Review and adjust weight of ITB CRX Si as appropriate

[tom91ita]

EDIT to restore paragraphs:

CRB Letter Tracking Number #1333

ATTN: SCCA BOD, CRB, ITAC, ImprovedTouring.com May 11, 2010

I would like to make note of an error and/or omission in the assigned weight of the 1985-87 Honda CRX Si (as well as the 1986-87 Honda Civic Si). I am requesting that these weights be properly and actually evaluated. In the specific case of the 1985-87 CRX Si, this car was originally classified as ITA and was given an arbitrary 150 pound addition when it was reclassified as ITB. This weight is inappropriate compared to cars with similarly designed engines in the class as you will soon see.

One basic premise of IT classing takes into consideration certain aspects of power to weight and/or displacement to weight ratios. For example, ITB has used a factor of 17 pounds per horsepower and ITA has used 14.5 pounds per horsepower. This basic formula can be illustrated as follows for ITA:

Stock HP X HP Multiplier X 14.5 #/HP – 50 #’s (if FWD) + 50 #’s (if double wishbone type suspension)

However, there is a rather wide range when it comes to the Horsepower Multiplier. This is in large part due to the wide range of assigned horsepower ratings by the original manufacturers. However, if one looks at the IT expected Horsepower calculated from the assigned weights in the GCR, one can see that similar engine architecture results in similar specific horsepower ratings.

Four Cylinder - 16 Valve Engines

Four popular 16V cars are the 1988-91 Honda CRX Si, Acura Integra, 1.8L Mazda Miata (all ITA cars with the 14.5 #/HP factor) and the 1988-91 Honda Civic DX (ITB & 17 #/HP factor). These cars have the following Horsepower Multipliers (calculated from the GCR and published stock HP ratings).

Horsepower Multiplier = (GCR Weight + FWD adjustment – Suspension adjustment)/(Stock HP)/14.4

Honda CRX Si = (2250 +50-50)/108/14.5 = 1.4368
Acura Integra = (2595 + 50 -50)/140/14.5 = 1.2783
Mazda Miata = (2380+0-50)/133/14.5 = 1.2082
Honda Civic DX = (2240 +50-50)/92/17 = 1.4322

I think the above represents a rather wide range of Power Factors. However, if we consider what the HP per Liter is for the above, we see that the 16V engines all provide close to the same specific HP per Liter.

Honda CRX Si = 1.4368 x 108 / 1.590 Liters = 97.59 HP per Liter Estimated in IT Trim
Acura Integra = 1.2783 x 140 / 1.834 Liters = 97.58 HP per Liter Estimated in IT Trim
Mazda Miata = 1.2082 x 133 / 1.839 Liters = 87.37 HP per Liter Estimated in IT Trim
Honda Civic DX = 1.4322 x 92 / 1.493 Liters = 88.25 HP per Liter Estimated in IT Trim

The IT Trim specific output of the 1.6L CRX and the 1.8L Integra being essentially identical is not that surprising since the 1.8L is effectively a scaled up version of the 1.6L. Also, although the Honda Civic DX is significantly less than the other Honda based 16V engines, it should be noted that this is not surprising considering the car has a dual point injection system instead of the multipoint injection system.

If you prefer to look at the Integra and CRX in terms of #’s per CC, you will again see that they are essentially equal; (Integra = 1.411 #/cc and the ITA CRX is 1.415 #/cc).

Four Cylinder - 12 Valve Engines
There is a limited sampling of 12V cars in Improved Touring. However, there are three distinct engines and they are all Hondas and all in ITB. These are the 1986-89 Honda Accord, the 1986-87 Honda Prelude and the 1985-87 CRX Si. These cars have the following Horsepower Multipliers (calculated from the GCR and published stock HP ratings).

Horsepower Multiplier = (GCR Weight + FWD adjustment – Suspension adjustment)/(Stock HP)/17

Accord = (2550 +50-50)/120/17 = 1.2500
Prelude = (2450 + 50 -50)/110/17 = 1.3101
85-87 CRX Si = (2130+50-0)/91/17 = 1.4092

Again, the above represents a rather wide range of Power Factors. But what is rather unusual about this is that these engines are from a single company and have very similar architecture with the exception of the compression ratio.

So what does the HP Multiplier and IT expected HP work out to for these similar engines that are nearly scale versions of each other work out in terms of IT Trim Estimated HP per Liter?

Accord: 1.25 x 120 / 1.955 Liters = 76.73 HP per Liter Est. in IT Trim Comp Ratio of 9.3
Prelude: 1.3101 x 110 / 1.955 Liters = 73.71 HP per Liter Est. in IT Trim Comp Ratio of 8.8

The Prelude, with its lower Compression Ratio, has a slightly lower specific output. So how does this compare to the 85-87 CRX Si which has a lower CR still?

85-87 CRX Si: 1.4092 x 91 / 1.488 Liters = 86.16 HP per Liter Est. in IT Trim Comp Ratio of 8.7

So the 85-87 CRX Si with a CR of 0.6 less than the Accord is purported to make 12% more power per liter. Also, the 85-87 CRX Si 12 valve engine is purported to make HP/Liter ratios similar to the better breathing 16 valve engines.

If you look at these cars in terms of weight per displacement they are not consistent as well:

Accord: 2550/1955 = 1.30 # per cc
Prelude: 2450/1955 = 1.25 # per cc
85-87 CRX Si: 2130/1488 = 1.43 # per cc

Please note that the12V ITB CRX Si is saddled with more weight per cc than the last three ITA ARRC Champions. And the 12V ITB CRX Si also suspension limitations in that it has front torsion bar springs and a rear beam axle compared to the wishbone style of the other Hondas and Integras.

I believe that the power potential and power to weight factors of the newer and improved 88-91 Honda CRX Si were inadvertently applied to the 85-87 when it was moved from ITA to ITB. Because of this error, the weight should be reviewed as an error/omission.

If the ITB CRX were classed like the Prelude at 1.25 #/cc (after all, the CRX CR is even less than the Prelude), the CRX should weigh 1860 #’s. This means the CRX would be 270 #’s overweight.

It should be noted that I have been told privately that I am tilting at windmills with this request because there are certain ITAC members (and/or former CRB member) who either race the Accord or who race against the CRX that will prevent my car from ever having the weight classified fairly. I, however, think that this should not impact the fair review of the car. But because of this perceived potential, I would very much appreciate a technical reason as to why the CRX 12V motor combination is rated so differently than the other Honda 12V ITB cars.

I do not consider the standard style explanation of “Car is appropriate as Classed” to be an appropriate answer.

Thanks,

Tom

[Chip42]

reasonable well written, a fair argument with good use of supporting data, even though it is all from the GCR. the demonstration of the ITA miata and ITB Accord having advantageous multipliers, particularly when compared against similar architectures in the same class is quite revealing. good thing those 2 cars aren't power houses in their classes

FWIW, though, the ITA teg 1.8L is NOT simply a scaled up version of the 1.6L in the CRX, but the point isn't lost on me.

good luck.

[Andy Bettencourt]

reasonable well written, a fair argument with good use of supporting data, even though it is all from the GCR. the demonstration of the ITA miata and ITB Accord having advantageous multipliers, particularly when compared against similar architectures in the same class is quite revealing. good thing those 2 cars aren't power houses in their classes

FWIW, though, the ITA teg 1.8L is NOT simply a scaled up version of the 1.6L in the CRX, but the point isn't lost on me.

good luck.

The Miata is based on 1.25 on 128hp and has been dabted many times. It also has 10lbs of slush weight added as well. The Accord is also spot on 25% and those who know the numbers know that is a VERY accurate depiction.

Is it possible the 1.5L Honda's are good at tight nimble tracks while the cars with a good bit more HP and weight are better at the big tracks? I bet the newer 160HP Civic Si is a screamer in ITA on the big end.

[tom91ita]

i tried to use the 16V's in ITA to demonstrate that there is not much difference between multipliers or #/cc even between makes. at least there is less difference there between different cars than between the 12V hondas.

is the crx more nimble on the small tracks? probably. does the accord have an advantage at championship quality tracks? probably.

frankly i was surprised by the ITA CRX and Teg having essentially exactly #/cc ratios to the 3rd decimal point.

the ITB CRX and Accord are rated from Honda at almost exactly the same power per liter, 61.2 vs. 61.4 HP/Liter respectively.

before i blew my built motor, i did not have it dynoed and have decided to not build another until i get an answer for this. i can't argue your number of 109 because i just don't know.

i also want to try and get a real response and not just the "car good as is" approach because i think there has to be real and rational reason.

[Andy Bettencourt]

i also want to try and get a real response and not just the "car good as is" approach because i think there has to be real and rational reason.

Well I am telling you the real and rational reason (accurate or not). When this car was reviewed with the Process the ITAC used from 2005-2009, it was estimated by the Honda experts on the committee that 109-110whp was achievable given a full-tilt legal build. Those numbers were then send upward through the process spitting out your 2180-50= 2130.

(I disagree with the following) The Process in ITB for 16V cars is a standard multiplier of 30% and 25% for all others when no power numbers are known.

The bottom line for you Tom to wrap your head around this fact: There is no rhyme or reason to the power numbers other than this: If you don't know the actual numbers, 25% is used most of the time. If you DO know power numbers, the ITAC tries to use them as accurately as possible. Just taking stock HP numbers and using those in your math is spinning your wheels because that number is just the BASE number and really isn't what is placed into the equation.

Where I do like your arguement (although you won't get anywhere if you have no data to dispell the 109-110whp) is that the CRB has started using like architecture. Look for 12V motors with similar cc's to compare with.

I can tell you that more than 1 ITAC/CRB member at the time this went to 2130 thought it was going to ruin ITB.

[gran racing]

Tom, while there are some similarities between the '86 & '87 Honda Prelude si and the 120 HP Lxi, there are certainly differences. In fact, that Accord was run through the process which stated it was spot on weight wise. Then the Prelude was run through the process yielding a different weight than the existing 2,450 lbs: somewhere about 110 lbs less than current weight in fact. Maybe some guys who were on that call could expand upon how that conclusion was made. Oh, they did have numbers from my a pro engine build among other power adder goodies on the Prelude. It was acquired from another source and people can't say I only provided them my second best results.

By the way, the last sentenece in the above paragraph is SO HUGE to me. They can actually explain where the conclusion was derrived from to us.

I did submit the Prelude si to be reviewed a while back. For better or worse, all I wanted was to have that and others to be measured by the same stick. The error & omissions / how it came down from ITA is an interesting approach, one that I had thought of too. Yeah, several cars came down from ITA which if the CRB wanted to they could probably pass under this loop hole if you want to call it that.

I do applaud your effort and think this letter can't hurt. I don't think it solves the issue, and wish more people would be vocal. I'm actually quiet disappointed with how few letters the CRB & BOD received about getting parity within the classes. I know they're sick of hearing from me. LOL

The Civic si - it's gonna be a pig in ITA. I can understand why the requester wanted it in ITA at the heavy weight given the inventory of SSC civics. Just got a Civic si off scales yesterday. 1,721 pounds on the front wheels, 1,044 on the rear (2,765 total). Great.

[Chip42]

Andy - I don't want to debate my feelings regarding the current state of classifications in IT in someone else's topic. if tom was wrong about the miata, then so be it - I have no dog in that hunt, and I feel that there are at elast a good handful of cars that can take it to the mazdas in ITA, so i'm not particularly worried about it (though it IS a very strong car being more than the sum of its power to weight ratio and established HP output). The 20A accord LXi/SEi, spot on or no, IS a VERY strong car in class - there are a small number of cars that can run with it, some are track dependant, some are not.

the point, however, is not if a miata or accord are spot on, it's why other cars are so far from spot on, as to make the "correct" cars better. The overall classifications appear pretty good in ITR/S/A, but in B they are all over the map. the 1st gen CRX, anything with a toyota 4age, 240 volvos, etc.. are all woefully overweight AND THAT CAN BE DEMONSTATED AND PROVEN just as the confirmation of an accord being "spot on" was.

I simply want to see the field classed a bit more equitably, so I applaud Tom for adding his efforts - the weight loss is deserved and hopefully will be granted. as you point out, the simillar engine architecture debate is not as cut and dry as simple displacement and valve count per cylinder. But we continue to use things like 130% for 16v cars in B when it's demonstrably incorrect and not relevant to Tom's inquiry. I know you left the ITAC, I bet you had issues with the CRB. maybe they were based on the above, maybe not. but the classification mysteries drive me nuts, and I intend to ramp up my efforts as a member to have them clarified.

oh, and the ITA 99-00 civic Si thing I DO have a stake in. agian, I don't want to debate, but that classification is, in my oppinion, a bad idea at that weight. I've already submitted a letter to the CRB and ITAC about it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy - I don't want to debate my feelings regarding the current state of classifications in IT in someone else's topic. if tom was wrong about the miata, then so be it - I have no dog in that hunt, and I feel that there are at elast a good handful of cars that can take it to the mazdas in ITA, so i'm not particularly worried about it (though it IS a very strong car being more than the sum of its power to weight ratio and established HP output). The 20A accord LXi/SEi, spot on or no, IS a VERY strong car in class - there are a small number of cars that can run with it, some are track dependant, some are not.

My point was simple, don't use different architetures from different classes to prove a point.

the point, however, is not if a miata or accord are spot on, it's why other cars are so far from spot on, as to make the "correct" cars better. The overall classifications appear pretty good in ITR/S/A, but in B they are all over the map. the 1st gen CRX, anything with a toyota 4age, 240 volvos, etc.. are all woefully overweight AND THAT CAN BE DEMONSTATED AND PROVEN just as the confirmation of an accord being "spot on" was.

The 1st Gen CRX can be debated on it's accuracy. Like I said above, the classification was based on 'actual' numbers, not estimates. Hardly an anomoly in the ITCS.

I simply want to see the field classed a bit more equitably, so I applaud Tom for adding his efforts - the weight loss is deserved and hopefully will be granted. as you point out, the simillar engine architecture debate is not as cut and dry as simple displacement and valve count per cylinder. But we continue to use things like 130% for 16v cars in B when it's demonstrably incorrect and not relevant to Tom's inquiry. I know you left the ITAC, I bet you had issues with the CRB. maybe they were based on the above, maybe not. but the classification mysteries drive me nuts, and I intend to ramp up my efforts as a member to have them clarified.

The Toyota issue was certainly one that led to my frustration and resignation. An unwillingness to do the right thing on that car was and is, unacceptable. Proving a negative is very hard but with all the data, this car should not have been classed at anything over 25%. ITB has the most 'legacy cars' that people care about. The other main issue I had with the CRB is the unwillingness to accept and implement changes based on the Process. Right or wrong, at least those numbers would make sense to everyone. And of course the mechanisms were and are there to correct an error should one arise (none in 5 years).

oh, and the ITA 99-00 civic Si thing I DO have a stake in. agian, I don't want to debate, but that classification is, in my oppinion, a bad idea at that weight. I've already submitted a letter to the CRB and ITAC about it.

Agreed. The car can make ITS weight and doesn't belong in ITA.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Tom,

While you certainly have the Miata calculation wrong (and I am not sure why you use architechtures in OTHER classes to prove your ITB example), I like the stratagy given the current climate.

However, please tell us what you believe a full-blown motor of your genre would put down to the wheels. Remember, we had Catch's data on file and I have some dyno data locally as well...

Take that number, divide by .85. Multiply by 17 and take away your 50lbs for a close representation. I estimate your car needs to make 109whp to be at process weight.

I HATE HATE HATE the like architecture method. The extreme example is the 2.0L 16V Nissan 140hp motor out of the SE-R vs. the 2.0L 16V 240hp motor out of the S2000. Does teh CRB really think we should be using the same multiplier for both??? If not, don't fall on your sword during con-calls...

[GTIspirit]

...I estimate your car needs to make 109whp to be at process weight.

Just wondering, is that 109whp on a Mustang Dyno or a Dynojet Dyno?

[lateapex911]

That BMW was on the books for a year, it seemed. We did research, called experts. It wasn't easy finding somebody who really knows what the engine is capable of in IT trim. Then it was adjusted and sent to the CRB, and, along with others, it got lost in limbo, as the CRB evidently ruminated on it and other things. When it came out in the wash, we heard, through backchannels that the CRb wasn't happy with the ITAC. Soon there was a "No adjustments decree", and all those limbo cars got rejected.

So, and i know this well, because I was the guy who had to pen the wording of why or what we were doing with them, and trust me, I scratched my head to explain it.....as in WHY we were, suddenly, after 5 years of doing this with the active participation and complicit approval of the CRB, we were suddenly stopping. heck, it's hard to explain when you yourself don't get it. And the statement that we were given a "One time" pass, is BS. That's NOT what I was told on con calls. Those were some of my first con calls, and I took notes for my personal use. In fact, we whittled the list down to the most grievous offenders and were told, "Lets make it a reasonable list, get that approved, then see how the cars do, and how the class reacts before we make more changes," That is NOT a description of a one time never to be repeated adjustment.

There was discussion, of the rules, "errors" etc., and the CRB gave us definitions of "errors". And oddly, those definitions changed from one month to another. I remember calling Andy after one call at midnight asking HIM if he knew what our JOB was, and HOW we were to do it.

THEN the CRB came on the call, post "no more adjustments", and said, "Let's look at that list of cars". To which I replied, "I JUST submitted that phrasing for no adjustments, didn't we print that in Fastrack???". Response was no, they decided not to. Then I was asked what the first car on the list was...I protested further, and was told "Jake, do you want to adjust cars or not? lets get to work". (That's a quote)

And that was that.

So, yea, I have notes about rules and such, but I sure have doubts about the definitions due to nebulous and conflicting explanations, and I certainly think there has been some reversals of direction and tone.

I hated resigning. HUGE regret that it came to that place.

My decision to leave came when the head of the CRB, in discussing the process said, "I have no faith in any Process that uses stock horsepower at its core". (That might not be exact, but i can look thru my notes if anyone wishes, it's very close and accurate in it's gist). I was aghast. As in mouth open. I was the ITAC chair on that call, as Andy was traveling, and I was running the meeting, and i remember thinking, "I have to say something", but I couldn't find words. I mean, what the hell have we been doing for FIVE years? We certainly knew that stock power isn't always right, but we build loops in the Process to handle that, and our history is chock full of exceptions where we dealt with incorrect stock ratings, so I was shocked...it was a statement that basically, put the entire process under doubt, and my follow up questioning confirmed that statement reflected the true thoughts of it's owner. Further, the concept of the "like architecture" got trotted out, and I knew I could not support that, so I was gone, as I felt the cornerstones that we worked so hard and long on had gone out the door.

I wanted no part in that.

Chip, this is for you. I wanted to run with Process v2.0. It's a tremendous piece of work, and is EXACTLY what the category means, and is what the MEMBERS have CLEARLY demanded. I would have been fine with publishing it. More than fine. Over 5 years, it served us well, and we refined it's use and buttoned down some loose ends. And issues with it have yet to really surface.

But, that's behind us now, sadly.

Going forward, any hope of getting IT run in a manner that the members have clearly demanded is going to need two things to happen:
1- the CRB will need to open up to the members and accept their wants and desires. (big picture)...I've mentioned that in con calls, online in discussions with direct replies by CRB members, yet it's never been answered....I think they really need to come to grips with this aspect.
2- The ITCS needs to be rewritten to allow the proper operation of the category.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Upon further reflection, here is what I think should be able to happen WRT weight changes:

1. A mistake is made in the process by observation of the SCCA. Wrong stock HP used, estimate on multiplier too low or too high with documented supporting data, or some other error used when processing the car resulting in a weight too high or too low - per the Process, not on track observation. Reset weight

2. Per written member request on 'unprocessed' cars. Reply back with current Process weight and calculation. If weight fits Process, "Weight appropriate as classified". If not, even by 5lbs, reset per Process, reply with math and document.

2A. There are cars in the ITCS that are red flags. Alfas, Audis, Triumphs, anything from the smog era, etc. These cars may show low stock HP and huge gains in IT trim or have unreliable European hp numbers from different eras. Careful care and patience must be displayed on both sides. ITAC should do reasearch. Member may be required to submit real dyno data and build sheets. All in an effort for a one-off to be classed fairly but to limit the potential for a mistake that disrupts the class.

Again, and this is a BIG again...and I hope the CRB is reading this: There is NOT ONE IT member who I have talked with who doesn't want transparencey and consistancy via a documented successful Process vs. a 'like architechture' and 'I saw it on the back straight' mentality. We are willing to be 'off' by some weight to be able to show people exactly how and why the car weighs what it weighs. THAT is the definition of 'no guarantee of competitivness' to me.

The CRB should be BEGGING the ITAC to submit reworded ITCS language so they can un-shackle themselves from the chains they have put on THEMSELVES that they refused to be bound by from 2005-2009. There is nothing that stops progress faster in life than the mindset that 'things are good now so lets not continue to forge ahead'. Especially when you are limiting the very thing that got you where you are today.

[RacerBill]

Upon further reflection, here is what I think should be able to happen WRT weight changes:

1. A mistake is made in the process by observation of the SCCA. Wrong stock HP used, estimate on multiplier too low or too high with documented supporting data, or some other error used when processing the car resulting in a weight too high or too low - per the Process, not on track observation. Reset weight

2. Per written member request on 'unprocessed' cars. Reply back with current Process weight and calculation. If weight fits Process, "Weight appropriate as classified". If not, even by 5lbs, reset per Process, reply with math and document..

Exactly!!!!!!!!! Yes!!!!!!!!!!

2A. There are cars in the ITCS that are red flags. Alfas, Audis, Triumphs, anything from the smog era, etc. These cars may show low stock HP and huge gains in IT trim or have unreliable European hp numbers from different eras. Careful care and patience must be displayed on both sides. ITAC should do reasearch. Member may be required to submit real dyno data and build sheets. All in an effort for a one-off to be classed fairly but to limit the potential for a mistake that disrupts the class.

Again, and this is a BIG again...and I hope the CRB is reading this: There is NOT ONE IT member who I have talked with who doesn't want transparencey and consistancy via a documented successful Process vs. a 'like architechture' and 'I saw it on the back straight' mentality. We are willing to be 'off' by some weight to be able to show people exactly how and why the car weighs what it weighs. THAT is the definition of 'no guarantee of competitivness' to me.

The CRB should be BEGGING the ITAC to submit reworded ITCS language so they can un-shackle themselves from the chains they have put on THEMSELVES that they refused to be bound by from 2005-2009. There is nothing that stops progress faster in life than the mindset that 'things are good now so lets not continue to forge ahead'. Especially when you are limiting the very thing that got you where you are today.

Andy: Your post is spot on. I do believe that we need to reword the section of the ITCS that deals with the current specification and weight determination section.

[lateapex911]

Upon further reflection, here is what I think should be able to happen WRT weight changes:

1. A mistake is made in the process by observation of the SCCA. Wrong stock HP used, estimate on multiplier too low or too high with documented supporting data, or some other error used when processing the car resulting in a weight too high or too low - per the Process, not on track observation. Reset weight

2. Per written member request on 'unprocessed' cars. Reply back with current Process weight and calculation. If weight fits Process, "Weight appropriate as classified". If not, even by 5lbs, reset per Process, reply with math and document.

That's pretty much where we were when the chains got thrown into the machine. That was what we were doing, and we had the Process fine tuned to do it in a consistent, transparent and repeatable manner.

Again, and this is a BIG again...and I hope the CRB is reading this: There is NOT ONE IT member who I have talked with who doesn't want transparencey and consistancy via a documented successful Process vs. a 'like architechture' and 'I saw it on the back straight' mentality. We are willing to be 'off' by some weight to be able to show people exactly how and why the car weighs what it weighs. THAT is the definition of 'no guarantee of competitivness' to me.

The CRB should be BEGGING the ITAC to submit reworded ITCS language so they can un-shackle themselves from the chains they have put on THEMSELVES that they refused to be bound by from 2005-2009. There is nothing that stops progress faster in life than the mindset that 'things are good now so lets not continue to forge ahead'. Especially when you are limiting the very thing that got you where you are today.

You weren't on my last call, Andy, the CRB was certainly told that they were ignoring the members wishes and standards. Well, the CRB members of the CRB that are on our call were told that.....I used to assume that they reported back to the entire CRB in a responsible fashion, but after being told that member(s) of the CRB were completely unfamiliar with the "Process" which had been in use for 5 years, I guess I was naive in my thinking that the CRB body 'ran" the show, as opposed to two or three members..

[tom91ita]

Just wondering, is that 109whp on a Mustang Dyno or a Dynojet Dyno?

the dyno type does matter as i have been led to believe.

one reason i also presented the inconsistency based on displacement and compression ratio is because different postings have made that sound like that is the be-all and end-all.

so weight my car based on the #/liter similar to the other cars.

Andy, i apologize if i got the calc method wrong with the miata. i must have been looking at the wrong line on the SCCA spreadsheet posted at SCCA.com for the calculation method.

[Andy Bettencourt]

so weight my car based on the #/liter similar to the other cars.

Here is the rub. I don't know anyone except 1 or 2 CRB members that like this method. With the contraintes of the IT ruleset, I think it is a horrible yardstick. With things like cams, carbs, throttle bodies, air metering devices, compression ratios - all having to remain stock (CR is equal because everyone gets the .5 allowance), you can't equalize them from car to car. So you have what you have. Just because two cars have 2.0 liters means NOTHING in IT. It may mean something in full-prep Production because all those things are open, but not in this house.

So to set weight in a power to weight calculation, you need a hp estimate. If you don't know, you guess and you hope you get it close. If you do, you must use it, especially when it has the potential to create an overdog. Take your car:

91hp x 1.25 = 1885lb minimum
109-110whp estimate = 40% increase over stock = 2130 minimum

Your car was classed based on numbers supplied to us by our Honda experts. It was the old way of having to 'prove' things, and by that I mean "Peter said', or 'Bob said' those numbers were for sure doable. Now the Process is held to a much higher standard - right or wrong.

My unnofficial opinion on 3 cars in ITB:

Golf: Is 50lbs light by virtue of an 'adder' it got for bad read suspension that was mis-applied and is no longer part of the Process.

Accord: Right on

Your car: Potentially right on if the power estimate the ITAC assigned to it way-back-when is close to correct.