So, what TRULY matters...?
- Thread starter Knestis
- Start date
Assume the position....
I fail to see how applying a uniform standard to the classification of vehicles would be considered unreasonable. Reexamining a vehicle shouldn't result in a new weight as ALL relevant characteristics and the current process should have been used in setting the weight.
Why should the minimum weight of a vehicle depend on when it was classified? That's what you seem to be suggesting since you are implying that only new cars would be run through the revised process.
Weight of car under ITProcess V101 = 2000
Weight of car under ITProcess V102 = 1951, except you've already been classified and you need to carry an extra 49 pounds.
Same goes for establishing tolerances for adjusted errors in the weight. You're setting up cases where two cars processed at 2000 could end up at 2000 and 1950 because the first car was only 49 pounds off. That's not rules stability... that's intransigency clothed in the guise of rules stability. Adopting a new process is the change in the rules, not the movement in car weights.
Since +/- 25, 50,75,100 pounds is good-enough for establishing the weight, then I should have the same tolerance when weighed post-race. If 75lbs do not matter for classification purposes, then it shouldn't matter in the tech shed either.
Perhaps I am missing something. When IT Process V300 is implemented, would
1. all cars be re-processed or
2. is the new process applicable to unclassifed cars only or
3. is it applicable to unclassified cars and those cars that have been submitted for review under the new process?
Seems to me that you were suggesting option #2 and that's where an arbitrary and impartial classification process becomes capricious.
ekim952522000
New member
I agree this part is of a little concern. But Kirk did say "MIGHT be reasonable to have a tolerance" which to me says it is still open for discussion. My 2 cents on it is every car needs to be redone if the process is changed and if a car comes out 5lbs different than that should be the weight. I do feel like this is kind of a "all or nothing" thing Kirk since if car A was classed with the new process and car B was placed at whatever weight "seemed right" I don't find that very Consistent (which is one of the goals we are going for).
EDIT: grammer
Kirk what factors do you think the ITAC would have control over in the system? obviously the amount of power gain in IT trim up 25% and then I am assuming there would be a consistent reduction and adder for everything else like, bad gear ratios, no torque, struts, double wishbones, etc... How many factors do you plan on including? would this be a LBS based system or a percent based system? A combination of both?
EDIT: grammer
Last edited:
gran racing
Super Moderator
Now that the ITAC has hit the vehicles that were off the process the greatest, it would be nice if it were carried out to the other cars as well.
seckerich
New member
Sorry Jake, I missed your response until I was scroling back through today. If I was wrong about the influence on the ITAC of the BMW guys I apologise. I know Marshall and have raced with him and he is a stand up guy. Personal experience and a vested interest does sway us to some extent. I am way biased toward the Mazda. You are aware how deeply I am vested in racing them. I have 12-15 of them at any one time. Now there is a sickness!! I personally feel that there was too much politics involved in the decision. Most did not want to class the car at all, and others want it so heavy it can not cause problems. I understand the problems with factory numbers--I get it. In the bigger picture you saved ITR for all humanity. From my perspective you guys killed a car that could be raced fairly and help build the class. Yes I am pissed that it is now a dead issue for my next car as well.
I think a lot of Kirks post has some great merit. How you plan to deal with the "special cases" AKA Rotary and low torque maxed motors is unclear. As I read it they just go through the process like everything else. Sounds great because now I can go back to ITS and have a class killer. Or will I have to keep my old "special" weight? With all due respect you can't have it both ways. The rotary drivers have been a big part of the IT classes since the beginning and deserve better than that. I support an open, and fair way to deal with them if it is transparent. You have 3 motors to deal with and all have extensive history to go from. You seem to have no problem with the 12A and the second gen 13B. Both have been classed with proper percent gain in IT trim and race without being overdogs. How is it so friggin hard to just do the same thing with an RX8 or S2000 or the next factory maxed car you class? I do not see that as special treatment in any way. Set the number and publish it. If someone can prove it wrong then correct the error and move on.
This is not just me on the RX8 as you stated earlier Jake. Many others are just not as vocal as I. Either way beer is on me at the ARRC. I might finally get to meet some more of you and I won't mention a word about the RX8.
Bill Miller
New member
Kirk,
I'll echo what others have said, nice job! I think you've pretty much hit it. I do have to disagree w.r.t. not needing another alignment (maybe not to the same level as TGA, which is not to be confused w/ tGA). You need to get rid of the "if it's w/in 100# it's close enough). Figure out what that new window is, and adjust any car that is outside it.
Other than that, I don't think you can ask for me. That's pretty much what I was advocating for oh so many years ago!
Well done sir!
I'll echo what others have said, nice job! I think you've pretty much hit it. I do have to disagree w.r.t. not needing another alignment (maybe not to the same level as TGA, which is not to be confused w/ tGA). You need to get rid of the "if it's w/in 100# it's close enough). Figure out what that new window is, and adjust any car that is outside it.
Other than that, I don't think you can ask for me. That's pretty much what I was advocating for oh so many years ago!
Well done sir!
Interesting how, when I say "Start with the current process, exactly as the ITAC currently applies it," questions inject stuff I never said. Again. I know how politicians might feel.
>> How many factors do you plan on including?
As I said, "NOTE here that I am NOT advocating or the inclusion of any more factors."
>> Why should the minimum weight of a vehicle depend on when it was classified? That's what you seem to be suggesting since you are implying that only new cars would be run through the revised process.
From that post: "When a request to re-examine an existing car comes in, run exactly the same process. ..."
>> As I read it they just go through the process like everything else. Sounds great because now I can go back to ITS and have a class killer. ...
I really like and respect you Steve but I feel like sometimes you don't listen. What I propose - THE CURRENT SYSTEM, for the most part - would likely not change the current RX7 ITS specification at all. It would continue to have a power multiplier based on the best information we have, which at this point seems to be pretty much in the ball park. To be clear...
I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE ROTARIES' POWER QUESTION DIFFERENTLY THAN THE PISTON ENGINES. I said that too.
And when you say, "I personally feel that there was too much politics involved in the decision. Most did not want to class the car at all, and others want it so heavy it can not cause problems," I'm curious precisely who you think you're talking about. NOT the ITAC members who all agreed that this car is a very important addition to ITR, and most of whom I personally heard talk about how much they want to see it out there. Because we knew the pressure would be on from both camps - pro and con - we quite literally agonized over how to most fairly determine the IT-spec power number.
PLEASE see if you can't find a way to set free what you "know," and try to put yourself in our shoes for a minute. We do NOT know what you know, and we can't simply accept what you know under the circumstances. That doesn't mean you are wrong, that you don't know, or that you aren't trustworthy. It's only a reflection of the fact that we have to work very hard to determine and document that decision, because we are absolutely sure that we can't simply do what we do on a bunch of other cars. With the initial classing, we (well, "I" anyway) made the decision that we honestly believed got the power closest to "right," based on the guidelines we use to implement the process and OUR best understanding of the situation. That we don't agree with you is not proof of shenanigans and it's not fair to say that. If you have EVIDENCE that something funky went on - that we were all brainwashed by one ITAC member or something - spit it out. Or (with all due respect) stop spreading inflammatory stuff. It's not helpful.
But thank you for agreeing that the the 12A and 13B are "right." There's a very large body of understanding built up around those cars, and quite simply it's so "friggin' hard" to do that with the '8 because it's not yet to that point. YOU might know what it will do in IT trim, but we can't just let you tell us and be done. It's simply not going to fly without defining proactively what the expectation of quality for evidence is - particularly on a high profile listing. (EDIT - Or we can wait for 20 years of experience with the car to accumulate...?)
Ultimately, where the Renesis is concerned, the answer is between your comment of "If someone can prove it wrong then correct the error and move on," and Kirk's personal policy answer:
"If TRULY compelling evidence becomes available, the ITAC has the power to change a factor but we'd be well advised to have some standards for evidential quality for that step."
Help us develop those "evidential standards" but answering this question: Under what conditions would you place trust in ITR BMW Z4 engine power data, used to specify a power multiplier for ITR classification? NOT "by what standard does Steve assess the validity of Steve's data", but "by what standard does he assess the other guy's?"
Tell us what you'd demand from him and we'll be a step closer to defining what the system should demand of you, as we look for "compelling evidence" that the current RX8 spec is a miss. I'd ask other ITR guys/gals what they think the standard should be for their competitors, too. If they can only tell me that their figure is right and the others are wrong, we go nowhere.
And the standard of evidence can NOT be determined by whether or not you agree with the numbers they support. Tell us what evidential process you accept, then accept the evidence that comes out of it.
But I ain't the king. Ultimately, I believe that we collectively get the category we deserve and you're all participants in making that happen, whether you participate or not.
K
>> How many factors do you plan on including?
As I said, "NOTE here that I am NOT advocating or the inclusion of any more factors."
>> Why should the minimum weight of a vehicle depend on when it was classified? That's what you seem to be suggesting since you are implying that only new cars would be run through the revised process.
From that post: "When a request to re-examine an existing car comes in, run exactly the same process. ..."
>> As I read it they just go through the process like everything else. Sounds great because now I can go back to ITS and have a class killer. ...
I really like and respect you Steve but I feel like sometimes you don't listen. What I propose - THE CURRENT SYSTEM, for the most part - would likely not change the current RX7 ITS specification at all. It would continue to have a power multiplier based on the best information we have, which at this point seems to be pretty much in the ball park. To be clear...
I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE ROTARIES' POWER QUESTION DIFFERENTLY THAN THE PISTON ENGINES. I said that too.
And when you say, "I personally feel that there was too much politics involved in the decision. Most did not want to class the car at all, and others want it so heavy it can not cause problems," I'm curious precisely who you think you're talking about. NOT the ITAC members who all agreed that this car is a very important addition to ITR, and most of whom I personally heard talk about how much they want to see it out there. Because we knew the pressure would be on from both camps - pro and con - we quite literally agonized over how to most fairly determine the IT-spec power number.
PLEASE see if you can't find a way to set free what you "know," and try to put yourself in our shoes for a minute. We do NOT know what you know, and we can't simply accept what you know under the circumstances. That doesn't mean you are wrong, that you don't know, or that you aren't trustworthy. It's only a reflection of the fact that we have to work very hard to determine and document that decision, because we are absolutely sure that we can't simply do what we do on a bunch of other cars. With the initial classing, we (well, "I" anyway) made the decision that we honestly believed got the power closest to "right," based on the guidelines we use to implement the process and OUR best understanding of the situation. That we don't agree with you is not proof of shenanigans and it's not fair to say that. If you have EVIDENCE that something funky went on - that we were all brainwashed by one ITAC member or something - spit it out. Or (with all due respect) stop spreading inflammatory stuff. It's not helpful.
But thank you for agreeing that the the 12A and 13B are "right." There's a very large body of understanding built up around those cars, and quite simply it's so "friggin' hard" to do that with the '8 because it's not yet to that point. YOU might know what it will do in IT trim, but we can't just let you tell us and be done. It's simply not going to fly without defining proactively what the expectation of quality for evidence is - particularly on a high profile listing. (EDIT - Or we can wait for 20 years of experience with the car to accumulate...?)
Ultimately, where the Renesis is concerned, the answer is between your comment of "If someone can prove it wrong then correct the error and move on," and Kirk's personal policy answer:
"If TRULY compelling evidence becomes available, the ITAC has the power to change a factor but we'd be well advised to have some standards for evidential quality for that step."
Help us develop those "evidential standards" but answering this question: Under what conditions would you place trust in ITR BMW Z4 engine power data, used to specify a power multiplier for ITR classification? NOT "by what standard does Steve assess the validity of Steve's data", but "by what standard does he assess the other guy's?"
Tell us what you'd demand from him and we'll be a step closer to defining what the system should demand of you, as we look for "compelling evidence" that the current RX8 spec is a miss. I'd ask other ITR guys/gals what they think the standard should be for their competitors, too. If they can only tell me that their figure is right and the others are wrong, we go nowhere.
And the standard of evidence can NOT be determined by whether or not you agree with the numbers they support. Tell us what evidential process you accept, then accept the evidence that comes out of it.
But I ain't the king. Ultimately, I believe that we collectively get the category we deserve and you're all participants in making that happen, whether you participate or not.
K
Last edited:
Catch22
New member
I like what Kirk has going on here. Alot.
But I know enough to be jaded at this point, and have reached that "I'll believe it when I see it" point.
Hopefully I'll see it. And since "transparency" is something being suggested/advocated, we should all know what we're seeing and when we'll see it.
But...
Yeah.
Scott, who has come to believe the category has so far only gotten one foot out of the mud, and while that is progress, if one foot is still in there, you are still stuck.
But I know enough to be jaded at this point, and have reached that "I'll believe it when I see it" point.
Hopefully I'll see it. And since "transparency" is something being suggested/advocated, we should all know what we're seeing and when we'll see it.
But...
Yeah.
Scott, who has come to believe the category has so far only gotten one foot out of the mud, and while that is progress, if one foot is still in there, you are still stuck.
Here is an idea. Abolish the ITAC, publish the formula for car classification, then let the membership run their car thru the matrix, go out and paste the appropriate class on their car and go to the track.
Probably won't get much support for that one will I? The point that I am trying to make is that there must be a certain amount of subjectivity to the classification process. Otherwise why go to the trouble of having supposedly knowlegeable guys on the ITAC trying to figure this out.
Anybody that has been at this game for 20 or 30 years has an institutional memory that they are probably not even aware of. (You know, like the time the Cyclops GT pulled you down the straight and you know that wasn't right because you had a cheater motor and you were lapping everybody else)
Extreme example, but the point is subjectivety is more than just race results but all the little nuances of experience that these guys have gained over the years. After all this is what we pay them the big bucks for.
Probably won't get much support for that one will I? The point that I am trying to make is that there must be a certain amount of subjectivity to the classification process. Otherwise why go to the trouble of having supposedly knowlegeable guys on the ITAC trying to figure this out.
Anybody that has been at this game for 20 or 30 years has an institutional memory that they are probably not even aware of. (You know, like the time the Cyclops GT pulled you down the straight and you know that wasn't right because you had a cheater motor and you were lapping everybody else)
>> ...there must be a certain amount of subjectivity to the classification process.
In what I describe,that kind of experienced judgment would be applied as the multipliers and adders/subtractors are clarified - rather than in each instance of classification/specification.
However, it would help the conversation if you were explicit about what you mean by "subjectivity." You mean we could pick weights based on our collective experience with the category and cars?
K
In what I describe,that kind of experienced judgment would be applied as the multipliers and adders/subtractors are clarified - rather than in each instance of classification/specification.
However, it would help the conversation if you were explicit about what you mean by "subjectivity." You mean we could pick weights based on our collective experience with the category and cars?
K
Catch22
New member
Yeah. Welcome to 10 years ago.
Where that "subjectivity" comes in is the collective's decision on how to apply the established adders.
In other words, does car xxx get 25% or 30%.
But with that needs to be established and published guidelines.
Why? Because without it you get bias. And with bias you get Neons and Civics in ITS.
What is the p/w ratio target for each class?
What were the numbers used to determine the weight of x car in x class?
Does everything add up?
If it doesn't, I can see it, and write my letter.
And... If I take Kirk's place on the ITAC in 5 years, I can keep consistently doing the same thing he's been doing.
Duh.
It really is that easy.
I'd be much more comfortable with arguments about whether a 25% or 30% adder should be applied than arguments about cars that appear to be 100lbs heavy (or light) with no real indication of "why?"
On further reflection (and virtual conversations with a couple of you), it's increasingly clear that to my mind the issue is NOT about subjectivity. That's necessary, making a human factor (the ITAC in this instance) necessary as well.
What REALLY matters is WHEN we apply that subjectivity:
1. After classification - "Oh, crap. The Renault LeCar is too fast in GT5, as evidenced by the fact that Peterson cleaned house at the RunOffs. Give it 200 pounds." This is old-school competition adjustment of the worst kind.
2. During the specification math process - "We ran the numbers using the standard multiplier and obvious adders/subtractors, but the resulting weight just seems too low. Let's look at it again because we sure don't want it to be an overdog." There are some subtle variations of this kind of thinking but it seems pretty common (includes using "real world data" when making individual make/model decisions, in anticipation that the regular math will "get it wrong.")
3. As part of the bigger Process but BEFORE the specification math gets done - "We looked at all of the information we could compile about how OBDII 16v 4-cylinder engines seem to respond to IT tuning, and have established a power multiplier of 1.2 for that 'family' of powerplants. We'll apply this to every new classification or requested re-examination of cars with that type of engine." This is the core of what I'd propose we discuss and consider adopting.
I'm pretty confident that each approach influences (or would influence) what we do in very different ways; and effect repeatability/consistency and transparency differently as well.
K
What REALLY matters is WHEN we apply that subjectivity:
1. After classification - "Oh, crap. The Renault LeCar is too fast in GT5, as evidenced by the fact that Peterson cleaned house at the RunOffs. Give it 200 pounds." This is old-school competition adjustment of the worst kind.
2. During the specification math process - "We ran the numbers using the standard multiplier and obvious adders/subtractors, but the resulting weight just seems too low. Let's look at it again because we sure don't want it to be an overdog." There are some subtle variations of this kind of thinking but it seems pretty common (includes using "real world data" when making individual make/model decisions, in anticipation that the regular math will "get it wrong.")
3. As part of the bigger Process but BEFORE the specification math gets done - "We looked at all of the information we could compile about how OBDII 16v 4-cylinder engines seem to respond to IT tuning, and have established a power multiplier of 1.2 for that 'family' of powerplants. We'll apply this to every new classification or requested re-examination of cars with that type of engine." This is the core of what I'd propose we discuss and consider adopting.
I'm pretty confident that each approach influences (or would influence) what we do in very different ways; and effect repeatability/consistency and transparency differently as well.
K
JeffYoung
New member
More clear thinking, thanks Kirk.
I would suggest that the differences between 2 and 3 are slight though.
For example, I don't see much difference between using real world data to come up with the 1.2 multiplier for the OBD II 16v example you mention (an example of 3) and saying, after running the numbers for the Renesis, it doesn't jive with real world numbers (an example of 2) and using a different multiplier or rejecting an obviously incorrect stock hp number.
So long as all of this is written down and transparent and done as consistently as possible, and the resort to real world data limited to only extreme situations, and all done prior to the initial classification, then I'm good with it.
I would suggest that the differences between 2 and 3 are slight though.
For example, I don't see much difference between using real world data to come up with the 1.2 multiplier for the OBD II 16v example you mention (an example of 3) and saying, after running the numbers for the Renesis, it doesn't jive with real world numbers (an example of 2) and using a different multiplier or rejecting an obviously incorrect stock hp number.
So long as all of this is written down and transparent and done as consistently as possible, and the resort to real world data limited to only extreme situations, and all done prior to the initial classification, then I'm good with it.
I grant you that the differences between those two are minor (and some would suggest, strictly semantical), but respectfully suggest that they are very important:
1. If the multiplier for "families" is established and documented, there's less chance that DIFFERENT subjective results will affect two specifications of cars with the same kind of engine - Repeatability/Consistency
2. If we've got to make our judgments based on more makes/models, we've got a larger data set on which to make them, there's less chance that legend (rather than data) will have large influences.
3. We'd have to be proactive and think things through in advance, rather than use POOMA math in the heat of individual classifications/specifications - Ditto
4. Faced with making a decision that affects multiple manufacturers, political pressures and individual/group competitive motives will decrease, both in reality and in the membership's perceptions of influence. Saying that the Hyundai Elantra gets a 1.1 multiplier is very different than saying that all cars with engines like the Hyundai Elantra get 1.1 - Transparency
K
1. If the multiplier for "families" is established and documented, there's less chance that DIFFERENT subjective results will affect two specifications of cars with the same kind of engine - Repeatability/Consistency
2. If we've got to make our judgments based on more makes/models, we've got a larger data set on which to make them, there's less chance that legend (rather than data) will have large influences.
3. We'd have to be proactive and think things through in advance, rather than use POOMA math in the heat of individual classifications/specifications - Ditto
4. Faced with making a decision that affects multiple manufacturers, political pressures and individual/group competitive motives will decrease, both in reality and in the membership's perceptions of influence. Saying that the Hyundai Elantra gets a 1.1 multiplier is very different than saying that all cars with engines like the Hyundai Elantra get 1.1 - Transparency
K
My prior post was directed at those who advocated strictly using the formula to classify cars and then let the chips fall where they may. It is obvious from reading this loooong thread that that is not happening. I applaud the ITAC for what they do and wouldn't have their job if it was a paid position.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
LOL.
It's not. Actually, you pay to be on it...
OK, to be open, most of you know I'm on the ITAC. And history shows I was a big proponent of the "process" before it was "the process" and getting some cornerstone words removed form the GCR to enable the process to come to fruition. In other words, I'm a process fanboi!.
And, I'm lazy. Well, kinda. I like things that I don't have to remember. So naturally, I like theories, processes and philosophies, because instead of figuring out each situation that comes up, you just slot it into it's spot in a process, and the result is the result. That eliminates lot's of work.
But, sometimes there are problems. Like when the inputs result in outputs that don't align. That's always because the assumptions made on the input end are wrong.
It's historically been handled, as Kirk has pointed out, in a number of ways, mostly involving human interaction, and "fudging" things because of "what we know". In the classic case, a car at the Ruboffs gets 75 pounds because it was too fast. We knew that. We saw it. But we didn't see the guy in second actually did a crappy prep job, ran the wrong alignment, and came back the next year and whipped 'em all, LOL.
We know we don't want that.
Two cars come up. Both have the same engine size, and parameters. 4 valves/cyl, same generation, etc). The first one makes 160 hp. and the second makes 240.. The process applies the gain assumption, (let's say1.2) and the IT power is spit out. There are no adders on either, so the classes get determined by the power, and the cars get the weights calculated, and they get listed. Stop. We're going to have an issue.
The second car is making 120 hp per litre, and the first car is making 80. Is the second car really going to crank out 144 per litre in IT trim?? not likely, as that's beyond what any street based engine architecture has ever done. So, it's obvious to anyone who does homework before building a car that that car is as good as not classed.
We NEED to account for such anomalies, and we do now, by varying the factor and applying torque adders when these cases arise. But I agree we could do it better, and we should find a way to make it more automatic, both to ease the burden, increase consistency and improve the confidence o the organization.
The question is how:
-Is specific output a "trigger" that could be used to enact other processes? (like a research mode to determine real world built power?)
-Is submitted real world data another trigger?
If these are, what protocols should be utilized ?
seckerich
New member
(KIRK)I really like and respect you Steve but I feel like sometimes you don't listen. What I propose - THE CURRENT SYSTEM, for the most part - would likely not change the current RX7 ITS specification at all. It would continue to have a power multiplier based on the best information we have, which at this point seems to be pretty much in the ball park. To be clear...
I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE ROTARIES' POWER QUESTION DIFFERENTLY THAN THE PISTON ENGINES. I said that too.
(STEVE) I did listen Kirk, and you stated the outliers would basically get run through the process and just get a "sorry". I am glad you see the need to treat the rotary properly with the need for a different power number. You failed to quote that I stated you need to be fair and see that some were quoted factory low and make too much in IT trim to be classed at 25% gain. We agree and I was not argueing that, just making the point it has to go both ways.
(KIRK) And when you say, "I personally feel that there was too much politics involved in the decision. Most did not want to class the car at all, and others want it so heavy it can not cause problems," I'm curious precisely who you think you're talking about.
(STEVE) Go back and read the RX8 thread where it was stated it was beyond ITR power levels all together. Not my words.
(KIRK) PLEASE see if you can't find a way to set free what you "know," and try to put yourself in our shoes for a minute. We do NOT know what you know, and we can't simply accept what you know under the circumstances. That doesn't mean you are wrong, that you don't know, or that you aren't trustworthy. It's only a reflection of the fact that we have to work very hard to determine and document that decision, because we are absolutely sure that we can't simply do what we do on a bunch of other cars. With the initial classing, we (well, "I" anyway) made the decision that we honestly believed got the power closest to "right," based on the guidelines we use to implement the process and OUR best understanding of the situation. That we don't agree with you is not proof of shenanigans and it's not fair to say that. If you have EVIDENCE that something funky went on - that we were all brainwashed by one ITAC member or something - spit it out. Or (with all due respect) stop spreading inflammatory stuff. It's not helpful.
(STEVE) We asked for this car to be classified for a year before you actually did it. It was no surprise that you needed to do some research. You were given dyno sheets of stock and IT mod. You were offered a car to dyno with full access to ECU tune and anything else. I only asked to be one data point. I actually expected you to get other information. In the end all you did was use the stock BS 235 and throw 15% at it because that is what the S2000 got. Now that was ground breaking work on the renesis motor.
(KIRK) But thank you for agreeing that the the 12A and 13B are "right." There's a very large body of understanding built up around those cars, and quite simply it's so "friggin' hard" to do that with the '8 because it's not yet to that point. YOU might know what it will do in IT trim, but we can't just let you tell us and be done. It's simply not going to fly without defining proactively what the expectation of quality for evidence is - particularly on a high profile listing. (EDIT - Or we can wait for 20 years of experience with the car to accumulate...?)
(STEVE) See above, not that hard.
(KIRK) Ultimately, where the Renesis is concerned, the answer is between your comment of "If someone can prove it wrong then correct the error and move on," and Kirk's personal policy answer:
"If TRULY compelling evidence becomes available, the ITAC has the power to change a factor but we'd be well advised to have some standards for evidential quality for that step."
Help us develop those "evidential standards" but answering this question: Under what conditions would you place trust in ITR BMW Z4 engine power data, used to specify a power multiplier for ITR classification? NOT "by what standard does Steve assess the validity of Steve's data", but "by what standard does he assess the other guy's?"
(STEVE) Pretty simple. Call TC Cline. He has run these cars in Grand Am for years and the dyno numbers are well known and available. Yes, GA spec motors are IT spec motors. Then check with Bimmerworld, and the other reputable tuners. Yes they will all fudge the numbers down a little but they would be good numbers for comparison sake to see if your process is in the ballpark. Not everyone is out to screw you. You have quotes on HP on a porsche when you call the builders to ask what they can make for you. Think they lie low when they are selling you a motor?
I sincerely apologise for the direction this thread went on the RX8. I thought this was to be an open discussion on what we thought was broken in the process and how it should move forward. It got personal and I am sorry. I did a lot of work to try and get this car classed fairly and it was a total waste of time. Back to warm and fuzzy now. I am done with this discussion and any wish to build an RX8 with current situation.
I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE ROTARIES' POWER QUESTION DIFFERENTLY THAN THE PISTON ENGINES. I said that too.
(STEVE) I did listen Kirk, and you stated the outliers would basically get run through the process and just get a "sorry". I am glad you see the need to treat the rotary properly with the need for a different power number. You failed to quote that I stated you need to be fair and see that some were quoted factory low and make too much in IT trim to be classed at 25% gain. We agree and I was not argueing that, just making the point it has to go both ways.
(KIRK) And when you say, "I personally feel that there was too much politics involved in the decision. Most did not want to class the car at all, and others want it so heavy it can not cause problems," I'm curious precisely who you think you're talking about.
(STEVE) Go back and read the RX8 thread where it was stated it was beyond ITR power levels all together. Not my words.
(KIRK) PLEASE see if you can't find a way to set free what you "know," and try to put yourself in our shoes for a minute. We do NOT know what you know, and we can't simply accept what you know under the circumstances. That doesn't mean you are wrong, that you don't know, or that you aren't trustworthy. It's only a reflection of the fact that we have to work very hard to determine and document that decision, because we are absolutely sure that we can't simply do what we do on a bunch of other cars. With the initial classing, we (well, "I" anyway) made the decision that we honestly believed got the power closest to "right," based on the guidelines we use to implement the process and OUR best understanding of the situation. That we don't agree with you is not proof of shenanigans and it's not fair to say that. If you have EVIDENCE that something funky went on - that we were all brainwashed by one ITAC member or something - spit it out. Or (with all due respect) stop spreading inflammatory stuff. It's not helpful.
(STEVE) We asked for this car to be classified for a year before you actually did it. It was no surprise that you needed to do some research. You were given dyno sheets of stock and IT mod. You were offered a car to dyno with full access to ECU tune and anything else. I only asked to be one data point. I actually expected you to get other information. In the end all you did was use the stock BS 235 and throw 15% at it because that is what the S2000 got. Now that was ground breaking work on the renesis motor.
(KIRK) But thank you for agreeing that the the 12A and 13B are "right." There's a very large body of understanding built up around those cars, and quite simply it's so "friggin' hard" to do that with the '8 because it's not yet to that point. YOU might know what it will do in IT trim, but we can't just let you tell us and be done. It's simply not going to fly without defining proactively what the expectation of quality for evidence is - particularly on a high profile listing. (EDIT - Or we can wait for 20 years of experience with the car to accumulate...?)
(STEVE) See above, not that hard.
(KIRK) Ultimately, where the Renesis is concerned, the answer is between your comment of "If someone can prove it wrong then correct the error and move on," and Kirk's personal policy answer:
"If TRULY compelling evidence becomes available, the ITAC has the power to change a factor but we'd be well advised to have some standards for evidential quality for that step."
Help us develop those "evidential standards" but answering this question: Under what conditions would you place trust in ITR BMW Z4 engine power data, used to specify a power multiplier for ITR classification? NOT "by what standard does Steve assess the validity of Steve's data", but "by what standard does he assess the other guy's?"
(STEVE) Pretty simple. Call TC Cline. He has run these cars in Grand Am for years and the dyno numbers are well known and available. Yes, GA spec motors are IT spec motors. Then check with Bimmerworld, and the other reputable tuners. Yes they will all fudge the numbers down a little but they would be good numbers for comparison sake to see if your process is in the ballpark. Not everyone is out to screw you. You have quotes on HP on a porsche when you call the builders to ask what they can make for you. Think they lie low when they are selling you a motor?
I sincerely apologise for the direction this thread went on the RX8. I thought this was to be an open discussion on what we thought was broken in the process and how it should move forward. It got personal and I am sorry. I did a lot of work to try and get this car classed fairly and it was a total waste of time. Back to warm and fuzzy now. I am done with this discussion and any wish to build an RX8 with current situation.
Last edited:
Catch22
New member
Agreed. Consistent and transparent is the key. If you have that, the details matter much less because whatever those details are were consistently and tranparently applied to everyone.
Its the old "The track was wet and greasy for everyone" scenario.
Then all you need is an "out," or ability to adjust later down the road in case there is one or 2 cars you just plain get wrong with the classification (and really, thats inevitable). This is where the slippery slope gets dangerous, but I think its necessary. Thats how you avoid things like "SpecE36" that do significant damage to a class.
Sometimes there just are going to be cars that give you a "Wow, whoda thunk THAT?!?" Sometimes it will be cars that you classed at 25% actually getting 35%, and sometimes it will be the opposite.
But if its consistent and transparent from the outset, fixing the boo boos gets easier too. Funny how that works.
And yes, I know that whole concept makes Kirk want to run to the panic room, but the alternatives are to just leave the mistakes alone (not good) or just close your eyes and chant "we always get it right the first time" over and over again (which is the same as leaving the mistakes alone, just that you claim the mistake doen't exist... not good).
I really, truly, honestly think this isn't as hard as some people make it.
This club has been racing production cars for a looooong time. We know what horsepower does, what good gearing does, what torque does, RWD generally works better than FWD, and the advantages of those pesky DW suspensions. These aren't mysteries.
Establish your targets
Write your formulas (understanding that you'll NEVER make everyone happy)
Include an adjustment clause (not floating comp adjustments... A one time correction in case of "oops")
Publish everything
Soup.
Last edited: