robits325is
Member
Maybe Rob and Andy should swap cars for the July 4th race at Lime Rock.
See what happens.
See what happens.
How does 7hp=220lbs??
- Thread starter Z3_GoCar
- Start date
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
If you give me the same development and seat time I have in my Miata, no sweat. I would love to have at it for a test day however...
Then I will choose who Rob gets to switch his Bimmer with...
Z3_GoCar
New member
Joe,
I don't need you to insult me. I've kept this thread impersonal and presented evidence both factual and circumstantial to support my case that the "formula" doesn't provide the correct answer to the case of 4 cylinder BMW's in ITA, the Z3 being the poster child for this since it's weight is actually attainable where the sedans can't make current weight so any further weight reduction is meaningless. I've also presented data to back up my claim that the "formula" underpredicts the weight of the Miata also by a significant margin outside the error of probablility. The M-44 is also the poster child for the closed non-programable ecu. This is my last post on this topic, expect to read my letter to the ITAC and CRB on these matters. Good Night!
James
Joe Harlan
New member
James, Sorry but you are just dense. The process is not designed to hit the nail right on the head. It is designed to have a gudieline to classify cars closer than they have ever had a chance in past. I would not support a change in the process for the BMW or the Nissan. I do suport having the process re-run on the miata and the proper weight placed based on the 133HP number. If somebody gains more than the 25% expected then good for them but at least the process was applied properly. If you or anyone else is not able to make estimated HP gains you will get close and enjoy driving the car or you will sell the BMW and buy a car that can run up front with development and a good driver. THE PROCESS WAS NEVER MEANT TO TURN IT INTO PRODUCTION OR GT AS FAR AS TRYING TO PIN THE DICK ON MOVING TICK, so if your not happy that we are playing horseshoes then build a prod or a gt car cause thats the only two places they try to pin the dick on a tick. The process is getting things much closer than an uncorked E36 VS A dodge neon of the past. Goodluck with your deal
OH and if I didn't make my point it does not matter factual or circumstantial cause the process was never intended to fully consider real world data unless so extreme that a PCA was warranted. In this cause there is NO WAY a PCA is warranted. But a mistake was made with the base HP number on the miata and that should be fixed.
steve s
New member
first of let me say i did not read all the post so far i got to andy's with the explantion of the process.
ok then IMO if a car would be over the weight for the cage then the process needs to be worked in reverse by starting with the weight then limiting HP [SIR] as was done to other cars.i think this would be fair for all competitors.
next point an 11" brakes [just pulling fictitous numbers ] may be considered big on a 1500lbs car hence the 50lb adder i agree, but on a 3000lbs car may not be considered big. so we should figure out a formula for weight to brake size ratio .like we do now with the HP to weight ratio.
in closing i would like to say thanks to all for the good job you're doing on all the various SCCA comittees .but if we listen to our members objectively and admit when we're wrong then we'll have an excellent club to race with.
i am not choosing sides just trying to be fair to everyone concern.
ok then IMO if a car would be over the weight for the cage then the process needs to be worked in reverse by starting with the weight then limiting HP [SIR] as was done to other cars.i think this would be fair for all competitors.
next point an 11" brakes [just pulling fictitous numbers ] may be considered big on a 1500lbs car hence the 50lb adder i agree, but on a 3000lbs car may not be considered big. so we should figure out a formula for weight to brake size ratio .like we do now with the HP to weight ratio.
in closing i would like to say thanks to all for the good job you're doing on all the various SCCA comittees .but if we listen to our members objectively and admit when we're wrong then we'll have an excellent club to race with.
i am not choosing sides just trying to be fair to everyone concern.
Joe Harlan
New member
You won't see it Travis. The CRX in my opinion does not add up to the sum of all its parts, I believe in this case there was a proper PCA applied to that car but Andy or Darin would know better than I on that one.
Travis, All,
This is where my issue is with the "Process".
The ITAC is deciding on a case-by-case basis whether to use PREDICTED HP OUTPUT (Based on 25% Improvement in IT Trim) or ACTUAL HP OUTPUT (Based on Dyno #'s).
Cars like the 1.8L Miata and the NX2000 were run, correctly, through the process using PREDICTED HP OUTPUT. Their weights are correct, and I have no issue with them (ok, maybe a little issue with the funny business in the 1.8L Miata classification, but I'll omit for this argument). This is an "open-loop classification".
Cars like the 1.6L Honda CRX and 1.8L Integra are run through using ACTUAL HP OUTPUT. This is a "closed-loop classification". These cars are being classified using HP numbers attained through many, many years of development.
Now you have a DUAL classification system.
For example, a new car is classified in ITA, the "Nissan Charger". The car is classified using PREDICTED HP OUTPUT. The car happens to make more ACTUAL HP in IT trim than PREDICTED HP. Because the car is classified new and without data for ACTUAL, it is classified very favorably. How then, would the CRX, or Integra have even a chance against it? Would the car be re-run through the process after known HP is obtained? If so, should the Miata and NX2000 be re-run through the process? If not, are we deciding now that the CRX and Integra are classified differently than the Miata and NX2000?
I am asking for CONSISTENCY!!!!!!!!!!!! Either ALL cars are based on ACTUAL or ALL cars are based on PREDICTED. Otherwise, we are implimenting performance adjustments, which don't fit in with IT class philosophy.
Joe Moser
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Which brings us back to Travis' post....
So, you'd be in favor of an "estimated and live with the screw up system?" Thats what we had for years...What if you owned a car on the other side of that coin, instead of the CRX? The CRX was clearly a screw up, and was the absolute no brainer car to have in the class for years. Heck, it rewrote the performance envelope for the class, and relegated dozens of cars to backmarker status.
It's easy to ask for things when it benefits you, but think hard about the flipside and the damage that gets done to a class, even a category. when mistakes like that are allowed to proliferate.
So, you'd be in favor of an "estimated and live with the screw up system?" Thats what we had for years...What if you owned a car on the other side of that coin, instead of the CRX? The CRX was clearly a screw up, and was the absolute no brainer car to have in the class for years. Heck, it rewrote the performance envelope for the class, and relegated dozens of cars to backmarker status.
It's easy to ask for things when it benefits you, but think hard about the flipside and the damage that gets done to a class, even a category. when mistakes like that are allowed to proliferate.
Joe Harlan
New member
Joe, I almost agree but there has to be a way to handle cars that don't add up. Otherwise we end up with the car of the year deal and that hurts the participation numbers. I am all for fully trusting the process at the point of classification but when a car clearly become too much for the class it needs to be looked at hard for PCA. We just cannot let a run away happen again as it hurt the numbers in ITS all over the country for several years.
unrealistic Joe.
too many cars, too little time.
actual output > predicted output.
on cars that are known factors, like the well developed CRX, integra, 325, RX7, miata, etc., using known output is perfectly reasonable and a better measure to class with than what is nothing more than an educated guess. remember, mfg listed HP is a joke mostly, especially in the case of the CRX/325 and various Mazdas.
for new classification of cars for the most part all you can really do is use predicted output, because nobody has really built one to the nine's yet, and the ITAC/CRB certainly doesn't have the resources to do this before giving it a weight.
if a new car came into a class and turned out to be an overdog, i have every bit of faith in the ITAC that the car would be brought down within the performance envelope of the class (ie BMW). that's really all you can do is have faith that they'll get it right, and write your letters.
hell, there isn't even consistency in SM, how do you expect it in IT.
too many cars, too little time.
actual output > predicted output.
on cars that are known factors, like the well developed CRX, integra, 325, RX7, miata, etc., using known output is perfectly reasonable and a better measure to class with than what is nothing more than an educated guess. remember, mfg listed HP is a joke mostly, especially in the case of the CRX/325 and various Mazdas.
for new classification of cars for the most part all you can really do is use predicted output, because nobody has really built one to the nine's yet, and the ITAC/CRB certainly doesn't have the resources to do this before giving it a weight.
if a new car came into a class and turned out to be an overdog, i have every bit of faith in the ITAC that the car would be brought down within the performance envelope of the class (ie BMW). that's really all you can do is have faith that they'll get it right, and write your letters.
hell, there isn't even consistency in SM, how do you expect it in IT.
Jake,
This is not about ME or about the CRX (and by the way, we chose to invest our money in a capable platform, we were playing the game, just like anybody else when they chose the car that they chose... It's not like we are in love with the F'in things, they were the car to have, I understand that).
I'm not advocating the CRX go to it's 2007 lbs. classification, it would definitely blow away the field. Hell, I'm not even asking that the CRX gets a weight adjustment!
What I'm asking is, At what point will the ITAC realize a car is exceeding its PREDICTED HP and re-run it through the process using ACTUAL HP? If it requires more than 1 car to be kicking ass out there, than how many? Do I have to wait until an entire fleet of Miata's or NX2000's are blowing me away before the ITAC will re-adjust the weights? If somebody chooses to go out and build a new "Toyota Whatever", and nobody else runs one, but I'm getting my ass kicked every race by it, do they do anything about it? At what point do they do it? Maybe I should start looking for the "Toyota Whatever"???
I know there is no good answer, and it is VERY difficult to appease everybody. I'm not stupid, I know all of this. It's also GREAT to know that there are such dedicated people on both sides of the issue to keep everything in check (Kirk, Greg Amy, Joe Harlan, Bettencourt...etc)
Joe
Ah - I get what Joe is asking. The answer might be in the business of "counterfactuals." Let's see if I can make sense of this...
It is easier to demonstrate with a dyno that a car has made TOO MUCH power, relative to its predicted IT output than it is to demonstrate that a car has come up short of what was expected. Examples:
1. 1995 Blenheim Blaster GT - predicted to reach 145whp as an ITA car, weight is established using that value. It's popular, a lot of people build them, and a body of knowledge grows up around the engine. Bunches of dyno sheets circulate that show 154-159whp. Entrants of Blasters are happy, other cars are not and agitate for a weight change.
2. 1995 Trotski Turdler LS - predicted to reach 145whp in ITA, race weight is the same as the Blaster. For whatever reason, the Turdler never catches on in big numbers but is raced by a couple of stalwart TOoA (Turdler Owners of America) members. Owners of Turdlers complain that the car can't be competitive because it just doesn't make the kind of power that it should with IT preparation, sharing a dyno sheet with an indicated 132whp. Most other ITA entrants just don't notice very much.
Discuss.
What arguments can be used to justify changing the weight in each case?
What criticisms can be appropriately leveled at those arguments?
What assumptions have to be made in each example? That might be applicable to both examples?
I've made these examples a little less complicated than real life but they are still illustrative. One uses data to try to 'prove' that something has happened - that a car has (at least) met its expected power output - whereas the other tries to 'prove' that the same thing has NOT happened. The latter is a much tougher prospect.
K
It is easier to demonstrate with a dyno that a car has made TOO MUCH power, relative to its predicted IT output than it is to demonstrate that a car has come up short of what was expected. Examples:
1. 1995 Blenheim Blaster GT - predicted to reach 145whp as an ITA car, weight is established using that value. It's popular, a lot of people build them, and a body of knowledge grows up around the engine. Bunches of dyno sheets circulate that show 154-159whp. Entrants of Blasters are happy, other cars are not and agitate for a weight change.
2. 1995 Trotski Turdler LS - predicted to reach 145whp in ITA, race weight is the same as the Blaster. For whatever reason, the Turdler never catches on in big numbers but is raced by a couple of stalwart TOoA (Turdler Owners of America) members. Owners of Turdlers complain that the car can't be competitive because it just doesn't make the kind of power that it should with IT preparation, sharing a dyno sheet with an indicated 132whp. Most other ITA entrants just don't notice very much.
Discuss.
What arguments can be used to justify changing the weight in each case?
What criticisms can be appropriately leveled at those arguments?
What assumptions have to be made in each example? That might be applicable to both examples?
I've made these examples a little less complicated than real life but they are still illustrative. One uses data to try to 'prove' that something has happened - that a car has (at least) met its expected power output - whereas the other tries to 'prove' that the same thing has NOT happened. The latter is a much tougher prospect.
K
JeffYoung
Active member
Kirk, this is good.
The obvious reasons here are:
1. It is easier to "change" the faster car's weight because you have a body of data showing that a process assumption -- actual IT prep hp -- is higher than the assumption.
2. For the slower car, it is just too easy to say "not fully prepped." And this is somewhat self-perpuating because once the car gets a reputation for being a turd, it is going to take one dedicated Turdiafoso to build one to the max.
Probably the only example I have seen come close to example no. 2 is the 8v Porsche 944, which doesn't appear to make its expected IT prep gains and remains (although I believe it belongs there) in ITS.
The obvious reasons here are:
1. It is easier to "change" the faster car's weight because you have a body of data showing that a process assumption -- actual IT prep hp -- is higher than the assumption.
2. For the slower car, it is just too easy to say "not fully prepped." And this is somewhat self-perpuating because once the car gets a reputation for being a turd, it is going to take one dedicated Turdiafoso to build one to the max.
Probably the only example I have seen come close to example no. 2 is the 8v Porsche 944, which doesn't appear to make its expected IT prep gains and remains (although I believe it belongs there) in ITS.
Jeremy Billiel
New member
Isn't one of the challenges of IT racing to find a car that you believe has potential, build it and reap the benefits of it?
Greg believed in the MR2 and the Egg, that there was more HP than the process decided and he felt it was a good choice. He is now reaping that benefit.
If you use actual HP numbers aren't you doing competition adjustments?
Greg believed in the MR2 and the Egg, that there was more HP than the process decided and he felt it was a good choice. He is now reaping that benefit.
If you use actual HP numbers aren't you doing competition adjustments?
This is 100% EXACTLY my point! Greg believed in the Egg, there was more HP than the process decided, and he is now reaping that benefit.
We believed in the CRX, there was more HP than the process decided, HOWEVER, we are now run through the process AT THAT ADDITIONAL HP, while Greg (Sorry to single you out Greg, it's just relevant!) is NOT.
THIS IS NOT CONSISTENT. We are penalized for having a well-developed, responsive to IT mods car, while other cars are not penalized.
SO YES, THIS IS COMPETITION ADJUSTMENT. Do we need to bring a dyno to the big races and use the data from the top prepared cars of a certain model to be able and set the weight correctly? Isn't ACTUAL HP numbers from 1 car better than NO ACTUAL HP numbers?
I really hate to have to use Greg in this example, I know how much development and work he has done to that Egg, and he's a hell of a competitor. We just feel that we've done the same development, and we drive hard too, and we have interest in protecting the competitiveness of our rides! It sucks to become irrelevent by a rules process that isn't consistently applied!
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I am going to post this one more time and then take a long break from this BB. At some point the access and transparancy is going to burn me out. Maybe that is a good thing for some!
I have had some nice private exchanges with Joe on this topic. We are trying to get cars close, by using knowledge that we have, in a consistant and fair manner. This will NEVER be Prod. Under my watch, you will never see 25lb changes to any car in the interest of changing the cars competitiveness. Can't do it right, can't do it well, just can't do it. See Prod.
IF it were a straight formula, the 'equity' we see now in IT would vanish. Greg complains that he feels 'cheated' about his ARRC win as he thought everyone was on the same playing field. I submit that his win was as equitable as possible given the current system because the deck wasn't stacked against him. Here are some cars that would make waves unless practical application and common sense were not used (eliminating all rotories because people seem to accept you have to make a concession there - which certainly opens the barn door - if you are going to go off a knowledge bases, then use it!).
ITA CRX: Currently at 2250. Would be at 2007lbs in ITA using stock hp rating of 108.
ITS TR8: 137 stock hp. Boom - ITA. 2483lbs before adder for torque.
ITA Chevy Monza 3.8: 115 stock HP. Boom - ITB. 2337 before adders.
I could go on. The point is that until a knoweldge base is built, you have to go with your estimates. And even then, the resultant 'issue' has to be so far out of whack that a PCA should be invoked. Greg's car is fast, we all know that. But even though he is outside his process power estimate, his car is not such that it is ruining ITA - according to the rules in the ITCS, the purpose is to restore the equity within the vehicles class. That is when you turn to on-track results. Not SINGULAR results but mounds and mounds of results that establish trends. Car counts dwindling, letters of complaints, submitted dyno sheets, track records falling for multiple drivers driving said model in differnet parts of the country with varied levels of prep etc. It's all put together to trigger a second look - and if that second look uncovers new information that shows the car is outside the 'noise' of 100lbs...a weight change could be considered.
I was with Joe all the way up until he said his car is now 'irrelevant'. I have a hard time understanding that choice of words. And for every car that gains a little 'extra' in the power department, there is another that can't make the gains. We aren't trying to balance the classes on the head of a pin, just get them close. Some say the process is applied inconsistantly and isn't fair. I say it is applied consistantly, with slop built in to keep overdogs and underdogs from becoming a problem. "The best we can do in good faith".
In closing, the Process is not perfect, we all know it. It does as good of a job, for as many people, as it can without entering the world of monthly reviews of performance - which history has shown is IMPOSSIBLE to do. Again, see Prod. Without using the info we have, we are right back were we started from. I refuse to agree that would be better than the current system. YMMV. I am out. Keep the shiny side up.
I have had some nice private exchanges with Joe on this topic. We are trying to get cars close, by using knowledge that we have, in a consistant and fair manner. This will NEVER be Prod. Under my watch, you will never see 25lb changes to any car in the interest of changing the cars competitiveness. Can't do it right, can't do it well, just can't do it. See Prod.
IF it were a straight formula, the 'equity' we see now in IT would vanish. Greg complains that he feels 'cheated' about his ARRC win as he thought everyone was on the same playing field. I submit that his win was as equitable as possible given the current system because the deck wasn't stacked against him. Here are some cars that would make waves unless practical application and common sense were not used (eliminating all rotories because people seem to accept you have to make a concession there - which certainly opens the barn door - if you are going to go off a knowledge bases, then use it!).
ITA CRX: Currently at 2250. Would be at 2007lbs in ITA using stock hp rating of 108.
ITS TR8: 137 stock hp. Boom - ITA. 2483lbs before adder for torque.
ITA Chevy Monza 3.8: 115 stock HP. Boom - ITB. 2337 before adders.
I could go on. The point is that until a knoweldge base is built, you have to go with your estimates. And even then, the resultant 'issue' has to be so far out of whack that a PCA should be invoked. Greg's car is fast, we all know that. But even though he is outside his process power estimate, his car is not such that it is ruining ITA - according to the rules in the ITCS, the purpose is to restore the equity within the vehicles class. That is when you turn to on-track results. Not SINGULAR results but mounds and mounds of results that establish trends. Car counts dwindling, letters of complaints, submitted dyno sheets, track records falling for multiple drivers driving said model in differnet parts of the country with varied levels of prep etc. It's all put together to trigger a second look - and if that second look uncovers new information that shows the car is outside the 'noise' of 100lbs...a weight change could be considered.
I was with Joe all the way up until he said his car is now 'irrelevant'. I have a hard time understanding that choice of words. And for every car that gains a little 'extra' in the power department, there is another that can't make the gains. We aren't trying to balance the classes on the head of a pin, just get them close. Some say the process is applied inconsistantly and isn't fair. I say it is applied consistantly, with slop built in to keep overdogs and underdogs from becoming a problem. "The best we can do in good faith".
In closing, the Process is not perfect, we all know it. It does as good of a job, for as many people, as it can without entering the world of monthly reviews of performance - which history has shown is IMPOSSIBLE to do. Again, see Prod. Without using the info we have, we are right back were we started from. I refuse to agree that would be better than the current system. YMMV. I am out. Keep the shiny side up.