Feb Fastrack

[Charlie Broring]

ITA changed, IMO, when the CRX was classed. I'm not sure that there even WAS an ITAC back then. It is known to have an artificially low HP rating, and it was a winner right out of the box. That was 92 or 93 or so. The bar was raised.

I think this is currently happening in ITB with the VW MK3 and the 1955cc Honda's. The MR2 would be a class winner in the old ITB racing against 2002's and A2 Golfs but possibly an underdog against the newly classed faster ITB front runners. The CRB sees a problem but they don't fully understand it and they appear to lack confidence in the ITAC recommendations. Mixed and conflicting rules are the result.

In a perfect world the ITAC and CRB would communicate and work together. A slight adjustment would be made in the classification process in ITB. The resulting adjustments would be well received by the IT community. Competition would be well balanced in all classes. Everybody would be so happy...

[Knestis]

Over a couple of months last spring and early summer, the ITAC was told by representatives of the CRB, that...

1. There was no way that a big pile of cars were going to get "run through the process" because the promise that the (not so) Great Realignment was a one-time-only deal was crucial to getting it done in the first place

2. We should prepare a comprehensive "re-do" of ITB as a pilot of our processes and practices - spent a lot of a couple weekends and burned up other members' time digging up data on THAT one, lemme tell ya.

3. That ANY after-the-fact changes to race weights of cars was verboten by the ITCS, beyond the very limited window provided by the verbiage added during the (ns)GR.

K

[jjjanos]

Over a couple of months last spring and early summer, the ITAC was told by representatives of the CRB, that...

1. There was no way that a big pile of cars were going to get "run through the process" because the promise that the (not so) Great Realignment was a one-time-only deal was crucial to getting it done in the first place

2. We should prepare a comprehensive "re-do" of ITB as a pilot of our processes and practices - spent a lot of a couple weekends and burned up other members' time digging up data on THAT one, lemme tell ya.

3. That ANY after-the-fact changes to race weights of cars was verboten by the ITCS, beyond the very limited window provided by the verbiage added during the (ns)GR.

K

Am I missing something? Seems to me that objective 1 and objective 2 are mutually exclusive.

[mossaidis]

Just filed my first CRB request asking for weight equality between 92-95 Civic EX and 92-95 Civic Si. I have no idea why they are off by 25 lbs when then cars are identical except for the wheelbase and body style.

[Bill Miller]

I'm curious, what power factor (25% or 30%) was used when the Corolla FX16 was moved to ITB? It has the same 4A-GE motor that the AW11 MR2 and the AE86 Corolla have.

[JeffYoung]

I'm pretty sure it was done at 30% in error too. There are some who believe all 16v motors should be at 30% by default, apparently regardless of what the dyno sheets say.

I'm curious, what power factor (25% or 30%) was used when the Corolla FX16 was moved to ITB? It has the same 4A-GE motor that the AW11 MR2 and the AE86 Corolla have.

[lateapex911]

yea, as far as I'm concerned, take the request, punch the numbers, recommend the outcome. Then the CRB does what they will with it.

It's not for me to say, but I imagine they wouldn't be thrilled with that recommendation. From the ITACs point of view, it then becomes a question of political capital. The CRB has shown an "end result" point of view...does 25 pounds matter on the track??

The ITAC looks more at the process and being consistent and letting the chips fall where they may. If they fall way out of line, it's time to examine the process, and figure out what's going awry., and if needed, adjust the process as the analysis shows.

But that's, I think, a difference in the bodies philosophy.

So yea, submit it, but....

[JLawton]

Just filed my first CRB request asking for weight equality between 92-95 Civic EX and 92-95 Civic Si. I have no idea why they are off by 25 lbs when then cars are identical except for the wheelbase and body style.

25 lbs?? You're kidding, right? Why are you dickin' around for 25 lbs?


.

[Knestis]

I feel strongly that 25 pounds, while not enough to be more than lap-to-lap human error noise for a typical club racer, is enough to be meaningful from a organizational point of view. If two cars are the same based on the criteria, they should weigh the same. If we allow them to be 25 pounds different then why not 50? 100? 300? There's right and there's all of the other options and as long as we are OK with "other," we leave room for shady crap, or the appearances and accusations of shady crap.

K

[Bill Miller]

I feel strongly that 25 pounds, while not enough to be more than lap-to-lap human error noise for a typical club racer, is enough to be meaningful from a organizational point of view. If two cars are the same based on the criteria, they should weigh the same. If we allow them to be 25 pounds different then why not 50? 100? 300? There's right and there's all of the other options and as long as we are OK with "other," we leave room for shady crap, or the appearances and accusations of shady crap.

K

That's pretty much it Jeff. If they go in w/ the same specs, they should come out w/ the same specs. Really has nothing to do w/ how trivial 25# is.

[JLawton]

I feel strongly that 25 pounds, while not enough to be more than lap-to-lap human error noise for a typical club racer, is enough to be meaningful from a organizational point of view. If two cars are the same based on the criteria, they should weigh the same. If we allow them to be 25 pounds different then why not 50? 100? 300? There's right and there's all of the other options and as long as we are OK with "other," we leave room for shady crap, or the appearances and accusations of shady crap.

K

I was coming more from a stand point that there are sooo many cars out there that are far out of whack, are we just going to clog up the process by submitting peanuts? Yes, I will be one of the first to actually admit that I am being self serving because my car is off by 100+ lbs.......

[mossaidis]

I feel strongly that 25 pounds, while not enough to be more than lap-to-lap human error noise for a typical club racer, is enough to be meaningful from a organizational point of view. If two cars are the same based on the criteria, they should weigh the same. If we allow them to be 25 pounds different then why not 50? 100? 300? There's right and there's all of the other options and as long as we are OK with "other," we leave room for shady crap, or the appearances and accusations of shady crap.

K

Thank K.

Jeff, I am not being petty in the least bit. You know I have lots to change to my car before I become a front runner... overbore, shocks/springs, FD, spherical bushings, re-tune, (my) balls, etc. I am simply, and in my own little world, pointing out a potential discrepancy/flaw. My request (though with some grammatical errors given it was written late night) asked the fundamental question of why the difference and my request to adjust weight. I sit in my office 9-7 everyday and I don't have the resources or time to prove you or CRB that a ported CRX has a 41% IT gain vs. MR2's 10% gain OR even look at other civic models outside my years of expertise. Once my car is in full IT trim, I would more than happy to submit a dyno and configuration sheet to the ITAC in which in inform them that my car has reached its max in terms of hp/weight.

In the meantime, hugs kisses and Teresa says hi. We'll see you in June at LRP, unless you pay us a visit in NYC. Mickey

[Knestis]

Am I missing something? Seems to me that objective 1 and objective 2 are mutually exclusive.

LOL - As is typical, you missed nothing.

:026:

I was on numerous ITAC calls addressing the 1.6 twincam Toyota cousins, including the one where we dorked up the multiplier on the MR2 - that is, literally plugged in the wrong number. We tried very hard to get them all aligned since one stink test applied by members is that of internal consistency - do cars that bring the same factors to the equation net out at predictable, comparable weights...? (EDIT - there's obviously been some additional conversation since I left.)

K

[lateapex911]

LOL - As is typical, you missed nothing.

:026:

I was on numerous ITAC calls addressing the 1.6 twincam Toyota cousins, including the one where we dorked up the multiplier on the MR2 - that is, literally plugged in the wrong number. We tried very hard to get them all aligned since one stink test applied by members is that of internal consistency - do cars that bring the same factors to the equation net out at predictable, comparable weights...? (EDIT - there's obviously been some additional conversation since I left.)

K

Actually, 1, 2 AND 3 are very much in contrast with each other.

The 3 or 4 cars sharing the same drivetrain were processed by the ITAC recommended to the CRB for changes. They all used the same factor. One was rejected, another approved, (Corolla) but with altered math. I can't tell you what the math alterations and breakdown are though.