January Fastrack

what are the 27 cars in line for the next conference call? i am not asking to hold anyone accountable as i do not think it likely that all 27 can be discussed in a single call but i would like to know.

also, if changes are are recommended for the 27, when would changes be likely to show up in Fastrack for on-track.

if the MR2 is 1st on the list and changes are recommended and accepted, when would new weights likely take effect? June 2011 or 1/1/2012, etc.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
I'm not going to debate history as it is just one persons recollection vs. anothers (because we didn't have the record keeping the iTAC started a couple years ago). But I will tell you that the 'codification' you speak of was VERY loose. Meaning it was a guideline, not a written rule. Unfortunately, some keep pointing to that 'draft' that Darin used during a presentation as the 'law' and it simply wasn't - as is evident in ALL the ITR, ITS and ITA cars classed and reclassed since the Process was allowed - voted on and agreed to by those same members that are claiming it was 'like that all along'. That is just simple fact, not opinion. The classifications are in black and white in the ITCS.

My beef if with the 30% rule as it isn't based in any reasonable arguement. And I submit it SHOULD be a fight you want to fight as it speaks to so many things that are still broken at the core level. Set the Process FIRST, and get to your requests. You shouldn't be acting on requests knowing there is an issue with the way you classify cars.

I know you and your team will eventually get things ironed out but geez.

Squeeky wheel - OUT.
Click to expand...

Actually Andy, the version (draft) that you refer to, the same one now being chosen as the 'approved by the CRB/BoD' okie dokie version, had a listing of various multipliers based on engine architecture. And it included a step by step process to work the math, add adders, etc. One step below the "choose multiplier step" was the "Check and see if this makes sense" step.
Really...it was called that, or something very close. If it DIDN'T make sense, the inputs were adjusted. So, for a car that was a know dog, even though it had 4 valves, it would get another multiplier.

We know this was used many times.
(V2 addressed the issue of WHEN it could be used, and how evidence should be handled as a policy)

We have debated the MR2 issue in the ITAC, and to be honest, it was always certain members who said:

  • "It will make power, it's an Atlantic motor." (A preposterous concept and one that shows the owner to be either an idiot or a scam artist)
  • "It will make power, I know a guy who did it."
  • "30% is the standard multiplier, that's what the deal was and we're sticking to it."
  • "Back in the Firehawk days these things flew".


Yet now, in ONE letter, a car gets reweighted for ITB, (the Dodge), and moved (for 2012) to ITC.
HuH???????

So the MR2, which has a HUGE PREPONDERANCE of evidence showing it's WAY overweight, can't get fixed after YEARS of trying, yet, a Dodge that has no evidence I'm aware of gets fixed in one letter.
Clearly there exists the ability to fix a car. Clearly the MR2 needs fixing.

What the hell am I missing here?

It really makes NO sense, unless you start considering lesser than proper motives.
 
I think the path is always paved with good intentions...

But I have to say that I still formly believe that the ITAC should be comprised of actual IT racers. Right now, 2 of the 7 I don't know, 2 don't race IT, maybe 3.
 
JeffYoung said:
The people who told you it would be fixed meant it. They thought it would. I did too. You did an outstanding job supplying information and it was discussed at length. Frankly, I failed you. I didn't do as good a job advocating for what I thought was right -- a max of a 20% gain on this car -- as I should have.

I believe the car can't make more than 20%. A full tilt IT build sheet might help me convince others I am right, but it might not, so it is your call if you wish to submit it. If you do, I'll use it as best I can.
Click to expand...

Jeff, I've been there, and I assure you that you've NOT failed ....I've beat the same horse, Andy's argued in it's favor. I'm beginning to suspect that there are members who will, even though they might fail to see they are doing it, ignore logic, reason and evidence, although I can not understand how that could be.
:shrug:

Not. Your. Fault.
 
I'm beginning to suspect that there are members who will, even though they might fail to see they are doing it, ignore logic, reason and evidence, although I can not understand how that could be.
Click to expand...

actually, that sounds a lot like senior management at work....

they will agree that we should make DDD (data driven decisions), that the asssumptions are correct, that the math is correct but they just do not like the recommendations (often because it makes them or their group look bad/inadequate/ignorant) and so they will not implement the change.

because to implement the change means you have to admit that the team/group/site/company has been doing it wrong.

i will go back to troll status since it is the holidays....

Merry Christmas everyone! i hope you have time to enjoy the company of friends and family this holiday season.

and again, thanks to the ITAC for working this through (particularly the ones that are willing to be engaged in this public forum). volunteers are rarely given the credit they are due.
 
Multiple inconsistancies have really bugged me over the past several years. Some made absolutely no sense yet I was told they were spot on, even by people here who are now vocal about the current actions being taken. lol

Hubs....yeah.
 
  • "It will make power, it's an Atlantic motor." (A preposterous concept and one that shows the owner to be either an idiot or a scam artist)
I would say both are true on this comment.
  • "It will make power, I know a guy who did it."
Prove it and provide the build sheet or shut up. Again a liar or protecting turf.
  • "30% is the standard multiplier, that's what the deal was and we're sticking to it."
No deals after the way we class cars was changed to a process rather than a POMA--PERIOD!!
  • "Back in the Firehawk days these things flew".
Against what? Has no relevance to classing against todays cars and our target for the class. These drivers deserve better. They pay their entry fee and deserve the same consideration as 50 drivers in another chassis. Fix it with a proper multiplier and move on to other business, you have the evidence.
 
Yet now, in ONE letter, a car gets reweighted for ITB, (the Dodge), and moved (for 2012) to ITC.
HuH???????

So the MR2, which has a HUGE PREPONDERANCE of evidence showing it's WAY overweight, can't get fixed after YEARS of trying, yet, a Dodge that has no evidence I'm aware of gets fixed in one letter.
Clearly there exists the ability to fix a car. Clearly the MR2 needs fixing.

What the hell am I missing here?

It really makes NO sense, unless you start considering lesser than proper motives.[/QUOTE]

Obviously, it was a really good letter:D

Seriously, the case for the Daytona was based on the fact (not an opinion or an estimate)that there are other Dodges & Plymouths in ITB that use the same exact engine and are 300 lbs lighter (the same arguement used for the BMW 320i weight change). Throw in the fact that the car currently classified at 600 lbs over ITB process weight and it's an easy change to support. I could also argue that change for the Daytona is 10 years overdue and it got skipped in the great realignment.

I sympathize with the MR2 racers, but the two cases different.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona
 
Calling out the STAC on the classification of the STU Boxster vs the M3.

BMW STU legal motor is the 3.2L for the 95-99 M3.
E36 performanceVersionPower0–60 mphTop Speed3.0 L-24v I6Euro210 kW (286 PS; 282 hp)5.4 s[6]155 mph (249 km/h)[6] (electronically limited)U.S.179 kW (243 PS; 240 hp)5.6 s137 mph (220 km/h)[7] (electronically limited)3.2 L-24v I6Euro236 kW (321 PS; 316 hp)5.2 s155 mph (249 km/h) (electronically limited)U.S.179 kW (243 PS; 240 hp)5.5 s139 mph (224 km/h) (electronically limited)

Check out the euro spec motor rating at 316hp...gives a glimmer of what this engine does - don't give me the "it's a euro motor rating" story - this engine has shown it can do well more than 316 crank hp. Plus - this is STU with more allowances than IT.

How can the STAC say that the 2.7L Boxster is a reasonable suggestion for STU when it is so far down on power?

MY 2000-04 - 2.7L rating is 225 hp
MY 2000-04 - 3.2L Boxster S is 258 hp doesn't this seem to line up better? (special edition 550 Spyder is 266 hp)


MY 2005-06
  • 2.7L 176.5 kW (240 PS; 237 hp)
  • 3.2L 206 kW (280 PS; 276 hp) Boxster S
MY 2007-08
  • 2.7L 180 kW (245 PS; 241 hp)
  • 3.4L 217 kW (295 PS; 291 hp) Boxster S
Total give to the BMW - COME ON! That is crap! If the BMW can run the 95-99 3.2L which will make over 300 crank hp all day, then the Boxster should be able to run the 2000-04 3.2L which has never even touched 300 crank hp.

Where is the huge fear of Porsche coming from? Sending another letter.... :dead_horse:

STU will = Spec BMW.
 
benspeed said:
Calling out the STAC on the classification of the STU Boxster vs the M3.

BMW STU legal motor is the 3.2L for the 95-99 M3.
E36 performanceVersionPower0–60 mphTop Speed3.0 L-24v I6Euro210 kW (286 PS; 282 hp)5.4 s[6]155 mph (249 km/h)[6] (electronically limited)U.S.179 kW (243 PS; 240 hp)5.6 s137 mph (220 km/h)[7] (electronically limited)3.2 L-24v I6Euro236 kW (321 PS; 316 hp)5.2 s155 mph (249 km/h) (electronically limited)U.S.179 kW (243 PS; 240 hp)5.5 s139 mph (224 km/h) (electronically limited)

Check out the euro spec motor rating at 316hp...gives a glimmer of what this engine does - don't give me the "it's a euro motor rating" story - this engine has shown it can do well more than 316 crank hp. Plus - this is STU with more allowances than IT.

How can the STAC say that the 2.7L Boxster is a reasonable suggestion for STU when it is so far down on power?

MY 2000-04 - 2.7L rating is 225 hp
MY 2000-04 - 3.2L Boxster S is 258 hp doesn't this seem to line up better? (special edition 550 Spyder is 266 hp)




MY 2005-06
  • 2.7L 176.5 kW (240 PS; 237 hp)
  • 3.2L 206 kW (280 PS; 276 hp) Boxster S
MY 2007-08
  • 2.7L 180 kW (245 PS; 241 hp)
  • 3.4L 217 kW (295 PS; 291 hp) Boxster S
Total give to the BMW - COME ON! That is crap! If the BMW can run the 95-99 3.2L which will make over 300 crank hp all day, then the Boxster should be able to run the 2000-04 3.2L which has never even touched 300 crank hp.

Where is the huge fear of Porsche coming from? Sending another letter.... :dead_horse:

STU will = Spec BMW.
Click to expand...

Happy Festivus....

Come on Ben, surely you know the difference between the euro S50 and USDM S52. The euro S50 is a completely different animal, it's much more like the USDM S54. The USDM S52 has the same head, intake manifold, throttle body, and injectors as my motor, only difference is more more bore and stroke and a bump up on the intake cam.

Acutally, I haven't seen any evidence that any BMW motor will make a 30% gain with an IT legal build. Only way to see those kinds of gains is with a cam and manifold swap.
 
Last edited:
lateapex911 said:
...

Yet now, in ONE letter, a car gets reweighted for ITB, (the Dodge), and moved (for 2012) to ITC.
HuH???????

QUOTE]

Jake: I have been waiting for over a year to have the Dodge Charger run through the process (it was not run through the process during the realignment) which was delayed until the GCR was changed in order to allow the reweighting of cars that were classed way before the realignment.

The 2.2L Charger was not moved to ITC (the 1.7L is already there) just the 2.2L Dodge Daytona and Chrysler Laser (same 2.2L engine, wider track, wheel base in between the Charger and the Omni, same front suspension, rear susbension basically the same with the addition of a track bar and a diagonal brace - information from the 1984 Chrysler Service Manual). I agree that this was a gift!
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
I'm a believer in the Process, obivously.

We do realize however that people can disagree with the Process, or want different inputs or standard defaults, etc. without being bad people who are out to destroy IT and turn weight setting into all back room deals right?

I lose sight of that sometimes myself. I get far too dogmatic about the Process, and forget that criticism of it, and debate over it, is a good thing.

Need to remember that. I've yet to encounter anyone in the SCCA, and in particular in regards to IT, that has assumed a leadership role with anything other than a desire to improve the club and category. I may disagree with them, or some of the decisions of the committee on which I serve, but that doesn't make folks I disagree with bad people.

I need to work hard to remember that going forward, because I am absolutely convinced it is true.
Click to expand...

+1 !!!!!!!!
 
Ron Earp said:
Partially, yes I am.

I'm just a bit saddened by the situation. I'm not an ITB driver so I don't have a dog in the hunt. But I respect all the folks that have weighed in on the thread and what gets my goat is all the man hours that have gone into discussing, debating, and arguing over such a simple little thing.

A lot of intelligent people are spending a hell of a lot of time on this one car in ITB. It seems the general concensus is that the car needs to be adjusted so why can't it just be done? We're not going to the moon or planning for war, we're adjusting the weight on a car in an amateur racing club. A club, by the way, which is supposedly for racers by racers and it seems like it'd be a simple thing to get this resolved.
Click to expand...

+1.
It seems pretty much everyone is in agreement that the car needs to be adjusted, so why can't it just get done so everyone can move on with life?
How many more hours and $$thousands$$ in development do people have to spend to prove to a couple of people that the car can't make the power they originally ASSUMED it would? I've had to eat my words multiple times at work. Yeah it's a stab in the gut of my ego, but I got over it and moved on.....
 
Z3_GoCar said:
Happy Festivus....

Come on Ben, surely you know the difference between the euro S50 and USDM S52. The euro S50 is a completely different animal, it's much more like the USDM S54. The USDM S52 has the same head, intake manifold, throttle body, and injectors as my motor, only difference is more more bore and stroke and a bump up on the intake cam.

Acutally, I haven't seen any evidence that any BMW motor will make a 30% gain with an IT legal build. Only way to see those kinds of gains is with a cam and manifold swap.
Click to expand...

So you're telling me that the WC 95-99 M3 STU cars that are putting down 300hp to the wheels are just a pack of cheaters and not using the specified OEM camshaft lift? Garsh....those guys better put OEM cams back in their cars per the rules, right?

B. Engine​
​
​
​
s​

1. Engines up to​
​
​
​
6 cylinders and 3000 cubic centimeters factory displacement are permitted, plus any others listed in
9.1.4.2.H.​

2. All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air metering device (e.g., throttle body) and intake manifold, unless noted​
otherwise.

BMW E36 M3 (95-99) 3200 3200 Engines are permitted 0.040
overbore, 0.5 point increase
in compression. Engines​
must use the OEM camshaft lift
What do these rules clarifications mean to former WC M3 cars - they all illegal now?

What I'm saying is - why pick the 2.7 Boxster? The 00-04 3.2L Boxster is a better fit.

PS - the E36 kills on the IT performance, you been in hibernation? SIR?
 
Last edited:
RacerBill said:
lateapex911 said:
...

Yet now, in ONE letter, a car gets reweighted for ITB, (the Dodge), and moved (for 2012) to ITC.
HuH???????

QUOTE]

Jake: I have been waiting for over a year to have the Dodge Charger run through the process (it was not run through the process during the realignment) which was delayed until the GCR was changed in order to allow the reweighting of cars that were classed way before the realignment.

!
Click to expand...

Still, Bill, it was only a year or so. ;)

For those that want to read more, the MR2 debacle is discussed, along with other items in this thread. The CRB will only communicate via SCCA sanctioned boards, so, we had a discussion there.

http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1&TPN=1
Click to expand...
 
lateapex911 said:
RacerBill said:
Still, Bill, it was only a year or so. ;)

For those that want to read more, the MR2 debacle is discussed, along with other items in this thread. The CRB will only communicate via SCCA sanctioned boards, so, we had a discussion there.

http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1&TPN=1
Click to expand...


Yeah, but when you are a youngster of 65, one year is a MUCH larger percentage of your remaining life expectancy then when you are just 30, like you guys!!!!!!!:D

BTW, I am disappointed at the length of time it is taking with the MR2 issue, never should have gone this long.
Click to expand...
 
benspeed said:
So you're telling me that the WC 95-99 M3 STU cars that are putting down 300hp to the wheels are just a pack of cheaters and not using the specified OEM camshaft lift? Garsh....those guys better put OEM cams back in their cars per the rules, right?


B. Engine
s
​
​
​
​
​
​
1. Engines up to ​

​

6 cylinders and 3000 cubic centimeters factory displacement are permitted, plus any others listed in
9.1.4.2.H.
​
​
​
​
​
​
2. All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air metering device (e.g., throttle body) and intake manifold, unless noted​

otherwise.

BMW E36 M3 (95-99) 3200 3200 Engines are permitted 0.040
overbore, 0.5 point increase
in compression. Engines​
must use the OEM camshaft lift

What do these rules clarifications mean to former WC M3 cars - they all illegal now?

What I'm saying is - why pick the 2.7 Boxster? The 00-04 3.2L Boxster is a better fit.

PS - the E36 kills on the IT performance, you been in hibernation? SIR?​
Click to expand...


Yes, to get 300 whp, definetly.

What just got classed in STU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M52#S52B32

What the RoW got:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M50#S50B30

To put a 30% gain in persepctive:

189hp -> 242hp

That's what I should be seeing, what I've seen is:

189hp -> 220hp

To get to 242hp would, at a minimum, require a change in camshafts and a manifold swap.


​
 
On a lighter note, I came across this thread from 2004 that I posted. What comes to mind is something Mike Dickerson told me when I was beyond frustrated with a few items "Think of SCCA as a large slow moving ship that eventually will turn around, but it's gonna take a while."

It's too bad how long things take to happen and seems like by the time it's about to, committee members change and here we need to go through the damn process all over again. I suppose on the positive side, at least it's still slowly making it's way around.

I am thankful that the communication between at least a couple of ITAC members continues on this board. I do commend you for that. Looking forward / hoping? for the day when Fastrack is opened and a slew of cars results are listed and weights redefined using on classification method.
 
Z3_GoCar said:
Acutally, I haven't seen any evidence that any BMW motor will make a 30% gain with an IT legal build. Only way to see those kinds of gains is with a cam and manifold swap.
Click to expand...

30% gain on the 189hp E36 325 would ONLY be 201whp. The ITAC had dyno sheets from an E36 driver who had a fresh head, stock bottom end, bolt ons and stock ECU at 195whp. And a crap-ton of first hand knowledge of 210whp and up.

We have 323's up here making 200whp.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top