June Fastrack Out

I agree with most if not all of this.

To answer your question, I think the effect on lap times of the extra 100 lbs will be...rightly or wrongly....infinite.

I think that because of that 100lbs it is possible none will be built.

Knestis said:
There is a HUGE difference between changing the engine multiplication "IT power" factor based on research and applying subjective decisions about what something should weigh. We CAN do the former. We can almost do the latter with the PCA process, but it scares the crap out of me. True subjectivity applied at the unit of each model considered is totally not OK.

(PS here to anyone who opposed the IT-to-National-status initiative - you can have your worst nightmares come true, even leaving IT Regional-only, but going down this road.)

We might also change the math behind the process to more satisfactorily consider torque, since it sounds like that's a factor here. I'd like to better understand the ramifications and considerations of that, particularly since (the way my limited understanding goes) "HP" figures from most dynos are derived from direct measurements of, uh, torque...?

And I STILL argue that we don't "KNOW" what we think we know.

...and I'd be interested to know, since at least a few of us think the recommendation to the board was 100# fat, what you think that translates into in terms of lap time. Strictly as a mental exercise mind you, but I'm like that. :)

...and no, Jeff. Every car should have a shot at being in the game. Some will be closer than others but I don't believe that any ITAC members is kicking dirt on any make/model of eligible car with the "no guarantee" silliness.

Finally - and this is **REALLY** just Kirk talking...

...the tone of some of the posts here suggests that the writers believe that the ITAC's "got it in for Brand X." Please, SET IT FREE. We've got plenty on our plate trying to worry about the health of the category as a whole, without having to sit around figuring out ways to dink you. Yes - the committee is made up of individuals with differing biases, priorities, and perceptions. Yes - those perceptions influence individual decisions. But those biases are lost in the noise of translation to recommendations to the board through a process that's pretty close to consensus building.

K
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
If we had this debate BEFORE the number showed up as the ITAC's classification recommendation and AFTER IT folks had an opportunity to comment on it prior to submission to the CRB, it would be much easier to swallow.
Click to expand...

It's still not a done deal. Wasn't this just in the recomendations? The BoD has to approve it. One would hope that, if several people make a strong case that there was a factual error in the base HP or the possible gains from IT trim, the BoD will send it back to the CRB to review it.
 
dj10 said:
That's wild considering you are making HP up to 8500 rpm. I am wondering if torque is such a big deal how the Mazda's are beating Pontiac & Porsche, which both have tons more torque?:shrug:
Click to expand...
Wrong car Dan. We have a 3 rotor periferal port in hte RX8GT. We are talking about the Koni Challenge cars.
 
Jeff has pretty much summed up the opinion of most from the outside looking in on the RX8 classing. You ignored all data because some were sure they were so much more informed than others. You used your secret source and ignored all the data that is available from Formula Mazda on the motor. To you directly Josh--are you so sure that we are idiots at Speedsource after winning championships in the RX8 and building them for 4 years that you think we left something on the table? Get with the program guy. The GA RX8 is built to EXACT IT specs in the driveline dept--Period. 4 years of data to go on. Make a frikkin phone call to any team and get a clue before you spout off about the one data point . Pro formula Mazda runs them with M600 Motec, header, and ram air intake. Do some research or step away from the decisions if all you use is your ONE source that is posted as god. Talk about uninformed experts.

Good thing is Kirk is parked by me at CMP so dont be surprised to find him strung up with a RX8 rotor hanging from his neck.:rolleyes: Yea, I am kidding but I will wear him out on this one. Enjoy the holliday weekend and we can resume our bitching later.
 
Knestis said:
There is a HUGE difference between changing the engine multiplication "IT power" factor based on research and applying subjective decisions about what something should weigh. We CAN do the former. We can almost do the latter with the PCA process, but it scares the crap out of me. True subjectivity applied at the unit of each model considered is totally not OK.

(PS here to anyone who opposed the IT-to-National-status initiative - you can have your worst nightmares come true, even leaving IT Regional-only, but going down this road.)

We might also change the math behind the process to more satisfactorily consider torque, since it sounds like that's a factor here. I'd like to better understand the ramifications and considerations of that, particularly since (the way my limited understanding goes) "HP" figures from most dynos are derived from direct measurements of, uh, torque...?

And I STILL argue that we don't "KNOW" what we think we know.

...and I'd be interested to know, since at least a few of us think the recommendation to the board was 100# fat, what you think that translates into in terms of lap time. Strictly as a mental exercise mind you, but I'm like that. :)

...and no, Jeff. Every car should have a shot at being in the game. Some will be closer than others but I don't believe that any ITAC members is kicking dirt on any make/model of eligible car with the "no guarantee" silliness.

Finally - and this is **REALLY** just Kirk talking...

...the tone of some of the posts here suggests that the writers believe that the ITAC's "got it in for Brand X." Please, SET IT FREE. We've got plenty on our plate trying to worry about the health of the category as a whole, without having to sit around figuring out ways to dink you. Yes - the committee is made up of individuals with differing biases, priorities, and perceptions. Yes - those perceptions influence individual decisions. But those biases are lost in the noise of translation to recommendations to the board through a process that's pretty close to consensus building.

K
Click to expand...
Kirk since you and all the ITAC conveniently ignore my posts on HP to weight comparison because none on the ITAC have a prayer of explaining the total inequity based on real power numbers, I will answer yours. It is not 100 pounds. It is 215 more than a car that makes more HP and torque--get it yet. Yes 100 pounds is huge on tires, brakes, and a car with no torque has to maintain more corner speed to compete. Hard to do with almost 3000 pounds. The cars with torque just slow in the corner and drive away on exit. Starting to understand my earlier post where I said some think it is cute to screw the car based on BS stock numbers. Too much turf protection going on here and it sailed by the CRB while they were busy with runoffs crap.

For the dyno question: all sheets were with a 5.12 so it was real available torque. Please, prove me wrong--anybody.
 
Last edited:
seckerich said:
For the dyno question: all sheets were with a 5.12 so it was real available torque. Please, prove me wrong--anybody.
Click to expand...

The gearing is irrelevant on the dyno (except that it needs to be in the right load range). It's just a number you type in so the computer knows what to use in its math.

On second thought - you don't even have to enter the ratio since it already has RPM and speed.

Run it in 4th, 5th, and 6th gears, the results will be virtually identical if the dyno can handle the torque/speed combination.
 
Last edited:
seckerich said:
We are talking about the Koni Challenge cars.
Click to expand...

Steve, I've looked at the rules in the Grand Am ST Series and you are allowed to run the RX-8 @ 2650# while the BMW's 3.0L are running @ 2875#, Acura RSX & TSX are 2500 & 2600# & the VW GTI is @ 2750#. I've also looked at the results and by know means should on track performance be taken I account.;). If anyone thinks that any Pro series doesn't take in account on track performance, they answer a question, how do they come up with adjustments for the different cars? What I'm saying here, that by the data I've seen I do believe the RX-8 is classed to heavy but can I say for sure is 2890# to light? :shrug:Lets look at the Grand Am weights for a second. BMW 3.0L, 225 hp 2875# that's 225# difference between the BMW & RX-8. Now look at IT's weights, BMW 3.0 is 3290# and the RX-8 is @ 2940, if I'm correct, this is 350# difference. From the Grand Am RX-8 weight to the IT weight is an additional 290#'s, 2650 to 2940#. Looking at all of this I tend to believe the BMW is also classified to heavy in IT but that's another matter. What is a compromise weight fair enought for someone to build a RX-8? I've asked this before, does anyone know what weight the ITU RX-8's had or were running last year @ ARRC? In T3 the RX-8 is 2980#'s and from what I see, will be allowed to use a 18" X 8" wheel in IT. If it were me. I'd split the difference between the 2940# & 2850# and let them run @ 2895#, watch their performance and adjust accordlingly.:birra:
 
mbuskuhl said:
The ITU RX-8 that won, Team MER Shannon McMasters was a fully developed T3 car with springs. T3 weight is 2980...
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark. Now if you lop off 85#'s and are allowed an IT suspension setup with more camber, bushings...etc. allowed in touring, can the RX-8 now compete? I bet it could.:cool:
 
GKR_17 said:
And the same S2000 that runs ITR is 2930 in T3.
Click to expand...
And in ITR your 3005. Hmmmm Maybe they have accounted for the suspension changes from touring 3 to IT. Does seem a little heavy. Hopefully the ITAC & CRB know more than me.:D
 
dj10 said:
And in ITR your 3005. Hmmmm Maybe they have accounted for the suspension changes from touring 3 to IT. Does seem a little heavy. Hopefully the ITAC & CRB know more than me.:D
Click to expand...

My point is the ITR S2000 gained weight compared to the T3 version, the Rx-8 didn't. Though who knows how the T3 weights are calculated. The ITAC used the exact same parameters on both cars.
 
No trouble typing here up at NHIS for a regional, but I did get my ear chewed about the Miata in ITA, and the Golf in ITB. (No, it wasn't Dave Gran ;) )Evidently, New Englanders are happy with ITS, or the guys with issues don't know what I look like, LOL.
 
Fear the Rotor!

Dan,
I noticed @ the ARRC, that the RX-8 T-3 @ 2980# was 1.86sec faster than your ITR e36 BMW.

The RX-8 was competing w/o the benefit of IT preparation & you want to lower the weight?
 
Super Swift said:
Dan,
I noticed @ the ARRC, that the RX-8 T-3 @ 2980# was 1.86sec faster than your ITR e36 BMW.

The RX-8 was competing w/o the benefit of IT preparation & you want to lower the weight?
Click to expand...

Actually, the T3 RX-8 that you are talking about was 2.215 seconds SLOWER than Dan...and Dan was 2.034 seconds slower than the winning ITR E36...for a grand total of 4.249 seconds PER LAP slower between the T3 RX-8 and the ITR Bimmer.

If you wanna use on-track results as all..... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top