July FasTrack posted

Of course I do (well, except the injectors - those look equivalent to me). Tongue firmly placed in cheek, Andy.

Two different manufacturers published specs on the same spec line. Sounds like the issue that's being debated. Just thought I'd make the point that putting cars with different capabilities on the same spec line is nothing new.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Just dont forget Marty that all the RX7's were processed at the higher of the 2 specs as they could be updated. The arguement here is that the Miata was processed with the lower of the 2 numbers and still allowed to update. Big difference. Regardless of published compression numbers the different piston was in the early car and it should have to keep it at the lower weight. The later cars did get the compression bump and should be run through properly. Does it make a difference in IT trim?? Could not tell you but the case sounds valid. The fact Mazda now sends you the late piston has nothing to do with what came in the car from the dealer.
 
that's the thing. both pistons came from the dealer for 1995 model year, just depends on if the car was produced before or after March 1995. the late 95s also had OBDII, but the advertised power didn't change until 96....this basically tells me that the 133 advertised hp was a bunch of hogwash.

i don't think "we" adhere 100% to the process as much as people may think. if mfg advertised hp is all the information there is, then the process will get you close, but are "we" not allowed to make adjustments if better information should come along?

what was the CRX Si advertised at? 108hp? good one. :lol:
 
It's NOT about which pistons, OBDI vs. OBDII, or any other technical detail, people. As Steve so correctly points out it's about the process. There are always going to be marginal winners and losers with any system but the best thing going right now is IT because there is a repeatable system in place to specify the weights.

Is it perfect? No. Are there some instances of 'adders' and 'subtractors' being applied that smell a lot like subjective competition adjustments? Yes. But go visit the Prod site and partake of the "Why is Production Dying?" conversation and you'll see over and over again that the politiking, smoke-filled room, perceptions-of-favoritism, moving target specification crap that dominates that game is a prime disincentive to a lot of people getting involved.

Yeah - Greg got baited into something like on-track comparisons but the primary issue there is that he has enough experience to pretty accurately predict what lap times (as an output measure of the process) are likely to look like, for the cars in question. He can't unlearn what he knows, even if he should try really hard to keep the conversation on the topic that really matters.

Travis - seriously. It gets personal because you want it to be. The view from here is that you'd stand on "black is white" if you thought it was in defense against Miata Haters.

The process was bypassed, probably in an effort to be expeditious and NOT because Andy's got some sneaky agenda, and now it's being defended pretty much out of stubborness. That's not right and the worst part is that it opens the entire system to question. My memory is always suspect but I seem to remember well-considered math telling me that the MkIII Golf should be heavier than it is. I think that Andy's response that it's fine at 2350 is influenced by the same temptation to think of it as "close enough," to not make waves. Waves be damned. Jake - do the math and tell me what it says...?

K
 
I guess I am just missing the beef. I can understand the questions - but once you understand the circumstances and facts...the 128hp car was classed and a weight was set. Then the 133hp car came up for re-classification (remember, these were ITS cars). You could have put the 133hp on a different line at 2460, but upon a close look, they are the same car with the exception of the ECU - an 'open' item. The cars have the exact same capability. Nothing sneaky, nothing backdoor, just a simple application of logic IMHO.

Lets say an early TR8's came with 130hp. That one gets classed. Later, a request for a 'later one' come through. Mechnically identical excelt for a 'better' carb that adds 5hp to the rating. But wait! The TR8 can upgrade to one of 5 different Weber varients that are vastly superior to either stock carb per the GCR. What do you do? Seperate the cars and list them at different weights, combine them at the first weight - or increase the weight of the first car, already classed - by around 100 lbs because you just allowed it to UD/BD to something that will have NO effect on performance in IT trim.

JEFF, would you think its the 'right' thing to do to add weight to the first car based on something that has no affect on performance?

Again, I see it as a common sense move. Each classification is different - and should be addressed as such. If this was a straight formula, the ITA CRX would weigh 1957lbs, the ITA 12A RX7 would be in ITB at 2146 etc. Sometimes you have to take what you know and use it in good faith. I believe that 100%. If we don't believe there is integrity in the system - or with the people, we need new people and/or a new system. I am not sure IT has ever been better in terms of cars, classifications, transparancy, equality, forward thinking (ITR), etc.
 
Actually, something very similar happend with my car. The carb'ed version allegedly makes 133 hp, the FI one 138.

I see your point that the early cars could use the new ECU and get the HP bump, so no real difference. I see their point that well, then all cars should have been classed at the "higher" weight that the process would have generated for the "higher" hp car.

What I think is this. I think a 5 hp differnce is within the "frudge fractor" range of "we shouldn't care about it." Am I correct that when you were making weight adjustments to the cars before, if the "process" weight was within I think 75 lbs of the already spec'ed weight, you didn't make the change?

Much ado about nothing. I understand the adherence to process, and think it a necessary part of the IT ruleset. But I also think we are kidding ourselves tremendously if we think practicality, common sense, and SOME subjective factors are not included in that process. I mean, do we TRULY think a 50 lb adder for IRS is a PRECISE adjustment? Hell no.

This is going to sound overly lawyer, but we are people after all, not robots, and there is no way to make this 100% objective. If we weren't arguing about this, we would be arguing over our "subjective" decision to give 4 wheel disc brakes a 25 lb adder over rear drums.

I respect everyone on this thread, but I really think this one got out of whack. If we are worried about 5 hp or 50 or 75 lbs, then I think we have, in our pursuit of objectivity, made the process itself unworkable.
 
I guess I am just missing the beef. ...[/b]
Click to expand...

The

RACE

weight

for

the

higher

power

car

was

established

based

on

the

lower

power

car.

The fact that both the original, older version and the newer version have the same POWER POTENTIAL (as the NEW ONE), should be blinding evidence that the race weight of the older one should have been increased, just as soon as the newer one got listed. You tell us all the time Andy (and rightfully so) that the process presumes that someone will build a 10/10ths car. That's not just about practical issues like wiring harnesses - it's about setting the weight in the first place.

OF COURSE I am assuming that the "process" was applied to the first listing - Yes - No

Further, I assume that collectively agree that 5 ponies makes enough of a difference in spec weight, so as to be "significant" - Yes - No

And of course, I ASSUME that we are actually USING the process, rather than just making stuff up and SAYING we're using the process - Yes - No

Again, it IS pretty academic. In the real world, the differences are going to be lost to other variables that make a bigger difference in competitiveness. But why start down the Prod path if we can avoid it?

K
 
Kirk, for me that is the rub. The 5 hp difference is not significant. I agree this one is now easy to "correct", but my point is there are probably MANY of these fudge factors where race weights are 25, 50, 75 lbs off.

Are we going to go through the ITCS again and make sure that the process weights aren't off by the 25, 50 or 75 lbs that they were "allowed" to be?

This just seems like a practical problem to me. Why bother?

Jake, what would 5 hp add to this car in "base" weight?
 
Andy:

Having read only the first 40 responses and these last few, I have but one question for you:

Are you going to be an ITAC member next year? You sure have seemed to take a beating recently...
 
While I enjoy seeing Andy abused (about everything except self interest). I think I must be missing the point with regard to the different ecus. The IT classification process is not a formula, it is a process. One of the subjective parts of the process is the expected power gains in IT trim. Some cars are known to respond better to allowed modifications. Isn’t that why the RX7 is stuck at the back of ITA. If the only real difference in the 1.8’s is the OBD2 optimizes the power better than it follows that less gain will be had on the OBD2 cars in IT trim. I do not see why then they would not be at the same weight, the power potential is the same in IT trim for all 4 years.
 
Dick, good point, but if I recall the process correctly "power potential" is derived by using the stock reported flywheel hp and then applying a multiplier to it. So, stock reported hp does impact the process weight.

And I have to note, here is yet another subjective factor in our "objective" process -- my understanding is that the multiplier used on some cars (the 325 for example) is higher than on others.

Given the amount of fudge and subjectivity that already exists in teh process, I just don't see why 5 hp here really makes any difference.
 
Isn't this the same thing as the ITA Integra. 90(I think)-93 are on the same line. 93 has 10 more hp then the previous years. I'm pretty sure that is an ECU and harness difference also. Everything else is the same. Maybe the difference is the Integra added weight last year now at 2595.
 
The difference is more than just the ecu's and the wool is being pulled firmly over everyones eyes. the 94 to 3/95 cars were OBD1 and from what I have found so far may have used a different piston at a lower compression number. The 5 HP gain may not have been just in the ECU. Once the parts and part numbers are established I will send the informatoin to the CRB fro reveiw. IN 3/95 the model changed to OBD2 and I believe even Mazda's parts book recognize these as 96 model cars. So the update back date gets slid in under a year deal not a model year. My guess is that since I have not had a hard time finding this information that the ITAC knows all of this and decided to ignore it and just let all these cars swap parts. I would really have not issue with this other than the weight should be applied to the higher HP. Finally Jeff, It does not matter that we can't refine the car down to the level of sand but we can fairly apply the process to be sure we tried. I will bet in some cases 5 hp base could be the difference between what class the car gets put in. Remember the late car was classed in S originally.
 
...what would 5 hp add to this car in "base" weight?[/b]
Click to expand...
Using the formulaic process? 105 pounds on a 2380# car. I'd hesitate to call that "insignificant".

so do we put our blinders on and assume the CRX has 108hp?[/b]
Click to expand...

YES.

Let me tell you a story, Travis: after last year's ARRC, Andy and the other ITAC guys got a lot of flack about the power of the NX2000, how it was moved down to A from S at only 25 more pounds, and how many of the Honda products got lead added earlier that year when they were tossed through the same process mine was during the move (IIRC, my car was the very first one run through that process). Fair enough; King of the Hill is a target, it's the Way Things Should Be (hint, hint).

In private discussions, I had no problems with their arguments, as I fully accept that my car gets what it gets in terms of torque and power, and has its warts along with advantages. But, more importantly, I understood that my car and its competition went through a fair and objective classification process, one that I supported and "cheerleaded" for many years, one that would produce objective classification based on the car's physical characteristics.

In exchange of that conversation, I wrote something to that person that I had written on this board numerous times (and I paraphrase): "...besides, virtually every car - certainly each of the pointy-end cars - has gone through this objective formulaic process, and every car was adjusted accordingly to this process." I was confident we were on a level playing field and we should continue to be so.

The response I got to that was (again, paraphrasing), "well, what about the CRX? we added additional 'fudge factor' to that car because it makes significantly more than the process horsepower."

When I read that I was livid. I had NO IDEA that there were cars that were getting weight based on on-track performance. I swallowed the "this is a process, track performance doesn't matter" bait hook, line, and sinker. Whereas I thought I had won the ARRC on a straight-up, level playing field, I found out afterwards that the field was tilted. This is NOT what I was led to believe, and *I* felt cheated.

In response to my anger, I was told "the process has ALWAYS taken into account known hp numbers - when known...I submit this is EXACTLY WHY there is so much parity in IT right now" (that's a direct quote). I was so pissed off about it that I threatened to write an email to the CRB insisting that all cars go through the same formulaic process and let the cards fall where they may; I was told in response "[w]rite the letter. You will blow IT up into little pieces." (again, a direct quote).

For once in my recent history, I was virtually speechless.

Until that point, I believed in that process; today I'm as cynical about it as I was with the prior situation, which was a bunch of guys sitting around subjectively deciding what the weights of the cars "should" be, based on their own subjective judgment (that old Dionne Warwick song has been haunting me lately...) What we have here today is NOT a fully-objective formulaic process; what we have is a formula that baselines the discussion, and a set of guys of guys deciding "what's best" based on on-track performance.

So, in direct answer to your question, Travis: Abosfreakinglutely yes. If that results in more weight for my car, then bring it. If that results in less weight for the CRX, bring it. And if it results in certain cars weighing differently - despite significantly confusing situation of compression ratio/pistons installations and engine managements systems - then bring it.

But if we're going down the road of adjustments based on on-track performance and/or resulting dyno testing, then let the games begin.

So, all you "you're a Miata hater" guys can kiss my rear bumper...
 
Using the formulaic process? 105 pounds on a 2380# car. I'd hesitate to call that "insignificant".
YES.


[/b]
Click to expand...

sorry to make all your effort for naught....but i quit reading after this.
 
Greg, and I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but in my view, there is absolutely no way to remove some subjectivity from the process. You can just run straight numbers on horsepower and weight, but that would be unfair to cars like yours, and mine, that have decent numbers and other huge handicaps (drum brakes, live rears, struts, etc.)

Once you agree that a straight hp/weight calculation (using ONLY stock hp and ONLY stock weight, and not "expected IT gains" or "expected IT weight" which woudl again involve subjective evaluations) won't work, then you can't get around having some fudge factors involved.

To me, what we have now is the lesser of many evils. We have as formulaic of a process AS IS POSSIBLE and a decent and well meaning group of guys trying to defend it. There will always be "fudge" decisions that not everyone agrees with, but that is the nature of having a group of human beings make decisions.
 
have fun with this one fellas....i'm off to work on my letter to remove 100lbs from the CRX, and a couple hundred from the BMW 325 and let it run unrestricted in ITS because that's what the process calls for.

:wacko:
 
If this is such a big deal get ready to go through EVERY one of these OLD cars and research what OEM parts are now available. You guys are on the wrong BB. The one that links from the Colorado board is where you should be. Those guys have beat there whole set of classes to death all by themselves.
 
If this is such a big deal get ready to go through EVERY one of these OLD cars and research what OEM parts are now available. You guys are on the wrong BB. The one that links from the Colorado board is where you should be. Those guys have beat there whole set of classes to death all by themselves.
[/b]
Click to expand...


Mac, they beat themselfs out of their classes by not havign a plan or a way to balance competitioin based on the cars ability. Prod, like GT has always penalized winners and given welfare to the backmarkers. That is exactly why IT works and the current process works even better. But the issue is the process has to be followed. Travis, again your wrong the BMW would have been well over 3200lbs had the process been followed and the car run unrestricted. As far as the Honda goes if the process was followed and the need for a PCA happened then thats the way it should be. If the Honda was handled based on track performanc then that was wrong and should be corrected also. The guys in the 240sx camp took the weight penalty and did not say a word one about it believing the process was to be followed by everyone.
 
Actually, the "process" weight for the BMW at 189 stock flywheel hp would have been lower than 2800 lbs if I recall correctly.

What got the BMW to a process weight of 3100-3200 lbs was......drum roll...a subjective fudge factor based on the real world reality that this motor made significant gains in IT trim.

So, if we use a straight "stock hp" calculation and that ONLY, then you rpobably end up with a BMW at a weight at which it is back to being a class killing overdog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top