ITS e36 BMW

[callard]

We found on the Benz that the stock ECU had six ignition maps depending on the country to which the car was going to be sent. None were near as good as what we did with a Microsquirt.

[benspeed]

Hey Ron - I'm not saying that you quit working on the car or beg for adjustments. I'm saying that driver development really makes the big difference at the pointy end of the field. Got to recognize that once the big gainers have been done...putting the time into practice is where the payoff is, especially data aq- that's why some of these young hot shoes up here in ITS can run with the R guys - they are working driver programs.

I think most focus way too much on the car...

[lateapex911]

^ And thats coming from a Porsche guy!

I remember setting a track record but putting a wheel or three off later in the race and my crew guy was congratulating me, and I said, "Thanks, but put Bill Auberlin in this thing and it would be a whole different story"..

He responds, "Theres not enough $ in the world to make Bill drive your car"

True that! LOL

But your point is well taken.

ITAC assumes that a Huffmaster is driving all cars.

And we can't whine about cars if it's all in the drivers hands.

[JeffYoung]

Hey Ron - I'm not saying that you quit working on the car or beg for adjustments. I'm saying that driver development really makes the big difference at the pointy end of the field. Got to recognize that once the big gainers have been done...putting the time into practice is where the payoff is, especially data aq- that's why some of these young hot shoes up here in ITS can run with the R guys - they are working driver programs.

I think most focus way too much on the car...

Without doubt driver development is important. NOt knocking Ron in anyway, but right now I'm a second or two faster in his car than he is, for one reason only - he basically took two years off to build it while I get racing, a lot, and got better at it. He'll catch up soon enough if he gets his butt to the track more....lol...

But I think after a few years of running hard, other than the occasional Huffmaster or Brian Price, the car DOES matter. I think right now, at the front in ITS, if you swapped me, or Steve eckerich, or Steve Parrish, or Chuck Hines or Kent Thompson, or Harold Corbin, or Matt Reppert or Zsolt between our respective 3-4 cars, you'd see pretty near the same lap times. And at that point, the car really does start to matter, and 5 hp makes a big difference and learning to set up the car matters, and so on.

[quadzjr]

As ron said it..

It'd get dyno sheets in but unfortunately we would probably receive the sheets from a competitor's developmental point before the final iteration.


What is done/can be done to sort through prevent this? I am sure the ITAC receives bogus information and dyno plots from other sources that show drasitc differences. In my little pond with slower ITB (than ITS) cars.. I think there is overdogs.. all of them have torque.. something that the process does not pay attention to. When an ITB car in an ITA/ITB split start field starts dead last passes 20 cars in the first lap, 13 the next, passes for 3rd by then end of lap 3.. then broke. It ran a lap faster the the leaders (well driven protege, and MKII VW) while passing those 13 cars on lap two. another discussion for another time.. but there are overdogs.

[seckerich]

Just getting back to this after the planning meeting at Jekyl Island. I get what you guys are talking about with all the front cars in ITS pushing out the top of the 25%. Problem is that we all are. If that is the case and you agree that after so many years of development a full tilt ITS car will go closer to 30 - 35 % then that is the number you adjust ITS to for new cars. The group over a very broad range of makes have in your eyes proven it is possible, and no overdog exists. Do not toss the new MX5 in as needing help after the way they pulled us at CMS, I know those cars and the gains. If you move the lbs/hp you give an incredible advantage to all new classifications rather than address the power gain multiplier.

[Knestis]

... When an ITB car in an ITA/ITB split start field starts dead last passes 20 cars in the first lap, 13 the next, passes for 3rd by then end of lap 3.. then broke. It ran a lap faster the the leaders (well driven protege, and MKII VW) while passing those 13 cars on lap two. another discussion for another time.. but there are overdogs.

"Overdog" is not synonymous with "cheater."

K

[JeffYoung]

Just getting back to this after the planning meeting at Jekyl Island. I get what you guys are talking about with all the front cars in ITS pushing out the top of the 25%. Problem is that we all are. If that is the case and you agree that after so many years of development a full tilt ITS car will go closer to 30 - 35 % then that is the number you adjust ITS to for new cars. The group over a very broad range of makes have in your eyes proven it is possible, and no overdog exists. Do not toss the new MX5 in as needing help after the way they pulled us at CMS, I know those cars and the gains. If you move the lbs/hp you give an incredible advantage to all new classifications rather than address the power gain multiplier.

See! This is far more productive than just ripping me a new one....lol....

Ok, this is actually a good idea. Move the CLASS multiplier down from 12.9 to reflect what the current cars do but ALSO assume a 35% gain in ITS class wide (not just "multi-valve" or something) unless proven wrong.

[Xian]

See! This is far more productive than just ripping me a new one....lol....

Ok, this is actually a good idea. Move the CLASS multiplier down from 12.9 to reflect what the current cars do but ALSO assume a 35% gain in ITS class wide (not just "multi-valve" or something) unless proven wrong.

Yep. And that's what I was getting at by asking how we know that these other cars won't eventually see the same sort of gains given an equal application of time and money. *BUT* nobody on their right mind will build something taking that level of development vs the "easy path" of running a developed car (see my comment about us being lemmings ).

Folks will build a new chassis/car if they have an emotional reason or if they think the car holds a competitive advantage (or a least parity). Otherwise, you'll just see more of the same builds.

[Chip42]

"Overdog" is not synonymous with "cheater."

K

Deuce Keane isn't usually accused of cheating. I know you know his record, but track records, ARRC wins, and many CFR/SARRC wins are his in that accord. he ran near fastest lap of race in the early laps before breaking last november. previously he reset the sebring long course record in early 2012. he is good, he knows that track, etc... so there's a lot of "grey" hidden in these details, but the car is F'ing fast and we "know" it's classified right per process based on known HP numbers vs. classification (hell, it could weight LESS and still be run correctly if we wanted to be picky about it). And that fact rubs people the wrong way, which is too bad if they haven't done their part in catching up to the development curve but justified if they really have.

the process does appear to have some issues in ITB, aside from just being hard to use on cars from 40+ years worth of listings. that's one of the reasons we're pulling all of the B data we can to try and get the whole class into one process to see what, if anything, needs to change. as you know, listings in B come from many years and many methods of classification. we need to see apples to apples before we do anything. FWIW though, almost everything I see running these days HAS been classified under the published process.

[Chip42]

Yep. And that's what I was getting at by asking how we know that these other cars won't eventually see the same sort of gains given an equal application of time and money. *BUT* nobody on their right mind will build something taking that level of development vs the "easy path" of running a developed car (see my comment about us being lemmings ).

Folks will build a new chassis/car if they have an emotional reason or if they think the car holds a competitive advantage (or a least parity). Otherwise, you'll just see more of the same builds.

I'd bet there would be an equal amount of resistance to changing the default multiplier and class pwr number together. its effectively a null change, which I understand is good, but there's absolutely ZERO reason to believe that having an "S" on the door changes IT gain potential. the stuff up there now, and doubtless some of the cars we don't see or which are new, will beat 25%. but many others don't and won't. just like in any other class.

asking the CRB and ITAC to do more due diligence in the initial classification to try and get a better feel for expected gains than just using a blanket 25% might be fair (and I'd be willing to sign up to that), but assuming everything we put into that bucket will make 30% or more is not.

[lateapex911]

I'd bet there would be an equal amount of resistance to changing the default multiplier and class pwr number together. its effectively a null change, which I understand is good, but there's absolutely ZERO reason to believe that having an "S" on the door changes IT gain potential. the stuff up there now, and doubtless some of the cars we don't see or which are new, will beat 25%. but many others don't and won't. just like in any other class.

asking the CRB and ITAC to do more due diligence in the initial classification to try and get a better feel for expected gains than just using a blanket 25% might be fair (and I'd be willing to sign up to that), but assuming everything we put into that bucket will make 30% or more is not.

Agreed.
How much power is Zsolt making, for example?

[seckerich]

Agreed.
How much power is Zsolt making, for example?

Depends if you are asking about version 2.0.3.6.9.1-23/9 or his mad scientist motor builders early example.

All joking aside Zolt is a good example of getting a "whole package" to the next level. They are getting the final drive perfect for the track, etc.

I can get different rear wheel numbers on the dyno just running Volks compared to a 12 pound wheel. I would imagine most all the numbers the ITAC and others are tossing out for discussion are wheel HP and have as much to do with driveline friction as they do with pure HP gains. We just get more to the ground. Reason the Mazda guys get so upset when you mention weight is we have to spin these motors stupid high to get and torque and we are at the limit of gearing.

[Chip42]

agree or disagree with what's being discussed, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that adding weight to the front runners (i.e. mazdas) is a favorable conclusion. I'd say no matter what that any change that shake out from this very much not official discussion would not include added weight to the top runners of more than 10 lbs or so in order to make the math fit the revised classification process.

the ITS RX7s aren't egtting any heavier.

[JeffYoung]

agree or disagree with what's being discussed, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that adding weight to the front runners (i.e. mazdas) is a favorable conclusion. I'd say no matter what that any change that shake out from this very much not official discussion would not include added weight to the top runners of more than 10 lbs or so in order to make the math fit the revised classification process.

the ITS RX7s aren't egtting any heavier.

Yeah, but the problem Christian and Steve identified is that if you change the class multiplier and then corect the front runners to their actual individual gain, but default the new cars at 25%, you are penalizing development.

Maybe a higher default is a good idea. Put the number up there and then let people prove it is too high. Of course that is a discentive to a build......

Tricky issue this one.

[JeffYoung]

Depends if you are asking about version 2.0.3.6.9.1-23/9 or his mad scientist motor builders early example.

All joking aside Zolt is a good example of getting a "whole package" to the next level. They are getting the final drive perfect for the track, etc.

I can get different rear wheel numbers on the dyno just running Volks compared to a 12 pound wheel. I would imagine most all the numbers the ITAC and others are tossing out for discussion are wheel HP and have as much to do with driveline friction as they do with pure HP gains. We just get more to the ground. Reason the Mazda guys get so upset when you mention weight is we have to spin these motors stupid high to get and torque and we are at the limit of gearing.

Different wheels, different fluids, different clutches/PPs, all kinds of things can affect rwhp on my car by 4-5 hp at least. Hell, if I don't set the rear drums correctly, I've seen a 7-8 hp LOSS just based on that alone.

[Chip42]

Yeah, but the problem Christian and Steve identified is that if you change the class multiplier and then corect the front runners to their actual individual gain, but default the new cars at 25%, you are penalizing development.

Maybe a higher default is a good idea. Put the number up there and then let people prove it is too high. Of course that is a discentive to a build......

Tricky issue this one.

development is only penalized if the end result makes attempts to put developed and undeveloped cars at the same laptime. the goal here is to put developed cars back into the strata we define as "correct as classed" or move that definition to fit them. if "we" really believe that 25% gains are a real nominal expectation (and it's as resonable a value as one could use to blanket a mix of cars like this) then that value is the one to use. anything exceeding gets pulled back, stuff that can't get there gets a bump. with data, when agreed upon, etc...

or like I said earlier, we could hold ourselves to a higher standard of discovery and do some real footwork to see what an engine might gain. it's difficult, and a real known answer on a new car would be imossible to determine exactly, but we could get a better feel for it, and make better assumptions than just throwing 25% (or 30, or 35) at everything that comes accross the "desk".

the point is to get a developed car into the right range. right now as you describe it, there are many above the indicated potential, so reset the goal. added development should get you higher in that box, lack of development means lower inside or below the box. make decisions based on what we know from actually well developed builds and expect the same work for any car (i.e. not lowering the target to make it more accessible). yes, that can put off new development for some, but those people still have the option of riding coat tails to a great degree using a known platform, and I'm sure that the OPMs, Flat Outs, and ISCs of the world will be more than happy to help them do so.

[seckerich]

I think the real point is are we really over the 25% at the motor or are we all just getting more out of the total package. I admit to not having an ITS build on the engine dyno in forever. Now I am curious. I will get back to you with real numbers (minus the usual BS factor we all use).

[Chip42]

generally when presented with dyno data we take whp and work it backwards from 87% loss (RWD) or 85% (FWD, transverse midengine). rarely but on occasion we do see engine dyno numbers.

new stuff is based on published chp.

the calculated or published chp number is what we evaluate %gain against and establish a weight. if you make a determined 30% gain in a front engine RWD car, you could be making more or less depending on actual driveline losses. it'll never be a perfect and 100% impartial system, but we can try.

[Knestis]

Deuce Keane isn't usually accused of cheating. I know you know his record, but track records, ARRC wins, and many CFR/SARRC wins are his in that accord. he ran near fastest lap of race in the early laps before breaking last november. previously he reset the sebring long course record in early 2012. he is good, he knows that track, etc... so there's a lot of "grey" hidden in these details, but the car is F'ing fast and we "know" it's classified right per process based on known HP numbers vs. classification (hell, it could weight LESS and still be run correctly if we wanted to be picky about it). And that fact rubs people the wrong way, which is too bad if they haven't done their part in catching up to the development curve but justified if they really have.

the process does appear to have some issues in ITB, aside from just being hard to use on cars from 40+ years worth of listings. that's one of the reasons we're pulling all of the B data we can to try and get the whole class into one process to see what, if anything, needs to change. as you know, listings in B come from many years and many methods of classification. we need to see apples to apples before we do anything. FWIW though, almost everything I see running these days HAS been classified under the published process.

A very good example and pertinent to any conversation like this. Deuce sets the bar in B, with the whole package - development/engineering, preparation, tire budget, driver skill, the whole enchilada. I don't have any reason to believe he's a cheater but that's even more important - a particular car/driver combination kicking ass is equally NOT the definition of "overdog."

That generation of Honda should be pretty much in the sweet spot of the Process (e.g., not a '70s-era smogged up POS that who knows HOW it will respond to IT preparation). It's also about the same age/technology as several other make/model examples that have shown competitiveness when well developed and well driven.

If he starts at the back and passes a bunch of less prepared, less talented people, that's COMPETITION doing what it's supposed to do.

K