ITAC News.

[StephenB]

Booo

Do you know if we got the 100# deduct for torque?

 

[Chip42]

Where does the RX8 fall in your new number crunch? Need to decide if I get new glass or lexan.

steve - in lieu of searching, can you remind me the hp numbers that are appropriate to the car? I don't have the existing classification background at hand.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

steve - in lieu of searching, can you remind me the hp numbers that are appropriate to the car? I don't have the existing classification background at hand.

The RX-8 was set with real-world dyno numbers because the crank numbers are bogus. You will need to go into the files or ping the ITAC on that one.

 

[JeffYoung]

Stop with the flawed Ops Manual. It's the best thing the ITAC did besides the process itself (and I'll ad you were initially opposed to publishing the Process). Josh did a great job with that.

What was flawed was the reason the unwritten rule of "no DW for ITR cars" came about in the first place. "All ITR cars" do not have DW. Another flaw was using a "static" deduct for FWD and them dumping it for a percentage after a lot of cars had been reweighted. I was apart of that and acknowledge being a part of it, and we are trying to fix things by being consistent and doing things right from the start instead of changing them on the fly or fixing them later.

You of all people should know we only have a certain amount of ability to change things before the CRB (rightly) starts to wonder what we are doing.

And you can tell them the truth. That you went by the flawed Ops manual, didn't recall how cars were classed, and applied an adder when the class didn't currently call for it.

So you humbly admit this, bring the one car in line until the ITAC and the CRB align on a re-do of the whole class. Why? Because the simple fact is you should be considering a strut decuct at these weights instead of a DW adder. But that is just a time and committee thing, I don't so much care either way as long as the class is aligned.

It's really the most simple and fair thing to do. I can't see how you would see it any other way that to avoid a slightly embarrassing situation for the ITAC, unless the ITR redo was published in the next couple months, but that ain't how fast things can get done. ESPECIALLY considering the perceived desire of the ITAC to stabilize the rules for a time-period.

RX-8 is DW front.

 

[JeffYoung]

There is a lot of data on that one and was set with real world numbers. It won't be changed -- I'm pretty sure Lee and I will be adamant about that as it was probably the most discussed car in the ITCS after the Miata and the MR2. I'll check but I'm pretty sure it was classed with the torque deduction.

The RX-8 was set with real-world dyno numbers because the crank numbers are bogus. You will need to go into the files or ping the ITAC on that one.

 

[Chip42]

There is a lot of data on that one and was set with real world numbers. It won't be changed -- I'm pretty sure Lee and I will be adamant about that as it was probably the most discussed car in the ITCS after the Miata and the MR2. I'll check but I'm pretty sure it was classed with the torque deduction.

I don't have the data from before the corrected classification went out feb '09, but it looks like a known HP number of 262 crank was used (translates to ~215 wheel), as was the -100 lbs for low tq. being consistent with the ops manual would add 50 lbs for suspension. otherwise the classification wouldn't change.

and like I said - I'm goignt o run my numbers WITH DW, without DW, and with and without strut and FWD struts. it's a lot of work to build the data and spreadsheet, but once it's done the core numbers my spreadsheet makes the varients easy. we'll run them all and evaluate the results agains curb weights, pwr/wt, tq/wt etc.. there will be no more than ONE package of recommended changes to the CRB.

 

[JeffYoung]

I agree on ONE recommended change.

I'll do all domestics, and the BMWs, Nissans and Toyotas. You get the Hondas/Acuras and any other oddballs?

Make sense?

 

[Chip42]

I agree on ONE recommended change.

I'll do all domestics, and the BMWs, Nissans and Toyotas. You get the Hondas/Acuras and any other oddballs?

Make sense?

consider it done. I have all of the BMWs and yotas in already. get domestics and nissans.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why are you getting uptight about that statement? I was on the committee when we were revising it, it IS the best thing that has happened to IT in a while...but that doesn't mean it's perfect. And by that I mean that when it went to 'print' it wasn't completed yet. You guys forgot to write in what the process entails for ITR cars. It's ok, but it's fact. And I was in favor of publishing that document once we got it done - ONLY if it explained every in and out of what the ITAC could do...which is why it took about 9 months to get finalized. A quicky 'process' blurb would have only created more questions than answers.

Nobody said 'all ITR cars' had DW's. What was said was that the core car in ITR had significantly advanced suspensions to not warrant the separation, except when it was a strut-based FWDer. That was the process for ITR. Nobody codified it before it went to print, and now you are classing cars differently than the entire category...due to an error. It's OK, we acknowledge it and we decide whats the best way to fix it.

I submit again simply that you suck it up, pull the 50 back off the Vette and hunker down and strategize on what you want as a committee. +50 for all advanced? +50 for just DW's? -50 for all strut? -50 for strut and FWD? The ship won't turn in say, 6 months, so don't hang the new classification out to dry. I don't care how 'little' you think the weight is. My inbox is full of PM's asking me to justify +150lbs for excessive torque. It all adds up.

I know fully what the 'old' CRB will accept and not accept. I know a couple current members who call me all the time asking about certain issues and I am confident that when you lay out a good case for something, they will get it. I also know that doing what is right is more important than making one or two CRB members happy because they have better things to do than deal with IT.

Let's end the debate, I am sure we know each others position. No further progress is to be made. Time to go build that 300whp cease-fire V8.

Stop with the flawed Ops Manual. It's the best thing the ITAC did besides the process itself (and I'll ad you were initially opposed to publishing the Process). Josh did a great job with that.

What was flawed was the reason the unwritten rule of "no DW for ITR cars" came about in the first place. "All ITR cars" do not have DW. Another flaw was using a "static" deduct for FWD and them dumping it for a percentage after a lot of cars had been reweighted. I was apart of that and acknowledge being a part of it, and we are trying to fix things by being consistent and doing things right from the start instead of changing them on the fly or fixing them later.

You of all people should know we only have a certain amount of ability to change things before the CRB (rightly) starts to wonder what we are doing.

 

[lateapex911]

I don't have the data from before the corrected classification went out feb '09, but it looks like a known HP number of 262 crank was used (translates to ~215 wheel), as was the -100 lbs for low tq. being consistent with the ops manual would add 50 lbs for suspension. otherwise the classification wouldn't change.

and like I said - I'm goignt o run my numbers WITH DW, without DW, and with and without strut and FWD struts. it's a lot of work to build the data and spreadsheet, but once it's done the core numbers my spreadsheet makes the varients easy. we'll run them all and evaluate the results agains curb weights, pwr/wt, tq/wt etc.. there will be no more than ONE package of recommended changes to the CRB.

The RX8 had multiple, unbiased, highly accurate and consistent sources that were within 1-2 WHP of each other (In IT equiv spec) and that number was 212 at the wheel. The committee decided to make that 215 to ....be conservative, I guess. There was a vote on that number, and a confidence factor noted. I took notes, and issued minutes and posted it to the board. It's all there. You should be able to see who voted and how. There should be no question about this, and if so, the institutional memory is very questionable. Just sayin', lol)

Stephen regarding your desire to have that information documented publicly, I agree. I've long been a proponent of that. I'd go so far as posting those same minutes that I mentioned above, if I were in charge.
When I was on the ITAC, I felt that my job was to represent the member and do the right thing for the category to serve the membership. And in my eyes, they are the boss, and have every right to know exactly how their category is being run. There should be nothing to hide, and anyone on a committee should be ok with having their thoughts documented.

When we did the initial ITR classification, the DW (or 'advanced suspension" concept was considered to be the 'majority position'. More than half the cars, in the committees eyes had decent suspensions, so it was decided that there would be no adder for such. Now, as I recall, nobody sat down and did an actual count of cars and busted it out by actual components and geometry, because it was felt that the conclusion was easily reasonable and representative. Each class has always rotated around 'norms' for the class. But a 'norm' for C is different than a 'norm for S.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think I can take the blame for the DW confusion. I knew, when I wrote the Ops Manual, that the only suspension-type adjustments that we were making in ITR were the live axle RWD deduct, and the front-strut FWD deduct. I think maybe I just didn't get it written down right and during the review process, I didn't notice (and I guess no one else did either!)

I think if you review the weights, you'll find that those two adjustments are the only two used.

Quoted for note. I would think the Ops manual could be updated and the Vette corrected and the short term-pain is over. Take time and revamp process if committee deems it's more important than class stability in the near future.

 

[Ron Earp]

My inbox is full of PM's asking me to justify +150lbs for excessive torque. It all adds up.

Let's end the debate, I am sure we know each others position. No further progress is to be made. Time to go build that 300whp cease-fire V8.

Sounds like they didn't do much research on their C4 vette choice before commissioning the build. Of course it gets a weight adders for large displacement/low-RPM-power.

300 whp I don't believe. But I suspect you'll see north of 240 whp, with a torque curve that is flat like my desk and hitting the 280+ mark.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sounds like they didn't do much research on their C4 vette choice before commissioning the build. Of course it gets a weight adders for large displacement/low-RPM-power.

300 whp I don't believe. But I suspect you'll see north of 240 whp, with a torque curve that is flat like my desk and hitting the 280+ mark.

No, no. The builder knew it was coming (I had actually told him I thought +100) but people on here not familiar with the process wondering why so much etc.

Torque will be amazing, no doubt. The 300whp was in jest as you know.

 

[lateapex911]

Sounds like they didn't do much research on their C4 vette choice before commissioning the build. Of course it gets a weight adders for large displacement/low-RPM-power.

300 whp I don't believe. But I suspect you'll see north of 240 whp, with a torque curve that is flat like my desk and hitting the 280+ mark.

I am SURE they knew the 100 or 150 was coming. but I bet the 50 for DW surprised them.

(My recollection on the ITR tq thing was that it was discussed for MONTHS....like over 6 months.. What IS torque, how do you ID it? how much is too much? Is it the tq CURVE that counts? How can you FIND a the tq curve for every car. (if you can't then it's not applicable ), is it a relationship to HP? Do you stick a low hp car with the penalty if it has high tq? Or just high hp AND high tq cars. What about the transmission? LOTS of debate.
Then there was the 'if it has a lot of tq, does it get a graduated adder?' question. 50, 100, 150.? If so, how do you decide? What are the break points?
In the end, I think the committee decided it was too difficult to identify levels of tq, and a procedure for that was deemed impossible with the resources at hand, and decided that it was one of those things you knew it when you saw it, but couldn't really describe. (This was around the time I left the committee, I think, so anyone with better facts feel free to correct me)
I think, in the end it was just simplified with a "we will know it when we see it, and if we see it it's getting 150" kinda thing.)

I know a lot of that discussion IS in the notes on the board

 

[Chip42]

Watching the forums here and in STL the engineers are good at engineering the classes...I will pay you to get power to weight competitive Instead of the pro Porsche shops....light is better. I make the same power as the s2 cars and they run at 2810 vs 3055.

Who wants the retainer?

Ben,
submit dyno data and a build sheet and it will be considered. find more examples and it adds to the case. we really can't make a case from one example.

 

[Ron Earp]

Then there was the 'if it has a lot of tq, does it get a graduated adder?' question. 50, 100, 150.? If so, how do you decide?

Well, if the 5L Pony cars got 100lbs, which they did as I recall, then for damn sure the 5.7L Corvette should get at least 100 lbs.

Process weight for the 94/95 Mustang GT at 215 stock hp is 3090 lbs using 11.5 as the hp/wt target. The ITCS listed weight is 3195, so it looks like it picked up 105 lbs somewhere.

 

[JeffYoung]

Multiplier in ITR is 11.25 so that probably explains the random 5 lbs.

It most likely got 150 lbs for torque because it then had 50 deducted for the live rear.

That car will get dickstomped by a C4 Vette with more torque, equivalent if not more power, lower weight, better aero, lower CG and better suspension.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, if the 5L Pony cars got 100lbs, which they did as I recall, then for damn sure the 5.7L Corvette should get at least 100 lbs.

Process weight for the 94/95 Mustang GT at 215 stock hp is 3090 lbs using 11.5 as the hp/wt target. The ITCS listed weight is 3195, so it looks like it picked up 105 lbs somewhere.

There is a graduated scale. 50-100-150.

ITR pw/weight is 11.25 not 11.5.

 

[Ron Earp]

Multiplier in ITR is 11.25 so that probably explains the random 5 lbs.

It most likely got 150 lbs for torque because it then had 50 deducted for the live rear.

That car will get dickstomped by a C4 Vette with more torque, equivalent if not more power, lower weight, better aero, lower CG and better suspension.

Well, I thought it was 11.25 and did the calculations but they are even more off. I convinced myself it was 11.5.

If it is 11.25 then:

215 x 1.25 x 11.25 = 3023 lbs. Spec weight is 3195, so the difference is 172 lbs. Where did the 172 lb adder come from? And the other V8 cars have trouble too.

1996-1998 Mustang at 225 stock hp, the weight is 3164. But it is listed in the ITCS at 3390 lbs! Where did the 225 lbs adder come from?

87-98 Camaro, 230 stock hp, the weight is 3234 lbs. Listed weight is 3465 lbs, a 230 lb adder. What for?

All there of these cars are off weight calculated using standard procedures. I got a feeling there is more wrong in ITR than just double wishbone cars.

 

[JeffYoung]

Ditto. However, while I have not checked, I'm pretty sure the first v8s were run through at either 30 or 35%.

We did the Vette at 25% since we don't have any real build data for it, but I suspect that number is low.

Well, I thought it was 11.25 and did the calculations but they are even more off. I convinced myself it was 11.5.

If it is 11.25 then:

215 x 1.25 x 11.25 = 3023 lbs. Spec weight is 3195, so the difference is 172 lbs. Where did the 172 lb adder come from? And the other V8 cars have trouble too.

1996-1998 Mustang at 225 stock hp, the weight is 3164. But it is listed in the ITCS at 3390 lbs! Where did the 225 lbs adder come from?

87-98 Camaro, 230 stock hp, the weight is 3234 lbs. Listed weight is 3465 lbs, a 230 lb adder. What for?

I got a feeling there is more wrong in ITR than just double wishbone cars.