ITAC News.

[JeffYoung]

Because it suits his agenda.

[jjjanos]

Why are you using 1.2 for the Volvo and 1.3 for the Golf?

Because that's what Mr. Dowd says is the process in use..

1.20 or 20% for 2V Carburete
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
http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1

See post #2

Unless, I've missed something on Charlie's car, I could swear it had a Carb and I'm pretty darn certain that there is no ECU on it.

The G2 certainly isn't an older ECU vehicle - it's a 90s vehicle -- so it either gets a 1.3 or 1.35+.

[jjjanos]

Because it suits his agenda.

No sir, because the Chair of the CRB posted on the official SCCA forum the classification process used for the great alignment and strongly implied that none of the later regimes are in use.

And thus we return to the three adjectives I have used earlier in this thread for the CRB.....

[shwah]

Why are you using 1.2 for the Volvo and 1.3 for the Golf?

Probably because the 1.8 Golf2 gets a 1.3 (though I have still never seen data to support this), and the 2.0 should make similar gains to the 1.8.

In reality I would be OK with the G3 just being run at 25% at least. But

It is what it is, and I will be back to run when my stuff is faster than it was last time.

[shwah]

Because that's what Mr. Dowd says is the process in use..

1.20 or 20% for 2V Carburete
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
http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1

See post #2

Unless, I've missed something on Charlie's car, I could swear it had a Carb and I'm pretty darn certain that there is no ECU on it.

The G2 certainly isn't an older ECU vehicle - it's a 90s vehicle -- so it either gets a 1.3 or 1.35+.

Vocabulary check: In the VW fanboi world G2 = A2 = Golf 2 = 1780cc counter flow 8v head
G3 = A3 = 1980cc cross flow 8v head with thin valve stems
Neither is a multi valve head. Both are available with electronic fuel injection. The 2 liter uses a modern mass airflow device, the 1.8 uses two different types of flapper/trap door air measuring devices.

What you are neglecting is that when something is 'known' about a motor that is taken into account. Just don't ask what the definition of 'known' is. It seems to be a 'we know it when we see it' kind of thing, which is my sticking point with the whole thing.

[lateapex911]

The Process Bob posted was an early version, and was a flow chart. One step in the flow chart was "Review and discuss if it makes sense, and return to areas where it doesn't", or something similar.

So, in pracice, we saw that those starting points were making little sense, and we used the 'return" function to get closer to reality, and 25% became SOP in most cases. As a matter of fact, we discussed 30 or 35% as a POS factor. POS stood for, well, you know. Basically old emission era cars that, when you remove air pumps, horrible exhaust manifolds, and carb issues, they REALLY wake up.

Further, and this was a bit before my time, but the 142 was used as a bogey.

IMO, the G3# is 50 light because I think it got a rear axle break, which I don't think should be used.

[mc-integra111]

1.35+ or 35%+ for V-Tech, Vanos/Double Vanos, or other engine designs known to have higher potential/gains

OK, here is where I think the biggest problem is. General assumptions like this are just wrong. Some of the Honda VTEC motors will likely gain much less than comparable non-VTEC cars. For example, I think my B18A makes good process power improvements (not great, but good). However, the B18C5 (Type R motor) is likey to make much smaller improvements as that thing is basically built to the hilt from the factory.

[Knestis]

OK, here is where I think the biggest problem is. General assumptions like this are just wrong. Some of the Honda VTEC motors will likely gain much less than comparable non-VTEC cars. For example, I think my B18A makes good process power improvements (not great, but good). However, the B18C5 (Type R motor) is likey to make much smaller improvements as that thing is basically built to the hilt from the factory.

...which is precisely why the ITAC c.2007-2009 didn't apply that assumption, and v.2 codified not using it. The S2000 is the poster child for "scary engine architecture" but probably won't gain much at all because it's highly optimized from the factory.

K

[lateapex911]

OK, here is where I think the biggest problem is. General assumptions like this are just wrong. Some of the Honda VTEC motors will likely gain much less than comparable non-VTEC cars. For example, I think my B18A makes good process power improvements (not great, but good). However, the B18C5 (Type R motor) is likey to make much smaller improvements as that thing is basically built to the hilt from the factory.

See my above comments...those factors are from an early version that was written before my time.
I'm inferring here that the reason those factors came to play is because, at the time, the big bad boys of IT were teh BMW E36, and the CRX in ITA. Both cars were unique in their ability to exceed factory rated hp by a significant amount, but it wasn't due to architecture. But, I think the authors of that document were reacting to those two cars, and that Process was the result. SOP hasn't followed those recommendations for years.

[Ron Earp]

. The S2000 is the poster child for "scary engine architecture" but probably won't gain much at all because it's highly optimized from the factory.

K

Don't forget the extra scary "V8". Boy that one was a lot of fun with the ITAC/CRB.

[jjjanos]

Mr. Dowd strongly implied that any versions of the process after TGRA were void and null, or at least I infered it.

Let's run the numbers again using the 1.25/1.30/1.35 multipliers

First Gen CRX: 91 * 1.25 * 17 = 1935 (OW: 2130) Pre-add error: 195
"Newer" Golf : 115 * 1.25 * 17 = 2445 (OW: 2350) Pre-add error: -95

Now that imples that a CRX with it's poor torque and much smaller brakes has either a suspension or other advantage that requires a 290 pound weight advantage for the Newer Golf.

First Gen CRX: 91 * 1.30 * 17 = 2010 (OW: 2130) Pre-add error: 120
"Newer" Golf : 115 * 1.30 * 17 = 2445 (OW: 2350) Pre-add error: -190

Darn, thought we had it when the CRX weight increased, but so does the Golf. The CRX is a 310 pound better car now.

So, let's take the highest multiplier for the CRX - 1.35 and the lowest for the newer Golfs (1.25) ...

CRX: 2130 (OW) - 2090 (Pre-adder weight) = 40 pounds too heavy
"Golf": 2350 (OW) - 2445 (Pre-adder weight) = 95 pounds too light.

So, the difference between the two translates into throwing 135 pounds onto the CRX. Let me see... both are FWD cars so it cannot be that. Torque? I'd say advantage Golf, but let's call it a draw. Brakes? Obviously I need to talk to someone because I fail to see the advantage of rear-wheel drums over huge rear discs. Suspension? Nope.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have yet to be proven wrong on what I remember vs other and I can tell you that what Bob posted was an early version. We used 25% as a default when nothing was known. The real issues that are surfacing now are the acuracy of the 'what we know' in ITB-land.

V.2's two biggest changes were the % for FWD instead of a set number and the evidentiary and documentary standards applied to 'what we know'.

V.2 solves all these effing issues people.

[Charlie Broring]

Further, and this was a bit before my time, but the 142 was used as a bogey.

.

A really good legal Volvo 142 makes 10% more flywheel HP then the factory rating. If this is the basis of the ITB Process no wonder the system is wonky.

[jjjanos]

I have yet to be proven wrong on what I remember vs other and I can tell you that what Bob posted was an early version. We used 25% as a default when nothing was known.

Andy,

I know whose memory is sharper. I know what was posted was superceeded. The question is why doesn't the chair of the CRB know that or, at the very least, why is an outdated method being posted as the current method?

Got to use what the head honcho says is being used.

V.2 solves all these effing issues people.

Which would be nice if it was what the CRB claimed to be using.

[JeffYoung]

V2 is what the ITAC has used, and is using (for new cars), and therefore defacto what the CRB is using when it has approved new classifications and adjustments.

The only part of the "old assumptions" on power gains that gets used still (and I personally disagree with it) is all 16v motors in ITB get 30%. Everything else is 25% default unless proven otherwise by actual data.

[shwah]

Mr Brakes? Obviously I need to talk to someone because I fail to see the advantage of rear-wheel drums over huge rear discs. Suspension? Nope.

Seriously? You want to consider rear brakes on fwd race cars when classing them.

In VW land we spend as much effort trying to keep the rears from working as we do optimizing the fronts.

IMO the G3 is about 100 under, or it is 50 under and most others are 50 over.
I don't know enough about the CRX to comment on what it should or shouldn't be capable of. Maybe a healthy dose of uncovering more 'what we know' about that motor in IT trim is in order.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The only part of the "old assumptions" on power gains that gets used still (and I personally disagree with it) is all 16v motors in ITB get 30%. Everything else is 25% default unless proven otherwise by actual data.

Actually, this is wrong too. If you were to go by that old first-cut sheet, EVERYTHING 16V is supposed to get classed at 30%. In EVERY class. Just simply didn't happen like that. In every class 25% was used. When the first 16V car that was to be classed for ITB hit (MR2), all of the sudden 30% was 'what we used'.

I don't care who you are or what your recollection, this is what happened. I can go back and look at every ITA car that was classed or reclassed and prove 25% was used. I ask those who fought for 30% on the MR2, where was that 'fight' when every other car 16V was being classed?

Ugh.

[JeffYoung]

It's not wrong for what happens now. The default 30% gain for 16v motors is ITB only.

Where I agree with you is that makes no sense, and I also agree that it appears (I was not on the ITAC at the time) that the 30%/16v was not used as a default in other classes.

Ugh, I agree.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's not wrong for what happens now. The default 30% gain for 16v motors is ITB only.

Where I agree with you is that makes no sense, and I also agree that it appears (I was not on the ITAC at the time) that the 30%/16v was not used as a default in other classes.

Ugh, I agree.

That is a completely made-up piece of crap rule. WHY IN THE WORLD DOES 30% APPLY IN ITB ONLY????? It makes zero sense, made zero sense and is a big pile of FAIL. Someone needs to stand up and fix it. (or at the lease apply it equally across all classes!!!)

The best leaders can admit when they made a mistake, fix it, and prevent it from happening again. That is what I want in a CRB/Ad Hoc.

[jjjanos]

Seriously? You want to consider rear brakes on fwd race cars when classing them.

Somebody must have because the ITAC's own math says the ITB CRX is a heck of a better car than the VWs. It's got to be suspension, brakes or torque.

In VW land we spend as much effort trying to keep the rears from working as we do optimizing the fronts.

For the ITC CRX, the rears are useful for keeping the car from rolling off the jackstands when the front is in the air. For the ITB car - same sized front calipers as the ITC car, the extra weight and extra speed, the drums come into play.

IMO the G3 is about 100 under, or it is 50 under and most others are 50 over.
I don't know enough about the CRX to comment on what it should or shouldn't be capable of. Maybe a healthy dose of uncovering more 'what we know' about that motor in IT trim is in order.

Won't matter... neither an error nor omission as defined by the CRB.