Any news on ITB weights???

[shwah]

Unfortunately with the large weight impact of getting it wrong, I don't know there is much that the ITAC can do to make the "ITB problem" go away. There are just too many lbs/hp to allow much differing perception of the power capability of any given car.

I do hope that the class gets better as the ITAC rolls through it, but until there is a way to objectively confirm the power adder for a given car, folks won't be happy. This is why so many A2 VWs have made the move to Production. No one can get 30%. No one can tell us of any legitimate knowledge of a car legally getting 30%, but the car is classed there because "someone" says it can.

It is a good time to run a Toyota or Honda in ITB though. It might create a beneficial influx of new cars/drivers into the class.

[Knestis]

unfortunately with the large weight impact of getting it wrong, i don't know there is much that the itac can do to make the "itb problem" go away. There are just too many lbs/hp to allow much differing perception of the power capability of any given car.

I do hope that the class gets better as the itac rolls through it, but until there is a way to objectively confirm the power adder for a given car, folks won't be happy. This is why so many a2 vws have made the move to production. No one can get 30%. No one can tell us of any legitimate knowledge of a car legally getting 30%, but the car is classed there because Chris Albin says it can.

It is a good time to run a toyota or honda in itb though. It might create a beneficial influx of new cars/drivers into the class.

fwiw

k

[Ralf]

Kirk, how much hp did your A3 cars make?

[Knestis]

Kirk, how much hp did your A3 cars make?

Remember that you're asking that of the guy who requested that the weight of that car be reviewed, which resulted in an increase...

:026:

K

[lateapex911]

Remember that you're asking that of the guy who requested that the weight of that car be reviewed, which resulted in an increase...

:026:

K

Isn't it ironic that two guys, who campaigned AGAINST their own cars, were asked /forced to leave the ITAC, yet guys who made deals to protect their own cars ended up getting promoted to the CRB???

[shwah]

fwiw

k

I know Chris very well, like decades. I don't beleive that either one of us were able to achieve 30%, and even his word does not mean enough without some form of data in this case (IMO).

I had originally decided to just swallow the 30%, and try one more time, but with the weight that came off other competitive cars while I was back in school, it became a futile effort. It still might be the best for the class in the end. New cars are likely to show up in B at this point. Might bring with it some fresh enthusiasm.

[Knestis]

I know Chris very well, like decades. I don't beleive that either one of us were able to achieve 30%, and even his word does not mean enough without some form of data in this case (IMO). ...

That conversation (on an ITAC call) happened before we codified the "evidentiary standards" that were in effect when I left the committee. He was running a MkIII Golf in ITB at that time. I share that only as fact, not any particular implication.

K

[Chip42]

I agree that the A2 is likely a bit off process - 30% is ~116 whp, 25% is ~112. we have evidence of 113 whp and suggestions that it can hit 115. so theoretically the ADDER isn't that far off. yes, at 17 lbs/hp and a resolution of 5% you ARE talking about 90lbs.

either way, the effort right now is in identifying the stock numbers to plug into the process and the multipliers that we "know" before agreeing about the ones we "think we know" and the ones that get the default numbers. for the stuff that's really running - the A1, A2, A3platform VWs, 4AGE Toyotas, 84-95 civics and siblings, A-motor prelude and accord, protégé, Audi coupes, 2002 BMW and Volvos we have a pretty good read on the cars. it's the 200SX, Simca injected 2.0L twin cam Alfas, TR7, 914, opel GT, 20 years of mustang on one specline, T-motor corollas, and MANY others that we are trying to identify figures for.

we need to get the house in order and everyone on the same page as far as the process and base numbers, THEN we can debate the best way to "fix" the "problems" which I put in quotes because there's far from universally agreed upon definitions for either.

[jjjanos]

it's the 200SX, Simca injected 2.0L twin cam Alfas, TR7, 914, opel GT, 20 years of mustang on one specline, T-motor corollas, and MANY others that we are trying to identify figures for.

See:

1. Get list of every ITB car that has races in last 7 years. In theory, the home office should have this as they get copies of the official results. (IIRC)

2. Everything not on that list gets a contact SCCA note for its weight.

3. Everything else gets run through. No point wasting effort getting the correct classification weight on a car that hasn't raced since 1987.

[quadzjr]

JJanos,

Some of the cars Chip mentioned are currently run. Just in teh southeast, there are mustangs and I ran against a 200SX last race at Barber.

My opinion is that you should be able to look at the ITCS and pick a car and based on a process it might have a chance of being competitive. Obviously you might spend alot more money developing some off the wall car (Opel GT.. how cool would that be) v.s. a knows recipe like a VW or honda.

[Chip42]

I've seen every one of those cars run ITB in the last 3-4 years.

[StephenB]

Opel GT.. how cool would that be .

Oh it is...

The second picture is within the last year...

[jjjanos]

JJanos,

Some of the cars Chip mentioned are currently run. Just in teh southeast, there are mustangs and I ran against a 200SX last race at Barber.

The point is that not every oddball, poorly documented car listed under ITB has been raced in recent memory, if at all. It is negligent to withhold submission of cars known to be incorrect until all the cars are run through the process.

If there weren't cars already listed that used the process, I would agree that submitting them en masse makes sense. That, however, isn't the case, we've got cars that were classified using the process, we've got cars that were corrected using the process and we've got freaking ITA cars listed at ITB weights.

[shwah]

I agree that the A2 is likely a bit off process - 30% is ~116 whp, 25% is ~112. we have evidence of 113 whp and suggestions that it can hit 115. so theoretically the ADDER isn't that far off. yes, at 17 lbs/hp and a resolution of 5% you ARE talking about 90lbs.

either way, the effort right now is in identifying the stock numbers to plug into the process and the multipliers that we "know" before agreeing about the ones we "think we know" and the ones that get the default numbers. for the stuff that's really running - the A1, A2, A3platform VWs, 4AGE Toyotas, 84-95 civics and siblings, A-motor prelude and accord, protégé, Audi coupes, 2002 BMW and Volvos we have a pretty good read on the cars. it's the 200SX, Simca injected 2.0L twin cam Alfas, TR7, 914, opel GT, 20 years of mustang on one specline, T-motor corollas, and MANY others that we are trying to identify figures for.

we need to get the house in order and everyone on the same page as far as the process and base numbers, THEN we can debate the best way to "fix" the "problems" which I put in quotes because there's far from universally agreed upon definitions for either.

Here's where you guys keep getting off the rails on dyno numbers. Without comparable stock motor data on the same dyno, you can't sit there and say that 116 is 30% and 112 is 25%.

I ran my car initially with a stock motor, and ran that on the same dyno that I did my development on, so I had actual gain data. If I only had numbers of the final result, they would just be numbers with no legitimate reference to the stock capability of the motor. In my case I was pretty consistently seeing 25-26%, and have a single outlier sheet that showed 27%, that could not even be duplicated that day with a lot of effort.

The point is, dynos are not very good a absolute, objective measurements, but they are really good at relative measurements. Be careful about acting on numbers from only one side of the development curve.

...

IMO there is a middle ground between the "spreadsheet or nothing" brigade and the "that doesn't seem right" crowd. I don't believe you can run a class on a spreadsheet with the quantity and quality of data that we have available, and at the point that those are not effective, we do need to rely on experience, observations and background knowledge of the cars in question. I thought this was the whole reason that we had advisory committees in the first place.

[pfcs]

My experience and dyno data closely agree with Chris's.

[Chip42]

Chris is right, perceptions DON'T mimic reality a lot. I personally have no issue with our CRB liason. we don't always agree, but I've never seen him do anything that I thought to be self serving in any way. I see that from some others, though. and yeah, I lobbied for the 4AGE toyotas (MR2) and I drive and am involved with a number of the cars. but where the car sits now is further off from actual power than the A2 VWs and I'm THRILLED about it, because it was acknowledged and accepted that the car wasn't the rocket ship FA with fenders everyone was scared of and threw the car a bone. at least now it can run about mid pack and keep tires and hubs under it. the accomplishment was in shaking off the perception by acquisition of actual data on actual cars, not in getting my pet car to the front of the field. I'll let you know when an MR2 beats an A3 Golf or Accord.

and yeah, if you want to actively manage a class, then you don't rely on estimated gains and "knowledge" based on dyno info. everyone is aware of the significant (especially in low-output classes) noise present in doing so, from unit to unit, brand to brand, compensation method, weather, etc... we get that but the Process which we have all signed on to and which won so much praise from so many people relies upon just those inputs to correct itself. this is why we can't make rulings with singular data points, and why we get hamstrung when a car is "right" to what we know but kicking everyone's ass (or floundering miserably - pick one) on track.

no one is off the rails. it's just the way THIS system works. we can change that, but I'd rather have a bunch of "unreliable", but agreeing dyno plots to point to than "wellllll, so and so is an expert and says the car does this" or "that car has 2 cams, everyone knows that make sit a race engine!" when we work dyno numbers we use a FIXED loss value - 15% in the case of transverse drivetrains, so it doesn't matter what the ACTUAL crank hp is, the input of "known" wheel numbers tells us a CHP estimate and that is used throughout the category. if the "estimated" CHP is equivalent to 30% above stock published numbers, then the resulting weight is as correct as a car that is classed with a similarly verified 25% gain. The actual gain is immaterial, what's important is that the cars are all measured with the same yardstick, and in so far as we are able, they are. we step in 5% increments because we simply don't have the resolution to do better. 5% is 85 lbs/100hp in ITB, so yeah, it sucks when you don't get the "bigger half" of that step.

if you want to debate how well the process works, I'm all ears. seriously, ask anyone - I am. but don't get bent out of shape because we actively refer to the single feedback loop built into the system in order to maintain its objectivity and impartiality, and to isolate the feedback from driver talent and prep disparities. that was the whole point of the thing, IIRC.

[lateapex911]

Jake - I know you have an axe to grind, but you are wrong about Chris, and have pretty consistently been an ass about it with veiled (or not) accusations over the last few years. He and I don't see eye to eye on plenty of things, but what he is trying to protect is the category, not his car. Someone could say the same thing about Chip joining the ITAC with an agenda to help cars he owns/races, or works on, but it would not be fair to the time and effort, and honest intent to make the whole class better that he has put into it.

.

Chris Albin??? I wasn't thinking about Chris when i wrote that. No, Chris didn't suggest any 'deals' to protect his car or class.
Chris' position on the Audi issue left something to be desired, but I'd write that off as a difference of opinion.
He isn't who I was referring to. I used the term 'guys' generically, when I should have been more literal in my choice of words.

[shwah]

Chris Albin??? I wasn't thinking about Chris when i wrote that. No, Chris didn't suggest any 'deals' to protect his car or class.
Chris' position on the Audi issue left something to be desired, but I'd write that off as a difference of opinion.
He isn't who I was referring to. I used the term 'guys' generically, when I should have been more literal in my choice of words.

Then I am very sorry for jumping to conclusions. You have always been just vague enough about the situation to make that possible though. That doesn't make it right for me to call you out publicly on it.

I'm editing my post.

[quadzjr]

It is a good time to run a Toyota or Honda in ITB though. It might create a beneficial influx of new cars/drivers into the class.

It is a good time to run a MK3 VW, Honda Accord, or Protege in ITB. I can assure you. I have spent more money than I care to admit on my toyota.. I still come no where near the process power. On top of that.. I make 30% less torque than an A2. I joke aroudn with A2 drivers down here.. I am down a few hp which coudl be dyno noise but they make 30% more torque than me. They laugh at how bad it is for me. So the VW .. same hp, alot more torque, and weighs 50 lbs lighter..

My personal opinion is that the MK2 should be the bogey car. That is a great car and is driven by alot of ITB drivers. The MK3 has more power, more torque, better brakes, and a better transmission than a MK2.. however only the hp number is took into consideration per the class.

Long story short.. if you get beat by a Toyota in a straight line.. either your engine is about to blow up (Happened to Jetta I was chasing at sebring), You were driving in the grass (Happened at Roebling), or the Toyota is illegal. There is one Toyota that I think is/was illegal. I told his friend that if I see him expect to be inspected.