please help me understand the ITB Honda issue

i thought i would pattern this question after Ray's Audi thread. so here is the issue as i see it and have compared two specific hondas in a note that was sent to the BOD and cc:ed the CRB and ITAC (+ K, since he was still listed on the SCCA website).

Please note that Honda's engines and drivelines typically are very similar and part of my question is framed around the fact that the two engines have the same specific output in terms of HP/cc from the factory.

So if they have the same stock HP/cc output, why would they not have similar improvement factors (e.g., the 25% improvement factor or 1.25 x stock HP)

1989 Honda Accord LXi has the following specs per various websites:

1955 CC and 120 HP with a 12 valve head which results in 61.4 HP per Liter.

Given the 17 #/hp target for ITB and 25% assumed HP increase in Improved Touring trim, the Accord should have the following weight per the process:

17 x 1.25 x 120 + 50 (wishbone suspension) - 50 (FWD) = 2550 vs. 2550 in the GCR

Given the 2550 #'s from the calculation and the 2550 in the GCR, it would appear that the winning car from last year's ARRC is at the weight as determined by the process. (please note that i think i used the same basic accord model that won the ARRC).

The 1985-87 CRX Si has the following specs:

1488 CC and 91 HP with a 12 valve head which results in 61.2 HP per Liter

Given the 17 #/hp target for ITB and 25% assumed HP increase in Improved Touring trim, the Accord should have the following weight per the process:

17 x 1.25 x 91 - 50 (FWD) = 1884 vs. 2130 in the GCR

Although both engines are from the same basic vintage and from the same manufacturer and the same specific output in terms of HP per Liter in stock form, the two cars are not treated equally when it comes to power to weight. The CRX Si has a significant weight penalty.

I think the 150 #''s assessed when the 1st gen CRX Si was moved from ITA to ITB was in error and asked to see this addressed.

it is my understanding that specific information (e.g., dyno runs) exist for my vintage of engine that would support something greater than the 25% factor. and here is where i think some have stated that sharing dyno info can only hurt you. for if one builds the accord and shares nothing when it can make improvements similar to other 12 valve hondas with sequential injection, you have a major advantage.

so if the CRB is basing its behind the scenes/behind the ITAC classing on a # per cc displacement basis (note that i am saying IF), and the accord is correctly classed at 1.30 # per cc, the 85-87 crx si would weigh 1941 #'s.

so is there an aero adder for my car? i will admit it is smaller. is there a brake adder for my car? i have not tried to look at brake swept area per #.

it would appear that one way to select a car for a build would be to look at what cars still have the 1.25 multiplier but have engines that are similar to others that have significant higher multipliers. the accord's 1.25 multiplier seems oddly out of place within the honda family of cars in ITA and ITB.

i will gladly admit that my honda experience is pretty much limited to the 1.5/1.6 liter family and the 85 to 2000 crx and civics and not accords. but i have always been impressed with the similar themes and interchangeability of the honda engine families and that is why i do not understand the difference between the accord and crx/civic multipliers given the stock output of the motors being essentially equal in terms of HP per cc.

please educate me.

tia, tom

The 85-87 Civic/CRX should be x by 35%. It is very easy to get 105+ whp from those cars. I have built three of them that make that. It should also have the same tq as hp as well. It could stand a few pounds to be taken off it but nothing much under 2100#.

Just my $.02

Blake

Based on what I've heard (2nd hand) in terms of direction to the ITAC from the CRB, your math doesn't make any difference: It's been decided by someone that any review compared to theoretical standards set by The Process would be "in violation of the GCR."

If you want something else from the Club for IT, you need to tell the powers-that-be what it is, because as good as you logic is on the specifics of the CRX, what you SHOULD be asking for is that the ITAC be allowed to do the job that a majority of members explained they wanted over the past year or so.

K

Kirk,

It's interesting that they (CRB and BoD) only worry about things being 'in violation of the GCR' when it fits their agenda. And when what's in the GCR doesn't fit their agenda, they pretty much just throw it out the window.

That's strategic ambiguity for ya, Bill.

In essence, the CRB let the ITAC bend the rules as long as the outcomes weren't seen as problematic to THEM. When we adjusted cars that they weren't worried about, it was fine. When we DIDN'T adjust cars because they were within the then-standard tolerances of the ITCS spec weight it was fine...

When confronted with the necessity of actually owning the decision on a weight spec that they thought mattered (the Audi), they not only didn't endorse the recommended weight, they kicked it back to the ITAC. When it looked like the ITAC was going to stick to its guns on the process in that case, the CRB went after the process itself.

A LOT of gnashing and grousing could have been avoided if the CRB had let the ITAC follow the ad hoc committee charter (making recommendations), and done its thing by simply voting for or against each recommendation put before it. Problem is, that would have made them FULLY complicit in breaking the rules, I guess... Or they could have changed the stupid language in the "no guarantee" clause.

By the way, I think it's hysterical that all of a sudden the CRB needs to "approve" the practices of the ITAC, and that a pinned-down system gets nixed. Back when the ITAC members pretty much just made shit up as they went along, they were doing it just fine...?? LOL

At the end of the day, the ONLY thing that makes any sense is that they want to be able to follow traditional competition adjustment (bleah!) practices and set weights based on on-track performance. Andy - and some people who claim to be able to see into the souls of CRB members - have said that is *not* what they intend, but it is coming. No question in my mind.

K

Kirk,

I'm not sure how the CRB isn't "fully complicit" in breaking the rules, based on their current position. After all, those cars that did get adjusted didn't get done on the ITAC's say-so alone, the CRB had to approve them before they became official.

What I see, is that all of a sudden the CRB realized that the ITAC was going to document the process, including any reasons why a car was given a variance in that process. That left them no wiggle room whatsoever. They were not about to let that happen. They're going to keep doing things the way they always have, and making it look like they were letting the ITAC develop an objective process for classing cars was nothing more than a bunch of window dressing and posturing. As long as the CRB are the political puppets of the BoD, this is never going to change.

And while I'd like to believe that ITR was created because it was the right thing to do for IT (that, and that we did a pretty good job handing them something that had a nice bow on it), the current actions make me wonder if there wasn't a part of it that helped them deal w/ the sticky issue of the E36 BMW in ITS. It went through at essentially light speed, compared to other things (that weren't top-down) in the club.

I don't think that there's ANY question that ITR came along at a handy time vis-a-vis the e36-in-ITS issue. That car, at its practical minimum, became the bogey car for determination of the process math. In hindsight, there are some who think that put R too close to S in terms of performance, I think, resulting in too-fat cars at the high end of the power continuum.

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bamfp

The 85-87 Civic/CRX should be x by 35%. It is very easy to get 105+ whp from those cars. I have built three of them that make that. It should also have the same tq as hp as well. It could stand a few pounds to be taken off it but nothing much under 2100#.

Just my $.02

Blake

---

Blake,

i appreciate the feedback on what my car should be able to produce. honestly, since i have not been to a dyno.

if i use the 1.35 factor you suggest, i get a "process" weight of 2038.

it is really the accord that stands out in my opinion.

if i look at some of the most common hondas competing, they typically have factors of about 1.4+. the accord is dead on at 1.25.

taking the basic process and calculating the power multiplier to approximate the weights, you would have the following for common hondas competing.

ITC crx 1.40
ITB crx 1.41
ITB civic 1.43
ITA crx 1.44

so what is so restrictive in the engine design that the accord only has a factor of 1.25 when it has the same HP/cc from the factory as the 85-87 crx si? this is what i was alluding to when i said picking a car/dark horse could be based on looking for an "oddball" car within a manufacturer when it comes to power factors.

Remember that the A-arm suspension adder gets plunked on after the power factor and class multiplier get applied. Or would, if we were using the process.

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

Remember that the A-arm suspension adder gets plunked on after the power factor and class multiplier get applied. Or would, if we were using the process.

K

---

:happy204::happy204::happy204::happy204:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tom91ita

Blake,

i appreciate the feedback on what my car should be able to produce. honestly, since i have not been to a dyno.

if i use the 1.35 factor you suggest, i get a "process" weight of 2038.

it is really the accord that stands out in my opinion.

if i look at some of the most common hondas competing, they typically have factors of about 1.4+. the accord is dead on at 1.25.

taking the basic process and calculating the power multiplier to approximate the weights, you would have the following for common hondas competing.

ITC crx 1.40
ITB crx 1.41
ITB civic 1.43
ITA crx 1.44

so what is so restrictive in the engine design that the accord only has a factor of 1.25 when it has the same HP/cc from the factory as the 85-87 crx si? this is what i was alluding to when i said picking a car/dark horse could be based on looking for an "oddball" car within a manufacturer when it comes to power factors.

---

I'll take this one I'll bite!:026: check out what the CRB members drive in ITB :shrug: And while at it see what the other one that doesn't drive a Honda drives and do the math on that car :rolleyes:

Blake, you have a message.

hoop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephenB

I'll take this one I'll bite!:026: check out what the CRB members drive in ITB :shrug: And while at it see what the other one that doesn't drive a Honda drives and do the math on that car :rolleyes:

---

Take that one a step further. What do you think the chances that the 'negative adder' for the rear beam doesn't get corrected because that would be 'in violation of the GCR'?

My 2 cents, I think wheelbase might be a factor as well.

Look at the 92-95 Civic Si, same specs as the Honda Civic EX Coupe/Sedan VTEC (92-95) but my Si is 25 lbs heavier. only difference between those two cars is 1.9 inch wheelbase.

Mickey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mossaidis

My 2 cents, I think wheelbase might be a factor as well.

Look at the 92-95 Civic Si, same specs as the Honda Civic EX Coupe/Sedan VTEC (92-95) but my Si is 25 lbs heavier. only difference between those two cars is 1.9 inch wheelbase.

Mickey

---

Nope, at least not consistently.

88-91 CRX SI and 88-91 Civic SI and 1991 Civic EX

Are all classed at the same weight, they have different wheelbases, and even all have different brakes.


Really its just a matter of nothing being that consistent.

Which is what K and others were trying to get, even though everyone knows it wouldn't be perfect it would be CONSISTENT.

That's why voted to have ITAC reclassify ALL IT cars using a standard and VERY public equation/rules. The wheelbase is the only way I can justify my little world and be able to sleep okay at night.

Naively,
mickey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mossaidis

That's why voted to have ITAC reclassify ALL IT cars using a standard and VERY public equation/rules. The wheelbase is the only way I can justify my little world and be able to sleep okay at night.

Naively,
mickey

---

Did you share that opinion with the BoD and CRB? If not, it won't even be heard, let alone taken into consideration.

ALL - YOU NEED TO GET REAL. At this point, give up all pretense that any currently listed IT car will get any weight spec attention, including those for which were submitted but not yet acted upon. There will be NO "system" except as it might get applied for newly listed cars based on the most recent opinions issued by the CRB - at least based on what I've most recently heard.

Conversations here are officially a waste of bandwidth unless/until Club leadership changes its mind in regard to how the ITAC is allowed to do its work.

K

So then who's planning on being at the National Convention in Las Vegas? Last year we had to get a waiver because the convention conflited with our spring race at Willow Springs. This year we may need a waiver because that's the weekend that we host our double National/restricted regional at AAA-Speedway Fontana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

Did you share that opinion with the BoD and CRB? If not, it won't even be heard, let alone taken into consideration.

ALL - YOU NEED TO GET REAL. At this point, give up all pretense that any currently listed IT car will get any weight spec attention, including those for which were submitted but not yet acted upon. There will be NO "system" except as it might get applied for newly listed cars based on the most recent opinions issued by the CRB - at least based on what I've most recently heard.

Conversations here are officially a waste of bandwidth unless/until Club leadership changes its mind in regard to how the ITAC is allowed to do its work.

K

---

Maybe you're looking at changing the wrong thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Miller

Take that one a step further. What do you think the chances that the 'negative adder' for the rear beam doesn't get corrected because that would be 'in violation of the GCR'?

---

Well, everyone knows that FWD cars inherently understeer, so only having one wheel on the ground at the back helps mitigate that situation, right. :023:

maybe that is what the CRB has in mind?

given that the car has a 62/38 front to rear weight bias and only has three wheels on the ground in the corners, then it only weighs 1725 #'s?

and then you average that weight 20% of the time for a curvy track and 80% at the 2130, that means my average weight must be about 2049 #'s.

that is pretty much the 100 #'s i was hoping for! never mind....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tom91ita

ITA crx 1.44

---

The D16A6 has a 149HP potential in IT trim? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raffaelli

The D16A6 has a 149HP potential in IT trim? :shrug:

---

I sure as hell hope not.. don't see it happen legally.. or altest within the intent of the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quadzjr

I sure as hell hope not.. don't see it happen legally.. or altest within the intent of the rules.

---

at the crank, probably something close to that.

though my last few D16a6 builds have been far from 10/10ths builds. They were putting down 130-140 to the wheels, however these motors were 12:1 compression, decent cams, etc..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quadzjr

though my last few D16a6 builds have been far from 10/10ths builds. They were putting down 130-140 to the wheels, however these motors were 12:1 compression, decent cams, etc..

---

9.6 cr limit in IT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quadzjr

though my last few D16a6 builds have been far from 10/10ths builds. They were putting down 130-140 to the wheels, however these motors were 12:1 compression, decent cams, etc..

---

i hope that was your FP car and not your ITA :happy204:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tom91ita

i hope that was your FP car and not your ITA :happy204:

---

why yes it was.. just built a new motor, now having ignition issues.. we keep buring up coils/ignitors.. nothing has chaged then all of a sudden... issues. Looks like we maybe going a different route. Hoping to be back on track februaryish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raffaelli

The D16A6 has a 149HP potential in IT trim? :shrug:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimmyc

at the crank, probably something close to that.

---

Yep. You'd want to target around 130whp out of a D16A6 (which is at the upper end of achievable).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quadzjr

why yes it was.. just built a new motor, now having ignition issues.. we keep buring up coils/ignitors.. nothing has chaged then all of a sudden... issues. Looks like we maybe going a different route. Probably will be selling the hondata. Hoping to be back on track februaryish.

---

Is that an OBD0 or OBD1 Hondata?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xian

Is that an OBD0 or OBD1 Hondata?

---

Just been notified it is sale pending.. and if you were planning on putting it on your blue civic it would require that you run a different distributor.

Steve,

I'd look into the new-est version of AEM ECU.

You could switch to the distributor-less ignition with coil packs. Which makes things much less of a head ache in the world of tuning these types of motors, esp now that Honda discontinued OBDI and older distributors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xian

Is that an OBD0 or OBD1 Hondata?

---

Christian,

If you are interested i have a friend who works at AEM, and is vary familiar with the OBD0 crx/EF stuff. Le tme know if you want his email.


Note- not a shill/sponsored by the company, i run hondata. Just there new offerings are really good, and at really good prices.