redue the weight in B knowing it is unobtainable and go from there.
But it is a dilemma, although I do share some of Kirk's frustrations with this.
NC Region
1980 ITS Triumph TR8
Senior Member
I carry 100# of steel and probably 50# of stuff that I am allowed to remove in by G2, and must finish at 3/8 tank to make weight. We can drop it in less than 15 minutes.
Senior Member
No, I implied it. As for HP numbers being widely known, I googled the car and got HP numbers that differ from yours. Excuse me. You throw out some 120HP number, great. Is that stock? Is that after the IT-build? I'm not taking anything as Gospel.
Doubtful and more probably that the car was classified with fear as a bogey-man. The CRX was one the CRB's Michael Meyers (it certainly is among the Prod community) and the current weight almost certainly is a derivative of the original weight set. And that weight, almost certainly, is based on non-IT builds.Why? Based on architecture? I suggest that is a trigger but not the end-all. Intake manifold design, compression ratio, throttle body sizing, etc, etc preclude such hard line assumptions. The early smaller motor was classed using the old-style of 'what was known' in terms of WHP.
Even if the weight was set with definitive numbers from somewhere and someone, those numbers are irrelevant under the current process without the documented proof of source, legality, etc. being put forth.
That means, unless and until demonstrated otherwise, the first gen CRX gets the 1.25 multiplier.
NO. The intent and previous wording absolutely is meaningless and irrelevant if what was posted in the first thread is the real process. It's pretty damn clear that weights are set by: HP x Multiplier (wiggle room, but process given) x Class Modifier x FWD + adders.It's not meaningless in that it influenced the current Process - INCORRECTLY. My point is that some of the PTB have referenced that original draft when hard-lining policy...in an INCORRECT and INCONSISTANT (see previous facts and history) manner. And the elephant it has created is the 'multi-valve for ITB and ITC' issue.
The document says multi-valve. Therefore, earlier intentions are irrelevant unless and until the document is revised.
And you can't look at some theoretical "balance" to set real world weights either and I'm beginning to realize that the process was exactly that -- some idea of perfection without sufficient consideration of the real world.
Remains to be seen if they have that sort of weight to eliminate. The 1G CRX will be fine too if reprocessed. I'd love to have an IT car at the HP weight.The 2002 will be "fine" if processed.
Given that their weights essentially were set with the some version of the process, is the above surprising? There is a multitude of existing cars, categorized under a previous rules regime, that are going to lose weight. Weight that might not be stuck in place. Worse, the new process probably won't be applied uniformly and certain cars are going to be told to pound sand because of bias (er... I mean confidence levels).Interestingly though, it seems to fit, very well actually, the newer cars in ITB, like the Mk III Golf, the Civic, the Accord, the Prelude, etc.
I just want the current ITAC to remember that they must recuse themselves entirely when the discussion of reclassifying any car in their class is on the table.
Seems to me that most of the "popular" cars in the category already have that weight and that's the point being overlooked. It's only the newer cars that would carry the so-called excess weight. Seems to me that rather than asking some of these older cars to shed 3-digits of weight - weight that might not be shedable - a middle ground would have been wiser.2. Adjust the class to the 142. This would entail adding significant weight to the other popular cars in the class.
Well, the weight of evidence is entirely in my court. I've given evidence where these changes were done without consideration to their impact on a well-established and healthy competition that averages over 15 ITB cars each race.Other than at one track in one region, I think (2) will do far more damage to ITB than good.
Give me examples of people foregoing building an ITB car because, despite being competitive atthe heavier weight, the car weighs too much. I.e. "Yeah, the car is competitive at 2255, but until everyone loses 15% of their process weight, the car will just sit in my shed."
Like I said, I'll love having the CRX at HP weight. I might be able to get 2 seasons out a single set of tires.
Senior Member
So the ITAC should apply the Process to the whole lot of them to correct those "power to weight calculation errors" and go racing. What Jeff described was being considered was beyond that.
You've got NO problem convincing me ITB is klugey. Remember that I put a BUNCH of hours into the spreadsheet of that hot mess.
It *sounds* to me like the problem here might be that TIME has left some of those chassis options behind. If I stumbled into a warehouse full of NOS Fire Arrows and parts, I'd build one in an instant.
Or maybe I wouldn't because there's exactly NO doubt in my mind that a RennGruppe-quality shell-up build, with dyno time and the whole 9 yards, would obliterate the class so badly, it would be in ITA in a year.
We have NO obligation to handicap the category so a second-rate build can be competitive, or to assure that cars can be driven forever.
Kirk (who got beat by 2002s and a Volvo at Summit last year)
EDIT - Let's remember that the Great Realignment adjusted cars to what folks qualitatively believed were the index or "bogey" cars in each class, based on anecdotal observations. If cheater Volvos contributed to perceptions - and I firmly believe that they did - and subsequent new cars were spec'd accordingly, then karma is a bitch.
Last edited by Knestis; 02-21-2011 at 01:50 PM.
Senior Member
Which gets a 1st gen CRX at HP weight. Damn, I like that.
Well, yes the ITAC does when it is changing the rules. This isn't a case of the Yugo Slayer just being a damn good car. This is a case of the rulebook changing and the Yugo Slayer now being the best damn car.We have NO obligation to handicap the category so a second-rate build can be competitive, or to assure that cars can be driven forever.
This isn't a case of a bunch of British Leyland silverbacks pissing and moaning about driving ancient cars and forcing handicaps on newer cars. This is more of a case of the rules changing and the silverbacks saying, wait a minute, all of those changes do nothing for us and helps them. IMO, there's a difference.
Then again, I'm going to get a CRX at HP weight, so.... :026:
Handicap? It only is handicapped because of a subjective view that an ITB car should generate 1HP for every 17 lbs. If in the past, the defacto HP:lbs figure was higher because of an illegal target car, the old HP:lb ratio is as good as any. People bought, built and developed a generation's worth of cars based on something. There has been an arbitrary and capricious change to the parameters without apparent consideration to what that change would do the existing class.
And there hasn't been ANY mention of what these changes will do to ITC and I posted some weights for those. Should we just delete ITC now since the peanut gallery is ignoring the impact?
Senior Member
i installed about 150# of steel. after the weight i have gained, i can only remove about 100# of it.
it is embarassing that my dedication to my own personal health is tied more to my car's minimum weight......
1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks