It's here...
- Thread starter Andy Bettencourt
- Start date
Joe Harlan
New member
210 WHP * 18% loss = 248 crank HP at 2850 BMW = 11.49
181 WHP * 18% loss= 214 crank HP at 2680 RX7 = 12.52
165 WHP * 18% loss= 195 crank HP at 2430 240Z = 12.46
Looks kinda like a pattern here. DJ, I agree that Motec has no business here but for now we have it so our stucture must refect that.
Matt Rowe
New member
Overall a great plan and if a couple of the adjustments need to be made later we have the system for it. My only real complaint is the release states not every car was adjusted. The way I see it, if you're going to clean house, do it top to bottom and get it all done. By not doing so we've left the door open for everyone to request their car be rexamined and left some people feeling alienated. I understand it's a lot of work to track down data on every car but it still seems a shame not to deal with all of this now. I hope were not leaving another miss for a future ITAC comittee to deal with down the road.
Again, overall we should have a better variety of cars running up front.
Banzai240
New member
Originally posted by AntonioGG@Jan 26 2006, 03:58 AM
I'll have to correct you on the math if you don't mind.
The formula is CHP*(1-DL)=WHP
So to estimate crank HP from wheel HP, you divide WHP by (1-DL).
For 210WHP and 18% driveline loss you're talking 256 Crank HP
for 181, 220
for 165, 201
Sorry for intruding. Carry on.
[snapback]72213[/snapback]
Thanks Antonio...
So, for 195whp (Mr. Shafer's Dyno sheets...), 195whp / .82 = 237.8hp...
Incidently... 189hp + 25% IT-Prep Increase = 189hp * 1.25 = 236.25hp...
Doesn't look that far off to me...
If the car were classified today, THAT is the number that would be used...
Enjoy!
Joe Harlan
New member
Originally posted by AntonioGG@Jan 25 2006, 08:58 PM
I'll have to correct you on the math if you don't mind.
The formula is CHP*(1-DL)=WHP
So to estimate crank HP from wheel HP, you divide WHP by (1-DL).
For 210WHP and 18% driveline loss you're talking 256 Crank HP
for 181, 220
for 165, 201
Sorry for intruding. Carry on.
[snapback]72213[/snapback]
haha, thanks good thing I am not in charge...
The MR2 adjustment was appreciated - by most of the people I've talked to (keyboarded with ??). From an instigator, and one who is willing to push the envelope, I'll say the decision for a 100# weight break was about as "fair" as one could reasonably expect - thus my previous kudos.
Reasoning:
Despite bitching from certain people that 2270# is unattainable, I know of at least 3 legal cars that can get to that weight (and I feel that an "all stops out and cashflow-be-damned" dry weight of around 2050# or so is reachable). It, alone, won't make the cars front-runners, but with the adjustments to some of the other ITA cars, it should certainly tighten up the field.
Although reclassifying to ITB would have been preferable to most, I understand the problem that would have existed with exceeding the legal cage requirements. Since the weight of the car was only 10# under the magic number, any addition would have caused an increase in tubing dimension. I'm one who would have been affected, but I could afford to turn my year-old custom cage into so much ballast. Many couldn't. (My only question here: Is there not precedence for grandfathered allowance here - like maybe from the GTL merger?)
Although the attainable WHP of an IT-legal 4AG-powered car is debatable, it is notable that the MR2 and AE86 Corolla's "cousins" - specifically the Geo Prizm GSi and Corolla FX-16 - are both in ITB.
As was stated by someone earlier - we'll have to play with it and see.
And, again, speaking for my fellow MR2 drivers and me - thanks!
CaptainWho
New member
Our first gen RX-7 (ITA/7) rolls over the scales with half a tank of fuel and the lighter driver (~200#) at around 2450. We've got a lot of work to do to get down to 2280#, both on the car and the drivers. 
But we appreciate the chance to do it.
But we appreciate the chance to do it.Bill Miller
New member
Did you read how these things work?
1. Not all cars needed adjustment.
2. There truly were only a small handful of obscure cars (for which none of us had any info) that did not get very careful consideration. For most of them, nobody could even remember the last time they saw one in IT. If need be they can be handled on a case by case basis.
Bill Miller
New member
Do you really want to go down that road George? Like I said, I think you guys on the ITAC have done a geat job. But it sure makes you scratch your head when the E36 gets an SIR and left @ 2850#, but you've got the Supra a page or two away, that's left at a portly 3380#.
But, since we've got cars that make ~189 - 200 hp stock, classified in ITS, maybe it's time to ask for the '78 - '81 911 SC 3.0 to be classified. Stock hp is 180 - 188. Sounds like it would make a great ITS car. For that matter, classify the '84 - 89 cars w/ the 3.2 (231 hp stock) w/ a 27mm SIR.
Bill, I think you completely missed George's point. I believe what he is saying is that within the cars already classified some were not adjusted due to A) not needing it, or 
not enough info on the car to do so, or C) no one is currently driving one so why waste the time?
If, however, someone shows up in one and can provide the adequate information on it, then it will be considered for going through the formulaic process.
That's all he's saying, nothing more.
P.S. Bill, my friend, you've been on a tirade this week...seriously: everything OK?
not enough info on the car to do so, or C) no one is currently driving one so why waste the time?If, however, someone shows up in one and can provide the adequate information on it, then it will be considered for going through the formulaic process.
That's all he's saying, nothing more.
P.S. Bill, my friend, you've been on a tirade this week...seriously: everything OK?
Bill Miller
New member
Greg,
Tirade? Hardly!
That's just the point Greg, we don't want to encourage people to ask for adjustments on cars. This should have been (and I'm sure it was, for the most part), an objective excercise. As far as not having info on fairly recent cars, I would think that there should be MVMA data on file, from when they were classified. The Supra has barely been on the books for 10 years, if that.
And did you ever stop to think that the reason no one is driving a supra, is because it's a total pig at 3380#? Not only wouldn't it stand a chance at that weight, it would eat tires and brakes. Nobody in their right mind would build a car like that, and then HOPE that JUST MAYBE it might get adjusted. Especially given the history of requests for adjustments to INDIVIDUAL CARS!
Tirade? Hardly!
That's just the point Greg, we don't want to encourage people to ask for adjustments on cars. This should have been (and I'm sure it was, for the most part), an objective excercise. As far as not having info on fairly recent cars, I would think that there should be MVMA data on file, from when they were classified. The Supra has barely been on the books for 10 years, if that.
And did you ever stop to think that the reason no one is driving a supra, is because it's a total pig at 3380#? Not only wouldn't it stand a chance at that weight, it would eat tires and brakes. Nobody in their right mind would build a car like that, and then HOPE that JUST MAYBE it might get adjusted. Especially given the history of requests for adjustments to INDIVIDUAL CARS!
Matt Rowe
New member
Originally posted by GregAmy@Jan 26 2006, 08:22 AM
Bill, I think you completely missed George's point. I believe what he is saying is that within the cars already classified some were not adjusted due to A) not needing it, or
[snapback]72239[/snapback]
After the initial decision came out I contacted Andy and asked him about my car. His reponse was I should petition the CRB to move the car from ITA to ITB. By the criteria you list above:
A ) It was far enought out of line that it should be moved a class so it must have needed adjustment.
B ) Info, naturally I can find it easily, but even a 2 minute search turns up stock hp numbers which was all Andy needed to tell me it isn't classed properly now.
C ) Obviously I am racing one and there is another forum member with one.
So if this car got missed, how many others slipped by? My point isn't so much about my car as it is that it raises doubts about all of the other cars that weren't adjusted. I would think the guy racing the Monza in my area would also wonder why his 115 hp ITA car still weighs 2810 pounds. You may not have much info on the car, but clearly the car is classed wrong.
By setting the criteria above it just seems to create the opening for everyone to request their car be rexamined. Plus, if no one is racing a car why not adjust it based on the information available? Either it will remain unraced or someone might actually build one and we gain a little diversity. IF they manage to fully develop an unsupported car and win races you can still use the PCA process to fix it then. But at the very least we don't have to deal with it 5 years down the road when the next ITAC wonders why the process didn't fix the 2800, 115 hp car in ITA.
Bill Miller
New member
Well said Matt, you're my hero!!
dickita15
New member
I really do not see the problem with someone who thinks that a particular car was overlooked asking the ITAC to run the numbers. Maybe if the there was a simple form that listed the data you need to gather for the ITAC so they could review a car quickly and determine if more work is justified.
Bill sez: "...we don't want to encourage people to ask for adjustments on cars. "
Matt sez: ".. it just seems to create the opening for everyone to request their car be rexamined."
I agree with Bill; I disagree with Matt's implication.
Bill's concerned that folks will whine to get their cars adjusted for cometition potential, a la Production; I agree with Bill that we should not do that. Matt's implication is that we do not want folks asking for all cars to go through the same formulaic process; I disagree with that.
If someone comes up with a currently-classed car that has not gone through the same objective re-weighing process that others have, I do not see any problem with them sending a request that says "please run my car through the PCA process; here's an MVMA and/or VTS for your review."
There's nothing wrong with this. However, I just don't see why the ITAC has to deal with all twenty-hundred cars out there in advance if no one is racing them. It's certainly unreasonable to make them have to do all the research and homework for all twenty-hundred cars, especially if those cars are really obscure and/or not being raced. they picked the most common ones out there, especially the class high- and low-hitters, and worked them through the process.
You're not in there and you think you should be? Write a letter, you'll (both!) get a response.
Greg
Matt sez: ".. it just seems to create the opening for everyone to request their car be rexamined."
I agree with Bill; I disagree with Matt's implication.
Bill's concerned that folks will whine to get their cars adjusted for cometition potential, a la Production; I agree with Bill that we should not do that. Matt's implication is that we do not want folks asking for all cars to go through the same formulaic process; I disagree with that.
If someone comes up with a currently-classed car that has not gone through the same objective re-weighing process that others have, I do not see any problem with them sending a request that says "please run my car through the PCA process; here's an MVMA and/or VTS for your review."
There's nothing wrong with this. However, I just don't see why the ITAC has to deal with all twenty-hundred cars out there in advance if no one is racing them. It's certainly unreasonable to make them have to do all the research and homework for all twenty-hundred cars, especially if those cars are really obscure and/or not being raced. they picked the most common ones out there, especially the class high- and low-hitters, and worked them through the process.
You're not in there and you think you should be? Write a letter, you'll (both!) get a response.
Greg
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I have no problem with people writing in and asking us to consider their car for another look if it didn't get any change. Here is what *I* think a resonable person would do:
Look at the stock HP level of the car
Look at the stock HP level of other cars in the class
Look at the suspension design of the car vs others in the class
Understand that if it's less than 100lbs out of whack, it probably isn't gonna change
If it looks similar, then I see no reason why not. The reason we didn't change some cars is that we didn't want to make a move on a car that info was hard to find, it was obscure and we overlooked something that created a rare, 10-left-in-the-country overdog.
The Monza is a good example. 115hp from a 3.8l V6!!! There are too many things to consider when looking at this car we don't know. WHY is the car rated so low from Chevy? Cam limitations? Crushed by emissions equipment? Crappy intake? Exhaust holding it back? WHO KNOWS? But the problem is that IF a car with these specs were to hit ITB based on what we know and what we don't, it COULD run wild. Nobody runs them anyway. If the few who do care to send in info that will plead their case, so be it. We went through a lot of cars, and some got passed over for a few reasons, just like this one. RISKS, were not on our agenda. It was too much work to do the research on these kinds of cars...if the competitors want to prove something, bring it on! I rewad all the letters.
As it is, the Z3 1.9 and the Protege got messed up/missed. We are correcting.
The ironic thing in this instance is this: Once Matt verified that his car may be better suited fo ITB and not a weight reduction in ITA, he said he would rather keep it in ITA so he didn't have to buy different wheels, etc.
Be careful what you ask for. I know it isn't a perfect system, but we are trying to do the most we can without making a huge mistake.
AB
Matt Rowe
New member
Greg, maybe you are misinterpretting what I said. My implication is that EVERY CAR SHOULD go through the same process, but the execution left some cars out of the process for various reasons. It's not even clear right now why some cars were changed and others were not, you have to ask an ITAC number on a case by case basis to see if it's was reviewed and deemed appropriate, they didn't have any info, didn't know of any being raced . . . If you wait a year, 2 years, five years will anyone be able to explain why car X was or wasn't adjusted?
I thought the reason for this entire exercise was to get every car classed by the same criteria. If that was done than there wouldn't be a need for anyone to write to have their car examined, as they would know it's already been done. If you give people the hope that writing a letter will result in a change to the spec for their car than that starts to sound a lot like Prod. Sure it should be an option for obvious errors (Z3, protege) but that should be a rare problem. Not a requirement for a quarter of the spec book.
Shouldn't SCCA already have a VTS for every classed vehicle?
Andy, you're leaving out the part where I said I would leave prefer it stay there while I build a new car! And to be completely honest I would really have preferred a reduction in weight in ITA and the chance to make a fully prepped car competitive, but that doesn't appear to be an option.