May 2011 Fastrack

[Andy Bettencourt]

And the flip side is the tighter evidentiary standards avoid issues like motors getting tagged with 30% based on a few calls to builders, or because a six cylinder from another era and manufacturer made a lot of power and thus a modern motor of similar architecture should get the same adder.

There are a LOT of issues, in my view, in how some of the ITR weights were set. Instead of sticking with 25% when we didn't know much, a lot of guesswork went into adders and deducts for which we have zero real evidence to back up, or we have anecdotal or incorrect evidence.

Having seen the Process play out on the committee know for some time, I am very comfortable with how its done, very comfortable with the fact that we look for hard evidence to move off the default and very comfortable iwth the fact that we don't move off the default until we have that evidence.

I respect everything you guys did over the years in regards to the Process, and the ITAC in generall, but in my opinion that is "doing better" than the way some cars were treated over the last few years.

And this is simply committee to committee change. No problem. The ITR stuff we could debate all day. 25% on everything is no more 'accurate' than a smattering of educated guessing based on internet dyno sheets, builder calls and architechure. Let's not call a firmer 25% more accurate, let's call it more consistant. When ITR was created, data was collected, checked for making sense, and published. If eveything was put at 25%, you would have no 968's, no S2000's, no ITR's and some stuff that could - and WILL make more than PP...you WILL see that.

Again, reasonable minds will disagree. I know this as FACT, you are doing what you think is best for the class and that is a bullseye. Not everyone is going to agree on everything, anytime.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

One or two dyno sheets of an "IT like" build are not enough...

Sometimes one or two builds are all you have. Rob sold his top notch built ITA Z3 because he was tired of being an also-ran. Now there's only one, and I don't think Noem has been too active. There's now only one Z3 running my motor, now that I'm forced to swap motors to get a better intake manifold. Rickey has told me he's along way from the 30% gain that's expected. I can tell you that grey areas were used to make my motor competitive in World Challenge. The biggest was a head swap with its better intake manifold. No way any of this is IT legal. If you looked at the numbers for SOPAC, you'd see that ITR is dead out here. We've had a total of 3 racers over 12 races. I'm keeping my original motor, if conditions change I might reinstall it and go back to ITR.

 

[jjjanos]

No, actually it doesn't. It leaves the new cars in B at their existing process weight, and drops some of the older ones down to their Process weight.

OK, overstatement on my part. A certain VW gets weight and the non-Process classified cars lose weight.

Weight until the 2002s and the non-cheater Volvos submit. Frankly, I'm amazed that they haven't already... either they are clutching at straws that the Process will be changed for B or they figure there isn't any point in getting the weight reductions.

 

[Knestis]

... either they are clutching at straws that the Process will be changed for B or they figure there isn't any point in getting the weight reductions.

...or they don't have data that makes a compelling case for anything other than a first-assumptions weight spec. I'd love to see some dyno sheets for the 2002s and 142s.

Kirk (aka "guy who drives a certain VW, that just GOT additional weight")

 

[jjjanos]

...or they don't have data that makes a compelling case for anything other than a first-assumptions weight spec. I'd love to see some dyno sheets for the 2002s and 142s.

Kirk (aka "guy who drives a certain VW, that just GOT additional weight")

BMW 2002 HP:100, IT-gain standard 30% = 2210 (Current 2280)

Mazda 626 (83-84) HP: 83, 30% gain = 1835 (Current 2300!)
(The higher HP engine isn't on the spec line)

And I believe the 142 loses a couple hundred pounds as well.

 

[Knestis]

BMW 2002 HP:100, IT-gain standard 30% = 2210 (Current 2280)

Mazda 626 (83-84) HP: 83, 30% gain = 1835 (Current 2300!)
(The higher HP engine isn't on the spec line)

And I believe the 142 loses a couple hundred pounds as well.

A 1983 Mazda 626? REALLY? There's actually a logbooked example out there in the wild somewhere...?

Why not go all the way and invoke the CRX HF as the poster child for the "problem?" It's spec weight would be something less than the three huge New Yorkers I saw in the cab of a Suzuki Grand Vitara yesterday but just because it's in the ITCS doesn't mean anyone is going to BUILD one - or that the ITAC should worry about it.

On the other hand the 142 and 2002 should really get the benefit of a good-faith try. The problem is, there's got to be consensus about what the multiplier should be - assuming you are still doing things that way. Contemporary documentation showed the 2002 to have 113hp but I believe we learned that was "gross." I don't recall there being a standard of 30% that applies.

K

 

[jjjanos]

A 1983 Mazda 626? REALLY? There's actually a logbooked example out there in the wild somewhere...?

The Mazda was grabbed at random as an example. I'd already done the 2002 and the Volvo when the op manual was leaked.

Nissan 240 (S12/CA20): HP 102 Weight: 2255 current: 2530
Nissan 240 (S10/Z22): Hp 103 Weight: 2275 Current: 2705

I know that at least one of these two cars has run at Summit.

Now, mind you the source for that HP number is wiki, so the calcs could be wrong.

I think there is ample evidence that (excluding all the VWs that I haven't looked at), the older cars in ITB are going to lose weight.

The Geo, however, seems to be dead on.

I don't recall there being a standard of 30% that applies.

Skimming the thread? Unless "several" 10/10ths builds with dynos are given to the ITAC, the car norm is 30%.

I'm assuming that since the ITAC seems so reluctant to lower the multiplier, the same reluctance would apply for increasing it.

 

[rcc85]

My understanding is that the "norm" is 30% only for multi-valve engines in ITB, it is 25% for the rest of the cars.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

My understanding is that the "norm" is 30% only for multi-valve engines in ITB, it is 25% for the rest of the cars.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

Correct.

 

[Knestis]

Yup.

I don't think there's any doubt that a lot of B cars will lose weight if/when they are processed. I don't dispute it and don't think it's a problem.

However - again - the problem with B is that it's more exceptions than it is cars that adhere to first assumptions and rules. I spent a LOT of time assembling data on B cars while on the ITAC (more than 80 lines in an Excel SS), as we were asked by the CRB how viable it would be to engineer a "do-over" of that class. They go back to 1968 for Pete's sake.

Simply applying a 25% adder to the Volvo's stock 118hp leaves it at something like 140# lighter than it currently is. That *might* be fair but it's up to the ITAC to make a systematic decision about it. That's what the "confidence" system was supposed to allow - judgment by the committee, documented, repeated, and transparent.

BUT (and I think this goes to Charlies argument) if this particular make/model example can't get down to its target weight in B, it is NOT INCUMBENT on the ITAC to restructure the entire class to make it fit a preconceived notion that it should be in that class. When we did the math on the New Beetle and evidence suggested it couldn't get as light as it needed to be in B, it ended up in C. That's how it should work.

Finally, to your earlier point (JJJ) - I don't see the current Process (or even the B weight/power ratio) as "faulty" due to the context/influence of cheated-up cars. The ratio has to be set SOMEWHERE and no matter where it is, there will be tweeners/outliers that get dorked. "Different" will just be "differently faulty" - fix the Volvos' situation and screw someone else. Whatever. I recall something about Charlie looking at Proteges. Re-do the weight of that car (one of the most powerful and heaviest or current-spec options in B ) with 142-friendly math and it's going to be even harder to keep brakes/tires under it than it already is. Or it will be a featherlight A car. Or a tweener, trapped forever in B+/A- land.

The ultimate lesson out of all of this is that we need a repeatable process in which we can have confidence (unlike the current 1.3 crap, proof that silliness is still alive and well in the ITAC/CRB relationship), AND we need to apply it to tidy things up...

K

 

[pfcs]

"Simply applying a 25% adder to the Volvo's stock 118hp leaves it at something like 140# lighter than it currently is."
Are you talking 240 or 142E? The 142E workshop manual states 130hp.

 

[Charlie Broring]

BUT (and I think this goes to Charlies argument) if this particular make/model example can't get down to its target weight in B, it is NOT INCUMBENT on the ITAC to restructure the entire class to make it fit a preconceived notion that it should be in that class.

Isn't restructuring of ITB exactly what the CRB/ITAC is doing? And isn't it just possible that this is why ITB is such a hot topic here and why ITB drivers recently submitted so many letters to the CRB?

 

[Gary L]

"Simply applying a 25% adder to the Volvo's stock 118hp leaves it at something like 140# lighter than it currently is."
Are you talking 240 or 142E? The 142E workshop manual states 130hp.

The 130 hp in the 142E factory shop manual is SAE gross, essentially useless for our calculations. However, the DIN rating for that engine is also in that same table of the shop manual, listed as 120 DIN. And that same 120 DIN rating is in the 1970/71 Volvo 1800E FSM, that engine being identical to the '71 142E powerplant.

So... multiply 120 x .986 and you have equivalent SAE net hp, at 118. This gives us 148 IT-prep flywheel hp using the "standard" 1.25 multiplier, which results in a weight reduction of 75 lbs, to 2565 from 2640 (after adding back 50 lbs for double a-arm front suspension).

 

[Knestis]

Isn't restructuring of ITB exactly what the CRB/ITAC is doing? And isn't it just possible that this is why ITB is such a hot topic here and why ITB drivers recently submitted so many letters to the CRB?

The fact that ITB has been largely neglected, and includes a ton of "legacy" listings made over a long history of approaches, accounts for the member interest. But a couple of questions since I guess I'm not understanding the "restructuring" point:

1. What actions do you see as part and parcel to this "restructuring?"

2. What has been the timeline of these actions?

3. On what examples (non MARRS, since it's not a "DC Region" issue) are outcomes of those actions being assessed?

The current B power/weight ratio has been codified since at latest 2007. The "moved from ITA" cars (e.g., the Accord and MkIII Golf, I presume?) have been listed in B since what, 2002...?

It's doesn't seem like we've had a sudden applecart-upsetting incident here but I might be missing something important.

K

 

[jjjanos]

Yup.

OK, so the multiplier isn't 30% across the board, it's 25% except for multi-valves. All that means is that for non-multi-valve cars, the problem is greater.

Simply applying a 25% adder to the Volvo's stock 118hp leaves it at something like 140# lighter than it currently is. That *might* be fair but it's up to the ITAC to make a systematic decision about it. That's what the "confidence" system was supposed to allow - judgment by the committee, documented, repeated, and transparent.

And without multiple dyno sheet data, the ITAC has painted itself into the off-the-shelf multiplier. The only difference is that the ITAC doesn't need a multitude of 10/10ths builds to increase the multiplier, it just needs a multitude of sheets from LEGAL cars.

BUT (and I think this goes to Charlies argument) if this particular make/model example can't get down to its target weight in B, it is NOT INCUMBENT on the ITAC to restructure the entire class to make it fit a preconceived notion that it should be in that class. When we did the math on the New Beetle and evidence suggested it couldn't get as light as it needed to be in B, it ended up in C. That's how it should work.

Come on, you're better than this. You know the difference... the standard for B was picked because of the "known" performance of the already classed cars. The Beetle didn't fit within that envelope.

Slashing weight and/or moving B cars to ITC is entirely different because the arbitrary HP:weight ratio was selected because these cars FIT IT. If the older cars are so far off the ratio, then the ratio itself is the problem.

Finally, to your earlier point (JJJ) - I don't see the current Process (or even the B weight/power ratio) as "faulty" due to the context/influence of cheated-up cars. The ratio has to be set SOMEWHERE and no matter where it is, there will be tweeners/outliers that get dorked.

Of course it's faulty. WHY did they set the number there? I thought it was because most of the cars were getting something close to the number. If everybody loses weight or gets dropped a class, then the number that was set because these cars already were at or near it is the problem.

 

[AjG]

Yep…pretty much why we sold our Pintos. It was obvious that the car would never make weight with that multiplier and that the Hondas and VW’s were running the show.

I guess the new idea is to move the old fatties down to ITC but I don’t think that’s really going to work either. Even with my 200lbs overweight ITB car(even heavier than it would end up in ITC?) I could pretty easily run under the ITC lap record. I don’t see how you can put a 2.3L car in ITC?

 

[JeffYoung]

Speaking for me only:

1. Charlie did a spread sheet that showed if you run the "old" ITB cars through the process and use the 17:1 multiplier most of them stay essentially teh same weight (a few do not), and appear in almost all cases to be able to make an acheivable race weight.

2. THe newer cars that were Processed before stay the same. THe Accord should (in my opinion) pick up weight since it is multivalbe.

3. Then, you get to the rest of the mess in ITB as Kirk said. A lot of cars will get bumped down to C. We've gotten some push back on this -- you can't put a 90 hp, 2600 lb car in C! -- but we've chosen to trust the process (since it appears to work) and go with that. You will see higher hp cars at higher weights in C, and it may be the best thing to happen to that class honestly.

4. Charlie's best point while in the committee (I feel ok sharing this) was that while I disagreed the power/weight in ITB was off, in ITC it looked even worse. SOme existing cars in ITC would weigh like, nothing, if run through the process now. Not sure what to do about that yet.

In sum, I frankly think the sh$tstorm over ITB is overblown. If the older cars are processed, they will (as Gary points out for the 142) lose a bit of weight. If they can't compete at that point, I would attribute it to driver, prep and, to a certain extent, the fact that we can't promise a level playing field between 1970s tech and 2000s tech. We can give you roughly equal power to weight and let you have at it, but that's the best we can do.

And if we make that as repeatable, transparent and objective as possible, that still seems a lot better than the "old" regime of some crazy curb weight formula (no offense to our predecessors on the ITAC who used it).

 

[jjjanos]

A 1983 Mazda 626? REALLY? There's actually a logbooked example out there in the wild somewhere...?

BTW... does it surprise you that nobody has built this car? It's 500 pounds overweight at the new spec -- hell, that's like being forced to race while towing an ITC car at the new process weights -- and probably 200-300 pounds heavy compared to the pre-process weights of the rest of the class.

 

[JeffYoung]

Which is why it needs to go to C. Lots of cars (or at least more than a few) in B with 2500-2600 lbs curb weights that should go to C like the Dodge Daytona did.

BTW... does it surprise you that nobody has built this car? It's 500 pounds overweight at the new spec -- hell, that's like being forced to race while towing an ITC car at the new process weights -- and probably 200-300 pounds heavy compared to the pre-process weights of the rest of the class.

 

[jjjanos]

Which is why it needs to go to C. Lots of cars (or at least more than a few) in B with 2500-2600 lbs curb weights that should go to C like the Dodge Daytona did.

You are missing the point entirely.

Q. Why do some of these cars need to go to ITC?

A. Because they cannot make weight given the target Weight:HP number
​

Q. Why was this W:HP number selected?

A. Because someone assumed that most of the cars in ITB already were close/at to the WP number.
​

Q. You mean the HP:W number was picked because it fit the class based on the current weights?

A. Pretty much, yes.
​

Q. So, doesn't that mean that if many cars aren't at this ratio or no longer are ITB cars because of the number - the number picked because it was assumed that they already were near it, that the assumed W:HP ratio for the class is suspect and in need of revision to better fit the traditions of the class?

Come one... The Finger of Glod didn't enscribe a stone tabled with the words... "Thou shall set ITB weights based on a 17 figure."

The horse is out of the barn already, so there probably isn't anything that can be done about it, but it seems to me that increasing the weight of the newer cars to fit within the class traditions impacts a hell of a lot fewer drivers than jacking around or demoting so many of the cars already built.