Need help understanding VW classifications

Bill is correct that the ITR classifications were pretty easy. Easy in that most of the cars look the 'same'. I don't think anything got adders for 'big brakes' or anything out of the ordinary because this level of stuff was pretty good to begin with. Not much subjective equalization had to be done.

Other than S2000 power potential and Type R torque, it was all pretty standard. Plus there just seemed to be a broader knowledge base about the newer cars than having to rely on one 'expert' on the gazillion iterations of X, Y and Z from the 70's and 80's.
 
shwah said:
Were the ones that were less than 100# off in the raw formula given any additional consideration? If no, I think they should be. It is not a small task, but the right thing to do would be to set up a plan to review to confirm or correct a certain number of cars per quarter, until they are all up to date. Of course keeping records of the process so that it does not have to be started from scratch when a future letter is written.

Andy Bettencourt said:
You can assume most every car anyone would seriously consider racing had a serious look.
Click to expand...

It sounds like this is the case IF it fell 100# outside the straight formula. If not - it may in fact be over 100# off process, but was never fully reviewed.
Click to expand...

Does someone know this?
 
shwah said:
Does someone know this?
Click to expand...

Not fully reviewed is differnent that getting consideration. Fact is that 90% of 'adders' are actually weight off for FWD. In order to get weight added, the car has to exibit something that is anomalous when comapared to the class it is in. Those cars stick out when looking over the ITCS. So thinks like double wishbones, 'big' brakes, superior tranny ratios (like a 1:1 5th gear), etc.

What I am saying is that it is very unlikley that a car slipped through that wasn't 100lbs over - then would become 100+lbs over when the adders were applied. What actually happened in many cases was something was 100lbs heavy in the formula portion and then was around 50 when you took into account FWD.

I am willing to bet that 95% of the cars are within 75lbs of their target weight (assuming some of the cars like the Monza havn't been adjusted and some are between 75 and 99lbs).
 
I'm guessing it is a typo that a car 100# over on the formula becomes 50# over when fwd subtraction is incorporated, because that would result in the car sitting 150# over spec weight (assuming 50# is the fwd subtractor).
 
shwah said:
I'm guessing it is a typo that a car 100# over on the formula becomes 50# over when fwd subtraction is incorporated, because that would result in the car sitting 150# over spec weight (assuming 50# is the fwd subtractor).
Click to expand...

Yes. In my example, the car was 'light' and was a candidate for additional weight at base formula but then fell into range with the 50lb allowance for FWD (100lbs in ITR and ITS).

You could run it backward where a RWD wishbone car has to add a net 50lbs for suspension.
 
That was the one issue that really gnawed at us, the V8s. It was a tough call for all, but I think leaving them out to begin with was the right decision. Bill is right though, for whatever reason, we really didn't have much bickering about what cars should be in ITR, and what they should weigh. The class pretty much fell together "naturally."

Knestis said:
LOL - Maybe we should enlist you, Bill to resolve the question of the V8 Camaros and Mustangs in ITR, then. No gnashing!

Using the current process would be a snap if one could convene a subcommittee of five guys, all with the same mindset, priorities, assumptions, and beliefs. The problem is that everyone would be PO'd about any given decision, except for people who benefit from it. An SCCA Ad Hoc committee is made up of a broader slice of the membership and we strive for consensus. Scott Giles will tell you that the best thing about SCCA - and maybe the worst thing - is that rules changes are hard...

K
Click to expand...
 
Exactly. Modern cars are MUCH easier to balance. They all have vented discs. They all have EFI. They all have decent gear boxes. They all have, with a few exceptions, decent torque and HP. No real outliers, other than the V8s (low hp and big torque) and the high revving 4s (S2000, Type R and Celica GT-S).

It's not a plain vanilla class at all, but it was much easier than trying to balance within 100 lbs cars spread over a 30 year time period with disc brakes, drum brakes, live rears, double wishbones, EFI, crap old EFI, mechanical injection, carbs, etc. etc. etc. Asking the ITAC to do that to the entire ITCS is just not possible.

RIght now, I see no glaring errors in ITS anyway, and the instances in other classes that have been raised here boil down to 50 or 100 lbs. In my mind, that's noise -- noise the driver can overcome, or fail to overcome.

Andy Bettencourt said:
Bill is correct that the ITR classifications were pretty easy. Easy in that most of the cars look the 'same'. I don't think anything got adders for 'big brakes' or anything out of the ordinary because this level of stuff was pretty good to begin with. Not much subjective equalization had to be done.

Other than S2000 power potential and Type R torque, it was all pretty standard. Plus there just seemed to be a broader knowledge base about the newer cars than having to rely on one 'expert' on the gazillion iterations of X, Y and Z from the 70's and 80's.
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
Exactly. Modern cars are MUCH easier to balance. They all have vented discs. They all have EFI. They all have decent gear boxes. They all have, with a few exceptions, decent torque and HP. No real outliers, other than the V8s (low hp and big torque) and the high revving 4s (S2000, Type R and Celica GT-S).
Click to expand...

ITR wasn't easy to put together because of what was IN the class, it was easy because of what was left out.

The 'Merucun V8s, and the RX-8 rotary.

EACH of those is a unique case. (The V8s are torquers, but strangled, and the IT increase needed debating, plus they have relatively small brakes compared to the rest of the field. (In the bottom 10%), wonky suspensions, and not wonderful weight distribution. And they're among the heaviest.

The RX-8 is the polar opposite...no torque, lots of high revs, good brakes, suspension and weight balance, and it's middle of the road weightwise.

And each discussion gets into core philosophy, which cubes the complications.
 
dickita15 said:
Plus there was no constituency of current car owners to complain about the choices.
Click to expand...


A really excellent point. It's also possible that people who tend to consider preconceptions or "real world data" didn't have any experience with the makes/models listed. Or none of the ITR subcommittee members tends to think that direction. It's way easier to use theoretical values if that's the case...

K
 
You're right Kirk, that is a good point. IIRC, the only ITS cars that 'went up', were the E36 and the Prelude (possibly a Supra). So we really had no history to muddy the waters.

All in all, that was a fun exercise, and a good group to be a part of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top