ITAC News.

[Chip42]

New cars:
we recently classed the 1st gen Acura TSX. 2760 by process, and we are worried that this might be unachievably LIGHT. by "your" process it would have been 2785 by virtue of a 100# vs 6% FWD deduct, even with no +50lbs for suspension. so we are keeping some things lighter

also clased the '84 'Vette, an older mustang ('86 GT IIRC), another comarobird. As the requests come in, more will be classed. I tend to believe that HEAVY and NOT ADVANCED suspension are the way of the newer additions because hp numbers have exploded and cars have gotten fat, but they have also been stamped out and spoprtiness is often not part of the equation. the DW adder should stay.

in fact, following the ops manual process perfectly, the hondas (including the S2000s)lose on average ~35#. the stealth/300GT loses 235#. Note that the ops manual also calls out weight adders for over/under displacment and tq. and we have NOT been follwoing the displacement math - it would raise the wait of the 'vette to 3165 if we did. again, I'm cool with dropping this from the ops manual with the FWD strut deduct if the rest of the committee is, but it's going to be hard to convince me to get rid of the DW adder.

[Andy Bettencourt]

New cars:
we recently classed the 1st gen Acura TSX. 2760 by process, and we are worried that this might be unachievably LIGHT. by "your" process it would have been 2785 by virtue of a 100# vs 6% FWD deduct, even with no +50lbs for suspension. so we are keeping some things lighter

also clased the '84 'Vette, an older mustang ('86 GT IIRC), another comarobird. As the requests come in, more will be classed. I tend to believe that HEAVY and NOT ADVANCED suspension are the way of the newer additions because hp numbers have exploded and cars have gotten fat, but they have also been stamped out and spoprtiness is often not part of the equation. the DW adder should stay.

in fact, following the ops manual process perfectly, the hondas (including the S2000s)lose on average ~35#. the stealth/300GT loses 235#. Note that the ops manual also calls out weight adders for over/under displacment and tq. and we have NOT been follwoing the displacement math - it would raise the wait of the 'vette to 3165 if we did. again, I'm cool with dropping this from the ops manual with the FWD strut deduct if the rest of the committee is, but it's going to be hard to convince me to get rid of the DW adder.

Again, much appreciated on the specifics...but help me with the math.

How would the S2000 lose weight by ops manual?

And how would the Vette gain weight seeing as it already has 150lbs 'extra' for torque? Does the ops manual have a double whammy for displacement AND torque?

Again, a separation between struts and DW is needed IMHO. Just get rid of the double application of the adder. The Vette is taking it in the ass on that front.

And PLEASE lets stop with the 'your' process stuff. I know you meant the 'collective' your...but I was the author of the deduction by % change. You see it in your ops manual now because of that regimes work. And frankly, that was one of the 'changes' that was on the pile when the CRB lost it's mind about the process.

EDIT: Why would the TSX ever get consideration for +50 for suspension? I would hope it's a strut car or else it would have gotten the +50 just like the Vette. No?

[Chip42]

Again, much appreciated on the specifics...but help me with the math.

How would the S2000 lose weight by ops manual?

the 2.0L is under the "normal" displacement, so would loose some there (100#). the other doesn't.

And how would the Vette gain weight seeing as it already has 150lbs 'extra' for torque? Does the ops manual have a double whammy for displacement AND torque?

my mistake it's a tq/disp adjustment. to my knowledge, never applied other than the 5.o,5.7L etc... cars getting +150#.

Again, a separation between struts and DW is needed IMHO. Just get rid of the double application of the adder. The Vette is taking it in the ass on that front.

disagree. the strut adder ONLY affects FWD cars. it's not a 100lbs split RWD strut to RWD DW, it's 50. it's 100# to the FWD guys, so I agree we should do away with it. I think following the standard +50 foe DW formula is easier, so vote that way.

And PLEASE lets stop with the 'your' process stuff. I know you meant the 'collective' your...but I was the author of the deduction by % change. You see it in your ops manual now because of that regimes work. And frankly, that was one of the 'changes' that was on the pile when the CRB lost it's mind about the process.

no offense intended, but it's an easy to follow conversational reference to the process for which you are arguing, and which determined the bulk of existing ITR classifications. and believe me, I've kept up on the history. THANK YOU (and kk and jg and js etc..) fo getting us here. please don't be upset when we try to use the tool you worked so hard to leave us with.

the membership has access to the ops manual, and I think it's fair that they should be able to monday morning quarterback our work or a theoretical classification and get the same results we do. that's really the crux of the situation.

EDIT: Why would the TSX ever get consideration for +50 for suspension? I would hope it's a strut car or else it would have gotten the +50 just like the Vette. No?

it is a DW car and it did get +50, like the vette, though AFTER a -6% that -6%+50# is still a 25 larger weight break than the "old process" (better?) would have given it (-100 for FWD only).

while we're on the subject, can anyone from the realignment era committee explain the 100# weight break to the S2000 as shown in the spreadsheet under the "other" column?

[Andy Bettencourt]

while we're on the subject, can anyone from the realignment era committee explain the 100# weight break to the S2000 as shown in the spreadsheet under the "other" column?

LACK of Torque as compared to the class at that weight.

[Chip42]

LACK of Torque as compared to the class at that weight.

ah, roughly consistent with the ops manual. I can work with that. why didn't the type R get this? before other adders, from the math used when classified:
type R: 195*1.2*11.25 = 2635, tq = 131 lbft (factory) -> 20.1 lbs/lbft tq
S2000 (2.2L): 240*1.15*11.25 = 3105, tq = 162 lbft (factory) -> 19.17 lbs/lbft tq.

that means that the teg has less torque to weight than the S2000, and a smaller engine than is the norm. I'm sure a 100# deduct (after the FWD 6%) would be consistent:

see my next post, and andy's - got the math wrong here.

Corvette's numbers? 10.6 lbs/lbft and 12 lbs/hp at 3085# (205 hp, 290 lbft, 1.25 gain, +150tq/dipslacemnt, +50 DW)

certainly looks fair to me (small sample, but still) and it doesn't even take into account the torque gains in IT trim, which I'm betting the 'vette and other big-bore engines will get more of than the zing-bang hondas.

thoughts?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Run those Vette numbers again?

205x1.25.11.25+150=3033--->3035

+50 for DW (that no other car in ITR gets) = 3085

I don't understand your other numbers. 'Adjusted crank hp'?

S2000 is 276hp estimated crank in IT trim / 3005 is 10.88
Vette is 256hp estimated crank in IT trim / 3085 is 12.05
Type R is 243hp estimate crank in IT trim / 2535 is 10.38

This is totally congruent with the extra 150 for torque not factored. Torque to weight can be done too. Your S2000 numbers need some freshening up.

[Chip42]

Sorry - 3085, just verified the number we recommended ans that's it.

My pwr/weight for the hondas was wrong and I fixed that (below). also, I used the ops manual process weights to prove a point, which remains valid.

don't know where the other numbers came from, didn't save the calcs. pwr/wt numbers for the vette stay the same (changes in the hundredths).

summing up:
teg R (195*1.2=234 process hp), 2425#, 10.4 lbs/hp, 18.5 lbs/lbft
S2000 2.0L (240*1.15=276 process hp), 3055#, 11.1 lbs/hp, 20.0 lbs/lbft
S2000 2.2L (240*1.15=276 process hp), 3055#, 11.1 lbs/hp, 18.9 lbs/lbft
84 Vette (205*1.25=256 process hp), 3085#, 12.0 lb/hp, 10.6 lbs/lbft

the point is that the ops manual numbers WORK here, and as expected the big torque cars are still strong in terms of weight/tq EVEN AT "HUGE" WEIGHTS. current classification for FWD puts many of them at a weight deficit, the low displacement/torque deduct is missing "randomly" (from the data I have), etc..

benefits: this system seems to work, well. members can understand it because its already published. reworking the cars will balance the field better (based on these numbers). consistent with the rest of IT processes. many cars lose weight.

down side: some classifications will change, some cars gain 50lbs.


we will be rerunning the numbers even if we don't end up recommending them. I will share my portion of that effort here and to anyone who asks.

[Andy Bettencourt]

no offense intended, but it's an easy to follow conversational reference to the process for which you are arguing, and which determined the bulk of existing ITR classifications. and believe me, I've kept up on the history. THANK YOU (and kk and jg and js etc..) fo getting us here. please don't be upset when we try to use the tool you worked so hard to leave us with.

I'm just trying to explain to you why the weights 'make sense' amongst posts that they don't match up and are 'embarrassing'. Knowing how they were done brings most everything into line sans calculation errors.

[JeffYoung]

The individual car advocacy is starting to get a bit old honestly, along with the insinuation we are not trying to be consistent, don't know the history of ITR (Ron and I did the initial pass at that the spreadsheet and EArl Richards and I did the first attempt at a clean up in a lot of the inconsistencies in it after it was adopted) or just don't know what we are doing.

And yes, all of this is over 50 lbs and you are FAR too worked over it.

We'll do this the right way, in the best interests of the class, and as consistently as possible. Just like you guys tried to do when you were on the ITAC.

I'll also bet you $100 that motor makes more than 25%. I actually saw ZERO gain -- none -- with the individual cylinder tuning. Ron posted it in the Mustang thread, but the real gains with these low revving, high displacement motors is on the exhaust side.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Old to you maybe. But when a new car classification is done, differently than what has been done in the past, and it results in extra weight, it's an issue that needs to be resolved. We have discussed either of the ways it could be resolved. Neither are of consequence, just that applying the classing fairly is the ultimate goal. Not making a change either way - in the short term is, like it or not, a fail in consistency.

1lb or 200, it doesn't matter. You want to strive for consistency, here is your chance. Sorry if you are taking offense, but you guys made an error you didn't know you made and it would be nice if you fixed it.

I know you will fix it, with the best intentions of the class, but if you think it's going to be 6 months to a year to get ITR cleaned up, the fair thing to do would be to admit you applied the DW in ITR not realizing that's not how the class was created and give the car a break so you don't double-whack it, until a class-wide correction is done.

The individual car advocacy is starting to get a bit old honestly, along with the insinuation we are not trying to be consistent, don't know the history of ITR (Ron and I did the initial pass at that the spreadsheet and EArl Richards and I did the first attempt at a clean up in a lot of the inconsistencies in it after it was adopted) or just don't know what we are doing.

And yes, all of this is over 50 lbs and you are FAR too worked over it.

We'll do this the right way, in the best interests of the class, and as consistently as possible. Just like you guys tried to do when you were on the ITAC.

I'll also bet you $100 that motor makes more than 25%. I actually saw ZERO gain -- none -- with the individual cylinder tuning. Ron posted it in the Mustang thread, but the real gains with these low revving, high displacement motors is on the exhaust side.

I would happily pay on behalf of the builder. It would be awesome! I guess all of these motors will act exactly the same so I hope to get the same gains you got.

[JeffYoung]

We did the torque adder with the Vette -- at least in the calculation I did. That car is by some 45 cubic inches the biggest motor in ITR and by far the highest stock torque.

Andy, the real error was a couple of steps back. It was in concluding that a DW "modifier" was appropriate in all cases other than ITR because ITR cars were primarily DW. They are not.

And I don't think we have any real basis to evaluate 'advanced" strut designs v. "non-advanced." We aren't eqiupped to evaluate suspension geometry (nor should we be doing that) and in any event, strut cars have some options to fix that with the way the rules are written (depending on design).

I know the easy way to you -- the guy building the Vette - is to just suspend the DW adder in ITR but to me it is not. We have a whole slew of cars that are screwed up in ITR right now and need to be fixed and to start doing cars the right way makes the most sense.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We did the torque adder with the Vette -- at least in the calculation I did. That car is by some 45 cubic inches the biggest motor in ITR and by far the highest stock torque.

No issues here. It was a piece of the pie when I was there and was fully expecting that adder. Thought I remembered +100 but it was 150.

Andy, the real error was a couple of steps back. It was in concluding that a DW "modifier" was appropriate in all cases other than ITR because ITR cars were primarily DW. They are not.

But the facts remain. No cars in ITR got adders for DW AND there is a deduction for strut/FWD. Revise the process how you want, but that is how the cars were classed.

And I don't think we have any real basis to evaluate 'advanced" strut designs v. "non-advanced." We aren't eqiupped to evaluate suspension geometry (nor should we be doing that) and in any event, strut cars have some options to fix that with the way the rules are written (depending on design).

I would tend to agree but there are certainly many shades of grey when evaluating. Cripes, the 2nd gen RX-7, the 944, 968, etc...strut cars.

I know the easy way to you -- the guy building the Vette - is to just suspend the DW adder in ITR but to me it is not. We have a whole slew of cars that are screwed up in ITR right now and need to be fixed and to start doing cars the right way makes the most sense.

The problem is that no cars in ITR have a DW adder. That HAS TO BE taken into account someplace. I don't really care is there is a DW adder (but I am on record as saying it's better for the class and the racers to have a strut deduction instead) but right now the Vette is the only car in ITR with that distinction.

In fairness to the people building them, take the 50lbs out for now, get your 'fixes' done in the OPS manual, then apply changes to the whole class. Don't saddle the Vette with an extra 50lbs because the committee didn't know it's history. I hope common sense will prevail in the short term on the Vette and you can clear up the ITR issues as fast as possible.