The new ITA class

[OTLimit]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
BTW, not sure if Chris is still running his car as 'dual purpose' or not, but there are already ITAC members that are racing Prod cars. And, I believe Darin has more posts on the Prod board than he does here. So, I'm not really sure what you meant by that comment.

For what it's worth, Chris has two cars. Every year he continues to run many more regionals than nationals, and I don't expect that to change. His frustration level with Prod changes from week to week (depending on how the car is doing), but I don't expect him to stop doing that, either.

As one of the least vocal members of the ITAC, Chris still spends a lot of time discussing and considering issues because he is a member of the committee and feels that what he contributes is important. But when all they get is harassed, is there any wonder that he doesn't take part in these public discussions? Does it matter if Darin also takes in interest in Prod? If it is the logical next step, what's the issue of trying to facilitate a better transition?

Bill, please, get a life. I know you can be a very reasonable person if you want to. There is no formula, and the black helicopters are not coming for you.


------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

 

[Greg Krom]

>> Or, how one car gets moved, yet two VERY similar ones w/ the same powerplant don't (FX16 vs. AW11 MR2 and AE86 Corolla)? <<

I'm guessing it's because they are really not that similar. I know the engines are very similar, but I think thats where the similarity ends.

The drive layout (a rather large component of vehicle performance) of all three vehicles are completely different...

The MR2 is a mid engined, rear drive "sportscar", the Corolla is front engined rear drive. Meanwhile, the FX16 is a front engine front drive car, theoretically the "worst" format of the three.

Doesn't make sense to start by reclassifying the one with the least amount of potential, thus reducing the possibility of creating an overdog? Come the end of the day all three of these cars MAY belong in ITB, or the may not. I think the FX16 will tell us whether one or both of the other two belong in ITB as well.

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by oanglade:
I've seen cars gain that and maybe a bit more only messing with A/F ratios and ignition timing, but I bet that the cars whose ECU controls cam timing, for example, can get quite more than that.

Good point. Hadn't thought of that. I think 30 is still a pipe dream, but it would certainly increase the power potential and improve the area under the curve dramatically.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Greg Krom:
I think the FX16 will tell us whether one or both of the other two belong in ITB as well.

One thing I found interesting when comparing the FX16 to the MR2 was that the FX16 is classified 75lbs HEAVIER in ITA than the MR2. (2445 vs. 2370lbs)

Were I to believe that a consistant process was used to classify these cars, I might be led to think that the FX-16 was considered to have MORE potential than the MR2, based on it's classification weight...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[Greg Krom]

Or an FX16 chassis is just heavier than an MR2, further reducing the potential of the FX.

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Greg Krom:
Or an FX16 chassis is just heavier than an MR2, further reducing the potential of the FX.

...assuming that stock weight has/had ANYTHING to do with classification weight...

I can tell you for certain, based on my own car, that this isn't always the case! (2650lbs... Yah, right!

)



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[Jake]

The MR2 is probably the heaviest one in race trim. A lot more weight comes out of a 4-seater than an MR2. My 87 will never see 2370 even if I go on a starvation diet and run with no fuel. I've removed EVERYTHING legal including the e-brake mechanism.

For all those who believe in formula based classifications, did engine/drive layout ever pop out as a classification coefficient? If we were talking about big hp and torque I think a RR or MR would be better than a FR, but with these weeny little engines, I doubt it makes a whole lot of difference.

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
gettim Darin, Dave, you sound like a guy thats raced outside this club most of his life like me, and cant quite understand some of the logic thats passed as logic here so long. I got into this club building a PRO7 car, disagreed with the roll cage rules (no stiffening) and switched it over to ITA not realizing the extent of the "intent" rule. Never would have built it if I knew, 12k later im stuck with a backmarker. Stupid me. I fought the ECU rule and won with the "No added external sensors" added to the GCR, so dont think I havnt tried to fix what I can. But the no comp adjustments EVER rule means ill never be happy here and that and the train of thought of some that frequently show their moronic veiws here convinced me to spend another 25k to race in EP where there is at least a shread of thought put into competitiveness being an important part of why a guy would spend thousands of dollars for recreation. Its lame and unheard of to have a set of rules written in this way. good luck with your MR2 and because I own a P.O.S. I cant sell ill no dought have a stake in this bastard class as long as it is run this way. PCA'S are a start, but I would like to see the members have more input into true comp adjustments so people dont have to spend 50k in three years to be competitive. rant mode off, I've just spent 10 hours shaping bondo and fiberglass, can you tell?

boy was I miserable last night..

 

[gran racing]

The discussion about having the potential to be competitive...I personally have no problem getting beat by another driver that is simply a better driver. Instead I try to learn as much from them as I can. I also don't have an issue getting beat by a car that is better prepared then mine (don't ask me this at the track though). I would love to see IT limit the benefits gained by simply spending more money on go-fast parts. It is frustrating when a car is in a class where no matter what is done to the car and no matter how good of a driver is in the car, it still won't be competitive while at the same time it would make a great fit into a different class. -This is a general statement no matter what car I am/will drive. And yes, SCCA is working hard on these.-

I do agree that technically everyone "chooses" their race cars and if I choose an uncompetitive car, it is my fault. In my case the car was stolen, partially stripped (Stereo, seat damaged, paint scraped), was fortunate to get insurance money, and had a wife with a bad idea (for her at least).

ECUs - yeah, I too wish that ECUs were not allowed to be modified. And I am saying this knowing that my car might benefit from ECU modifications (never looked into it before). But at the same time, since there is no realistic way to police the rule it seems fair to allow a modified ECU. Hate to say it, but monitoring it with the boy scout's honor system isn't going to work. The idea of a restrictor plate? I don't see this as a good method of controling ECU modifications.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

 

[Bill Miller]

Lesley,

Those comments were only in respone to Bill's comments about my 'interests' lying in Prod. I don't think the type of car one races necessarily has anything to do w/ their ability to contribute to input on the advisory committee. Maybe w/ formula cars vs. sedans, but certainly not w/ two production-based categorires. And believe me, I don't think there are any black helicopters out there. I just don't trust a subjective process.

As far as gains from an ECU, I believe James Clay said they saw 'significant' gains w/ the re-programmed E36 ECU. Was it 30hp? Don't know, but I'd bet money it was more than 10.

Now, back to the FX16/AW11 MR2/AE86 Corolla. What do the results show? Has one of those cars dominated over the other two? It's a pretty rare situation where you get to evaluate essentially the same powerplant in three different drive configurations. I don't recall seeing anything that would indicate that one of those configurations is measureably better than the other two.

And, finally something that Darin and I agree on, spec weight has nothing to do w/ curb weight.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Bill Miller]

/edit/ duplicate post

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited April 20, 2004).]

 

[Jake]

The AE86 is probably the best to race because it has a HUGE aftermarket parts bin due to its cult status in Japan. LSD and gearing changes are fairly common. Did I mention that on IT classified someone is selling an LSD tranny for my MR2 for ONLY $2350 - and that's a deal. (is my car even worth $2350?) Of course the cost and availability of aftermarket parts really should have nothing to do with classing.

One problem with all these cars is there really isn't much you can do with the 4AGE motor and stay legal. I have yet to see anyone with dyno data on a 4AGE with more than 100hp to the wheels in IT trim.

With only 1.6 liters these cars are fairly well optimized from that factory at 112hp. Toyota (and Lotus) engineers aren't stupid. I HAVE seen dyno data that shows NO gain with the addition of a header. I have seen data that shows a performance LOSS after port matching. And I do know people who have put a LOT of money into these little engines.

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Jake:
I HAVE seen dyno data that shows NO gain with the addition of a header. I have seen data that shows a performance LOSS after port matching. And I do know people who have put a LOT of money into these little engines.

I have seen some dyno data that shows a bit more than you are reporting here, but not enough more to make a valid case for keeping this car in ITA... Considering a FULL-TILT E-Production MR2 motor only makes around 180-185hp, there isn't much of a chance that this motor is going to produce much beyond what is being reported in IT trim...

Sure, it handles pretty well, but NOT well enough to overcome the 30hp or so disadvantage and 2-3 point wt/pwr disadvantage that it has against the current top 4 or 5 in ITA...

Considering the class of cars recently introduced to ITB, this car is an underdog even to some of them...

But what do I know...???

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

When I ran my AW11 MR2, I talked to the TRD guys in Cali quite a bit. IIRC, there was a guy named Bob out there (his last name escapes me, but I have it written down somewher). I looked into an LSD and different R&P for the car, and IIRC, it was about what that tranny you mentioned is going for. Not to mention that it would have taken MONTHS to get from Japan.

And Darin, since you think the AW11 will be an underdog in ITB, I can only assume that you'll support the move of the Rabbit GTI to ITC.

Another intesting point about the FX16 vs. the AW11 MR2. The FX16 actually gets .4 pts more compression (9.4 vs. 9).

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And Darin, since you think the AW11 will be an underdog in ITB, I can only assume that you'll support the move of the Rabbit GTI to ITC.

If the mechanics/specifications of the GTI seem to make sense for ITC, then of course I would support it... Why would you think, or what have I said/done in the past that would make you think I wouldn't?

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Speed Raycer:
I was just skimming the last 50 or so posts until I saw that... what an interesting idea! Not sure of the ramifications one way or the other, but interesting nonetheless.

I find it interesting that few ITA RX7 owners are chiming in either commenting on the new ITA or the possible move to B. I think most have become used to being mid pack and just want a place to compete whether in ITA, B or 7.

Whew...what a thread. Been gone a few days...or about 100 posts, so heres a random reaction sampling.

As a 1st gen RX-7 driver, the future ITA sucks. Period. The march down the results sheets has turned into a tumble. The new models have been brought in in such a way as to make them competitive at the front of the pack. Which is fine, and as it should be. But if you're in an RX-7, an MR2, a BMW 2002, a Fiero, etc, your semi-worthless car just got even more worthless. See the guys comments about buying an ITA car ...CRX over RX-7. Duh.

About ECUs. 30 Hp? Well, maybe they facilitated the ability to get 30 out of the higher end motors, maybe not. But we should be referring to percentages, not raw hp anyway. Either way though, you know what?? I would kill for 10 hp!!! Thats a chunk! And it's the chunck my competiton was given post classing that I did not get.

Class moves...Moving a car from a class where it gets its butt kicked to a class where it has a chance hurts nobody, and helps many. If you are now at the front of your class, and new cars enter that can compete, you will: keep winning because you are a better developer/engineer/ preparer/driver, OR you will lose, because you need to BE a better developer/engineer/ preparer/driver, if the new car was classed in a proper way. If not the system will correct.
(And i fail to see how moving the bottom of ITA, which is made up of cars selling used for around $3500, will ruin the "affordability" of ITB. Doesn't get much more affordable than that!)

Formulas. IF we could toss out half the classed cars, AND we could start with a clean sheet of paper, then formulas could work. But I'm afraid the horse is out of the barn. I understand the reasoning that an anti formulaic sentiment is embedded in the organization, but I disagree. It's just too darn tough to make it fly, and fly straight.

Why do I race? Yes, for all the fun reasons mentioned, but I'd be lying if I were to tell you I was happy getting my ass kicked miles from the front lap time-wise. You're darn right I want a fair shot at the front, if I've done my job.

Classes- IF the BoD and the CRB were to approve another IT class, that would be great, but I really doubt that will happen. We need to make it work in 4, and it CAN be done. Trickle down is the most logical way.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 21, 2004).]

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
If the mechanics/specifications of the GTI seem to make sense for ITC, then of course I would support it... Why would you think, or what have I said/done in the past that would make you think I wouldn't?

Well Darin, the request was made to move, along w/ the request to move the 1.7 VWs. You've commented on how you supported the move of the 1.7 VWs, yet have not mentioned the Rabbit GTI.

Interesting note on the Rabbit GTI when compared to the 2.0 A3 Golf and the 1.6 Rabbit.

Rabbit GTI - 1.8 8v/90hp stock/14x6 wheels/239mm vented disc/180mm drum/2180# spec wt.

Golf III - 2.0 8v cross-flow/115hp stock/14x6 wheels/257 mm vented disc/227mm solid disc/2350# spec weight.

Rabbit 1.6 - 1.6 8v/75hp stock/13x6 wheels/239mm solid rotor/180mm drum/2000# spec weight.

Golf III makes 25hp more than the GTI (stock), has a progamable/chipable ECU, has 4 wheel disc brakes (w/ larger ones in the front), and weighs 170# more

Rabbit 1.6 makes 15hp less than the GTI (stock), but does get the G-grind cam, has the same size brakes (albeit solid front rotors vs. vented), and weighs 180# less, and only gets 13x6 wheels.

The Rabbit GTI has a slightly closer ratio tranny than either of the above cars.

You tell me which two cars seem closer in specs/performance potential.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[oanglade]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
One thing I found interesting when comparing the FX16 to the MR2 was that the FX16 is classified 75lbs HEAVIER in ITA than the MR2. (2445 vs. 2370lbs)

Were I to believe that a consistant process was used to classify these cars, I might be led to think that the FX-16 was considered to have MORE potential than the MR2, based on it's classification weight...

I'll give you another one:

ITA Escort GT vs. ITA Mazda Protege LX
Same motor, compression ratio, valve size, suspension, transmission/ratios, brakes, wheelbase.

The Escort is a 2 door hatchback and the Mazda a 4 door sedan, both built on the same platform.

The Escort runs on 15" wheels, the Mazda on 14's.

The Escort is listed at 2430 lbs and the Mazda at 2510 lbs.

(Both are candidates for ITA-LITE with the MR2, RX-7, etc.

)

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Rabbit GTI - 1.8 8v/90hp stock/14x6 wheels/239mm vented disc/180mm drum/2180# spec wt.

Rabbit 1.6 - 1.6 8v/75hp stock/13x6 wheels/239mm solid rotor/180mm drum/2000# spec weight.

You tell me which two cars seem closer in specs/performance potential.

First and foremost, I don't believe the factory HP numbers advertised for these cars. They don't jive with the numbers given to us from several IT/VW experts, and they don't make any sense when you consider how the VWs perform on the track against equally prepared competition. Using the stock numbers and assuming even a 30% improvement for IT prep, this car would have to weigh about 1850lbs to be on par with the 510 in ITC... Since we all know that the VW is more than a match for a good 510 at it's current 2000lbs, I think it's safe to assume that the factory numbers are off, and that this car is making some decent ITC HP. This is a case where some real-world experience should be considered...

The 1.6 and 1.7 cars are much closer in output than comparing the 1.6 and 1.8... While I don't disagree that the 1.8 may need some relief to stay in ITB as time goes on, I, and the well-respected VW racers that the ITAC consulted agree that the 1.8 would be too much for ITC.

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[Asok #25]

Bill

If you want the Rabbit GTI moved down to ITC then I want the BMW 320i 1767cc e21 moved down as well. Almost the same numbers as the VW but 280 lbs. heavier.

I think 90 to 95% of the cars classified are where they belong. Including those two cars.