Problem Cars

[lateapex911]

it's been brought up many times before that there are certain cars that the process fails. Honda S2000, Mazda RX8, most any Porsche derivative, 1st gen RX7 as putting the cars at uncompetitive weights. .

Just to clarify,
S2000 -we just don't know. The class is very young, and people think that they aren['t willing to gamble on that car. But it hasn't proven to have failed that car. And lets not trot out the "nobody is building one, therefore it fails" argument. Nobody is building 75% of the cars listed! Yet.

Mazda RX-8. Tough case, when Mazda lies about the stock power. If we have hard data, we might take a closer look, can't say for sure, but there hasn't been a solid case made for the car yet.

A 968 is doing very well in ITR in the NE, and he has yet to pre the car all the way.

1st gen RX-7 is known to be a bit heavy in ITA, but there's no sense setting it 'right' in ITB, as the car is raced happily in IT-7. The solution came too late for that car. In that sense the process fails it, but it could be rectified. But the 'fix' is worse than the existing situation. (A move to B, and the attendant swap to 6" rims)

[tnord]

Just to clarify,
S2000 -we just don't know. The class is very young, and people think that they aren['t willing to gamble on that car. But it hasn't proven to have failed that car. And lets not trot out the "nobody is building one, therefore it fails" argument. Nobody is building 75% of the cars listed! Yet.

the difference between the S2000 and the other 75% of non-running cars is that people WANT to build S2000s but the listing is keeping them from doing so. if you have an extremely popular street car, with huge aftermarket support, and a very strong following amongst track day, autocross, and racers from other orgs, a bunch of T3 cars around, but there aren't "any" in ITR? you've got a problem. sounds like how SM got started no?

Mazda RX-8. Tough case, when Mazda lies about the stock power. If we have hard data, we might take a closer look, can't say for sure, but there hasn't been a solid case made for the car yet.

i classify this as process/ITAC methodolgy failure. chicken/egg.....etc.

these two + BMW + V8 Pony cars should be the CORE of ITR. the potential is there, people WANT to build them (i think). but it's just not a $20,000 experiment many are willing to perform.

[lateapex911]

i classify this as process/ITAC methodolgy failure. chicken/egg.....etc.

.

But what do you do? Just make up a number that seems right? Once you go down that road EVERYONE has a number that 'seems' right for their car, and nobody feels like they are being treated fairly.

In the RX-8s case, I would love to get solid data that could be scrubbed down and used to get a better picture of what that car is all about. Mazda did us no favor on that one.

[tnord]

But what do you do? Just make up a number that seems right? Once you go down that road EVERYONE has a number that 'seems' right for their car, and nobody feels like they are being treated fairly.

In the RX-8s case, I would love to get solid data that could be scrubbed down and used to get a better picture of what that car is all about. Mazda did us no favor on that one.

the same thing SCCA does for every other class?

take ALL information into account and make a decision. maybe it's just me but it doesn't really seem lie EVERYONE thinks they are being treated fairly right now?

[JeffYoung]

Travis, I think this is pretty critical for you to understand.

IT isn't every other class. In fact, the more and more I think about it, it's pretty unique. We try, and most of of membership seems to agree, to use an objective weighing process to get cars close -- and then let folks have it.

We aren't (or I thought we weren't) trying to be like Prod, or GT, etc.

And I would say that 95% of the people I see here and in the paddock are fine with IT as it stands, and do think they are treated fairly. You have plenty of options to run up front in B/A/S/R right now, and there are no blatant overdogs.

It's really to the point with me that improvements/changes to the class weighing process will provide diminishing returns. What we have now seems to work, and work well.

[tnord]

look jeff, I get it. i get what you guys are trying to do. i think it works for the most part, but i think you guys are being a bit naive if you think you can make it work in all cases.

i'm not so sure that members are really buying "The Process" as much as they are buying what they believe the outcome is....utopian parity for everyone.

i agree that a large number of people are fine with where IT stands currently (so why mess with it?), but i don't agree that 95% of people think all cars are listed correctly....which is what i really meant before. they might think they're own car is at an "ok" weight, but they can sure point to a few of their competitors that are too light.

[JeffYoung]

I strongly disagree.

We recognize we can't get everything "right." We try to get it as close as we can.

Sure, everyone can point to his car or that car and disagree with the weight, but on the whole, what about IT is broken?

I don't see many folks in the IT paddock who are pissed off at the system, at all really. I don't think, at all, that any of them I have met and talked to are looking for or want a Utopian parity. THey want a class that has a stable ruleset with an objective means for setting a weight on a car -- and then have at it with minimal changes going forward.

I'll be honest with you -- I enjoy the discussions with you but you are one of the very few people I know who constantly gripes about the weight of his car versus others.

[StephenB]

Someone told me you were all talking about me again and I chould visit this topic... Seriously I can't take it anymore! I have tried to stay out of all this BS for so long and it has me at a boiling point. A few facts that I would like to share but since I am unorganized I simply don't have them but I know they exist so I CHALLENGE anyone to find the real facts and prove me wrong.

Audi Coupe non-GT (50lbs lighter than the GT) driven by ME went to the tech shed in 2003 finishing 4th on track (FIRST time ever setting foot their) a Horizon was DQ'd for a bullshit thing because his rear door interior panel was replaced with tin as allowed on the front doors only. (I said BS at the event) but either way I moved up to third. No-one wanted to even look at my car.

Audi Coupe non-GT (50lbs lighter than the GT) driven by ME and my brother got pole and off pole at the ARRC in 2004 BUT WE WENT SLOWER than the top dogs in that area did at other events THAT SAME YEAR. We were at the time almost a second SLOWER than the track record. WE DID DRAFT and both where within a tenth of eachother I believe. DRAFTING MAKES a difference hellloooo can anyone actually drive here? Get a teammate/partner on track and your lap times will drop if you have any common sence!

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) have ZERO Track records at ANY tracks. Do you think I just don't want one?

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than the VW MKII (i think that is what they are) driven by Derek and Rob from Vantage in CA.

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than the VW MKII (i think that is what they are) driven by Beran Peter and HAVE NEVER BEAT HIM.

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than Hondo Driven by David Gran AND has only beat him once due to luck and consistancy not car performance.

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than Vovlo driven by Eric Curran AND HAVE NEVER BEAT HIM

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than Vovlo driven by Scott Carlson AND HAVE NEVER BEAT HIM

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than Vovlo driven by Nat Wentworth AND HAVE NEVER BEAT HIM

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than Opal GT driven by Jim Mcmahon AND HAVE NEVER BEAT HIM

Our Audi Coupes non-GT (50 lbs lighter than the GT) are much slower than the 2002 driven By Ken Hubbard

WE HAVE NEVER BEAT any well prepaired, well driven fast Volvos, Hondas, MKII golfs, 2002, ect unless they broke or fell off track. The point is that WE ARE NOT AS FAST AS YOU ALL THINK WE ARE! Look at our fast lap times for the ENTIRE TIME WE HAVE HAD OUR CARS. (since 1999) No Track Records, just some wins and a few championships. We are consistant and I will say I am a top 3car at most tracks, which yes I am excited about... Being consistantly fast but not the fastest is how I have done well over the years.



GO GET SOME FACTS and say our car is an example of how the process has failed. The ARRC everyone references was great, fun, and exciting for us but the reality was that we were over a second of the track record and we had a draft for that hot lap... look at the majority of our laps they are within a few tenths of everyone else lap after lap. AND all the other "Hot shoes" from around went a second slower than they did earlier that year...

YES I WILL GO TO A DINO anytime, Send me the info on the location I am towing to. Anything more than 45 miles from 19 birchwood drive in Allenstown NH 03275 will require some type of compensation to help cover my costs and I would prefer you give me at least my HP/wieght #'s so I can answer that question in the future for people.

I have seriously heard enough... I can't win on track or off. IMHO The ITAC should just classify all cars old and new with the same process right or wrong then get a set of balls and tell all the winers and complainers that the process is what it is, its the same for all cars in all classes, don't like it pick another car or another place to race. You've received the feedback year after year... make our class predictible so anyone can choose a weapon and understand the process. Let it be our choice if we want to race it and let us suffer the consequenses if it is not a good choice. The BIGGEST mistake you ever made was not doing all cars at one time and saying this is the NEW IT CLASSIFICATION PROCESS. If you are happy with what we have then say that and stop getting feedback be consistant going forward and run new cars that are classified through the same process. you will never please everyone and it will feel like you are pleasing no-one.

I will be the first to say here that I beleive my car is amoungst the biggest that didn't take advantage of this new process. And guess what I COULD CARE LESS let me keep the 200lbs! If you choose that cars that are already classified are staying the way they are and new cars will go through this process then fine with me. just set the groundrules, follow them and go forward with it. GET IMPROVED TOURING STABLE... if you keep asking for feedback and walking on eggshells you will destroy all the hard work you have done.


Yes I drive the Audi Coupe that F-d up your class.
Stephen

PS: to any ITAC member or CRB member or even SCCA member that is concerned about my car and the process its only because you looked at one race one time for 1 session 5 years ago and you saw an on track performance concern. I feel like you have all been here saying on track performance doesn't matter and only flags you to look at that car in more detail. In my cars situation your taking it a step further with my car looking at one event one time for one session 5 years ago.... think about it.

[StephenB]

Was going to put this in and Edit but decided it needed it's own thread so you would read it.

I BELIEVE what the ITAC has done is the best thing that has happened in the last 10 - 15 years by coming up with a consistant close way to quantify weights for cars that are classified in IT. With that being said I DID request my car to go through the process for 2 reasons.

1.) Why wouldn't I if i knew my car could potentially be 200ls lighter? That is like sticking the thanksgiving turkey on the counter with a 2 year old great dane that looks into the sink for water. (Ya that really happened to me!)

2.) IF their was an obvious flaw it is my duty as a member to request my car to be run through the process for them to look at it so if it was decided something drastic WAS being overlooked they could catch it for the future classification of cars.

Last but not least... Yes I post on this site BUT Do I post and or start new threads here to argue my car is at a disadvantage? NO. I am happy even with my exta 200lbs. It doesn't make or brake a fun weekend of racing and if it makes or brakes your idea of AMATUER RACING then your probably in the wrong crowd with the majority of IT drivers.

Rule stability is what I want. Be fair and consistant with no guarentee like andy said.

[JoshS]

the difference between the S2000 and the other 75% of non-running cars is that people WANT to build S2000s but the listing is keeping them from doing so. if you have an extremely popular street car, with huge aftermarket support, and a very strong following amongst track day, autocross, and racers from other orgs, a bunch of T3 cars around, but there aren't "any" in ITR? you've got a problem. sounds like how SM got started no?

We had one ITR S2000 here in SFR until he decided to bolt on a supercharger and go ITE. Based on what I saw, I think with the right driver and the right build, it could very well be competitive. Of our three tracks, it was particularly good at Laguna Seca.

Based on talking to that driver and other members of the S2000 crowd here in NorCal, I think the problem is less a problem with the perceived competitiveness in ITR, and more of a problem that no one in the S2000 community wants to race a 3000lb S2000, competitive or not. It's just SO easy to get one of those cars down under 2700 lbs w/driver, so it just seems like an excessive amount of ballast.

In my opinion, that car just isn't right for ITR, it really belongs in the next class up (too bad we don't have one.) Nothing wrong with 240hp in ITR, but it doesn't make sense on a car that starts its life so light.

[frnkhous]

Just to clarify,
S2000 -we just don't know. The class is very young, and people think that they aren['t willing to gamble on that car. But it hasn't proven to have failed that car. And lets not trot out the "nobody is building one, therefore it fails" argument. Nobody is building 75% of the cars listed! Yet.

Mazda RX-8. Tough case, when Mazda lies about the stock power. If we have hard data, we might take a closer look, can't say for sure, but there hasn't been a solid case made for the car yet.

A 968 is doing very well in ITR in the NE, and he has yet to pre the car all the way.

1st gen RX-7 is known to be a bit heavy in ITA, but there's no sense setting it 'right' in ITB, as the car is raced happily in IT-7. The solution came too late for that car. In that sense the process fails it, but it could be rectified. But the 'fix' is worse than the existing situation. (A move to B, and the attendant swap to 6" rims)

Jake, you have dyno sheets for the rx-8 Those are from like 5 years of development. They had the help of mazda if they needed it. Atleast 2 other teams built cars(developed seperately) and I've seen dyno sheets from one after it was sold to the current owners, they are no different. 210 whp is as good as it is gonna get. 205 is what can be expected from any health engine. I don't know why this is so hard. Bosch, motec, atleast 2-3 versions of stock ecu's reflashed. Multiple headers/exhausts from different shops/suppliers this is what the cars make. If that many on the ITAC really felt that the speedsource dyno sheets that they were given are leaving something on the table I think they are being foolish.