ITAC News.

[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.

[benspeed]

Watching the forums here and in STL the engineers are good at engineering the classes...I will pay you to get power to weight competitive Instead of the pro Porsche shops....light is better. I make the same power as the s2 cars and they run at 2810 vs 3055.

Who wants the retainer?

[Chip42]

Watching the forums here and in STL the engineers are good at engineering the classes...I will pay you to get power to weight competitive Instead of the pro Porsche shops....light is better. I make the same power as the s2 cars and they run at 2810 vs 3055.

Who wants the retainer?

Ben,
submit dyno data and a build sheet and it will be considered. find more examples and it adds to the case. we really can't make a case from one example.

[benspeed]

Ben,
submit dyno data and a build sheet and it will be considered. find more examples and it adds to the case. we really can't make a case from one example.

Thanks Chip. I'll rustle up performance/dyno data on the S2 and the E36. Those cars are making the same power and weigh much less. Proud to submit my build sheet - been a very comprehensive process with top Porsche shops. My beef isn't about power, it's about weight.

Its very interesting to watch the experts work out how a car is classed on this thread, but it also makes me scratch my head and consider how poorly I can play this aspect of the game, hence my joke about paying an expert a retainer to help lobby my case :-)

[lateapex911]

Ben I know your tongue is in your cheek. But....the classing thing should be pretty much streamlined and automated.

The ITAC has, and continues to, use a process that considers basic variables, the cars stock hp and spits out a number. That number assumes several things, like an expected built horsepower.

Trouble starts when things don't line up.

Your car, and most Porsches, really, are classic examples. Most just don't make the presumed 25%. (The RX-8 is another, but it is opposite what earlier rotaries did, which was vastly exceed the 25% assumption. Real numbers were dug up for that classification, and they came from outside the IT world, and there was an extremely high degree of confidence in the evidence.)

In cases like yours, you're really trying to prove a negative. And that gets tricky. You've got skin in the game, and even though we all know you're a good guy, and the ITAC assumes you are too, you can see the obvious conflict of interest that arises.

So, in order to overcome that, you'll need to be exceedingly forthright, and show how you have turned over every possible stone. AND, if you can provide OTHER builds of separate cars, that helps your case.

Its a frustrating situation from both perspectives. But, I assure you, there's no 'game' needed. The ITAC is pretty by the book.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

Please re-run and apply as consistently as you can. Let's not have only one car get a DW adder. Again, I see no downside to running the Vette congruent with other cars in class until you decide how to clean up ITR/Ops manual.

[JeffYoung]

Why would you think we would NOT apply as consistently as we can?

C'mon now, some of this is getting silly.

Please re-run and apply as consistently as you can. Let's not have only one car get a DW adder. Again, I see no downside to running the Vette congruent with other cars in class until you decide how to clean up ITR/Ops manual.

We've had the DW discussion on the committee. I don't think the committee's opinion is going to change. In my opinion, we are starting with "doing it right" with the Vette. If we do it your way we are going to see the weight change on that car two times over a six month period or so, and the CRB is going to ask (rightfully so) what the hell we are doing.

Yes, there is a downside and yes, there is a bigger picture than this one car.

[seckerich]

Where does the RX8 fall in your new number crunch? Need to decide if I get new glass or lexan.

[JeffYoung]

Struts up front, multi-link rear right?

Shouldn't change at all if so.

[Ron Earp]

RX8 is Mazda double wishbone upfront if I'm not mistaken. Multilink rear.

[Chip42]

Where does the RX8 fall in your new number crunch? Need to decide if I get new glass or lexan.

steve - in lieu of searching, can you remind me the hp numbers that are appropriate to the car? I don't have the existing classification background at hand.

[Andy Bettencourt]

steve - in lieu of searching, can you remind me the hp numbers that are appropriate to the car? I don't have the existing classification background at hand.

The RX-8 was set with real-world dyno numbers because the crank numbers are bogus. You will need to go into the files or ping the ITAC on that one.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If we do it your way we are going to see the weight change on that car two times over a six month period or so, and the CRB is going to ask (rightfully so) what the hell we are doing.

Yes, there is a downside and yes, there is a bigger picture than this one car.

And you can tell them the truth. That you went by the flawed Ops manual, didn't recall how cars were classed, and applied an adder when the class didn't currently call for it.

So you humbly admit this, bring the one car in line until the ITAC and the CRB align on a re-do of the whole class. Why? Because the simple fact is you should be considering a strut decuct at these weights instead of a DW adder. But that is just a time and committee thing, I don't so much care either way as long as the class is aligned.

It's really the most simple and fair thing to do. I can't see how you would see it any other way that to avoid a slightly embarrassing situation for the ITAC, unless the ITR redo was published in the next couple months, but that ain't how fast things can get done. ESPECIALLY considering the perceived desire of the ITAC to stabilize the rules for a time-period.

RX-8 is DW front.

[JeffYoung]

Stop with the flawed Ops Manual. It's the best thing the ITAC did besides the process itself (and I'll ad you were initially opposed to publishing the Process). Josh did a great job with that.

What was flawed was the reason the unwritten rule of "no DW for ITR cars" came about in the first place. "All ITR cars" do not have DW. Another flaw was using a "static" deduct for FWD and them dumping it for a percentage after a lot of cars had been reweighted. I was apart of that and acknowledge being a part of it, and we are trying to fix things by being consistent and doing things right from the start instead of changing them on the fly or fixing them later.

You of all people should know we only have a certain amount of ability to change things before the CRB (rightly) starts to wonder what we are doing.

And you can tell them the truth. That you went by the flawed Ops manual, didn't recall how cars were classed, and applied an adder when the class didn't currently call for it.

So you humbly admit this, bring the one car in line until the ITAC and the CRB align on a re-do of the whole class. Why? Because the simple fact is you should be considering a strut decuct at these weights instead of a DW adder. But that is just a time and committee thing, I don't so much care either way as long as the class is aligned.

It's really the most simple and fair thing to do. I can't see how you would see it any other way that to avoid a slightly embarrassing situation for the ITAC, unless the ITR redo was published in the next couple months, but that ain't how fast things can get done. ESPECIALLY considering the perceived desire of the ITAC to stabilize the rules for a time-period.

RX-8 is DW front.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why are you getting uptight about that statement? I was on the committee when we were revising it, it IS the best thing that has happened to IT in a while...but that doesn't mean it's perfect. And by that I mean that when it went to 'print' it wasn't completed yet. You guys forgot to write in what the process entails for ITR cars. It's ok, but it's fact. And I was in favor of publishing that document once we got it done - ONLY if it explained every in and out of what the ITAC could do...which is why it took about 9 months to get finalized. A quicky 'process' blurb would have only created more questions than answers.

Nobody said 'all ITR cars' had DW's. What was said was that the core car in ITR had significantly advanced suspensions to not warrant the separation, except when it was a strut-based FWDer. That was the process for ITR. Nobody codified it before it went to print, and now you are classing cars differently than the entire category...due to an error. It's OK, we acknowledge it and we decide whats the best way to fix it.

I submit again simply that you suck it up, pull the 50 back off the Vette and hunker down and strategize on what you want as a committee. +50 for all advanced? +50 for just DW's? -50 for all strut? -50 for strut and FWD? The ship won't turn in say, 6 months, so don't hang the new classification out to dry. I don't care how 'little' you think the weight is. My inbox is full of PM's asking me to justify +150lbs for excessive torque. It all adds up.

I know fully what the 'old' CRB will accept and not accept. I know a couple current members who call me all the time asking about certain issues and I am confident that when you lay out a good case for something, they will get it. I also know that doing what is right is more important than making one or two CRB members happy because they have better things to do than deal with IT.

Let's end the debate, I am sure we know each others position. No further progress is to be made. Time to go build that 300whp cease-fire V8.

Stop with the flawed Ops Manual. It's the best thing the ITAC did besides the process itself (and I'll ad you were initially opposed to publishing the Process). Josh did a great job with that.

What was flawed was the reason the unwritten rule of "no DW for ITR cars" came about in the first place. "All ITR cars" do not have DW. Another flaw was using a "static" deduct for FWD and them dumping it for a percentage after a lot of cars had been reweighted. I was apart of that and acknowledge being a part of it, and we are trying to fix things by being consistent and doing things right from the start instead of changing them on the fly or fixing them later.

You of all people should know we only have a certain amount of ability to change things before the CRB (rightly) starts to wonder what we are doing.