THE BACK ROOM or ....

[JeffYoung]

John, manual's still sitting on my floor -- sorry about that.

We've discussed the issue with the Audi stock hp and don't have a solution yet. The 110 hp is in the manual, the 120 (I think) is in the internal Audi document. Not clear either way.

Dave/Jake/Bill:

I think most of us on the ITAC do not prefer the 30% multivavle adder in ITB. At the same time, it's there, it's in the Ops Manual, and its been used to process cars for a while now. For consistencies sake, we will not revisit it.

HOWEVER - I think all of us will take a harder look at a multivalve motor in B to see if the 30% makes sense as a default than we would with a 25% default motor in any other clause.

Last, we made the recommendation to add (100?) weight to the Accord and I believe it passed and was in Fastrack. We've already gotten letters to change it back.....

[tom91ita]

...........
Last, we made the recommendation to add (100?) weight to the Accord and I believe it passed and was in Fastrack. We've already gotten letters to change it back.....

when i submitted letter # 1333, the accord was 2550 #'s. it is now 2650.

i just got an update regarding my evap emissions letter. i responded that updates to me are no longer necessary since i am no longer a member.

perhaps not 100% accurate since i intend to be a weekend member at a couple of races this year and must comply with the rules for the class i enter.

[Bill Miller]

I think most of us on the ITAC do not prefer the 30% multivavle adder in ITB. At the same time, it's there, it's in the Ops Manual, and its been used to process cars for a while now. For consistencies sake, we will not revisit it.

Well ok then.

[Chip42]

Re: the 30% thing, I'm one of the biggest critics around, having the poster child car for it's failing: the MR2. I never miss an opportunity to express my displeasure with it on comittee, and I have been equally loud here when the topic was being raised.

that said, it's a happy coincidence that MANY of the cars run with that number are either making their 30% (or higher) process number, or have enough other "mojo" working for them that they are doing well regardless. same is true for many "default" 25% cars accross IT land, many of which are doing very well despite not matching perfectly with their number. there's a lot of variables at play, and the process is intentionally simple, so it doesnt' have a lot of inputs.

for now, political winds are not with a change to the 30% rule. I'm not happy about that but it's the case. luckily we do have the presence of mind, now, to really dig in any case where this number would be applied as a default to make sure that it "makes sense". maybe fortunately, we haven't had occasion to do so recently.

[ajmr2]

Re: the 30% thing, I'm one of the biggest critics around, having the poster child car for it's failing: the MR2. I never miss an opportunity to express my displeasure with it on comittee, and I have been equally loud here when the topic was being raised.

Thanks again for all your support, Chip.

So after more than a year, almost 300 posts and SEVENTEEN THOUSAND views just on this thread, we're still debating this???

[JeffYoung]

People are passionate about IT, hence the debates. Can be frustrating but a healthy sign in many ways I think.

On the 30% in ITB adder, I actually think (and I disagree with it as well) that its potential harmful impact has been mitigated pretty well.

I think this committee is going to look long and hard at any multivalve car in ITB before it gets the 30%, and we have data out there to support a different decision we will use it. Plus, by sheer luck, most cars (other than the MR2, and a few others) do actually make 30% with a multivalve motor. So the impact has not been as great as it otherwise might be although I agree the MR2 has had it rough from the start.

[Bill Miller]

People are passionate about IT, hence the debates. Can be frustrating but a healthy sign in many ways I think.

On the 30% in ITB adder, I actually think (and I disagree with it as well) that its potential harmful impact has been mitigated pretty well.

I think this committee is going to look long and hard at any multivalve car in ITB before it gets the 30%, and we have data out there to support a different decision we will use it. Plus, by sheer luck, most cars (other than the MR2, and a few others) do actually make 30% with a multivalve motor. So the impact has not been as great as it otherwise might be although I agree the MR2 has had it rough from the start.

What about the A/S/R multi-valve cars? Are they only making 25%?

[Chip42]

What about the A/S/R multi-valve cars? Are they only making 25%?

some are "making" 10 or 15% (ITR S2000's, no idea what actual HP is). but yeah, every other class defaults to 25% unless it's a rotary or a strait 6. that last point is just as silly as the multivalve rule and is also vetted thoroughly when called upon.

[JeffYoung]

What about the A/S/R multi-valve cars? Are they only making 25%?

C'mon now -- we all know the logical inconsistencies in the rule. Some aren't happy about it, but guess what? That's committee work. If everyone is happy about it all the time then something is probably wrong.

[lateapex911]

Last, we made the recommendation to add (100?) weight to the Accord and I believe it passed and was in Fastrack. We've already gotten letters to change it back.....

Jeff, I understand the situation the ITAC finds itself in, and I'm sure it's frustrating.

Glad to hear the Accord was adjusted in line with the rest of the cars though. I wonder who's sending in letters?
Live by the sword, die by the sword......