THE BACK ROOM or ....

[pfcs]

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Presented with no prejudice, here is just one of the cobblestones:

[StephenB]

How did you find this?

Stephen

[Ron Earp]

Might be best to Save As if you want a copy.

[Simon T.]

What is it?

[Knestis]

We should all be THRILLED with this. I'd suggest that having this in writing will do the category nothing but good. Big round of applause for the ITAC!

K

[StephenB]

What is it?

The Holy Grail to some!

Basically the guidelines to how cars are assigned a weight going forward in improved touring.

Stephen

[gran racing]

Might be best to Save As if you want a copy.

LOL!!! That's what I did as soon as I saw what it was.

[CRallo]

LOL!!! That's what I did as soon as I saw what it was.

Me too! :D

[ner88]

Why would you think it's real?:shrug:

[JeffYoung]

I'm on the ITAC. Yes, it is real, and I'm glad to see it published, although I thought it was going out through an "official" channel first.


Why would you think it's real?:shrug:

[lateapex911]

Good to see that is in existence. Not sure it was intended for public consumption, however.

It is, by and large, a very close representation of the SOP when Andy, Kirk and I were on board last.
There are some interesting differences.
One, (Andy, correct me if i'm wrong) adders:
ITS strut cars got -50, right?(wasn't a 'sophisticated suspension' considered 'the norm" for ITS?)*
Live axle ITR cars getting 50 is new. I think that means all the pony car weights will need to be adjusted.
*I'd need to check my notes which I don't have handy.

An interesting aspect is the ITB and now ITC multivalve engines using a standard of 30%. While this was discussed previously, it was based on 'a deal'...and I think ITB was the only class involved. By multivalve, is that 3 and 4? or just 4? Personally, I'd like to see the actual math that leads to the conclusion that all engines with multivalves make 30%. yet those in other classes do not. I assume it is a result of SOME classifications where that is used, and now ALL must match. I see this as an error repeating itself. I also remember certain ITB cars (multivalve?) being classed on 'what we knew", so again, I find those cars are an exception and should not fall under the 30% guideline..

The item on the known horsepower is interesting as well. In general it reflects what was SOP when I was on board, but a recent classification change to the MR2 shows that indeed an incredible amount of data is needed to budge the ITAC from the assumed gains of 30%. All the dyno sheets for IT builds on MR2 motors have indicated that 10-15% max were the actual real world gains. Yet those sheets were evidently not impressive because the car got weighted using 25% factoring.

Good to see the level of detail that has been put into this, and I'm glad that it is reflective, essentially (with caveats over adders) of the Process V2. I would LOVE to have seen this from the actual source, though, not leaked as it appears to be.

[lateapex911]

Why would you think it's real?:shrug:

It's real.
I have a copy of an earlier and more simply worded version.

[gran racing]

I would LOVE to have seen this from the actual source, though, not leaked as it appears to be.

Agreed and a part of me wanted to delete this thread not because it should be a secret, but those involved should of had the honor to post it.

[Knestis]

...a recent classification change to the MR2 shows that indeed an incredible amount of data is needed to budge the ITAC from the assumed gains of 30%.

There's two issues there. On the one hand, it SHOULD require a really compelling stack of evidence to deviate from standard practices - hence the 75% confidence expectation. On the other, standard practice for ITB multivalve cars should *not* be 30%.

If that's the biggest glitch in how the ITAC is currently doing business, I'll take it.

K

[dickita15]

I do not believe it is leaked I believe it is in the file cabinet with the rest of the manuals on the SCCA web site. If you believe that this document should be publicly available so people can read it and understand the process then thank the brave folks of the ITAC and CRB who are trusting you with this knowledge. Use this knowledge wisely for it could be the first step of a revolution of attitude in the way rule processes are done. Misuse this tool and we will enter another thousand years of darkness.

[mossaidis]

Bravo!!!!!!!

[lateapex911]

I do not believe it is leaked I believe it is in the file cabinet with the rest of the manuals on the SCCA web site. If you believe that this document should be publicly available so people can read it and understand the process then thank the brave folks of the ITAC and CRB who are trusting you with this knowledge. Use this knowledge wisely for it could be the first step of a revolution of attitude in the way rule processes are done. Misuse this tool and we will enter another thousand years of darkness.

That's excellent Dick. I looked everywhere I could, and logged in, wen to the file cabinet and looked at every category, opening several in the Club Racing category, but didn't find it.
I assume it's on it's way.
Either way, good job to the ITAC for staying the course, and it's great news to hear that it is intended for public consumption.
As soon as it's posted officially, one of us mods will sticky a post here with a link.

[jjjanos]

So let's do some math....

Formula: HP * P2WRatio*FWD*ITGain +/- Adders = minimum weight?

A mid-1980s FWD Studebaker with factory-rated HP of 91 in ITB.

91 * 17 * .98 * 1.3 = 1971 rounded to nearest 5-pound increment of 1970?

Anything wrong with that math?

If said car is currently classified at 2200lbs, then it "should" be run through the "process" and lose over 200 pounds of ballast?

Am I understanding this correctly or is this car forever doomed to carry the excess weight but similar cars will get classified at the lower weight?

[gran racing]

Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

[lateapex911]

jjjjjjanos-
no. hp x gain = base weight.
Base weight then gets FWD applied, then adders.

[lateapex911]

Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?


Pssst! I'd bet it's the ONLY category....

[Andy Bettencourt]

No Jake, that was for ITR only. Not many cars in ITS have DW's. Not sure the situation there but if there is a 50lbs adder in ITS, so be it. I still think it should be by axle.

[JeffYoung]

If a request is made to do so, we have the ability to "process" cars that were not processed before and/or cars that had errors made during processing.

If you want us to look at a car, write in.

Thanks.

Jeff


So let's do some math....

Formula: HP * P2WRatio*FWD*ITGain +/- Adders = minimum weight?

A mid-1980s FWD Studebaker with factory-rated HP of 91 in ITB.

91 * 17 * .98 * 1.3 = 1971 rounded to nearest 5-pound increment of 1970?

Anything wrong with that math?

If said car is currently classified at 2200lbs, then it "should" be run through the "process" and lose over 200 pounds of ballast?

Am I understanding this correctly or is this car forever doomed to carry the excess weight but similar cars will get classified at the lower weight?

[gran racing]

If you want us to look at a car, write in.

Could a list of what cars actually are on the list to be reviewed be listed? Many coming out with the next month's Fastrack?

[JeffYoung]

As a present member of the ITAC, I can't tell you how glad I am this thing is finally published, and out there for folks to see and use. I think that this kind of openness is critical to our success as a club, to attracting new members, to attracting new drivers to IT, and to keeping them once they are "in."

I've been racing in IT since 2004, not that long but long enough to remember the "dark ages" of cars being classed curb weight, and huge problems with class killing overdogs.

I was around when folks on IT.com started to talk about a new approach to classing cars, and work started on what is now Version 2 of the Process.

They guys who did a lot of that work deserve the thanks on this, not guys like me. George Roffe, Bill Miller, Darrin Jordan, and of course Kirk, Andy, Jake and Scott. They spent countless hours hashing this stuff out over years, both to make sure it worked across and wide variety of multi-marque cars in IT, and to fight the political battle to get others in the SCCA to accept it.

Josh Sirota, the current ITAC chair, deserves a lot of credit too for actually putting pen to paper and creating this, and having the political smarts to get it approved.

That group of guys have done so much to, in my view, ensure the future health of the category. I'm proud to have played a small role in it.

Great work guys. Much appreciated

[GKR_17]

If a request is made to do so, we have the ability to "process" cars that were not processed before and/or cars that had errors made during processing.


What about cars where the process has changed since the last time they were reviewed?

On one hand, it would really be a pain to updated the books when the parameters get tweaked. But on the other, why should existing cars get a penalty (or benefit) just because they've been around longer? That would also serve to give pause to anyone thinking of messing with the formula.

[GKR_17]

No Jake, that was for ITR only. Not many cars in ITS have DW's. Not sure the situation there but if there is a 50lbs adder in ITS, so be it. I still think it should be by axle.

Note that while 'many' cars in ITR are DW front, it is not the majority.

[JeffYoung]

Off the cuff, I would consider those situations (where an older version was used) to be an "error" we could correct. Others may disagree however.


What about cars where the process has changed since the last time they were reviewed?

On one hand, it would really be a pain to updated the books when the parameters get tweaked. But on the other, why should existing cars get a penalty (or benefit) just because they've been around longer? That would also serve to give pause to anyone thinking of messing with the formula.

[preparedcivic]

Off the cuff, I would consider those situations (where an older version was used) to be an "error" we could correct. Others may disagree however.

Hey Jeff:

Knock knock; 3G Civic Si/1G CRX Si in ITB? The letter Tom Lamb wrote several years ago where it languished at the bottom of conference call agendas never being gotten to until the request "aged out" and was pocket veto'ed?

Even at a magical Honda 35% (91hp x 1.35 = 123hp) (!!!) x 17 lbs/hp = 2088lbs x the 2% front drive deduct, puts it at 2046 (so 2050) vs. current rulebook weight of 2130. This is a strut/beam axle FWD car, so no other adders/subtractors would apply.

123 crank hp x 0.85 = 104hp at the wheels. That would be perfection and maybe slightly beyond in terms of an IT build for an EW4 motor, and obviously with an optimized aftermarket ECU running the injection.

I do understand that is what the ITAC has to assume, but no matter what the car is pushing 100lbs heavy.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, in thinking more about this,...
I see a couple issues that will rear their head.
1- the 30% factoring for multivalve cars ONLY in ITB...and now ITC!
What is the operative definition of 'multivalve"? I'm assuming it's more than the standard 2. Right?
2- torque and engine size.
A, there is no guideline as to what IS 'very high torque...or even medium high torque, and the wording allows variable weights be set. I see this as troublesome over time. Identical cars will come to be classed but, if done apart, will likely get different weights. I see the need for more structure here. TOO much wiggle room.
B- the 'standard deviation from the average piston engine size in each class" is good...it's a standard. but, the list shows a range, and choosing the middle of that results in a median. It would be helpful to have the average and the std deviation listed. I realize this is a 'living document, to that might need updating yearly. But, since the class is constantly changing that number will too, and that's problematical to a degree as well.
In any case I'd really like to see more structure in that area, which will really pay off down the road. You'll have less people writing in asking why the math doesn't work on their car.

And on that note, I really think that since you have taken the AWESOME step of publishing, that you use 'born on" dates in the GCR for people to see that their car is meeting the current standard. Over time that will reduce the number of requests you get.

Again, thanks to Jeff and Josh and the others on the ITAC for carrying the torch and achieving this milestone.

[gran racing]

I posted a thread on the rrax forum, but know not everyone goes there so I'll post it here too. I also realize that the first reaction some of the ITAC or CRB members might say is "see, this is one of the reasons why we should have kept this private" which is simply not a valid reason. So here it is:

I'm trying to wrap my head around the ITB ONLY multi-valve factor, which has a pretty significant impact on those said cars. (25% > 30% gain estimates)

The first question is why no other classes in IT have this factor? That's extremely odd to me. Either multi valve makes a difference and it needs to be applied to other classes, or not.

Is there a difference in 3 valve and 4 valve? And/or should there be?

How does SOCH multi valve engines (3 or 4 valve) differ from DOCH multi valve engines?

I have several other related questions, but this is a start.

[quadzjr]

I do understand that is what the ITAC has to assume, but no matter what the car is pushing 100lbs heavy.

atleast the car has been shown to be competitive recently. Imagine driving a car that hasn't been competitive i a very long time that as it was classed was some 300lbs over weight using known hp. Know thankfully I am down to 200lbs over a "theoretical" power to weight (not incuding the mid engine adder).

What you can do is gather information and submit it to the ITAC for review. Gather engine build sheets, dyno plots, etc.. and work with them and not against them. They are in place to help you not hurt you. Like I mentioned I drive a car that I know is over weight. Am I mad at the ITAC? no.. Am I kinda let down/confused.. sorta. Am I happy that they rolled out a published rule set OHH HELL YEAH!

[pfcs]

:shrug:Originally Posted by gran racing
Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.

[JeffYoung]

Could you explain that in a little more detail please?

Thank you.

[preparedcivic]

atleast the car has been shown to be competitive recently.

Nope; that'd be the next gen EF chassis with double wishbones all-around. Classed at basically the same weight, 16 valve head, but TBI so probably 5% less hp.

[quadzjr]

questions in particular about the subjective rules.

My first one, is one that has been brought up many times before. tq.

how come ITB and ITC don't get a adder for low displacement but they do for high displacment? Does low tq not have much of an effect as having high tq?

second. the rules state tq or displacement.. I would assume they would use a weight/tq value to adjust. Much like how peak hp is treated. Has the ITAC assigned those values?

At first I couldn't figure out where the "normal" displacments came from. then I went through the entire ITCS makign note of over and unders in each catagory. And the numbers are close to being right. If you take the whole ITCS the numbers posted are close to the norm. The reason why at first glance I was congused is that if you look at the cars normally run on the weekends they tend to be on the low range of the spectrum. The honda contigent in ITB is stong, the majority of them are 1.5L Though in ITB there was only 3 cars above the threshold. Teh plymoth fire arrow, the fiero, and a certain model year celica. I would say lower it to 2.0L, but there are a SLEW of cars classed with 2.0L that are not actively raced and probably don't make all that much tq. (One reason why I am not a fan of displacement). compared to the tq that a honda 2.0L or a ford 2.3L make.

any input would be appreciated from the ITAC.

[JeffYoung]

I'm not entirely sure what your question is (probably my fault), but as to ITB and ITC, I believe the thinking was there really couldn't be a low torque/low displacement car in a class where most motors were in the 1.3 to 1.8 range. Nothing was "abnormally low," while some motors in B were abnormally high.

[quadzjr]

the posted normal displacment range for ITB is 1.7L to 2.3L. Which according to the ITCS is about right.. not so right from what actively runs however. so while most ITB cars that actually run are between 1.3L and 1.8L, meaning that if there wa a wight break the majority of cars curretly would get one as they are below 1.7L as published in the guidlines.


My question was..

1.) So would you think it would be best to set the norm engine displacment on what is on the ITCS or what actually shows up on track?


2.) has the ITAC determined a low tq, high tq numbers (I assume they are in weight/tq). The rules state they that both tq or displacment would be used.

I agree with what is as currently written I don't think cars in ITB below 1.7L need an adder (subtractor) As this would be the majority of cars run would be entitled to a weight adjsutment. I don't think that is necessary or right. I think lowering upper limit would be more apporiate to reflect what is run.

One idea, (though would totaly change the process). Is something pro racing has done for years.

your weight is set by both your hp and tq. This has been discussed a few times since I have been here and there are some outliners (RX-anything). But beyond that it should work. Maybe that is something Process v.4.2 can use. :D

[Knestis]

:shrug:Originally Posted by gran racing
Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.

It's as official as this kind of thing gets - it's a set of operational guidelines but not a "rule" that can be protested. What more could we realistically want?

And as far as "the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent," everyone is allowed their opinion but I cannot conceive of ANY metric by which that is the case. None. And I'm a curmudgeon.

K

[CRallo]

How much thought/math/testing has gone into this torque adder? What concerns me is that most high torque engines cannot rev and therefore must shift sooner and operate at a mechanical disadvantage... Was this taken into account?

[JeffYoung]

A lot of thought went into that.

Believe me, the position you advocate was discussed -- I have a car whose torque peak is BELOW my race rpm range and essentially unusable.

A significant portion of us came to the conclusion that torque ultimately doesn't matter so long as a car has the ability via gear ratios to stay in its peak hp range.

What you see is what we ultimately settled on.

[JeffYoung]

It's funny that over the last few weeks, I've heard essentially this same statement from several ITB Volvo drivers in their 50s/60s.

I understand some of the frustration with the rules changes. If I were in IT in the mid 90s, I probably wouldn't be happy with open ECUs and spherical bearings either.

But a blanket statement that things were much better 15 years ago just ain't so, in my view. Classing cars using curb weight? Lobbying behind the scenes for undocumented weight changes?

This process is light years ahead of that, if implemented properly.


:shrug:Originally Posted by gran racing
Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.

[tnord]

:shrug:Originally Posted by gran racing
Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.

out with it then.....who are the upset many? what specific allowances are you referring to?

[Andy Bettencourt]

out with it then.....who are the upset many? what specific allowances are you referring to?

Translation for you Trav:

'Back in the day the racing was awesome. Every week we had 10 guys who could win. We raced nose to tail every weekend..."

Translation of that translation:

'We have no idea why cars were fast and why the racing was good. We pretty much all had 50% prepped cars and we all towed in with our station wagons, used 1 set of tires all year and everything was perfect. Then some new cars were classed and a couple of guys prepped them to the limit of the rules and ran away from us.'

:eclipsee_steering:

[tnord]

no translator needed here. as jeff mentioned, we've already been through this a few times in less than a month.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But the net/net - and the crux of my recent letter, is that if a car smells funny from the get go, it needs to be put under a microscope before slapping a generic 25% on it. The health of ITB and ITC depend on it. Just a due dilligence comment/warning as all.

[tnord]

i'm refering specifically to the volvo, not ITB and ITC as a whole.

[lateapex911]

:shrug:Originally Posted by gran racing
Is this the first category which has released publicly it's classification process?

It's public but not by any official. And it certainly gives the community much to ponder. Don't come to any conclusions about any new corporate politic, paradigm, rapprochement, etc based on what you're reading.
Without prejudice, the rules as they existed about 15 years ago were pretty excellent. The upset many now have is largely a result of rules meddling (creep)over the last 15 years. Be careful what you pray for.

Well, I for one think 180 degrees differently.

Phil, cite the examples of the awful creep that have resulted in the less than excellent condition you claim we have now.
And also, cite the "upset many". Who are these people? Name names.

I'll take a crack at two things I bet are some of your beefs.
1- Spherical bearings in the suspension. Just curious, can anyone tell me when the "Bushing material, including that used to moutn a sub frame to a chassis, is unrestricted" rule first appeared? I seem to remember it from my early days in 92, but my GCRs only go back to 2000.
2-the ECU.

I'd like to hear if those are on your list and why, and what else.

But, in terms of the rules governing classification, I'd submit that the world 15 years ago may have pleased some, while others were up the brown river with no paddle, and no hope.* Today's actions and policies by the ITAC are WORLDS ahead than ANY other committee in the club...ever. This is an awesome and unprecedented step. In the past, cars were classed in many different manners. New Golf? It went to ITS, because the OLD one was in ITA. This was not done with every car, but was with some, on a "lets see how it does" basis. And weights? A vertible grabbag of methods were used to set weights, and...once done, they were DONE. Mistake? Class dominator created? Hmmm, class another car a bit light to reduce the problem. The "system" changed, reversed itself and was based on suspect logic at best. MAYbe some racing in some areas was great, but...it was more by luck than design.

*Like me. In ITA the RX-7 was never the big dog, but, it could do ok for itself. Then the CRX got classed....a bit light. And, it turned out that it was way more car once developed than expected. Oops. Oh well. So they classed another to try and blunt the situation. And another. Which meant that the current stakeholders watched their finishing positions erode with every new car classifications. The 'solution' to the classing of an overdog was to raise the entire class performance envelope, without giving all the cars the ability to perform at teat level. Now, maybe it didn't happen in the class YOU were racing in at that time, but that was very much a BIG problem for many. That was the wonderful world of 15 years ago. I like todays world much better. (And, by the way, my car is STILL not properly classed, but I certainly understand why, and wouldn't think of pushing for the world to cahnge around it. The needs of the many.....

[lateapex911]

Translation for you Trav:

'Back in the day the racing was awesome. Every week we had 10 guys who could win. We raced nose to tail every weekend..."

Translation of that translation:

'We have no idea why cars were fast and why the racing was good. We pretty much all had 50% prepped cars and half of us DROVE them to the track, used 1 set of tires all year and everything was perfect. Then some new cars were classed and a couple of guys prepped them to the limit of the rules, invested in fresh and better rubber, got real dampers, took advantage of readily available real race parts, tested and tested, and used...gasp!...data acquisition systems to learn the cruel truth of where they were slow, and ran away from us.'

:eclipsee_steering:

Time marches on and the world changes.....

[jjjanos]

The 'solution' to the classing of an overdog was to raise the entire class performance envelope, without giving all the cars the ability to perform at teat level.

What cup size do they need? :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Time marches on and the world changes.....

But given the 'Process', we have the ability to try and balance these cars on paper if they don't currently balance. We owe that to everyone. No guarantees mind you, but at least the effort.

[ajmr2]

They guys who did a lot of that work deserve the thanks on this, not guys like me. George Roffe, Bill Miller, Darrin Jordan, and of course Kirk, Andy, Jake and Scott. They spent countless hours hashing this stuff out over years, both to make sure it worked across and wide variety of multi-marque cars in IT, and to fight the political battle to get others in the SCCA to accept it.

Josh Sirota, the current ITAC chair, deserves a lot of credit too for actually putting pen to paper and creating this, and having the political smarts to get it approved.

That group of guys have done so much to, in my view, ensure the future health of the category. I'm proud to have played a small role in it.


I haven't participated on this forum for quite a while. In fact I finally determined my old user name this morning and had forgotten the old password...

Anyway, I just want to express my thanks to Jeff & Josh & Jake and Steve and all the folks who have been behind this move to just make the rules fair and transparent. The fact that we had guys that were willing to listen to reason and review our letters and spec sheets was a big step forward in my mind. I also want to thank Steven U. for keeping the MR2 in the forefront of the discussion. I don't think we're finished debating these issues, but I do appreciate all the support that has been shown by many of the members of this forum.

I've been racing my MR2 since it was in SSC back in 1995. I don't expect to be kicking anyone's butt due to this recent weight adjustment, but I will be more comfortable and confident in the car. To me it's always been about fairness and fun and getting more MR2s racing in the SCCA. This has been a step in the right direction.
:eclipsee_steering:

[JeffYoung]

Thanks for the thanks Art, and for your patience while we worked through the MR2 issue.

[lateapex911]

But given the 'Process', we have the ability to try and balance these cars on paper if they don't currently balance. We owe that to everyone. No guarantees mind you, but at least the effort.

Absolutely. You're preaching to the choir. But I'm talking about the 'style' of racing, or the effort level that's more typical today versus 15 or 20 years ago.
Like say, data acquisition. 15 years ago, it was a F1 level expense, but today, it's commonplace, and one of the better investments to make a car/driver package faster.

[dickita15]

That's excellent Dick. I looked everywhere I could, and logged in, wen to the file cabinet and looked at every category, opening several in the Club Racing category, but didn't find it.
I assume it's on it's way.
Either way, good job to the ITAC for staying the course, and it's great news to hear that it is intended for public consumption.
As soon as it's posted officially, one of us mods will sticky a post here with a link.

Jake the links were a little screwed up but I think they are all fixed now. Log in at SCCA.com tab resources and file cabinet. Look for CRB and Advisory Committee operations manuals. It is right there for any member.

[robits325is]

I think its great that this information has been shared. Someone with more time than I have could create a Car Classification Weight calculator online to determine which car would be best to build.

A couple of questions pop into my mind:

1.) What constitutes abnormally large or small brakes?

2.) Dyno sheets have too many variables and should not be used at all (my opinion)

[jjjanos]

I applaud the publication of the new operations manual.

I have doubts about the parameters used....

For example, if you own an ITC car, you'll need to put both yourself and the car on crash diets.

Using a uniform gain of 30% in IT trim and relying on published HP numbers, I get this...

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.

Most of the ITB guys will need to go on crash diets too...
CRX Si: Current 2130, process 1970 loss: 160lbs
2002: Current 2280, process 2165 loss: 115lbs
Accord LX: 2550, process 2380 loss 170lbs
Mini: 2500, process 2490 loss 10lbs, that's close enough for gubberment work.
Rabbit GTI: 2080, process 1950, loss 130 lbs
Jetta III: 2350, process 2490, GAIN 140 lbs.

Interesting times, interesting times.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Using a uniform gain of 30% in IT trim and relying on published HP numbers, I get this...


This will be the #1 error everyone who thinks they can 'use' the process to figure something out. NEVER assume the gains.

[gran racing]

Could you expand upon that further Andy? It appears like the standards are fairly well established. With the way this process works, how often or how difficult is it to deviate from the standard?

[quadzjr]

some cars have documented gains more than 30% some make less. How much percentage it gets is based on information that the board has infront of them.

[Knestis]

NO.

While the information available to the ITAC is obviously crucial, what is really important is that the Process is not just math - the point that we couldn't get the CRB to understand before the schism. The math would require only 1/2 page to describe. The rest is about established practices to allow the ITAC to make subjective assessments of cars that evidence suggests are "special cases," and to do so in transparent, repeatable, documented ways.

The most important degree of freedom, which the Process grants to the committee to accomplish that, is in the power multiplier. Everything else is either simple math or a dichotomous measure.

K

EDIT - One can assume the gains, but don't assume that the result is the "final answer," if it's a car that doesn't appear to behave like those assumptions predict. This SHOULD be a small portion of all the cars but by the nature of how these things work, they represent a LARGE portion of the cars we talk about.

[Andy Bettencourt]

JJJ's math is very off on some cars just looking at it quickly. Show us your Accord LX and Jetta numbers.

IIRC, the Accord is spot on and the Jetta/Golf are 50lbs light because for a short time, we were giving an additional 50lbs off for a beam rear (non independent like struts or DW's). That was short lived and written out later.

[jjjanos]

NO.

...and to do so in transparent, repeatable, documented ways.

And that sir is the hogwash. It is little more than a formal and set-in-stone way of throwing weight on a car because "we" think it needs it.




EDIT - One can assume the gains, but don't assume that the result is the "final answer," if it's a car that doesn't appear to behave like those assumptions predict. This SHOULD be a small portion of all the cars but by the nature of how these things work, they represent a LARGE portion of the cars we talk about.

Unless someone does a 100% build within the first few years of listing and submits to an "accepted" dyno test, the car will never fail the test. The results will be rejected as not being a full effort (for those with multipliers too high) or will never have a dyno sheet submitted (for those with multipliers too low).

[jjjanos]

JJJ's math is very off on some cars just looking at it quickly. Show us your Accord LX and Jetta numbers.

The inputs were given for ITC. In error, I believe I applied the FWD modifier to the 2002 and neglected the DW adder to the Accord.

For the ITB cars:
CRX Si:
91 x 1.3 x 17 *.98 =>1970 lose 160 lbs.

BMW 2002 (HP Source (http://www.hemmings.com/hsx/stories/2006/11/01/hmn_feature26.html))
100 x 1.3 x 17*1 => 2210 (corrected), lose 70lbs

Accord LX: Didn't include DW adders
110 (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/honda-accord3.htm) x 1.3 x 17 * .98 + 50 => 2430 (corrected) lose 120lbs

Jetta III:
HP: 115
115 x 1.3 x 17 * .98 => 2490, GAIN 140lbs

If larger multipliers are used for the Hondas, the discrepancy gets smaller, but that only makes the problem worse for the Jetta. If the Jetta gets smaller, it looks better, but that makes things worse for the Hondas. And if should suggest that the Hondas get larger and the Jetta gets smaller, I'll suggest what can be done with this "objective" process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Accord LX: Didn't include DW adders
110 (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/honda-accord3.htm) x 1.3 x 17 * .98 + 50 => 2430 (corrected) lose 120lbs

Jetta III:
HP: 115
115 x 1.3 x 17 * .98 => 2490, GAIN 140lbs



Accord is 120hp.

Golf/Jetta classed as such:

115*1.25*17 -50 for FWD - 50 for beam rear = 2345

If reclassed today:

115*1.25*17*.98 = 2395

[JeffYoung]

Accord would be 2650 if processed at 30%?

And the 2002 is just 70 lbs off now?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Accord would be 2650 if processed at 30%?

And the 2002 is just 70 lbs off now?

But it didn't. These things are SOOOO easy for me to remember. :)

120*1.25*17 -50 for FWD +50 for DW = 2550.

Using todays way, 2549 rounded to 2550.

[jjjanos]

Accord is 120hp.

I gave you a public source for that HP, which is repeated at numerous places. You give me a number you pulled out of somewhere

Though at 120HP, (120 x 17 x 1.25 x .98) + 50 is dead nuts on.
I'll take that though since it will put the new CRX weight at 1895.



Golf/Jetta classed as such:

115*1.25*17 -50 for FWD - 50 for beam rear = 2345

If reclassed today:

115*1.25*17*.98 = 2395

Great, that'll but the CRX weight down to 1895. I'm an HP-car now.

[JeffYoung]

According to Wiki it was 110 for the 86-87 cars, and 120 for the 88-89 cars.

Also, you are assuming that if the Accord gets a 25% gain modifier the CRX Si should as well. Those are different engines. I wasn't on the committee at the time, but I am assuming they were looked at and found to make different gains.


A20A3 and A20A4
The A20A3 and A20A4 were the fuel injected versions of the A20A engines. They were run by Honda's PGM-FI system on a partial OBD-0 computer. The A20A4 gives a slightly higher power output because of not having emissions components. The A20A3 was offered in the 1984-1987 Honda Prelude 2.0Si, the 1989 Honda Accord (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/#) SE-i, and the 1986-1989 Honda Accord LX-i.
Specifications

PGM-FI
Displacement: 1,955 cc (119.3 cu in)
Bore:82.7 mm (3.26 in)
Stroke:91 mm (3.6 in)
Power:

1986-1987: 110 hp (82 kW) @ 5500 rpm & 114 ft·lbf (155 N·m) @ 4500 rpm
1988-1989: 120 hp (89 kW) @ 5500 rpm & 122 ft·lbf (165 N·m) @ 4000 rpm (12 valve)

[Knestis]

And that sir is the hogwash. It is little more than a formal and set-in-stone way of throwing weight on a car because "we" think it needs it.

Unless someone does a 100% build within the first few years of listing and submits to an "accepted" dyno test, the car will never fail the test. The results will be rejected as not being a full effort (for those with multipliers too high) or will never have a dyno sheet submitted (for those with multipliers too low).

Scratch very deeply and I believe that, given ONLY a choice between a pure formula - with no room for subjectivity - and the free-for-alls of the past, the formula would be better. You can find evidence of that in the archives of this forum.

However, over the past 10 years of wrestling with these issues, I've come to understand that some form of compromise is necessary. And subjectivity is not what's worst of the possible issues - a lack of transparency and repeatability is.

Go back and look at the language in that bulletin that describes how exceptional cases should be considered.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I gave you a public source for that HP, which is repeated at numerous places. You give me a number you pulled out of somewhere

I gave you 88-89 number which is also repeated in numerous places. Geez dude. Do some research.


Though at 120HP, (120 x 17 x 1.25 x .98) + 50 is dead nuts on.

Yes, I knew that.


I'll take that though since it will put the new CRX weight at 1895.



Great, that'll but the CRX weight down to 1895. I'm an HP-car now.

Why do you think what one weight is at has ANYTHING to do with another weight? The mulitiplers are different. AGAIN, the bhiggest reason you can't just 'know' the process and think you 'know' a weight a car should be at. It takes debate, data review and a vote.

[tom91ita]

my take on the crx and accord engines were that they were:

1. similar architecture (both 12 Valve, 3 per cylinder engines)
2. similar specific output 61.x HP per liter from the same OEM (91 hp per 1.488 vs. 120 per 1.97ish per memory)
3. similar vintage 85-87 for the crx and 86-89 for the accord

what specific differences there may be in throttle body's and valve sizing, etc. that might make additional reasons why would be 1.25 for the accord vs. 1.4ish for the crx (what you need to input to get to the current weight), i do not know.

[Knestis]

FWIW, I think Tom's assumptions are pretty solid. Not enough to make a "confidence" determination but then he shouldn't have to argue for *not* using the standard mulitplier, absent enough information for the ITAC to make a confidence-based judgment to do otherwise.

K

PS - I ignore for this point the issue of whether the standard for those cars should be 1.3. I don't think it should.

[lateapex911]

But it didn't. These things are SOOOO easy for me to remember. :)

120*1.25*17 -50 for FWD +50 for DW = 2550.

Using todays way, 2549 rounded to 2550.

Actually, reading that document, it's a multivalve car, so, the multiplier SHOULD be 1.3.

So, 120 x1.3 =156 x17 = 2703 x .98 =2649. +50 for DW = 2700.

[JeffYoung]

3 valve motor. 2 intake valves, and one exhaust. So, multivalve but not 4 valve.

A dilemma!

[shwah]

Accord is 120hp.

Golf/Jetta classed as such:

115*1.25*17 -50 for FWD - 50 for beam rear = 2345

If reclassed today:

115*1.25*17*.98 = 2395

Wait a minute? So the Golf 3 is classed correctly with the top line at 2350?

Why then did you guys recommend pulling 10 lbs out of the A2 on my request to review?
105*1.3*17 - 50FWD - 50 beam rear = 2220 --> current spec 2280
(working with the 30% adder that I was told by the ITAC was used for the A2, though I have not been able to duplicate it with a significant effort).
Not even bringing up the fact that the 2.0 in the newer car can see the same or greater gains (much better flowing head in stock form with thin stem valves, and cross flow design, with better flowing air metering device), the numbers don't jive.
Where were the extra 50 coming from when you guys reviewed the Golf 2 in the old structure? Anyone that was in that discussion recall what I am missing here?

Now the "today" version in your post does hit dead nuts on
G2 = 105*1.3*17*.98 = 2274 --> current spec at 2280.

I'm Glad to know that I have a chance to be on par with new classifications, but worried that there are enough on the books the old way to have codified some significant inequities...

EDIT - just to clarify, these are both 2 valve per cylinder cars, so by my understanding the 'base' power adder is 25%. I noticed others above starting to apply the 1.3 to the Jetta 3, and figured there might be some assumption that it was a 16v motor there. It's not.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually, reading that document, it's a multivalve car, so, the multiplier SHOULD be 1.3.

So, 120 x1.3 =156 x17 = 2703 x .98 =2649. +50 for DW = 2700.

IIRC, the original draft said 16V, not 'multi-valve'. The OD is what the CRB guys keep referring too as law when this issue comes up. No issue with 16V cars in ITR, ITS, ITA or VTEC cars that were classed - all referenced in the same draft...

Like I have always said, it was a draft - never written in stone but used as a guideline. Then when ITB cars were to be classed or moved, it became law.

I hate this topic.

[lateapex911]

IIRC, the original draft said 16V, not 'multi-valve'. The OD is what the CRB guys keep referring too as law when this issue comes up. No issue with 16V cars in ITR, ITS, ITA or VTEC cars that were classed - all referenced in the same draft...

Like I have always said, it was a draft - never written in stone but used as a guideline. Then when ITB cars were to be classed or moved, it became law.

I hate this topic.
Right...THIS document has re-termed it "multivalve" and also added ITC to what we were told was "the Deal": All 16V cars going in ITB get 30%.

Of course, this is an internal guideline so the ITAC is free to 'define' 'multivalve' as they see fit. And I really doubt certain members are looking to hurt the competitive positions of the .... ahem..... 3 valve cars.

[tom91ita]

i would define "multi-valve" as any car with more than 1. then everyone gets the 1.3 factor.

[Knestis]

From Darin's September 2005 letter to the CRB, announcing the Great Realignment:

1. Determine IT-Prepped flywheel horsepower potential. If available, use accepted/reliable Dyno HP figures. Otherwise, start using stock HP figures and calculated an estimated IT-Prepped HP figure as follows:

1. Determine accepted stock HP figures
2. Multiply stock HP by the estimated percentage of HP gained with IT-prep.
ex: 1.20 or 20% for 2V Carbureted
1.25 or 25% for 2V FI cars or older ECU cars
1.30 or 30% for Multi-Valve FI cars or Modern ECU cars
1.35+ or 35%+ for V-Tech, Vanos/Double Vanos, or other engine designs known to have higher potential/gains

3. Discuss whether or not this number makes “sense” and recalculate if necessary.
4. For Rotaries, it is generally accepted that an IT prepped 12A makes ~ 45% over factory and that a 13B ~35% over factory.


<snip>


I think this was probably THE original, first time a process was codified. Either (1) there's another "original" version of the internal ITAC guide to the Process that's being invoked, (2) the "1.3 multivalve ITB" rule cherry picks from the above ('cause it's NOT all being applied), or (3) someone is revising history to invoke "the deal we made when [Hondas] were allowed in B."

K

PS - The 12v Accord, multiple-stock-power-listings issue should be reconciled by the steps described in the new document. It's NOT safe to assume that they should start with 120hp.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And AGAIN, this was simply a draft that we never used like it was law.

An example other than the 'multi-valve' singling out? 'Modern ECU cars'. That was never defined nor was it ever applied.

EVER.

Getting a headache. Ugh.

[lateapex911]

4. For Rotaries, it is generally accepted that an IT prepped 12A makes ~ 45% over factory and that a 13B ~35% over factory.



Yes, that was the original 'guideline'. which was refined to remove subjectivity and increase repeatability and transparency over the years.
I DO like the rotary line though...and wish it were followed.

100hp x 1.45 =145 x 14.5 = 2100.
Live axle, strut based, low tq...not even the mid engine adder applies.
Current weight 2280...down from the previous 2380.
Granted, making 2100 would be tricky, but, I know I can go under 2280...

So, even though the document is very specific about the 12A, it's another example of the fact that it was a guideline, not a 'rule'

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes, that was the original 'guideline'. which was refined to remove subjectivity and increase repeatability and transparency over the years.
I DO like the rotary line though...and wish it were followed.

100hp x 1.45 =145 x 14.5 = 2100.
Live axle, strut based, low tq...not even the mid engine adder applies.
Current weight 2280...down from the previous 2380.
Granted, making 2100 would be tricky, but, I know I can go under 2280...

So, even though the document is very specific about the 12A, it's another example of the fact that it was a guideline, not a 'rule'

And there are two 13B's. The 86-91 car was classed using 30%. And that car was one of the very FIRST test cases when even developing the Process.

It should be abundantly clear that that first document was simply a guideline, developed primarily to provide Darin a script as he explained the goals of the ITAC to the BoD/CRB on a con call.

[CRallo]

People have said the process failed the
Rx7? Sounds like we failed it...




Yes, that was the original 'guideline'. which was refined to remove subjectivity and increase repeatability and transparency over the years.
I DO like the rotary line though...and wish it were followed.

100hp x 1.45 =145 x 14.5 = 2100.
Live axle, strut based, low tq...not even the mid engine adder applies.
Current weight 2280...down from the previous 2380.
Granted, making 2100 would be tricky, but, I know I can go under 2280...

So, even though the document is very specific about the 12A, it's another example of the fact that it was a guideline, not a 'rule'

[JeffYoung]

That one is complicated. The car was originally classed in ITS!

Over the years, it became clear it was outclassed there and it moved to A. Even there, its power to weight ratio gradually became less and less competitive.

Part of the pre-process answer to this was IT7, and a lot of cars moved there, which again complicated things. Those cars had a great place to race on 13X7s and with a cage built to light weight specs.

Now, using the process, the car is a B car. But moving it to B would require guys who've run 7" wide wheels to buy 6" wheels, and many cages would probably be illegal at the higher B weight.

Again, complicated.

[Knestis]

And AGAIN, this was simply a draft that we never used like it was law. ...

That's kind of the central theme of my point, in case anyone missed it.

K

[RacerBill]

Now, using the process, the car is a B car. But moving it to B would require guys who've run 7" wide wheels to buy 6" wheels...

Not to mention, almost impossible to find......

[jjjanos]

Scratch very deeply and I believe that, given ONLY a choice between a pure formula - with no room for subjectivity - and the free-for-alls of the past, the formula would be better. You can find evidence of that in the archives of this forum.

However, over the past 10 years of wrestling with these issues, I've come to understand that some form of compromise is necessary. And subjectivity is not what's worst of the possible issues - a lack of transparency and repeatability is.

Go back and look at the language in that bulletin that describes how exceptional cases should be considered.

K

Subjectivity trumps repeatability and transparency. We might learn that a 1.6 multiplier was used on the car because these people felt the gains were greater and had a high level of confidence in those gains. Why they hold those beliefs we don't get (bye-bye transparency). With repeatability we get all cars equipped with the Nash A4a5d-2 engine getting the same multiplier (good) but, gosh darn it, the Nash A4a5d-2a engine gets a different treatment despite virtually identical architecture because some people have a high confidence-level (i.e. bias) of a higher multiplier.


I gave you 88-89 number which is also repeated in numerous places. Geez dude. Do some research.

I realize I'm discussing the catechism with the Pope here. You asked me to document my calculations and I did. Courtesy would suggest that you do at least what you requested of me. You'll note that Mr. Young provided sources (though I've tried to stay away from Wiki).


Why do you think what one weight is at has ANYTHING to do with another weight? The mulitiplers are different.

No shit the actual multipliers are different -- the published weights make that clear. I'm saying they shouldn't be.


AGAIN, the bhiggest reason you can't just 'know' the process and think you 'know' a weight a car should be at. It takes debate, data review and a vote.

So the document that was posted at the start of this thread is gibberish? The mathematical formula in that document is just a red-herring because it all depends on applying some subjective multiplier on the car -- debate, confidence-levels, etc. The end result will be people deciding on a weight and then arguing for an engine multiplier that gets closest to that weight.



ve sizing, etc. that might make additional reasons why would be 1.25 for the accord vs. 1.4ish for the crx (what you need to input to get to the current weight), i do not know.

As I scan my distant memory, I believe it was because the first gen CRX was, at one time, an OK to good ITA car. It was dropped down to B and everyone knows the CRX needs more weight. Doesn't matter whether it is in IT, Prod or GT, doesn't matter whether it is the first gen CRX or the second gen CRX (an entirely different car) -- it needs more weight because of the magical powers that are created through the synergistic effects of the words HONDA and the letters CRX. Hell, if Yugo produced the Goslow CRX model, the CRB would want to throw weight on that too.



IIRC, the original draft said 16V, not 'multi-valve'. The OD is what the CRB guys keep referring too as law when this issue comes up. No issue with 16V cars in ITR, ITS, ITA or VTEC cars that were classed - all referenced in the same draft...

Like I have always said, it was a draft - never written in stone but used as a guideline. Then when ITB cars were to be classed or moved, it became law.

The draft is meaningless. Either the document posted here is the "process" or it isn't. That document says multi-valved. The ITAC set this in stone and these are the implications.

[Knestis]

I'm going to take the liberty of paraphrasing what I *think* is the theme of the above, Jeff - that you want the system to be formulaic rather than subjective.

I agree with you...

...but it becomes a matter of degree. I wasn't going to squawk about because this is a MUCH better situation than we've ever had in the category, but I do worry a little that the "Published Horsepower" and "Known Horsepower" approaches seem to have risen to have equal billing. I would be more comfy with an approach that leaned more toward the former.

Not enough to throw this baby out with the bathwater, though.

K

[jjjanos]

I'm going to take the liberty of paraphrasing what I *think* is the theme of the above, Jeff - that you want the system to be formulaic rather than subjective.

I agree with you...

I think it either needs to be formulaic or subjective. Allowing both is worse than either because it allows bias to enter the classification process and gives cover for that bias behind an objective formula.

Currently, IMO, ITB and ITC weights created an excellent and level playing field for most of the cars. The MR2 was and may still be a problem and I think some of the VWs are way too light given the current weights in ITB.

When I look at the 4 most popular cars in DCR, the CRX, the Volvo, the 2002 and the MR2, I see cars that are essentially equal and one that last year was a basket case given its weight (and might be beyond help). Now, it appears that balance has been upset.

The process, as given, results in some of the most popular cars (at least here) either losing lots of weight or being stuck with multipliers that seem absurd and being relegated to obsolescence, not because they are obsolete, but because the new rules changed and the older car rules didn't or won't.

Look at the CRX... same basic geometry as the Accord and the idea of the Accord multiplier is being treated as heresy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I realize I'm discussing the catechism with the Pope here. You asked me to document my calculations and I did. Courtesy would suggest that you do at least what you requested of me. You'll note that Mr. Young provided sources (though I've tried to stay away from Wiki).

Actually you infered in your post that I pulled the 120hp out of my ass. I simply stated the HP (known, so you could recalculate) in the first post. I treated your post with the same respect you treated mine. I had no idea we were now required to cite sources for HP numbers when they are indeed widely known. So be it.


No shit the actual multipliers are different -- the published weights make that clear. I'm saying they shouldn't be.

Why? Based on architecture? I suggest that is a trigger but not the end-all. Intake manifold design, compression ratio, throttle body sizing, etc, etc preclude such hard line assumptions. The early smaller motor was classed using the old-style of 'what was known' in terms of WHP.



The draft is meaningless. Either the document posted here is the "process" or it isn't. That document says multi-valved. The ITAC set this in stone and these are the implications.

It's not meaningless in that it influenced the current Process - INCORRECTLY. My point is that some of the PTB have referenced that original draft when hard-lining policy...in an INCORRECT and INCONSISTANT (see previous facts and history) manner. And the elephant it has created is the 'multi-valve for ITB and ITC' issue.

I love that the Process is documented, we worked on that for half a year when I was on the ITAC...and at that point, the CRB was just so scared of: 1. it getting out or 2. How it pigeon-holed them into a no-fudge situation or 3. they never REALLY listened during the con calls to believe in the progression of the document

I suspect it is partly all 3.

[JeffYoung]

And....we can't look to the existing "balance" (of unknown legality, prep level and skill) of a few cars in one series at one track in the country to determine if the apple cart has been upset.

The 2002 will be "fine" if processed.

So, to get to the nub of it, let's just lay it out: the real issue here is that the Volvo 142 (a popular car in MARRS and to a lesser extent at VIR) was used as a bogey car for the class using bogus/illegal power numbers.

That caused, in the minds of some, the power to weight number in ITB to be too high.

Interestingly though, it seems to fit, very well actually, the newer cars in ITB, like the Mk III Golf, the Civic, the Accord, the Prelude, etc.

Leaving us with two choices:

1. Adjust the Volvo 142 to the class. This would entail having it shed weight in ITB, to go to probably unobtainable weight, OR have it moved to C.

2. Adjust the class to the 142. This would entail adding significant weight to the other popular cars in the class.

Other than at one track in one region, I think (2) will do far more damage to ITB than good.

But I am interested in hearing competing viewpoints.

[Knestis]

...Leaving us with two choices:

1. Adjust the Volvo 142 to the class. This would entail having it shed weight in ITB, to go to probably unobtainable weight, OR have it moved to C.

2. Adjust the class to the 142. This would entail adding significant weight to the other popular cars in the class. ...

This would be laughable it if weren't so incredibly stupid and dangerous.

(Not you, Jeff - the suggestion of the latter choice.) :happy204:

I can't imagine why this should even be CONSIDERED. If it's an agenda for someone on the CRB or ITAC, their motivations are seriously suspect. If they drive a Volvo, it's putting their personal interests WAY ahead of what's good for the category, so it rises to the level of an impeachable offense in my eyes.

K

EDIT - Sorry, I'm back already. This is insane. There's got to be a TON of "what we know" about the 142, in both legal and cheated up forms. Run it through the Process and if it can't make ITB weight given its REAL WORLD capacity to make power, then it's a C car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This would be laughable it if weren't so incredibly stupid and dangerous.

(Not you, Jeff - the suggestion of the latter choice.) :happy204:

I can't imagine why this should even be CONSIDERED. If it's an agenda for someone on the CRB or ITAC, their motivations are seriously suspect. If they drive a Volvo, it's putting their personal interests WAY ahead of what's good for the category, so it rises to the level of an impeachable offense in my eyes.

K

EDIT - Sorry, I'm back already. This is insane. There's got to be a TON of "what we know" about the 142, in both legal and cheated up forms. Run it through the Process and if it can't make ITB weight given its REAL WORLD capacity to make power, then it's a C car.

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.

[JeffYoung]

In general that is true, but the 2002 and (I think) the A2 GTI can make weight at their lowered process weight in ITB (I think per the above the 2002 is only going to lose 70 lbs).

In my view, this is all about the Volvo becuase it can't get down to its process weight in B with realistic legal hp numbers. The guys driving it don't want to go to C (which I understand).

Which leaves us in something of a dilemma.

Since the driver preference is to stay in B, my inclination is to vote to redue the weight in B knowing it is unobtainable and go from there.

But it is a dilemma, although I do share some of Kirk's frustrations with this.

[shwah]

I carry 100# of steel and probably 50# of stuff that I am allowed to remove in by G2, and must finish at 3/8 tank to make weight. We can drop it in less than 15 minutes.

[jjjanos]

Actually you infered in your post that I pulled the 120hp out of my ass. I simply stated the HP (known, so you could recalculate) in the first post. I treated your post with the same respect you treated mine. I had no idea we were now required to cite sources for HP numbers when they are indeed widely known. So be it.

No, I implied it. As for HP numbers being widely known, I googled the car and got HP numbers that differ from yours. Excuse me. You throw out some 120HP number, great. Is that stock? Is that after the IT-build? I'm not taking anything as Gospel.



Why? Based on architecture? I suggest that is a trigger but not the end-all. Intake manifold design, compression ratio, throttle body sizing, etc, etc preclude such hard line assumptions. The early smaller motor was classed using the old-style of 'what was known' in terms of WHP.

Doubtful and more probably that the car was classified with fear as a bogey-man. The CRX was one the CRB's Michael Meyers (it certainly is among the Prod community) and the current weight almost certainly is a derivative of the original weight set. And that weight, almost certainly, is based on non-IT builds.

Even if the weight was set with definitive numbers from somewhere and someone, those numbers are irrelevant under the current process without the documented proof of source, legality, etc. being put forth.

That means, unless and until demonstrated otherwise, the first gen CRX gets the 1.25 multiplier.


It's not meaningless in that it influenced the current Process - INCORRECTLY. My point is that some of the PTB have referenced that original draft when hard-lining policy...in an INCORRECT and INCONSISTANT (see previous facts and history) manner. And the elephant it has created is the 'multi-valve for ITB and ITC' issue.

NO. The intent and previous wording absolutely is meaningless and irrelevant if what was posted in the first thread is the real process. It's pretty damn clear that weights are set by: HP x Multiplier (wiggle room, but process given) x Class Modifier x FWD + adders.

The document says multi-valve. Therefore, earlier intentions are irrelevant unless and until the document is revised.


And....we can't look to the existing "balance" (of unknown legality, prep level and skill) of a few cars in one series at one track in the country to determine if the apple cart has been upset.

And you can't look at some theoretical "balance" to set real world weights either and I'm beginning to realize that the process was exactly that -- some idea of perfection without sufficient consideration of the real world.


The 2002 will be "fine" if processed.

Remains to be seen if they have that sort of weight to eliminate. The 1G CRX will be fine too if reprocessed. I'd love to have an IT car at the HP weight.


Interestingly though, it seems to fit, very well actually, the newer cars in ITB, like the Mk III Golf, the Civic, the Accord, the Prelude, etc.

Given that their weights essentially were set with the some version of the process, is the above surprising? There is a multitude of existing cars, categorized under a previous rules regime, that are going to lose weight. Weight that might not be stuck in place. Worse, the new process probably won't be applied uniformly and certain cars are going to be told to pound sand because of bias (er... I mean confidence levels).

I just want the current ITAC to remember that they must recuse themselves entirely when the discussion of reclassifying any car in their class is on the table.


2. Adjust the class to the 142. This would entail adding significant weight to the other popular cars in the class.

Seems to me that most of the "popular" cars in the category already have that weight and that's the point being overlooked. It's only the newer cars that would carry the so-called excess weight. Seems to me that rather than asking some of these older cars to shed 3-digits of weight - weight that might not be shedable - a middle ground would have been wiser.


Other than at one track in one region, I think (2) will do far more damage to ITB than good.

Well, the weight of evidence is entirely in my court. I've given evidence where these changes were done without consideration to their impact on a well-established and healthy competition that averages over 15 ITB cars each race.

Give me examples of people foregoing building an ITB car because, despite being competitive atthe heavier weight, the car weighs too much. I.e. "Yeah, the car is competitive at 2255, but until everyone loses 15% of their process weight, the car will just sit in my shed."

Like I said, I'll love having the CRX at HP weight. I might be able to get 2 seasons out a single set of tires.

[Knestis]

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.

So the ITAC should apply the Process to the whole lot of them to correct those "power to weight calculation errors" and go racing. What Jeff described was being considered was beyond that.

You've got NO problem convincing me ITB is klugey. Remember that I put a BUNCH of hours into the spreadsheet of that hot mess.

It *sounds* to me like the problem here might be that TIME has left some of those chassis options behind. If I stumbled into a warehouse full of NOS Fire Arrows and parts, I'd build one in an instant.

Or maybe I wouldn't because there's exactly NO doubt in my mind that a RennGruppe-quality shell-up build, with dyno time and the whole 9 yards, would obliterate the class so badly, it would be in ITA in a year.

We have NO obligation to handicap the category so a second-rate build can be competitive, or to assure that cars can be driven forever.

Kirk (who got beat by 2002s and a Volvo at Summit last year)

EDIT - Let's remember that the Great Realignment adjusted cars to what folks qualitatively believed were the index or "bogey" cars in each class, based on anecdotal observations. If cheater Volvos contributed to perceptions - and I firmly believe that they did - and subsequent new cars were spec'd accordingly, then karma is a bitch.

[jjjanos]

So the ITAC should apply the Process to the whole lot of them to correct those "power to weight calculation errors" and go racing. What Jeff described was being considered was beyond that.

Which gets a 1st gen CRX at HP weight. Damn, I like that.


We have NO obligation to handicap the category so a second-rate build can be competitive, or to assure that cars can be driven forever.Well, yes the ITAC does when it is changing the rules. This isn't a case of the Yugo Slayer just being a damn good car. This is a case of the rulebook changing and the Yugo Slayer now being the best damn car.

This isn't a case of a bunch of British Leyland silverbacks pissing and moaning about driving ancient cars and forcing handicaps on newer cars. This is more of a case of the rules changing and the silverbacks saying, wait a minute, all of those changes do nothing for us and helps them. IMO, there's a difference.

Then again, I'm going to get a CRX at HP weight, so.... :026:

Handicap? It only is handicapped because of a subjective view that an ITB car should generate 1HP for every 17 lbs. If in the past, the defacto HP:lbs figure was higher because of an illegal target car, the old HP:lb ratio is as good as any. People bought, built and developed a generation's worth of cars based on something. There has been an arbitrary and capricious change to the parameters without apparent consideration to what that change would do the existing class.

And there hasn't been ANY mention of what these changes will do to ITC and I posted some weights for those. Should we just delete ITC now since the peanut gallery is ignoring the impact?

[tom91ita]

I carry 100# of steel and probably 50# of stuff that I am allowed to remove in by G2, and must finish at 3/8 tank to make weight. We can drop it in less than 15 minutes.

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......

[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. :D

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.:rolleyes: 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. :D

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.:rolleyes: 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.

[StephenB]

Doesn't Curran and Wentworth have the 142? I would give them a call on expected and acheivable HP #s. They are running motecs and honestly have those cars maxed out. sadly they broke a lot last year but I honestly think they are getting the maximum legally allowed. Currens car is honestly as close to a perfect ITB car as you can get.

In the Northeast, which I would argue is pretty competitive, Mr. Gran has the fastest B car. (IMHO). A prelude...

Stephen

[JeffYoung]

Les, asking this because I respect your opinion as someone who was on the committee for a long time.

It seems to me that most if not all of the older cars can "make" process weight in ITB at 17:1.

The only one that can't is the 142.

If we adjust the 142, it probably goes to C. Not an optimal result since I don't think the drivers support that. The rest of the older cars lose weight; the newer ones essentially stay the same.

If we change the power to weight ratio, we add a lot of weight to the newer cars.

Between the lesser of two evils, I see the latter as the better approach. It keeps the newer drivers/cars in the class.

A third alternative would be to reduce the Volvo weight to something that we all know is not achievable.

Of the three options which would you support and why?

Do you see a fourth (or fifth) option?

Thanks for your time on this.

Jeff

[Knestis]

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. ...

Emphasis mine.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM. The quoted stock HP, from a period of time when those numbers were all over the map, was optimistic. But that had zero to do with where the 142's race weight was set. A 1.3 multiplier may have been DERIVED considering a quoted stock value of 130hp, but that was based on the lie that 165hp could be achieved by a legal IT build.

That car - and those "couple of others" were competitive on the track, but they weren't legal. I knew these cars when I was in the NW. I have a pretty good idea what it would take to make one turn a 1:22 at VIR. While it might be true that 165hp is "WAY more power than it actually [can make now in legal form]", it's a pretty good bet that somewhere along the line some of them did have that many horsies. THAT influenced the decision, not some "perception" of what it could make.

(That honor is reserved for the Audi Coupe, I think.) :happy204:

When I was on the ITAC, we had requests to "run the numbers" on several of the Volvi. We put out requests and had people that were supposed to be providing us with information to do that, but we never got the documentation we were looking for. (Again - my recollection. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jake et al.)

Use the Process and run it. This is a great example of an instance when the "known horsepower" approach really is the best solution...

K

[StephenB]

honestly... you guys think the volvo isn't classed properly? Really an ITC car?

Stephen

[JeffYoung]

Remember its curb weight....

[StephenB]

I get that jeff but how far off is it? 100lbs possibly? It can't be much more than that!

[JeffYoung]

Assume say 125 rwhp (probably a tad high but close).

125 / .82 is 152 flywheel.

So, 152 x 17 is 2590 or so??

Dang maybe Stephen is right?

What am I missing here?

[pfcs]

As I recall, the weight was reset soon after the rules went national, ~1984.
Sometime later it was "reset" when weight was stated as weight w/driver.
The factory spec is 130hp @6000 Din. Some of the best tuned, most developed engines passed through Bob Giffiths (BHP Development) 250hp Stuksa brake (well maintained/calibrated and operated) and last I heard, never broke the magic 150hp barrier.
For the mathematically challenged, 150hp would be a 15.4% gain-just SLIGHTLY less than what the self proclaimed experts would tell you. (my own experience with the VW A2 1.8 reflects this as well-the ITACs assumptions are too great) This illustrates well the crux of the problem-that even well intentioned enthusiasts are going to be unable to know (guess, actually) how accurate the manufacturer's horsepower spec is AND how each unique engine will respond to (legal) IT preparation. BUT-as seen here again and again, they sure have opinions!
The idea of readjusting weights certainly has merit-unlike many dumb ideas that the class has suffered in the last decade or so-but I'm afraid that no matter how long one plays with the math, they are playing with themselves because of the many variables, especially regarding actual power numbers after IT prep.
Until recently adjusting weight was sacrosanct-now it isn't. The problem with adjustments is they quickly become political and lead to the ruination of a class. You could fix the Volvo problem by dumping the headlamps, heatercores, washer bottles, horns, and glass windows-promise! This would also help the C cars that may need to loose extraordinary amounts as well. NOT!!
How about manning up and learning from mistakes (former and current ITAC members who seem to predominate this site). This exercise in creative problem solving has had positive results in that it has opened up everyone's understanding of this complicated issue. No matter where you go with this, you have to accept that a significant portion of your "factor" was ultimately subjective AND too high and created much of the problem we now have. Run the process with more realistic power factors and you'll get weights that are realistic and achievable without abandoning ITs basic philosophy. And what about the ones that you guessed wrong about? I see A solution to that.


(PS:The Volvo B20 valvesprings are crap-if you rev it high/long (backstretch @WGI) you'll need to replace them often. I carried a set to the track and would replace them Sat night.)

[pfcs]

"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 haven't. But your ignorance of the professional level of preparation and development done by the Currans, Sam Moore, and BHP Development (Brumstead, Criss, Callais, ++) is reprehensible for someone of such high repute and insulting to those named. And your pithy little gossip is even more impeachable. Facts please, or desist.
This kind of talk belongs in 2nd grade.

[tnord]

hey phil -

how did you get a hold of this document anyway?

[JeffYoung]

Phil we (and the former ITAC folks) can't be experts on every car. All we can do is collect the information and do the best we can with it.

This car is a unique problem because it was and remains popular, but also is 40 years old and comes from a time when there was a lot of confusion over stock hp levels, potential for IT gain, etc.

We aren't out to do anything other than what we think (which I agree can be subjective) using the as objective as possible process to do that.

I do tire some of hints at solutions without discussion of them. If the solution is to bump the power to weight ratio in ITB to 18:1, as I said before, I think that carries a heavy price with new car/driver participation in ITB. I don't see it as a viable option but I am willing to listen (as I have to Charlie Broring on the ITAC).

Last, Jake Gulick has done nothing be spend a lot of his own time and money trying to get this stuff "right." Yeah, we all hear this and that about certain cars and dyno sheets, and sometimes we may say somethings that appear harsh. But I can assure you Jake is straight up and he did everything he could during his time on the committee to get this stuff right.

Thanks.

Jeff


As I recall, the weight was reset soon after the rules went national, ~1984.
Sometime later it was "reset" when weight was stated as weight w/driver.
The factory spec is 130hp @6000 Din. Some of the best tuned, most developed engines passed through Bob Giffiths (BHP Development) 250hp Stuksa brake (well maintained/calibrated and operated) and last I heard, never broke the magic 150hp barrier.
For the mathematically challenged, 150hp would be a 15.4% gain-just SLIGHTLY less than what the self proclaimed experts would tell you. (my own experience with the VW A2 1.8 reflects this as well-the ITACs assumptions are too great) This illustrates well the crux of the problem-that even well intentioned enthusiasts are going to be unable to know (guess, actually) how accurate the manufacturer's horsepower spec is AND how each unique engine will respond to (legal) IT preparation. BUT-as seen here again and again, they sure have opinions!
The idea of readjusting weights certainly has merit-unlike many dumb ideas that the class has suffered in the last decade or so-but I'm afraid that no matter how long one plays with the math, they are playing with themselves because of the many variables, especially regarding actual power numbers after IT prep.
Until recently adjusting weight was sacrosanct-now it isn't. The problem with adjustments is they quickly become political and lead to the ruination of a class. You could fix the Volvo problem by dumping the headlamps, heatercores, washer bottles, horns, and glass windows-promise! This would also help the C cars that may need to loose extraordinary amounts as well. NOT!!
How about manning up and learning from mistakes (former and current ITAC members who seem to predominate this site). This exercise in creative problem solving has had positive results in that it has opened up everyone's understanding of this complicated issue. No matter where you go with this, you have to accept that a significant portion of your "factor" was ultimately subjective AND too high and created much of the problem we now have. Run the process with more realistic power factors and you'll get weights that are realistic and achievable without abandoning ITs basic philosophy. And what about the ones that you guessed wrong about? I see A solution to that.


(PS:The Volvo B20 valvesprings are crap-if you rev it high/long (backstretch @WGI) you'll need to replace them often. I carried a set to the track and would replace them Sat night.)

[Harvey]

Jeff where this thing is now I think the best thing to do is run all the cars just like I said above and use real numbers whether they be stock or dyno. What you will find is some cars will lose and oh yeah some will gain weight, but at least every thing has a FAIR shot. I still think that the performance number for ITB is wrong but that is another subject really now that the process is out on the table.

Kirk I offered dyno's from ALL of the front running Volvo's from all over the country but NO ONE was interested. The 240's, I gathered ALL the info and posted it on the site before I left, so the info is there for the committee, the problem is what the numbers say.

The comment that I like the best is about there not being any will prepped Volvo's out there, well I don't know what you have been looking at but you are wrong. If you are looking for beautiful paint to mean a full on build then there was not very many of those.

[tnord]

As I recall, the weight was reset soon after the rules went national, ~1984.
Sometime later it was "reset" when weight was stated as weight w/driver.
The factory spec is 130hp @6000 Din. Some of the best tuned, most developed engines passed through Bob Giffiths (BHP Development) 250hp Stuksa brake (well maintained/calibrated and operated) and last I heard, never broke the magic 150hp barrier.


anybody that wants to get all in a huff about process or "known output" figures being off by a few read that paragraph again. DIN horsepower is a measure i've never even heard used in my lifetime. a Stuksa brake? i assume that's some sort of dyno like a jet with a big drum and brake used to measure power? how does that compare to a jet number? does anyone have the foggiest idea?



This illustrates well the crux of the problem-that even well intentioned enthusiasts are going to be unable to know (guess, actually) how accurate the manufacturer's horsepower spec is AND how each unique engine will respond to (legal) IT preparation.

BUT-as seen here again and again, they sure have opinions!
The idea of readjusting weights certainly has merit-unlike many dumb ideas that the class has suffered in the last decade or so-but I'm afraid that no matter how long one plays with the math, they are playing with themselves because of the many variables, especially regarding actual power numbers after IT prep.


so you've apparantly been around IT for ~30 years. with your vast scope of wisdom and knowledge you must have a better idea of how to balance a DIN number from 40 some-odd years ago to a SAE number of today.



Run the process with more realistic power factors and you'll get weights that are realistic and achievable without abandoning ITs basic philosophy. And what about the ones that you guessed wrong about? I see A solution to that.


more realistic power factors for what, the volvo or for ITB in total? if it's for ITB in total, what difference does it make if the P/W is 17.1 or 18 or 36?

which ones were *guessed wrong?* what's your solution? out with it.

[Knestis]

Phil - It doesn't matter one whit what the stock power is, how wrong it might be, or what the theoretical gain over that wrong figure is. None of it. Nada.

Some simple questions:

1. Is that 150hp figure trustworthy in YOUR eyes - representative of what a top-shelf IT build should be expected to accomplish?

2. (Dumb question) Is that on an engine dyno or chassis dyno?

The solution to the problem is somewhere down that path. Answer those questions and we're on our way to noodling out a fix.

K

PS - NOTE HERE that this is just a thought experiment, to model what the ITAC might look at in order to work out the answer. Contrary to what some might think, it's mighty hard for one person to railroad the entire ad hoc if they are committed to doing their job, and maintain a high standard of evidence. We will NOT get to that level of evidence here so please (JJJ) don't jump all over this as an example of how it doesn't work.

[Knestis]

...Kirk I offered dyno's from ALL of the front running Volvo's from all over the country but NO ONE was interested. The 240's, I gathered ALL the info and posted it on the site before I left, so the info is there for the committee, the problem is what the numbers say. ...

Homework for JY. :happy204:

Kirk

[JeffYoung]

I agree with that first statement.

We have and refer to your numbers on the Volvos (the 240s anyway) and you collecting that data is appreciated.


Jeff where this thing is now I think the best thing to do is run all the cars just like I said above and use real numbers whether they be stock or dyno. What you will find is some cars will lose and oh yeah some will gain weight, but at least every thing has a FAIR shot. I still think that the performance number for ITB is wrong but that is another subject really now that the process is out on the table.

Kirk I offered dyno's from ALL of the front running Volvo's from all over the country but NO ONE was interested. The 240's, I gathered ALL the info and posted it on the site before I left, so the info is there for the committee, the problem is what the numbers say.

The comment that I like the best is about there not being any will prepped Volvo's out there, well I don't know what you have been looking at but you are wrong. If you are looking for beautiful paint to mean a full on build then there was not very many of those.

[lateapex911]

People have said the process failed the
Rx7? Sounds like we failed it...
Chris, I missed this, sorry.
Well, yea, when it came time to do the math, there was a contingent on the ITAC that had seen RX-7s make obviously more power and didn't accept the numbers in that document. I supplied my dyno sheets and my experience, but it's safe to say I'm not at the level that is expected of me. Of course, I know I can do better. You can always do better.
I am under the impression that their thoughts are biased based on cars built to different standards, but, I supplied my direct knowledge, the results of my research in trying to find builders etc, and they supplied theirs. When it's your car getting discussed on a committee, you really can't do much more, so it got what it got.
In the end, it's one car, and the bigger concern is balancing 5 classes.

(reversing out the weight: =158hp)

[lateapex911]

d.

So, to get to the nub of it, ....t the Volvo 142 .... was used as a bogey car for the class using bogus/illegal power numbers.





So the ITAC should apply the Process to the whole lot of them to correct those "power to weight calculation errors" and go racing.

We have NO obligation to handicap the category so a second-rate build can be competitive, or to assure that cars can be driven forever.

Kirk (who got beat by 2002s and a Volvo at Summit last year)

EDIT - Let's remember that the Great Realignment adjusted cars to what folks qualitatively believed were the index or "bogey" cars in each class, based on anecdotal observations. If cheater Volvos contributed to perceptions - and I firmly believe that they did - and subsequent new cars were spec'd accordingly, then karma is a bitch.


"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 haven't. But your ignorance of the professional level of preparation and development done by the Currans, Sam Moore, and BHP Development (Brumstead, Criss, Callais, ++) is reprehensible for someone of such high repute and insulting to those named. And your pithy little gossip is even more impeachable. Facts please, or desist.
This kind of talk belongs in 2nd grade.
Phil:
1- Why are you jumping down my throat? Read the thread...I didn't bring it up first....and I'm not alone. How about a little hate for my esteemed colleagues who have engaged in 'pithy little impeachable gossip' too? ;)
2- My information regarding the Volvo situation came from discussions when i was on the ITAC. I admit that i have no first hand knowledge but our experts and source have cited illegal activities with the cars..'back in the day'.
3- When was the last time a Sam Moore/Curren/BHP whatever car ran at top prep level at a top event with a top flight driver? Sorry if you find my comments insulting...I didn't name the obvious candidates because to my knowledge they've been out of the game (the game being: bringing top flight products to the big events) for awhile. I reference fictitious 'Volvo" teams to make the point without slighting anyone in particular. I'm just asking ...

Now, as to my assertion that a Volvo isn't far from the mark...I've watched one with a top notch driver run fast...very fast...under lap record fast ...at a very competitive ITB track. In interesting aspect of that drive is that the very same car, on the same tires had just pulled into the pits with it's normal driver at the wheel, who is good, but off lap record pace. Granted the driver was a pro..as in a guy who actually is paid to drive..not a paying 'pro". I've spoken with other top Volvos in my area, and their drivers have been rather self critical. Maybe they are being modest, or maybe accurate. Or both. Regardless, I've seen one go really fast....and i know of ITB guys who get the shivers of seeing that combination of car/driver show up to actually race.

Finally, why cherry pick the thread Phil? You've been directly asked multiple times by a few where you got the document. And why you felt it appropriate to publish it? And why avoid and ignore the questions others have asked you about your other assertions regarding the class and category?

[lateapex911]

Emphasis mine.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM. The quoted stock HP, from a period of time when those numbers were all over the map, was optimistic. But that had zero to do with where the 142's race weight was set. A 1.3 multiplier may have been DERIVED considering a quoted stock value of 130hp, but that was based on the lie that 165hp could be achieved by a legal IT build.

That car - and those "couple of others" were competitive on the track, but they weren't legal. I knew these cars when I was in the NW. I have a pretty good idea what it would take to make one turn a 1:22 at VIR. While it might be true that 165hp is "WAY more power than it actually [can make now in legal form]", it's a pretty good bet that somewhere along the line some of them did have that many horsies. THAT influenced the decision, not some "perception" of what it could make.

(That honor is reserved for the Audi Coupe, I think.) :happy204:

When I was on the ITAC, we had requests to "run the numbers" on several of the Volvi. We put out requests and had people that were supposed to be providing us with information to do that, but we never got the documentation we were looking for. (Again - my recollection. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jake et al.)

Use the Process and run it. This is a great example of an instance when the "known horsepower" approach really is the best solution...

K
Kirk, when you and I were on board, those numbers had been requested but not submitted, to the best of my recollection.

Now, I joined the ITAC kinda right in the middle of the GR. The Volvo was chosen as 'the bogey car' with a couple others, as has been pointed out.
GCR weight, to the best of my recollection, was left as is at the time.
I do not remember hearing anything about the car making it's power via illegal methods. Looking at it's basic specs: 2.0 liter, 10.5: 1 compression, and rather large valves compared to similar cars suggests that 130Hp is a realistic number, and that it could be capable. (Just a quick reality check, those specs like valve size and compression are very good numbers)

Now, maybe I'm confused so let me do some math.
GCR weight for the Volvo 142 is 2640.
2640/17 = 155 assumed SAE crank net (the standard the process uses)

Stock power, according to Les Chaney is 130
My research found 124DIN cited.
Basically, DIN is the German equivalent to SAE net in that all accessories found on the production vehicle are operational and installed during measurements. While the conversion isn't absolute and linear, the generally accepted conversion is: 95DIN = 100SAE net.

If I were classing the Volvo today, I'd take the 124DIn, and convert for a double check of that 130 number. (124 x 1.05 = 130.2)
So, 130 seems to represent a legit SAE net number.
130 x 1.25 = 162 crank
162 x 17 = 2762
Adders: ? Its got good brakes, discs all around, and IIRC, a pretty decent suspension. So Off the top of my head I can't think of any .....
yet GCR weight is over 100 lighter.
And you guys are saying it won't be able to make weight at it's new weight? I'm confused and clearly my math is wrong.

So, let's back it out. 2640/17 =155. So, according to it's GCR weight, it needs to make 155 flywheel. OK, that converts to a 20% factor. (130 x 1.2 =156) That's BELOW the normal 25%.

Now, Les is on record up the thread as saying it was classed assuming 165 crank. How does that back into it's GCR weight? If it were actually classed at 165 crank, it would be spec'ed at 2805 with no adders.
Phil suggests that his historical knowledge on a well respected brake dyno (flywheel numbers, Trav, not chassis) are approaching 150. As Phil's math states, that's a 15% increase. If the ITAC accepted that, the GCR weight would be 2550. A 90 lb loss.

I'm clearly missing something...or somethingS...

Jeff, what does the ITAC have as "Known power"?

I'd suggest that if the ITAC wishes to pursue this, they better have GREAT documentation. They have a mile high PILE of data on the MR2, showing similar 15% gains (or less), and that car was processed at 25%, right?
(I can hear the rebuttal to that: "The 4 valve cars get 30%. We knocked that down to 25%, which is the equivalent of a normal cars 20% so it got a good deal", which completely ignores the fact that those submissions were REAL numbers. Either you're using real numbers ITAC, or you are not. The 25% on the MR2 sounds like a compromise to me...but I digress.)

As to the cars inability to reach the new weight (2550?), how close can it come? I'm inclined to set it at teh Process weight, should the ITAC choose to accept the 'known numbers' and let the drivers install the hollow swaybars, the carbon seats, the carbon airdams, the lightweight fasteners, the lightweight exhausts, etc. Change the P/W ratio for the ENTIRE class?!?!? NO.
It hasn't been done for a myriad of other cars in other classes, and it shouldn't be done here.

[CRallo]

No prob Jake! Kurt? answered the question pretty well also, but thank you for the extra info!! Beware of those EVIL over performing Rotaries!!! Haha doesn't help when people have "Gentleman's agreements" about street porting those things...

In regards to the Volvos... I have seen those cars run very fast at a variety of tracks(and under track record pace on one occasion as Jake mentioned)... Is there really a big problem here?

In regards to a big shake up in ITB, I DON'T think we need it!!! You guys are crazy! A few tweaks maybe, but there is no need to turn that class on its head!

Also a car that is a little slow does far less harm to the class than a car that is a little fast. Make many big changes and we are risking this happening!

[jjjanos]

I do tire some of hints at solutions without discussion of them. If the solution is to bump the power to weight ratio in ITB to 18:1, as I said before, I think that carries a heavy price with new car/driver participation in ITB.

Discuss please.... If the new cars are competitive with existing cars, why is this such a downside?

For me two big concerns are the 18.84 ratio for ITC (and the implied weights for existing cars) and the apparent randomness in the difference between class ratios.
ITR->ITS Gap: 1.65
ITS->ITA Gap: 1.6
ITA->ITB Gap: 2.5
ITB -> ITC Gap: 1.4

At least to me, there appears to be no rhyme or reason to the step increases.

[jjjanos]

if it's for ITB in total, what difference does it make if the P/W is 17.1 or 18 or 36?

Because picking a number too low runs the risk of moving a lot of cars down to ITC, not because they aren't ITB cars, but because of a unilateral change in philosophy.

[jjjanos]

I'm clearly missing something...or somethingS...


The Volvo is competitive at current weight with the most already listed cars because those cars are fat.

Lose the weight from the tenured ITB cars to bring them in line with the newer listed ITB cars and the Volvo won't be.

Whether that problem can be rectified with inve$tments in suspension components remains to be seen and debated.

As an ITC car, using the 1.25 gain, it would be heavier than the New Beetle and really have a chance of being a class killer.

At its current weight, there are VERY few ITC cars that can get near it (especially at a HP track). Would throwing weight fix that? Dunno.

[jjjanos]

We will NOT get to that level of evidence here so please (JJJ) don't jump all over this as an example of how it doesn't work.

The problem isn't with the ad-hoc. The problem rests with the real decision-making body, i.e. the group that was the problem last summer and who are the reason so many requests to look at weight went down a rabbit hole.

[gran racing]

3- When was the last time a Sam Moore/Curren/BHP whatever car ran at top prep level at a top event with a top flight driver? Sorry if you find my comments insulting...

Sam and I raced at Mid Ohio a couple years back and we were nose to tail the whole race. When Eric got in the car, he did what, 1/2 second faster than the lap record which has stood for many, many years? But again, that's all on track performance which shouldn't matter, although Charlie likes looking at that information.

I'd absolutely hate to see a blanket "all ITB cars add 50 lbs" to the class.

[Gary L]

I know I'm going to get PM's and emails, because I certainly did the last time I ran these numbers in this forum, but so be it. I'm tired of the inaccuracies being semi-legitimized by these discussions about my favorite ITB car. :)

Jake - I don't know where you found your DIN-to-SAE net conversion factor, but it's dead wrong. The real numbers are... 100 DIN = 98 SAE net, give or take a small fraction of one hp. Your numbers look more like an approximation of DIN-to-SAE gross.

Anyway, the DIN rating for the B20E Volvo, as installed in a 140 series car, was 124 (and that's from the shop manuals, not Wikepeeonya. :)) Multiply by .98 and you have 122 stock flywheel SAE net hp. If you multiply 122 x 1.25, you come up with the 152.5 hp, or within 1.7% of the 150 hp "known" legal IT builds run across a reputable dyno. So - let's use the "known" 150 because it seems very legitimate. Multiply 150 by 17 and you arrive at 2550. Add 50 lbs for double wishbone front, 'cuz that's in the process. This puts us within 40 lbs of the current GCR listed 2640. But in all honesty, the car deserves at least a consideration of weight subtraction for the combined effects of:

1 - live rear axle
2 - terrible aero (cd is somewhere north of .40 IIRC, and it's huge to boot)
3 - drivetrain loss greater than average rwd (1950's gearbox design)

So just put it at 2600, maybe 2550 and get on with it. This is NOT an ITC car.

[tnord]

i was hoping you'd show up eventually Gary.

i think the confusion around moving the car to C has to do with the Volvo 240, not the 142.

[Harvey]

Gary

I never proposed moving the 142 to ITC. The 240 cars on the other hand according to the process are ITC cars.

The bottom line here is to try and correct some problems.

[Gary L]

Gary

I never proposed moving the 142 to ITC.
I know you didn't... but there are a lot of people on here talking about that possibility, and it just doesn't make sense... ergo my comment.

[tnord]

there are too many old volvos to keep track of. my notes from the last meeting indicate all discussion around moving *Volvos* to ITC were around the 240.

i think jeff just had a little brain fart. to my knowledge moving the 142 to C isn't currently on the table.

[StephenB]

Thank-you for clarifying the 142 vs. 240. Based on this thread and the posts from the ITAC I honestly thought they were considering a huge reduction in weight or moving it (142) to ITC. I was getting very concerned at the direction we were heading!

I will now go back under my rock and lurk :)

Stephen

[JeffYoung]

Yep, big brain fart. My bad guys, that car obviously is not a C car as it is already close to process weight.


there are too many old volvos to keep track of. my notes from the last meeting indicate all discussion around moving *Volvos* to ITC were around the 240.

i think jeff just had a little brain fart. to my knowledge moving the 142 to C isn't currently on the table.

[lateapex911]

I know I'm going to get PM's and emails, because I certainly did the last time I ran these numbers in this forum, but so be it. I'm tired of the inaccuracies being semi-legitimized by these discussions about my favorite ITB car. :)

Jake - I don't know where you found your DIN-to-SAE net conversion factor, but it's dead wrong. The real numbers are... 100 DIN = 98 SAE net, give or take a small fraction of one hp. Your numbers look more like an approximation of DIN-to-SAE gross.

Anyway, the DIN rating for the B20E Volvo, as installed in a 140 series car, was 124 (and that's from the shop manuals, not Wikepeeonya. :)) Multiply by .98 and you have 122 stock flywheel SAE net hp. If you multiply 122 x 1.25, you come up with the 152.5 hp, or within 1.7% of the 150 hp "known" legal IT builds run across a reputable dyno. So - let's use the "known" 150 because it seems very legitimate. Multiply 150 by 17 and you arrive at 2550. Add 50 lbs for double wishbone front, 'cuz that's in the process. This puts us within 40 lbs of the current GCR listed 2640. But in all honesty, the car deserves at least a consideration of weight subtraction for the combined effects of:

1 - live rear axle
2 - terrible aero (cd is somewhere north of .40 IIRC, and it's huge to boot)
3 - drivetrain loss greater than average rwd (1950's gearbox design)

So just put it at 2600, maybe 2550 and get on with it. This is NOT an ITC car.
An article by Road and Tracks engineering editor comparing the different hp standards around the world. Other systems were discussed in it, but those weren't pertinent.

No other car gets a live rear axle break except now ITR cars. So, if the Volvo were to get one so would many others. So, no to 1.
Lot's of cars are supposed to have bad aero. How much are under car issues which are mitigated with an air dam? You don't know, nor do I. Which is why aero can't be considered. So, no to 2.
Again, un quantifiable, and impossible to be consistent. So, no to 3.
None of those are process considerations.

So, IF we accept 'known power". (And the ITAC better be consistent on this) the weight is 2600. Down 40.
Now the Golf is known to be 50 high due to the beam axle gift. Remove that, and the "new" car and the "old" car just got 90lbs closer.

I just don't see a need to rebuild ITB.

[lateapex911]

there are too many old volvos to keep track of. my notes from the last meeting indicate all discussion around moving *Volvos* to ITC were around the 240.

i think jeff just had a little brain fart. to my knowledge moving the 142 to C isn't currently on the table.

Oh, just WAIT until you start discussing Hondas! Your brain will split over the Civics!

"Oh, the rounded rear Civic?"
"No, the squarer back one"
"Ah, yes, it had a 120 hp engine"
"No, that one had the G67 C engine, it's 120, this is the G67 F engine with 119. COMPLETELY different cylinder head."
"Oh, yea, it's called the TX"
"No, that nomenclature was used in the 4th generation for a year, but it was part of the WX series."

There are only like 15 generations of Civics, in 5 different body styles with 8 different alphagram models, and elenvty billion different alphabet soup with numbers thrown in engine designations, LOL

[Knestis]

there are too many old volvos to keep track of. my notes from the last meeting indicate all discussion around moving *Volvos* to ITC were around the 240.

i think jeff just had a little brain fart. to my knowledge moving the 142 to C isn't currently on the table.

So someone is actually advocating that we completely restructure ITB around a new power-to-weight ratio, so the 240 will fit...??

REALLY...? :blink:

K

PS - Thanks, Gary!

[gran racing]

Just submitted my ITAC request about the multivalve engine default. Of course I included a typo requesting all cars use a gain of 35% (instead my intended 25% number). Josh will add a note to that though.

For any ITAC or CRB members following this thread, do not for one minute think that posting this process is a bad thing even when someone like me submits a request to have a part of it looked at. This is exactly what should be happening and is a huge leap forward in the way things are being done. Thank you!

[tnord]

So someone is actually advocating that we completely restructure ITB around a new power-to-weight ratio, so the 240 will fit...??

REALLY...? :blink:

K

PS - Thanks, Gary!

i'm not sure how you get to that conclusion from what i said.....but....yes.

[Knestis]

Discuss please.... If the new cars are competitive with existing cars, why is this such a downside?

For me two big concerns are the 18.84 ratio for ITC (and the implied weights for existing cars) and the apparent randomness in the difference between class ratios.
ITR->ITS Gap: 1.65
ITS->ITA Gap: 1.6
ITA->ITB Gap: 2.5
ITB -> ITC Gap: 1.4

At least to me, there appears to be no rhyme or reason to the step increases.

Sorry - don't want this to get lost because it's an important historical reference.

Those numbers ended up where they are NOT by some grandiose mathematical scheme. The got picked to align with the make/model options that defined the pointy end of the grid for each class - qualitatively and from anecdotal observation of on-track performance.

A got realigned against the CRX. B got oriented around the Golf II, 2002, and Volvo. S got indexed to the expectations placed on the choked-down e36 BMW 325.

This is pertinent to more conversations than just this one, I expect...

K

[Knestis]

i'm not sure how you get to that conclusion from what i said.....but....yes.

Sorry - I got that from Jeff's post about choices. Fix the [whatever Volvo] or address the ITB multiplier to "fix the class." Others seem to be advocating for the latter (e.g., Jeff J.) as well.

K

[pfcs]

"anybody that wants to get all in a huff about process or "known output" figures being off by a few read that paragraph again. DIN horsepower is a measure i've never even heard used in my lifetime. a Stuksa brake? i assume that's some sort of dyno like a jet with a big drum and brake used to measure power? how does that compare to a jet number? does anyone have the foggiest idea? "

DIN is a set of engineering standards originally German but used by many (most) European manufactures to specify everything from S/N (signal to noise ratio) to engine power. Later European cars are often now rated in kW (kilowatts)
Stucksa is an american manufacturer based in Denver.(stucksdyno.com) Started by Harry Stucksa forever ago, they manufacture they manufacture high quality water absortion dynamometers (brakes) for use in engine (crankshaft) dynamometers which are ever so much more accurate than any chassis or hub drive unit (which are great for comparing apples to apples, ie: the same car when air and temperature are corrected for as in finding gains in a specific vehicle; not so good to determine actual power/torque or to compare to other vehicles) In addition to being well maintained and calibrated, Bob's dyno room is properly engineered with a large exhaust labyrinth (a small person could crawl his way out) and proper ventilation to preserve airflow through the bay while maintaining ambient temp and pressure and fresh air to the intake system of the engine under study. Bob's been running one of these 40 years and knows how to seperate the bullshit from the myths. Many johnny-come-lately "experts" with their chassis units either are clueless or so FOS their eyes are brown!

[jjjanos]

Sorry - I got that from Jeff's post about choices. Fix the [whatever Volvo] or address the ITB multiplier to "fix the class." Others seem to be advocating for the latter (e.g., Jeff J.) as well.

K


I just assumed that the comment about the 142 was true.

[lateapex911]

i'm not sure how you get to that conclusion from what i said.....but....yes.
Wait, the ITAC is considering restructuring ITB because the 242 doesn't fit?

I'm really getting confused. That can not be true.

[tnord]

no, i am not considering doing that.

[Chip42]

Oh, just WAIT until you start discussing Hondas! Your brain will split over the Civics!

"Oh, the rounded rear Civic?"
"No, the squarer back one"
"Ah, yes, it had a 120 hp engine"
"No, that one had the G67 C engine, it's 120, this is the G67 F engine with 119. COMPLETELY different cylinder head."
"Oh, yea, it's called the TX"
"No, that nomenclature was used in the 4th generation for a year, but it was part of the WX series."

There are only like 15 generations of Civics, in 5 different body styles with 8 different alphagram models, and elenvty billion different alphabet soup with numbers thrown in engine designations, LOL

dude it's just not that confusing... 3 body styles plus the CRX/Del sol which are just civics, 4-7 trims per generation(S/DX/LX/EX/Si plus HF/VX/CX). you look at what, 5 generations now? it's not THAT bad :p. at least the nomeclature is consistant.
do y'all need someone who speaks honda on the ITAC? (I'm not volunteering)

re: ITB - I like the end part of this discussion. add the 50lbs back on the VW(s?) "fix" the 142, done. Oh, and move 4AGE toyoters down to a base 2270 (15% published 116chp)+ adders for driveline configuration. a 2320# MR2? sounds about right.

[Knestis]

About 10 minutes after we get the MR2 right, I anticipate that Andy is going to get serious about finding a Corolla GTS. :)

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

About 10 minutes after we get the MR2 right, I anticipate that Andy is going to get serious about finding a Corolla GTS. :)

K

Andy likey some Corolla GTS coupe. A LOT.

[lateapex911]

no, i am not considering doing that.
Nice dodge, Trav~!
I'll take that as a 'yes", LOL

[lateapex911]

dude it's just not that confusing... 3 body styles plus the CRX/Del sol which are just civics, 4-7 trims per generation(S/DX/LX/EX/Si plus HF/VX/CX). you look at what, 5 generations now? it's not THAT bad :p. at least the nomeclature is consistant.
do y'all need someone who speaks honda on the ITAC? (I'm not volunteering)

re: ITB - I like the end part of this discussion. add the 50lbs back on the VW(s?) "fix" the 142, done. Oh, and move 4AGE toyoters down to a base 2270 (15% published 116chp)+ adders for driveline configuration. a 2320# MR2? sounds about right.

Compared to the Mazda rotaries:

l ....................................really ancient
l................................. /
l ........................ small
l ......................../.......\
l ....................../.......... ancient
l ..................../
Mazda rotaries
l....................\
l.....................\.............Old
l......................\......... /
l........................large -- Same as Old, but a little better
l............................... \
l................................. Current




I remember going over the early Porsche 911s for the ITAC
3 sizes over 6 years: 2.0 2.2, 2.4, each with three states of tune: T, E and S. So a total of 9, all logically laid out. You'd think I was trying to explain particle physics and quantum energy, LOL.

It's all about what you're used to...

[gran racing]

You keep your $60,000 cars in ITA Andy.

[callard]

I remember going over the early Porsche 911s for the ITAC
3 sizes over 6 years: 2.0 2.2, 2.4, each with three states of tune: T, E and S. So a total of 9, all logically laid out. You'd think I was trying to explain particle physics and quantum energy, LOL.


And none of them can make 25% more power whether DIN or SAE. And I used a Stuska.
Chuck

[Gary L]

An article by Road and Tracks engineering editor comparing the different hp standards around the world. Other systems were discussed in it, but those weren't pertinent. <snip> I just don't see a need to rebuild ITB.

This is as close as I can get to something authoritative at the moment.

http://www.ehow.com/how_5845776_convert-din-hp-sae.html

The R&T guy just got it wrong, IMO.

Now as for the part about not needing to rebuild ITB, we agree completely.

[jjjanos]

the end part of this discussion. add the 50lbs back on the VW(s?) "fix" the 142, done. Oh, and move 4AGE toyoters down to a base 2270 (15% published 116chp)+ adders for driveline configuration. a 2320# MR2? sounds about right.

Nope. That ultimately relegates all of the older ITB cars to backmarkers, not because they are backmarkers, but because the more recently classified cars use the 1.25 default and the originally classified cars used multipliers pulled from somewhere.

[JeffYoung]

There is an easy answer to that. We reprocess the old cars to correct any errors.

The 2002 is close as is anyway. The CRX loses weight, as it should. The 142 too (now that I cleared the brain fart and understand which car we are talking about).

It's looking more and more to me like this issue got way more complicated than it really was.


Nope. That ultimately relegates all of the older ITB cars to backmarkers, not because they are backmarkers, but because the more recently classified cars use the 1.25 default and the originally classified cars used multipliers pulled from somewhere.

[Andy Bettencourt]

and the originally classified cars used multipliers pulled from somewhere.

Or were never run through.

[lateapex911]

And none of them can make 25% more power whether DIN or SAE. And I used a Stuska.
Chuck
Just count your blessings they don't have four valves! Wait, that would only hurt them in ITB, LOL.
As for making the factor, neither do other cars, like the MR2, so don't feel alone.

[gran racing]

:D Good one!

[Knestis]

Nope. That ultimately relegates all of the older ITB cars to backmarkers, not because they are backmarkers, but because the more recently classified cars use the 1.25 default and the originally classified cars used multipliers pulled from somewhere.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6OL9egOwkxQ/S04VbIa87rI/AAAAAAAAAg8/rr3qu0CO4gE/s400/eeyore.jpg

Gets to the point sometimes, Jeff, where I really think you just want so bad for it to suck, that it can help but sucking.

;)

Now that the Process is on the loose, we RUN THEM AGAIN.

K

[jjjanos]

Gets to the point sometimes, Jeff, where I really think you just want so bad for it to suck, that it can help but sucking.

;)

Now that the Process is on the loose, we RUN THEM AGAIN.

K

Kirk, sometimes context matter. My post was in response to this...
"the end part of this discussion. add the 50lbs back on the VW(s?) "fix" the 142, done. "

I imagine there are a lot of people who would be happy with that and the MR2 thing, except this has to be a binary. Either EVERYONE gets rerun using the process or nobody in ITB uses it, including the newer cars, and it all gets done ad-hoc the old way.

Can't be both fish or fowl, it needs to be one or the other.

[Knestis]

...and finally, all we have to to is ask and a car gets done.

Tactically, if I had one of those "1.3" cars, I would *not* request that it get re-run, until I'd made a heck of an effort to get that addressed. Otherwise, if I had a car that I thought needed to have old foul-ups resolved - or were racing against one that needed "fixing" - I'd have already written my letter.

I'm not a fan of a total do-over. If nobody cares enough to request a particular car be addressed, it's not worth spending the time.

K

[lateapex911]

THAT is an important point Kirk. A lot of those old weird cars in ITB have less than available and believable specs , and running them isn't as simple as a 2004 Honda Civic Si.. It will take time and it will involve some difficult work...and decisions...on the ITACs part. Run the cars that matter. Those who write in get first dibs. After that the ITAC should be proactive. I'm SURE ALL the ITAC members are racing and at the track, so they should be taking notes of what they see, and the cars they see running in ITB that haven't been processed should GET processed.
Other than that, they have better things to worry about.

[gran racing]

Tactically, if I had one of those "1.3" cars, I would *not* request that it get re-run, until I'd made a heck of an effort to get that addressed.

Agreed, but the Lxi Accord's a nice one to submit.

[tom91ita]

...and finally, all we have to to is ask and a car gets done...

really?

i honestly don't know of if my car is in the queue or not. and really do not care enough to submit for the 4th(?) time.:shrug:


Agreed, but the Lxi Accord's a nice one to submit.

Dave, is your 2.0 12V motor basically the same engine in the Accord LXi?

i think comparing your 2.0 12V to the CRB/ITAC guys 2.0 12V might be worth doing.

[Knestis]

If your car doesn't get done, Tom, we need to Hosni Mubarek the ITAC.

K

[gran racing]

My 2nd gen prelude's engine is 110 hp stock. The Accord Lxi is 120 hp.

If the prelude is run at the defacto 30% IT trim gain, the car would see a slight decrease in weight. If the Accord Lxi is run at 30%, slap on some lead boys. There are several other multivalve ITB & C cars and it's important to get this right now before digging the ditch too deep.

The whole point of having a process is to promote equity, and this default 30% slaps B & C multivalve cars in the face. To be blunt, it's crap and I can't help but wonder what politics are truly behind it. Now that the ITAC Ops Manual is out, no more back room deals or perceptions of that happening.


i honestly don't know of if my car is in the queue or not.

Which why I thought it would be nice for a list to be provided which cars are in the queue. A year later....oh, you're car wasn't actually in the queue all you needed to do is submit it. I'd hate that to happen to people again.

Tom, here's the request that I submitted:

Eliminate the default 30% gain above stock horsepower in IT trim for multivalve engines when processing ITB and ITC cars. Instead, assume a gain of 25% above stock horsepower in IT trim while still allowing the ITAC to use protocol in the documented ITAC Operations Manual to adjust accordingly.

I see no way in which this rule makes sense especially given that the design benefits are already factored into stock HP. If after further discussions the ITAC votes that a multivalve adder should still be in place, it needs to be further defined and utilized. As an amendment to the Operations Manual, define what multivalve engines this increased 5% applies to – 3 valve and/or 4 valve engines. Additionally, if the multivalve truly deserves an automatic increase in expected gains the factor needs to be applied to ITR, ITS, and ITA even if on a sliding scale. There is no reason why a multivalve ITB car gains 5% by this design yet an ITA car has no advantage.

Thank you for taking the time to review and discuss this request.


i think comparing your 2.0 12V to the CRB/ITAC guys 2.0 12V might be worth doing.

I have been debating on whether or not to submit the Accord in hopes of pushing the multivalve factor issue harder. I had not yet because a part of me felt it would be kinda a dick move and not totally necessary, but I've been convinced otherwise. Again, it's about parity and cars being treated on a level playing ground.

[tom91ita]

....
I have been debating on whether or not to submit the Accord in hopes of pushing the multivalve factor issue harder. I had not yet because a part of me felt it would be kinda a dick move and not totally necessary, but I've been convinced otherwise. Again, it's about parity and cars being treated on a level playing ground.

i think comparing the specific output (HP per Liter) in stock form of three honda 12V engines (1.5L in crx si, 2.0 in Prelude Si and the 2.0 in the Accord LXi) is appropriate.

i tried to focus on the numbers and let the politics fall where they may.

there was some discussion somewhere that the early version of the accord was 110 and the later one was 120. not sure what the difference was but for the 16V crx si, they had a better cam in the last two years supposedly because the car was gaining weight. perhaps the accord was gaining weight as well and got a better cam?

[JeffYoung]

I would submit the request on the Accord. Doubtful it will be processed otherwise, we have a lot of stuff on our plate as is.

Tom, I will try to make sure we get to your car this Monday. It's been sitting too long (in my opinion). Honestly, and this is not your fault, the lengthy letter you did on engine architecture slowed things a bit because it was lengthy and well written and we had to sort through it (because at the time it looked like architecture would matter).

Now, we should just be able to process the car. It's the same motor as the equivalent year ITB Civics right?

[Chip42]

based on what I have read of OEM specified hp gain between model years on otherwise identical miata:

If the accord hp gain was due to IT legal adjustments, i.e. ECU tuning or a differeing intake routing ahead of the throttle and mainfold, shouldn't the lower HP number be used for IT calculations?

does anyone know what changed from 87-88 on the A20A3? is it the same as the prelude motor for IT purposes even in 88-89?

agreed that the multivalve rule is BS

[gran racing]

does anyone know what changed from 87-88 on the A20A3? is it the same as the prelude motor for IT purposes even in 88-89?

The two engines will not result in the same output after an IT build.


Now, we should just be able to process the car.

Using what factor though? Multivalve 30% which would be BS? Not the default which goes against your OPS manual? I absolutely do not want Tom's car delayed, but it should be fairly classified and not just pushed through at a 30% default simply because the ball had been dropped in the past.

To clarify Tom, I am not a believer that your car should be put through using the 30% multivalve factor.

This is exacly why that multivalve issue needs to be resolved immediately. Please get that resolved or clairified.

[tom91ita]

Tom, I will try to make sure we get to your car this Monday. It's been sitting too long (in my opinion). Honestly, and this is not your fault, the lengthy letter you did on engine architecture slowed things a bit because it was lengthy and well written and we had to sort through it (because at the time it looked like architecture would matter).

Now, we should just be able to process the car. It's the same motor as the equivalent year ITB Civics right?

Jeff, thanks for the update. yes, the 85-87 crx Si's and the 86-87 civic Si's share the same engine/driveline



To clarify Tom, I am not a believer that your car should be put through using the 30% multivalve factor.

This is exacly why that multivalve issue needs to be resolved immediately. Please get that resolved or clairified.

i personally think it should be classed at 30% as folks that i trust have told me that 30% is possible. right now it is about 40-42% if you try to figure out what would yield the current weight.

my primary gripe has been why is it so different than the accord 12V?

i would rather take 30% now than another year or two of review. i am too old to keep waiting. i figure i only have about 1500 weekends to live if i am lucky and want to spend some not watching bricks pull me down the back straights.

and i still say that i cannot imagine "B" without those volvos from helll.... i love those guys!

[JeffYoung]

If it is multivalve in B, then the rule we voted on and passed is 30% unless established otherwise.

That said, there is a lot of data on this motor. I personally doubt that the default -- used when we don't have sufficient information to make a call -- will be outcome determinative.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, there was a vote on the ITAC to make ITB and C cars with multivalve engines achieve a higher horsepower build than the same engines in other classes. I know form beign on the con calls that certain ITAC members insisted upon this awhile ago, and I know that the appearance of protectionism is strong based on factt hat the members cars were ITB cars.

Now it's been turned into policy in the ops manual, and I have to say that's very sisturbing. I don't ever remember hearing a clear or logical reason for the odd call when I was on the ITAC. The CRB insisted it was 'just' because thats what the original document stated. But that's without merit unless they saddle the cars in OTHER classes with the same handicap.

So, since you are the only ITAC member brave and kind enough to post, could you please:
1- explain the rationale of the majority of ITAc members who voted for this? There must be SOME good explanation. My history on the ITAC has me scratching my head as to what a good reason could be though.

2- Since the standard engine uses ONE valve to import intake air, and ONE valve to exhaust, the term multivalve clearly means any number of valves more than 1 on either of the cycles. So, a car with two intakes and one exhaust clearly is a multivalve car. If the ITAC meant 4 valve cars (2 intake, 2 exhaust) specifically, I'm sure that's what they would have written in their operations manual. Correct?

[JeffYoung]

I am pretty sure (my memory does get fuzzy) that there was a vote on that as we discussed and finalized the Ops Manual and after you left.

I can't speak for the other folks who voted for it. I don't think there was any nefarious motive on their part at all. They were convinced the smaller multivalve motors in B and C would generally make 30%. I think they honestly believed that and advocated for that position because they felt it was for the good of the class.

I personally see no compelling technical reason why this is the case, but I have very little knowledge about the smaller 16 valve motors in B and C.

[CRallo]

The reason for the horsepower change does not matter. The highest horsepower rating for any given specline is used. If this policy is not used or speclines are split up, than things get complicated. This is why we update/backdate.

Also, don't feel like your Hondas are the only "victims" here. Similar situations exist all over, I can think of a few off the top of my head...


based on what I have read of OEM specified hp gain between model years on otherwise identical miata:

If the accord hp gain was due to IT legal adjustments, i.e. ECU tuning or a differeing intake routing ahead of the throttle and mainfold, shouldn't the lower HP number be used for IT calculations?

does anyone know what changed from 87-88 on the A20A3? is it the same as the prelude motor for IT purposes even in 88-89?

agreed that the multivalve rule is BS

[lateapex911]

The reason for the horsepower change does not matter. The highest horsepower rating for any given specline is used. If this policy is not used or speclines are split up, than things get complicated. This is why we update/backdate.

Also, don't feel like your Hondas are the only "victims" here. Similar situations exist all over, I can think of a few off the top of my head...
Actually, the standard policy isn't that cut and dried.
Cars are added to the ITCS and spec'ed based on their power. Then cars are added to the spec line as newer models are eligible. If for example the Burgwart XT has 140hp for the first two model years, it will be classed as such. If later model years are added to the spec line, but have a 143 rating, that rating will be examined. If it is due to a less restrictive exhaust, or ECU tuning, the ITAC will not change anything because those items don't change the core power...both are free in an an IT build.
Now, if the change is due to, say a camshaft, or a larger Air throttle, then the higher rating is used, and the cars should be placed on separate spec lines.

[lateapex911]

I am pretty sure (my memory does get fuzzy) that there was a vote on that as we discussed and finalized the Ops Manual and after you left.

I can't speak for the other folks who voted for it. I don't think there was any nefarious motive on their part at all. They were convinced the smaller multivalve motors in B and C would generally make 30%. I think they honestly believed that and advocated for that position because they felt it was for the good of the class.

I personally see no compelling technical reason why this is the case, but I have very little knowledge about the smaller 16 valve motors in B and C.

Yes, any vote on it occurred after I left, because I would remember such a thing very clearly.
I find it interesting that anyone would think that a 1600 cc motor will make 30% in ITB, but a 1600cc motor will make 25% in ITA. I would suggest that the ITB motor is going to ITB because either the car can't make ITA weight, OR, the stock power rating is ITB level. In the former case, it's completely unrelated to the engines capacity to exceed stnadard expectations, and in the latter, the external components such as intake and throttle body are as likely to explain the difference in output, and neither can be changed in an IT build.

[Chip42]

don't feel like your Hondas are the only "victims" here. Similar situations exist all over, I can think of a few off the top of my head...

my hondas are all classed appropriately. My MR2s are not. overall, it's clear that ITB cars are all over the map in terms of power potential, architecture, age, hp rating methods (SAE net/gross/certified?, DIN, etc..), weights, and owner contentment.

there's little to no correlation between these features - some mutlivalves make 30%+ some dont. some 2-valves make 25% or less, some much more.

what's so bat about a per write-in reclass suing known HP as the rule or process where it is not available? isn't that SOP? JJJ might have somethign pithy to add here...

[jjjanos]

Jeff, there was a vote on the ITAC to make ITB and C cars with multivalve engines achieve a higher horsepower build than the same engines in other classes. I know form beign on the con calls that certain ITAC members insisted upon this awhile ago, and I know that the appearance of protectionism is strong based on factt hat the members cars were ITB cars.

Then those members of the ITAC need to be removed immediately from a position of responsibility within the club as the CRB Operations manual specifically says:

"Don’t vote, or even participate in discussions, on matters relating to you personally."

[gran racing]

The Accord Lxi request has been submitted to have the car run through the update process. I just know several people will be sending a curse word or two my way shortly.

Letter # 4245 which corresponds with my multivalve non-sense letter 4229.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The Accord Lxi request has been submitted to have the car run through the update process. I just know several people will be sending a curse word or two my way shortly.

Letter # 4245 which corresponds with my multivalve non-sense letter 4229.

I know I would if I had one. Not-for-nothing Dave but do you know what these put out for power? If you knew that they put out roughly 25% over stock would you still have sent that request?

Seems to me that we should be trying to solve the overall 30% in ITB/ITC BS than trying to take shots at certain cars. I don't get it.

[tnord]

i hate ITB.

[Chip42]

I know I would if I had one. Not-for-nothing Dave but do you know what these put out for power? If you knew that they put out roughly 25% over stock would you still have sent that request?

Seems to me that we should be trying to solve the overall 30% in ITB/ITC BS than trying to take shots at certain cars. I don't get it.

not for nothing but I know the guy who tuned the best known example of the breed, and he has diarhea of the mouth. 30% is about right for the A20A3.

[Knestis]

The Accord Lxi request has been submitted to have the car run through the update process. I just know several people will be sending a curse word or two my way shortly.

Letter # 4245 which corresponds with my multivalve non-sense letter 4229.

Noodling over the implications of this, I'm coming around to understand that it might be a very productive question to answer; a sort of acid test for the "multivalve" rule. It's got the added value of the "two different stock powers" question to resolve, too.

Call it a case study in the New Order Situation Helping IT. Reference my name when you use the acronym.

:026:

K

[Knestis]

i hate ITB.

We could tackle JJJ's "gap" concern and split it into two classes. But then the fight would be over whether to call the new one "B-Minus" or "C-Plus." Both will be perceived as pejorative. :)

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

not for nothing but I know the guy who tuned the best known example of the breed, and he has diarhea of the mouth. 30% is about right for the A20A3.

Which may be true, and if that is the crux of the letter fine. Otherwise, to me, it seems like a petty way to add weight to a car.

Let's solve the big problem and the rest will fall into place. 25% standard, then apply what we know. If that happens, and the 30% if correct like you say, the evidence should be found and applied.

[gran racing]

Seems to me that we should be trying to solve the overall 30% in ITB/ITC BS than trying to take shots at certain cars. I don't get it.

Absolutely no shot being taken against any car; quite the contrary. I even added that...

"The key to the Accord Lxi classification lies with the multivalve default of 30% which correlates to letter number 4229."


Now using the process as I believe it should be, the default should be 25% and then use the OPS manual to adjust that if needed. Hell, maybe the number after looking at things closer is 30% for some of the multivalve car. I just don't agree that should be the default, especially in only ITB.


If nothing else, hopefully the Accord classification will bring to lite a few things and maybe force more of a discussion. Besides Andy, if I were going to take a shot at a car it would be the Golf III. LOL

I honestly have NO problem with where the Accord is classed and to be honest, don't really care much about the Golf III weight. Having members requests and the cars in the category treated equally and not be about politics? Yup.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Absolutely no shot being taken against any car; quite the contrary. I even added that...

The key to the Accord Lxi classification lies with the multivalve default of 30% which correlates to letter number 4229.

Now using the process as I believe it should be, the default should be 25% and then use the OPS manual to adjust that if needed. Hell, maybe the number after looking at things closer is 30% for some of the multivalve car. I just don't agree that should be the default, especially in only ITB.

If nothing else, hopefully the Accord classification will bring to lite a few things and maybe force more of a discussion.

Besides Andy, if I were going to take a shot at a car it would be the Golf III. LOL

Yes, you have written your letters on that car plenty. :)

I still don't get your rationale with the Accdord specifically. It IS classed at 25%. If they re-run it at the 25% you ask, nothing changes. So what was the point? If you are asking them to re-run the Accord, what is your desired outcome?

Long day - I may be missing the obvious. Sorry.

[Greg Amy]

"Live by the sword, die by the sword".

If potshots is what it takes for "the system" to wake up and correct the situation, then at that time we can all put down the swords.

But until then... :shrug:

[Greg Amy]

...what is your desired outcome?
To affect a change in the de facto default 30% for "multivalve" cars.

[Andy Bettencourt]

To affect a change in the de facto default 30% for "multivalve" cars.

Except the more-than-likely short-term outcome is a 30% multiplier applied, no?

[Greg Amy]

Except the more-than-likely short-term outcome is a 30% multiplier applied, no?
Yes, but then at that point it would be an equitable outcome to the current rules. As it stands now, the car does not meet "the process" and is illegally light...

I'm sure his preference would be that someone will stop and say "you know, this is a pretty stupid move" and change the system instead, but them's the chances you take...gotta admire the moxie... :shrug:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes, but then at that point it would be an equitable outcome to the current rules. As it stands now, the car does not meet "the process" and is illegally light...

I'm sure his preference would be that someone will stop and say "you know, this is a pretty stupid move" and change the system instead, but them's the chances you take...gotta admire the moxie... :shrug:

Not true. Every 'multi-valve' car except the MR2 was processed at 25% during my tenure (barring any 'what we know'). So no, this would not be an equitable outcome, it would be the singling out of one car to make a point. Might be equitable 'going forward' but not to all the cars previously classed.

Now THIS particular car with indeed force some unique discussion because of who used to drive them but...

And to me, you have more Moxie if you tell them they are stupid instead of an end-around.

[lateapex911]

I think Dave already sent in a protest letter on the 30% stuff.
This aspect sort of forces the hand and puts it all in a revealing light.

They have options:
1- Drop the ridiculous 30% factor and move on, and reject Daves request for reprocessing the Accord.
2- Refuse to reprocess the Accord based on the fact that that particular car isn't 'multivalve enough".
3- Draw a line i the sand, refuse to rescind the vote for 30%, and accept the lumps.

My sixth sense tells me #3 will be chosen. No, #2. Actually, both, LOL.

[Chip42]

Which may be true, and if that is the crux of the letter fine. Otherwise, to me, it seems like a petty way to add weight to a car.

Let's solve the big problem and the rest will fall into place. 25% standard, then apply what we know. If that happens, and the 30% if correct like you say, the evidence should be found and applied.

I Completely agree. I'm not asking that the accords be re-run at 30%, just pointing out that there is some evidence that that multiplier is accurate IN THIS CASE, so I know it's not out of line to do so. The car in question is driven VERY well, and deserves the wins it has - the object is to push the rules to the limits. they have, and the result is that they are prabobly getting 5+ more horses than anyone else in that car. good for them. last time I checked, the car wasn't exactly race worthy - so it's irrelevant anyhow unless the objective is to throw mud in the eye of the "deal" maker - an unnecessary act.

yeah, the class does need fixin. I'd be thrilled with the 4AGE whcih was just "parlty fixed" at 25% IF Steven hadn't gathered so much data from so many builds and all of the objective evidence regarding the substantial differences between it and an atlantic, proving it to be a 15% car at best. and that 15% is a pretty loft goal when you really look at it.

[lateapex911]

I differ Chip, (and I nearly always agree with your points), on the unnecessary act angle. Whether the car is race ready or not isn't really the point in my book. To me, it's if the cars in ITB that are multivalved are supposed to be classed at 30% then the ARRC winning ITB multivalve car sure as heck should be! Fair is fair, after all.

That particular car is rather key to the question and I think a reprocess request puts the issue into sharp relief.



yeah, the class does need fixin. I'd be thrilled with the 4AGE which was just "partly fixed" at 25% IF Steven hadn't gathered so much data from so many builds and all of the objective evidence regarding the substantial differences between it and an atlantic, proving it to be a 15% car at best. and that 15% is a pretty loft goal when you really look at it.
This is another case of a result that smells for all the world like a 'compromise' by the committee. They had reams of good data showing less than 15%. They have this silly 30% standard. So they threw it a bone. I could accept that they had data and rounded up to 15%, and were concerned that every stone hadn't been turned and every option exhausted on the builds they got and went with the next increment up to account for that, at 20%. But 25% is like saying, "We don't trust your numbers, but we're getting SO much flak over this from all sides that we have to do something, so 25% it is."

(While I'd love common sense to come to bear on the 30% issue, I am so incredulous as to how an entire committee voted in favor of the concept that i don't see them rescinding the standard> So while I agree that getting back to consistency would be the ideal situation, I just don't see that happening. I'd love to be wrong)

[JeffYoung]

In my opinion, we had decent data on the MR2 but not great. The best technical discussion I saw was a complete debunking of "this is a Formula Atlantic" motor.

The dyno data was decent, but not overwhelming (and that is not a reflection on the folks who collected it). The problem with the MR2 versus say "processing" the 2nd Gen RX7 or the E36 is that with those cars you had a ton of actual IT build dyno plots. ITA Miata too.

With the MR2, it was tough to tell 100% for sure what we were looking at (and again no knocking the submitters).

I personally believed the car was a 15% car, but I had some doubt. I think 25% is on the high range of a reasonable assessment of the situation, but it's not totally unpossible. I'm not sure anyone has done a full on, 100% build on this motor in IT trim. It's possible somewhere there is a power secret people havent done/missed.

On the Accord, I can't speak for the committee. My personal approach to the default rule is to acknowledge it's where I have to start, but I will be pretty willing to accept evidence to the contrary as enough to override the default.

[Greg Amy]

My personal approach to the default rule is to acknowledge it's where I have to start, but I will be pretty willing to accept evidence to the contrary as enough to override the default.
The problem with that stance, Jeff, is that you put the competitor in a position to have to prove a negative. Plus, given he/she is starting from a disadvantageous position, you're creating a significant disincentive to even pursue it.

If you guys insist on going with "what you know" then you should start from a consistent, across-the-board baseline and let the "what you learn" guide you. You simply cannot start from two differing assumptions and then work with two different forces of proof (YOU get more weight when you make more than "process"; and YOU get reduction in weight when you prove to us you can't make "process".) - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

If you guys insist on going with "what you know" then you should start from a consistent, across-the-board baseline and let the "what you learn" guide you. You simply cannot start from two differing assumptions and then work with two different forces of proof (YOU get more weight when you make more than "process"; and YOU get reduction in weight when you prove to us you can't make "process".) - GA

Yup.

[JeffYoung]

I agree. My personal opinion is that there should be a single 25% default number unless we have enough information to meet our evidentiary standard to move it.

I lost that vote. I have to respect the committee's position on it, and will. That's how committee's work.


The problem with that stance, Jeff, is that you put the competitor in a position to have to prove a negative. Plus, given he/she is starting from a disadvantageous position, you're creating a significant disincentive to even pursue it.

If you guys insist on going with "what you know" then you should start from a consistent, across-the-board baseline and let the "what you learn" guide you. You simply cannot start from two differing assumptions and then work with two different forces of proof (YOU get more weight when you make more than "process"; and YOU get reduction in weight when you prove to us you can't make "process".) - GA

[Knestis]

Yup.

Yup^2.

This is a concern for me, about the operations manual. It provides two options for determining the multiplier, without clearly establishing either as the default AND stipulating when Plan B really should be implemented. It leaves the opportunity for talking out of both sides of the collective ITAC mouth, as it were.

K

[jjjanos]

I lost that vote. I have to respect the committee's position on it, and will. That's how committee's work.

Disagree. I would say you have to accept the committee's position, but respecting it is an entirely different kettle of buckets.

[gran racing]

In post # 184, page 10 of this thread I posted what I sent regarding the 30% ITB & ITC multivalve factor and mentioned the Accord Lxi.

Greg, Kirk and Jake have pretty much summed up and my rationale nicely. Best case, the multivalve rule will be reviewed and deemed stupid, then eliminated. My goal writing the letters was not to get a weight increase for the Accord, however, it will force the hand to be played which is a good thing.

If the ITAC deems the multivalve to be this wonderful concept, then isn't is only fair that the Accord AND other multivalve cars are treated that way? You know, that whole parity thing this process was intended for.

We have a slew of ITB cars in line to be run through the process including multivalve cars. There are other cars in ITB (and C) where members will submit requests to have their car or competitors cars reviewed. Then future cars. This needs to be addressed one way or another now, not later. Lets get this right the second time around and not rely on changing the factor, then re-processing cars yet again.

I openly admit that in several ways I feel a bit bad for submitting the Accord request, but it's not because I felt it was truly wrong. Peter is a good guy and has been nice to me. I want politics out of IT classifications which is why I felt it was necessary to do this. Otherwise I'd just be a part of the problem.

[JoshS]

Yup^2.

This is a concern for me, about the operations manual. It provides two options for determining the multiplier, without clearly establishing either as the default AND stipulating when Plan B really should be implemented. It leaves the opportunity for talking out of both sides of the collective ITAC mouth, as it were.

K

No Kirk, the "known power" approach does not establish a multiplier. It totally throws out the stock horsepower number and multiplier and simply gets straight to the result.

[JeffYoung]

I have to respect what the committee does or I wouldn't stay on it.

I firmly believe the guys who voted for the 30% default for multivalve cars in ITB did so because they know the motors and think that is what they will make. I respect their vote in that regard, even though I disagree with it.

If I didn't respect the other guys on the committee, I wouldn't stay.




Disagree. I would say you have to accept the committee's position, but respecting it is an entirely different kettle of buckets.

[Andy Bettencourt]

In post # 184, page 10 of this thread I posted what I sent regarding the 30% ITB & ITC multivalve factor and mentioned the Accord Lxi.

Greg, Kirk and Jake have pretty much summed up and my rationale nicely. Best case, the multivalve rule will be reviewed and deemed stupid, then eliminated. My goal writing the letters was not to get a weight increase for the Accord, however, it will force the hand to be played which is a good thing.

Unless it's not the result you were looking for, which is possible.


If the ITAC deems the multivalve to be this wonderful concept, then isn't is only fair that the Accord AND other multivalve cars are treated that way? You know, that whole parity thing this process was intended for.

NO. Because it's the WRONG THING TO DO. You have created 3 possible outcomes, 2 of which are bogus. Treating every multivalve car at 30% and then having to prove a negative to get it back in line is pure crap. The MR2 is the glaring example of this. Not one person on this god-given earth has said that an IT build has ever made more than 15%. Not only that, but some ITAC members simply don't believe a top level build has even happened because they haven't seen decent numbers. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that will render cars unnecessarily heavy.


We have a slew of ITB cars in line to be run through the process including multivalve cars. There are other cars in ITB (and C) where members will submit requests to have their car or competitors cars reviewed. Then future cars. This needs to be addressed one way or another now, not later. Lets get this right the second time around and not rely on changing the factor, then re-processing cars yet again.

Fix the process first, then run the cars. Look back on history, see the double standard, realize there is no logical grounds for such a rule - and just fix it. JUST FIX IT.


I openly admit that in several ways I feel a bit bad for submitting the Accord request, but it's not because I felt it was truly wrong. Peter is a good guy and has been nice to me. I want politics out of IT classifications which is why I felt it was necessary to do this. Otherwise I'd just be a part of the problem.

Again, you have started a ball in motion that COULD end up in the result you want but probably won't. And IF it does (multivalve cars to 25% in ITB and ITC), it will actually LOOK politically motivated because of the appearance of Peter protecting the current weight of his car.

Lose-Lose.

[JeffYoung]

Not exactly right. My view was that we didn't know for sure what we were looking at. We had builds with some mods, some IT legal but not 100% and others not IT legal.

The self-fulfiling prophecy part of the problem is one inherent to the system. If a car is "heavy," no one will build a maxed out IT motor and so we won't have the "evidence" necessary to correct it.


The MR2 is the glaring example of this. Not one person on this god-given earth has said that an IT build has ever made more than 15%. Not only that, but some ITAC members simply don't believe a top level build has even happened because they haven't seen decent numbers. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that will render cars unnecessarily heavy.

[jjjanos]

And IF it does (multivalve cars to 25% in ITB and ITC), it will actually LOOK politically motivated because of the appearance of Peter protecting the current weight of his car.

Checking the list of CRB members, I see no person named Peter.
Checking the list of ITAC members, I see no person named Peter.

Are you suggesting that a person named Peter is on one of these two bodies and that information is not reflected on the SCCA.Com pages?:o

More importantly...

The CRB Operations manual specifically says:

"Don’t vote, or even participate in discussions, on matters relating to you personally."

[gran racing]

Lets get this straight right now, I didn't create anything. Stir the pot which has been brewing, maybe.


Fix the process first, then run the cars.

Isn't that what I said?


it will actually LOOK politically motivated

That's comical. How does it look NOW?

[JeffYoung]

I've never known Peter Keane to do anything other than what he thought was right.

The insinuation that his motivation was to protect his car is pretty low in my view.

I also believe he was on the ITAC until the last call or so and now is off, but my memory gets fuzzy on these things.

No black helicopters. Mistakes and imperfection and inelegance and brain farts because we are human? Yes.


Checking the list of CRB members, I see no person named Peter.
Checking the list of ITAC members, I see no person named Peter.

Are you suggesting that a person named Peter is on one of these two bodies and that information is not reflected on the SCCA.Com pages?:o

More importantly...

The CRB Operations manual specifically says:

"Don’t vote, or even participate in discussions, on matters relating to you personally."

[Knestis]

No Kirk, the "known power" approach does not establish a multiplier. It totally throws out the stock horsepower number and multiplier and simply gets straight to the result.

Sorry - you're obviously correct, Josh. I was unclear. The two processes for establishing IT-preparation power seem to be treated equally. Or maybe I'm still understanding the subtlety of that.

K

[gran racing]

I've never known Peter Keane to do anything other than what he thought was right.

Agreed.

Now I might not agree with what he or others think is right...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Lets get this straight right now, I didn't create anything. Stir the pot which has been brewing, maybe.
We disagree.


Isn't that what I said?
Not from my seat. You want a car reviewed in order to trigger a fix. I say fix the process first, fix whats wrong after.


That's comical. How does it look NOW?

So two wrongs make a right? Like I said, 3 outcomes from your direct request to recalc the Accord using the new document. 2 of them suck and one looks like a shady move when it's actually doing the right thing.

Sorry Dave, I love ya but this wasn't thought out very well IMHO. But it is what it is I guess.

(edit: I too have never questioned Peter's intentions. He only wants what is right and has put in more time for the SCCA than anyone I know. The issue now is that the ITAC doesn't go by what one guy thinks is right, there has to be way more factual evidence, right or wrong)

(additional edit: I fully understand that we will see this differently and my judgement is probably clouded from having been on the inside thinking that change can happen without this kind of shock-therapy.) :)

[jjjanos]

I've never known Peter Keane to do anything other than what he thought was right.

The insinuation that his motivation was to protect his car is pretty low in my view.

That's not my insinuation. My point is that SCCA policy is that people on the decision making body shouldn't be making decisions that effect them personally. When setting the weight of an ITR/S/A/B/C, those that drive an ITR/S/A/B/C car need to recuse themselves certainly from the actual vote, and possibly from the discussion as well.

[Knestis]

Just submitted my letter:

First, thank you for the effort and commitment represented by the recent publication of the ITAC OPERATIONS MANUAL.

This is an important step that will go a long way toward establishing consistent applications of policy in Improved Touring, increasing member confidence in the functioning of the ITAC and CRB. The category will be better because of the decision to adopt this document and make it available to members.

To the substance of this request, please apply the processes described in that manual to reassess, and adjust as deemed appropriate, the race weight of the ITB 1993-1997 VW Golf III (GCR p. 430).

Should an adjustment be warranted, please consider titling the resulting rule change the Dave Gran Can Finally get a Good Night's Sleep Act of 2011.

:)

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

Kirk Knestis
103210

[gran racing]

LMAO ain't even the right words!!! Oh my God, that right there is funny. <yawn> Boy am I feeling tired.

Now onto the Golf IV!!!!

[Chip42]

Not exactly right. My view was that we didn't know for sure what we were looking at. We had builds with some mods, some IT legal but not 100% and others not IT legal.

The self-fulfiling prophecy part of the problem is one inherent to the system. If a car is "heavy," no one will build a maxed out IT motor and so we won't have the "evidence" necessary to correct it.

I guess this is the "proving a negative" thing - but the motor is REALLY well known all over the world. people are STILL building all sorts of crazy turbo drag cars and stuff out of it. my local suppliers has 3, 3!! boxes of 16v 4AGE head studs on the shelf, and he only stocks stuff that moves.


Jeff is right though, none of us* want to spend the umpteen thousands of dollars it will take to build a full tilt IT 4AGE to gain that extra 1-2 hp that everyone KNOWS will be the outcome. shit, 5hp more than anyone is getting now would be a coup, and STILL not hit 140crank (120%). and then, WHEN such a build is submitted, all we'll hear is that one isn't enough. no one wants to go into that rabbit hole - thus my excitement about ST of late.

*yes, I include myself despite the fact that my MR2 hasn't turned a wheel on a racetrack since I drove it from a flag station to the pits during lunch break at summit point in the 90's. it's had a cage for 5 years (it's 1.5 x 0.120 because of the 2007 cgae/weight rules)- I've been "working on it".

[tom91ita]

Now onto the Golf IV!!!!

i think we need to organize a golf outing at either the IT fest or the ARRC.

even if it is at the local putt-putt.

it can be the Dave Gran Annual Golf Classic

[StephenB]

That's not my insinuation. My point is that SCCA policy is that people on the decision making body shouldn't be making decisions that effect them personally. When setting the weight of an ITR/S/A/B/C, those that drive an ITR/S/A/B/C car need to recuse themselves certainly from the actual vote, and possibly from the discussion as well.

They may not vote or make decisions but youu can bet they have an influence. And when powerful enough they can significantly influence the outcome. Usually those that are involved personally are the most knowledgeable and have more convincing evidence/input in the discussion.


Stephen

[ajmr2]

Jeff is right though, none of us* want to spend the umpteen thousands of dollars it will take to build a full tilt IT 4AGE to gain that extra 1-2 hp that everyone KNOWS will be the outcome. shit, 5hp more than anyone is getting now would be a coup, and STILL not hit 140crank (120%). and then, WHEN such a build is submitted, all we'll hear is that one isn't enough. no one wants to go into that rabbit hole - thus my excitement about ST of late.

When the MR2 was in ITA it was ultimately dropped to 2270 lbs. Only 1 driver out of 6 or 7 possible in the WDCR was able to reach that number. My car was about 75 lbs over in ITA trim and I could have lost another 30 or so off the car but nothing off the driver. My car dynoed a couple yeras ago at a screaming 105 RWHP, but not a "full build", which I was told by an experienced builder might give me an additional 5-10 HP. Simply not worth the expense. When it was finally moved to ITB in 2009, 255 lbs were added to the ITA weight for the privilege. Same 16V engine, same HP, same everything (different process?). Having raced for 13 years in ITA, and grouped several times with ITB, it seemed to me at the time that a move to ITB should have been made with little or no weight adjustment. We were not going to go into ITB and take over, not by a long shot, even at ITA weight.
My point is that what we're discussing here is that a car should be moved up or down a class to be more competitive, not less, (yeah yeah, no guarantee). The process should allow for these moves to be made without drama as older cars are outpaced by newer cars. That would fit under the SCCA philosophy of keeping current members and encouraging new members to come and play with us. I believe the current ITAC and CRB are trying to make that happen, but steamlining the process to make it fair and transparent across the board should be a top priority.
AJ

[RacerBill]

i think we need to organize a golf outing at either the IT fest or the ARRC.

even if it is at the local putt-putt.

it can be the Dave Gran Annual Golf Classic

I believe that there is one at Buck's in Lexington!!!!!:happy204:

[Chip42]

When the MR2 was in ITA it was ultimately dropped to 2270 lbs

Art - thanks for the additional background. I know you and others inthe MARRS have been helping Steven with his efforts.

interestingly, following the current math: ITA to ITB weight would be (2270-50)*17/14.5+50=2653 rounds to 2655. shows you right there how out of line the car was in ITA! solving for "expected" hp from that number gives you 153, ~130whp at 15% loss. yes - I understand that the ITA classification was not done using the Process.

unfortunatley a lot of the older build MR2s have 1.5 OD 0.120 wall cages (or pre-2008 rules equivalent) which are ~70-80#s heavier than the currently allowed 0.95 wall.

15% gain from 116 stock yields a 2270# base weight in ITB, plus driveline layout adders you get:
FX16 = 2225
Corolla = 2270
MR2 = 2320

still heavier than they were in ITA, where they were slower than ITB cars, and now with less tire. how is it that we are still talking about this???

[Knestis]

...because they're Atlantic motors dammit. Pay attention.

;)

K

[tnord]

...because they're Atlantic motors dammit. Pay attention.

;)

K

not helpful. i'm not sure that anyone on the AC really thinks they're atlantic motors. i can't speak for everyone else, but i did read through the data presented, and i don't.

[ajmr2]

...because they're Atlantic motors dammit. Pay attention.

;)

K

Good one! :happy204:

And it was the former builder of the Atlantic engine (Quicksilver RacEngines in Frederick, MD) who told me I might get 5-10 HP out of a full IT build under the IT rules! FA rules, now that's a different story!
AJ

[Knestis]

not helpful. i'm not sure that anyone on the AC really thinks they're atlantic motors. i can't speak for everyone else, but i did read through the data presented, and i don't.

Sorry, Travis - I thought i'd figured out how to use that winky thing.

Anyone who's been paying attention knows how I really feel about this.

K

[ajmr2]

Just funnin' Travis!

[pfcs]

"Fix the process first, then run the cars. Look back on history, see the double standard, realize there is no logical grounds for such a rule - and just fix it. JUST FIX IT." Bettencourt

Can anyone JUST fix it? The 800lb gorilla is that no-one can know what the multiplier should be for every car OR what is the starting point (actual factory spec [ie: Audi Cpe, Volvo 142] garbage in=garbage out!)
That won't be going away.
I found this in my in-box and publish it without prejudice:

"bhp 1484 concord ln bethlehem, pa 18015

I bothered to read thru your IT stuff. In general, it is the same old stuff of a lot of ignorant people playing smart executive- hey- ME, I know a lot even though I have little to back it up!!
No one seemed to get the point that the entire setup they have is useless- they are looking at the wrong stuff and even that is based on bogus info.
THE solution is based on 2 things:
-use some IT entry fees, much like national fees going to runoffs- for a chassis dyno now and then at the track, test some fast cars and find some answers that are based on fact.
-take the club's radar gun to the track and get some actual end of straight mph info.
It would be an amazing 1st step to wipe the slate clean.
bob g."

PS: radar gun is pretty simple and give some real intersting info! I know, I know, exit speed effect it and aereo comes in too, but regardless, motors are 90% or more of it. Sure would be easily collected and VERY interesting!

[tnord]

phil are you actually proposing adjusting weights of individual cars based on what we see on a radar gun at a given track?

and for the third time.....where did you get this document?

[gran racing]

I can't say that I agree Phil.


motors are 90% or more of it.

Which is why even in the instructor HPDE groups I pass a LOT faster cars? I mean these high end porsches with uber HP and an ITB car?

You're a Lime Rock guy. There isn't a big difference in straight speeds depending upon how fast the downhill is taken? Really?

The fact of the matter in Club Racing is there's a fairly large disparity in driver talent. We're not talking about a group of drivers who would run within tenths of each other given the same car. That's just not the reality. Then there are guys with big buck cars who reach the same point with guys who are superior drivers with less prepped cars.

It just isn't as simple as that, which is too bad.

We've also been over why the dyno system won't work and it extends beyond the little button being installed to decrease the map.

[lateapex911]

"Fix the process first, then run the cars. Look back on history, see the double standard, realize there is no logical grounds for such a rule - and just fix it. JUST FIX IT." Bettencourt

Can anyone JUST fix it? The 800lb gorilla is that no-one can know what the multiplier should be for every car OR what is the starting point (actual factory spec [ie: Audi Cpe, Volvo 142] garbage in=garbage out!)
That won't be going away.
I found this in my in-box and publish it without prejudice:

"bhp 1484 concord ln bethlehem, pa 18015

I bothered to read thru your IT stuff. In general, it is the same old stuff of a lot of ignorant people playing smart executive- hey- ME, I know a lot even though I have little to back it up!!
No one seemed to get the point that the entire setup they have is useless- they are looking at the wrong stuff and even that is based on bogus info.
THE solution is based on 2 things:
-use some IT entry fees, much like national fees going to runoffs- for a chassis dyno now and then at the track, test some fast cars and find some answers that are based on fact.
-take the club's radar gun to the track and get some actual end of straight mph info.
It would be an amazing 1st step to wipe the slate clean.
bob g."

PS: radar gun is pretty simple and give some real intersting info! I know, I know, exit speed effect it and aereo comes in too, but regardless, motors are 90% or more of it. Sure would be easily collected and VERY interesting!Tell Bob G he's about as disconnected as he can be.
Anyone who thinks a chassis dyno is going to nail it down is been Rip Van Winkleing it.
WHY?
-Once you place the CLUB in the role of checking everyone, it becomes an
"us against them" proposition...at least subconsciously in some peoples minds, rather than a gentleman's agreement of policing and trusting each other.
- Most will have simple methods of ensuring the dyno sees the right map, and the car will be, of course, just under the appropriate number.
- Regions are often operating on thin margins. Getting, paying for and operating a chassis dyno is something they don't have the money for, nor likely the experienced and trained manpower to oversee. After that, we face the issues of WHICH chassis dyno? When calibrated? how was it used? Can we compare numbers from the NE one to the SE one? Etc etc.
- As for the radar gun, geeez, where do I start? So I run Hoosier A's and get a flyer on them and get out front before tehy go off, then block a bit for the second half of the race. Of course, I'm coming off the last corner a few mph faster because of that, so my MPH is higher. I MUST have mo' powah!

We have THREE HUNDRED PLUS cars to balance!

BTW, I love how you present this stuff, 'without prejudice'. LOL
Tell BobG to post himself...:rolleyes:

[lateapex911]

phil are you actually proposing adjusting weights of individual cars based on what we see on a radar gun at a given track?

and for the third time.....where did you get this document?
Trav, Phil answers to no one, obviously. He's just having fun trolling and being a malcontent.