Del Sol VTEC - Please Contact me

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bob,

I will compile a detailed answer to your post later today when I get back in the office, but you ask more than a couple of questions that have been adressed in this thread. I won't reinvent the wheel, however. Maybe over the next 6 hours, someone will help you with those items...

 

[zracre]

Based on what? Even conservative Serra quotes show 25% is very possible.
Until I see one that is maxed, I can't answer the question. I believe that you are underestimating power potential at a 100% build.
So? A 180lb drive has to put 100lbs of ballast in his RX-7 too.
What I am saying here is that if you make it light enough to 'offset' the torque and brake problems you have, the power potential of the car shatters the 'process'. In some cases, you have to take the good with the bad and the sum may not be what you want.



Because the CRB is not in the business of trying to make every car competitive, that is Prod. The process may be flawed but until a 100% effort shows that the process is wrong, we are stuck (frankly, we have first hand accounts from MSN that 25% is attainable - even at 12% loss. The only thing I will conceed is that more consideration needs to be given to FWD in ITS...and that means discussion, not weight. It may end up as weight but...
[/b]

Even Conservative Serra??!! HAHA Didn't he quote something like 195 to the wheels? I told that to some of the all motor honda drag race guys and they said stock cam gears/cams/valve job no porting??? GOOD LUCK! If it is such a bad race car and maybe not that competitive, why not give it a weight break like the others??? Do we have something against Hondas? How many Civics or Del Sols won races before the weight adjustments? They dont! You even say it may not be that good a car...i thought thats why we adjusted them...I am going to build my GSR as a full effort car (when the ITA car is done) and I doubt it will have anything for the RX7's and such.

 

[Catch22]

You even say it may not be that good a car...i thought thats why we adjusted them
[/b]

I don't understand why people can't seem to grasp that this isn't the case.
Not being a "good car" isn't why they are adjusted. It just isn't, and it was never said that it would be.

Cars are now being "adjusted" by a formula, or a process (whatever you want to call it) that makes them all relatively even ON PAPER. Actual results ARE NOT USED.

In order to go any further and discuss these issues intelligently, YOU MUST GRASP THIS and understand it. Period.

I am not contending that some of these cars need a weight reduction because they aren't getting results. What I am saying is that the fact that these cars are carrying ballast, lots of it, AND they haven't shown results, might demonstrate that there is a hole in the process.
There is a huge difference there. Adjusting cars based on their on-track performance is a hornets nest that will never stop being a moving target. Tweeking the classification formula because on track performance suggests that it is flawed is a altogether different animal.

 

[Knestis]

Thinking about the issue generically, it makes SENSE that as power increases, FWD becomes a relatively greater handicap. This conversation has done a good job of surfacing the idea that the same formula that creates a fair match between an ITA Civic EX and a 1.6 Miata might not apply when there's more potential for wheelspin.

I'd echo Scott G's point that every time we drift into "this car needs a break" territory, we weaken the conversation.

K

 

[timmyc]

I don't understand why people can't seem to grasp that this isn't the case.
Not being a "good car" isn't why they are adjusted. It just isn't, and it was never said that it would be.

Cars are now being "adjusted" by a formula, or a process (whatever you want to call it) that makes them all relatively even ON PAPER. Actual results ARE NOT USED.

In order to go any further and discuss these issues intelligently, YOU MUST GRASP THIS and understand it. Period.

I am not contending that some of these cars need a weight reduction because they aren't getting results. What I am saying is that the fact that these cars are carrying ballast, lots of it, AND they haven't shown results, might demonstrate that there is a hole in the process.
There is a huge difference there. Adjusting cars based on their on-track performance is a hornets nest that will never stop being a moving target. Tweeking the classification formula because on track performance suggests that it is flawed is a altogether different animal.
[/b]

i dont have a problem with comp adjustments,or leveling the playing field,but when they go against other rules and guidlines ,i do have a problem. ie roll bar tubing size.and if on track performance is not a factor then the formula is simple to under stand horsepower to weight and ajust weight accordingly.timmy chapman 99 honda civic si

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Evan,

Catch summed it up well. I am not sure why this is eluding people.

Serra's quotes were not conservative, but if you looked at them conservatively, you can assume 180whp is VERY possible. That's 5whp LESS than when it rolled in

There is no Honda conspiracy...and if you told that to VW owners, they would laugh you out of the paddock. Seriously.

Catch,

My only issue with your post is that the amount of ballast a car has to carry is 100% irrelevant to it's competitivness. All it has to do with is that it is lighter than it's classified weight. You think RX-7's are too heavy? Some have to carry 100lbs+ with a 180lb driver. The Teg Serra drove in 2005 had 100lbs of lead on the floor - BEFORE the weight corrections. Does this define a misclassification? No.

Timmy,

I really have no idea what you are talking about re: tubing. And a standard hp to weight formula would have there cars further away from the podium than they are perceived to be now.

Bob,

I am on the ITAC. Most of them lurk here, only a couple of us are stupid enought to stick our necks out.



The 'process' does take into account the items you complain about, the 'compensation' given to them may not be the amount you think is fair, but it is taken into account non-the-less. ITA for the Del Sol? Come on. Why did you pick the RX-7 to examine? 135hp stock, a strut front, solid axle rear? You want to run one? Have at it.

 

[SPiFF]

I don't understand why people can't seem to grasp that this isn't the case.
Not being a "good car" isn't why they are adjusted. It just isn't, and it was never said that it would be.

Cars are now being "adjusted" by a formula, or a process (whatever you want to call it) that makes them all relatively even ON PAPER. Actual results ARE NOT USED.

In order to go any further and discuss these issues intelligently, YOU MUST GRASP THIS and understand it. Period
[/b]

Sure. But I don't see how a magic formula or super secret process could have any lagitamacy without some kind of feedback loop. Like it or not, feeback comes from the real world in the form of:
* lap times
* do people actually want to build a car as speced
* has any1 even been close to a podium at a big event with one
* general discontrent by the owners of these cars
* sanity check

The Del Sol weight really should have been cought by he sanity check. But just the like Aztec, 100s of people inside of GM saw the plans, sketches, etc yet no1 sttod up and said, hey that is a fugly POS.

When you get cought up in the the process™, you end up with some Aztecs.

 

[timmyc]

andy, the weight of the 99 civic si was published at 2360. according to the gcr the tubing size is 1.5x.095. now with the adittion of 220lbs. the tubing goes to 1.5x.120. where does this put my car?not that it will make a difference but nobody protest a fith place car.i would like to see this "formula" that is being refered to, thanks for setting all of us IT guys straight. timmy chapman

 

[Catch22]

Catch,

My only issue with your post is that the amount of ballast a car has to carry is 100% irrelevant to it's competitivness. All it has to do with is that it is lighter than it's classified weight. You think RX-7's are too heavy? Some have to carry 100lbs+ with a 180lb driver. The Teg Serra drove in 2005 had 100lbs of lead on the floor - BEFORE the weight corrections. Does this define a misclassification? No.
[/b]

You are missing my point Andy.
Let me rephrase...
If you have a car that can't seem to get results, and that car falls out of the performance envelope of the next lowest class, AND that car has NO ballast with an averaged sized driver... You have a bad race car.

If you have that same car, and that car carries 100lbs of ballast with an averaged size driver... You have an opportunity for improvement.

In a post BMW adjustment world, the RX7 has shown no need for improvement. It was the car in 2nd place behind the BMW.
BUT...
The Honda products (And I don't intend to make it a Honda discussion, but Hondas are the only FWD cars I've seen used in legitimate ITS efforts) have demonstrated that they can't even keep up with the good RX7s. Fully built and tuned Integras and Preludes piloted by the likes of Tom Fowler and Scott Seck (and heck... Me, I've stood on an ARRC podium too ) haven't even really been close to the top RX7s, much less the BMWs. And all of those cars carry LOTS of ballast.

So that tells me there is an opportunity to get some more competition in the class, and I think thats kind of the goal of the whole exercise.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

You are missing my point Andy.
Let me rephrase...
If you have a car that can't seem to get results, and that car falls out of the performance envelope of the next lowest class, AND that car has NO ballast with an averaged sized driver... You have a bad race car.

If you have that same car, and that car carries 100lbs of ballast with an averaged size driver... You have an opportunity for improvement.

In a post BMW adjustment world, the RX7 has shown no need for improvement. It was the car in 2nd place behind the BMW.
BUT...
The Honda products (And I don't intend to make it a Honda discussion, but Hondas are the only FWD cars I've seen used in legitimate ITS efforts) have demonstrated that they can't even keep up with the good RX7s. Fully built and tuned Integras and Preludes piloted by the likes of Tom Fowler and Scott Seck (and heck... Me, I've stood on an ARRC podium too ) haven't even really been close to the top RX7s, much less the BMWs. And all of those cars carry LOTS of ballast.

So that tells me there is an opportunity to get some more competition in the class, and I think thats kind of the goal of the whole exercise. [/b]

And I did miss your point - and what you say makes sense, in a comp-adjustment world...

Liek I said, I will be bringing up the FWD 'adder' on the next con-call.

 

[SPiFF]

And I did miss your point - and what you say makes sense, in a comp-adjustment world...[/b]

It is funny to hear stuff like this. How is classing and speccing a car properly a comp-adjustment? How is what is going on now with moving cars from S to A, changing weights, and putting on SIRs, not a comp-adjustment?

Seems like this club puts itself in the pickle jar most of the time by getting panties in a wad over terms like "comp-adjustment".

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

It is funny to hear stuff like this. How is classing and speccing a car properly a comp-adjustment? How is what is going on now with moving cars from S to A, changing weights, and putting on SIRs, not a comp-adjustment?

Seems like this club puts itself in the pickle jar most of the time by getting panties in a wad over terms like "comp-adjustment". [/b]

It's not a comp adjustment. Comp adjustments are based on on-track results. It's well documented why you can't use OTP to make car-by car adjustments. It will never happen in IT and I am thankful for that.



Teh CRB will not adjust weight just because something is not competitive. Period.



The moving cars from S to A, changing weights, and putting on SIRs are not 'comp adjustments' as defined above either.

Moving cars is a 'correction' to a misclassification.

The recent weight changes were the result of running all the cars in the GCR through the 'new car classification process'. If all new classifications and re-classifications are measured using that stick, everyone else should too. The weight changes were done on those cars that had significant differences in there spec weight and their 'process' weight. It was simply a re-grouping of all cars at a 'ground-zero' so that all can be looked at similarly.

The SIR is a solution by the CRB to reverse engineer the process for the BMW. That car falls around 3200lbs in regular process weight. They chose to limit power to a certain level if the car was to stay at 2850. Again, this car had never been through the process and they backed into a solution that way. Just process, not on-track guessing games.

 

[stevel]

AB,

Is there a subtractor for weight distribution? That plays into this big time. I know you mentioned that there's a lot of cars at the same weight as the GSR and have the same size brakes, so what's the problem? Well, they're all RWD cars. And that does make a difference. RWD cars use a lot more of the rear brakes than FWD cars do. You ever see GSR rear brakes? I think they're 9". Look at the rear brakes on most of those same RWD cars and I bet they're bigger. It does make a difference in braking. And so does the F/R weight distribution with respect to that braking. When a GSR is carrying 260lbs more up front, that's where your braking problem comes from. Where as the RX7 has that weight shifted to the rear with larger rear brakes.

So, maybe F/R weight distribution should be an adder/subtractor also, if it isn't already.

s

 

[Catch22]

AB,

Is there a subtractor for weight distribution? That plays into this big time. I know you mentioned that there's a lot of cars at the same weight as the GSR and have the same size brakes, so what's the problem? Well, they're all RWD cars. And that does make a difference. RWD cars use a lot more of the rear brakes than FWD cars do. You ever see GSR rear brakes? I think they're 9". Look at the rear brakes on most of those same RWD cars and I bet they're bigger. It does make a difference in braking. And so does the F/R weight distribution with respect to that braking. When a GSR is carrying 260lbs more up front, that's where your braking problem comes from. Where as the RX7 has that weight shifted to the rear with larger rear brakes.

So, maybe F/R weight distribution should be an adder/subtractor also, if it isn't already.

s
[/b]

Andy has already said he'd put a discussion of FWD issues in ITS on the table for the ITAC. I think most of the back and forth he and I are having is the usual web board misunderstanding of premise and intent.

Thanks Andy.

 

[stevel]

Andy has already said he'd put a discussion of FWD issues in ITS on the table for the ITAC. I think most of the back and forth he and I are having is the usual web board misunderstanding of premise and intent.

Thanks Andy.
[/b]

I know. And I've chewed his ear off about this before, all in good fun. I just thought it was another point to bring up.

s

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy has already said he'd put a discussion of FWD issues in ITS on the table for the ITAC. I think most of the back and forth he and I are having is the usual web board misunderstanding of premise and intent.

Thanks Andy.
[/b]

Don't mention it - it's not like you are gonna get banned over here...

 

[Catch22]

I dunno, NASA's sphere of influence seems to be creeping into unexpected places.

I wish I was the first person that's been banned from a web board lately for saying things NASA folks don't like, but I'm not. They are banning and kicking out their own members all over the place for questioning their [cartmanvoice] A-THAW-RIT-TAY[/cartmanvoice].

Sorry for the wander there, but that damned yankee AB started it.

Scott, who feels pretty safe here... I think.

 

[charrbq]

Scott, never feel too safe or too secure or too comfortable. The black helicopters are circling...circling...circling. Hear them...listen...they're there...watching, waiting...they know where we are, our weaknesses...when, where, and how they'll eliminate us. Listen...be afraid...very afraid.

 

[Hracer]

I've just got caught up with this thread. This is a great discussion and even more so, it's very good to see that the ones in charge are both interested and listening. Thank you very much. IT is a great place to be part of.

Having a formula in place that takes into account many factors with which all cars are then judged with is a great way of doing it. Unfortunately, the difficult (if not impossible) part is assessing the correct importance of each of these factors. If some of these factors are not appreciated correctly, even a perfect formula will result in some erroneous outputs. That doesn't mean the formula is incorrect, but just that what each questionable factor is worth should be re-considered. Obviously doing this poses a potentially even greater problem since the results of the original process have all already been published, and changing even one factor's value would necessitate in running many of the cars affected through it again. Fortunately, the only cars affected by the changes in question (below) would be the FWD ITS cars, which there are few to begin with. After reading this thread, it seems that there might be 3 main changes in the process that seem logical.

1. The handicap that FWD plays at the higher weights and higher engine outputs seen in ITS needs to be re-evaluated.

2. The handicap that an inferior (60/40) weight distribution when compared to a perfect (50/50) weight distribution plays at the higher weights seen in ITS has to be re-evaluated. (It is very important to note that the disadvantages created by weight distribution alone, are different and than those created by FWD. Think of the benefits that a Miata with 50/50 distribution would have over a Miata with a 60/40 distribution in areas such as optimizing the car's handling/balance and braking. For the latter not in terms of wear/fade throughout a race, but in terms of actual maximum physical braking performance that all 4 wheels can provide based on the car's weight distribution.)

3. The handicap that difference in brake size is worth at the higher weights and higher power levels seen in ITS. In this case, not in terms of actual maximum physical braking performance, but in terms of wear/fade throughout a race.

It seems that the current process considers adders/subtractors for these 3 factors that are constant, irrespective of weight and power. However, the general consensus of this discussion might be that for these 3 factors, at least some linearly dependant values that are a function of a car's weight and power might prove to be more reflective of real world performance.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I've just got caught up with this thread. This is a great discussion and even more so, it's very good to see that the ones in charge are both interested and listening. Thank you very much. IT is a great place to be part of.

Having a formula in place that takes into account many factors with which all cars are then judged with is a great way of doing it. Unfortunately, the difficult (if not impossible) part is assessing the correct importance of each of these factors. If some of these factors are not appreciated correctly, even a perfect formula will result in some erroneous outputs. That doesn't mean the formula is incorrect, but just that what each questionable factor is worth should be re-considered. Obviously doing this poses a potentially even greater problem since the results of the original process have all already been published, and changing even one factor's value would necessitate in running many of the cars affected through it again. Fortunately, the only cars affected by the changes in question (below) would be the FWD ITS cars, which there are few to begin with. After reading this thread, it seems that there might be 3 main changes in the process that seem logical.

1. The handicap that FWD plays at the higher weights and higher engine outputs seen in ITS needs to be re-evaluated.

2. The handicap that an inferior (60/40) weight distribution when compared to a perfect (50/50) weight distribution plays at the higher weights seen in ITS has to be re-evaluated. (It is very important to note that the disadvantages created by weight distribution alone, are different and than those created by FWD. Think of the benefits that a Miata with 50/50 distribution would have over a Miata with a 60/40 distribution in areas such as optimizing the car's handling/balance and braking. For the latter not in terms of wear/fade throughout a race, but in terms of actual maximum physical braking performance that all 4 wheels can provide based on the car's weight distribution.)

3. The handicap that difference in brake size is worth at the higher weights and higher power levels seen in ITS. In this case, not in terms of actual maximum physical braking performance, but in terms of wear/fade throughout a race.

It seems that the current process considers adders/subtractors for these 3 factors that are constant, irrespective of weight and power. However, the general consensus of this discussion might be that for these 3 factors, at least some linearly dependant values that are a function of a car's weight and power might prove to be more reflective of real world performance. [/b]

An EXCELLENT post. An example of someone who reads the whole thread, considers all points of view, and then makes a conclusion. Thanks!

I will make sure this gets consideration. No promises but...