ITB - what a bunch of crap

[Andy Bettencourt]

Care to share your "years of statistical data" showing that the later 1.8L Miata makes only 18% improvements in horsepower in IT trim...?

"Just Sayin'".


Having lost the Logic and Reason battle, now you're devolving into Travis Nord tactics...

I guess you are just ignoring the 25% on 128hp. It's what was classed.

I will submit a request to break them out. Nobody should have a problem with that, right?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why are there not more ITA Miata's being built?

Because people who know Miata's, their ins and outs and how their lap times REALLY relate to SM...know they aren't an overdog.

And non-Miata people think they are ghey.

 

[tnord]

Why are there not more ITA Miata's being built?

1) aero sucks. it's not accounted for in the process, which it shouldn't be, but it slows the car down a lot at places like Atlanta. How far ahead did the pack of Hondacura's qualify in front of Stretch?
2) It's not the overdog you think it is.
3) I am building one.

 

[Xian]

no, it's right in line with a 25% adder off of a 128hp base.

135 at the wheels? Really? Coulda sworn I saw someone reference a figure higher than that... are you sure that engine's never going to make more than 130-135? Maybe closer to 140?

Ok my 145 number is high. It's probably closer to 140. I will also say that in all fairness, I think we would need more data to make a sure fire bet that the multiplier should be higher. This is no different than the NX2000 or SE-R. So lets see when more Miata's are built how they fare.

Yep, 140 is right where a 10/10ths car should be... based off 128hp and 25% OR off 133hp and 25%.

Why are there not more ITA Miata's being built?

SM has wrecked 'em all! Ziiiing!

edit:
Fixed quotes

 

[tnord]

i'd like to see you guys answer your own question.

why aren't there more miatas being built?

what is used as the adder for the integra, 30%? are you DOUBLE DOG SURE you can't squeeze out more than 154.7whp? i bet you can get 158 out of that thing, i've heard 160, so 158 sounds reasonable. that thing needs another 75lbs.

 

[JeffYoung]

Easy really:

1. There are quite a few 99s being built as S cars. Good power, the Van Steenburgs have shown they can be winners. I think that means less interest in the A cars. The 99 is a REALLY GOOD S car. Not an overdog, just REALLY good.

2. Still more draw for any Miata racer to run SM. Most Miatas get built for SM.

 

[Xian]

i'd like to see you guys answer your own question.

why aren't there more miatas being built?

The economy? It's not like there are a ton of 10/10th's cars being built right now period.

FWIW, in the past I've actually had people tell me that they'd thought about building one but figured the cars were underweight enough that their advantage would disappear when the ITAC got around to correcting them...

 

[tnord]

The economy? It's not like there are a ton of 10/10th's cars being built right now period.

FWIW, in the past I've actually had people tell me that they'd thought about building one but figured the cars were underweight enough that their advantage would disappear when the ITAC got around to correcting them...

economy was pretty good for a few years there, still didn't see any built. that justification for not building one was good for a laugh though.

is it possible that you guys are just think it's too light because of how close the SM times are to ITA?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

The economy? It's not like there are a ton of 10/10th's cars being built right now period.

FWIW, in the past I've actually had people tell me that they'd thought about building one but figured the cars were underweight enough that their advantage would disappear when the ITAC got around to correcting them...

BINGO! They are SOOO misclassed that the fear is so great to build one because of an impending comp adjustment...

Oh boy.

Jeff, I think you would be hard pressed to prove that ITS Miata builds were cannabalizing ITA Miata builds. The VS's were/are just as successful in the ITA version - and everything they built before that.

 

[Xian]

I should have bowed out a couple pages ago. You're right the horse is dead and, as I said, we're not going to agree.

One last question on my way out of this part of the conversation (and I asked it before but maybe you missed it), what sort of power are YOU seeing out of the 1.8 liter ITA Miata's?

 

[JeffYoung]

Know of a few folks around here who considered the ITA Miata but went with (or are going with) a 99 in S in part based on the VS experience. One of them used to drive a Pumpkin.....

I do think it has taken 2, 3 maybe 5 cars that would have been in A otherwise, and in the grand scheme of things that's a lot. No knock on the ITA Miata, I just think some people are looking at the ITS car as a better bet -- supports your position no?

And yes, the Van Steenburgs always bring top notch, well driven stuff to the track, regardless of the make.

BINGO! They are SOOO misclassed that the fear is so great to build one because of an impending comp adjustment...

Oh boy.

Jeff, I think you would be hard pressed to prove that ITS Miata builds were cannabalizing ITA Miata builds. The VS's were/are just as successful in the ITA version - and everything they built before that.

 

[Greg Amy]

When the higher rating was requested, we used facts and common sense to determine that it was 100% the same car as what was aready listed. Hence the weight.

Had you considered that, given new evidence facing you of a factory rating of 133 hp form a "100% same car" that you were 100% wrong on the first car, just as you were with the CRX (and any/all other cars you've subjectively adjusted)? Or, that, absent the existence of earlier car (to paraphrase you, had Mazda "gotten it right" the first time), there would be zero (as in, none, nada, zip) consideration to classifying the car at a lower factory horsepower rating?

No one's convinced by the description of the sequence of events; in fact, hanging your hat solely on that excuse just comes across as reaching. Are you willing to come outright and tell us that if there had never been a 125 hp car that you'd classify the Miata at its current weight? Then I'll buy your line of thought.

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: I, Greg Amy, am not accusing you, Andy Bettencourt of a conscious conflict of interest. I know you far too well for that and I consider you a personal friend. I truly believe that you believe what you're saying. I'm simply pointing out that were the tables turned on another vehicle your choices may/would be different.

Done. I know it's a dead horse because there's just no interest in the ITAC in revisiting this issue again (a pity). But this albatross, as well as the outstanding "dark" issues of weight classification and formulation, will always be hanging around the neck of the ITAC, as a constant reminder of the "deals" going on in the closed-door sessions of classifying cars in Improved Touring.

GA

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Know of a few folks around here who considered the ITA Miata but went with (or are going with) a 99 in S in part based on the VS experience. One of them used to drive a Pumpkin.....

I do think it has taken 2, 3 maybe 5 cars that would have been in A otherwise, and in the grand scheme of things that's a lot. No knock on the ITA Miata, I just think some people are looking at the ITS car as a better bet -- supports your position no?

And yes, the Van Steenburgs always bring top notch, well driven stuff to the track, regardless of the make.

If I read you right, you are saying people are leaning toward the ITS version because they think it's more competitive in class than the ITA version would be. Well, well.

Xian,

Your question has ZERO to do with the arguement at hand. We are talking about how they were initially classed and why. There are PLENTY of cars that make more than the estimated 25% they were classed at. 1%, 2%, 10% in some cases. It's determining how much data and from what source you want to lay out as 'fact' in order to bank that on a correction.

 

[Greg Amy]

why aren't there more miatas being built?

How is that relevant to anything? What's the ITAC adder for "popularity"...?

...are you DOUBLE DOG SURE you can't squeeze out more...? that thing needs another 75lbs.

Good try on turning the conversation around, Nord, but I notice no one has bothered to post the dyno sheets on a 1.8L Miata... Let's point out that the discussion comes down to two Miata guys trying to prove that the Miata isn't classified overly light...

Focus, Nord. You can do it, I have faith in you.

 

[JeffYoung]

Correct. And while I think the A car should be run through at 133, in the end to me it's a lot of jibber jabber. Neither car (S or A) is an overdog, and 75 lbs or whatever isn't going to change much.

Miatas make good solid race cars with few vices.

If I read you right, you are saying people are leaning toward the ITS version because they think it's more competitive in class than the ITA version would be. Well, well.

Xian,

Your question has ZERO to do with the arguement at hand. We are talking about how they were initially classed and why. There are PLENTY of cars that make more than the estimated 25% they were classed at. 1%, 2%, 10% in some cases. It's determining how much data and from what source you want to lay out as 'fact' in order to bank that on a correction.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

How is that relevant to anything? What's the ITAC adder for "popularity"...?

Good try on turning the conversation around, Nord, but I notice no one has bothered to post the dyno sheets on a 1.8L Miata... Let's point out that the discussion comes down to two Miata guys trying to prove that the Miata isn't classified overly light...

Focus, Nord. You can do it, I have faith in you.

First off, the question on popularity is has some merit no? If nobody is building them, then are they really a perceived overdog? Would be human nature. But since Miata people tend to revel in our own Ghey-ness, it seems to substantiate even further that the people who know the cars don't think they are overdogs.

Dyno results are irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of initial classification. The ex-Amy SR20 is a prime example of that.

 

[Xian]

Your question has ZERO to do with the arguement at hand. We are talking about how they were initially classed and why. There are PLENTY of cars that make more than the estimated 25% they were classed at. 1%, 2%, 10% in some cases. It's determining how much data and from what source you want to lay out as 'fact' in order to bank that on a correction.

Understood. My question relates to the statements about "what we know"... and certainly you (more than most) know quite a bit 1st hand about their power potential. Again, seems to me that a standard 25% adder "makes sense" if everything is based off the higher stock output for the 1.8 liter cars.

Let's assume for instance that JimBling Motors released their WhoZit DXE in 1994 with 133hp. Later they found that EPA/CAFE/Whatever requirements made it advantageous to revise the ECU and engine maps... this subsequently dropped the rate HP to 128hp for the 96-97 model years. How would this car be rated for classification? Off 133hp or off 128hp? Most likely it would be off the higher, initial HP rating. I just don't see how is the Miata issue is any different.

The classification history of the 1.8 Miata seems to be an effort to possibly keep from from ruffling the feathers of existing racers of the 94-95 cars at the time the 96-97 cars were classed. I'm not pointing fingers and saying this was done for any dishonest reason but, rather, that these inconsistencies should be addressed. Beaking out the 94-95 on it's own spec line with a 30% adder and the 96-97 car with a 25% adder OR leaving them on a single spec line but based off the higher hp# with a 25% adder both seem like a reasonable solutions to me.

Regards,
Christian

 

[Xian]

Dyno results are irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of initial classification.

And yet they were used for subsequent re-classification of the CRX/Integra...?

 

[lateapex911]

Wow.....

To a guy with an ITA RX-7, that just got back from the ARRCS, (where it came in second in IT-7, not that that's proof of too much, but I have gone through three headers, a couple carbs, two rebuilds, and a few trips to the dyno to get it even that fast), who took that car, still in the trailer to a Dynapack dyno, and spun the darn thing to the dizzying heights of .......110 hub and 106 ft pounds (Whoo HOO!), and who drives around on a live axle in the back, with struts in the front, this converstion is, yes, dare I say it, humorous....


(Not to belittle the policy implications, or the accustations of behind the doors deal making by the ITAC, (tch tch tch), but to provide some contrast to the plight of others.)

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

And yet they were used for subsequent re-classification of the CRX/Integra...?

They aren't used in ANY initial classification. THAT is what is being argued. If you are now saying that the Miata is light because it exceeded its estimates by X%, then we don't have to single out any one car, we can put a LIST together!!!