Results 1 to 20 of 51

Thread: IT prep Whp for honda VTEC's

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    >> ...Given that most of you ("you" being the ITAC) think that a 100# weight difference from process is insignificant (thus effectively equal), what you're basically saying is that you think a FWD car and a RWD car with similar power and equal weights (e.g., less than 100# difference) are adequately classed. You're wrong, of course.

    Hey - don't point that thing at me, man. There's a big difference between "we're kind of stuck with current practice" and "don't think 100# makes a difference."

    >>
    What about the ITS Prelude? Ran second at the ARRCs until a rear wheel bearing failed, holds track record at Mid Ohio...seems like it's getting the job done...

    Yeah - Danger, danger Will Robinson. One car, one track, one driver, no evidence of any controlling for other factors. Just like that kind of evidence shouldn't be support for what we DO, it should not be support for what we DON'T DO.

    Gave this puzzle a little thought last night and I confess that I'm beginning to believe the "stock displacement-specific power" factor might have some value. Right now, we subjectively apply the "torque" adder (or subtractor) and I'm wondering if that ends up being a proxy value for what Bob brings up here. It's NOT a theoretical stretch to suggest what he suggests. And it could be repeatable and objective.

    I still don't believe we're dealing with torque the way we might (as a possible starting value for the process) and a specific HP factor in the "IT power multiplier" might help address these differences. Note here that I'm totally cool with this consideration because it's more closely tied to engine architecture factors, and it would keep us from getting into make-model specific considerations, which is how the question here might be interpreted. (As though Hondas should be different because they're Hondas.)

    K

    K

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Kirk, not sure I fully understand your thinking so forgive me if I make assumptions that are incorrect.

    In my view, once we move away from a strict (well, strict-ish) use of stock hp as the basis for a the process weight, and start trying to come up with a IT power multiplier that incorporates torque then we run into a huge problem: gear ratios and torque under the curve. We then have to start looking at where cars make power and torque and that to me is the beginning of a nightmare.

    The stock hp X IT adder X class pwr/weight target seems to work. IT classing should be as simple as possible, and that is simple. I personally would throw out the brakes and suspension adders -- totally subjective and impossible to accurately quantify given what we can do with brakes and suspension -- but leave in the subjective torque adder as a "rough" means of dealing with the legitimate problem Bob identifies above and the FWD subtractor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    >> ...

    I still don't believe we're dealing with torque the way we might (as a possible starting value for the process) and a specific HP factor in the "IT power multiplier" might help address these differences. Note here that I'm totally cool with this consideration because it's more closely tied to engine architecture factors, and it would keep us from getting into make-model specific considerations, which is how the question here might be interpreted. (As though Hondas should be different because they're Hondas.)

    K

    K
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Greg,

    Can you provide the ITAC with your statistical analysis on FWD 'adders' for our review? The more data the better.

    That would be better than 'you guys never listen to me and therefor have it wrong again'. Right? Why not submit something proactively instead of telling us how much we suck because we have it wrong?

    Wasn't so long ago that the ITS FWD adder was 50lbs.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    I wasn't proposing setting the power multipliers (as they are currently conceived) by considering torque. I was suggesting using something like Travis described - another factor in the power math - instead of futzing around with guesses about torque. This, plus a more sensitive FWD subractor might be enough to get us a repeatable, quantitative process without the big gaps we seem to fight over.

    K

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •