May 2011 Fastrack

[lateapex911]

I don't like this one because its just anothe SWAG in the process. I see no need.

I agree. Allowing wider rims down class is a huge can of worms. Yes, it's a swag on the weight. Second, some tracks will be more suited to narrow rims, others to wider rims, and the competitors in the class don't have such options. Not fair to the class.

[dickita15]

Trust the Process Luke.
If a competitor requests a car be classed in a second class just run it thru the process with the new class power to weight and call it a day.
Trust the process.

[lateapex911]

Trust the Process Luke.
If a competitor requests a car be classed in a second class just run it thru the process with the new class power to weight and call it a day.
Trust the process.

When a BoD guy speaks, so clearly, maybe we should pay attention.

[quadzjr]

Spinnetti, in reguards to your build it sounds that your mechanical engine is close to 100%. Mine sounds identical except runngin lowe tension gapless total seal rings, and I did play with the bearing gaps. Coatings are illegal per IT, so no coatings.

what you are missing is the additional stuff. For example I do know that (depending on what TRD header you have) you can gain a few ft/lbs but probably 0 hp going with a different design. I have had burns run a simulation for the the 4AGE with stock cams, cam timing, and port flows. From my understanding they typcially do not do this for free. I calculated using mathmatic calcs using sonic and mass/velocity/acceleration equations (keeping the speed of sound constant with temperature). It parralleled what burns came up with and you might be suprised.

Luckily the stock computer is fairly aggressive.. even with a tuned header the AFR's are really good, which is probably why you saw little gains with changes in FP.

Engine is odly EXTREMELY sensitive to base timing. 2* either way off the optimum timing is 1-2 hp peak 4* you can see a change of 4 to 6 hp.. This is alot for a car that does not make much to begin with.

In reguards to the intake side of things.. this has been tested many times and documented on line. If you want to test yourself get two ferncos and play with piping lengths.. once you the best make a permant solution. (Though it has been found for the 4AGE LP engine that shorter=better for peak hp).

[dickita15]

When a BoD guy speaks, so clearly, maybe we should pay attention.

Nah, I just speak for one IT racer. I have no idea if anyone on the CRB or the BOD would share my opinion on this. Probably only one other person on the BoD that has much of an understanding of the philosophy of IT, maybe two. The CRB of course understands us a lot better.

[Spinnetti]

Trust the Process Luke.
If a competitor requests a car be classed in a second class just run it thru the process with the new class power to weight and call it a day.
Trust the process.

Thats all I'm sayin.. gimme a while to acclimate and decide if I wanna go down. Until then lemme keep runnin.. some of the other ideas are side trackkin...

[Matt93SE]

Probably only one other person on the BoD that has much of an understanding of the philosophy of IT, maybe two. The CRB of course understands us a lot better.

You sure about that? they don't seem to understand the philosophy of much lately...

just sayin'...

[RacerBill]

I'm 100% sure you would see some gains from a tuneable ECU. It may not be top end but you can spend a lot of time and money expanding area under the curve which is just as important.

How about exhaust? Have you had Burns or some one do computer modeling on your exhaust/header/merge collector design? Decent gains there for most who have tried it.

Every time I think I'm at 90% or whatever development I've found 5 other things to do/try.

Jeff: Do you realize what you are saying here???????

"I'm 100% sure you would see some gains from a tuneable ECU. It may not be top end but you can spend a lot of time and money expanding area under the curve which is just as important." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"How about exhaust? Have you had Burns or some one do computer modeling on your exhaust/header/merge collector design? Decent gains there for most who have tried it." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$

"Every time I think I'm at 90% or whatever development I've found 5 other things to do/try." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Do you hear what you're writing?????? There may be some guys out there who have that kind of money to spend, but a lot of us don't. This is very discretionary stuff.

I have spent almost $2k this year, just for basic stuff, like an engine, hubs, belts, membership, entry fee for a race I did not make.... etc. I have a stock suspension which I need to upgrade (another $1500 - $2000), and then another $1200 in entry fees for the rest of the year.

I don't have any Panasports to sell to finance 15x6 wheels, so I've got to hump 45-50lb wheels and tires (don't know how many more years I can keep doing that). I happened to luck out when my car was moved from A to B that the wheels I had were all 6" and I did not have to buy anymore (the spec line for my car prohibits going down to 14").

I understand your comments and know that they are true. And I understand that it takes bucks (sometimes BIG bucks) to run up front. But it is taking bigger and bigger bucks every year just to be able to get out onto the track. Please make it just a little easier for us. Thanks for listening.

[lateapex911]

Jeff: Do you realize what you are saying here???????

"I'm 100% sure you would see some gains from a tuneable ECU. It may not be top end but you can spend a lot of time and money expanding area under the curve which is just as important." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"How about exhaust? Have you had Burns or some one do computer modeling on your exhaust/header/merge collector design? Decent gains there for most who have tried it." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$

"Every time I think I'm at 90% or whatever development I've found 5 other things to do/try." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Do you hear what you're writing?????? There may be some guys out there who have that kind of money to spend, but a lot of us don't. This is very discretionary stuff.

I have spent almost $2k this year, just for basic stuff, like an engine, hubs, belts, membership, entry fee for a race I did not make.... etc. I have a stock suspension which I need to upgrade (another $1500 - $2000), and then another $1200 in entry fees for the rest of the year.

I don't have any Panasports to sell to finance 15x6 wheels, so I've got to hump 45-50lb wheels and tires (don't know how many more years I can keep doing that). I happened to luck out when my car was moved from A to B that the wheels I had were all 6" and I did not have to buy anymore (the spec line for my car prohibits going down to 14").

I understand your comments and know that they are true. And I understand that it takes bucks (sometimes BIG bucks) to run up front. But it is taking bigger and bigger bucks every year just to be able to get out onto the track. Please make it just a little easier for us. Thanks for listening.

Bill, Jeff was responding to a post listing an engine build. I think he was suggesting possible avenues to find more power.

Now, each of us has our own balance point when it comes to deciding where to chase the speed. Track time? Tires? Trick headers? Hiring a Daytona Prototypes engineer to set up our chassis?

Laugh at the last one, but, I understand a SM guy did something similar.

Point being, there's no upper limit. I think there are some basic cornerstones in the IT rules (no cams, no full cage, etc) that will make uber spending somewhat of a bad return for the investment proposition, BUT, it's going to be expensive to be the fastest...no matter what... if the class is popular.

You finish by asking him to make it easy on us. How can he do that? What are you referring to?

[JeffYoung]

I absolutely realize what I am saying, and it is all true, and no "rules" can fix any of this.

Does it cost those dollars to run IT? No.

Does it cost those dollars to run up front in IT in a competitive region? Yes.

No way to fix that, nor should we try, nor do I intend to try.

Jeff: Do you realize what you are saying here???????

"I'm 100% sure you would see some gains from a tuneable ECU. It may not be top end but you can spend a lot of time and money expanding area under the curve which is just as important." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"How about exhaust? Have you had Burns or some one do computer modeling on your exhaust/header/merge collector design? Decent gains there for most who have tried it." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$

"Every time I think I'm at 90% or whatever development I've found 5 other things to do/try." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Do you hear what you're writing?????? There may be some guys out there who have that kind of money to spend, but a lot of us don't. This is very discretionary stuff.

I have spent almost $2k this year, just for basic stuff, like an engine, hubs, belts, membership, entry fee for a race I did not make.... etc. I have a stock suspension which I need to upgrade (another $1500 - $2000), and then another $1200 in entry fees for the rest of the year.

I don't have any Panasports to sell to finance 15x6 wheels, so I've got to hump 45-50lb wheels and tires (don't know how many more years I can keep doing that). I happened to luck out when my car was moved from A to B that the wheels I had were all 6" and I did not have to buy anymore (the spec line for my car prohibits going down to 14").

I understand your comments and know that they are true. And I understand that it takes bucks (sometimes BIG bucks) to run up front. But it is taking bigger and bigger bucks every year just to be able to get out onto the track. Please make it just a little easier for us. Thanks for listening.

[gran racing]

But it is taking bigger and bigger bucks every year just to be able to get out onto the track.

Membership fees have been pretty consistent the past few years.
SFI Head BS - not a result of the ITAC (although next year that one is going to suck)
Entry fees - primarily controlled by the track rental rates

The only area I can potentially see the ITAC causing an increase in a person's budget to just get out there is if their car was moved from a higher class to ITB requiring a change in wheels.

[erlrich]

I understand your comments and know that they are true. And I understand that it takes bucks (sometimes BIG bucks) to run up front. But it is taking bigger and bigger bucks every year just to be able to get out onto the track. Please make it just a little easier for us. Thanks for listening.

Bill, I know it's not possible for everyone, but it may be time to start looking around for other options to SCCA or NASA.

[quadzjr]

My only concern is still in the classing.. with the 4AGE we are required to build a 10/10ths motor to come up with a output that puts us still 10-15% below classed hp. You would think that the classed hp would be the level that is the 10/10ths engine. some cars can reach their classed percentage with a 7/10ths build, and other don't have a chance.

[lateapex911]

My only concern is still in the classing.. with the 4AGE we are required to build a 10/10ths motor to come up with a output that puts us still 10-15% below classed hp. You would think that the classed hp would be the level that is the 10/10ths engine. some cars can reach their classed percentage with a 7/10ths build, and other don't have a chance.

I agree. But the ITAC assumes ALL can reach 100%. They seemingly feel they must be prudent and conservative or they risk an overdog.

In my opinion I think they blew this one. I've said before, the information they've seen just doesn't support more then 12%, much less higher.
When i was on the ITAC, one member spoke of one guy who he said said he made power. (Yes, you read right, this is rather second hand third hand unproven or unseen info).

A conservative position would have been 20%.

I'm afraid it's just stubborness, and the refusal to class a car at such a low percentage.

It was done on the RX8, based on I think, (IIRC) one or two very legit sources.

So it CAN be done.

The ITAC has seen SCADs of dyno plots and other data to support 15%..still conservative. Yet they refuse. It makes no sense to me. It's hard to understand.
Sadly, it seems like there's a gag order, so we'll never get a straight answer as to why...

[tnord]

do you REALLY think there's a "gag order" jake?

[Andy Bettencourt]

do you REALLY think there's a "gag order" jake?

While I don't think so Travis, it WOULDN'T be unprecidented.

Dear ITAC, class the chassis with that motor in ITB with a 15% multiplier and eliminate one of the last warts. The proof is everywhere.

[gran racing]

do you REALLY think there's a "gag order" jake?

I think there have been / are influences for the ITAC to say less publically. Gag order? Call it whatever you want to.

[tnord]

no one has EVER told me anything of the sort in my short 6 or 7 mos.

and if they did, do you think i'd really follow it?

[JeffYoung]

Back when we were having significant issues with the relationship between the ITAC and teh CRB, and amongst ITAC members, yes, there was a direction to tone down some of the comments on the web and to try and communicate with membership in a more organized fashion with a more unified message.

Looking back, I think some of the comments made by ITAC members about others -- and I include myself in that and in particular some of my comments aobut Lee and others -- were not appropriate. There is a difference between letting our membership know what is going (something we HAVE to do) and airing dirty laundry and disagreements over philosophy on the committee in public (which we should not).

There is at present time no "gag" order, and whether it is apparent to you guys or not, the committee is functioning extremely well, and relations with the CRB are again very good.

The Process was such a fundamental change in how the club in general and IT in particular set car weights that there was some resulting friction, some misunderstandings, and some bad blood. It is a shame that we had to lose valued members like Jake, Andy, and Kirk over that, but their sacrifice -- for lack of a better word -- set the stage for the good times we are enjoying now.

Right now, the CRB has FULL buy in on the Process and the publishing of the Ops Manual with the full support of the CRB is in my view the single best thing to EVER happen to IT. Weighting of cars is as transparent and objective and repeatable as I think could be possible.

While I personally feel the MR2 should be classed at a max of 20%, and probably is a 15% car, there is reasonable disagreement over that. We have seen a lot of dyno sheets, but still nothing that definitively is a 100% IT build with full supporting information. I would say that the 25% the car is classed at -- given the 30% default for multivalve motors in ITB/C -- is on the high end of what is reasonble for the car. Again, I disagree with it, but it isn't totally out of line with what could truly be the case for the car and gains in a full IT build.

At this point, my personal opinion is that the car is not going to be looked at again barring something conclusive like 3-4 guys building maxed out IT motors with full discosure on the builds, and submitting dyno sheets at less than 20% gain.

Again, my personal opinion is the car is heavy, and it is a shame because it should be one of the mainstays in ITB. But it is not so out of whack with the "fuzziness" built into the process so as to be totally uncompetitive.

[JeffYoung]

No, there hasn't. Not at all actually. I think a lot of what you are seeing is that the guys who routinely posted here before being on the ITAC -- Kirk, Jake, Andy, Josh -- have now left it. The existing membership on the ITAC doesn't frequent these boards as often, and so there is less banter on them about IT issues.

Travis and I will I am sure continue to post here and answer questions as best we can about IT goings on. I can tell you that the committee is operating (as I said above) better than it ever has, due to the hard work of folks like Kirk, Jake, Andy, Josh, Scott, Darrin, George, etc. They've given us the tools that make most of the car weighting decisions we make fairly easy.

I think there have been / are influences for the ITAC to say less publically. Gag order? Call it whatever you want to.