June 2012 Fastrack
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
Rabbit07
New member
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Exactly. ^ Procedures and processes. They matter.
I could support adding 50 for a DW adder (as well as it's applied to other cars) AND adjusting for known power. So I'd actually respect a higher weight.
But reading between the lines here has left a bad taste in my mouth. Admittedly, I have seen what Andy described regarding CRB inputs so I'm predisposed to understanding the ITAC's dilemma.
I really don't have issues with the actual number, but I wish the path to get there was better.
I could support adding 50 for a DW adder (as well as it's applied to other cars) AND adjusting for known power. So I'd actually respect a higher weight.
But reading between the lines here has left a bad taste in my mouth. Admittedly, I have seen what Andy described regarding CRB inputs so I'm predisposed to understanding the ITAC's dilemma.
I really don't have issues with the actual number, but I wish the path to get there was better.
Howdy,
Hey, can you provide proof that the incorrect hp # was the original one, vs. the later one after ECU tweaks? Based on the compression # stuff, it sounds to me like the original motor probably stood to gain more than the process assumption, if you bumped the compression to the legal limit since the original motors didn't have what the oem spec said they should.
You guys crack me up. Nobody gives a shit that the Miata got some weight in ITA. Most everyone seems to think that's better for parity. Instead, you'd rather it was justified by handwaving method #2 instead of handwaving method #1. Even though they come out within 20 lbs of each other.
Mark
Hey, can you provide proof that the incorrect hp # was the original one, vs. the later one after ECU tweaks? Based on the compression # stuff, it sounds to me like the original motor probably stood to gain more than the process assumption, if you bumped the compression to the legal limit since the original motors didn't have what the oem spec said they should.
You guys crack me up. Nobody gives a shit that the Miata got some weight in ITA. Most everyone seems to think that's better for parity. Instead, you'd rather it was justified by handwaving method #2 instead of handwaving method #1. Even though they come out within 20 lbs of each other.
Mark
lateapex911
Super Moderator
You're right, Mark, guys like Kirk have NO idea how to implement policy.
Kyle Freiheit
New member
This may or may not be the right place for this question but here it goes.
I have been out of ITA for awhile so go easy on me.
If we are "sorta" "kinda" using published crank HP #'s with a 25%(1.25)HP increase assumption and 14.5lbs/HP multiplier and then adding or subtracting another arbitrary weight to equalize based on a "some of the parts" argument, can someone explain some of the other weights in the class?
ITA 1.6L Miata 116HP @ crank. Current Weight- 2255, Calculated weight(116*1.25*14.5=2102.5lbs)
Not that a 1.6 miata could get there but I guess the 1.6 miata gets 150lbs of "some of the parts" weight
ITA CRX 105HP @ crank. Current Weight-2250, Calculated weight(105*1.25*14.5=1903lbs or 105*1.30*14.5=1979)
I have been out of ITA for awhile so go easy on me.
If we are "sorta" "kinda" using published crank HP #'s with a 25%(1.25)HP increase assumption and 14.5lbs/HP multiplier and then adding or subtracting another arbitrary weight to equalize based on a "some of the parts" argument, can someone explain some of the other weights in the class?
ITA 1.6L Miata 116HP @ crank. Current Weight- 2255, Calculated weight(116*1.25*14.5=2102.5lbs)
Not that a 1.6 miata could get there but I guess the 1.6 miata gets 150lbs of "some of the parts" weight
ITA CRX 105HP @ crank. Current Weight-2250, Calculated weight(105*1.25*14.5=1903lbs or 105*1.30*14.5=1979)
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I'm not sure anyone has the energy right now to go over the process. Do a search and you may find what you are looking for. Or search for the Ops manual. it lays out how cars are classed (or in this case, supposed to be classed)
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Not sure what you are looking for here. The 1.8L Miata was classed on two different spec lines in ITS way back when. The 94-95 cars were requested for a reclass, and at the time, the CRB was very conservative on these small multi-valve cars in ITA. Since they had no real documented way to weight these cars, the newly born Process was used to justify to them that these new cars were in the same ballpark on paper as the cars in the class. See also: Great ReAlignment
The 1.8 car came down at 2380 (10lbs more than process as described in a previous post). A year later, someone requested the 96/97 cars...that is what sparked the entire discussion and review of either combining them or having different spec lines. If they had different spec lines, nobody would have built a 96-97 because of power potential, weight and the VIN rule that was in effect not technically allowing you to do so. The rest is history.
On the second part of your question, the original motors with the 'soft' pistons did NOT make 128hp. A quick trip down Shrowroom stock and Spec Miata history books will uncover tons of information. Mazda fixed the issue mid-run of the 128hp cars. When you order new crate motors from Mazda, doesn't matter what year you ask for 94-97, you get the same stuff. In 1996, they went OBD-II and it bumped hp by 5. One additional electronic sensor, and there you are.
So to answer directly, the early early motors may have had more to gain, but they were 1/2 a point down and were soft on the HP to begin with so there is no net gain. Not sure what you are trying to prove there.
On your last point, you are obviously missing the point that it's not about the weight. 80lbs? I don't care. What I do care about, as someone who has a ton of blood, sweat and tears invested in IT and the Process, is that no matter what has happened in the past, what is written, what is agreed to, etc...the CRB still would feel compelled to ram a decision down the ITAC's throat even though it was against policy (or that the ITAC would go out-of-policy to satisfy a directive they didn't believe in). That is what it is I guess. The ITAC could have just recommended weight via known dyno data and added 40 or 60 or whatever, and it would have been, although aggressive and unprecedented at that level, well within ops manual protocol.
Then, less upsetting but still, is people justifying the RESULT by saying "well if we did it with dyno numbers it would be within 'X' pounds so don't worry about it. We guess what? The HP is so close to the target that the ITAC would have never done that on their own so it's a stupid platform for an argument. It's one procedural mess-up trying to justify another. Like I said before, I would have rather been told, "The CRB wanted us to address the Miata and the perception of the competitive balance of ITA. We looked at the Ops manual and we determined that with known HP, the car should weigh 2440, a 60lb increase over current weight, a 70lb increase over proper original process weight."
Then I don't whine for a couple days on the Ops manual, the process and a ram-rod job...I just whine for a couple hours as a typical driver who has to go buy lead and develop a new set-up. See? It's about the Category, not the Miata.
I have only talked with one guy who is all cranked up about the increase. Seriously, whoop tie-do. But people need to understand that this is about what everyone here has been asking for for years - and Josh and Jeff and team had given them in a final format - a documentable and repeatable process for which cars are classed and re-classed. It's the cornerstone of the category an it's popularity IMHO.
I know that is beating a dead horse for many but it can't be explained enough to those who haven't been here for the long haul.
Last edited:
Howdy,
Nothing really. I was mostly just making a comment on how it looks to me.
IIRC, didn't someone say the ITAC voted unanimously to do this? I'm not saying the CRB didn't influence / direct / whatever here, but based on the descriptions of what happened, it sure seems like the ITAC was a partner, not an unwilling participant.
My "newbie outsider" read on this is that the _old_ ITAC members are bummed that the new folks are doing stuff their own way. Which is your right and all, of course. But to me, its literally "hand waving method 1 vs hand waving method 2". At the end of the day, how the weights are assigned doesn't seem to matter a hell of a lot if we don't care about actual on-track performance.
Mark
(who, fwiw, has been the "old AC member who disagrees with what the new AC is doing", but on the Solo side of the club. I get that its frustrating. Mostly I'm just trying to give you a "not as invested" perspective on how it looks to me.)
Nothing really. I was mostly just making a comment on how it looks to me.
IIRC, didn't someone say the ITAC voted unanimously to do this? I'm not saying the CRB didn't influence / direct / whatever here, but based on the descriptions of what happened, it sure seems like the ITAC was a partner, not an unwilling participant.
My "newbie outsider" read on this is that the _old_ ITAC members are bummed that the new folks are doing stuff their own way. Which is your right and all, of course. But to me, its literally "hand waving method 1 vs hand waving method 2". At the end of the day, how the weights are assigned doesn't seem to matter a hell of a lot if we don't care about actual on-track performance.
Mark
(who, fwiw, has been the "old AC member who disagrees with what the new AC is doing", but on the Solo side of the club. I get that its frustrating. Mostly I'm just trying to give you a "not as invested" perspective on how it looks to me.)
erlrich
Super Moderator
Why is that?
fwiw, i think the 90-91crx si had a better cam and was 108 hp. and then the crx si might also be getting the ITB multivalve factor of 1.35
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Because all the SMs who double dip in ITA aint gonna want to bolt in ballast so that they can at least get across the scales legally (ignoring all the other 'issues' with SMs in ITA), and they will just go double dip in STL or STU instead.
Greg Amy rubs his hands together cackling over the increased participation numbers that the STL class will see.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Because the SM double-dippers from ITA will now have to add weight to be 'legal'. It's now much easier to check the STL box during registration to get extra track time.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Well I am giving you some information to shape that 'look'.
I'd like to see that quote but I know for a fact that the ITAC has rejected requests for the addition of weight to this car and those rejections were pushed back asking them to 'look at it again' and were guided as to how to do so. Jeff Y is on record multiple times in threads as saying he didn't want to change it.
This has SOME truth to it. In the case of the C4 classification, the ITAC runs a weight up that includes an extra 50lbs for DW's when no car in ITR has them - but because the Ops manual says 'that's how we are supposed to do it' (forgetting or ignoring the transcription error in the manual). Yet in this case, the Ops manual gets ignored. The beauty of IT for the past 5 years or so has been the process and in recent years the documentation and publication of that process. But deals like this diminish the work of past and current AC's.
But the CRB is king. There are THEIR classes and the AC's only advise. I keep having to tell myself that.
Easy, son. Any "cackling" that may be coming from this corner is purely from the entertainment value of the way-over-the-top, oh-my-God-the-sky-is-falling reactions from people on this board, maybe-not-so-coincidentally primarily from ex-ITAC members that quit in indignant protest of the system, and are now all pissed off that the system ain't following their vaunted lead...
Shocked. Shocked I am.
I've made my peace with the ITA Miata long, long ago. Mostly by leaving ITA. - GA
On edit: then they followed me into STL....NEMESIS!!!!
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Beat me to the other post by a minute.
Won't see much National participation bump. Regional yes, National no.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
It's not about following anyone's lead Greg. It's about what we all wanted, almost everyone to a man, a document that was transparent and repeatable. We have it, and it's being ignored. It's about the precedent that sets and the implications to stability. Simple.
I think they do. Let's say someone manufactures a perfectly optimized-IT trim car. It isn't going to be classified with a 0% HP gain multiplier. The car is going to get the default multiplier unless and until there is sufficient evidence to show that the default is in error.
Which would be evidence that the multiplier being used is incorrect, but apparently the powers that be didn't think it was sufficient.
You left because the system wasn't working the way you wanted. Now you're crying and stomping your feet because the system is not working the way you wanted.
This is how committees, and Congress, democracy, and politics in general works. Or doesn't.
Do you expect that all my vision and work that I'm putting into Super Touring will be followed religiously once I leave the committee? I certainly don't. The best I can hope for - HOPE for - is that I present a vision that stands through time. But once I'm gone it's all fair game.
And for me to sit there and cry about it is pointless.
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Well they do if they don't have any information. If they 'know' it's fully optimizd, they would make an adjustment like the S2000 or Type R etc.
If by incorrect you mean 25% vs 27%, sure. But no car have even been sliced up like that. Never.
Again, using the Ops manual, you could have just said, 'in the interest of class equity, we are changing the weight on the Miata to 2440 based on known dyno numbers.
Done.