ITS e36 BMW

[Chip42]

if roughly 5 classifications, accounting for 80+% of the cars on track are above process power, then you adjust the CLASS power/weight multiplier to keep them at weight WITH their current power output, and move the other cars in line (they lose weight). if a car gets too light to achieve, discuss dropping it to A.

Bill, the process allows for deviations on a case by case of the power gain mutliplier or to bypass that step entirely, going to "known hp" but the resultant classification will still be fed through the class p/w number (miller ratio). so if that is "high" in that the majority of cars on track exceed their target hp, this is one way to fix it. the other way would be to weigh those fast cars down to the existing miller ratio, which would mean lead in the majority of the cars on track. I prefer option A, and think this is a very good conversation to have.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the process account for deviating from the class multiplier, on a case-by-case basis if the "what we know" data are compelling? Or is the feeling that since there are so many cars that exceed process power, that the class multiplier is off? I saw what, 5 or 6 cars listed as exceeding process power, out of how many cars are classified in ITS? It sounds like addressing the individual outliers would impact less cars (and drivers) than changing the class multiplier (Miller ratio).

A good point and the effects need to be thought out. Even if 6 line items are out of whack, if 90% of the cars on grid are running those 6 cars, then you could argue either way.

Each of those cars most certainly could be adjusted quickly with minimal fallout on the rest of the class.

[JeffYoung]

A good point and the effects need to be thought out. Even if 6 line items are out of whack, if 90% of the cars on grid are running those 6 cars, then you could argue either way.

Each of those cars most certainly could be adjusted quickly with minimal fallout on the rest of the class.

Bill's point is a good one, but the answer is clear.

The vast majority of ITS cars that actually run and are competitve are in the "make more than process power" category. So adjusting the multiplier to THEM, rather than them to the multiplier will be the least disruptive way of fixing this.

Right now, new cars coming into S are going to get stomped in my opinion. New motors won't make the gains we see with the older ones and they will be at a disadvantage.

Chuck on the Porsche, submit a build sheet and dyno data and we'll see what we can do. I agree with Jake that car was not evaluated properly during initial classing.

[Bill Miller]

Chip, Andy, and Jeff,

I certainly see your point, and thought about that when I was typing my earlier post. But, I look at it like this, maybe that's the reason that so many people are running those cars, because they make more than process power. Kind of like when there were so many E36 BMW's in ITS, it was the EASY button.

Now, I do understand that it's 5 or 6 cars, as opposed to just one, but I don't see how adjusting the multiplier helps any of the other cars. Am I missing something, or doesn't it just shift the window? Changing the multiplier isn't going to do anything to get a VR6 Golf* any closer to an Acura or a Miata.

*I have no idea how competitive a VR6 Golf is in ITS, it just wasn't one of the cars on the list, so I used it as an example, rather than going to the ITCS and picking one.

So Jeff, I don't understand how adjusting the ITS multiplier is going to help new cars coming into ITS to not be at a disadvantage. And then there's the whole issue of cars being able to make weight. It's always easier to make a car heavier than it is to make a car lighter. And I know the option to go to ITA is there, but what if all your buddies are running in ITS, and your car gets moved to ITA, you shouldn't have to change cars to keep racing with your buddies. As Mike said, it's supposed to be about having fun.

So I don't think the point is that clear Jeff (and I do see solid arguments on both sides), so as Andy says, it would need to be looked at pretty hard.

My initial thought, would be to add weight to the cars exceeding process power, just to avoid bumping anyone to ITA or giving them a weight that was not achievable. To me, I see that as penalizing them because a group of cars responded better than expected to an IT build.

[JeffYoung]

Trust me when I say there is no easy button in making a Z car or a Miata or a 944s or a TR8 or a Mustang or an RX7 or an Integra exceed process power. No one is turning out turn key versions of these things ready to win races. The people who have gotten them where they are have done it they way Andy describes, with a lot of money and work on their own.

Adding several hundred pounds to all of those cars -- the ones actually running in ITS right now and the ones that were for the most part actually running in ITS before the E36 showed up -- would kill the class. I really think that is the key part of what you are missing. Essentially, for all pracical purposes, ALL of what really "is" ITS makes more power than the gain number assigned to them now.

The "fix" is to lower the power to weight multiplier in ITS, assign higher gain percentages to those cars, and the default to new cars coming into the class. That will balance the older cars versus the new, without dumping a few hundred pounds of lead on all of the cars in S.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I do race in S, I pay attention to the cars that are out there in the SEDiv and elsewhere, and I can tell you right now adding 200-300 lbs to the Z cars (marginal brakes as is), the RX7s (stressed to the max at 2680), my car (same), the Mustangs, Miatas, etc. will result in cars being parked just on the "hope" that new cars will be built.

Answer is clear.

[seckerich]

Answer is real clear. We park them or leave. We have spent many thousands of dollars making 5 hp gain over 10+ years. It is up to the new cars in the class to do the same homework and development to make those same gains. We made process power forever until we got good with the ECU and exhaust, etc. Same for the Z, Miata, TR8, etc. Telling me you will wipe that out to let new cars come in with a leg up is not encouraging. You claim all the front runners, maybe 6 makes ,make more than process power. That is not an accident. That means that over time every car in the class if developed to full potential will reach those gains. Now you want to move the bar? You toss lead at a car and now it means new shock valving, springs, bars, etc. Not to mention different rear gear ratio. Do you just sit around and say "what is working in IT today we can screw with" after seeing very close racing among all the very developed cars? Christ you guys would F up a wet dream given enough time.

[chuck baader]

Excellent Steve...I'll second that.

[JeffYoung]

Answer is real clear. We park them or leave. We have spent many thousands of dollars making 5 hp gain over 10+ years. It is up to the new cars in the class to do the same homework and development to make those same gains. We made process power forever until we got good with the ECU and exhaust, etc. Same for the Z, Miata, TR8, etc. Telling me you will wipe that out to let new cars come in with a leg up is not encouraging. You claim all the front runners, maybe 6 makes ,make more than process power. That is not an accident. That means that over time every car in the class if developed to full potential will reach those gains. Now you want to move the bar? You toss lead at a car and now it means new shock valving, springs, bars, etc. Not to mention different rear gear ratio. Do you just sit around and say "what is working in IT today we can screw with" after seeing very close racing among all the very developed cars? Christ you guys would F up a wet dream given enough time.

You absolutely 100% missed the point of my post which is exactly what you are saying. I'm trying to head off ANY weight increases to the front runners in S simply because most of them worked hard and now exceed process power. I absolutely agree with you we all worked hard to get where we are, and for all of us 200 lbs probably means we park the cars.

SERIOUSLY GUYS. Read this stuff and understand it before starting with the sky is falling stuff. It's pretty frustrating to have someone misread your post literally 180 degrees wrong.

[seckerich]

I understand, it is called Production car racing.

You let guys build cars and spend many years developing them to be front runners. You listen to the new guys coming in that have very little time invested and you seek to level the playing field. Front running cars (read 90% of the class) get weight added until the new cars get faster as they do their homework and see the same gains. Now you have a bigger problem because they are now faster given the new "standard" and all the current cars are no longer competitive. They get pissed and leave.

You set a realistic target with your less than perfect process and expect most cars can hit it. Some will fall short, but most will meet or exceed the target. That is racing. Moving the bar now is a comp adjustment to every front running car in the class no matter how you sell it. If a TR8 can exceed target, anything can with enough work. You move the numbers to back into a weight now on 90% of the cars running and your glorious process is now a joke as well as any future classifications.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The 'glorious' process has always been this:

Take a guess on power in IT-trim, set weight. If guess was wrong (to the point where it is statistically significant) and there is solid documentation to support it, use solid documentation to re-run through the process.

It's happened to plenty of cars over the life of the process, certainly none more shocking that the first 'great realignment'.

[Chip42]

Just to be clear, again, this is a discussion with the community, NOT an actual action being taken at the ITAC level nor higher that we are aware.

I am not advocating a need to change, only my preference between the scenarios to address that change should it be decided upon.

however, I DO disagree that "every car" in the ITCS will reach the same gain with development, some cars simply wont. and others will. the ones that are easy, like the BMW, will generally get slapped quickly with a lead trophy. the ones that make incremental gains over a long period deserve to keep the benefit of what they find and they will and have found more than just horsepower, so even "equalizing" the class via a few gain changes and lowering the miller ratio wouldn't overnight the slow cars to hero status.

There are realities with new cars coming in and while we might be incorrect in our assumption of gain and have ways to fix that on a car by car basis without changing the class base, we have the additional "issue" that no one has brought up with new cars that are far more powerful than they were 10 and 20 years ago (or "IT fields"). we are currently cramming these guys into A,S, and R, often with a LOT of weight. moving the class number would mean an easier and more attractive fit for MANY of the newer tweener cars. if we can do that AND keep the existing base running competitively, we have done well.

again - NOTHING is in the works. just a conversation.

[seckerich]

Unless it is a Miata right?

[seckerich]

The 'glorious' process has always been this:

Take a guess on power in IT-trim, set weight. If guess was wrong (to the point where it is statistically significant) and there is solid documentation to support it, use solid documentation to re-run through the process.

It's happened to plenty of cars over the life of the process, certainly none more shocking that the first 'great realignment'.

Except you are saying you "guessed" 90% of the active class wrong. I would call that either a SWAG or natural evolution of development that everyone has to go through. If you missed us all that bad to start with, then again in the great realignment, you will miss again with new cars.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Unless it is a Miata right?

What is this referring to? ITA Miata has been both realigned (1.6) and 'corrected' (1.8).

[JeffYoung]

I understand, it is called Production car racing.

You let guys build cars and spend many years developing them to be front runners. You listen to the new guys coming in that have very little time invested and you seek to level the playing field. Front running cars (read 90% of the class) get weight added until the new cars get faster as they do their homework and see the same gains. Now you have a bigger problem because they are now faster given the new "standard" and all the current cars are no longer competitive. They get pissed and leave.

You set a realistic target with your less than perfect process and expect most cars can hit it. Some will fall short, but most will meet or exceed the target. That is racing. Moving the bar now is a comp adjustment to every front running car in the class no matter how you sell it. If a TR8 can exceed target, anything can with enough work. You move the numbers to back into a weight now on 90% of the cars running and your glorious process is now a joke as well as any future classifications.

I understand that. The flip side is that if all the "old cars" make in some cases way more than process, and new cars can't, then we are stuck with a class that never gets new blood.

I don't know what to do. I see this as a coming shit storm in S, which right now has in my opinion the best multi-marque racing in the SCCA. But the storm clouds are brewing as all of the competitive cars are pushing 20 or 30 years old, and no new-new cars are being built.

I'm hearing it more and more from people: they are astounded at the rwhp numbers the S cars make.

I am afraid something is going to be done after I leave the ITAC by people who don't understand the cars, the work we put in, etc. that will be terrible for the class (no offense to Bill but adding 200-300 lbs to the front running six or seven chassis in ITS will kill the class dead).

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'll still want a 240Z!!!!!

[JeffYoung]

If a TR8 can exceed target, anything can with enough work.

I don't think this is a correct statement and it is important to understand why.

We are seeing with newer cars with higher compression, better valve trains, stock piston coatings, better ECUs and spark, and so on, that the "easy" gains cars from the 70s and 80s saw just aren't there.

I certainly didn't know it at the time, but just one look at a stock TR8 motor with its air pump and injection lines back of exhaust gases back into the heads and terrible stock manifolds and so on that there was a ton of gain to be had.

[seckerich]

I understand that. The flip side is that if all the "old cars" make in some cases way more than process, and new cars can't, then we are stuck with a class that never gets new blood.

I don't know what to do. I see this as a coming shit storm in S, which right now has in my opinion the best multi-marque racing in the SCCA. But the storm clouds are brewing as all of the competitive cars are pushing 20 or 30 years old, and no new-new cars are being built.

I'm hearing it more and more from people: they are astounded at the rwhp numbers the S cars make.

I am afraid something is going to be done after I leave the ITAC by people who don't understand the cars, the work we put in, etc. that will be terrible for the class (no offense to Bill but adding 200-300 lbs to the front running six or seven chassis in ITS will kill the class dead).

And I will counter with the fact that you can give any of us the newer cars and put the same amount of development in them and we will win with them too. Further you are looking at rear wheel numbers that take into account the full use of rules in lubricants, etc to limit driveline loss. Everything adds up to power to the ground, not just hp gains. Look what Zolt has done with gearing and other development to the integra that was supposed to be too slow for the class. Reset the bar for the class and the E36 screwing will look like a blip compared to the exodus you will see.

This is not a matter of taking our toys and going home because we are unhappy, it will be a full loss of faith in IT and the supposed rule stability you have preached for years.

You may see 225 on a E36 but that is an unproven outlier on the edge of pro built no holds barred 12/10 ths car with everything done. That does not mean it holds up to be classed by that "known" number when 210-215 is the norm. There are examples of every other make with mythical power that everyone knows until it comes down to what dyno, on what day, with what correction.

[Xian]

No dog in the fight but this is where my head was going as I read thru the thread...

I understand, it is called Production car racing.

You let guys build cars and spend many years developing them to be front runners. You listen to the new guys coming in that have very little time invested and you seek to level the playing field. Front running cars (read 90% of the class) get weight added until the new cars get faster as they do their homework and see the same gains. Now you have a bigger problem because they are now faster given the new "standard" and all the current cars are no longer competitive. They get pissed and leave.

You set a realistic target with your less than perfect process and expect most cars can hit it. Some will fall short, but most will meet or exceed the target. That is racing. Moving the bar now is a comp adjustment to every front running car in the class no matter how you sell it. If a TR8 can exceed target, anything can with enough work. You move the numbers to back into a weight now on 90% of the cars running and your glorious process is now a joke as well as any future classifications.

The absence of new-new car builds doesn't mean that they won't make the same gains as the top 6 S-cars. What it means is the same thing it's always meant in every class... lemmings. That car is winning races. That car looks competitive. Ima build that car. It's older, depreciated, and somewhat formulaic. WHY would anyone pick a newer, unproven chassis just to pour years and cubic dollars into prep when they can pick a proven winner?

I'm not trying to take the wind out of your sails or say that "watching" the class performance envelope isn't a good idea (it is) but maybe, just maybe, the idea of what "top build" gains should be is at fault? Maybe a top build should make more like 40% gains vs. 30%? I'd wager that this is the first time in history that IT cars have had folks pushing the envelope of development as consistently as we've seen. Add this to all the modern (and somewhat affordable) techniques for extracting power and you have what we've got now... cars making 40% gains. Think about it... we've got data acquisition, access to header/exhaust programs, cheap DIY ECU options, etc, etc. 20 years ago and the stuff being used in IT wouldn't have been at all uncommon in a "Pro Series" if at all.

Lightening up the cars the rest of the ITS field has the same net effect that "lead trophies" from the Runoff's USED to have in Prod. They cleaned up their act as the entire category lay on the death bed... I hope IT(S) finds a way to encourage new cars/builds/racers without resorting to the same sort of weight jiggering that almost killed Prod.

[JeffYoung]

And I will counter with the fact that you can give any of us the newer cars and put the same amount of development in them and we will win with them too. Further you are looking at rear wheel numbers that take into account the full use of rules in lubricants, etc to limit driveline loss. Everything adds up to power to the ground, not just hp gains. Look what Zolt has done with gearing and other development to the integra that was supposed to be too slow for the class. Reset the bar for the class and the E36 screwing will look like a blip compared to the exodus you will see.

This is not a matter of taking our toys and going home because we are unhappy, it will be a full loss of faith in IT and the supposed rule stability you have preached for years.

You may see 225 on a E36 but that is an unproven outlier on the edge of pro built no holds barred 12/10 ths car with everything done. That does not mean it holds up to be classed by that "known" number when 210-215 is the norm. There are examples of every other make with mythical power that everyone knows until it comes down to what dyno, on what day, with what correction.

So we are clear, here is the problem I'm trying to avoid. Guy builds Subaru RS for ITS. Does no development, goes out, gets his ass kicked. Writes to the ITAC and says "reprocess my competitors, they are all making too much power.

RIGHT NOW, if we used to the Process AS IT STANDS -- and I think this is what you guys are missing (you too Christian) -- on the Z car, the RX7, the TR8, the Miata, the Mustangs, the 944s, the Corrado, the Prelude, the Integra, all of them -- ALL OF THEM gain several hundred pounds based on known developed rwhp.

That's the problem. I don't want all of those cars to race heavier than they are now. But I want to avoid the conundrum we will have if someone asks us to reprocess even one of them because it will throw things for a huge loop.