January Fastrack

[JeffYoung]

See above -- I forgot Josh has a list of the cars for which previous requests were made -- Tom's ITB CRX, the MR2, others.

Charlie is probably specifically referring to the early Volvos in ITB. They are a cluster. They hp figures for them are gross, if you use net numbers they lose a ton of weight -- probably making the weight unacheivable in B.

Josh has done more work on this than me; he can address it more specifcially I was the 2.2 Mopar guy...lol....

Really? So nothing is being done with the list of cars there were previously discussed? I'm sorry, but you guys are making this extremely confusing and a bit frustrating. Or could someone at least list what cars are under consideration and being run through the process? At this point is sure sounds like many people are thinking that various cars are on the list to be reviewed but in reality that isn't the case. So what exactly is the deal?

Why not publish what current cars are under consideration in Fastrack. That way people will know what's in progress and ensure there's no miscommunication. It would be a shame if people are being patcient and wait even longer just to find out there car isn't even on the list.

Btw, this is NOT just a Dave centric viewpoint about my beloved Golf or Prelude. We all know there's a sizeable list of cars that deserve to be looked at.

Charlie, I think there are certain cars that need to be run through the process and weights adjusted upwards. One example of this is the Golf III (& IV). Instead of moving all other ITB cars down in weight, that car just needs some on it. So in effect like you just stated. There still are plenty of B cars that should have a weight reduction even based on the target that ITB has been using now for a while. I also don't many (any?) changes will be "massive". I know that's a relative term but thinking 300 lbs as my definition.

 

[tom91ita]

the early Volvos in ITB. They are a cluster. They hp figures for them are gross, if you use net numbers they lose a ton of weight -- probably making the weight unacheivable in B.

the volvos need to stay in B! i can't imagine B without the "volvos from hell"

 

[PSherm]

How about correcting the 2nd gen Neons to include 04-05 models?

 

[JeffYoung]

Guys -- I know I sound like a broken record, but if you spot an issue in the ITCS (remember, the ITAC is not an expert on every car listed) with a particular make or model, go to www.scca.org and send us a letter. Will take five minutes, gets into our system and then we can consider it.

Thanks.

Jeff

How about correcting the 2nd gen Neons to include 04-05 models?

 

[Charlie Broring]

See above -- I forgot Josh has a list of the cars for which previous requests were made -- Tom's ITB CRX, the MR2, others.

Charlie is probably specifically referring to the early Volvos in ITB. They are a cluster. They hp figures for them are gross, if you use net numbers they lose a ton of weight -- probably making the weight unacheivable in B.

Josh has done more work on this than me; he can address it more specifcially I was the 2.2 Mopar guy...lol....

Actually, I was thinking of All the old cars such as the 2002, 320, VW A1&2, Alfa, the Fire Arrow among others Cars that were so evenly matched and made for great competition in ITB until overshadowed by a couple cars moved down from ITA. Cars still racing with both old and young drivers. As I said earlier in this thread ITB is among the classes experiencing difficulty integrating the old and new classifications. ITA is also having an issue of old and new. I expect the few remaining ITC cars will have issues too when overweight big motor ITB castoffs are moved down.

I personally think the Process is a great step forward in Improved Touring. However in some cases it's limitations are having an adverse effect on IT. And instead of acknowledging this and making the Process fit IT it appears that we are changing IT to fit the Process.

I think the case of the Volvo 142 is a perfect example. Until recently it was a class overdog. Now after evaluation by the Process it comes under consideration for a huge weight reduction. The car makes a little over 120 RWHP, what is it's "process" weight? Some of the Volvo guys are going to ask that it be moved to ITC instead of loosing weight ! As I understand it the bogus 142 factory "Net HP" numbers were used as a model to develop the Process formula in ITB. No wonder things are askew.

MR2 is another example. You are going to chase the mystical "Power Adder %" forever and not fix anything.

If you want the process to have the greatest benefit to IT racing you have to be able to work around it's limitations and even adjust it when best serves the club. It is my opinion that the Process needs a bit of tweaking in order to best balance the old and newer cars in ITB and C.

 

[JeffYoung]

You keep saying we need to change the process, but you don't say how.

How? What factors would you add, given that they must apply to all cars equally?

Actually, I was thinking of All the old cars such as the 2002, 320, VW A1&2, Alfa, the Fire Arrow among others Cars that were so evenly matched and made for great competition in ITB until overshadowed by a couple cars moved down from ITA. Cars still racing with both old and young drivers. As I said earlier in this thread ITB is among the classes experiencing difficulty integrating the old and new classifications. ITA is also having an issue of old and new. I expect the few remaining ITC cars will have issues too when overweight big motor ITB castoffs are moved down.

I personally think the Process is a great step forward in Improved Touring. However in some cases it's limitations are having an adverse effect on IT. And instead of acknowledging this and making the Process fit IT it appears that we are changing IT to fit the Process.

I think the case of the Volvo 142 is a perfect example. Until recently it was a class overdog. Now after evaluation by the Process it comes under consideration for a huge weight reduction. The car makes a little over 120 RWHP, what is it's "process" weight? Some of the Volvo guys are going to ask that it be moved to ITC instead of loosing weight ! As I understand it the bogus 142 factory "Net HP" numbers were used as a model to develop the Process formula in ITB. No wonder things are askew.

MR2 is another example. You are going to chase the mystical "Power Adder %" forever and not fix anything.

If you want the process to have the greatest benefit to IT racing you have to be able to work around it's limitations and even adjust it when best serves the club. It is my opinion that the Process needs a bit of tweaking in order to best balance the old and newer cars in ITB and C.

 

[JoshS]

Charlie, I don't think the process needs fixing, but some classifications do, especially in ITB. Here's what I think is going on:

The process is based on a power-to-weight formula. To pick the right power-to-weight ratio, each class had a bogie car or two picked, and then the right ratio was reverse engineered from those cars' specs. However, ITB got messed up because the Volvo 142E was picked as a bogie, however, it's horsepower was never published in SAE Net terms, only SAE Gross (Volvo switched to SAE net a year later). So, when other cars had the same ratio applied, they ended up lighter than they should have. Meaning that cars that were considered equal to the Volvo are now slower than more recently-classed cars. Two possible fixes there -- alter the ITB target ratio and make the newer cars heavier, or leave the ratio and make the old cars lighter. No decision on that point but I've been assuming we'd do the latter, as the newer cars are generally the more popular ones at this point. It's clear you'd prefer the former, and I understand that.

 

[JeffYoung]

Before my time, but that wasn't the only bogie car right? Wasn't the A2 Golf used as well, and maybe others?

The present power to weight ratio for ITB seems to slot in appropriately between A and C, and doesn't "look" off although I agree that should not be the end of the analysis.

Did the use of the Volvo numbers really cause that much of an error? Or was it mitigated by the use of other bogie cars?

Charlie, I don't think the process needs fixing, but some classifications do, especially in ITB. Here's what I think is going on:

The process is based on a power-to-weight formula. To pick the right power-to-weight ratio, each class had a bogie car or two picked, and then the right ratio was reverse engineered from those cars' specs. However, ITB got messed up because the Volvo 142E was picked as a bogie, however, it's horsepower was never published in SAE Net terms, only SAE Gross (Volvo switched to SAE net a year later). So, when other cars had the same ratio applied, they ended up lighter than they should have. Meaning that cars that were considered equal to the Volvo are now slower than more recently-classed cars. Two possible fixes there -- alter the ITB target ratio and make the newer cars heavier, or leave the ratio and make the old cars lighter. No decision on that point but I've been assuming we'd do the latter, as the newer cars are generally the more popular ones at this point. It's clear you'd prefer the former, and I understand that.

 

[gran racing]

No decision on that point but I've been assuming we'd do the latter,

I imagine that I'm just misunderstanding something. So are what have cars there were reviewed compared to if that decision hasn't been made yet? How was it done for the recent weight adjustment of the Daytona?

 

[JeffYoung]

The weight change/reclassification of the Daytona was done this way.

Letter came in to review most of the 2.2 Mopars.

I looked at the various configurations (carb, EFI, chassis) and did a summary for the ITAC.

Some cars were close to ITB process weight and just needed a correction (Omni, Charger, etc.). This was done using the existing ITB power/weight target ratio and I think for each car an expected gain of the default 25%.

We then had a problem child with the ITB Daytona/Laser since it needed to lose I think 600 lbs to get to its ITB process weight using the existing process. Given the car's curb weight, it looked impossible for the car to make ITB weight and it was then moved to C.

I imagine that I'm just misunderstanding something. So are what have cars there were reviewed compared to if that decision hasn't been made yet? How was it done for the recent weight adjustment of the Daytona?

 

[Knestis]

>> As I understand it the bogus 142 factory "Net HP" numbers were used as a model to develop the Process formula in ITB. No wonder things are askew.

Not correct, as I recall the situation.

We're forgetting the step where cars were aligned with the "bogeys" based on best guesses for equivalence, based on observed, on-track performance. The power/weight based Process happened a step later in the evolution of establishing spec weights for IT.

As Jake pointed out, it appears that the Volvos' role as a bogey for that realignment effort was to skew the process, as the representative Volvos that were "competitive" - so set the standard for B - appear in hindsight to have been cheated up. The Process sought to level cars to the established performance envelope, set in part by the Volvos' past performance, but as we got less tolerant of cheating, 142 owners found that they couldn't perform up to expectations.

Illustrative of this is the fact that the ITB track record at VIR is still held by a 142, set back in 2002 by Dave Kerr - at a 2:22.xx. Nothing has come very close to that since...

At least during my time on the committee, we KNEW that we couldn't use quoted HP for cars of that generation and apply the standard multiplier. We never did. That was a huge part of the reason we talked about a "do over" for ITB, top to bottom. We spent a bunch of hours documenting stock values for the entire list of eligible cars.

K

 

[Gary L]

However, ITB got messed up because the Volvo 142E was picked as a bogie, however, it's horsepower was never published in SAE Net terms, only SAE Gross (Volvo switched to SAE net a year later). So, when other cars had the same ratio applied, they ended up lighter than they should have.

For those unfamiliar with the Volvo B20 series engines, some clarification: it so happens that when Volvo went to SAE net numbers in 1972, coincidentally the B20E ("the" ITB engine) disappeared at the same time in the US market. It was replaced by the B20F, which had a different head casting and was 8.7 to 1 cr vs 10.5 to 1 for the "E". Bottom line... there are no SAE net hp numbers directly available for the engine used as the ITB bogey.

So if we accept the premise Josh outlined above, we have introduced an error of a little over 6%. The factory advertised number used for the '71 Volvo 142E (the only year the B20E engine was available in the US spec 142) would have been 130 hp, and it was indeed a "gross" SAE figure. I've put that adjective in quotes though, because although 130 was certainly not SAE net, it was more conservative than most SAE gross hp claims of the day. If you look at other Volvo B20 series engines that were produced with no mechanical changes whatsoever spanning both ratings periods (up to 1971 vs 1972 and later) and use those comparisons to extrapolate the 1971 B20E SAE net hp number, you come up with something between 121 and 122 hp.

Furthermore, the B20E's were also being produced for the european market (but identical to our target ITB engine), so they were also rated per DIN standards - at 124 hp. As has been discussed on these pages before, DIN can be converted to SAE net; divide 124 by 1.014 and we come up with just about 122 hp... again.

However comma :

If we do the IT math - 122 hp * 1.25 * 17.0 = 2592 lbs. (FWIW, I personally think the 1.25 number is pretty close for this engine.) To continue, if we add 50 pounds for double a-arm front suspension, we end up at 2642. The car is currently classified at 2640, or about as close as you can get.

What did I miss? Maybe take the 50 pounds back, due to the truck axle at the rear? You're still only 50 pounds from target - a long ways from 6%.

 

[quadzjr]

I appreciate the non-shelfish point of view. It is nice to see someone happy with the classification.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

And I can't restate enough that requesting a weight reduction based on 25% when you KNOW your car makes more is just as much cheating as adding cams or anything else that raises HP outside the rules.

When a full cheater motor only makes a 20% gain I doubt there's any reason to fear a non-cheating motor to even make that much. My rant was fueled by my frustration at a motor that basically makes less power than some ITS cars, with power to weight ratio less than ITA cars. Still, IT has too many other problems where my car's concerned, from the oe dual mass flywheels that can't be either balanced or resurfaced and cost 1/3 more than an aftermarket aluminum one to having to use the oe rubber mounts. Asking for another weight break won't begin to address these kinds of discrepancies.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

When a full cheater motor only makes a 20% gain I doubt there's any reason to fear a non-cheating motor to even make that much. My rant was fueled by my frustration at a motor that basically makes less power than some ITS cars, with power to weight ratio less than ITA cars. Still, IT has too many other problems where my car's concerned, from the oe dual mass flywheels that can't be either balanced or resurfaced and cost 1/3 more than an aftermarket aluminum one to having to use the oe rubber mounts. Asking for another weight break won't begin to address these kinds of discrepancies.

My apologies if you thought that was directed at you. There are a few cars in the queue that the owners KNOW make over 25% yet they are requesting a 'do-over' based on an opportunity that they see because there is limited knowledge about the power output.

 

[JeffYoung]

James, what computer are you running on that car?

 

[Gary L]

I appreciate the non-shelfish point of view. It is nice to see someone happy with the classification.

Well, actually, I didn't say I was happy. I mean, c'mon!

I'm just trying to understand why the math doesn't seem to agree with the earlier conversation... that this car, along with many other older classifications in ITB, would benefit from the process being applied to them. If so, wouldn't the car calculate to a significantly lighter weight?

If it doesn't work on the Volvo, it's probably not going to work on many others. I'll ask again - What did I miss? Or where is the significant error in my calculation?

 

[gran racing]

There are a few cars in the queue that the owners KNOW make over 25% yet they are requesting a 'do-over'

If this is so obvious to you, shouldn't the ITAC know this from their own conclusions?

For myself, Flatout bought the dyno where my car was tuned and the info wasn't given. Originally I wasn't all that thrilled that the info wasn't deleted prior to the purchase, but whatever. The new motor on dynos purchased from the same place shows less hp than the previous one. Grrrr. I've heard reasons why this might be shown on the dyno but not in reality. Who knows; it's just a tuning tool. Right? So even if dyno numbers are provided, or someone "knows" it's making X hp and X torque........

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

If this is so obvious to you, shouldn't the ITAC know this from their own conclusions?

For myself, Flatout bought the dyno where my car was tuned and the info wasn't given. Originally I wasn't all that thrilled that the info wasn't deleted prior to the purchase, but whatever. The new motor on dynos purchased from the same place shows less hp than the previous one. Grrrr. I've heard reasons why this might be shown on the dyno but not in reality. Who knows; it's just a tuning tool. Right? So even if dyno numbers are provided, or someone "knows" it's making X hp and X torque........

Dave,

I am not talking specifically of anything I have seen or not seen on my computer. I am talking about people who think that they deserve to be 'reclassed' at 25% because its the standard in which 'it should have been done at the beginning'. Not because it's right. Basically it's people who have only been paying half attention or those who are trying to manipulate the system.

 

[JeffYoung]

That's a good analysis. Every Process run for the old "gross" hp Volvos using the net number has had several hundred pounds come off of them.

Charlie, any thoughts on this?

Also, and Charlie, I hope you don't mind, but in a PM exchange Charlie offered a constructive suggestion on his "how" of dealing with the issues we have in B.

The idea is that the Volvo bogey in ITB, either alone or with other cars, may have ended up skewing the power/weight ratio in ITB. Assuming that we haven't processed most of the cars in B, but just the more popular/front running ones, do we "fix" (if it is in fact off, Gary's post suggests it may not be) the power weight ratio and readjust the already processed cars?

For those unfamiliar with the Volvo B20 series engines, some clarification: it so happens that when Volvo went to SAE net numbers in 1972, coincidentally the B20E ("the" ITB engine) disappeared at the same time in the US market. It was replaced by the B20F, which had a different head casting and was 8.7 to 1 cr vs 10.5 to 1 for the "E". Bottom line... there are no SAE net hp numbers directly available for the engine used as the ITB bogey.

So if we accept the premise Josh outlined above, we have introduced an error of a little over 6%. The factory advertised number used for the '71 Volvo 142E (the only year the B20E engine was available in the US spec 142) would have been 130 hp, and it was indeed a "gross" SAE figure. I've put that adjective in quotes though, because although 130 was certainly not SAE net, it was more conservative than most SAE gross hp claims of the day. If you look at other Volvo B20 series engines that were produced with no mechanical changes whatsoever spanning both ratings periods (up to 1971 vs 1972 and later) and use those comparisons to extrapolate the 1971 B20E SAE net hp number, you come up with something between 121 and 122 hp.

Furthermore, the B20E's were also being produced for the european market (but identical to our target ITB engine), so they were also rated per DIN standards - at 124 hp. As has been discussed on these pages before, DIN can be converted to SAE net; divide 124 by 1.014 and we come up with just about 122 hp... again.

However comma :

If we do the IT math - 122 hp * 1.25 * 17.0 = 2592 lbs. (FWIW, I personally think the 1.25 number is pretty close for this engine.) To continue, if we add 50 pounds for double a-arm front suspension, we end up at 2642. The car is currently classified at 2640, or about as close as you can get.

What did I miss? Maybe take the 50 pounds back, due to the truck axle at the rear? You're still only 50 pounds from target - a long ways from 6%.