ITR New Cars and Class Cleanup

[Knestis]

... I am advocating not adding "controversial" cars that arguably may exceed the performance and weight envelopes of the class.

This is about cars and providing a stable performance envelope in ITR so that people will build cars and join the class.

I would like to build an '02 Nissan Maxima, but know it would be too powerful for the class in IT trim.
[/b]

While I wasn't anything like instrumental in the ITR planning, I did participate in the review process of the proposal and cars listed, and was absolutely involved in conversations around this issue.

To clarify - I don't think it anything close to consensus among the "ITR Ad Hoc Committee" that the V8s were "controversial." There were members who had their concerns and those who were big fans (and more than a few in between), for the reasons already stated here. But the decision was made to effectively table the question of the 8s for "Phase II" (aka after the class was on the books) because we were afraid that including them might jeopardize the chance that the class would gain approval, due to some vocal minority latching onto that one issue.

It's common practice in any policy-making process to go with the safe solution first, then work out the harder details later - even if "harder" is only a perception, public relations, or minority stakeholder concern.

In addition, it's not quite accurate to talk about the "performance" envelope of the class, since that's an outcome on the race track rather than an output of the system - like class eligibility and race weight. As long as the framework established for the class is adhered to when setting those variables, things are good.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

Key-rect. If the cars fit in ITR using the process, then they should be in. If they don't, they don't.

But they were at least a bit controversial- Kirk is a better diplomat and committee consensus builder than I am -- at least to me. The issue is this. ITR accounts for torque in a subjective fashion. We have to be VERY careful how we account for torque on the pony V8s.

All part of the process, all thoughts on this welcome. I think everyone's goal is to avoid a class killer.

 

[ed325its]

To clarify - I don't think it anything close to consensus among the "ITR Ad Hoc Committee" that the V8s were "controversial." There were members who had their concerns and those who were big fans (and more than a few in between), for the reasons already stated here. [/b]

Controversial was not my term as I repeated it from others. However, is not the lack of consensous and the existance of varying viewpoints the definition of controversy?

 

[Z3_GoCar]

I understand, that's good news James, I'm sure you'll be glad to get out of IT Everything. There's a Z3 in the southeast in ITR, I guess doing pretty good in ITR.

Best of luck to you out there in the west.
[/b]

Hey Dan,

Yes and no. I don't know how I'm going to become competitve with John Norris, he's already 4-5 seconds a lap faster than I am now, and I'll have to add 150 lbs of balast to make minimum weight. But then I'm in the same boat in ITE.

James, good point. Z4 should be in. I'll help you with the proposal; maybe we double that one up with teh RX8 to have one Mazda model and one BMW model in my proposal. Shoot me an e-mail at [email protected] and I'll send you what I've done for the RX8.

Jim, let's get all the dyno information we can on the RX8 and get that information to the ITAC. It is in NO one's best interest for the RX8 to be classed either too heavy, or too light. With the right information -- and I'm not sure I fully understand the dyno plots I do have -- we can get this right, but we've got a year, so let's do so. Dan, others, let us know (constructively! Ed!) what you think.

Appreciate it guys.
[/b]

Jeff,

pm sent.

James

 

[dj10]

Hey Dan,

Yes and no. I don't know how I'm going to become competitve with John Norris, he's already 4-5 seconds a lap faster than I am now, and I'll have to add 150 lbs of balast to make minimum weight. But then I'm in the same boat in ITE.
James
[/b]

Wow!, No way John's car should be 4 or 5 secs faster than yours! I know if I'm running behind, my crew chief would tell me to pull up my skirt and drive the damn car!

 

[seckerich]

We're talking about stability in the class and not adding a new bunch of controversial cars in the classification. How do you translate and personalize that to say "doesn't want anyone else to be classed"? I am advocating not adding "controversial" cars that arguably may exceed the performance and weight envelopes of the class.

This is about cars and providing a stable performance envelope in ITR so that people will build cars and join the class.

I would like to build an '02 Nissan Maxima, but know it would be too powerful for the class in IT trim.
[/b]

Now that statement I agree with.

 

[GKR_17]

I agree that the Rx8 should be included in ITR, and it should go through the same process used on every other car. The dyno data is interesting, but shouldn't be used for classification purposes, especially since it is from a shop that has incentive for the car to be classed as light as possible. However, it is worth noting that there was a 13% increase over stock power. Dynos are really only good for relative changes anyway.

I would prefer to leave it up to the ITAC to determine the power increase multiplier. I will concede that 25% is probably unrealistic for this car, but it should be at least 15% (same as the S2000).

Using 15% gain, and net zero adders (great chassis, weaker low end power, but one of the best transmissions to make up for it) I get almost exactly 3000 lbs.

As for the V8 pony cars, let them in as well, just be careful to get the process parameters right.

Grafton

 

[JeffYoung]

We agree. ITAC process sets the weight.

Agree that the dyno data is subject to interpretation. i don't fully understand it either.

The most pertinent one is probably the stock on. 172 whp is probably around 200-210 crank, so the Mazda factory number is still way low. That number comes from a lot of shops, just not SS.

So, I'll submit the proposal and let the ITAC hash out the weight. I think anything between 2800 and 3000 is fair, depending on what yu believe is the "true" stock crank hp for the car.

210 crank hp gives a weight of 2700 lbs

220 crank hp gives a weight of 2783

230 crank hp gives a weight of 2909

237 is 2998.

Somewhere in there is fair.

 

[seckerich]

So a totally uncorked E36 makes 200hp min rear wheel and is 2765 and a RX8 with 199hp and low torque would go at 3000. No wonder there is a herd of BMW's, a Porsche, and nothing else. Get real. The Porsche at 2810? Don't expect any new cars with Graftons math.

 

[dj10]

So a totally uncorked E36 makes 200hp min rear wheel and is 2765 and a RX8 with 199hp and low torque would go at 3000. No wonder there is a herd of BMW's, a Porsche, and nothing else. Get real. The Porsche at 2810? Don't expect any new cars with Graftons math. [/b]

Steve, I'm with you on this one. 3000# RX8 is to heavy and the Porsche is to light making 208 rwhp and what, 225 ft lbs of torque? with 4 piston brake calipers on all 4, and M030 suspension. Put the S2 up to 3000 and put the rx8 down to 2850.



Jeff has there been any interest from anyone wanting to build a V8 928 Porsche? I would think not because of the expense. Maybe we shouldn't waste our time on this car?

 

[seckerich]

My mistake Dan was sharing actual data from the Speedsource Grand Am cars. Identical prep with full Motec tune. The data I provided can be verified from many reputable sources. I tried to give enough facts to get the car classed fairly so we can grow the class. These are cars that are ready to be built now. For whatever reason this was not limited to the ITAC as I was told. I now know better and am done with it. Not worth the time and effort if it is now used incorrectly. I should feed the usual Bulls*** and get a sweet classification instead. I gave them full tune 10/10ths numbers to see what the car does at full IT build and it was abused. Lesson learned. Good luck with ITR.

 

[JeffYoung]

Only interest in the 928 is from me. I have a right of first refusal on one for about $3k sitting at a friend's father's house in Asheville.

I talked to Milledge about the car. He said unraceable. I'm not so sure; I've seen the cars tracked and the do ok. But it would be a stupid build, stupider than the TR8. Trying to get smarter with my racing choices. I may do it (the proposal) if no one else does.

On RX8 v. Porsche v. BMW. Now this is the debate I like to see! Means people are interested.

I think on the RX8 I will submit the proposal and then you guys need to submit dyno data to support whatever weight you think is appropriate. I have no interest in this other than the car needs to be in R, and we need to avoid it being entirely uncompetitive or an overdog. We obviously have an upper and lower parameter for weight now -- 2700 on the low end, 3000 on the high. Somewhere in there is "fair."

 

[lateapex911]

My computer was stolen, so forgive my silence in this matter guys. new computer, back online.

First:
Jeff Young is correct. When we bounced the idea of ITR around, the words "NO new classes" from the CRB was the mantra that was ringing in our ears. In the begining, we thought we might have to introduce it "on the ground" at the regional level, but wanted to make sure every regions ITR was the same. Then we got wind that perhaps...just perhaps, the CRB and the BoD would consider it as a National Class. Remember, IT meant little to the BoD a year or two ago... So, when we came up with our final "package" to propose, we made sure there were no "Are they serious??" stumbling blocks in there. We wanted NO objections and NO questions. Once the class was in the books, we knew we could add cars. Anyone on the ITR commitee will back that up as the plan from the word go. So, yes, cars will absolutely be added. More variety will spur growth.

Get Jeff to send you the dyno sheets Dan. We actually lost HP with a header. With the side exhaust ports on the RX8 it is like a street port already. The sheets Jeff has were what we made on the Dynojet as well as sheets from the engine dyno. Check with any of the rotary experts and they will back it up. The rotary has always been treated "different" in the process because of known gains. Not true for the RX8 For comparison the E46 328/330 cars were at 2875# and the RX8 at 2650# in Grand Am. Close racing everywhere. You have enough data with these cars in their same prep to make a good decision. [/b]

I've followed the RX8 story and this is true. In the past, the rotary has exceeded other engine types for horsepower gains with racing modifications. And of course, that makes perfect sense, as compared to the piston engine, it was much younger developmet-wise. Now, it is twenty years later, and Mazda has incorporated many things that racing does for gains into the stock package. Simply put, this engine is a different genre. It will not respond to racing mods in the way the original 12A and 13B have done, nor will it respond with the same gains as the standard piston engine.

I think the general opinion on this car is wrong, and it's actually a tweener between ITR and ITS. Think about it: From a power perspective, it will make, in racing trim, roughly the same or a little less than an ITR E36. (2850 lbs) And torque? The BMW will make nearly 50% more. All other factors...trans ratios, aero, brakes, etc are similar enough to pale in comparision to that ... We need to be careful to respect the process as well as the car on this one.

 

[dj10]

Only interest in the 928 is from me. I have a right of first refusal on one for about $3k sitting at a friend's father's house in Asheville.

I talked to Milledge about the car. He said unraceable. I'm not so sure; I've seen the cars tracked and the do ok. But it would be a stupid build, stupider than the TR8. Trying to get smarter with my racing choices. I may do it (the proposal) if no one else does.

On RX8 v. Porsche v. BMW. Now this is the debate I like to see! Means people are interested.

I think on the RX8 I will submit the proposal and then you guys need to submit dyno data to support whatever weight you think is appropriate. I have no interest in this other than the car needs to be in R, and we need to avoid it being entirely uncompetitive or an overdog. We obviously have an upper and lower parameter for weight now -- 2700 on the low end, 3000 on the high. Somewhere in there is "fair." [/b]

Jeff, good luck with the 928 but you better look good and hard about the costs on building an IT 928!

There's no real debate on the cars Jeff, we just need to look at things objectively with the data available. I just want a good race where ever I go and I think these cars classified correctly, will be some of the best racing around with good drivers in them.



Steve, is the Grand AM RX8 w/ motec the same as it would be in ITR?

 

[seckerich]

Yes Dan, the motor package for the rotary is exactly the same for the Koni Challenge cars. No in the box rule but that is moot point now anyway. I gave the ITAC real sheets with a full M600 Motec tune and optimal exhaust. State of the art Engine dyno as well as dynojet numbers that were backed up by Grand Am at track tests. With 5 cars and 3 years developement do you really believe we left much on the table? Even offered to strap one down and let them watch and see there were no games. Maybe cooler heads and open minds will prevail.

 

[lateapex911]

I hope so...the RX8 would be a great addition, but, if it's classed heavy, theres no point.
(And yes, i am fully aware of the "process vs the car" debate)...

 

[GKR_17]

So a totally uncorked E36 makes 200hp min rear wheel and is 2765 and a RX8 with 199hp and low torque would go at 3000. No wonder there is a herd of BMW's, a Porsche, and nothing else. Get real. The Porsche at 2810? Don't expect any new cars with Graftons math.
[/b]

whp and dyno data aren't part of the classification process, though they surely factor in to the knowledge base used to determine the power multiplier. The point is, the process is what it is, your problem should be with Mazda's published numbers, not my math.

The E36 325 has 189hp stock at the crank, and gets a multiplier of 1.3, so it is assumed to have 246 at the crank in full race prep.

The 2004 Rx8 is published as having 238hp (down from the original 248) stock at the crank. With the lowest increase multiplier of 1.15, that car is assumed to reach 274hp with full prep. That puts the car very close to 3000 lbs.

You have to understand, that no matter how good the intentions, any dyno data is still highly suspect, since your goal is clearly to have the car classed as light as possible. I could get an E46 M3 to show under 200whp if I want, or a stock Rx8 to show 250whp for that matter...

 

[seckerich]

whp and dyno data aren't part of the classification process, though they surely factor in to the knowledge base used to determine the power multiplier. The point is, the process is what it is, your problem should be with Mazda's published numbers, not my math.

The E36 325 has 189hp stock at the crank, and gets a multiplier of 1.3, so it is assumed to have 246 at the crank in full race prep.

The 2004 Rx8 is published as having 238hp (down from the original 248) stock at the crank. With the lowest increase multiplier of 1.15, that car is assumed to reach 274hp with full prep. That puts the car very close to 3000 lbs.

You have to understand, that no matter how good the intentions, any dyno data is still highly suspect, since your goal is clearly to have the car classed as light as possible. I could get an E46 M3 to show under 200whp if I want, or a stock Rx8 to show 250whp for that matter...
[/b]

Sweeet!! Now I can go back and get my ITS RX7 classed with a 25% adder like all the cars in S based on the advertised HP for the car. Oh wait Grafton--we got treated differently because of "known power gains". I agree with the way we were classed because it was correct. It is also correct with the RX8 because it is not a conventional motor. If it works for one rotary it needs to be the same for all. How do you even type that response without laughing. 246 crank is really cranking something but it's not the dyno. Post some numbers for that Porsche if the process is so dead on. Kirk is right that torque needs to be a bigger factor in at least ITR. Hard to give away 75-100 ft pounds and weigh 200# more.

 

[dj10]

Sweeet!! Now I can go back and get my ITS RX7 classed with a 25% adder like all the cars in S based on the advertised HP for the car. Oh wait Grafton--we got treated differently because of "known power gains". I agree with the way we were classed because it was correct. It is also correct with the RX8 because it is not a conventional motor. If it works for one rotary it needs to be the same for all. How do you even type that response without laughing. 246 crank is really cranking something but it's not the dyno. Post some numbers for that Porsche if the process is so dead on. Kirk is right that torque needs to be a bigger factor in at least ITR. Hard to give away 75-100 ft pounds and weigh 200# more. [/b]

Steve, who told you that the rx8 would have to run @ 3000#? Isn't the rx8 a pretty new car, is it eligable for IT racing yet? All I know if the Porsche is @ 2810# which is low then the rx8 should be near the E36 325 numbers, give or take a few #'s.

 

[seckerich]

Steve, who told you that the rx8 would have to run @ 3000#? Isn't the rx8 a pretty new car, is it eligable for IT racing yet? All I know if the Porsche is @ 2810# which is low then the rx8 should be near the E36 325 numbers, give or take a few #'s.
[/b]

Yes Dan a clear thinker without an agenda would come to that logical conclusion. Someone who improperly obtained confidential dyno sheets applies "grafton math". With similar power and less torque it should actually come in a tad lighter. We gear them to climb a tree now and the torque is still very marginal. It will be eligible in 09. They were built in large numbers in 03 but the Vin is 04. They were late on the US release so the rules are the rules. With the data the ITAC has working on the BMW restrictors I trust they have the information to make the right decision. We just want to start getting classing done so we can build and test for 09 and know what to build to. Imagine someone who will actually build new cars for ITR instead of just endlessly talking about it? Look forward to racing with you--maybe.