June 2012 Fastrack

[JoshS]

there is established precedent, though not explicit in the ops manual, to use a multiplier OTHER than 25% (30% ITB/C multivalve or as currently CRB imposed on V8s in ITR) when evidence shows the gain potential to be other but ACTUAL wheel hp to be unknown. S200s and other 4cyls in ITR are good examples.

You are right, of course, and it is discussed in the Ops Manual:

If nothing is actually known about this engine when built to the limit of the IT rules, but yet, the ITAC believes that the 25% or 30% number is in error, then one ITAC member should present a case as to what the correct “power multiplier” should be, and then the remaining ITAC members should each register a “confidence vote” in that number. If collectively the ITAC believes with 75% confidence that the alternate number is likely to be more accurate, then that number can be used. Note that if dyno results are being considered, then the “known horsepower” method should be used, and not the “published horsepower” method.

Note the first and last sentences though. In any case, there's nothing really wrong here as the Ops Manual is a set of guidelines, not a set of fixed rules.

 

[Chip42]

I would hope that any use of actual wheel hp would rely on more than a single data point, or at least more than one dyno to generate numbers on that engine. I do not know anything about what data is or is not in front of the ITAC, but we do all know how easy it can be to tweak dyno numbers - whether via ecu tuning, tires/wheels, correction factors etc. Enough variables that can have an impact of significant weight in ITB and C that someone could honestly inadvertently submit flawed data (low or high).

we ABSOLUTELY need more thnaa single car/dyno combination for compensation. it makes life hard for the people who drive "oddball" cars, unfortunately.

 

[JoshS]

I would hope that any use of actual wheel hp would rely on more than a single data point, or at least more than one dyno to generate numbers on that engine. I do not know anything about what data is or is not in front of the ITAC, but we do all know how easy it can be to tweak dyno numbers - whether via ecu tuning, tires/wheels, correction factors etc. Enough variables that can have an impact of significant weight in ITB and C that someone could honestly inadvertently submit flawed data (low or high).

Also from the Ops Manual:

Care should be taken that the highest dyno numbers seen are used, and that cars classed by this method should be at the limit of the IT rules. ... It is expected that the committee would bring with them a healthy amount of skepticism when it comes to reviewing dyno sheets. One should take into account the source of the info, the shop that ran the dyno, information about how well-prepared the car and the engine car, who did the build, and any hidden motives of anyone involved in providing the data. In the best of circumstances, dyno results are hard to trust as they can be extremely variable even when all conditions are the same.

And beyond that, the committee is to have a registered "high confidence" in the dyno numbers, and having just a single dyno sheet should not instill high confidence in anyone.

 

[lateapex911]

I HATE two aspects of the situation with the MR2 as Chip describes it. (Well, more actually if you count the absolute BS that members of the various committees have given that car by stonewalling and being general jerks over it, but I digress)

1- The "It will look bad if we drop the weight too much" argument
Really? It looks REALLY bad that EVERYONE knows it's a huge clusterfuck now, and the PTB think it's going to look bad to FIX it? Talk about missing the point and lacking perception of the situation! I suppose those who don't want the mistake 'exposed' are concerned with the people out there who don't know the backstory, but really, A: how many can there be that have missed this saga? and B: Do we really care more about the disinterested casual observer who's not been paying attention for 4 years or the actual guys investing time and money into club racing that have been getting screwed for year after year???

Secondly, if you KNOW you are wrong, and you try to hide the amount of your error, you lack integrity. Thats shitty, Sorry, it is. I get that sometimes things are grey, and we are on committees, but, if there are members who wish to mess with the numbers to make themselves look less bad: Please stop, just do the math and let it free.
(And i should point out that I'm guilty in this whole thing as well. I should have done more and been a bigger PIA over it when i was on the ITAC. But as Jeff points out, you have to compromise on committees. In my defense I know I went over the edge sometimes and pissed off the CRB over other cars, (and I'm sure this one as well) but, I am among the guilty on this car.)

2- The 'it can't make minimum weight " argument: I have experience in this. As basically one man 'teams' we all bring to the race our collection of talents. Lets face it, the guys who can drive AND wrench AND manage AND fabricate AND invent are going to do better than those who can merely drive. So, achieving minimum weight is a skill set.
My car (1st gen RX-7 ) is in a similar situation as the MR2. Processed properly for ITA, it would weigh less than it's current 2280. OF course getting the weight set in the GCR to even 2280 was a battle. And I remember members of the the committee saying things like "No sense going lower, it's unattainable", and "We shouldn't set it too low, it's just makes us look bad".
I went along, because campaigning for your own car is a conflict of interest, but I really don't like the concept.

Set the weight where it should be. If it's less than achievable, oh well. Heck the committee sets HP above what has been proven possible ALL THE TIME, so why should they do the opposite for weight?? Makes no sense policywise. (I understand that low weight costs money, but we can not control spending to any real degree)
In my own case, I'm 220 pounds with helmet and boots and suit on, and I'm rolling over the scales at 2290 with some extra gas. Hmmm, so actually, my CAR is UNDER weight (Assumed driver weight is 180) And guess what? If I wanted, I can get more weight out. Like 40 or more pounds. And I personally could stand to lose weight, at least 10 pounds. So, I could be rolling across the scales at 2240 or 50.

To the committee and the CRB:
DO the right thing on this car:
Set the weight where it should be. Let THEM worry about getting there. If you get a letter asking for plastic windows because they can't make weight, just say, no. (If you want, add a line in the response that says, "Hey, at least you never have to worry about roiling in a pound light and getting DQ'ed")

Set the weight where it should be. Who CARES if it's a big drop, It's WAY over now. FIX it, and move on. It's the ONLY way to save face and it's the right thing to do. Period.

To the ITAC: What IS the right weight? If I were on the committee, I'd be consistent. Remember the RX-8? We got sheets showing what was it, 212.5 hp and 213 hp? And we set the weight based on 215, to guard against future power creep? Do the same thing with the MR2. Round up a touch. Then do the math, and walk away, and you will never have to revisit it again, and you will get applause from the people who know what has happened over the years.

 

[quadzjr]

I HATE two aspects of the situation with the MR2 as Chip describes it. (Well, more actually if you count the absolute BS that members of the various committees have given that car by stonewalling and being general jerks over it, but I digress)

1- The "It will look bad if we drop the weight too much" argument
Really? It looks REALLY bad that EVERYONE knows it's a huge clusterfuck now, and the PTB think it's going to look bad to FIX it? Talk about missing the point and lacking perception of the situation! I suppose those who don't want the mistake 'exposed' are concerned with the people out there who don't know the backstory, but really, A: how many can there be that have missed this saga? and B: Do we really care more about the disinterested casual observer who's not been paying attention for 4 years or the actual guys investing time and money into club racing that have been getting screwed for year after year???

Secondly, if you KNOW you are wrong, and you try to hide the amount of your error, you lack integrity. Thats shitty, Sorry, it is. I get that sometimes things are grey, and we are on committees, but, if there are members who wish to mess with the numbers to make themselves look less bad: Please stop, just do the math and let it free.
(And i should point out that I'm guilty in this whole thing as well. I should have done more and been a bigger PIA over it when i was on the ITAC. But as Jeff points out, you have to compromise on committees. In my defense I know I went over the edge sometimes and pissed off the CRB over other cars, (and I'm sure this one as well) but, I am among the guilty on this car.)

2- The 'it can't make minimum weight " argument: I have experience in this. As basically one man 'teams' we all bring to the race our collection of talents. Lets face it, the guys who can drive AND wrench AND manage AND fabricate AND invent are going to do better than those who can merely drive. So, achieving minimum weight is a skill set.
My car (1st gen RX-7 ) is in a similar situation as the MR2. Processed properly for ITA, it would weigh less than it's current 2280. OF course getting the weight set in the GCR to even 2280 was a battle. And I remember members of the the committee saying things like "No sense going lower, it's unattainable", and "We shouldn't set it too low, it's just makes us look bad".
I went along, because campaigning for your own car is a conflict of interest, but I really don't like the concept.

Set the weight where it should be. If it's less than achievable, oh well. Heck the committee sets HP above what has been proven possible ALL THE TIME, so why should they do the opposite for weight?? Makes no sense policywise. (I understand that low weight costs money, but we can not control spending to any real degree)
In my own case, I'm 220 pounds with helmet and boots and suit on, and I'm rolling over the scales at 2290 with some extra gas. Hmmm, so actually, my CAR is UNDER weight (Assumed driver weight is 180) And guess what? If I wanted, I can get more weight out. Like 40 or more pounds. And I personally could stand to lose weight, at least 10 pounds. So, I could be rolling across the scales at 2240 or 50.

To the committee and the CRB:
DO the right thing on this car:
Set the weight where it should be. Let THEM worry about getting there. If you get a letter asking for plastic windows because they can't make weight, just say, no. (If you want, add a line in the response that says, "Hey, at least you never have to worry about roiling in a pound light and getting DQ'ed")

Set the weight where it should be. Who CARES if it's a big drop, It's WAY over now. FIX it, and move on. It's the ONLY way to save face and it's the right thing to do. Period.

To the ITAC: What IS the right weight? If I were on the committee, I'd be consistent. Remember the RX-8? We got sheets showing what was it, 212.5 hp and 213 hp? And we set the weight based on 215, to guard against future power creep? Do the same thing with the MR2. Round up a touch. Then do the math, and walk away, and you will never have to revisit it again, and you will get applause from the people who know what has happened over the years.

That you, Pretty much sums up my rants over the past few years. I bolded the last part just to show that I would like to make that point.

People are skeptical, as you should be as a law making or in the case of the ACs law proposing to the CRB. What I cannot figure out for the life of me is that there has be no evidence EVER that discredits anything that I have stated on here about the 4AGE paper. I have submitted cliff notes version SAE (society of automotive engineering) documents written by the engineers that designed the engine in Japan in 1983-84. I have submitted over a dozen dyno sheets, engine builds. I have asked the ITAC to do their own research. NOTHING of any credibility that is pertinent to IT level builds only comments

-"It's a formula atlantic motor" (which I submitted a paper detailing the differences between the two engines)
-"I know a guy that made power" (I have asked for years for any information on this name, owner, builder, etc..and recieved nothing. If a person did infact "make power" then why would that person refuse the opportunity to make a substancial amount of money by building this motor for atleast a dozen people?)
-"It was fast in firehawk" (Yes in 1985 it was..after that NOBODY ran the dang thing. I talked to Randy Pobst on this as he tried to competitively run one. He gave up as he said the car was just too slow (though he said it was a fun car to drive, got with a new team and won first year out in a honda. Besides that Firehawk was basically SS. Most of the things people did to cheat are legal in IT. It is apples to ornangss. much the same as the FA comment.)

So at some point in time when someone says the earth is round.. you have no data proving otherwise, damit the earth is round!

 

[Chip42]

At the end of the day, we (and all ACs) have to get these recommendations through the CRB. if they don't agree, it gets sent back.

at what point do you pick the "lesser" of evils over the empirically correct but politically untenable recommendation? we do WANT to fix this. there is disagreement on what is "right" (some are having isues with the amazingly low power potential from a motor with not impressive specific output in the first place) and there is known to be a history of significant skepticism within the CRB. one known and particularly boisterous skeptic has recently been reseated. that makes this harder to get done.

re: those who don't know the details - I've met at least one regualr entrant with a 4AGE Corolla (AE86) who was unaware of the weight break his car recieved MONTHS after it came into effect. I know many MANY established and knowledgable players who look at the MR2 and say "damn that thing ought to be one hell of a B car!" and then have to hear me tell them all about the maybe-if-you-work-really-hard 108 whp at 7200RPM, 310°F oil temp suffering, lead floored hand grenade that IS the MR2. Further, there are places like FL where a certain Grabber Blue MR2 does pretty well because it's the one Steve has been developing and driving. it is a far more thurough build than much of its competition, yet they run nose to tail if not ahead of it. to drop nearly 200 lbs from it could lead to significant noise making in the regions ITB crowd who only know what they see on the track. NOT everyone with an oppinion and high interest level pays attention to the saga and the minutia, particulalry when it gets hashed out on page 8 of a thread like this one. I'm not defending the idea of political apeasement or palletability over what is mathematically verifiably correct, but I do understand WHERE the fear of the decision seeming to be biased or unpopular is coming from

I think all of the roughly 10-12 ITB MR2 racers in this country would be happy (not satisfied, but grateful none the less) with a 95lb drop in the min weight, but every one of them knows we should be lighter by virtue of the power to weight nature of the class, and to give them anything but the truly valid weight would be a disservice.

that the MR2s don't have the torque (even less so the torque to weight) of much of the class means that even if they did make the minimum weight at 15%, they'd likely still get beaten by the established cars at many tracks, particularly those with slow corner exit speeds. they aren't the only cars in such a situation and I'm not trying to make an argument for changing the way we class cars - this is a warts and all situation - I'm just pointing out that even if the MR2 WERE classed at 2240 lbs (15% gain, which I feel to be appropriate) it would STILL be at a marginal disadvantage MUCH of the time. of course it should do very well where handling trumps power and brakes are stressed, as it does well in both counts. strengths and weaknesses. It's sportscar racing.

 

[lateapex911]

At the end of the day, we (and all ACs) have to get these recommendations through the CRB. if they don't agree, it gets sent back.

at what point do you pick the "lesser" of evils over the empirically correct but politically untenable recommendation? we do WANT to fix this. there is disagreement on what is "right" (some are having isues with the amazingly low power potential from a motor with not impressive specific output in the first place) and there is known to be a history of significant skepticism within the CRB. one known and particularly boisterous skeptic has recently been reseated. that makes this harder to get done.

.

I hear you, and agree that you are in a tough position, between a rock and a hard place.
I find it troublesome that the guy you are referring to has a vote in the matter, and even a voice, really. He's got way too much stake in the game, having been a former ITB driver, and his brother who he's close to still campaigns an ITB Accord. It's a conflict of interest, and even if it's argued that its no longer technically a conflict of interest, he should still recuse himself for appearances sake.
Its just not acceptable to have members of the CRB operate in that manner IMO.

Of course, if I were on the ITAC, I'd be getting flak and being told to resign again, so, yea, my opinion aint worth much, LOL

 

[Butch Kummer]

Chip42 - I don't believe I've ever met you, but if I did I believe we'd get along fine! I very much like the fact that you (and Jeff & Josh) are willing to come on here and explain the reason decisions were made, particularly those that appear to defy logic. I have to do that all the time in my position as well, and if I ever do meet you I'll certainly buy you the adult beverage of your choice!

 

[Chip42]

Chip42 - I don't believe I've ever met you, but if I did I believe we'd get along fine! I very much like the fact that you (and Jeff & Josh) are willing to come on here and explain the reason decisions were made, particularly those that appear to defy logic. I have to do that all the time in my position as well, and if I ever do meet you I'll certainly buy you the adult beverage of your choice!

Thanks Butch. we've been in the same place a bunch, but I don't think we've been introduced. I'll be sure to correct that next time I have the opportunity, and make sure I take you up on that beverage.

 

[Chip42]

I hear you, and agree that you are in a tough position, between a rock and a hard place.
I find it troublesome that the guy you are referring to has a vote in the matter, and even a voice, really. He's got way too much stake in the game, having been a former ITB driver, and his brother who he's close to still campaigns an ITB Accord. It's a conflict of interest, and even if it's argued that its no longer technically a conflict of interest, he should still recuse himself for appearances sake.
Its just not acceptable to have members of the CRB operate in that manner IMO.

Of course, if I were on the ITAC, I'd be getting flak and being told to resign again, so, yea, my opinion aint worth much, LOL

What annoys me the most is that despite my significant disagreements with the guy, I really do admire him and I know that he wants whats best for the club. we just differ in our views as to what that is.

 

[quadzjr]

So the same person that told me that I was stuck at 30% and tough luck. Is now the same guy that is somehow involved with this again? If he does not have data , proof, etc.. sorry. I refuse to be held back by politics or a "feeling" in the abscence of data. How can one person over run the entire board?

Shall I write a letter to the CRB asking to prohibit this action? I have also talked with him in years past and they guy is smart.

Hell You took off 130lbs based on data on teh ITB CRX last year, and no whinning no politics. That is alot of weight.. That same car just drove around me in the straight at RRR. No contest.. You choped off large chunks of weight in higher classes with no issues. Why is this one F-ing car an issue.

 

[quadzjr]

To me it sounds alot like a study that was done with monkeys that I learned during my lean/6 sigma class. Not saying the ITAC is monkeys.. but the premise is familiar.

cliff notes.

Put a group of monkeys in a room with a ladder and at the top of the ladder a bananna.

When a monkey grabbed the bananna they would turn on sprinklers on the monkeys not on the ladder. Very quickly after that if a monkey went to grab the bananna they were pulled back and/or beat up. Eventually nobody ever tried to get the bananna.

replace a monkey in the room for a new monkey. the new monkey would immediately go after the bananna and get beat up by the other monkeys.

Continue replacing older monkeys with new ones. They reduced beating up new members and started vocally stopping the new monkeys.

At the end of the experiment you have a room full of new monkeys. None of them had ever seen what happens when you grab the bananna and none of them had ever tried to grab it either...

 

[Knestis]

 

[Flyinglizard]

The MR 2 and the 16V vW , both cant make a lot more power than stock. 5-6 is max. This is because the stock exhaust systems are really good, and the computer is fairly good. Both have very mild cams and simply wont turn the RPMs to cover the weight.

The ITb prepped, 8V VW, makes the same torque and often will out pull the 16V, at the same weight. I have raced all three cars, without cheating up any of the values.
The MR 2 has very little torque and can make a very small improvement over it stock out put.

The normal IT adder is not valid for a well designed ,fairly modern engine. The exhaust , intake, and computer have gotten a lot better than the old crap that most old us are racing.
The VW 8V can pick up maybe 12- 15 hp with a good exhaust, compression and carefull assembly. The 16V has no room for these improvements. It is really good as is. same for the Toy 16v.

FWIW I dont see how the Hondas got dropped into ITB. They were pretty good in ITA. That is why my IT car is now a Prod car.

 

[Xian]

The Honda's that "got dropped into ITB" were the smaller engine, uncompetitive in ITA versions of the Civic. The ones that were competitive in ITA are still classed there. I don't know specially which MK # all the VW's are but the model that Kirk has seems to be awfully stout in ITB...

Christian

 

[shwah]

Kirk's A3 (aka Mk 3) VW has been stout since it was dropped from A to B. The A2 was stout before that, and can still compete in the right situation. The A1 is very competitive right now, but no one is really running one.

 

[JeffYoung]

Kirk! Stop posting pictures of your penis!

 

[Knestis]

The only junk in that photo came off of a boar and it's been ground up nice and fine...

K

 

[JeffYoung]

The Miata deal sealed it for me. We have more data on this car than any other in IT I think. 5-6 dyno sheets at least from 4 different cars.

Known hp is it. If I don't vote it that way here, I'm a hypocrite.

 

[Chip42]

WRT the MR2 / 4AGE siblings, I'm fine calling it 15% rather than trying to nail it down at 108-109. it's really irrelevant as 15% is lighter than realistic for most of the cars out there, and it leaves room for discovery.

Also, I need to be clear that the above comments about politics are the framing of the issue - it's still in committee, as anyone with a pending letter should be aware (you get an email when your letter has been moved to the CRB from any advisory Committee). The CRB has not had a chance to comment either way on the 4AGE/MR2 this time around. I hope all of my comments, based on past evidence, are NOT reflective of current moods, though I'm sure in making those comments I didn't help the cause any.

moving on...