IT should really think about welcoming Older SM's....... Without a new class..

[seckerich]

100 percent serious Greg. All these other classes let IT cars run "as is" to let them experience a National class. Why not go the other way? Usually have plenty of rental shops with cars there and many SM drivers sick of not owning a 99 Miata. No changes from SM, just come run ITA in the early cars. In that form it is not a class winner except in a soft field.

 

[dickita15]

Jim,. No need for the SCCA to keep the post office in business .... These forums should be used .... Changes do not need to be on request only.

Greg

you do know that "write a letter" means submit an request on line at SCCA.com?

 

[JeffYoung]

Heck, we don't think any IT cars are being built. So you are saying that way to build interest in IT is to allow cars already built to a different ruleset to run in our category? I'm not sure I'm seeing that. If we have a decent turnout of ITA cars, then yeah, maybe SM2 cars are interested because they have something to race against. But if there aren't any ITA cars, then why not just create SM2 and be done with it? And if there aren't any SM2 cars, then why are we even talking about this?

Perception is going to be one big issue allowing SM2 cars into ITA. the SM2 cars are going to think they are slow and being screwed and/or the existing ITA cars are going to think the SM2 cars are fast and they are getting screwed. Best case, one group is going to be unhappy and unmotivated to show up and get smoked (in their mind), worst cast BOTH groups think this.

Sure they are. I'm aware of at least 5 ITS cars being built/under construction in the SEDiv.

All depends on competition.

 

[Greg Amy]

Should it be a gift to those with power steering?

If it's optional, you can convert to the manual rack.

You missed my point.

SAE net horsepower -- upon which we base our Improved Touring weights -- is measured with all auxiliary devices installed, including water pump, alternator, power steering pump, etc (old pre-'72 SAE gross was with everything removed, including restrictive exhausts). The question is, for those cars with power steering as an option, how is that number determined? If it's measured with all accessories, then allowing these cars to remove the power steering is a "gift" that cannot be equitably applied, and breaks The Process.

As a direct example, is the Mazda Miata SAE net measured on the base model car, the one without power steering, or the "worst case" scenario, the one with all the auxiliary devices installed? If the latter, then the true "gift" goes to the car that can remove items that were there when the measurement was done.

The vast majority of cars sold within the last two decades have power steering installed as standard. I think we'd be hard-pressed to find too many specific examples where allowing removal across-the-board would place cars in inequitable positions.

GA

 

[Ron Earp]

The vast majority of cars sold within the last two decades have power steering installed as standard. I think we'd be hard-pressed to find too many specific examples where allowing removal across-the-board would place cars in inequitable positions.

GA

Point I was trying to make five days ago using ITS as an example. Few cars are affected by the rule change. How many of the cars affected are actively racing and racing in active classes?

Beyond that, the process has such low resolution that the 1,2,3,4 hp the PS consumes is lost in the noise. Hell, if we're going to worry about that then we should start second guessing manufacturers' horsepower numbers as well.

Disabling/looping the PS is a very minor change that isn't going to make one iota of difference in competitiveness between cars in IT.

 

[JeffYoung]

On a more serious note (from me?), 2-3 HP can be very expensive to acquire. Should it be a gift to those with power steering?

It can also be expensive and impossible to prove you've acquired it.

I've got probably 40-50 dyno runs over the last 3 years. 2-3 hp is dyno noise. You get that much variation in results back to back same conditions just minutes apart.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

The Miata example isn't a good one as that car just got a weight adjustment using the 'what we know' theory. The most fair way to do it would be to determine a % gain factor...say 1 or 2% (based on actual research, could be more, could be non-existent based on results) and simply add it to all cars with power steering, and then allow them to remove it.

There is a faction that thinks that average gains in IT are greater than 25%, so maybe allowing this and moving the number to 30% could work.

OR, we could leave it alone because nothing is broken...my vote.

As to SM's...it's not just the pumpkin. It's chassis bracing from 1.8's allowed on 1.6's. It's other stuff too, no GCR in my hand. Again, my issue is that RIGHT NOW, a full prep 1.6 or 1.8 SM does not have the performance envelope of the ITA Miata...so there is no issue allowing them to compete while prepped to the SM rules...but the rub is simple:

What if the SMAC/CRB decides to allow the MX5 in...and tries to balance them all in one class? 1.6's get spec cams and 2 points of compressions, 1.8's get spec cams, 99's lose their restriction....you can't have your class dependent on another classes rules that doesn't care about your class. Work it regionally.

 

[Ron Earp]

It can also be expensive and impossible to prove you've acquired it.

I've got probably 40-50 dyno runs over the last 3 years. 2-3 hp is dyno noise. You get that much variation in results back to back same conditions just minutes apart.

Truth. Checking my hard drive team stang has 67 dyno pulls between the two cars since May 2012. We do statistically analyze our pulls, as well as curve fit them and integrate for area under the curve. We calculate that a couple of percent seems to fall into the noise of the measurement with the noise being comprised of a variety of components.

 

[Ron Earp]

The Miata example isn't a good one as that car just got a weight adjustment using the 'what we know' theory. The most fair way to do it would be to determine a % gain factor...say 1 or 2% (based on actual research, could be more, could be non-existent based on results) and simply add it to all cars with power steering, and then allow them to remove it.

The problem is that PS loss research is very hard to do. Some of it is methodology, but it's also that the loss is probably about the same absolute value as the noise of the measurement. First we'd need to establish a Limit of Detection for the dyno, LOD, which is the lowest value that can be distinguished from noise. But statistically we can't quantitate values at the LOD, we'd need to work at the Limit of Quantitation, the LOQ, which is about three times higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_limit

Where I'm going with this is if we have two measurements, A and B, and we determine that the LOD of our measurement is 2hp, then we can't statistically say with greater than 95% confidence that A is different from B unless the difference is around 6hp (I'm estimating based on LOD = 3*stdev blank / m, compared to LOQ = 10*Stdev blank / m).

This PS stuff is going to be lost in the noise, and probably the reason why manufacturers do not consider it when stating hp numbers.

Still, I'd be happy to try and measure it and I have the skills to get it done.

 

[Chip42]

2-3hp is 5% change in ITB. that's debated HEAVILY and can be 50#. how much of our lives here and on committee of various incarnations has been spent debating 5% gain or 50# on ITB cars? how much hoopl was raised by 50# on a miata? it might be in the noise of the dyno, and that's part of OUR problem, but it's not noise in the process, it's a major modification to the lower classes and one of the places where the process and its inputs fail the lower hp / wider mixed technology age classes.

re: power steering. I also suppor the change as I feel i screws SOME cars and helps many. but it's not outside fo the philosophy in my oppinion, certainly adds ease of service and keeps people happy because racecar. the problem just becomes a sudden increase, albeit small at the higher ends of development, in all cars now allowed to run depowered. that just moves the curve a bit. I believe ron is correct that you wouldn't notice it at all in ITS+ but I think as you dig into A and easily in B the effects will be more pronounced, though there's also the truth that many cars down at thos elevels never had the PS option anyhow. the part that worries me is when removal of power steering becomes a defacto requirement as opposed to a nicety - like 0.040 over motors are now - there are cars and drivers who benefit from PS and I woudln't want to HURT them in this way. Id vote for allowing depowering though.

I could be convinced that allowing unmodified SM cars into IT a'la SM in ST is OK so long as NA goes to A and NB to S, and that we have some assurances or veto authority over decisions of the SMAC so that they do not change their performance envelope above where it is now and unbalance the allowance in IT. either way, the feeling of getting screwed that jimbo noted is a very likely outcome and I go back to that and a lack of real need to make this allowance when I say I do NOT want it.


keeping the customers happy is a double edged sword. getting car counts up through artificial means and allowing mods, swaps, changes, or updates to keep cars on track (trans gears, rear end housings, power steering, ecus, whatever) has the effect of moving the class further away from the entry level "bolt on and go" origins to something altogether new and more "prod like". I'm all for making it easier and for finding ways to help keep the old cars on track but not when it caries potentially large shifts in the performance envelope. this is why I support many rules in IT that exist to limit the platform, such that a number of other modifications have a reduced effect (cage boundaries is the common example, reducing effectiveness of many suspension parts to small gains over less "pimpy" upgrades).

 

[gran racing]

I do wonder how those currently racing in ITA would feel about this as well. Many are not so happy about there being so many Miatas already. Add even more... After numbers in IT? Overall goal of IT and how this fits?

From an overall SCCA viewpoint, I still think it's just a matter of where these cars end up and not concern of losing them. We already have the tools built.

 

[Ron Earp]

I do wonder how those currently racing in ITA would feel about this as well. Many are not so happy about there being so many Miatas already.

Heck, the SCCA is a Miata club already. Take a gander around the regional paddock and compare Miatas vs. other cars, excluding Spec Racer Fords, and it's pretty clear in the production based categories Mazda/Miata is the most populous car. Accommodating them into the framework of existing classes makes the most sense to me instead of creating yet another SCCA class in a club with too many classes.

 

[mossaidis]

Bring it.

 

[Chip42]

what's wrong with just dumping the B6 and installing a BP of the correct vintage into an SM NA and calling it an ITA car? so long as head prep and other things are kept within IT specs, a 1.6L NA chassis built for SM is for all intents and purposes a 1.8L NA chassis (mirrors are open in IT, VIN rule is gone, etc...) and legal to IT specs as such (chassis - motor still has that head work allowance). someone please correct me if I am wrong.

there's enough people still in SM willing to buy pulled SM prep engines that eventually the supply of them will be used up while nice IT compliant engines are installe din their place should the owner wish to come play in our sandbox. there's plenty of places to run the cars as configured to SM, I really don't think we need to add IT. despite that, most regions seem to have no problem letting the SM cars run in the IT group so the change doesn't really seem needed as it's not keeping "customers" away.

 

[Matt Rowe]

Not to be picky but looking at engine pulls to extrapolate power steering pump loss numbers appears to be the wrong approach. You would be better off trying to get drag loss numbers on the pumps themselves. Data from way back in the day is probably limited but I would be shocked if engine manufacturers today don't carefully spec that requirement and require the suppliers to provide it. I suspect someone either on this forum or from the CRB has connections in the auto industry.

 

[Knestis]

Since I'm a splitter, so apparently no longer allowed to have opinions about IT rules in particular, I'll speak in the abstract...

If the point were "participation" or "just getting out there," the solution is in the catch-all kinds of classes that already exist, for which an SM - or any number of other cars - are already eligible, but will potentially be woefully off the pace of a really fast example of the class. Or we could have an entire group and call it "open passing HPDE 4" or some such.

Point being, that's NOT the point.

The underlying desire is to be able to RACE, to compete, but to do so conveniently with the same car already run in another class, without spending any additional money to make it fit the existing rules. It's very dangerous to let folks who are looking to compete but are playing the secret-really-wanna-race game into a category by falling for that charade. That camel will get its nose under the tent and start asking for more allowances in no time flat. Or, if the people who are currently lobbying for that option really DO just want to be there, there is nothing to keep the guy who shows up in a couple of years from pushing it.

And conflating conversation about whether a particular new allowance is a good idea for a RACING category with discussion of including cars built to a different ruleset on some basis of PARTICIPAING...? A terrible idea. If New Rule X might a good idea, it should be considered all on its own. If the crossover allowance might be useful, it should be considered separately. I tend to think the latter is never a good idea but at least untangle them so you don't potentially have policy aims at cross purposes.

K

EDIT - OR maybe STL cars should be allowed to run in ITS. It would increase participation.

 

[JeffYoung]

Or maybe let existing ITS cars (ALL of them) run in STL....lol.

 

[Wreckerboy]

... or all of those "ancient" 1.6 SM cars could come and run SSM with WDCR. We "only" had 30+ cars last weekend and 43 at MARRS 1 earlier this year. Jus' sayin'...