May 2011 Fastrack

You're not missing anything, but Pants is.

Reading comprehension problem today? He asked what cars were brought in as over dogs.

Those cars were brought into the class at 17:1...

But the fact remains that even the old cars when processed under 17:1 all seem to either be close to their spec weight already, or loss some weight (but not enough to make race weigh unacheivable -- see Gary L.'s post above).

You've answered your own question. If you bring in someone at 17:1 and someone else is stuck at 18:1, 19:1 or even higher, then you've created an over dog and the folks driving the cars with extra weight are going to say take weight off me and add weight to them. It doesn't matter if they are able to lose the weight to get to 17:1... they weren't allowed to do that.

So, in the same vein, I'd suggest that you flesh out your aero policy. How will that 50lbs be doled out?
You are the guy on the ITAC who has been charged with studying the aero aspect and recommending a procedure that will become part of the Process.
Show us....

How about with the ITAC using the same confidence procedure as with IT trim gain? E.g. The ITC Civic versus the ITC CRX... same weights but not the same car. ONE car is a brick the other isn't. Is there a strong enough belief that one car suffers because of this? If so, one of the cars is at the wrong weight.

It isn't perfect. It isn't precise. It is messy. It does allow for adjusting weight.
 
How about with the ITAC using the same confidence procedure as with IT trim gain? E.g. The ITC Civic versus the ITC CRX... same weights but not the same car. ONE car is a brick the other isn't. Is there a strong enough belief that one car suffers because of this? If so, one of the cars is at the wrong weight.

It isn't perfect. It isn't precise. It is messy. It does allow for adjusting weight.

The ITAC refused to move off a 25% factor for the MR2 when years of dyno plots show that even cammed and compressioned up versions don't hit 25%, and you expect them to agree on aero!?!?!?!

Ooooh boy, thanks for the laugh, pants, that was a good one!!!

Tell me, I'm driving my pick up down the highway. Should I lower the tailgate for better gas mileage?
 
No, they were not intentionally brought in as overdogs. They came in at 17:1 and "lined up" with what the ITAC thought the Volvo made power to weight.

See Gary L's note above on the Volvo. Using real numbers the Volvo isn't that far off 17:1 anyway, nor is the 2002. I am pretty sure you've seen Charlie's chart and you should be aware of this.

We aren't going to include aero or pretty much anything else in the Process at this point. We've debated the factors that we think we should use, and those that are too hard for this committee to use, and settled on what is in the Ops Manual.

Reading comprehension problem today? He asked what cars were brought in as over dogs.



You've answered your own question. If you bring in someone at 17:1 and someone else is stuck at 18:1, 19:1 or even higher, then you've created an over dog and the folks driving the cars with extra weight are going to say take weight off me and add weight to them. It doesn't matter if they are able to lose the weight to get to 17:1... they weren't allowed to do that.



How about with the ITAC using the same confidence procedure as with IT trim gain? E.g. The ITC Civic versus the ITC CRX... same weights but not the same car. ONE car is a brick the other isn't. Is there a strong enough belief that one car suffers because of this? If so, one of the cars is at the wrong weight.

It isn't perfect. It isn't precise. It is messy. It does allow for adjusting weight.
 
He asked what cars were brought in as over dogs.

The question of what the new ITB cars were brought in was largely directed to you jjjanos. Which cars do you see that have been added that are overdogs?

Sorry, but what is your first name? Just tired of typing jjjanos.
 
Reading comprehension problem today? He asked what cars were brought in as over dogs.



You've answered your own question. If you bring in someone at 17:1 and someone else is stuck at 18:1, 19:1 or even higher, then you've created an over dog and the folks driving the cars with extra weight are going to say take weight off me and add weight to them. It doesn't matter if they are able to lose the weight to get to 17:1... they weren't allowed to do that.



How about with the ITAC using the same confidence procedure as with IT trim gain? E.g. The ITC Civic versus the ITC CRX... same weights but not the same car. ONE car is a brick the other isn't. Is there a strong enough belief that one car suffers because of this? If so, one of the cars is at the wrong weight.

It isn't perfect. It isn't precise. It is messy. It does allow for adjusting weight.

If someone says that they are overweight, then they need to write in and provide good evidence that they are very close to a 10/10's engine build to show that their car needs to lose weight. The impetus has and always will be on the owners of specific cars to prove to the ITAC that their car is overweight. It is not the ITAC's job to be an expert on every single car on the IT spec sheet. And from my limited time viewing their progress, they're willing to listen and use the process to get a car in the ballpark.
 
Robbie, I'd agree with you if someone is trying to prove that the process is failing their car (such as potentially the MR2) but anyone should be able to request that a car be re-run through the process without jumping through hoops.
 
I think what this all boils down to, and some people are obviously having a hard time reconciling, is this: there is a new system in place for classifying cars, that is more consistent, better defined, and more repeatable. The results it produces may or may not be better (or may actually be worse) than the results produced under the old system(s), but nobody ever promised they would be. It is what it is, like it or not.

Also, some cars may have been left behind, and not reclassified using the new process. It sounds to me like the ITAC is willing to rectify that problem if people are willing to write in? Correct me if I'm wrong there.

Bottom line: there will without a doubt still be the 'car(s) to have' in each class, and where I think some noses are getting out of joint is that what used to be the car(s) to have may not still be. I think at least with the current rule set we can now figure out what the top cars are, and they should stay that way for a while (unlike SS...).
 
No, they were not intentionally brought in as overdogs. They came in at 17:1 and "lined up" with what the ITAC thought the Volvo made power to weight.

I'm sorry... where did I say the cars were brought in intentionally as overdogs? I said the cars were brought in as overdogs compared to the cars whose GCR weights gave them ratios of 18, 19 or higher.

We aren't going to include aero or pretty much anything else in the Process at this point. We've debated the factors that we think we should use, and those that are too hard for this committee to use, and settled on what is in the Ops Manual.

Thank you for restating the obvious. I'm aware of The Process.
 
Robbie, I'd agree with you if someone is trying to prove that the process is failing their car (such as potentially the MR2) but anyone should be able to request that a car be re-run through the process without jumping through hoops.

If it hasn't been run through the process, then you can request it with no hoops to jump through.
 
You still never answered the question as to which cars you are referring to as over dogs. :rolleyes:

I'd say a good place to start would be the Kirk/Tristan/Martin version of the Golf.

Thank you for your usual snooty, holier than thou attitude. !2 yr old girls are in awe.

It was a nicer reply than what was deserved. The question was what could/should have been done. It wasn't what was done.

Great, the ITAC thinks making such adjustments is too difficult for that iteration of the ITAC. Fine. Don't make any. Instead, they made certain that such adjustments could never be made.
 
Don't forget that there are potential overdogs that were already in ITB at less than 17 to 1. The Suzuki Swift, the Alfas, the Geos, the Isuzu Stylus and maybe others.

If someone showed up at Summit Point with a 10/10ths Geo Storm and lowered the lap record, what would the reaction be?

Just askin'...


Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona
 
Bob, that just means that we need to submit requests for those cars to be reviewed. Why not be proactive about this instead of just waiting for it to happen then deal with it then?
 
the Firearrow is low hanging fruit in that regard. If that car were to be developed seriously, and parts were available for it, it has the numbers to be stout.
 
just curious.. i know how I calculate it, but as a check to see if the 17:1 is correct are we using wheel hp or flywheel hp? I personally have always used wheel hp. I was recently talking to a gentalman that spent alot of time on his firehawk MR2. When he told me he got 122 hp I was shocked and amazed! Then I found it that was on an engine dyno.. whp numbers was in the 104 range.
 
It's flywheel. We start with the stock flywheel hp number and apply the "expected gain" multiplier to that.

So assuming the old cars get a weight break that gets them to 17:1, and that race weight is achievable, that should be sufficient right? And will end a lot of the complaining in this thread?

Bob, right now, our procedure is to review the weight on any car for which we get a request. I agree there are probably some cars in ITB that right now have much better power/weight than 17:1. If you guys want us to take a look at them (or even better simply remove the weight until someone writes in and wants us to run it through the Process and assign it a weight) just write a letter.
 
My comment was meant to point out that, while new cars were brought into ITB at 17 to 1, (and that was a more favorable power to weight ratio than some of the cars in the class) it was also a higher power to weight ratio than other cars in the class.

I'm not sure that anyone can complain about new cars coming into ITB at 17 to 1 when there were already cars in the class in the 15 or 16 to 1 range. I also don't think that any of the new cars can be tagged as "overdogs" for that reason.

I would like to see the outliers run through the process though. A separate letter for each car, right?



Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

P.S. Jake: I think the Fire Arrow has potential, but I think it's close to 17 to 1 now.
 
Examples with numbers?

Citing Kirk's spreadsheet:

Geo Storm: HP 130 x 1.25 x 17= 2762.5 - 55.3 = 2707.3, round to: 2705 GCR = 2380 or 325 pounds too light. Weight/HP = 15

Geo Prism: HP 130 x 1.25 x 17= 2762.5 - 55.3 = 2707.3, round to: 2705 GCR = 2455 or 250 pounds too light. Weight/HP = 15.4

Suzuki Swift: HP 100 x 1.25 x 17 = 2125 - 42.5 = 2082.5 round to: 2085 GCR = 1895 or 190 pounds light. Weight/HP = 15.5
 
Back
Top