September fastrack

[PDoane]

Sorry I didn't chime in sooner Steve, but I've been away on business and testing the Rolex car in preparation for the Utah race next week.

Let me give a little history on the ITA MR2 that folks are saying can make weight (or at least get close). I did not build it. Mark Chaplin (was running a CRX in Production last I talked with him and qualified for the Runoffs once with it) did. The cage was custom built by Mark and was "ahead of it's time" with door bars and the rear strut tubes (unique to MR2s and Del Sols last time I checked the ITCS). I happen to believe that removing/running without the factory glass (driver and rear) for both those cage items is much lighter. I did have to add another short harness bar when the shoulder harness angle rule changed a bit. The only things I did to lighten the car was to remove all the undercoating and remove the passenger seat (when that rule change kicked in). That being said, the only legal way I know of to make Steve's car lighter is to remove what is left of the factory wiring harness that is not necessary. I have read in more than one place that the 1985 AW11 chassis were the only ones that could get close to min weight. I don't know any specific reasons for the later years to be heavier. Steve's car/my former car is an '85.

As for the prep of the motor currently in Steve's car and making 109 rwhp, it was done at great expense by a professional builder in Ontario (TED). He did not fill me in on all the details of the build (most pro engine builders won't), but emphasized that he would keep it legal and push it to the max that the rules allowed. The only thing I think on that motor that has not been done/explored for more power is the ECU. It has been re-flashed/re-worked for a higher rpm limiter, but no fuel/ignition map changes. I did get access to a factory Firehawk ECU once (before the TED build) and the rev limit change was the only noticable difference, but I did not get a chance to dyno the Firehawk ECU. I would also point out that Steve's car is one of the few ITA MR2s I've seen that did not bend the "no mods to the intake downstream of the AFM". Most have changed the tubing just upstream of the throttle body so as to fit the AFM at the throtle body and a free-flow cone filter to the AFM. I found the only way to retain the factory tubing between the AFM and the TB, was to use a short HKS mushroom free-flow filter.

If I still had the car, I'd happily add some weight to get into ITB (which was being tried when I bought the car in 1997). I will say, however, that the single biggest lap time gain I made with the car was switching from the 14X6 rims I got with the car, to 14X7 rims and a slightly wider rear tire (same front tire size).

[JeffYoung]

Well, then, if every ITA MR2 driver would prefer to have the car in B at a higher weight, and it fits there using the process, then if I were you guys I'd get all of you together as a group and write the ITAC first.

[Hahn63]

I normally don't jump into this type of conversation but as a driver of a 1st gen RX7 (ITA) I have a dog in this hunt. My car is definitely a 'tweener'. It wasn't that way a few years ago but has now become one. With the Acura being moved from ITS and the Hondas getting faster the car has been moved down the field in ITA. Despite trying to get my car to go faster (spending $$$$), losing part of the extra 100 lbs that it has been given (thanks but we can't make the weight legally) and learning to drive even better; it is still losing ground. I'm not surprised this has happened as the car is now 25 years old and running against new technology. I have great races with the ITB cars (upper mid pack) in sprint races and the only way I can win in ITA is by running 12 hour enduro's waiting for the others to break. Make no mistake the car is very well developed and we continue to improve it every week. Now as no surprise either Mazda has discontinued the 12a engine parts. Unlike piston engines we can not legally under IT rules repair our housings unlike piston engines can with a reboring of the cylinders. I bring this fact up as future options for this car will be for me to run a 13b engine and change to ITS. At this point the 1st gen ITS car is out classed just like the ITA car in the field. I'm now at the point of: Do I continue to try and develop this car and change classes down the road just to be in the same position I'm in now? Not very good incentive, so I would like to have some options of classes available to me, adding weight is indeed easier and cheaper in the long run. This also allows us older and over weight drivers to continue to eat and drink beer. I don't expect to be up front but I would like to have a choice to drink real beer rather than light beer ....that would definitely change my perspective on continuing to wrench on my elderly car. My vote for the future would be to let us make the choice on weight. I see nothing wrong with the formula; cars just naturally become slower to the field with time. I would also suggest that from time to time (if this isn't already being done) for the ITAC to look at the potential 'tweeners' and see if it's time for them to move.

Roland

[Andy Bettencourt]

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=12640

[Jake]

Well, then, if every ITA MR2 driver would prefer to have the car in B at a higher weight, and it fits there using the process, then if I were you guys I'd get all of you together as a group and write the ITAC first.
[/b]

We have several times, however there aren't many of us left. All ITA MR2 drivers want to make this change. No MR2 can make the spec weight legally. The CB doesn't care. I don't know what else we can do.

[lateapex911]

We have several times, however there aren't many of us left. All ITA MR2 drivers want to make this change. No MR2 can make the spec weight legally. The CB doesn't care. I don't know what else we can do. [/b]

First, read the post by Peter Doane. I can't determine from his post how close he can come on weight. But, he did make a good point about lap times and wheel widths.

Second, read my recent post(s) in Andy's thread, (linked above). Claiming that the CRB "doesn't care" is an assumption, and an unfair one at that. You know better than to make such statements. The issue is rather complex, and the CRB has responsibilities to more than any one individual, or any one model of car.

[ddewhurst]

***The issue is rather complex, and the CRB has responsibilities to more than any one individual, or any one model of car.***

They sure do, maybe that's why the G Production class quit sucking air & is flopping around in the bottom of the boat. Yes, I crossed the line but the line is SO close to the ITA MR2. Not said with a :P , said with a .

[Jake]

First, read the post by Peter Doane. I can't determine from his post how close he can come on weight. But, he did make a good point about lap times and wheel widths.

Second, read my recent post(s) in Andy's thread, (linked above). Claiming that the CRB "doesn't care" is an assumption, and an unfair one at that. You know better than to make such statements. The issue is rather complex, and the CRB has responsibilities to more than any one individual, or any one model of car.
[/b]

"Car is classed appropriately" - doesn't care is being nice. Telling us to F off is more like it.

It's not complex, and I have no idea who in the club would be harmed by putting the car where it belongs. Top B drivers want it there, and MR2 drivers want it there too. There's no way it would be a threat at the proposed weight. As for responsibilities to more than one individual, I have no idea who in the club it pleases to keep the car misclassed other than Chris Albin.

The new owner of Peter's car is still 80lbs overweight. Sorry Jake, I know I am close to the subject - but this is really black and white. And one where facts are being overlooked. Car can fit in one of two classes. One it can make weight - one it can't. Build a car on a rotisserie with a cage made of unobtainium - and it still can't. People have tried.

I'm done. Off to working on the drift car where I don't have to play silly politics....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUGZVUjPuMA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well Jake, it's not REALLY black and white. 80lbs is within our 'statistical noise' figure of 100lbs when we ran most everything through the process in Feb of 2006. If it was under 100lbs 'off, it was considered close enough. It could be argued that it could be applied here too.

And please stop with the Chris Albin nonsense. Not only is he not on the ITAC anymore, he is a fair and impartial member of the CRB.

There are two issues at hand here. First, it COULD be considered to be classified 'close enough' in ITA as has been explained above. Some cars just aren't what they add up to on paper. This seems to be one. The categories rules don't allow for (and shouldn't allow for) a crazy amount of granularity where we force cars into competitive (and potentially over competitive) situations.

Second, there is a current split on the committee about dual calssifications. Tweeners only (hopefully we can define that term) and let the market decide. RX-7 and MR-2 come to mind immediately. Not really sure any others pop into my head. It would be a philisophical change, one that some are in favor of trying.

So, to sum up - it's not as black and white as you might want it to be and there are members of the ITAC who are interested in the DC idea, just not enough.

[PDoane]

Even if weight for the MR2 isn't so "black and white", I thought only 109 rwhp with a professionally prepped motor (assuming the shop has done all/many of the trials looking for the best combination) was for ITA. I can't rattle off all the specs on the build because the shop wouldn't provide them. I do know the overbore was only to 0.020" (vice 0.040"), but I agreed with that because I have seen 0.040" over 4AGE motors overheat too regularly. I also know he took the compression increase to the max allowed. I also know he ground his own cams (to factory tolerances) and valve clearance shims to get right where he knew it would max out. This is the same engine builder that SCCA offical Norm Floyd had the motor for his "no holds barred" AW11 built. Why is it so hard to accept that some motors just don't take/hold to the 25% increase rule because the manufacturer did a pretty darn good job in the beginning.

The combination (overweight and under powered) is overwhelming for the MKI MR2 in ITA.

I like the idea of giving it a try in ITB and either reversing the downclass or adding some other comp adj if it winds up being the overdog.

The only other opinion/thought I'd like to offer is how many times have requests for changes to IT class cars (parts to be used, not classification) been rejected and "Not in line with the class philosophy" has been used as the rationale. If the class philosphy is limited mods to a production car for "inexpensive" racing, why do you force someone to show you 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars of develoment work (prove the negative case) before you'll believe the car is in the wrong class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Even if weight for the MR2 isn't so "black and white", I thought only 109 rwhp with a professionally prepped motor (assuming the shop has done all/many of the trials looking for the best combination) was for ITA. I can't rattle off all the specs on the build because the shop wouldn't provide them. I do know the overbore was only to 0.020" (vice 0.040"), but I agreed with that because I have seen 0.040" over 4AGE motors overheat too regularly. I also know he took the compression increase to the max allowed. I also know he ground his own cams (to factory tolerances) and valve clearance shims to get right where he knew it would max out. This is the same engine builder that SCCA offical Norm Floyd had the motor for his "no holds barred" AW11 built. Why is it so hard to accept that some motors just don't take/hold to the 25% increase rule because the manufacturer did a pretty darn good job in the beginning.

The combination (overweight and under powered) is overwhelming for the MKI MR2 in ITA.

I like the idea of giving it a try in ITB and either reversing the downclass or adding some other comp adj if it winds up being the overdog.

The only other opinion/thought I'd like to offer is how many times have requests for changes to IT class cars (parts to be used, not classification) been rejected and "Not in line with the class philosophy" has been used as the rationale. If the class philosphy is limited mods to a production car for "inexpensive" racing, why do you force someone to show you 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars of develoment work (prove the negative case) before you'll believe the car is in the wrong class. [/b]

Peter,

Because we have to class cars based on 100% prep. Your car has no programmable FI. Do you know what effect that would have? What are the stock A/F ratios? Some cars take very well to this type of tuning (like the Miata which does not respond well to bolt ons - like the MR2 I guess). Again, it would be nice to actually HAVE someone send in some data with a ton of info. The fact your engine builder didn't disclose everything is a concern for me.

We can, and do, understand some cars make less than estimated but so far other than your case without PFI, it's all been 'commonly accepted' claims. I am not saying I don't believe the claims but we have nothing firm to see. And even at that, one set of dyno sheets can't be considered proof as has been explained. They may be accurate but a decent sample size would be nice to validate claims.

*I* think the MR2 can work in ITB but understand the hesitation is because it can reasonably fit in ITA on paper and there is no documentation of full builds (ironically, many hold your car up as one yet it has no PFI) to work with. I think a change can be made but it won't be on anything less than 25% increase until we KNOW otherwise.

[Knestis]

...I like the idea of giving it a try in ITB and either reversing the downclass or adding some other comp adj if it winds up being the overdog.
[/b]

This makes that vein in my forehead pulse.

IF we were making decisions based on on-track performance, that would be a fine idea but the most basic assumption of the current IT process still needs to be that the adjustments get made based on the physical attributes, and performance is an OUTCOME of those decisions - not an INPUT variable.

Kirk (who would love to see the MR2 listed competitively in B, but isn't willing to see the system get farked up to make that happen, and - dammit - is getting sucked into giving a crap)

[dickita15]

This makes that vein in my forehead pulse.

Kirk is getting sucked into giving a crap
[/b]

I knew it, I knew it, did I win the pool.
cha cha cha

[Andy Bettencourt]

Mr. Process says ~2550 in ITB for the RX-7 and the MR2 on 6" wheels.

Send in your letters if you drive one.

I knew it, I knew it, did I win the pool.
cha cha cha [/b]

Only if the vein pops.

[gran racing]

The fact your engine builder didn't disclose everything is a concern for me.[/b]

That's not so abnormal for engine builders not to disclose everything. When Matt (Kessler Engineering) built mine, we discussed what I was looking for with the engine build. I wanted a full, legal build. He explained the basics of what he was going to do, he was in full agreement with it being legit, and is very familiar with the IT rules. We didn't get into everything related to the build as there are some things which builders would rather keep proprietary, and I respect that.

80lbs is within our 'statistical noise' figure of 100lbs when we ran most everything through the process in Feb of 2006. If it was under 100lbs 'off, it was considered close enough. It could be argued that it could be applied here too.[/b]

Is that 80lb 'statistical noise' based on the current ITA weight that was fairly recently adjusted down or the original ITA weight? It's really too bad that it wasn't possible within the given contraints at the time to move the car into ITB versus lowering the spec weight ITA. It still seems to me that it would be possible to make an adjustment to the car even if a bit higher weight were used to provide people some additional comfort level due to the perceived (valid or not) abilities of the car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

That's not so abnormal for engine builders not to disclose everything. When Matt (Kessler Engineering) built mine, we discussed what I was looking for with the engine build. I wanted a full, legal build. He explained the basics of what he was going to do, he was in full agreement with it being legit, and is very familiar with the IT rules. We didn't get into everything related to the build as there are some things which builders would rather keep proprietary, and I respect that.



Is that 80lb 'statistical noise' based on the current ITA weight that was fairly recently adjusted down or the original ITA weight? It's really too bad that it wasn't possible within the given contraints at the time to move the car into ITB versus lowering the spec weight ITA. It still seems to me that it would be possible to make an adjustment to the car even if a bit higher weight were used to provide people some additional comfort level due to the perceived (valid or not) abilities of the car.
[/b]

I am not saying it isn't common, I am saying that holding it up as the benchmark without full knowledge is dangerous - especially in it's singularity.

The ITA weight currently is the process weight. If it's within 80Lbs of 'attainable', then it could be argued that it is close enough based on what we have done, or NOT done for other cars in the past.

If the car gets moved to ITB - or dual classed, it should be at process weight for that class, no more, no less.

[Greg Amy]

...is within our 'statistical noise' figure of 100lbs...[/b]

Weight adjustments are based on ratios of power to weight. Ergo, your "noise factor" - should there even be one - should be based on that same ratio, if it were to be truly "statistical". Otherwise, it's just fudge.

Make your "noise factor" based upon a ratio to either power or process weight to make it statistically significant (and relevant), or I suggest you stop using the "s-word". 100 pounds in a 165-horsepower (or 2515-pound) car is a whole 'nother bottle of ketchup than 100 pounds on a 135hp (or 2380 pound) car...

[Doc Bro]

Again, it would be nice to actually HAVE someone send in some data with a ton of info. The fact your engine builder didn't disclose everything is a concern for me.

[/b]

Andy,

Dude, your like a brotha from anotha motha but seriously, man....it burns my buscuits when you say that. I get your point you don't need to explain it again, but do you REALLY (really, really,really) REALLY, expect someone to show you their buildsheet without any (intellectual property) omissions? Why do we have patents? Does a coach show the other coach his playbook for the sake of a better "competition"? Why do people pad their resume? Why do poker players wear dark glasses?? With the competitive nature of this venture you have to see the trace amounts of DA-DA-ism in that statement. When I was asking you for help with my custom header you were reluctant to give me the name of your guy (and ultimately didn't) and I was left to find my own. I certainly understand and don't fault you or mean disrespect, BUT, same thing, NO? With fellow IT competitors sitting on the ITAC I just don't see how the conveyance of unfiltered, unmanipulated information can flow with sincerity.


(Andy, I'm not trying to attack here, just trying to keep it fair, and point out a flaw inherent in the system.)


.02

R

[Knestis]

But Rob - the Bruins aren't asking for allowances to help them compete on a level playing field with the Colts.

And Capt. Panties (MBA) beat me to posting about the acceptable error issue, that I was thinking about last night after logging off. The point at which we start talking about 300 pounds added to a 2200 pound car, the percentages (ratios) get important. That would be a great point even if I HADN'T thought of it, too.

K

[lateapex911]

Guys, think what you would do if YOU were on the ITAC....

Last batch of letters we got on this, that prompted the "Classed appropriately" response....3. Two were from MR2 owners, and one supporting.

One letter requested the move because his lap times were poor related to his competition. He admitted it was his first year racing. He stated the car was well prepped, and that the previous owner was a good driver, now gone off to bigger things, and he couldn't run at the front of ITA either.

From that letter we have:
No idea of the build level, at all. Not even the previous owner! We have no empirical evidence other than rough lap times at one track.....

The supporting letter was good, but again, no real data.

And the third letter was better, in terms of real hard data, (At least in terms of comparing specs to other ITA cars) but didn't speak to output other than to say the engine doesn't respond like others to prep. The minimum acheivable weight was stated at a little over 2400 pounds, about 150 over the min weight.

All letters were reasonable, and were even fine with the new ITB weight being slightly higher, or "conservative".

Again, if you are on the ITAC, how would you go about justifying and determining that the car does not meet process weight or power??

Remeber, in order to even discuss a break from from process standards, (XX% power increase for Y engine type,) we need to really know whats going on.

Ws that info present in the input we received?

For example, recently there was a rather heated debate about moving another car from S to A. Supporters said it couldn't make weight, and that the process power was unacheivable. It turns out that actually, yes, it can make weight, and then some, and independent calls to two very well known premier builders netted the exact same answer on power. Now, the action for a commitee is much clearer...and it can make it's recommendation with backing evidence.

In this case, only now...post request...is a lot of the info coming to light. We find the car is actually closer to 80 pounds over, and that one car is making 110 hp at the wheels (dyno type unknown), on a full mechanical build.

(And, remember, the process states that type of engine is going to make XX% increase. If we modify the process we're gonna hear it from Kirk, and if we modify it with less than very defendable data, he's gonna burst a vein!)

Again, *I* might know in my gut the car is better in B, but, any move the committee makes needs to be defendable to the CRB, the BoD and the IT community at large.