June 2012 Fastrack

Chip42 said:
there is established precedent, though not explicit in the ops manual, to use a multiplier OTHER than 25% (or the "default" 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.

in the case of the MR2, it's not all about proving HP any more (there are still doubters on comittee, and well, PK), it's the fact that dropping the car to 15% (based on above precedent and dyno data showing ~13% to be the max to date) means 190# publsihed min weight change from the current (25%) weight, or 285# since the change was made from 30% roughly a year ago. there's a feelign that even if that passed the membership sniff test (not everyone is aware of the details) that it would not pass CRB muster. I disagree with politically derived decisions when good mathematics exist, but there you go. fWIW, 108whp becomes 2210 lbs in ITB, assuming 15% driveline losses. functionally no different than a 15% classification as only a car driven by an 8 year old will get that light.
Click to expand...

I agree and for that reason I'd be THRILLED tosee them adjust the weight based on a 20% gain. When the ITA weight was 2270, I could never get down below 2350. The dyno sheets are WELL below a 20% gain so everyone should be comfortable with assuming a 20% gain. Class the car at 2335 and I'll still go out a little over weight, unless I stop eating pizza and donuts (which will never happen).

I got tired of reading after about the 6th page of this thread and jumped to the end. But the only thing I could think of as the argument went on about "car A weight" and "car B weight" a few model years later was "what if the engineers got it right on the first model and there was no more potential gain?"... like in say....an MR2?
 
Yes, Steve won a race at VIR, which is great. He'd be the first to point out that NONE of the ITB big dogs in the MARRS series showed up. Hell, I won 2 races last year at the National at Summit Point becuase NO ONE showed up in ITB. IT cars were invited to fill out the poor turnout. All I had to do was survive my group.
The implication is that the MR2 is fine as is. And that's been the problem for 15 years.
 
I'm certainly not singling out Jeff. I have expressed my appreciation to him in the past for his support and even tempered explanations of what goes on in the ITAC and CRB. I do have to point out that I sent 2 letters to the CRB, one in December 2011 and one in January 2012, neither of which has moved out of the ITAC, a least according to the letter tracking page on the SCCA website.
The point I was trying to make is that we are still where were were with the MR2 15 years ago. IMHO, the MR2 could have gone directly to ITB without the added 255 lbs, and we would not have it bubbling back to the top countless times. All we've ever asked for is fairness not based on some unproven HP assumptions.
 
Art and steve,

we're working it. I promise. a letter that hasn't moved is better than a letter with a no action required recommendation (in this case).

and while you guys in your MkIb cars will be happy with 2335/20%, the MkIa guys in the SE can get to ~2300 and would like to see 15% as the nominal value (and even THEN it's higher than it "should" be, though the cars can't make min weight so it's not really worth woryin about, like for you at 20%). either way, that's not the driving force of the discussion. it's a resonable (though to us with the cars that might be a frustrating term) concern about power potential. while there is a ton of evidence about the lack of gain in IT trim, the fundamentals of the motor are known to make much higher power with very little effort, like a pair of DCOE Webbers. it's simply a matter of getting everyone involved to understand that IT rules aren't worth much in this case. it's unfortunately not all that easy sometimes. no malice, just reasonable people with different expertise and experiences expressing reservations with such an outlier.

and yeah, a lot of cars come out with engines that are well sorted from the factory and make small gains. then again, some manufacturers tweeked their calibrations for HP numbers before 2005 and actually published numbers that were 10+% higher than actual as-delivered output (thus SAE certified hp). sometimes they under report, make soft (IT allowance type) changes, make hard changes... cars like late 80's hondas were corked from the factory and IT mods really wake them up while cars like ours gain as much from a full IT build as a CRX gets from an air filter and pipe.

it's a lot to keep up with. in the case of a miata or other WELL KNOWN quantity it's pretty easy to identify reliable sources of information. not so much so for less popular car like, say, an 87 suzuki.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Chip. I know you're doing what you can. Please forgive me for occasionally venting, but I've been at this a long time. I've tried to keep my ITB MR2 buddies optimistic when I press them to send in their letters, but they're also tiring of it.
 
The problem in this instance is not doing the homework or making a cogent case. It's about convincing a very small number of specific individuals who serve as gatekeepers to the proposed correction.

Chip suggests "no malice" but I will stand by my point - made many times over the past several years about this and other key proposed corrections to ITB cars - that even the appearance of impropriety has done the Club, the ITAC, the CRB and members' views of the processes and practices applied no small amount of damage.

K
 
Knestis said:
The problem in this instance is not doing the homework or making a cogent case. It's about convincing a very small number of specific individuals who serve as gatekeepers to the proposed correction.

Chip suggests "no malice" but I will stand by my point - made many times over the past several years about this and other key proposed corrections to ITB cars - that even the appearance of impropriety has done the Club, the ITAC, the CRB and members' views of the processes and practices applied no small amount of damage.

K
Click to expand...

that's fine, but the committee hasn't made a recommendation yet... it's not YET a CRB/ etc... problem. if or when it becomes one, I'll let ya know. right now it's some of the guys on the ITAC asking questions and other things getting ahead of it (the latter I'm not thrilled about but it is what it is)
 
Final June 2012 is here:

http://www.scca.com/assets/12-fastrack-june.pdf

Here's an interesting and unexpected tidbit...

"Add STL as a National Championship for the 2012 Runoffs, if approved by the Board of Directors, effective immediately upon approval. STL will run with STU at the Runoffs in 2012."

Methinks Keene and Drago really want to duke it out for a National championship this year... ;)
 
thanks tGA. it would interesting to read Cutter's letter...

9. #7724 (Mat Cutter) class consolidation
Thank you for your letter and your efforts. The CRB appreciates your thoughtful and articulate comments. These comments will be forwarded to the Board of Directors.
 
Chip42 said:
there are a PILE of letters on the MR2, basiclaly steven and the whole MARRS contingent have written in, and obviously it's an issue that I want addressed, too. the biggest problem lately is a shrinking ITAC memebrship, other issues that are "easier" jumping ahead in line, CRB interest changing the priorities further, etc...

there's also the "political" side of the thing, the car has a realistic floor weight of ~2300 lbs, give or take. 15% puts it at 2240, 20% at 2335, and 25% (current weight) at 2430. the dyno data we have is conclusive in proving the negative, but not in establishing the actual potential (based on expressed confidences and oppinions by members) so we will be picking a 5% step rather than working back from a "known" wheel number. 20% is still heavy, 15% is for all intents unachievable, even if "correct" per the above. some members have expressed difficulty with the idea of a 190# adjustment. no doubt the CRB will do a double take on it as well. setting an intermediate weight breaks from process and is a precedent we do not want to set, and adjusting to 20% still leaves the cars realisitially 35# above their actual minimum achievable weight AND 95+ over correct weight per process.

it's a PIA. and it's not getting the attention it needs.

if I were king, we'd class it at 15% and move on, but I do understand the other members' concerns, and I am biased. then again, if I were king, the process would be a lot more complicated and involve torque and stuff, becasue I'm not prone to developing simple solutions (though I try). The Process works REALLY well in ITA up to ITR (even with the disagreements between ops manual and established cars in R, and we are investigating). ITB and C see such HUGE weight swings for small changes in power that it leads a lot of overweight cars, some of which are still observably very fast on track. that on-track observation leads to foot dragging to make changes. cue viscious cycle.
Click to expand...

Just curious - if the thing really makes 15%, but can't get to that weight, why is it not an ITC car like the Volvo and the New Beetle?

Though looking at the MR2s running for the ITDC they are pretty competitive right now. Maybe the ITAC has it right now, and we just have not watched long enough to see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top