Nov. FasTrack is out
- Thread starter Bill Miller
- Start date
Z3_GoCar
New member
Originally posted by Doc Bro@Oct 11 2005, 12:02 PM
Can you say e36 BMW ....all over again? Do I hear 500....550?
Rob
[snapback]62312[/snapback]
Careful there Rob, they may figure out that the Z3 is really an e-36 and add a couple hundred pounds to it
But you and I both know that not all e-36's are created equal, like the use of e-30 trailing arms instead of multi-link. BTW, have you got any dyno data yet??
Darin,
I appreciate your responce. All I'd ask for is parity, and I appreciate that you and all on the ITAC are doing a difficult job that WILL make some unhappy. Anything you do that adds parity to all cars and make the competition not dependant on make and model I'm all for. But I beg to differ on the 50lbs not making a difference, or maybe I shouldn't remove my spare tire when I autox; besides the performance difference, there's also the psychological effects. When your car is one of the heaviest in the class do you think you're going to think of it as a front runner, or a mid-pack queen? Especially given cars that are much lighter and have proven more competitive(Miata) history and development. I just have the impression that the M44 is more like the Porsche 911 than the M50, and no matter what money's spent on engine development, thats not been spent before (because it's an orphan engine in the US) won't see a result. Furthermore, this lack of results doesn't prove that it's not possible. Only that either a ) the money was miss-spent or b ) there wasn't enough of it spent. Also, if 50 lbs doesn't make a difference then why not take it off?
James
Thanks for the pointer Bill, I might have to parody a writer.
Bill Miller
New member
Not entirely Jake, the first one that jumps to mind are the Pontiac/Olds ITS cars w/ the Quad 4, that get to change their rear hubs and convert to rear discs.
James,
I think you mean 'parity'.
Banzai240
New member
My point on the weight is this...
Let's say I'm feeling pretty good about what I'm able to do with my car... I've got it dialed and have set a new personal best...
THEN... I let Randy Probst or John Norris or someone of that caliber drive the car... When I see their lap times are a second a lap quicker than mine... I realize that that 50lbs isn't what's holding me back...
Until I can find that second myself... 50lbs isn't really an issue...
Perhaps you are one of those top 10%, but I think the rest of us are still leaving time on the track, 50lbs or not...
Also, to ask us to estimate the potential to within 50lbs is asking WAY too much, given the resources and information we have available... That's asking us to estimate the output down to the nearest 5hp... Does it gain 30% or 34%??? Can any of you do that?? Dyno differences can be more than that... You pick the wrong header and it makes that big a difference...
Again, we'll get it close... the rest is up to you... If every car is spec'd with the same process, then I think we'll have a fairly equal and balanced system...
Having made the move from A to B I can now say with certainty, as opposed to the previous conjecture, that I'd much rather be in B, with 6's, winning or contending for a podium spot (as I have been all year) than running 7's in A and counting laps till the CRX's come around...
Matt Rowe
New member
I'm just not thrilled with the idea of having to kiss the money goodbye that I spent on 7" wheels and start shopping for an even less common size. Especially if I have weight added as part of a reclassification to an already heavy car.
BUT, I do think the process that the ITAC has developed is the right way to go and I'm willing to have a little faith that whatever might happen with the car I'm running that the concept is much better for IT in the long run. Now I just feel like a kid at Christmas waiting to see what Santa has brought. The BOD decision can't come soon enough, especially if some people are going to have to make changes for next season.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Originally posted by R2 Racing@Oct 11 2005, 04:07 PM
My point was that the GTI seems to be classed right around where the Integra is. Let me spell this out again and include the torque numbers too:
ITA '92 GTI = 2.0L, 4 cylinder, 16V, 135hp stock, 133lb-ft stock, with a 2475lb race weight.
ITA '92 Integra = 1.8L, 4 cylinder, 16V, 140hp stock, 126lb-ft stock, with a 2480lb race weight.
You guys seriously think that those figures make the Acura look heads and shoulders above the GTI? Seriously? Well, I certainly don't. I don't know when being +5hp, -7lb-ft, and -.2L would make the Integra deserve an additonal 75lbs of weight over the VW (as suggested). If it's a case of "well, the Honda's perform greater then the sum of their parts" than you guys sound just like the SCCA did about two years ago.
Get at least 3 or 4 years of good, solid development into one of those GTI's and I'd be willing to bet it would be right up there in ITA....right where I fully expect the Miata, SE-R, Civic Si, and Neon to join the CRX's and Integra's here shortly. All it takes is people to prepare one to the level of the best CRX's and Integra's out there. Contrary to popular belief, they don't just make themselves fast like magic. I have two years of pretty much full time development on my Integra and I'm by no means dominating every ITA field I enter. I've had success, yes, but I'm also still busting my ass in order to try and not get it handed to me every time I go out there. It's called competition, try breeding it.
[snapback]62324[/snapback]
The figures are just a starting point. Here are some things we do know:
The Teg CAN MAKE 30% more hp in IT trim
The VW will POBABLY make less than 25% more based on current ITS examples built by one of the top VW guys in teh country
The Teg has a double wishbone suspension...the SUM of those parts is superior to the McPersons on the VW.
The NET is a car that should weigh more to be equal. This isn't micro-management either, it's still a guess - but one that is done with information and a repeatable process that can be defended by the Boards for any car in any class...
AB
RSTPerformance
New member
Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 12 2005, 10:33 AM
And we'd much rather HAVE you in B, contending!
[snapback]62402[/snapback]
This is exactly why the car should then be classified in both classes. Let everycar we "deem" uncompetitive in its original class exactly the way it was classed and then do the "competition adjustments" that we normally would do to drop it down a class.
For example..... Let the honda civic that was reclassed to ITB also run in ITA with the same weights and measures it originally had. This gives people the option to run where they want to and maybe in some areas increase car counts if the 2 groups don't run together.
It takes no extra work to leave a car in its original class. Just an extra line in the GCR. (Obviously this only works when a car is bumped down a class.)
Stephen Blethen
dyoungre
New member
How much weight should be added per horsepower advantage? The math behind the assumptions says: More than you'd imagine, if you are to match acceleration rates (remember, F=ma; that's it - it really is that simple)
Let's use the stock numbers for the integra and GTI, and the weight of 2775 lbs, just to have a starting point (but NOT trying to make a specific case here!)
With 135HP stock and a spec weight of 2475 lbs, you get an as raced ratio of 18.3 lbs per horsepower. The Integra, at 2480 lbs, is only pulling 17.7 lbs per horsepower. Quite a difference in acceleration rate, right? So if you wanted to adjust the Integra, based on peak HP alone, you multiply 140*18.3m, and you get 2567 spec weight - or 87 more lbs for a measely 5 HP gain.
It is tough to compare potential; but if your assumptions are good, you can expect about 75 lbs for 5 HP, with a typical ITA weighted car, and that would be fair (easing up slightly for the impact on braking load, etc). It's hard to argue the math, but VERY easy to argue the assumptions.
I'd say the ITAC is definitely in the ballpark.
Let's use the stock numbers for the integra and GTI, and the weight of 2775 lbs, just to have a starting point (but NOT trying to make a specific case here!)
With 135HP stock and a spec weight of 2475 lbs, you get an as raced ratio of 18.3 lbs per horsepower. The Integra, at 2480 lbs, is only pulling 17.7 lbs per horsepower. Quite a difference in acceleration rate, right? So if you wanted to adjust the Integra, based on peak HP alone, you multiply 140*18.3m, and you get 2567 spec weight - or 87 more lbs for a measely 5 HP gain.
It is tough to compare potential; but if your assumptions are good, you can expect about 75 lbs for 5 HP, with a typical ITA weighted car, and that would be fair (easing up slightly for the impact on braking load, etc). It's hard to argue the math, but VERY easy to argue the assumptions.
I'd say the ITAC is definitely in the ballpark.
robits325is
New member
Does the ITAC actually have formal meetings with minutes? How do members get on this commitee - election - volunteer? Seems to be a potentially powerful group.
I think I like what I'm hearing (I will reserve my opinion until I actually see the proposal), but I'm wondering if the "We provide you a place to race, but don't guarantee you'll be competitive" statement should be revamped. Because to me this sounds like trying to guarantee all cars will be competitive if equally prepared.
My big concern would be making all these changes at once. It will be very difficult to determine what changes are affecting what if they're all made at once. Seems to me phasing things in over a period of time will allow more careful inspection of changes and allow better tweaking if needed.
Also, the whole adding 50lbs or 100lbs doesn't make a difference argument is lame. The argument being used to argue that adding the weight doesn't make a difference can also be used to argue for NOT adding the weight. I've done a total of 4 races in my entire life and currently suck as a driver. I have an ITA 240SX formerly owned by Bob Stretch that I would guess is pretty close to being 10/10ths prepared. Theoretically this car should be fighting for wins. In my hands, it got lapped by the top two guys last weekend at the SIC. Going by the process that has been described, the car may be 50-100lbs underweight. Did being "underweight" make a damn bit of difference with me driving. Nope. So why does weight need to be added? In the hands of a good driver that 50-100lbs probably does make a difference. If you're going to add weight to a car, fine. Don't go around saying it doesn't make a difference, though.
I like what I'm hearing cause hopefully it'll give me somebody to race.
Where was everybody at the SIC? There were 6 ITA cars. 5 fast guys (the top 3 SARRC points leaders and a guy who had driven the track for 20 years) and me. I just kinda waved bye-bye to everyone. Talk about a boring race.
David
My big concern would be making all these changes at once. It will be very difficult to determine what changes are affecting what if they're all made at once. Seems to me phasing things in over a period of time will allow more careful inspection of changes and allow better tweaking if needed.
Also, the whole adding 50lbs or 100lbs doesn't make a difference argument is lame. The argument being used to argue that adding the weight doesn't make a difference can also be used to argue for NOT adding the weight. I've done a total of 4 races in my entire life and currently suck as a driver. I have an ITA 240SX formerly owned by Bob Stretch that I would guess is pretty close to being 10/10ths prepared. Theoretically this car should be fighting for wins. In my hands, it got lapped by the top two guys last weekend at the SIC. Going by the process that has been described, the car may be 50-100lbs underweight. Did being "underweight" make a damn bit of difference with me driving. Nope. So why does weight need to be added? In the hands of a good driver that 50-100lbs probably does make a difference. If you're going to add weight to a car, fine. Don't go around saying it doesn't make a difference, though.
I like what I'm hearing cause hopefully it'll give me somebody to race.
Where was everybody at the SIC? There were 6 ITA cars. 5 fast guys (the top 3 SARRC points leaders and a guy who had driven the track for 20 years) and me. I just kinda waved bye-bye to everyone. Talk about a boring race.David
Banzai240
New member
I'm going to answer two things at once here... Both the question of what it takes to get on the ITAC and the immediate question at hand...
To be on the ITAC, you need to either be asked by the CRB, or have your name sumitted to the CRB and they approve you... To actually get selected, you probably better have to have the ability to look beyond your own immediate interests... Be objective... and be reasonable...
I find the comment above about the ITAC being a "powerful group" very interesting... Funny how logic, reason, and simply saying things that make sense can be confused with having "power" or influence... is it the group, or the statement the group is making??
David, you illustrate EXACTLY what I was saying... To you, 50-100lbs doesn't make a damn bit of difference... To Bob Stretch, it will...
We have to classify cars on the notion that they will receive MAXIMUM preparation... that is why we don't use results as a basis of any recommendation or change...
As for making "all the changes at once"... We've been making nickel and dime changes for 2 years... The results thus far have been positive... the rest of the cars in the classes deserve to be considered as well... The time has come and we have the processes in place... It's time...
JLawton
New member
It amazes me how many people will criticize but do nothing to get involved. Just because your car may have adjustments to it doesn't mean the whole system sucks!! Yeah, it may not be perfect but it's sure a whole lot better than it used to be!!
Remember, this is for the over all good of IT racing and not personal agendas.
Remember, this is for the over all good of IT racing and not personal agendas.
Bill Miller
New member
This deserves repeating! Totally on the money Jeff!
Jeff,
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I would rather win because I have unfair advantage than get anywhere on talent! I'm trying to get my e46M3 classed in ITA next year........ooohhh yeeessss. I'm building a shelf in my house for all the trophies as we speak!!!!
Rob (Sarcastic as Hell) Breault
lateapex911
Super Moderator
LOL...........let's save this quote for the announcement of changes.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
yup, but that was done a long time ago in a land far far away, LOL.
I think that the current and recent boards have been really good about drawing the line on stuff like that. (OK, several large scale rules issues come to mind, but as far as individual alowances, things are pretty under control)
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Well, yes and no.....
I think we could add a phrase to the famous disclaimer, (which actually reads: "Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competiveness of any car....") , but with the added note it could read: "Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competiveness of any car, but we will try harder to get 'em closeer than ever before...."
yea....except it sounds really goofy.
In the end there really can be no guarantee ,so I think it will be left as is.
But hopefully this ITAC, and those to follow, will try to over deliver.