ITB - what a bunch of crap

[Andy Bettencourt]

Don't forget the +50 for A-Arms and possibly a hit for front "mid-engine"ness...

Hell, look at the 94-97 Miata in A.

128*1.35*14.5=2505+50 (A-Arms)=2555 in ITA

What's current spec weight for it? How about 2380.

If you want to use singular dyno sheets, then all hell breaks loose. How about 2690 for the SE-R/NX2000?

Defining "When you KNOW something" is a hard thing to do as well. We can agree that the CRX power output is well known. How much information - and from how many sources do we need before it's 'fact'?

Sooooo many grey areas in this process guys...yet it is better than anything in any class right now. We can tighten it up, document what we did and run most of the cars through....but it still will generate issues no matter what.

[Xian]

If you want to use singular dyno sheets, then all hell breaks loose. How about 2690 for the SE-R/NX2000?

Defining "When you KNOW something" is a hard thing to do as well. We can agree that the CRX power output is well known. How much information - and from how many sources do we need before it's 'fact'?

Sooooo many grey areas in this process guys...yet it is better than anything in any class right now. We can tighten it up, document what we did and run most of the cars through....but it still will generate issues no matter what.

Very true. I guess it's a little bit different for me since I'm coming from the standpoint of a car/chassis that was adjusted based on "When you KNOW something".

Are Miatae only making 25% gains or is it more like 30-35%? I know what I KNOW.

[gran racing]

Dave - what front suspension does your car have????? And what is the BEST whp you are telling us the 110hp 2.0L in your car can make? Whay do your dyno sheets show?

Now sure why you feel compled to play games, but since you'll get your jollies from it the suspension on my car is a double wishbone and the rear uses transverse arms with conventional MacPherson struts.


Our goal after a full build (engine, tuning, tranny, yadda, yadda) for this car was 110 at the wheels. We got 112. Then again, according to you "if you want to use singular dyno sheets, then all hell breaks loose" so I'm not sure why you are asking. Oh, was that you way of replying on my previous question where I was curious how the gain % is determined?


Ready for the next riddle Andy.

[dazzlesa]

when my intgra went up to 2595 from 2480 and i have to race a 2380 lb car that should be 2555lbs at lime rock, good luck. it makes me crazy. i love the racing but this is nuts.

[lateapex911]

when my intgra went up to 2595 from 2480 and i have to race a 2380 lb car that should be 2555lbs at lime rock, good luck. it makes me crazy. i love the racing but this is nuts.

But Rick, first, defend that position...show me the numbers. And don't just choose one car to compare it to, do it for a cross section.

Second, Lime Rock is totally irrelevant. We can't set weights based on one track.

Guys, the cream will rise, Period. And that cream might be different at different tracks. We all can't have our cake and eat it too. In other words, if we expect to win, sometimes we have to have the right car, the right prep and the right driver at the right track. We can't always be holding back money, or deciding we want to race a certain brand, or whatever.

If, for example, I want to win at Lime Rock, and I want to stick with my Mazda roots, I might have to get over my "I want to race on a budget" issue, and get over my "Miatas are gay" viewpoint.

(AND, I'll have to learn to be a better engineer, a better team manager, a better funding source, and, yes, a better driver)

[Andy Bettencourt]

when my intgra went up to 2595 from 2480 and i have to race a 2380 lb car that should be 2555lbs at lime rock, good luck. it makes me crazy. i love the racing but this is nuts.

And this is why half the ITAC stays off IT.com. We now have an ITA driver who is taking a weight pulled out of thin air from someone else and using it as fact and justification why he can't keep up at a singular track. Whooo-hooo! WinnAr!

I hope we will implement what Jake wants to do above. It's what a few of us want to do...with the exception of turning the adders into a % as an addition. Anyone want ON the ITAC? Might be a few openings this January!!!!

[Catch22]

Anyone want ON the ITAC? Might be a few openings this January!!!!

I do.
But first I need to have some discussions with some current members (you, Kirk? Jake?) about my work hours and if we think they could be an issue.

I don't want to get on the committee and then either be an absent member or have to immediately resign because I'm always at work during the con calls and critical discussions.

[Greg Amy]

I do.

+1.

But you guys are probably smarter than that... :cool:

[Andy Bettencourt]

+1.

But you guys are probably smarter than that... :cool:

Unless the membership thinks we need to diversify geographiaclly, I say yes!!!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Now sure why you feel compled to play games, but since you'll get your jollies from it the suspension on my car is a double wishbone and the rear uses transverse arms with conventional MacPherson struts.


Our goal after a full build (engine, tuning, tranny, yadda, yadda) for this car was 110 at the wheels. We got 112. Then again, according to you "if you want to use singular dyno sheets, then all hell breaks loose" so I'm not sure why you are asking. Oh, was that you way of replying on my previous question where I was curious how the gain % is determined?


Ready for the next riddle Andy.

Dave, you asked for justification on why your car was 100lbs more than a MKIII Golf. I am helping you understand what went through the process. Why is that playing games? You sit there and write letters asking for a correction on the MKIII, yet you don't seem to want to hear the information or do a real comparision. I am just acting as the messenger for you.

The Honduh guys on the call predicted 30% gains on your motor. Take that number and add in 50lbs for double wishbone and you have 2431lbs. Not sure where the 19-20lbs came from, but it would be something that I would like to 'correct' if we were allowed to go to town on the ITCS and scrub each car down to +/-5.

Still waiting for someone to step up and run their numbers on the ITB cars listed - or at least recommend what THEY would do with them. It may seem easy to some but when you actually look at whats in front of you, it gets cloudy REAL fast. The potential for a singular car to run roughshot over a class is HUGE.

[Catch22]

Still waiting for someone to step up and run their numbers on the ITB cars listed - or at least recommend what THEY would do with them. It may seem easy to some but when you actually look at whats in front of you, it gets cloudy REAL fast. The potential for a singular car to run roughshot over a class is HUGE.

I may do it later, but right now frankly I'm tired of doing what seems to be a windmill chasing exercise.

But I will say this one more time... If the math doesn't work or gives you a wonky number that you KNOW isn't right on an older car, then THAT is knowlege... It is now a tool to be used.
Do more research, figure out "why," and document why you got the result you got. Maybe it is a smogged up crapmobile that will get 45% in IT prep. Thats the whole "hard part" in gaining knowlege.

But arbitrarily applying HUGE modifiers to Honda B because Honda A made those numbers IS NOT knowlege. Thats lazyness or bias or both.

And again, don't worry about the 1974 Wonky Coupe 4000 unless someone makes the request.

[dazzlesa]

jake

sorry for still bitchin. but if the process is not consistant than there is plenty of room for bitchin. my car is not ruined. i use my cars as examples. the procees should be used across the board for the good or bad of all cars.
i do love your position.
rick

[Catch22]

Andy, posting for Blake, who says your earlier Porsche 914 numbers are wrong.

He says that the 1.7L 914 is in ITC at 2080 and the 2.0L is in B at 2260. I haven't double checked that.

As far as what we "know"...
If we KNOW a 1.6 liter, MPFI, 16v Honda motor can do 35%, then its reasonable to apply the same thing to a 1.6 liter, MPFI, 16v Mazda motor. Right?

BUT, if you have a knowlegeable Mazda person in the loop that says "Nope, the Miata does 25% because of xxxx factor" then you call that knowlege as well, and maybe split the difference and do it at 30%.

The info has to come from somewhere. Use all the tools you have and go for it.
Again... Perfection is not the goal. Reasonable is the goal, and I see that as VERY attainable.

[Xian]

1.6 liter Miata in ITA
116*1.3*14.5=2186.6+50 A-Arms=2236.6

1.8 liter Miata in ITA
128*1.3*14.5= 2412.5+ 50 A-Arms= 2462.5


1.6 liter Miata in ITB
116*1.3*17= 2563.6+50 A-Arms =2613.6

1.8 liter Miata in ITB
128*1.3*17= 2828.8 + 50 A-Arms = 2878.80

Spec weight for the 1.6 in ITA is 2255 and the 1.8 is 2380

Looks like a case of the 1.6 car being close but the 1.8 car needing weight... this is ASSuming that these cars are only making 30% gains and not closer to 35%. This is also with Zero adjustment for their 50/50 mid-engine like weight bias.

Wheeee!!! This is fun!

[Ron Earp]

This is also with Zero adjustment for their 50/50 mid-engine like weight bias.

Wheeee!!! This is fun!

Sure sounds like fun. Let me try:

1999 1.8L Miata in ITS, 140 stock hp. You guys like the 35% gain for the Miata, I do too so:

140 x 1.35 x 12.9 = 2438 lbs. Now, what about those adders: +50 for the front suspension and...

The 1999 1.8L Miata should weigh in at 2488 lbs, or 2490lbs. That is 115lbs more than the spec weight now, 2375. Seems like the 1999 ITS Miata will need some adjusting. I was worried about the ITS Miatas in 2009, little did I know I just had to calculate them out of the running.

[Z3_GoCar]

......
1.8 liter Miata in ITA
128*1.3*14.5= 2412.5+ 50 A-Arms= 2462.5
......
Spec weight for the 1.6 in ITA is 2255 and the 1.8 is 2380

Looks like a case of the 1.6 car being close but the 1.8 car needing weight... this is ASSuming that these cars are only making 30% gains and not closer to 35%. This is also with Zero adjustment for their 50/50 mid-engine like weight bias.

Wheeee!!! This is fun!

Uh, you're using the wrong inital hp on this one, it should be 133hp. I know that the gain was from an upgaded ecu. Two things, you could update to the new ecu, secondly, there's still got to be more to be had even in the stock ecu. The results are:

133*1.3*14.5 = 2506 50lbs for A-arm = 2556 => 2555lbs

[Xian]

Uh, you're using the wrong inital hp on this one, it should be 133hp. I know that the gain was from an upgaded ecu. Two things, you could update to the new ecu, secondly, there's still got to be more to be had even in the stock ecu. The results are:

133*1.3*14.5 = 2506 50lbs for A-arm = 2556 => 2555lbs

Whooops! My bad, 128 was the figure I found via a quick search. I thought I had seen higher HP figures but couldn't remember for sure. Thanks!

As you pointed out, this makes it worse all the way around... if it "only" makes a 25% gain then it should still weigh in around 2460 but is spec'd at 2380. So it's between 80-175#'s light at a minimum. And even more if the engine makes over 30%...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Whooops! My bad, 128 was the figure I found via a quick search. I thought I had seen higher HP figures but couldn't remember for sure. Thanks!

As you pointed out, this makes it worse all the way around... if it "only" makes a 25% gain then it should still weigh in around 2460 but is spec'd at 2380. So it's between 80-175#'s light at a minimum. And even more if the engine makes over 30%...

Been hashed to death in other threads. Won't bother to try and explain again the timing and logic. It's a Miata hater issue anyway. It would apply to any car that came accross in the same manner and timeframe and same facts. The process for the 94-95 ITA Miata was as such:

128 * 1.25 = 160 * 14.5 = 2320 + 50 for DW = 2370. Tried to give it 50lbs in total BS 'it's a Miata' weight but the cage rules maxed it out at 10lbs at the time, hence the 2380. Should really be 2370.

Its the way new cars are classed when hp numbers are not known. Same way for the SE-R. 140 * 1.25 = 175 * 14.5 = 2537.5 - 50 for FWD = 2487.5 rounded to 2490.

[dazzlesa]

my coments were not meant to ask for a weight break on the integra. looking at the formulas and seeing how the civc, golf a3 and the 1.8 miata worked out concerns me.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, posting for Blake, who says your earlier Porsche 914 numbers are wrong.

He says that the 1.7L 914 is in ITC at 2080 and the 2.0L is in B at 2260. I haven't double checked that.

Cool. I was going from the old spreadsheet RacerJake had done that has all the cars in the ITCS in it.

As far as what we "know"...
If we KNOW a 1.6 liter, MPFI, 16v Honda motor can do 35%, then its reasonable to apply the same thing to a 1.6 liter, MPFI, 16v Mazda motor. Right?

Nope. If you know anything about Mazda engines, you know that the ports are tiny compared to their Hondah counterparts. That is one of the reasons you don't see very much gain with a header. Just because things look alike on paper doesn't mean they are alike. Again, another reason that each car needs to be looked at individually. Sometimes we spend huge amounts of time on calls debating the adders.

The info has to come from somewhere. Use all the tools you have and go for it.
Again... Perfection is not the goal. Reasonable is the goal, and I see that as VERY attainable.

Agreed...and as I have done before, I may call you for a sanity check.