pitbull113
New member
I wrote a letter as well requesting a move for both the egt and the pro to ITB.
Escort GT/LXE to ITB?
- Thread starter tderonne
- Start date
I think some of the ITB guys should start chimming in. The list of cars that have been moved down is really starting to mess up the ITB fields. The Volvo, BMW, and older vw have been very competitive with each other for many years. The scca moves down the newer vw, Honda prelude, Honda CRX and now the older cars can not compete. It seems to me all we are doing is Making ITB into ITA. There were long standing itb records that not only got beat but got crushed by these cars that have dropped down to B. It is very discouraging that a BMW 2002 that has been a winning car from the start of the class can no longer compete for the win.
I know what you mean. Take a look at the results from my last race. I'm still a slouch, but Albin isn't. Jason is in a CRX with second hand Hoosiers.
http://www.mylaps.com/results/showrun.jsp?id=2421571&perclass=1
http://www.mylaps.com/results/showrun.jsp?id=2421571&perclass=1
Last edited:
Seems like a math problem based on stock figures. Why would anyone have a full-on build - let alone dyno data - on a car that's patently not a good answer for the class it's in?
This conversation got had 10 years ago. Variance in performance can be accounted for by all kinds of factors other than make/model - old or new.
There are places where the ITB lap record still stands from before the "new cars" got added simply because they were set by cheater cars. Standards of preparation among the best turned-out cars in the class have improved. Tires are better. In some regions, the standard required to be competitive before the (not so) Great Realignment simply wasn't very high because local drivers arrived at a level of detente that they were all good with. When I first built my MkIII Golf, it wasn't competitive. I had to work hard on the car and my driving to get up front.
I have zero question that a fully developed, well driven 2002 can run up front in the best ITB field. Problem is, nobody is doing it. Drivers doing fresh builds find newer cars more attractive, so they are more likely to go 100% on them than on cars with older technology that are harder to find parts for.
It's not all about the model car. It never has been.
K
Charlie Broring
New member
Kirk, let me see if I have this right. BMW 2002's are no longer competitive in ITB because the owners don't know how to prep and develop their cars. If only they could prep them as well as you do, then they would be able to win again.
That right?
That right?
I can't speak to "don't know how to prep" but across the range of entries, I don't believe that they are pushing the limits on engineering, preparation, or driving. But that's not the point.
I argue with your contention that "BMW 2002s are no longer competitive." That's simply an overstatement not supported by evidence. It's fair to say that, considering the current state of play, and factoring in budgets, tire choices, development, driver skill, and the dozens of other factors that make a difference, the 2002 chassis doesn't have a demonstrated advantage among the limited sample available for study.
If the MkIII Golf were somehow magical, why do we see 2, 3, or even 5 seconds of lap time variance among the examples at any given race? Because other factors matter more than the badges on the box that the driver and racey parts are in.
When Jeff Underwood beat up on the MARRS field in 2010, it wasn't because he was in a Civic. It was because of a combination of the best engineered car in the field, and one of the best drivers in the paddock. If there had been a dozen of the same make/model of car in the field, rather than ONE example, some would have been fast, others very slow, and many in between.
I went faster that same year than I ever had at Summit Point. Why? Because I puckered up my butt and quit driving like I was loping around during the 12 hours. Why wasn't the fact that I was mired in the back half of the field in previous visits "proof" that the MkIII Golf is NOT competitive...? Why isn't the fact that 2002s - and VOLVOS - went as fast or faster than me evidence of the same thing? If it's all in the car, how come Tristan is a second faster than me pretty much everywhere we've raced in the same kind of car?
Because other variables make a bigger difference.
K
I argue with your contention that "BMW 2002s are no longer competitive." That's simply an overstatement not supported by evidence. It's fair to say that, considering the current state of play, and factoring in budgets, tire choices, development, driver skill, and the dozens of other factors that make a difference, the 2002 chassis doesn't have a demonstrated advantage among the limited sample available for study.
If the MkIII Golf were somehow magical, why do we see 2, 3, or even 5 seconds of lap time variance among the examples at any given race? Because other factors matter more than the badges on the box that the driver and racey parts are in.
When Jeff Underwood beat up on the MARRS field in 2010, it wasn't because he was in a Civic. It was because of a combination of the best engineered car in the field, and one of the best drivers in the paddock. If there had been a dozen of the same make/model of car in the field, rather than ONE example, some would have been fast, others very slow, and many in between.
I went faster that same year than I ever had at Summit Point. Why? Because I puckered up my butt and quit driving like I was loping around during the 12 hours. Why wasn't the fact that I was mired in the back half of the field in previous visits "proof" that the MkIII Golf is NOT competitive...? Why isn't the fact that 2002s - and VOLVOS - went as fast or faster than me evidence of the same thing? If it's all in the car, how come Tristan is a second faster than me pretty much everywhere we've raced in the same kind of car?
Because other variables make a bigger difference.
K
I think it isn't that they don't know how to prep their cars. It is more of a matter that they haven't. I spoke to someone who I trust to know what a fully prepared 2002 can generate and the number they gave me was spot-on for the process weight. I trust this person because they have built, crewed and raced such a car.
I know of drivers who, in the same breath they are telling me that they cannot keep up the new mis-classed are telling me how their tires are old, the motor needs freshening and their shocks probably need rebuilding. It doesn't generate much sympathy that something is wrong in ITB.
So, unless the HP-gains for the newer cars is understated or the process is missing a critical variable, there's no unfair advantage.
Back in the day, there were a bunch of good running 2002s. Then the VW Golf got 2 seconds faster. Then what the Golfs did was made legal by the CRB. Then the 2002s got two seconds faster based on California acquired parts. But the CRB has never made that legal. There's another half dozen things that are questionable but the 2002 has had its time in the sun - better prep/driver is not the answer for this car.
Sorry, but what did the CRB "make legal?" There are no special allowances in the GCR for the Golf II. And California parts are legal in IT, at least as long as update-backdate rules are followed. Contrary to some opinions, it's not actually a foreign country out there.
K
there's that. but there are examples. without decent data, selling the BP, or "miata" engine in the escort GT/LXE and protege into ITB at anything less than a high gain will be difficult for some to swallow. I'm going off my previous interactions here, we haven't had any group conversations about it yet at the ITAC level, much less with the CRB.
if accepted at 30% numbers, that's 2750 lbs of car. cage rules vs 2700 lbs mean that if any got built at that point they would have a heavier cage (not grandfathered with the lighter one) and would then have MORE trouble getting to a lighter weight than they already do, should one be warranted.
if 2750 is what the requestors want, I'm fine with it, but I'd put it out for member input to find out before I voted up or down.
I feel for the guys who have been watching the fields grow faster but these points have to be read again and again. old cars are less attractive platforms for full tilt builds under the modern paradgms (lack of rust free shells, spares, replacement parts,etc...), thus old cars tend to be old builds done to old paradigms - and as indcated, often with old, worn parts. further, old builds tend to have old prep habbits to go along with them. there might be inherant "oldness" to the cars on levels not captured by the process (maybe chassis rigidity, suspension geometry, whatever...) but that's NOT something I think we should be getting into from a rulesmaking perspective. If IT were to become "protectionist" of old cars, it will do so at the expense of relevance and of the newer cars. it's mor eimportant to be fair with all cars, and let the level of prep and effort be the targets rather than forcing partiy from what's out there. the latter approach goes inverted far too easily, like when someone decides to up their game in a previously slow car, and takes WAY too much administration (given the club level racing aspect) to keep it straight.
if you like driving your old car as is, please keep doing so. the point here is to have fun. if you don't like getting beaten, up your game. if you still can't manage to be competitive, then maybe there's somethign to the argument and the car might need to be addressed.
Last edited:
shwah
New member
I am concerned about the pace of recent change, and proposed changes in ITB. I used to feel that my car was on the tail end of the pointy end and that I could continue to compete with a legit effort. There was an obvious power to weight deficit with the fast cars to have. At this point I am not sure I can even do that after what I have seen of some of the recently changed/moved cars.
I still don't think we have an effective method to validate what we "know" about a given cars power gain and want to see that improved before making more changes.
I still don't think we have an effective method to validate what we "know" about a given cars power gain and want to see that improved before making more changes.
no one's talking baout changing ITB, or any rule. just moving 1 or 2 cars (in this thread, there may be more cars, and often are rules requests) from A to B. if we do it right, everyone keeps the same theoretical chance of winning they had previously, except that the cars moving down should have a chance, where previously they did not.
parity is the point of the classiifcation process. you know that as well as anyone. if you feel otherwise, I'd very much like to know what, in particular, has you worried.
parity is the point of the classiifcation process. you know that as well as anyone. if you feel otherwise, I'd very much like to know what, in particular, has you worried.
shwah
New member
I am not convinced that this is what IS happening. Thus I am not comfortable continuing on this path until we know that we are getting it right.
Said the guy that greeted the first discussion about moving MR2s into ITB with a "welcome to the class we are glad to have you" mentality.
the premise of The Process is power (Crank HP) vs. weight (with some minor adders/subtractors as you know). if we are getting that right (the data suggests that we mostly are) and there is not relative parity in the cars as classed, then the premise fails.
is the premise wrong? I'm not a zealous adherant to "the process" fundamentals, I'm a zealous adherant to running everything fairly and to the same standard - and I use the process as defined by previous ITACs to do so. FWIW, I think it's pretty damned good. It's biggest failing in ITB (from what I can see) is that too many classified cars have not been run through. I honestly feel that we can only see what fundamental process input, if any, needs changing when there has been some settling time with the whole class "realigned." until the second part happens, the first part can't start from a good baseline.
but I'm not going to block the addition of cars based on the above. the process is what we base all of this on, and while I'm willing to address that process if demonstrated to be needed, I am not willing to put the class in a bubble and wait for that time.
IF the fundamentals need changing, I'm likely the loudmouth most willing to take on such a cause.
is the premise wrong? I'm not a zealous adherant to "the process" fundamentals, I'm a zealous adherant to running everything fairly and to the same standard - and I use the process as defined by previous ITACs to do so. FWIW, I think it's pretty damned good. It's biggest failing in ITB (from what I can see) is that too many classified cars have not been run through. I honestly feel that we can only see what fundamental process input, if any, needs changing when there has been some settling time with the whole class "realigned." until the second part happens, the first part can't start from a good baseline.
but I'm not going to block the addition of cars based on the above. the process is what we base all of this on, and while I'm willing to address that process if demonstrated to be needed, I am not willing to put the class in a bubble and wait for that time.
IF the fundamentals need changing, I'm likely the loudmouth most willing to take on such a cause.
shwah
New member
The part of the process that is lacking is how we quantify the power gaIn we "know" a car makes. There are enough pounds per HP in this class that getting this wrong makes a big impact. We have simply moved the arbitrary element of the process from weight assigned to hp estimated, with much more swing in competitiveness if you get it wrong.
Last edited:
I completely agree about some cars being off, but I also think more cars are "too heavy" than are too light (accross all processed cars in IT, not ITB specifically), if only by a little bit. what we "know" to be "right" are only some of the cars, but they're the ones we have data on.
and I'd much rather have an "arbitrary" hp target against which to later measure a car than an arbitrary weight which has no real associated metrics behind it. at least this way we can verify and adjust in line with the process philosophy, though that does take soem asking for input from the membership, and it can be hard to get that information if a car is over target, as no one wants to lose their advantage.
and I'd much rather have an "arbitrary" hp target against which to later measure a car than an arbitrary weight which has no real associated metrics behind it. at least this way we can verify and adjust in line with the process philosophy, though that does take soem asking for input from the membership, and it can be hard to get that information if a car is over target, as no one wants to lose their advantage.
Last edited:
shwah
New member
I hear you - but remember that 5hp off = 85# off, and if you end up 5 low on a cars power assumption people will not beat a path to your door to correct it. We don't often get to see the evidence offered to support a known power level, and when we do, I don't often trust that it is legit, because of conflicts of interest. Not sure if there is a good way to get around that.
The only way is to continue to treat the process as a process, not a formula, and use judgement at times (as much as we the members will cry foul), to get it right, whether the first time, or after the fact correcting a mistake.
When we see cars go to the ARRC and run at the very front, while their engine stumbles at some point every single lap, and then hear calls to remove weight based on the process - I get worried. When another verson of that same car shows up and runs away from what has been a very competitive car/prep/driver package like happened at MPH last month I wonder if it is even worth my while to look for that last hidden hp or 2.
Flyinglizard
New member
Is this the same board that put the weight of the Rocco and the GTI the same?
How can it be trusted, when you have very good data showing that 50-75# is needed between the cars and they even them up.
I have been dong a lot of aero drag testing. ( For the Chumper)
But the Rocco/Golf is next.
How can it be trusted, when you have very good data showing that 50-75# is needed between the cars and they even them up.
I have been dong a lot of aero drag testing. ( For the Chumper)
But the Rocco/Golf is next.