THE BACK ROOM or ....

[JeffYoung]

You are exactly right that my vision of the Process is something that, other than in attempting to divine what power an IT build on a motor makes, is akin to a calculator.

From my experience in IT, which is not as long as some I agree, if you get the power to weights close, beyond that, it's really all about prep and power to weight.

And when you use words like arbitrary and capricious rule changes -- stuff that I've now heard almost verbatim from 3-4 of the MARRS "ITB Mafia" (a term I use in good humor) -- you're just flat out wrong.

Developing the Process involved a lot of thought and consideration. The power to weight ratio in ITB was set based on numbers provided BY ITB DRIVERS THEMSELVES. So in some ways, this "problem" is of there making.

And really, when you boil it down, there is (as I said above) really only one car that is an issue. Most if not all of the other older ITB cars can make Process weight it appears. The 142 cannot.

So we aren't talking about a "class issue" here (and I disagree with Andy on this point). We are now really only talking about one car in ITB being out of whack with the 17:1 power to weight ratio, and waht to do about it.

 

[JeffYoung]

I think that is, frankly, smoke and mirrors (not be you Andy) to cover the "real" problem: only one older, popular car can't make process weight in ITB and that is the 142.

The others can.

And, we have considered the effect of this on ITC. I personally believe it to be positive -- move newer and or existing cars that should be in C due to power to weight could be great for the class.

The opposition I've heard to some of these moves is that the "engines are too big for C."

It's all power to weight guys. If a Mopar 2.2 doesn't make enough power to motivate a 2600 lb curb weight Dodge Daytona to the 17:1 ITB ratio, then it goes in C at a higher weight. But the power to weigth should be similar to the other cars in C that have been processed.

I don't know how many times I've heard that the New Beetle was going to destroy C.

Hell, I've not even SEEN an ITC New Beetle yet.

To talk you down a little:

It's not just about the Volvo. The arguements stem from what was on the grids in yesteryear. 2002's, Volvo's, FireArrow's, GTI's, etc. The arguement isn't about 1 car, it's about the new crop vs the old crop. 'Entry-fee paying members' over the last 2 decades feel like the 'new' ITB has left them behind - not in terms of prep and driving (because we are all Mario Andretti in our heads) but because of power to weight calculation errors.

 

[Russ Myers]

Yeah, my Pinto can probably make weight, I just don't know about the HP.

Russ

 

[JeffYoung]

Lot of knowledge about that motor -- do some asking/checking/work and see what you get.

 

[jjjanos]

And when you use words like arbitrary and capricious rule changes -- stuff that I've now heard almost verbatim from 3-4 of the MARRS "ITB Mafia" (a term I use in good humor) -- you're just flat out wrong.

It's not the ITB Mafia... its the BMW Mafia.

And frankly, from where I sit, most of the complaints about certain VWs were more about needing to put money into tired engines and suspensions than not being competitive.

Developing the Process involved a lot of thought and consideration. The power to weight ratio in ITB was set based on numbers provided BY ITB DRIVERS THEMSELVES. So in some ways, this "problem" is of there making.

Really? Could you point me to the request for member input in fast track?

And really, when you boil it down, there is (as I said above) really only one car that is an issue. Most if not all of the other older ITB cars can make Process weight it appears. The 142 cannot.

I dunno if they can. I'll be pretty close to the HP weight I should get.

And, we have considered the effect of this on ITC. I personally believe it to be positive -- move newer and or existing cars that should be in C due to power to weight could be great for the class.

You mean like urban renewal? We'll tear down all of these old, stinking slums and erect these brand new shiny skyscrapers? How did that work out last time we tried it?

I repeat:

CRX: 76HP Process - 1860 Current - 1955 Drops 95lbs
X1/9: 75HP Process - 1885 (mid-engine) Current - 2090 Drops.. 205 lbs
75 Rabbit: 70HP Process - 1715 Current 2000 drops 285lbs(!)
Colt: 81HP Process - 1985 Current 2270 drops 285lbs
New Beetle: 115HP Process - 2815 Current 2760 gains 55lbs and 40% heavier than the cars listed here.
​

The opposition I've heard to some of these moves is that the "engines are too big for C."

Well the real problem is going to be breaking out the mops to clean off the slick left by the older ITC cars when a Sherman-tank runs over it.

It's all power to weight guys. If a Mopar 2.2 doesn't make enough power to motivate a 2600 lb curb weight Dodge Daytona to the 17:1 ITB ratio, then it goes in C at a higher weight. But the power to weigth should be similar to the other cars in C that have been processed.

I believe the issue is the targeted power to weight ratio.

I don't know how many times I've heard that the New Beetle was going to destroy C.

Hell, I've not even SEEN an ITC New Beetle yet.

I never thought the New Beetle was going to destroy ITC. I've always said it was going to destroy other ITC cars.

So, when the 142 gets moved down to ITC, exactly how many metric tonnes will be placed on it and will the ITAC require that it run softwalls so as to not squash the real ITC cars?

 

[JeffYoung]

C'mon now. The weight difference "issue" is a total red herring.

We've got similar weight disparities in ITS (2200 for the Jensen to over 3000 for the Supra and E46 323), ITR (2600ish for the Celica to 3300ish for the V8 ponies).

Etc.

At least stay focused on the real issue.

If the power to weigth of a Mopar 2.2 in ITC is the same as a Rabbit, what is the issue? In my view, none, if the targeted power to weight ratio allows all cars to make race weight. I've not seen anyone claim the cars you list can't make those weights.

I'm sure you are correct member input was not solicited for setting the ITB power to weight ratio, officially. But it ws collected and Volvo drivers participated in that process.

Where do we need to go to see that the process works as applied? Look at R first, and S and A. Competitive fields, different makes, all running together. Yeah, there are some issues, but nothing like the CRX or E36.

The Process works if allowed to work.

 

[Ron Earp]

C'mon now. The weight difference "issue" is a total red herring.

We've got similar weight disparities in ITS (2200 for the Jensen to over 3000 for the Supra and E46 323), ITR (2600ish for the Celica to 3300ish for the V8 ponies).

I believe that is around 2300ish for the Celica......over 1000lbs top to bottom in ITR.

Red fishy.

 

[Harvey]

This really doesn't have any thing to do with Cheater Volvo's it has to do with the fact that the stock HP # was used and that number is NO where close to correct.

This is what was used for a bogey car and therefore in my opinion everything is skewed in ITB because of that. It really is that simple and I spent a lot of years trying to get folks to understand that.

In my opinion the only way to really make all of this fair now that the process is out in the open is to RUN EVERY single IT car through the now set in stone PROCESS and lets go racing.

It would not be the first time that a class has been turned upside down.

 

[jjjanos]

C'mon now. The weight difference "issue" is a total red herring.

We've got similar weight disparities in ITS (2200 for the Jensen to over 3000 for the Supra and E46 323), ITR (2600ish for the Celica to 3300ish for the V8 ponies).

Absolute lbs? close, but not exact. Relative weights? Even further a field. The Jensen to E46 discrepancy is 760 pounds and represents one-third of the weight of the Jensen. The Beetle to Rabbit difference would be 1100 pounds or two-thirds of the weight of the Rabbit.

If the power to weigth of a Mopar 2.2 in ITC is the same as a Rabbit, what is the issue? In my view, none, if the targeted power to weight ratio allows all cars to make race weight. I've not seen anyone claim the cars you list can't make those weights.

EXCUSE ME? Thanks for calling that wet stuff rain. The lightest CRX I've seen with a driver who weighs probably 110lbs dripping wet won't be able to make the ITC weight.

Can the others make weight? I don't know, but I seriously doubt some of these cars have that kind of weight just sitting there. Jesus christ, some of these weights are close to 300 lbs lighter than the current ITC weights.

I'm sure you are correct member input was not solicited for setting the ITB power to weight ratio, officially. But it ws collected and Volvo drivers participated in that process.

How transparent. Could the list of drivers who "participated" and their opinions be posted please? Otherwise...well, I guess I'll just click my heels together three times and believe.

Where do we need to go to see that the process works as applied? Look at R first, and S and A. Competitive fields, different makes, all running together. Yeah, there are some issues, but nothing like the CRX or E36.

Now THAT'S a red herring because I've already said, especially in the case of ITC, the issue isn't the formula. The issue is the arbitrary and capricious parameter imposed.

 

[lateapex911]

It's not the ITB Mafia... its the BMW Mafia.

And frankly, from where I sit, most of the complaints ...... were more about needing to put money into tired engines and suspensions than not being competitive.

The one thing you've said that makes sense.


The Volvo should be competitive. I have heard lots of 'admissions' since it was classed, and lot's of them aren't good. But, when was the last time we saw a REAL Speedsource or RTR or Tripoint level team campaign a VOlvo?

I will say this, if the ITAC decides to do an across the board redo of ITB at 25%, excepting multivalve cars at 30%...wow...what a mess that's going to create. Of all the classes ITB is the one class that needs to apply factors carefully. And using 25% across the board is letting the foxes in the henhouse. To many disparate technologies, and the time line covered by the class is to large. You've got old POS cars with air pumps and weird exhaust thermal reactors that can way outperform 25%, and you've got modern engines that will struggle to meet that, much less 30%.

Add the 50 lbs back to the Golf III, due to the not utilized beam axle adder, and cal it a day.

 

[JeffYoung]

That's helpful Les, and thanks for the input.

Was there no issue at all about gain and legality? It thought I remembered discussion about non-stock valve springs to get more RPM out of the motors, and more HP?

I do see the point about everything being skewed, but I tend to believe it is more that one car (the 142) is. Every other car in B seems to be able to get close to process weight, and the newer cars are of course on/close to it because they were processed.

This really doesn't have any thing to do with Cheater Volvo's it has to do with the fact that the stock HP # was used and that number is NO where close to correct.

This is what was used for a bogey car and therefore in my opinion everything is skewed in ITB because of that. It really is that simple and I spent a lot of years trying to get folks to understand that.

In my opinion the only way to really make all of this fair now that the process is out in the open is to RUN EVERY single IT car through the now set in stone PROCESS and lets go racing.

It would not be the first time that a class has been turned upside down.

 

[Knestis]

i installed about 150# of steel. after the weight i have gained, i can only remove about 100# of it.

it is embarassing that my dedication to my own personal health is tied more to my car's minimum weight......

Take some solace that you're not alone. Pablo is about 50# heavy and most of that is in the roll cage.

K

 

[Knestis]

... How transparent. Could the list of drivers who "participated" and their opinions be posted please? Otherwise...well, I guess I'll just click my heels together three times and believe. ...

Jeff, it's just not fair to get snarfy and conflate what happened in 2005 (JY was referencing the Great Realignment) with current practice.

This really doesn't have any thing to do with Cheater Volvo's it has to do with the fact that the stock HP # was used and that number is NO where close to correct.

This is what was used for a bogey car and therefore in my opinion everything is skewed in ITB because of that. It really is that simple and I spent a lot of years trying to get folks to understand that. ...

When was the last time the 142 weight was set? It was NOT set during the Great Realignment but now I don't remember if it's been addressed since then. If it hasn't been - as I believe is the case - then the world got aligned to that car, and the stock HP wasn't any kind of consideration. At least not like it would have been more recently.

Straighten me out if I'm confused.

K

 

[Harvey]

The stock HP of the Volvo got taken in to consideration in the process of coming up to the original process. When the GRA took place the Volvo was on paper as having 165 HP and that and a couple of other cars were used to set the power to weight ratio for ITB.

Jeff you are correct about it being about more than 1 car which has lead me to the conclusion that I stated.

 

[JeffYoung]

Kirk makes an important point.

We sometimes assume the Great Realignment was done using the process set out in the operations manual that was just released.

It was not. I won't go into the details, because I was not there, but the process has seen significant refinement in that time period, mostly to enhance (in my opinion) objectivity.

 

[JeffYoung]

WOW...so the expected gain over 120 stock crank hp was 165 flywheel?

That's what, just over 30% right?

I do disagree that this is more than about one car, primarily. The other "older" cars in ITB seem to work at process weight at 17:1. The Volvo does not, which is the problem.

The stock HP of the Volvo got taken in to consideration in the process of coming up to the original process. When the GRA took place the Volvo was on paper as having 165 HP and that and a couple of other cars were used to set the power to weight ratio for ITB.

Jeff you are correct about it being about more than 1 car which has lead me to the conclusion that I stated.

 

[Harvey]

Actually stock HP was listed at 130 HP

 

[JeffYoung]

Gross though right?

I think that was part of the problem as well. Everything else since has been processed at Net numbers.

 

[Harvey]

That's my point now and over the last number of years, which is what created the problem that we have now, which effects ITB seemingly more than others because of what I just stated above the original bogey car which set the tone for ITB as a whole was perceived to put down WAY more power than it actually does.

 

[Duc]

Help me understand the percent FWD subtractor were is that taken?


Celica GTS 180 *1.25 =225 * 11.25 = 2531.25 - 50 FWD Strut = 2481.25 - 100 Low Displacement = 2381.25

Correct? Or did the 6% get used.