March FasTrack is up

[Bill Miller]

Can one of the ITAC members explain how the Mazda Protege landed in ITC?

[Knestis]

It was before my time but I'm pretty sure it was requested that it be a B car...

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can one of the ITAC members explain how the Mazda Protege landed in ITC?

Why Bill, you think it's a B car?

[MMiskoe]

Fuel testing got some attention. Does anyone know if these new standards are any better at allowing plain old pump gas pass? A couple of years ago I had gas from a couple of different local stations and some Powermist race fuel all tested. All failed. So I'm curious if these revised standards will allow any more lattitude.

Also, can anyone give insight as to why a sample can't be drawn directly out of the cell/tank? Or why the sample port has to be on the supply side of the fuel system? When the sample port requirement first came out, I asked Topeka why you couldn't use a bulb baster (sp?) from the cell. I was told it was too dangerous. Its pretty obvious that they are concerned w/ fuel spillage in a hot engine bay, but they don't seem to be offering up as many options as they could.

Matt

[mbuskuhl]

Or why the sample port has to be on the supply side of the fuel system?

Unless I misunderstood the rule, it does not have to be on the supply side line. You can have it on the return line as well, which is where mine is.

Does this new rule kill the easy "T" in a line with a small hose and cap on the end?

"All cars shall be equipped with an accessible sampling port/valve/device located in a fuel line between the fuel tank or fuel cell and the carburetors or fuel injection system to allow safe acquisition of a fuel sample. If possible, the port/valve/device should be located outside the engine compartment. The sampling port/valve/device will be installed and used by the competitor to obtain the sample without fuel leaking, spraying or squirting. Siphoning of fuel directly from the fuel tank or fuel cell or removing a hose or line is not allowed."

Removal of sound deadening material is specifically approved, take the stuff out. Should clear up the discussion on here a few months back.

[raffaelli]

Unless I misunderstood the rule, it does not have to be on the supply side line. You can have it on the return line as well, which is where mine is.

Does this new rule kill the easy "T" in a line with a small hose and cap on the end?

"All cars shall be equipped with an accessible sampling port/valve/device located in a fuel line between the fuel tank or fuel cell and the carburetors or fuel injection system to allow safe acquisition of a fuel sample. If possible, the port/valve/device should be located outside the engine compartment. The sampling port/valve/device will be installed and used by the competitor to obtain the sample without fuel leaking, spraying or squirting. Siphoning of fuel directly from the fuel tank or fuel cell or removing a hose or line is not allowed."

Removal of sound deadening material is specifically approved, take the stuff out. Should clear up the discussion on here a few months back.

I just installed, last week, the Pegasus port in the return line. Hope it can stay there! The thread sealant is still wet!

[Bill Miller]

Why Bill, you think it's a B car?

Andy,

I'd like to know how it landed in ITC. I don't necessarily think it's an ITB car, but there are certainly a few ITB cars that have similar specs. What's the process weight for the car in ITB? If I had to guess, I'd say somewhere around 2175#.

[Bill Miller]

As far as the fuel testing thing goes, I'd say it's a safe bet that they've made what were otherwise perfectly acceptable fuel test ports, illegal.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

I'd like to know how it landed in ITC. I don't necessarily think it's an ITB car, but there are certainly a few ITB cars that have similar specs. What's the process weight for the car in ITB? If I had to guess, I'd say somewhere around 2175#.

It landed in ITC because that is where we think it fits best based on achievable weight. 103hp SOHC, FWDer with struts.

2375 in ITC (2195 without driver) or 2140 in ITB (1960 without driver)

Curb weight of ~2400lbs.

[jhooten]

The Sunoco 104 UL track gas failed at the last race. DC was 15.6.

[Bill Miller]

It landed in ITC because that is where we think it fits best based on achievable weight. 103hp SOHC, FWDer with struts.

2375 in ITC (2195 without driver) or 2140 in ITB (1960 without driver)

Curb weight of ~2400lbs.

So why didn't you just come out and say that Andy? But, since you threw out the numbers,

1991 VW Jetta, 105hp, 110 lb-ft SOHC, FWDer w/ struts, curb weight of 2600+# ITB spec wt of 2280# (2100# w/o driver).

One car car drop 500+# yet another can't drop ~400#? And where's the 140# weight difference come from, given that they're both similar power output and drivetrain / suspension configurations?

Like I said Andy, I'm all for more cars in ITC, but please be consistent w/ how the cars are classed.

Oh, and the same year GTI that's listed in ITB has almost the same curb weight as the Protege, but it also weighs in @ 2280# in ITB.

[MMiskoe]

Unless I misunderstood the rule, it does not have to be on the supply side line. You can have it on the return line as well, which is where mine is.

The way I read it, it has to be on the supply side because they say "between the tank/cell and the rail/carb". On the return side it would be after the rail/carb, therefore not between it & the tank. I'd be curious for opinions here.

As far as the fuel testing thing goes, I'd say it's a safe bet that they've made what were otherwise perfectly acceptable fuel test ports, illegal.

That's kind of what I was thinking. So much for a threaded connection, now you have to have some sort of a dry break valve which adds places for it to leak.

All this for a test that unless I'm confused, will most likely fail, therefore tech will never test it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So why didn't you just come out and say that Andy? But, since you threw out the numbers,

1991 VW Jetta, 105hp, 110 lb-ft SOHC, FWDer w/ struts, curb weight of 2600+# ITB spec wt of 2280# (2100# w/o driver).

One car car drop 500+# yet another can't drop ~400#? And where's the 140# weight difference come from, given that they're both similar power output and drivetrain / suspension configurations?

Like I said Andy, I'm all for more cars in ITC, but please be consistent w/ how the cars are classed.

Oh, and the same year GTI that's listed in ITB has almost the same curb weight as the Protege, but it also weighs in @ 2280# in ITB.

Because of the way you phrased your initial question Bill. Read it ot loud to yourself. Typicall Miller-stuff, really.

All we are going to do is class the new stuff (requests) whatever legacy stuff remains are adressed by member request. If this car was classed by the current ITAC, it was obviously felt it could make weight. Just because two car look alike on paper doesn't mean they are.

[shwah]

I am pretty sure there are a lot of A2 Jettas that weigh less than 2600. Maybe the last of the breed when equiped with AC, sunroof, power windows and that big ole knee bar get into 2500 territory.

According to Consumer Automotive Guide the 2door 90-92 version has a curb weight of 2275, 4door 90-92 version 2330.

[seckerich]

I always wonder why Andy even bothers to post here since some of you blast him personally for every move the ITAC as a whole makes. A few of you need to grow up and act like somebody.

[Catch22]

So why didn't you just come out and say that Andy? But, since you threw out the numbers,

1991 VW Jetta, 105hp, 110 lb-ft SOHC, FWDer w/ struts, curb weight of 2600+# ITB spec wt of 2280# (2100# w/o driver).

One car car drop 500+# yet another can't drop ~400#? And where's the 140# weight difference come from, given that they're both similar power output and drivetrain / suspension configurations?

Like I said Andy, I'm all for more cars in ITC, but please be consistent w/ how the cars are classed.

Oh, and the same year GTI that's listed in ITB has almost the same curb weight as the Protege, but it also weighs in @ 2280# in ITB.

And it took wailing and gnashing of teeth to get the 92hp Civic DX moved from ITA to ITB.
And it has to weigh 2240lbs in ITB?

Geez guys. A double wishbone suspension isn't THAT good. Seriously.\

Don't get me wrong. I'm not intending to point and pick and make people feel bad. But stuff like this makes me feel that for as far as we've come in IT rulesmaking, we still have a long way to go.

BTW - As a former ITC driver I don't like that Protege there. I know what my former top car did on the dyno, and I'm guessing a fully built Protege will cover that by about 20 horses. And thats a conservative guestimate.
Just sayin.

[Catch22]

2375 in ITC (2195 without driver) or 2140 in ITB (1960 without driver)

So a 5 speed 103hp Protege goes to ITB at 2140.
And a 5 speed 92hp Civic goes to ITB at 2240.

So... The car with 11 LESS horsepower has to weigh 100lbs more?
Really?

OK. You're right. I have a dog in this fight because there is a Civic under construction in my garage. But I have to admit that this pisses me off.
You don't have to be a genius to see that either the "process" wasn't equally applied to the Civic or there is WAY too much penalty given for a double wishbone suspension.

Seriously guys. That is pretty wrong right there.
I'd love to see the actual calculations that got us to that result.

BTW - In the interest of full disclosure, I requested the Protege classification. Looked like a good ITB car to me, so obviously the "process" I thought I grapsed isn't so much in my grip.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Scott, let me ask you this question before I give you an answer. You MUST answer honestly...

What are your WHP targets for your project?

Remember, there is a TON of Honda knowledge (not me) on the ITAC. You answer low, and I get to call BS.