May 2011 Fastrack

[tom91ita]

Preliminary:

http://cms.scca.com/documents/2011%2...rack%20_2_.pdf

Hallelujah!
now i have to race next year! maybe even the ARRC this year.....

[Russ Myers]

SSC is dead. Long live SSC.

Russ

[shwah]

Hallelujah!
now i have to race next year! maybe even the ARRC this year.....

You should. You now have one of the cars to have. Now go

[tom91ita]

You should. You now have one of the cars to have. Now go

if the process is working, we should all have one of the cars to have...but this does make me more optimistic. thanks!

with regards to making the weight, the car was originally in "A" as 1800 # + 180 # driver then later 1980 driver included.

the car may be able even if the driver is not....

but i have added things over the years and was not really thinking weight (dash bar, right side door bars, etc.)

Tom

FS: two ~ 50 # blocks of steel
but don't call because i will be out walking 4 miles per night to lose weight.

[JeffYoung]

Exactly. This point seems to get lost quite often. The process is power/weight, so it should roughly equalize all cars.

This car was tagged with a ridiculously high (in my view) power adder.

But there shouldn't be any fears of domination, yet anyway. The car should simply now be at a power/weight ratio that is within a reasonable range of competitiveness for the class.

if the process is working, we should all have one of the cars to have...but this does make me more optimistic. thanks!

.

[erlrich]

if the process is working, we should all have one of the cars to have...

Tom - this is a common misconception, and unfortunately isn't even close to reality. If you go back through some of the numerous discussion about the process you'll find that the last thing it is concerned with is making all the cars equal. The process is all about having a consistent, repeatable, and documented procedure for classifying cars. The process could care less about the outcomes. So yeah, there will still be the "cars to have" in IT, but at least we'll know that they were classed fairly...

[tnord]

Tom - this is a common misconception, and unfortunately isn't even close to reality. If you go back through some of the numerous discussion about the process you'll find that the last thing it is concerned with is making all the cars equal. The process is all about having a consistent, repeatable, and documented procedure for classifying cars. The process could care less about the outcomes. So yeah, there will still be the "cars to have" in IT, but at least we'll know that they were classed fairly...

i have yet to see anything processed that hasn't come out the other side with a fighting chance.

[erlrich]

i have yet to see anything processed that hasn't come out the other side with a fighting chance.

When I see a Neon, GTI, and RX7 running for the ITA win in Atlanta I'll agree with you...

[Russ Myers]

Or a Pinto that isn't 6 seconds off of the pace.

Russ

[tnord]

When I see a Neon, GTI, and RX7 running for the ITA win in Atlanta I'll agree with you...

give me a break earl. you know the history on the RX7 as well if not better than I do, and that's not a valid example in the least.

the neon seems to do just fine as far as i can tell. Childs was gridded right next to me at the ARRC last year in his neon....i haven't seen anything showing it can't be competitive. on track or on paper.

the VW? i don't know anything about it, i hate those damn things.

[JeffYoung]

When have we seen an uber-developed version of one along the lines of the Stretch 240, the Serra/Muresan/Hoppe Integras or the Moser CRXs?

I do think the process gets things "roughly" close. That is certianly one of the goals. Come up with a rough power to weight formula and apply it consistently and as objectively as possible.

I would also point out that Ricky Thompson's maxxed out ITA RX7 gave Mark Carpenter a run for his money that one year Ricky went all out in ITA.

When I see a Neon, GTI, and RX7 running for the ITA win in Atlanta I'll agree with you...

[JeffYoung]

Ditto.

i have yet to see anything processed that hasn't come out the other side with a fighting chance.

[shwah]

if the process is working, we should all have one of the cars to have...but this does make me more optimistic. thanks!

with regards to making the weight, the car was originally in "A" as 1800 # + 180 # driver then later 1980 driver included.

the car may be able even if the driver is not....

but i have added things over the years and was not really thinking weight (dash bar, right side door bars, etc.)

Tom

FS: two ~ 50 # blocks of steel
but don't call because i will be out walking 4 miles per night to lose weight.

Sorry if it came off differently, but it was meant as a positive comment. We still need to resolve the front runners that hold a significant lb/hp advantage, but I feel better about that today than I did a year ago.

I have come to realize that ITB, and if it were more widely subscribed, and saw more cars added/built raced ITC will always be very difficult for the ITAC to deal with. At the end of the day, the more lbs/hp targeted in the process, the more sensitive it is to the assumed hp going in. So we see big swings any time power gain assumptions are adjusted. That means small errors will have larger effects and it will always be tougher to "get it right". It's good to see so much effort put towards getting there though .

[JeffYoung]

Thanks for the props, and also thanks for recognizing that last point.

1 hp "error" on our (the ITAC) side in either getting the stock hp right or the gain right means 17 lbs in ITB and what, 22 or something in ITC? So a 10 hp "error" in ITC is TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY POUNDS -- on a car that weighs probably 2000 to 2200 lbs.

On an ITR car? 11 lbs per hp on cars that generally weigh closer to 3000 lbs. So if we make a 10 hp error there, it's 110 lbs on a 3000 lb car.

B and C are hard for us because the downside for not getting it right is much higher.

But we do try, I promise you that.

Sorry if it came off differently, but it was meant as a positive comment. We still need to resolve the front runners that hold a significant lb/hp advantage, but I feel better about that today than I did a year ago.

I have come to realize that ITB, and if it were more widely subscribed, and saw more cars added/built raced ITC will always be very difficult for the ITAC to deal with. At the end of the day, the more lbs/hp targeted in the process, the more sensitive it is to the assumed hp going in. So we see big swings any time power gain assumptions are adjusted. That means small errors will have larger effects and it will always be tougher to "get it right". It's good to see so much effort put towards getting there though .

[Racerlinn]

Not your grandma's T3 Buick racecar....

[iambhooper]

Hallelujah!
now i have to race next year! maybe even the ARRC this year.....

2. #4583 (Josh Sirota) Adjust weight of first-generation Honda CRX Si

In 9.1.3, ITB, Honda CRX Si (84-87) change weight from 2130 to 1970, based on a 30% horsepower multiplier.

DAYAM! That car will truely kick @$$ at that weight... if you can make it!

hoop

[Harvey]

What about the Civic??

[Bill Miller]

2. #4583 (Josh Sirota) Adjust weight of first-generation Honda CRX Si

In 9.1.3, ITB, Honda CRX Si (84-87) change weight from 2130 to 1970, based on a 30% horsepower multiplier.

DAYAM! That car will truely kick @$$ at that weight... if you can make it!

hoop

And a Rabbit GTI, which starts our w/ less power, and has 4 less valves, is 110# heavier.

[Russ Myers]

My Pinto is 400lbs. heavier. I'll just use the extra heft to knock them outa the way (when they come around to lap me).

Russ

[Flyinglizard]

The Honda has been faster than the ITB class leaders, since the begining. So dropping weight and dropping the car to B makes perfect sense.
Who comes up with this crap? Who is on the CRB for IT?