May 2011 Fastrack
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
Russ Myers
New member
SSC is dead. Long live SSC.
Russ
Russ
shwah
New member
Hallelujah!
now i have to race next year! maybe even the ARRC this year.....
You should. You now have one of the cars to have. Now go
iambhooper
New member
Hallelujah!
now i have to race next year! maybe even the ARRC this year.....
2. #4583 (Josh Sirota) Adjust weight of first-generation Honda CRX Si
In 9.1.3, ITB, Honda CRX Si (84-87) change weight from 2130 to 1970, based on a 30% horsepower multiplier.DAYAM! That car will truely kick @$$ at that weight... if you can make it!
hoop
You should. You now have one of the cars to have. Now go
if the process is working, we should all have one of the cars to have...but this does make me more optimistic. thanks!
with regards to making the weight, the car was originally in "A" as 1800 # + 180 # driver then later 1980 driver included.
the car may be able even if the driver is not....
but i have added things over the years and was not really thinking weight (dash bar, right side door bars, etc.)
Tom
FS: two ~ 50 # blocks of steel
but don't call because i will be out walking 4 miles per night to lose weight.
JeffYoung
New member
Exactly. This point seems to get lost quite often. The process is power/weight, so it should roughly equalize all cars.
This car was tagged with a ridiculously high (in my view) power adder.
But there shouldn't be any fears of domination, yet anyway. The car should simply now be at a power/weight ratio that is within a reasonable range of competitiveness for the class.
This car was tagged with a ridiculously high (in my view) power adder.
But there shouldn't be any fears of domination, yet anyway. The car should simply now be at a power/weight ratio that is within a reasonable range of competitiveness for the class.
erlrich
Super Moderator
tom91ita said:
Tom - this is a common misconception, and unfortunately isn't even close to reality. If you go back through some of the numerous discussion about the process you'll find that the last thing it is concerned with is making all the cars equal. The process is all about having a consistent, repeatable, and documented procedure for classifying cars. The process could care less about the outcomes. So yeah, there will still be the "cars to have" in IT, but at least we'll know that they were classed fairly...
Tom - this is a common misconception, and unfortunately isn't even close to reality. If you go back through some of the numerous discussion about the process you'll find that the last thing it is concerned with is making all the cars equal. The process is all about having a consistent, repeatable, and documented procedure for classifying cars. The process could care less about the outcomes. So yeah, there will still be the "cars to have" in IT, but at least we'll know that they were classed fairly...
i have yet to see anything processed that hasn't come out the other side with a fighting chance.
erlrich
Super Moderator
When I see a Neon, GTI, and RX7 running for the ITA win in Atlanta I'll agree with you...
Russ Myers
New member
Or a Pinto that isn't 6 seconds off of the pace.
Russ
Russ
give me a break earl. you know the history on the RX7 as well if not better than I do, and that's not a valid example in the least.
the neon seems to do just fine as far as i can tell. Childs was gridded right next to me at the ARRC last year in his neon....i haven't seen anything showing it can't be competitive. on track or on paper.
the VW? i don't know anything about it, i hate those damn things.
JeffYoung
New member
When have we seen an uber-developed version of one along the lines of the Stretch 240, the Serra/Muresan/Hoppe Integras or the Moser CRXs?
I do think the process gets things "roughly" close. That is certianly one of the goals. Come up with a rough power to weight formula and apply it consistently and as objectively as possible.
I would also point out that Ricky Thompson's maxxed out ITA RX7 gave Mark Carpenter a run for his money that one year Ricky went all out in ITA.
I do think the process gets things "roughly" close. That is certianly one of the goals. Come up with a rough power to weight formula and apply it consistently and as objectively as possible.
I would also point out that Ricky Thompson's maxxed out ITA RX7 gave Mark Carpenter a run for his money that one year Ricky went all out in ITA.
JeffYoung
New member
Do you have....data acquisition? spring testing? what rates are you running? shocks? welded rear end or a good clutch pack set up? lightened the car to the max and then ballasted it? crank scraper in the motor? .040 over? nice 1" gasket match port job? .5 compression bump? Lightweight low drag piston rings? Lightweight oils in the tranny and diff? Brake ducting? Experimented with different pad compounds? hours on the dyno to tune carbs and timing?
2.3 liters in ITB (or 2.0, or whatever it is) is a lot of displacement. That car will have some handling issues but it seems to me with the displacement, ok aero, and RWD it could be made competitive with a lot of work.
I've been there. I had a dead slow ITS car that no one thought could run up front and with a ton of work I got there. But it was a TON of work.
2.3 liters in ITB (or 2.0, or whatever it is) is a lot of displacement. That car will have some handling issues but it seems to me with the displacement, ok aero, and RWD it could be made competitive with a lot of work.
I've been there. I had a dead slow ITS car that no one thought could run up front and with a ton of work I got there. But it was a TON of work.
JeffYoung
New member
shwah
New member
if the process is working, we should all have one of the cars to have...but this does make me more optimistic. thanks!
with regards to making the weight, the car was originally in "A" as 1800 # + 180 # driver then later 1980 driver included.
the car may be able even if the driver is not....
but i have added things over the years and was not really thinking weight (dash bar, right side door bars, etc.)
Tom
FS: two ~ 50 # blocks of steel
but don't call because i will be out walking 4 miles per night to lose weight.
Sorry if it came off differently, but it was meant as a positive comment. We still need to resolve the front runners that hold a significant lb/hp advantage, but I feel better about that today than I did a year ago.
I have come to realize that ITB, and if it were more widely subscribed, and saw more cars added/built raced ITC will always be very difficult for the ITAC to deal with. At the end of the day, the more lbs/hp targeted in the process, the more sensitive it is to the assumed hp going in. So we see big swings any time power gain assumptions are adjusted. That means small errors will have larger effects and it will always be tougher to "get it right". It's good to see so much effort put towards getting there though
.
JeffYoung
New member
Thanks for the props, and also thanks for recognizing that last point.
1 hp "error" on our (the ITAC) side in either getting the stock hp right or the gain right means 17 lbs in ITB and what, 22 or something in ITC? So a 10 hp "error" in ITC is TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY POUNDS -- on a car that weighs probably 2000 to 2200 lbs.
On an ITR car? 11 lbs per hp on cars that generally weigh closer to 3000 lbs. So if we make a 10 hp error there, it's 110 lbs on a 3000 lb car.
B and C are hard for us because the downside for not getting it right is much higher.
But we do try, I promise you that.
1 hp "error" on our (the ITAC) side in either getting the stock hp right or the gain right means 17 lbs in ITB and what, 22 or something in ITC? So a 10 hp "error" in ITC is TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY POUNDS -- on a car that weighs probably 2000 to 2200 lbs.
On an ITR car? 11 lbs per hp on cars that generally weigh closer to 3000 lbs. So if we make a 10 hp error there, it's 110 lbs on a 3000 lb car.
B and C are hard for us because the downside for not getting it right is much higher.
But we do try, I promise you that.
Sorry if it came off differently, but it was meant as a positive comment. We still need to resolve the front runners that hold a significant lb/hp advantage, but I feel better about that today than I did a year ago.
I have come to realize that ITB, and if it were more widely subscribed, and saw more cars added/built raced ITC will always be very difficult for the ITAC to deal with. At the end of the day, the more lbs/hp targeted in the process, the more sensitive it is to the assumed hp going in. So we see big swings any time power gain assumptions are adjusted. That means small errors will have larger effects and it will always be tougher to "get it right". It's good to see so much effort put towards getting there though
erlrich
Super Moderator
Travis - really? You're going to hold up a car that was a full 6 seconds off the leader's time as an example of a car that can be competitive? And as to the RX7, why isn't that a valid example? You guys are saying that every car in IT has a fighting chance at being a front-runner. I'm saying that's not the case. There have been many discussion about the cars at the front of the fields, so I'm not going to touch those, but what about the cars at the other end? What does the process do for them?
And I'll be the first to agree (and this has been stated by many more knowledgeable guys here), in most classes we have seen improvement in the number of cars that can compete at the front; but to say that every car in IT, or even every car that has been through the process, has a fighting chance is just wrong IMO. There are still the cars to have in each class, and there are still the perpetual back markers. I realize that in a class like IT, where there are relatively few cars that are developed to the limit of the rules it is hard to draw conclusions. I also know there are a lot of guys who know a helluva lot more than I do about building winning race cars who would be building some of these other cars if they had any potential at all.
All I'm saying, and it has been stated in numerous discussions before, is that the process does not focus on outcomes, it does not care about results, and it could not and does not attempt to take into consideration every factor that makes one car better than another. And as such it can never be expected to produce results that are equal; and IMO we've already seen examples of that. But, that's another discussion.