Escort GT/LXE to ITB?

mike, the process is power to weight with some adjusters. Aero is not one of them. Same motors, same driveline config, same weight.

Chris, I assume You are referring to bp miatas. They're good cars, and this is where the process really becomes a bit unpopular. We do try to get power numbers for fast cars to rexamine. Its a tough spot. But we'd usually rather not adjust than adjust blind. Not a perfect system.
 
How can you ignore 20yrs of results??
Same car, 6in lower, with 8* better windshield angle.
It is about 80# faster than the Rabbit, @ 110hp.

My Wife will tell you the same thing just looking at the cars.
Please fix stupid stuff like that. Thanks, MM
 
Aero is not a process factor and shouldn't be. There is no easy way to quantify it unless you have frontal area and cd numbers for 300 different car in the ITCS. Good luck with that.

We'd make far more mistakes accounting for aero than leaving it as is.

And no, your wife can't look at a car and tell it needs 80 lbs for aero. Only the production guys can do that......
 
Charlie Broring said:
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?
Click to expand...

Come on Charlie. When we asked you questions about the prep level of the Volvos at Summit, we got answers like:

1. Data acquisition isn't for club racers (since it costs the same as a set of tires, I'd suggest it is)
2. We figured out spring rates on our cars 20 years ago.
3. High dollar shocks? Don't need them.

And so on.

The problem is not that the older cars can't compete, it is that the drivers want prep levels circa 1995. And that is not going to happen.
 
JeffYoung said:
Come on Charlie. When we asked you questions about the prep level of the Volvos at Summit, we got answers like:

1. Data acquisition isn't for club racers (since it costs the same as a set of tires, I'd suggest it is)
2. We figured out spring rates on our cars 20 years ago.
3. High dollar shocks? Don't need them.

And so on.

The problem is not that the older cars can't compete, it is that the drivers want prep levels circa 1995. And that is not going to happen.
Click to expand...
Jeff, my memory from my brief time on the committee is that you only heard what you wanted to hear. I guess this confirms it.

I also remember that neither the committee nor the CRB wanted to hear what I had to say about the the impact on the class of the cars that were moved down from ITA.
 
Jeff,
What Iam saying is that over the period of the last 20yrs. the cars have shown to be about 70-80# apart.
50# spread has been since the beginning.
The Rocco is just plain faster @ the same weight. No one that runs VWs will dispute that.
I just dont see how the ITAC can say they are moving foreward, without looking at real world results that have very hard numbers over a long period of time.
Makes no sense and is just incorrect.
The CD is around the net . aero can be measured. It is what I do. The windshield angle is the single most important value.
I have the same Rocco that I built 20yrs ago. Now runs HP.
 
Charlie Broring said:
Jeff, my memory from my brief time on the committee is that you only heard what you wanted to hear. I guess this confirms it.

I also remember that neither the committee nor the CRB wanted to hear what I had to say about the the impact on the class of the cars that were moved down from ITA.
Click to expand...

No, we all listened, asked questions, and talked with you. At length. Over and over. And you were never able to answer questions like the ones I posed above.

I ask again, does your 100% developed Volvo have data acquisition in it?

Does it have a Burns or other computer designed exhaust system?

When is the last time you worked on spring rates?

What shocks do you run?

How many test days a year do you run?

Because "Tristan Herbert in an overdog Golf" is really "Tristan Herbert in a Golf who does all of those things listed above." And we never really got a straight answer from you if the "older cars" in ITB that needed so much help did the same.
 
JeffYoung said:
Aero is not a process factor and shouldn't be. There is no easy way to quantify it unless you have frontal area and cd numbers for 300 different car in the ITCS. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

True. Calculating the exact aero allowance is all-but impossible. That being said, two cars whose internal components are identical, except that one is shaped like a piece of plywood and the other like a F1 car probably shouldn't carry the same weight -- if the goal is parity when processed.

We'd make a different set of mistakes accounting for aero than leaving it as is.
Click to expand...

FTFY. It remains to be demonstrated whether there would be more mistakes.
 
I don't disagree with some of that. BUT:

1. The goal is not parity. The goal is to get cars "roughly equal" and let prep level and driving skill sort things out.

2. If we give the Golf/Rabbit whatever it is an aero break vis a vis the Scirocco, making it "fair" versus that car, what about the rest of ITB? Aren't we giving the Golf/Rabbit and aero break that it may not deserve against say a 2002? And if we give the Scirocco a penalty, aren't we giving it a penatly against other cars that have better aero than the Roc?

That -- point (2) -- is the problem in looking at one classification in the ITCS versus a single other classification.
 
Jeff is on the money. Remember, the goal isn't the bullseye. It's the 'target'. Can't be any other way unless we start farking around with Prod-style adjustments.
 
To do this well, or better than it has been in the past, you should look at the real world results when they are available.
If Jeff and Andy, Chip, are on the ITAC they are ignoring the real world data to fit their "process".
When there are plenty of cars with good data, please dont discount the data. At the same time, when there are lots of cars running well, often all are cheating and moving the bar with bad data. (IE; I buy lots of ITB Golfs and have not found any legal ones. The latest has holes drilled in the front bumper..)

You already lowered the weight of both cars, allowing them to be close. The weight was heavy for 15yrs. but always has been 50# apart .
Dont ignore the obvious. Please dont sit on an error to fit your ego, adjust when an mistake has been made.
Thankless job no doubt. Thanks for doing it.

FWIW;
The windshield angle is the biggest part of real world sedan race aero. The mirrors , tires, front end, all can be changed , but not the glass and overall sq/in. (I advise to lower the rear end on the VW to reduce the glass angle for that reason).
I have been doing lots of "wind table"( I have an airplane and a front end lift, you do the math:) testing, along with coast down testing to reduce actual drag .

Again , My cars are all running HP now at the same weight as the Golf.( so your error has no effect on me). I saw an opening for the Rocco there and we were pretty close to lap times before we took out the weight .Plus the tires are free.

I do have an old 1.7 Rocco.
 
Flyinglizard said:
To do this well, or better than it has been in the past, you should look at the real world results when they are available.
If Jeff and Andy, Chip, are on the ITAC they are ignoring the real world data to fit their "process".
When there are plenty of cars with good data, please dont discount the data. At the same time, when there are lots of cars running well, often all are cheating and moving the bar with bad data. (IE; I buy lots of ITB Golfs and have not found any legal ones. The latest has holes drilled in the front bumper..)

You already lowered the weight of both cars, allowing them to be close. The weight was heavy for 15yrs. but always has been 50# apart .
Dont ignore the obvious. Please dont sit on an error to fit your ego, adjust when an mistake has been made.
Thankless job no doubt. Thanks for doing it.

FWIW;
The windshield angle is the biggest part of real world sedan race aero. The mirrors , tires, front end, all can be changed , but not the glass and overall sq/in. (I advise to lower the rear end on the VW to reduce the glass angle for that reason).
I have been doing lots of "wind table"( I have an airplane and a front end lift, you do the math:) testing, along with coast down testing to reduce actual drag .

Again , My cars are all running HP now at the same weight as the Golf.( so your error has no effect on me). I saw an opening for the Rocco there and we were pretty close to lap times before we took out the weight .Plus the tires are free.

I do have an old 1.7 Rocco.
Click to expand...

Nobody is ignoring the obvious. We are telling you this issue has been discussed, at length, at it was collectively decided that it was too hard to get aero "right" on all cars. So we don't consider it, and we aren't going to to consider on an individual pair of cars when doing so could mess with their competitiveness vis a vis the rest of the class.

It's not an error. It is a choice and I'm very confident it is the correct one.

While I appreciate your posting, you seem to have a "I've seen it all" attitude based on a small subset of cars you've seen in your area. I can assure you in other regions the vast majority of cars are entirely legal. But the critical point is we cannot -- CANNOT -- make rules based on "real world" observations of illegal cars.

Last, "real world" observations are fraugh with, to use your term, error. Car prep, driver prep, driver having a bad day, and so on -- all things that affect an "on track" observation that we can't and won't account for in the Process.
 
I have raced IT for 20yrs.Built/setup/crewed, maybe 25-40 IT cars.

The Rabbit and Rocco have been 50# apart for 20yrs.
Now you have obsoleted the Rabbit. Simple as that.
 
No sir, we did not. I've learned from 10 years of racing IT and working on 8, 10, 12 IT cars that yes, 50 lbs matters, but driver skill, car prep and many other factors matter more.

It's that simple.

And I'm sure, if I spent the time to figure it out, I could find some advantages the Rabbit has over the Roc that aren't accounted for in the Process.
 
JeffYoung said:
I don't disagree with some of that. BUT:

1. The goal is not parity. The goal is to get cars "roughly equal" and let prep level and driving skill sort things out.
Click to expand...

1. Define roughly equal. Define prep level. If cars were to be roughly equal, they would be processed at their stock HP (and the guys who IT-Prep their cars rise to the top) or with a standard IT-prep gain, unless and until proven otherwise. HP multipliers wouldn't be set here or there in a willy-nilly matter by the production class biases of dinosaurs.

2. WTF do you do about a car that simply is bettermiataas it comes from the factory? HP right on the process prediction, yada-yada-yada... The process is screwed. There's no justification to throw weight on the car since the process-driven HP:weight ratio is exactly as predicted.

2. If we give the Golf/Rabbit whatever it is an aero break vis a vis the Scirocco, making it "fair" versus that car, what about the rest of ITB? Aren't we giving the Golf/Rabbit and aero break that it may not deserve against say a 2002?
Click to expand...

Wrong metric. The definition of fair isn't whether giving something to the Golf is unfair to the 2002 (assuming the 2002 deserves one as well). The definition of fair is whether the Golf is fairly classified versus the ideal ITB classification. Same/Same for the Roc. Either the car with crappy aero is classified too heavy or the car with good aero is classified too light. How the car is classified versus other cars in ITB is irrelevant since the goal is to give each each car its ideal ITB classification.

Opening the ECUs was the death knell of the carb cars and while I understand that the old rule, as written, couldn't be enforced, I think there were other options to forestall illegal ecus that didn't require the anything goes world we have.
 
Roughly equal is all set using the same process, which has imperfect inputs. Meaning, we get roughly equal cars.

You do nothing about a car that is simply "better." You can't quantify it and you are more likely to muck things up if you try. That's a choice we've made and by empirical observation, we still have 5, 7, 9, more chassis that can win in S, A and B.


Absolutely correct metric because you are saying exactly the same thing. You don't compare Car A to Car B to determine "fair." You compare it to the class. We don't use aero as a modifier for ANY cars, which is why granting Car A an aero modifier due to a perceived disadvantage vis a vis Carb is 100% wrong.

What other options besides open ECUs were there?

The only class where I don't see any more carb'ed cars running up front is ITA (although there aren't any in R). S -- Z cars. B -- 2002s, etc.

Still though, the fact is those cars are OLD. there are fewer of them, and there was no real way using the process to quantify the advantage an open ECU gives. Peak power? No, not unless something else changed. Area under the curve? Sure, but how are going to quantify that?
 
JeffYoung said:
You do nothing about a car that is simply "better." You can't quantify it and you are more likely to muck things up if you try. That's a choice we've made and by empirical observation, we still have 5, 7, 9, more chassis that can win in S, A and B.
Click to expand...

Empirical observation? Something, something... on-track performance. And I think there is a growing consensus that ITA stands for A car is dominant.

Absolutely correct metric because you are saying exactly the same thing. You don't compare Car A to Car B to determine "fair." You compare it to the class.
Click to expand...
No, it's not the same thing. You are saying that one should compare it to the current performance of the class. I'm saying one should compare it to the ideal performance of the class. If the Rabbit is too heavy based on its aero for that ideal, then it matters not whether any other car also is too heavy based on their aero. Not the same.

We don't use aero as a modifier for ANY cars, which is why granting Car A an aero modifier due to a perceived disadvantage vis a vis Carb is 100% wrong.
Click to expand...
I think you are combining two issues. Aero and the obsolescence of Carb cars. Not using an aero modifier is a choice -- a deliberate omission given that aero is one of the factors listed in the GCR for classification
During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as – but not limited to – manufacturer’s published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency.​
Claiming that since you cannot get it correct, you shouldn't adjust for it is disingenuous. 1. Not including any adjust at all is simply the converse of the above. Instead of potentially creating a winner by misapplying an aero adjustment, the process creates winners by the misapplication of zero aero adjustments.
2. The goal is to get as close to perfection as possible -- two cars have identical components and one is a plow. It's clear that the plow should weigh less. Applying something is better than applying nothing. Especially since the adjustment is likely to be marginal.
3. Y'all got the exact, nailed down, 100% correct maximum HP of every car built to a 100% IT-prep build?

What other options besides open ECUs were there?
Click to expand...
I think you have replaced the chip in your ECU. Here's my $25 protest fee and his brand new/factory reconditioned ECU with the correct factory part number right on it. Put it in your car. I get your old, used and beat-up "stock" ECU. I'm out $25 and the considerable cost of the ECU and I get a used ECU that isn't worth crap (unless it's got a a really cool illegal chip in it and I'll be more than happy to sell that to someone in a class where it is legal, but you don't have an illegal chip, do you?)

The only class where I don't see any more carb'ed cars running up front is ITA (although there aren't any in R). S -- Z cars. B -- 2002s, etc.
Click to expand...
The 2002s run up front when the ECU cars stay home. How many carb ITB cars were on the podium at IT Spectacular? How many at the ARRC?

Still though, the fact is those cars are OLD. there are fewer of them, and there was no real way using the process to quantify the advantage an open ECU gives. Peak power? No, not unless something else changed. Area under the curve? Sure, but how are going to quantify that?
Click to expand...
You're confusing perfectly quantifying the impact with attempting to adjust for it. The pursuit of perfection often impedes improvement. The rules were changed and the change put some cars at a disadvantage and some cars at an advantage -- what was that you said about imperfect aero adjustments? If I was in the first group, I'd be pissed off, especially if I felt that nothing was done to adjust for it.

ITB is healthy now because there's been an influx of newer cars and the driver's of the older cars haven't (yet) gone off to vintage like it appears the organization would implicitly like them to do.
 
This post just confirms why you have zero impact on club racing. You are completely incapable of the words "I agree." You take issue with EVERY assertion I make because, well, that's your nature. You are a smart guy, but irrelevant, because you didn't get that "how to win friends and influence people" the rest of us got.

The Process is not perfect. It's not meant to be. It gets cars close, and using a gut check of empirical observation it works. It's that simple. That one sentence answers about 99% of your beef above, which veers all over the place but in short just wants something we can never have: perfect classing of cars.

And your ECU fix? Yeah. Good luck finding a sock ECU for some of the cars on grid.

But to keep you happy, here are some things you can string quote to argue with:

1. Blowjobs from female super models are awesome.

2. Beer is good.

3. 2 + 2 = 4.

4. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

5. The Earth is round.

Go!

2.
 
So I think we all 'get' the problem here. It is exemplified by the fact that two cars, with identical input factors for the Process, weigh the same. A factor that the ITAC and CRB agree is too subjective (aero) provides one car with an advantage over the other. This is fact.

But we have to realize that just because this example 'clearly' shows one should weigh more than another to be equal, most of us agree that it doesn't matter. Here is why:

As Jeff stated, while it may be simple to think that in a vacuum these two cars should weigh different amounts, it is a much larger picture. You would be either giving the Rabbit an aero subtractor or the Rocco an aero adder. NEITHER of which are part of the Process. If it were, the ITAC would have to develop standards to which each car would be measured to determine if it got this applied to it as well.

As has been discussed much before, this is a virtually impossible task coupled with the fact that we are allowed to modify 'aero' in the rules. No adders or subtractors should be based on stock figures, they need to be based on figures 'with IT mods' if you really want them to mean something. So let's calculate the aero of everything with best-of-breed splitters and air-dams, measure windshield angles on everything and come up with an angle that is 'good and bad'...ummm, no.

So while we can all certainly understand that in this instance a 'flaw' in the Process is highlighted, the goal is NOT to get as close to perfection as possible. It was and I think still is, to set a group of parameters and get everyone onto the same playing field, not to try and stack everyone in the center of said field, right on the 50 yard line.

That would be GREAT if it happened, but with the wide range of cars in the ITCS I just don't see how you could do so without having dedicated metrics for brake size, aero, transmission ratios, HP and torque under the curve, steering box ratios...and on and on.

And just like in Pro Racing...part of this 'world of perfection' would have to be straight up competition adjustments to correct what you got wrong. And good luck trying to determine in this world of IT if that was driver, prep, car or any combination therein.

On edit: If we want to argue that the Process needs to be more granular because situations like this are not acceptable, then a real strong methodology needs to be proposed and adopted inside the Process to accommodate.
 
Last edited:
Major parameters that determine sedan race-abilty;
Chassis estimator/ dynamics , IE does the chassis suck?
1) dynamic outside front tire loading This figure is in #. Add both front weights .( for our purpose of relative value)
This is the major limit for actual turn speed and brake performance. Less front weight allows the car to turn faster and stop better. The actual geometry( wheel angle of 3-10degrees turned) and brake size has very little to do with real world performance ,it is basic physics of dynamic # per sq in of rubber.

2) Roll center/vertical CG value. Lower is better, esp rear roll center. The rear roll picks up the inside front tire, slowing the car,adding to outside load,see #1.

Subset, aero
3)Windshield angle; lower is better. IT rules have the same size wheels/tires airdam . The major value not moved is the glass angle. Big value with 100 -125hp, Huge impact in top gear. Huge impact in top gear**

4) sq/in of involvement; smaller car has less sq in, smaller window lets less air inside, resulting in less involvement.etc.
Smaller car makes smaller hole in air.

Powertrain; Eng,gears.; est HP /cc, lower factory value to cc leaves more room to build HP.
1) #/ cc.; acceleration estimator.
Valve area per CC, determines operating RPM range. cam timing etc.

2)gear box. determines time in torque range


The areas thatITAC should look at ; IMO

#per CC
Est HP per #
Throttle body size area/ to CC.
front weight
Aero sq in and windshield angle .
rear roll center/vertical CG


Based upon prior statements. The A 1 ,VWs should all weight the same, the Honda CRX and sedan should weigh the same .

Based on real world observation and 20yr.history, the VW were very close together with a 50# spread. The Civic/CRX is close with a 100# spread .
Why mess with success? that already existed? Move the cars weight together, keeping the spread. Logic should prevail. When real word observation has more value than an equation..

Its like the baseball coach messing with my kid that was hitting .435 .Those kids can do whatever theywant.

Again you guys can do whatever you want, but make improvements not back track.

I always say that either you are part of the solution or part of the problem. I would be happy to assist with aero estimations.
To do so you need a "zero car" target car. I use the Golf Mk 2 as I have 4or 5 and can get a decent repeatable value for it and the Jetta.
My Rocco has no front bumper at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top