ITAC News

[lateapex911]

Jeff-
THANKYOU for communicating the goings on. It is much appreciated. Thanks to the ITAC for supporting the concept as well as the CRB.

"The 240"...as in the 240Z?? Or a Volvo 240?

VERY GLAD, THRILLED, to hear the 30% is getting airtime.

Thankyou ITAC for your time spent on this issue.
I feel it is perhaps the only thorn in the side remaining, the Process is awesome, but that is a huge tripping point in my eyes. (As you, cough, dead horse, cough, know. )

[JeffYoung]

Volvo 240s, sorry.

We are also taking a look to make sure -- on our own initiative -- that all of what we view (although I think we'd all appreciate member input on what these cars are) as the most "popular" 7-10 cars in ITB have been through the Process. That will include a second look at the 142 with more accurate hp numbers, the 2002, the Swift, etc.

I personally go back and forth on the 1.3. I've said before I would vote against it.

However, in doing some historical research, there were good reasons for it that haven't really been discussed here. More importantly, I personally think the goal at this point is to do whatever does the least harm to the class, and more and more I personally think changing weights on cars by going back to a 1.25 default would be more disruptive. If we get the gain numbers right, what the default "is" shouldn't matter, or matter most on new cars coming into the class. We should have decent power numbers on the contenders and ultimately that will be what is used to get the class straightened out.

But I remain open to further (reasonable! lol) discussions about it.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, I HOPE you guys think bigger picture and future picture. A year or two or three from now, think about two cars with the same power specs, same HP dyno sheets being moved into ITB from ITA. Nobody should have to make a case to change one OFF the 'standard 30%" default when it's already at the category wide default..as it was in ITA...just because it has a "B" on the door now.

Use the ability to move off default for specifics...Hondas that overachieve, Toyotas that underachieve, etc.

Get the froundation right...build on that.

[JeffYoung]

I do think we are trying to think big picture.

To me, the chances of a 4-valve car (or any car really) getting moved from A to B are pretty low at this point. I think it more likely that shifting 4 valves for which we have no documentation from 30% to 25% would be more dangerous.

But I am wide open on this one to more discussion.

Jeff, I HOPE you guys think bigger picture and future picture. A year or two or three from now, think about two cars with the same power specs, same HP dyno sheets being moved into ITB from ITA. Nobody should have to make a case to change one OFF the 'standard 30%" default when it's already at the category wide default..as it was in ITA...just because it has a "B" on the door now.

Use the ability to move off default for specifics...Hondas that overachieve, Toyotas that underachieve, etc.

Get the froundation right...build on that.

[Russ Myers]

Jeff, since there are still a few of us racing Pinto's, could you guys have a look at it as well???

Russ

[gran racing]

Thank you for the update and continued communication Jeff. It's truly appreciated.

Also glad to hear the multivalve factor is being discussed further. I agree that ideally it doesn't matter what the default is if the group gets the gain numbers right, the reality is not as simple otherwise we wouldn't have a default at all.

If it's decided that a multivalve engine makes more than a 2 valve, should there be a difference between 3 valve and 4 valve engines?

[JeffYoung]

My personal opinon is that "multi-valve" means anything with more than 2 per cylinder. I believe all/most of the committee agrees with that.

Thank you for the update and continued communication Jeff. It's truly appreciated.

Also glad to hear the multivalve factor is being discussed further. I agree that ideally it doesn't matter what the default is if the group gets the gain numbers right, the reality is not as simple otherwise we wouldn't have a default at all.

If it's decided that a multivalve engine makes more than a 2 valve, should there be a difference between 3 valve and 4 valve engines?

[JeffYoung]

I believe the ITB Pinto was re-reviewed about six eight months ago with a recommendation of no change. However, I'll put it on the list of ITB cars we may take another look at, but again, I don't expect it to move. That motor is very well know, and it's potential gain very well known.

Jeff, since there are still a few of us racing Pinto's, could you guys have a look at it as well???

Russ

[jjjanos]

Jeff, I HOPE you guys think bigger picture and future picture. A year or two or three from now, think about two cars with the same power specs, same HP dyno sheets being moved into ITB from ITA. Nobody should have to make a case to change one OFF the 'standard 30%" default when it's already at the category wide default..as it was in ITA...just because it has a "B" on the door now.

Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved down from ITA to ITB? Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved from ITB to ITA? The only way that HP number can change is if ITA cars are allowed different engine modifications than an ITB car or if there are some unknown HP-impact from switching a vinyl decal from B to A.

Let's say the Webber Hibachi, a "multi-valve", FWD ITB car with stock HP of 130HP generates IT-trim HP of 130x1.3 or 169HP. As an ITA car, it [b]still[b] must have IT-trim HP of 169HP.
My calcs say the Geo Storm GSI, as an ITB car is [130 x 1.3] x .98 x 17 or 2815 lbs.
The same car as an ITA would be [130 x 1.3] x .98 x 14 = 2310 lbs.

The only way it could go through the process this way: 130 x 1.25 x .98 x 14 = 2215 lbs is if the ITAC would have run it as an ITB car with the 1.25 factor.

And that's why the 1.3 for ITB/ITC looks alot like bunk.

[Chip42]

Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved down from ITA to ITB?...the 1.3 for ITB/ITC looks alot like bunk.

The HP would not change, and everyone knows that. the multiplier is a political thing that many (myself included) dislike and would liek to see gone. there are camps that hold otherwise, and that's not the point of this thread.

the geo storm GSi is a poor example, it is one of the many ITB cars to have never been processed. I honestly think it should be an ITA car at 2310#,assuming 130hp sae net as stock.

[JeffYoung]

Prism looks like an A car to me too, especially if you (Chip) are right about the motor and I suspect you are.

[JeffYoung]

And....DUH....I forgot to introduce our two new members to the ITAC. We have:

1. The very wise and experienced Gary Learned, a long time ITB Volvo driver and poster here. Gary was a very active participant tonight, and his presense is welcome and much appreciated.

2. The much younger but still wise and experienced Chip O'Toole, who has been involved in IT in Florida for a long time and who has an ITB MR2, and wrenches on an ITS Civic. Chip was also a very active participant on the committee last night and his presence is also welcome and much appreciated.

Please welcome these guys to the madness. I can't get all of you here on IT.com or the Brown Board on the calls, but I can tell you the committee is functioning extremely well right now. A great bunch of guys, and the CRB folks are very supportive of what we do.

[jjjanos]

The HP would not change, and everyone knows that. the multiplier is a political thing that many (myself included) dislike and would liek to see gone. there are camps that hold otherwise, and that's not the point of this thread.

But that is the answer to lateapex911's question regarding moving cars up or down between ITA and ITB.

For a 100 stock HP car with multi-valves, then if the HP-gain for a car is determined to be 130 HP, then that number, regardless of where that car gets reclassed is 130 HP. It isn't a 120 HP ITA car and a 130HP ITB car. It either is a 120 HP car or it is a 130 HP car. Period, end of story.

[JeffYoung]

You are missing a key point. The defaults are defaults used in the absence of other evidence.

If a car is getting moved, it's mostly likely going to be done with data, meaning we know the actual gain, and the default is irrelevant.

While I'm not a personal fan of the 1.3 default, it does not seem to me to be the huge issue you guys make it out to be.

But that is the answer to lateapex911's question regarding moving cars up or down between ITA and ITB.

For a 100 stock HP car with multi-valves, then if the HP-gain for a car is determined to be 130 HP, then that number, regardless of where that car gets reclassed is 130 HP. It isn't a 120 HP ITA car and a 130HP ITB car. It either is a 120 HP car or it is a 130 HP car. Period, end of story.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved down from ITA to ITB? Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved from ITB to ITA? The only way that HP number can change is if ITA cars are allowed different engine modifications than an ITB car or if there are some unknown HP-impact from switching a vinyl decal from B to A.

This is really the crux of it. It's NOT class dependent. Set it at 25% and do the work it takes to prove it is 30%, if it is. Simple.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If we get the gain numbers right, what the default "is" shouldn't matter, or matter most on new cars coming into the class.

True, but consider how hard it is to 'change' to more accurate numbers. The default hurts until you prove the negative, which has historically proven VERY hard to do.

[shwah]

While you are looking at the 'popular' B cars, will that include validating the data used to apply a 30% to the 8v A2 Golf/Jetta?

[JeffYoung]

Chris, my personal opinion is yes. I think we need to take a hard look at everything in ITB. Can't speak for everyone else though.

AJ, I understand. I do think this about the MR2. I think that given the data I've seen -- which itself is not conclusive -- 20% is possible and thus the car may only be 5% off. I do agree with Andy that it's hard to argue around the fact that the 30% default rule made it easier to go with 25% on this car.

But, I would add that the committee members who voted for 25% did so because they thought the car could get to that gain level, and as best I could tell for no other reason.

I'd like to see more of those cars in B. They are good for the class. But I think the issue of gain on them is now officially a dead horse....perhaps unfortunately.

[Knestis]

If we think that "multivalve" cars are going to be run through the "what we know" path of the Process, it doesn't MATTER what their default is. I think that's kind of what Jeff Y. is trying to say...

Point is, that's as good an argument for their default being 25% as it is that it be 30% - and the former settles down possible objections that it simply doesn't make sense.

K

[JeffYoung]

Correct and correct.

Only (important) thing to add is that trying to change the default could (a) do some damage to ITB as it is presently constituted OR (b) cause bigger issues with the CRB, etc. such that pushing for the change is not worth it.

I still see this as a minor problem. I don't think any popular competitive cars are going to end up at a default gain rate.

If we think that "multivalve" cars are going to be run through the "what we know" path of the Process, it doesn't MATTER what their default is. I think that's kind of what Jeff Y. is trying to say...

Point is, that's as good an argument for their default being 25% as it is that it be 30% - and the former settles down possible objections that it simply doesn't make sense.

K