ITB - what a bunch of crap

[Greg Amy]

But that leads to another issue...

Fine points you got there, Champ.

The bump in power on the '92-93's came from different cams and the move to OBD-1. As Andy is pointing out, that cam change is not something that could legally be done later on within the IT rules...

Sure it can, Kevin: updating/backdating on the same spec line. There's nothing keeping you from putting the later assembly in the earlier chassis...

Bottom line: Miata guys think it's classified fine. No surprise. Non-Miata guys think it's not. No surprise. And until the ITAC is willing to revisit the issue, never the twain shall meet.

No surprise.

But, you guys do realize this topic is devolving from its intended purpose, which is a devolution from its original intended purpose...?

 

[lateapex911]

An aero factor is likely unworkable. To work back to actual drag, we'd need Cd and frontal area values. It's hard enough to get the data we already use...!

K

Not to mention that air dams are legal, and used, altering the aero characteristics in ways we can not predict, even IF we knew enough going in.

 

[jjjanos]

Not to mention that air dams are legal, and used, altering the aero characteristics in ways we can not predict, even IF we knew enough going in.

All I know is that regardless of what process and multipliers are used... my car is too heavy and all other cars are too light.

 

[R2 Racing]

The bump in power on the '92-93's came from different cams and the move to OBD-1. As Andy is pointing out, that cam change is not something that could legally be done later on within the IT rules...

Sure it can, Kevin: updating/backdating on the same spec line. There's nothing keeping you from putting the later assembly in the earlier chassis...

Sorry, I think I said that kind of confusingly. I meant that if the different years were listed seperately, that power difference (cam change) could not be made up legally within the IT rules. So when combined, the higher of the two HP ratings must be used.

 

[tnord]

Fine points you got there, Champ.

Bottom line: Miata guys think it's classified fine. No surprise. Non-Miata guys think it's not. No surprise. And until the ITAC is willing to revisit the issue, never the twain shall meet.

No surprise.

this is all so fucking stupid.

in one case people want the ITAC to use "what is known" about a car to get to the best possible min weight for classification :cough: CRX/BMW :cough: but when the issue is turned around to the miata it's all "screw what we know, use whatever justification we can to throw some weight at those fuckers!"

keep them on the same line or break them out on separate lines, the end result is all the same.

Miata hatred from Greg, no surprise.

 

[Gary L]

Bottom line: Miata guys think it's classified fine. No surprise. Non-Miata guys think it's not. No surprise. And until the ITAC is willing to revisit the issue, never the twain shall meet.

I'll repeat the question. Would the output weight have been the same if the later (higher hp) Miata had been classified first?
If not, there's a problem.
If yes, there ain't... regardless of what kind of car you drive.

But, you guys do realize this topic is devolving from its intended purpose, which is a devolution from its original intended purpose...?

The real irony? Andy started this thread!

 

[Greg Amy]

Miata hatred from Greg, no surprise.

Nord, try to keep your well-known personal envy of me out of this discussion, if possible.

And, if you can, logically explain to me vis-a-vis "what we know" about the stock power of the '94-'97 Miata. Discuss.

Gary: spot on.

 

[tnord]

And, if you can, logically explain to me vis-a-vis "what we know" about the stock power of the '94-'97 Miata. Discuss.

Andy already did. You just have this way of convienently ignoring anything that doesn't support your distorted view.

 

[Greg Amy]

Andy already did. You just have this way of convienently ignoring anything that doesn't support your distorted view.

Didn't ignore it, Nord, simply rejected it. Multiple times. As have most other logical people that have read it...

Notice only "Miata people" think it's "logical" (that means makes sense and is reasonable), Travis...?

No surprise.

 

[Xian]

I'll repeat the question. Would the output weight have been the same if the later (higher hp) Miata had been classified first?

I think the answer to this is fairly obvious. The early cars were classed with the "base" 25% power adder. Had the initial factory claim been 133hp, it would likely still have been classed with a 25% adder.

I understand that the ECU is open but that doesn't mean that Mazda's later ECU tweaks have exploited all the engine's capability. Who here is going to argue that the later car's ECU is 100% optimized from the factory? As I've stated previously, I think what we have here is a case of a car that makes more than 25% gains... especially if we're going off the earlier car's stock 128hp rating. I could better accept a 25% gain on the 133hp engine... it's not perfect and I don't think it's as accurate as what the CRX and Integra got hit with but it's better than where it is right now.

 

[tnord]

Didn't ignore it, Nord, simply rejected it. Multiple times. As have most other logical people that have read it...

so you're rejecting that we end up in the same place even if the car is broken out on a separate line?

or are you rejecting the idea that we should use "what we know" to adjust the power multiplier?

 

[shwah]

Someone better tell the Scirocco guys that.

OK so what can/will be done to address cars that were dinged by aero?

Go take a look at any Scirroco classified - 16v in ITA, 1.8 8v in ITB, whatever. Then look at the Golfs/Jettas/Rabbits that are classified with the same motors, trans, suspension types. I can't come up with any reason for consistently higher S-roc weights other than someone dinging them for better aero.

There is no reason at all that the ITB car is any different than the Rabbit GTI in spec weight - they are the exact same chassis and components with different bodies.

 

[tnord]

[
As I've stated previously, I think what we have here is a case of a car that makes more than 25% gains... especially if we're going off the earlier car's stock 128hp rating. I could better accept a 25% gain on the 133hp engine... it's not perfect and I don't think it's as accurate as what the CRX and Integra got hit with but it's better than where it is right now.

and what data do you have to support that claim? nothing i know suggests the 25% adder is wrong, dyno data or otherwise. it's not like you see a whole mess of them blowing everyone away down the back straight at atlanta.

 

[Xian]

so you're rejecting that we end up in the same place even if the car is broken out on a separate line?

or are you rejecting the idea that we should use "what we know" to adjust the power multiplier?

If they're broken out on a separate line then the earlier car will make more then 25% in gains... later 133hp car based at 25% gains... result: more but equivalent weight for both cars.

Use "what we know"... 128hp car makes more than 25% gains... result: more weight.

I think a reasonable thing to do would be to use the "maximum factory output" to spec the weight on these (and all!!) cars. The ITAC has already gone down the road of using "what we know" on the Honda's no reason to stop now...

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, please don't think that I'm trying to single you out because you race this specific car. You're just very knowledgable about these cars, as I am with Integra's, and you're in the position to (and are willing to!) discuss with and explain this whole process to me. I'm learning a lot here on how these numbers are created, and that's a good thing. I get asked a lot at the track from other IT racers if I know how XYZ was decided upon, and I'm starting to figure that out here. Thanks again for the discussion.

Kev - no issues. The discussion is fine. I know it's outside the norm, but there are many things that are outside the norm.

Travis does make a good point, in his own special way, that we used what knew in a good faith yet I am not sure why people are allowing that for some reason. We used what we knew for the CRX, we did for the S2000, the Type R, the RX-7's, the BMW's you could go on and on - on both sides of the power adder side of the coin.

Your hypothetical question is kind of moot because when these cars were classed, we used the standard 25% - as we did to the Golf III, the SE-R/NX2000, etc.

Here is the net/net for me. The 94/95 car is classed spot on per the process. Given the mechanical attributes of the 96/97, it is EXACTLY THE SAME CAR FOR IT as the earlier car. It can not make any more power no matter how you arrange the pieces. If you agree that the process was correctly used when the 94/95 was classed, then you can certainly use the facts and logic to understand why they are all at the same weight.

Feel free to call me if you want to debate the minutia.

 

[tnord]

If they're broken out on a separate line then the earlier car will make more then 25% in gains... later 133hp car based at 25% gains... result: more but equivalent weight for both cars.

Use "what we know"... 128hp car makes more than 25% gains... result: more weight.

um, no it doesn't.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

If they're broken out on a separate line then the earlier car will make more then 25% in gains... later 133hp car based at 25% gains... result: more but equivalent weight for both cars.

Use "what we know"... 128hp car makes more than 25% gains... result: more weight.

I think a reasonable thing to do would be to use the "maximum factory output" to spec the weight on these (and all!!) cars. The ITAC has already gone down the road of using "what we know" on the Honda's no reason to stop now...

I think you could easily argue that the 96/97 car is more optimized. Why would you assume you should add to the 25%? Maybe the later cars are LESS than 25%.

They are the same in IT trim. 128hp is the more accurate power number. There is no data to the contrary given the IT rules.

I appreciate the debate. Dead Horse - beaten.

 

[Xian]

and what data do you have to support that claim? nothing i know suggests the 25% adder is wrong, dyno data or otherwise. it's not like you see a whole mess of them blowing everyone away down the back straight at atlanta.

Travis, I think a 25% power adder would be perfectly acceptable and consistent if based off the 133hp figure.

I'd like to see a whole mess of them show up to the ARRC... so far, no such luck. I can tell you that I've seen a very fast (well prepped and well driven) ITA Miata down in the SE run with high powered Integra's at Daytona. Those things are NOT slow on the straights (yes, even with the crappy aero).

 

[Xian]

I think you could easily argue that the 96/97 car is more optimized. Why would you assume you should add to the 25%? Maybe the later cars are LESS than 25%.

They are the same in IT trim. 128hp is the more accurate power number. There is no data to the contrary given the IT rules.

I appreciate the debate. Dead Horse - beaten.

True... dead horse. The basic disagreement we have is that I think the earlier car is making more than 25% in gains. You don't.

Assuming a 25% gains on 128hp and 15% driveline loss this means that none of these cars should be making more than mid 135's at the wheels... that's below the figures I've heard. Assuming the same gains and losses on the 133hp cars, they should be making a touch over 140. This is more in line with the figures I've "heard" and would imagine they can make in IT trim. If you don't mind sharing, what sort of power have you seen out of a 10/10ths built car?

 

[tnord]

Travis, I think a 25% power adder would be perfectly acceptable and consistent if based off the 133hp figure.

why? doing calculations here at my desk based on known power output of optimized builds, the 25% is accurate for the 94-95, it is too high for the 96-97.

I'd like to see a whole mess of them show up to the ARRC... so far, no such luck. I can tell you that I've seen a very fast (well prepped and well driven) ITA Miata down in the SE run with high powered Integra's at Daytona. Those things are NOT slow on the straights (yes, even with the crappy aero).

and i can show you very powerful miatas that get blown away by the CRX/Integra at Atlanta.