JLawton
New member
At first I though Andy was talking about me!! LOL Then I did the math and said "not even close!!"
January Fastrack
- Thread starter Tristan Smith
- Start date
At first I though Andy was talking about me!! LOL Then I did the math and said "not even close!!"
gran racing
Super Moderator
Either way not everyone is going to be happy. I'm not convinced we've processed the more popular/front running cars in B yet. Another reason why I think there should be a date listed in the GCR for when each car is run through the process going forward.
Z3_GoCar
New member
It's got an Electromotive Tec II.
Bill Miller
New member
Wow, that's some thread! First off, I hope everyone had a good holiday season and a Happy New Year. I started reading this a couple of days ago, and got pulled away. Just got around to finishing it. Unfortunately, I don't remember all the stuff from the previous 10 pages, and I don't have the time right now to re-read them. So for now, here are my two comments based on what I remember about the bulk of the thread:
1) It's acknowledged that twin-cam 16v motors in B and C use a 1.3 power factor, yet that same architecture in A, S, and R uses a 1.25 power factor. If this is truly the way it is, I can't imagine how anyone on the ITAC ever signed off on it. Different power gains for the same architecture, based only on class difference, when the prep rules are the same for all the classes? Really? And you expect people to buy that? Really?
2) The way I read it is, the Daytona / Laser is moving to C next year, but for this year, while it remains in B, it gets to run at the C weight. Is this correct? If so, what kind of shenanigans is that? A car gets its weight set based on a number of factors, including which class it will run in. How do you let a car run in a higher class at the lower class weight? Really? And people are supposed to buy that? Really?
As far as fixing mistakes goes, well, I think most of the folks around here know I how feel about that. Actually, that's not fair. Legit mistakes are just that, mistakes. It's cases where you have somebody in a position of influence, boning specific cars, where it's not a mistake any more. You know, guys that say "It's a 4A-GE, you do know that that's an Atlantic motor, don't you?"
Nice to see everyone again!
1) It's acknowledged that twin-cam 16v motors in B and C use a 1.3 power factor, yet that same architecture in A, S, and R uses a 1.25 power factor. If this is truly the way it is, I can't imagine how anyone on the ITAC ever signed off on it. Different power gains for the same architecture, based only on class difference, when the prep rules are the same for all the classes? Really? And you expect people to buy that? Really?
2) The way I read it is, the Daytona / Laser is moving to C next year, but for this year, while it remains in B, it gets to run at the C weight. Is this correct? If so, what kind of shenanigans is that? A car gets its weight set based on a number of factors, including which class it will run in. How do you let a car run in a higher class at the lower class weight? Really? And people are supposed to buy that? Really?
As far as fixing mistakes goes, well, I think most of the folks around here know I how feel about that. Actually, that's not fair. Legit mistakes are just that, mistakes. It's cases where you have somebody in a position of influence, boning specific cars, where it's not a mistake any more. You know, guys that say "It's a 4A-GE, you do know that that's an Atlantic motor, don't you?"
Nice to see everyone again!
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
Bill, I can't argue with you on 1. I understand where the guys who are advocating 1.3 are coming from, but I disagree with them.
On 2, let us explain. Using teh process, the Daytona/Laser should be at some ungodly low weight in ITB -- like 2000 lbs. They'll never make it, so they are getting processed and going to C. Their "processed" C weight is still LOWER than their present B weight (when it should be much higher if the B weight had been set by the process), but also much higher than what their "process" weight in ITB is. So they should pose no threat to the existing ITB cars.
That's the "why it is ok for one year" explanation. Here's the "why it has to be done this way." Apparently, we were within the deadline for fixing the weight via a technical correction for 2011 but not for moving it to C. So, we decided to give the drivers of these cars -- who were stuck with a weight somethign like 650 lbs over process weight in ITB -- a head start. They can now modify to make their weight in C, run in B this year, and then move to C next.
They won't be competitive in B this year, so no harm no foul.
That's the thinking. No shenanigans, just how it played out.
On 2, let us explain. Using teh process, the Daytona/Laser should be at some ungodly low weight in ITB -- like 2000 lbs. They'll never make it, so they are getting processed and going to C. Their "processed" C weight is still LOWER than their present B weight (when it should be much higher if the B weight had been set by the process), but also much higher than what their "process" weight in ITB is. So they should pose no threat to the existing ITB cars.
That's the "why it is ok for one year" explanation. Here's the "why it has to be done this way." Apparently, we were within the deadline for fixing the weight via a technical correction for 2011 but not for moving it to C. So, we decided to give the drivers of these cars -- who were stuck with a weight somethign like 650 lbs over process weight in ITB -- a head start. They can now modify to make their weight in C, run in B this year, and then move to C next.
They won't be competitive in B this year, so no harm no foul.
That's the thinking. No shenanigans, just how it played out.
Bill Miller
New member
Jeff,
What's the logic from those that are advocating for 1.3 only for B and C, and not A, S, and R? I'd really like to see how someone can claim 1.25 for one group and 1.3 for another, when the prep rules are the same, and the architecture is the same.
As far as the Daytona / Laser issue, while I really like to see the process stand on its own, and I'm not really a fan of 'special cases', I'm also pragmatic enough to see where the occasional deviation is warranted. Based on your explanation, I'm satisfied that this indeed is one of those cases. I respectfully withdraw my shenanigans comment and will say that you guys did a nice job of handling a tough situation. I would have liked to see it go straight to C this year, but I understand that there are bureaucracy issues around that.
Z3_GoCar
New member
Didn't you read my rant's Bill? All manufactures in ITA/ITS and ITR that start with -B- automatically get a 1.3 power adder, even when they only make 1.1% more power
JeffYoung
New member
Well, no. That's not correct. The 4 cylinder BMWs do not get that power multiplier.
Look, the 2.8 as an unknown animal before ITR. It might not make but 25% more. Send in your build sheet and dyno plots, and a request to move it to 25% and it will be considered.
Thanks.
Jeff
Look, the 2.8 as an unknown animal before ITR. It might not make but 25% more. Send in your build sheet and dyno plots, and a request to move it to 25% and it will be considered.
Thanks.
Jeff
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Didn't you read my rant's Bill? All manufactures in ITA/ITS and ITR that start with -B- automatically get a 1.3 power adder, even when they only make 1.1% more power
That's not true, and you can remove the "b", and it's still not true.
Even the E30 M3 was run through at 25%...
Z3_GoCar
New member
So how does a 7 hp difference equate to a 220lb difference between the 1.8 Miata and the 1.9 BMW? Where's the 50lb weight break for having struts? It should be more like a 60lb difference.
As for my motor, expect to see mulitple dyno plots once I get it back togeather.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
The Miata GETS +50 for double wishbone. Strut cars do not get -50 in addition.
1994 Miata 1.8 = 128hp
1996 Z3 1.9 = 138hp
The Z3 1.9 should weigh 2500lbs in ITA. Write a letter.
If the ITAC had agreed to pass the 'rear' suspension adder, difference would be 80lbs. (2420-2500)
The cost of a stamp to lose 100 lbs off of the current spec weight? Not a bad deal (assuming it goes through)..
Z3_GoCar
New member
Noem,
You can do it electornically now... It's how mine lost 35lbs a year ago.
Andy,
Is the 131bhp not for the BP-ZE motor not for the domestic market?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_MX-5
For the 1994 model year, the first-generation MX-5 was freshened with the introduction of the more powerful 1.8 L (110 cu in) BP-ZE engine, dual airbags and a limited slip differential in some markets. The chassis was substantially braced to meet new side-impact standards, most visibly by adding a "track bar" between the seatbelt towers inside the car, but also to the front and rear subframes. Also, 1994 and 1995 were the only years in which Mazda offered a light metallic blue paint (Laguna Blue Mica), making these cars rare collectors cars to some. 1994 also saw the introduction of the "R" package, a sport-themed package with Bilstein shocks and subtle underbody spoilers, in addition to the removal of unnecessary items such as power steering. No body style changes were made, however.
The new 1.8 L (110 cu in) engine produced 98 kW (131 bhp), which was then increased to 99 kW (133 bhp) for the 1996 model year. The base weight increased to 990 kg (2,200 lb). Performance was improved slightly, the additional power being partly offset by the extra weight. In some markets such as Europe, the 1.6 L (98 cu in) engine continued to be available as a lower-cost option, but was detuned to 66 kW (89 bhp). This lower-powered model did not receive all the additional chassis bracing of the new 1.8 L (110 cu in). Japanese and US cars were fitted with an optional Torsen LSD, which was far more durable than the previous viscous differential.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
It's a valid point but I am just citing a reference for the correct number.
116hp 1990-1993
128hp 1994-1995
133hp 1996-1997
Jeff, since I don't get to hear from the other people, what is the logic of the other members that B&C multi vavle engines get the 130% but the other classes get 125%?
If the numbers are to represent the percent gain of a possible engine. how does simply changing a car class change it expected gain in IT trim?
not basing anyone I just don't understand.
If the numbers are to represent the percent gain of a possible engine. how does simply changing a car class change it expected gain in IT trim?
not basing anyone I just don't understand.
Bill Miller
New member
Magic!