July FasTrack posted

one was complaining that they get beaten by 'Nationally prepped' big-money SM's and actually suggested that ALL SM's be required to run a restrictor [in ITA] to slow them to "Regional pace" but more importantly to discourage dual entries alltogether. (This letter was VERY well written and done with lots of respect.)

[/b]
Click to expand...

Thank you, this was my letter.

*edit, see my next post*
 
so jeff....

if a car that is inherantly disadvantaged by the rules it adheres to, but yet manages to be faster than you, you think that's unfair and want to regulate them out of existance?
 
so jeff....

if a car that is inherantly disadvantaged by the rules it adheres to, but yet manages to be faster than you, you think that's unfair and want to regulate them out of existance?
[/b]
Click to expand...

I would like to politely explain that you have missed my point entirely and the best way I can think to do that is by posting the e-mail I sent to the CRB. This is not about one car being better than another.


Hello,

My name is Jeff and I am an ITA competitor in Midiv. I'm writing today to share my opinions regarding spec Miata prepared cars competing in ITA. I would appreciate your full consideration of my input as I feel representative of many in my opinion.

I'm sure you are all well aware of the increasing popularity of spec Miata. The class really is a great thing for the SCCA and has created an overwhelming surge of excitement in club racing. As a licensed driver, I fully recognize and appreciate this benefit while maintaining an understanding of how delicate the BoD is when making changes that effect the class.

The above being said, I am starting to recognize a conceptual issue. As with any spec class, cubic dollars win races. While a large percentage of spec Miatas seem to be cheater cars, it's the legal ones that bother me. Like it or not, there are $30,000 spec Miatas being built, bought, and sold as if trading cards. I fully respect and admire the preparation and craftsmanship of the fastest national-level cars, but this brings me to the conceptual issue. There are national level cars being run in a regional class.

At any given weekend within Midiv, the IT race becomes the playground of spec Miata drivers looking for a quick trophy and/or additional track time. Most of the cars being raced are significantly under-prepared for the class (running only in spec miata trim) yet still seem to run away from the regional level cars in the class. It's almost as if there are two separate races going on at the same time... regional IT racers in the back fighting for positions amongst themselves, and the national level spec Miatas with a merely a piece of tape covering the "SM" having their own race amongst themselves.

I'd like to pause here to mention that this is not a vendetta against the Miata in ITA. This is not a complaint because there are cars faster than mine. This is a disgusting observation of national level cars and big-budget spec class drivers using ITA as a playground for additional track time and a quick trophy or points victory.

I'm sure the BoD gets letters all the time that complain about this and that, but offer no suggestions. You'll all be happy to hear that my letter doesn't leave you empty handed like others may.

I propose a solution to this problem by supporting the idea of a required restrictor plate on any spec Miata prepared car choosing to run an ITA race. This plate is to be designed to slow the cars to the pace of regional level cars, but more importantly to discourage the dual entry in the first place.

Percentage wise, regional level blue collar drivers make up the majority of this club and there is a reason that National classes exist separately. If there is much worry of angering the spec Miata drivers by taking away their extra track time, please create a "spec Miata #2" so they can have more time to play with their cubic dollars.

thank you all for your time and I look forward to some changes in the future.

Your's truely,

-Jeff, whom can finish 4th behind three national level spec Miatas and still feel like the winner
 
Jeff as someone who competes in the same division, with a miata, in ITA, i know that what you believe to be true is not actually the case.

i looked back through every result i could find for you in mylaps, and the schiefflers are the only two people i can find who run ITA with any regularity at all and have "national" level cars, and they are officially members of CenDiv.

it's ironic that in your letter you mention that the level of spending of national SM drivers is so absurd that they shouldn't even have the right to compete in whatever class their car fits, because the only guy that i know of in MiDiv that competes in a real ITA Miata probably has at least as much in it as any of the SMs.

the guys who regularly run MiDiv with SMs do not have 'national' level cars in the least. Todd Prather, Ed Mabry, Bill Pemberton, Steve Eberman, Steve/Theresa Pistora, Roman Kickirillo, Casey Zandbergen, and myself all have legitimate regional level cars. I can only speak for myself, but I don't think any of these guys have much more invested than I do, and I've got less than $15k in it. I don't know Roman at all, but just from the fact that he doesn't run many races leads me to believe it's not one of "those 30k cars."

i am probably one of the poorest guys at the track, and spend less than $700/weekend.....a texas mile away from "cubic dollars." the reason i started running IT last year was becuase with the spec toyo rule in SM, i had access to tons of very cheap tires not legal for SM. NOT because i was looking for a 'quick trophy.'
 
There are national level cars being run in a regional class.
[/b]
Click to expand...


I can appreciate your letter. But Jeff, it's not just the Miaters!

Jake No-stranger-to-racing-$30K-IT-cars Fisher
 
Jeff, you shot yourself in the foot when you stated that most Miatas are cheaters. Even if you were right, no one making or associated with making the rules wants to hear that from anyone wanting a favor from them. I doubt that your letter made it much farther than the shredder.
 
Sorry (ITA) Jeff. You are off-base in several really important ways.

1. There is no such thing as "regional" and "national" levels of preparation. You just happen to race in a small pond where (absent your problem with the Miatas) it seems ITA drivers can run for trophies with sub-par equipment.

2. If SM's are beating up on your ITA cars, it's not the SMs that are the problem.

3. I'm not the biggest SM fan in the world but by the same token, I recognize that the guys who run up front do so because the Miata is a fundamentally excellent platform that responds to nth-degree tweaking, the drivers can drive, they test and race a LOT, and ... see #2.

It is NOT the CRB's job to protect your regional competitiveness. If you get beat and think those beating you are cheated up, protest. If you get beat and don't think they are illegal, get faster. Particularly if we're talking about cars that are at a much lower specification than the category allows.

There's another factor, too - I daresay that it's awfully tempting for one to think that he's getting everything out of the equipment but I'll tell you that having a string of guys like Jeff Lawton, Greg Amy, Phil Phillips, and Jon Kofod share my ride reminds me of the realities involved in that dilusion.

K
 
Sorry to have not responded to some queries...been at work.

I see some misconceptions regarding the process.

Generally, the process seeks to class cars into four performance envelopes It uses factory hp ratings, and applies gains that are expected from IT prep. Now, as there are different architectures of engines out there, and we class cars from the 70s thru the 2000s, we deal with a wide range of potential, and we choose from a range of potential gains. Obviously, different architectures get treated differently. We use a framework to choose the gain, then draw on the collective knowledge of the 9 ITAC members and the CRB liasions (when asked) to run "sanity checks".

Also, we apply adders and subtractors to account for a cars mechanical makeup....killer brakes, IRS, etc. Sometimes those stack up, sometimes they cancel out.

Finally, we consider if the weight makes sense. Does it fit the class? Can the car get to the weight?

In the end, it is realized that no formula or process will ever be absolutely perfect, and the system has methods of dealing with gross mistakes.

Ideally, we see some cars that excel on some tracks when prepped to the nines and driven by Gods, but are merely adequate on others...and vice versa, but it's impossible to draw super fine conclusions about the math from on track erformances as the variables are just too great.

The amount of weight that would result from a 5 hp "misclass" varies depending on the class of course. In this case, it's well below the 105 number that was suggested.

One other point....IF there was a misclass, was it really 5 hp? I see some opinions here that the ECU issue is responsible, if so, it's a moot point...but I also see opinions that a late year compression bump is responsible. I'd think that in reality, IF those numbers are accurate, it's a combination, so we're really talking about a possible 2 - 2.5 hp misclass. Which is a weight misclass, off the top of my head, in the 25 -35 pound range, give or take a pound or two.
 
So why is it so hard to admit that the process was not applied to this car the same as all the others? It has been shown time and time again that other models have been run through the process at the higher number. Why not just admit you stepped on it, fix it and we can all move on.
 
So why is it so hard to admit that the process was not applied to this car the same as all the others? It has been shown time and time again that other models have been run through the process at the higher number. Why not just admit you stepped on it, fix it and we can all move on. [/b]
Click to expand...

What other time was the same situation as this again Joe? Seriously, just stop it. The timeframes and the logic have been explained. I would do the same for any car if the same information was applicable. If you want to argue what the 'right' weight is, fine - but we are at a dead end in terms of the application of the process. Nobody seems to want to comment on my TR8 example.

I counter with - why is it so hard to undertand that we do what we think is right, within the framework of a process, with over 15 individuals used as a check and balance. It IS the reason IT is where it is today. Darin started it, we carry the torch.
 
.....The amount of weight that would result from a 5 hp "misclass" varies depending on the class of course. In this case, it's well below the 105 number that was suggested.

One other point....IF there was a misclass, was it really 5 hp? I see some opinions here that the ECU issue is responsible, if so, it's a moot point...but I also see opinions that a late year compression bump is responsible. I'd think that in reality, IF those numbers are accurate, it's a combination, so we're really talking about a possible 2 - 2.5 hp misclass. Which is a weight misclass, off the top of my head, in the 25 -35 pound range, give or take a pound or two.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Jake,

If 5hp is that small of a difference then why would the Z3 be classed at 2600lbs when it starts at 7hp more. Seems to me the weight should even be less than the miata, after all it has the suspension of a super-bettle. Either the 1.8l Miata should be at least 2575lbs, or the Z3 should be at a maximum of 2400lbs. There's not more than 50cc that seperates them in displacement 1839->1895, 133hp->140hp, 2380lbs->2600lbs, seems to me someones been hosed. 220lbs for a 7hp difference doesn't equate with a 25-35lb range for a 2-2.5 hp difference. By that factor it should be within 75-125lbs and probably even less than that given the suspension factors and the frontal area. Just admit the MX-5 has been given a special pass to get the SM'ers to participate.

James
 
What other time was the same situation as this again Joe? Seriously, just stop it. The timeframes and the logic have been explained. I would do the same for any car if the same information was applicable. If you want to argue what the 'right' weight is, fine - but we are at a dead end in terms of the application of the process. Nobody seems to want to comment on my TR8 example.

I counter with - why is it so hard to undertand that we do what we think is right, within the framework of a process, with over 15 individuals used as a check and balance. It IS the reason IT is where it is today. Darin started it, we carry the torch.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Andy, Please do not jerk me off. Do you think Darin created the process in a box? Do you think it was anyones intent to apply the said process differently on the same car? The TR8 is a piss poor example considering that its 100year old technology but yes the FI model should be what the weight is based from since the car can actually use either.
 
Let's just end this unproductive bickering. The initial classification was made at the process weight. The request for the 'uprated' car was made, and instead of creating two spec lines, we combined them knowing what we knew. I would do it again for any car. If you don't like that kind of philosophy, write it and ask for the general 'thinking' to be reviewed. It is an exceptional circumstance, one of which certainly doesn't employ a 'special pass' but one that would be taken for any car. Done.
 
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. [/b]
Click to expand...
Sorry - I thought my case was clear and didn't know that not responding to this specific example would be put forth as evidence that my argument was weak.

In this case, I presume that the weight of the TR8 was set taking into consideration the alternate carb options. Or more accurately, that the alternate carbs were allowed only in keeping with the fact that the weight had been established with the better of the two OE options, and that the allowance wouldn't give the car a signficant advantage OVER either of those options.

(I need to interject - again - that I am totally OK with the idea that an '80s generation V8 is going to realize different gains in IT trim than, say a 1999 VTEC Honda Civic, and that it's appropriate to take that generalization into account when the weights are set.)

All that said, this example case is NOT the same as what we are talking about here.

In the real case in question, there are only two induction systems in question. Both of them are OE systems, both are available on cars listed on the applicable spec line, and one of them makes more power in stock form than the other. The process considers stock power SO, to the degree that 5hp makes a difference in the outcome race weight, AND because the up- and back-date rule allows an entrant to use either system, the higher power figure should have been used to establish the race weight.

If you ran the two cars through the process separately, and did NOT want to allow up- and back-dating (say they were different body styles, so thought of as different cars on separate spec lines), then they'd be listed at different weights, right?

K
 
The fact still remains that you can't explain a 220lb weight difference based on only a 7hp difference, if that was so, then add 180lbs to the '95-'97 1.8l miata or add 180lbs to all of them and keep them on the same line. If you feel the 1.8l Miata is correctly classed then you should lower the weight of the Z3 to 2400lbs, and move the rest of the e-36 chassis to ITB as they're not able to get down to weight as it is.

James
 
In the real case in question, there are only two induction systems in question. Both of them are OE systems, both are available on cars listed on the applicable spec line, and one of them makes more power in stock form than the other. The process considers stock power SO, to the degree that 5hp makes a difference in the outcome race weight, AND because the up- and back-date rule allows an entrant to use either system, the higher power figure should have been used to establish the race weight.

If you ran the two cars through the process separately, and did NOT want to allow up- and back-dating (say they were different body styles, so thought of as different cars on separate spec lines), then they'd be listed at different weights, right?

K [/b]
Click to expand...

One induction system Kirk. Identical pieces except for the ECU and harness.

Yes they would be at different weights - just like I have said all along. AND like I have said, the listing would look STUPID and make NO sense as the cars would be 100% identical in IT trip. SO to have a 90lb difference seems a little silly. So the question then becomes, what number do you use. Since the early car was classed already, and the hp bump was due to an improvement in a 'free' item, the 128hp number was deemed satisfactory for a combination of the cars. The only issue to think about in terms of this weight being 'soft' is if the car made more like 133 or 128. It's a fact that the stock numbers are high for their actual output. My SM dyno'd at 105hp without restrictor plate...but that type of info isn't what anyone wants to hear.

Again, we did what we thought was logical and resonable. I am done defending it.
 
...My SM dyno'd at 105hp without restrictor plate...but that type of info isn't what anyone wants to hear.

Again, we did what we thought was logical and resonable. I am done defending it.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Precisely where it should have 1.22x105 = 128. You did say yours is a '94....

James
 
One induction system Kirk. Identical pieces except for the ECU and harness.

Yes they would be at different weights ... SO to have a 90lb difference seems a little silly. So the question then becomes, what number do you use. Since the early car was classed already, and the hp bump was due to an improvement in a 'free' item, the 128hp number was deemed satisfactory for a combination of the cars. ...[/b]
Click to expand...
Got it. I'm confident that I understand what happened, the key being the bit I bolded.

I'll continue to be worried (the new Z3 question being an example) that by diddling with the system in this case, in the interest of symmetry and expediency, we've opened the barn door just a little further. Ultimately, I don't think races are going to be won or lost strictly because of that 90 pounds but the more instances of this kind of practice we see, the shakier the ground becomes under the positive changes of the last couple years.

I don't know if this is ITAC practice or not, but it might be a VERY good idea to document the thought processes, adders, tweaks, and other considerations (per the above) for prosperity and future ITACs.** When Andy gets tired of people beating him up and someone else inherits the torch, things could get ugly fast and some institutional knowledge of what has gone before would help damp out impending craziness.

K

** EDIT - I mean for each car listed. Establish a file of sorts that explains how each race weight was arrived at, to contribute to consistency in the future.
 
You know, it's AMAZING how walking away from the keyboard for three days, and actually going racing, can go a long way towards making you simply NOT CARE about this drivel. Truly.

But, at the risk of stirring it up again - I REALLY do not intend to - I have an honest series of questions. No hidden agenda, no attacks, no ulterior intent. I'm truly curious.

Andy, you state the reason we got the weights with the Miata was because the '94 was classified first and the '96+ followed. Yo comprendez. However - and think about this and answer me honestly - in YOUR OPINION:

- If the '96/97 had been classified first in the vacuum - as the '94/95 was apparently done - Would the weight of the cars still be the same, or would they be ~105# heavier?
- If they would be heavier, why hold out that reasoning as to why they're at the lower weight (or why they haven't been changed)?
- If they would still be at the lighter weight, why the inconsistency?
- What if they were classified at the same exact time; what would you have used as the base hp?

Note that "I dunno" is a perfect answer to this hypothetical question. What I'm looking for here is consistency of your thought process or to determine if I'm misunderstanding. - Greg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top