September fastrack

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rob, you don't get 'credit' for struts. Weight gets added for double wishbones.

Brakes yes, and IIRC torque. 100 in adders.

No areo or suspension credit. Not granular enough for that as discussed in other threads.

For some, the process isn't 'exact' enough. I think everyone is willing to listen on how to improve it if we can.

[Greg Amy]

>>>...maybe your definition of a comp adjustment is different than mine.
My definition of a "comp adjustment" is setting any car's weight significantly different - high or low - than the weight derived from using the formulaic process developed. I understand there are some "subjective adders and subtracters" in there, but - as I understand it - most, if not all, are based on physical characteristics of the car (RWD v. FWD, strut suspension, etc).

>>>When the CRX's weight got changed, it was one of 16 cars. Those 16 were a result of a myriad of cars that HADN'T been run through the process...
C'mon, Andy: you know I'm not talking about the re-org through the formula process in early '06. I fully understand that all these cars went through the same formula my car did and were thus re-adjusted accordingly.

What I am talking about is the fact that the Honda CRX had approximately 300 pounds added to it over and above the standard formuliac process - even after the adders and subtracters - because otherwise it would have been "an overdog" and because of 'known' horsepower numbers.

THAT, my friend, is most decisively a competition adjustment.

Ergo, comp adjustments are already in place. If you disagree, then explain to us how the Honda CRX actually comes out when run through the process using manufacturer's published data? If you disagree that this is a comp adjustment, then you truly diverge from most folks' basis for philosophical and spirit-of-the-rules discussion...

>>>DO WE WANT TO OFFER CARROTS to certain cars in order to incent people to develop them?
Yes. Absolutely. Without a doubt.

The whole basis for the big re-org of the last fews years was to minimize - if not outright eliminate - the subjectivity of the weight-setting process, and, in theory, give each and every car a shot at the brass ring. Theoretically speaking, any and all cars should have equal opportunity at being able to prepare a winning car. Unfortunately, while this process has produced some downright wicked cool competition between varying cars, there are still some folks out there that believe they were short-changed by the process.

By dangling a carrot in front of these folks we're encouraging them to "put up or shut up"; prove or disprove what they believe is correct. Best case we see some new chassis developed and running towards the fore; worst case we end up with an overdog that has to be addressed. Neither will happen immediately and/or overnight.

>>>...we would also have to agree that should that carrot prove to create an overdog, it has to be taken away as you have stated.
Of course. That's part of this idea(l).

Unfortunately, it could lead to a lot of "keeping your cards close" and outright lying about potential (like that doesn't happen now!), but in the end "the truth will out". It's completely impossible, long-term, to have an unfair advantage and keep it to yourself forever; eventually you have to show your cards to win the game.

>>>Not sure you have given an example of an out of order willingness to accept a positive and not a negative.
One example I've given is that you've accepted that the AW11 "can" make process weight due to one example, yet ignore numerous other owners that disagree, all without direct verification of that one example.

>>>...so you stick with your assumptions until you have enough data to feel like you can make the right choice. Seems very logical to me.
It always seems to be, as long as you're not on the opposing side. you'd feel differently if your position conflicted with the status quo instead of governing it.

Logic is not dependent on viewpoint; it's either logical or it's not. If your belief in the "logic" changes with your point of view, then it's not logical...

>>>How do we decide what cars get the carrot?
A fine question, one that I will leave as rhetorical for discussion.

However, one easy way to do it is to take advantage of existing rules and use them as necessary. If the vast majority of AW11 users would rather run fat in ITB, then let 'em try it. Alternatively, given dual-classification is already a fact in IT, try that tactic, see what happens.

In the end, all cards will be shown...

>>>...happens to be a harder ship to turn in that regard - and I would submit that is a large portion of the stability and popularity of the class.
Well, the class has been popular for decades, with or without the stability, and declaring the class is stable 'cause it's stable is making my head "asplode"...

>>>So - do we want to start throwing carrots? Bones? Incentives? Maybe another thread is in order.
Maybe. I'd be interested in varying viewpoints on the matter...


On edit: I think you only get so many quotes before the system screams "uncle"...

[Rabbit07]

What I am talking about is the fact that the Honda CRX had approximately 300 pounds added to it over and above the standard formuliac process - even after the adders and subtracters - because otherwise it would have been "an overdog" and because of 'known' horsepower numbers.

[/b]

I am going to catch a lot of s^!$ for this one. However, is it possible that the CRX is really an ITS car? They seem to run very close times to most of the front ITS cars that I have seen? Maybe give them a weight break and let them run in ITS.

OK, I am ducking now.

[steve b]

Jake, not quibbling, but see Steve B's post above. He appears to be able to make weight in Peter Doane's old car, with a 205 lb driver.

I do agree the issue here appears to be horsepower, or the lack thereof. While I also agree that you would think someone would have attempted a full on 100% IT build (ECU, compression, port matching, dyno workon the exhaust, etc.) on the motor, I've still yet to see anyone say definitively that it HAS been done. Has it? If so, and if the result is still 110 at the wheels, then you have a car that is on the border between A/B and any move to B needs to be CAREFULLY monitored to avoid dumping an overdog into B. Some of the recent moves between S and A, and A and B, have created "instant winners" which is not necessarily a good thing.
[/b]

Hold on, I didn't say I could make weight with a 205# driver. I'm 210 lbs. With me in the car, I'm at 2350. That's 80 over weight, so the driver would have to be 130#. I'm just saying that I'm not willing to argue over 80 lbs. even though I'm confident that the 80 pounds CAN NOT be found on my car.

I'm saying that the flaw in the classification must be coming from the assumed obtainable HP. So everyone who has quoting me as making weight, please refrain.

I see this is an emossional issue. I guess fighting the same fight for years will do that to you. I'm just starting so I'm not there yet.

No competition adjustments, that's good to know. But can't competion results be used to spot a flaw in classing assumptions. I'm not knowledgable enough about cars (even my car, yes, I don't know exactly what I bought) to run through the engine build on my car. I've emailed Peter and asked him to chime in, hopefully he will.

[Andy Bettencourt]

]>>>...maybe your definition of a comp adjustment is different than mine.
My definition of a "comp adjustment" is setting any car's weight significantly different - high or low - than the weight derived from using the formulaic process developed. I understand there are some "subjective adders and subtracters" in there, but - as I understand it - most, if not all, are based on physical characteristics of the car (RWD v. FWD, strut suspension, etc).

>>>When the CRX's weight got changed, it was one of 16 cars. Those 16 were a result of a myriad of cars that HADN'T been run through the process...
C'mon, Andy: you know I'm not talking about the re-org through the formula process in early '06. I fully understand that all these cars went through the same formula my car did and were thus re-adjusted accordingly.

What I am talking about is the fact that the Honda CRX had approximately 300 pounds added to it over and above the standard formuliac process - even after the adders and subtracters - because otherwise it would have been "an overdog" and because of 'known' horsepower numbers.

THAT, my friend, is most decisively a competition adjustment.

I am not sure how many different ways to say this...but just because everyone goes through the process doesn't mean they are treated the EXACT same way. Since we use PUBLISHED stock HP numbers as the base, and then derive another crank hp number as the target hp based on gains in IT trim, we have to be careful with BOTH numbers. The stock numbers can be low or high and the gains in IT trim can be low or high.

There are PLENTY of cars in the ITCS that are not classed on 25%. They are classed at known increases based on PILES of data. Trending if you will. Not lows, not highs, but documentable averages. Some Hondas, some BMWs, some Nissans some Datsuns, some Mazdas...some of these cars make significantly more than 25% and those numbers are used in the process. Some make less and they are used. Again, piles of data - averaged out.

Maybe you think the CRX went through the process and an arbatrary number was added - it wasn't. Known crank numbers were used INSIDE the process and sent on through. Nothing out of thin air.

Yes, I am fully aware you don't agree with this philosophy. But I think you HAVE TO do it like this (use what you KNOW) or else you get a class of overdogs. The BMW runs roughshot over ITS, the CRX runs roughshot over ITA, etc. So instead of letting it happen, and ruining a class for 2-3 years and then invoking a PCA, the 'proper' classification is done PROCATIVELY to make an effort to try and keep the road level.

A comp adjustment? Only if you are mistaken in your thinking that the 'process' is a formula. It's not. I would LOVE to have a formula - but nobody has shown me one I couldn't blow up. I hope the day comes when we can develop one.

[benspeed]

This is a great thread - I've now got some ammo to write another letter looking for the ITA Fiero weight at 2,450 using the formula Rob put together. :P (plus the car has a Chevette front end and cannot run coil overs in the front-but I know that wouldn't factor for a weight adjustment, would it?).

87 ITA Fiero
135 (stock hp) *1.25 (estimated IT gain)=168.75 hp (crank right?)

168.75 hp * 14.5 = 2,446.8 (weight)


"Yet we give the Fiero the option of swapping out entire subframe assemblies......where was the verification on that one??? (I'm sorry Ben, it's not a personal attack)"

No offense at all. I think the subframe stuff on the front is questionable - way to much hacking up and fabbing is not consistant with the rules. The back should be doable but would receive some scrutinizing - there is some spindle adjustment I've learned. Hey, were running at the higher weight of 2600 so we should get the same suspension benefit. Cost to convert is about $700 with me doing the work. No plans to do this now, but its on the budget line.

Still looking for that magic 140HP at the wheels. Sounds like that wouldn't be a front running car based on some of the numbers getting thrown out. (please tell me otherwise, cause I am still slowly putting this together - if 150 hp or above is the goal then this thing is stillborn.)

[Doc Bro]

[quote]


Brakes yes, and IIRC torque. 100 in adders.



So, you get an adder for torque??? So does Greg get an adder for high HP?? Does Ben get an adder for high (outrageous) torque???

How much of an adder is double wishbone???


R

[DavidM]

This thread got interesting all of a sudden....

I am not sure how many different ways to say this...but just because everyone goes through the process doesn't mean they are treated the EXACT same way. Since we use PUBLISHED stock HP numbers as the base, and then derive another crank hp number as the target hp based on gains in IT trim, we have to be careful with BOTH numbers. The stock numbers can be low or high and the gains in IT trim can be low or high.

There are PLENTY of cars in the ITCS that are not classed on 25%. They are classed at known increases based on PILES of data. Trending if you will. Not lows, not highs, but documentable averages. Some Hondas, some BMWs, some Nissans some Datsuns, some Mazdas...some of these cars make significantly more than 25% and those numbers are used in the process. Some make less and they are used. Again, piles of data - averaged out.

Maybe you think the CRX went through the process and an arbatrary number was added - it wasn't. Known crank numbers were used INSIDE the process and sent on through. Nothing out of thin air.

Yes, I am fully aware you don't agree with this philosophy. But I think you HAVE TO do it like this (use what you KNOW) or else you get a class of overdogs. The BMW runs roughshot over ITS, the CRX runs roughshot over ITA, etc. So instead of letting it happen, and ruining a class for 2-3 years and then invoking a PCA, the 'proper' classification is done PROCATIVELY to make an effort to try and keep the road level.

A comp adjustment? Only if you are mistaken in your thinking that the 'process' is a formula. It's not. I would LOVE to have a formula - but nobody has shown me one I couldn't blow up. I hope the day comes when we can develop one.
[/b]

Ok. So for those that didn't catch this, there are several cars that were re-weighted using something other than the much posted 25% horsepower gain in IT trim. I happen to know that my car was one of them and I guess the CRX as well. I would suspect the Integra falls into this category too. Not surprisingly, these were the cars people were complaining about before the re-weight.

How was the new % horsepower gain computed you ask? Well, it was reverse engineered from known horsepower/torque numbers. Take the known WHP and subtract the stock WHP, divide the result by the stock WHP and you get the % gain used. The reason a different number was used for these cars is because it was known that they were making more than the 25%.

If there were no max prep'ed cars out there that were making more than the expected 25% then the cars would have been weighted using the "normal" (I use that very loosely) formula. These cars got extra weight because they were making more than expected power. Sure sounds like a competition adjustment to me. You can try to hide it in the re-weighting, but if it smells like a competition adjustment then that's what it is.

It just so happens that the cars that were making big power were the cars that had a lot development put into them. These cars had been developed over many years by people who knew what they were doing. How many examples of full, balls-to-the-wall builds were there out there other than the CRX, Intergra, and 240SX? They were making big power because people had done lots of research and spent lots of money to get to that point (i.e. the Bob Stretch custom header for the 240SX).

This leads me to this question: "Does the ITAC plan on re-evaluating all the IT cars at the end of each year to determine which cars are making more than the expected 25% power gain?" That's what should happen to be fair to the cars that had a higher number used during the re-weighting. As other cars are developed to the extent those cars were developed then I would expect that numbers higher than 25% will be attained. When that happens a car should be re-weighted to match the known numbers. PCA? You bet. [Note: This obviously leads to people not revealing or giving out false numbers for their horsepower and torque. I now understand why people are reluctant to give out that info. ]

To tie this back into the FasTrack, I wrote my letter because I frankly have no idea how the weight for most cars was achieved. I didn't even know how the weight for my own car was achieved - it was much different than I thought. The supposed formula is really nothing more than a guideline and there is much more subjectivity in the "process". We called this hand waving in my algorithm classes in college. You input some numbers, wave your hand, and majically some numbers appear out the other side. I wanted the ITAC to explain exactly how each car's weight was derived. They declined. "Trust us" doesn't cut it anymore for me. The honeymoon is over.

David

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually, nothing has been typed here that hasn't been said a million times before. Maybe a billion.

...and if you take a good look at all the cars that had weight changes, you will see a few that have just as many - or more years of development - than the 240SX etc - that LOST weight.

Over and out - again. It just ain't worth it.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Still looking for that magic 140HP at the wheels. Sounds like that wouldn't be a front running car based on some of the numbers getting thrown out. (please tell me otherwise, cause I am still slowly putting this together - if 150 hp or above is the goal then this thing is stillborn.)
[/b]

Ben - At 2600 lbs, you will need more than 140hp at the wheels to be a front running car. You will need closer to 150 hp.

[Jake]

Andy - NOBODY can LEGALLY make the 2270lb weight with a 180lb driver. No car, no amount of money, can't be done. PERIOD!

Carrot or not - the PROCESS puts the car squarely into ITB. It is NOT a tweener.

Back to vacation.

[JeffYoung]

David, there is subjectivity in the process; there has to be. A hard and fast, unwavering equation isn't going to result in a fair car class set either. My car becomes the perfect example of that. If you run the numbers "straight" you get a V8 ITA car.

My view on this is that we have as intellectually honest of a process as possible. It was used once to fix a bunch of weights that were out of whack or just set by ad hoc means. It fixed at least two, serious, class crippling problems -- the CRX in ITA and the E36 325 in ITS. It made other corrections (lightening the 260/280z, and the 944, putting some weight on the Integra and the 240sx) that in my view have resulted in last, and this, year's ITA and ITS racing being some of the closest, most competitive we have seen in years. Instead of guys bitching about 325s winning races by 20 seconds, we now have (admittedly in some cases legitimate) complaints about 100 lbs or 50 lbs on a particular car.

I think we might all benefit if we stepped back from nitpicking the process for a year, and watch how this plays out. The bigger picture to me is that everything is working, and working well. In S, we have Z cars, Integras, 944s, 325s and RX7s running up front. In A, we have CRXs, 240sxs, NX2000s/SE-Rs, Miatas and Integras running up front. Given the inherent differences in these cars, and the incredibly difficult task it is to "balance" them under the current IT ruleset, I honestly do not think the ITAC could have done a better job.

Anyone disagree?

[Matt Rowe]

So let me summarize the choice for the MR2 just to see if I have this right. Either it stays in ITA where it already has a following and those drivers continue to run mid pack or you reclassify the car to ITB. In which case the thinking is you will gain more drivers who think the car might now stand a chance than you lose when you force them to add lead and make other changes?

Now I don't own one although my own car is in a similar situation, it just doesn't have the large following the MR2 has so the ITAC has spent a lot more time on the MR2 than several other borderline cars. So forgive me if I am a little less than wholly sympathetic for a car that has gotten more than it's share of attention and yet nobody seems satisifed.

Are we all forgetting the basic philosophy of the category, not every car is going to be able to win. Even within this topic people have made comparisons to the miata, crx, 240 and integra. Yep that's pretty much it, if you want to win in ITA in a division with a strong ITA class you pretty much have to have one of those cars. Notice the MR2 isn't on that list as are a few dozen other cars. It is still better than it was a couple years ago.

Hey, I'm a big fan of "the process" and what was stated ever since it was first discussed is the process will take some of the peaks and valleys out of the playing field but it isn't going to make every car equal. When the process is applied to the MR2 apparently mid pack is the best you are going to get, just like a lot of other ITA cars. Does that mean it is misclassed? I don't know but it seems like there is resistance to moving to ITB with the process dictated weight also. It has been suggested that the MR2 does not respond well to IT engine prep which again would mean that it probably won't be the car to have no matter what class it is in. Does that mean the process is flawed or predictable?

Personally, I don't know where the car belongs but whether it is in ITB or ITA it must either run at the weight the process says. Otherwise we are tossing the last several years of class realignment out the window and starting over. Now I think this has already been done but why not ask the membership if they want to run their MR2 in ITA at XXXX lbs or ITB at XXXX lbs based on what is predicted. That is it. It doesn't require changes to the class philosphy or set any new precedents outside of giving the membership the option of deciding which weight they would rather race at.

[seckerich]

Just sitting on the sidelines watching this one but some of these last assumptions drug me in. Do any of you expect the ITAC to ignore known HP numbers and percent gains in classing? It sucks to have a very well developed car with widely known and published numbers but those are the breaks. Some of these new classifications are making better than 25% gains and will need some looking at in time as well. Call it a PCA or just common sense but do it! If the MR2 lacks 150 # of making weight and does not respond well to IT mods then it won't need the 300+ to make ITB weight. Sounds like it is half way there already. Take some pictures of your cage and give some very detailed accounts of your build and weight reduction work and send it in. Yes--you should have to prove it can not make weight. Take it to a respected builder and get their opinion on your work--might be surprised what can be legally done. I think any IT car that has to push every loophole in the rules to make weight is poorly classed and is at a disadvantage to begin with. No room for accusump, cool suit, or any other conveniences that the target cars get. In the end we want more cars on track with a reasonable chance to win. The personal attacks have no place in this process and are way out of line. Work with the drivers (insert CUSTOMERS) and lets get fields in IT full again.

[mustanghammer]

Ballparked

The MR2 and RX7 would both be around 2550 in ITB.

The GTI would be around 2500-2550 as well.

The Neon is ITA to the bone.

Pulsar? That looks and smells like a B car to me if it is 113hp.


And you may be right. A 25% increase in IT trim is assumed and used in the process unless actual (and significantly different - by 5% +/-) numbers are known.
[/b]

2550 and 6" wheels? I'll take it! My car weighs 2500 now with me in it immediately after a race. The best that I could do with my car is some where around 2420 - me on a diet and a few more light weight parts.

I do have another car to work with (non-sunroof 85 GS) but to meet weight with me in it I would have to get it to 2050lbs w/o driver. Anybody think that is possible or will I have to look for a 79-80 model car?

[Jake]

So let me summarize the choice for the MR2 just to see if I have this right. Either it stays in ITA where it already has a following and those drivers continue to run mid pack...
[/b]

That's the problem. That USED to be the case. I run the ONLY MR2 in NER - a huge region. In Mid-Atlantic there used to be a following, but many of those drivers have sold their cars or stopped running IT. The few that are left are mostly lap traffic - back of the pack. The car was on life support - the CB just pulled the plug. Of the 5 ITA MR2 drivers that I keep in touch with, 4 have left IT in the last 2 years. (peter, dave, coty, norm, for those in the know) And at least two of those had FULLY built cars.

IT has gotten faster with cars moving from ITS to ITA and ITA to ITB. The only "attention" the MR2 got was a 100lb weight break that was just an insult. There were VERY few MR2's that got to the old weight of 2370 - and those had to be shells from certain years. You might as well have kept 1.8 Miatas in ITS at a weight of 1950lbs!

My '87 may not be a full built, but it has been lightened extensively and legally. (scraped sound deadening, no e-brake, no cooling fans or shroud, etc., etc.) I'm still 150lbs overweight. (I weight 190lbs) I would have to add about 100lbs after putting the passenger seat back in to make 2550.

[gran racing]

Now I don't own one although my own car is in a similar situation, it just doesn't have the large following the MR2 has so the ITAC has spent a lot more time on the MR2 than several other borderline cars.[/b]

I’m not so sure the MR2 has a large following (especially right now) in IT. I also submitted my Prelude through the process a couple of years ago and at the time I was the only or close to it second gen Prelude racing in IT, and it still was looked at throughly. I am convinced that if you send a letter in, it will receive attention.

I don't know where the car belongs but whether it is in ITB or ITA it must either run at the weight the process says.[/b]

The process can yield two different weights depending upon if it is considered in ITB or ITA. The debate is which class it should fit into best and if it would be possible to reach the min. spec weight in ITA.

Adding weight to a car sure is a heck of a lot easier than losing weight.

Jeff, I do agree with you that the ITAC has done a fantastic job in turning around IT. The joke I hear numerous times a few years ago was it wasn’t ITA but rather Spec CRX / Integra. Without the changes that were made, ITA would be no where near what it is today. That doesn’t mean to say that there are not some items which can be talked through even if that means in the end, both parties still disagree.

[mattbatson]

Been reading this since the start....and I still cannot see a valid, logical reason why we just cannot dual classify these cars.

Let the MR2 owners who want to stay in A...stay. They can spend thousands of dollars (where do you people get this extra disposable income anyways) to get to an almost unobtainable weight...and STILL run midpack

Let the more financially budget minded MR2 owners move to B. Most of them are probably very close to the weight mandated for that class anyways...Like Steve said, this will also enable them to put in cool suits and such.

I think a lot of cars are placed at weights that are very expensive to reach. I've done just about everything to mine (except for very expensive wheels...mine are 13lbs), and I'm still over a 100lbs heavy.

what ever happened to making this an affordable, regional class for those who dont have the money?

Like dave said, it is a lot cheaper to put in some lead than to spend 1500 on light wheels....or to put in a passenger seat, or cool suit, or whatever.

I really dont think there is really even a discussion anymore as to the Mr2 being competitive in A...is there?

Just look around. How many do you see running a the pointy end of the field?

I'm in a midpack B car, and the only MR2 I've ever seen was one that I was lapping at Lowes one year...

The MR2 is a durable (toyota) and cheap (donors can be bought easily for 1500 or so) car that is basically being run out of IT.

Why?

[benspeed]

Given the inherent differences in these cars, and the incredibly difficult task it is to "balance" them under the current IT ruleset, I honestly do not think the ITAC could have done a better job.

Anyone disagree?
[/b]

Well said, Jeff. I think some great progress was made to eliminate the overdog cars. Without that, classes will become one marque races. The ITAC has done a fine job. There is no secret formula and if one was ever created it would be picked over for poor design. I imagine the ITAC has guidelines which need to be objectively tweaked based on hard data available on cars in each class. The objectivity is necessary because no forumula will ever apply to all cars. Big distinction between subjective and objective thinking and the ITAC has demonstrated the latter.

I know my ITA project is likely not going to win any races but I will wangle the best rules outcome I can by using the system as it was designed. Be a squeaky wheel with the best empiracal evidence and get the rules changed to your advantage - that's part of racin'. If you write the same letter every month, read Andy's signature line.

And I will be wangling for less weight. And tormenting the ITAC.

[benspeed]

Ahhhh - thanks to the Bettencourt meister's desktop gearing application - top speed on an ITA Fieo - 150 mph. And the torque to push it....

The ITAC said it was all but a done deal that the car would be re-adjusted to 2,450 lbs .......