Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[Chip42]

Production here I come. I will race some B nex year to get seat time, but as far as I am concerned you have succeeded in pushing the original "bogey" car for theiTB process out of the class.

Man I hate to hear this. and I think ITB is pretty healthy, even with these changes and additions.

[gran racing]

I just love it. The Accord is set to a weight, it gets reviewed last year and its determined that the weight was in fact too low. The weight gets adjusted. Now some how it gets reduced? Wtf. What new evidence was provided to make this change again? Will other cars with similar engines get the reduction? This is pretty silly.

I'm with you Chris. I've really started losing interest in IT. These changes sure do see odd and can't help think about what politics were involved to push through.

[Chip42]

I just love it. The Accord is set to a weight, it gets reviewed last year and its determined that the weight was in fact too low. The weight gets adjusted. Now some how it gets reduced? Wtf. What new evidence was provided to make this change again? Will other cars with similar engines get the reduction? This is pretty silly.

I'm with you Chris. I've really started losing interest in IT. These changes sure do see odd and can't help think about what politics were involved to push through.

initial change was to bring it inline with other multivalve cars under then prevailing rules. It would have stayed there after the ops manual update, too, in the "lack of better information" category. dyno info was submitted (and more was solicited) showing only ~20% gains but inconclusive to the peak, so we reran it at 25%. A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY went in to making this right. the fact that there were 2 changes in ~1 year is unfortunate but we want cars to be run correctly Even though there are only 2 of these running currently that I'm aware of.

dave, we all know that prelude is effectively the same engine and should be treated the same way. write us a letter. or don't, if you are tired of seeing changes.

Splitter - someone write the letter tGA speaks of.

[mossaidis]

Here's a copy of letter. This has been and always will be a hot area since folks have bent the rules (creative interpretation) while others insist that it's airdam only for IT. Second, though I happy to see STAC getting splitter definition yet it TRULY belongs in the GCR glossary with measurement exceptions made under each class CS section.

Letter ID Number: #9062
Title: IT Rules Interpretation Request - Airdam/Spoiler topics
Class: IT
Request:
Dear SCCA CRB and ITAC,

This request may have come before yet debate continues in the IT forums and in my head when trying to make the next modification to IT car.

Two questions:

1) Many suppliers of airdams/spoilers including current IT racers are stating that radiator supports and front sub-frames are legitimate mounting points for otherwise legal spoiler/airdam kits. Suppliers of front aero devices to NASA drivers also want to provide their same products to SCCA IT drivers. Two, IT drivers designing their own front aero devices would like to make use of additional strong mounting points, allowing them to improve the functionality of their airdams/spoiler, i.e. easily adding splitters, stiffening points, etc. "Body" is defined in the GCR and integrated bumper covers are defined in 9.1.3.D.8.b and no where do I read that radiator supports or front sub-frames (as neither are considered part of the "body" or "bumper cover") are legitimate mounting points for an airdam/spoiler setup on an IT car. Could you please clarify? I submit 5 references.

a) 2 long threads in IT regarding the multiple view points on 9.1.3.D.8.b. I hope you find these threads interesting.

https://improvedtouring.com...light=splitter

https://improvedtouring.com...light=splitter

b) 1 reference to the 2009 Aug Fasttrack regarding Moser's Appeal. As referenced in the above threads, the outcome of Moser's appeal simply caused more confusion and frustration regarding airdam/spoiler mounting points. Initially, the rules interpretation request found that Moser’s mounting points were illegal. Moser appealed the ruling and the appeal was denied not because of the mounting points but based openings in Moser’s setup were not used for brake ducts. So... are the mounting legal or NOT legal? The ruling did not clarify anything in that area. Very Sinful (on the part of the BoD)

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...strack-aug.pdf

c) product issued by special projects motorsports. This is example where a supplier is interpreting IT rules, suggesting splitter kits with rad mounting points are IT legal.

http://www.specialprojectsms.com/per...vic-99-00.html

d) message from another supplier of airdams/spoilers to NASA and potentially IT community

"They (SCCA) pretty clearly define a 'box' we can play in. I already see a grey area that we could easily take advantage of. Most times in aerodynamic terms, words are inter-changeable. Do you know the email to the IT director or the director of you specific class? You could shoot them an email and get a definite answer but I'm going to say yes. The rules defining what we can do are almost identical to 944 Super Cup rules which I just made a splitter for a guy not too long ago. I can make something very similar to the picture you sent me in the link of XXXXX car. Send that to the director and make sure.

As for mounting, that’s not an issue. I worked in collision repair for 9 years. If you were to strip off all the bumpers, fenders, hood, doors, etc., you would be left with the unibody. The rad support and frame rails are part of that body. Again, I see this as just a word or phrase interchangeability issue."

2) The use of a splitter is more common in IT classes. Mounting points discuss aside, I believe the GCR may address the functional definition of a splitter under the "airdam" definition. What I find interesting is that under GTCS and STCS rules, one can find multiple references to "splitter" yet no definition in GCR. If there is one, I apologize and would welcome the reference. If there's not, I am requesting the CRB consider a separate "Splitter" definition in the Appendix F, revision to "airdam" definition in Appendix F to specifically mention/include "splitter" OR define splitter in the STCS and GTCS OR something better.

Thank you for your time and understanding. I welcome all discussion including over the phone and email conversations.

Best,

Demetrius Mossaidis #345562

[Greg Amy]

...undertray and splitter definitions they TRULY belong in the GCR glossary...

"Airdam" and "undertray" are already in the GCR Technical Glossary; only "splitter" is missing. The STAC requested that our splitter definition be placed in the Technical Glossary but the CRB chose to move that into the STCS, likely to avoid any conflicts with existing regs in other classes. - GA

[mossaidis]

^ ah - thank you, my messaged will be edited.

[StephenB]

dyno info was submitted (and more was solicited) showing only ~20% gains but inconclusive to the peak, so we reran it at 25%.

there are only 2 of these running currently that I'm aware of.

so this data was from 10/10ths builds?

Stephen

PS: Dave your Car is MUCH faster than the "old" ITB. But then again ITB is now really the old ITA so I see why your upset.

[Chip42]

so this data was from 10/10ths builds?

Stephen

PS: Dave your Car is MUCH faster than the "old" ITB. But then again ITB is now really the old ITA so I see why your upset.

3 builds: 2 pre open ECU days but known to have been running APEXi EFI mods in the wiring under dash, the 3rd with a an MS2 and I know who did the work and trust that it's as close to 10/10ths motor as we are likely to see, especially since we buffered with 5% beyond what we see on the dyno. all agreed on WHP.

[StephenB]

Thanks. Are you able to share target info? Knowing the data on the crb's car would be interesting since that would give me a realistic goal to get to. I ran with his pre ecu car and it was faster than the norm back then. If not I understand.

Stephen.

[Chip42]

Thanks. Are you able to share target info? Knowing the data on the crb's car would be interesting since that would give me a realistic goal to get to. I ran with his pre ecu car and it was faster than the norm back then. If not I understand.

Stephen.

sure = 2550 classification, 25% gain, so working backwards is (2550-50(SLA))/(17*0.98) = 150 hp. assume ~127 whp target. 20% over stock is roughly what we saw, though.

[tom91ita]

....2 pre open ECU days but known to have been running APEXi EFI mods in the wiring under dash, .....

Chip,

i am not familar with APEXi mods in the pre ECU days.

were those acceptable per the rules of the day?

tom

[Chip42]

W

Chip,

i am not familar with APEXi mods in the pre ECU days.

were those acceptable per the rules of the day?

tom

No, and I only know for a fact that one of those cars had it, and cannot say when it was added vs. When ecu rules openned up. The car in question had a stock ecu. The sister car I assume had the same setup, alas its been dead for a while now.
That does improve stock control of fuel somewhat, though, inching towards what might be seen with a real programable ecu controlling things. That the output agreed with a car running a pretty trick ms2 setup tells me fuel contol is sorted well enough for peak power determinations. Point is that, barring possible mechanical items, the cars appear close enough to peak to justify a 5% buffer.

Tom, there could be a number of differences. The objective is to consider the motors seperately, not using some sort of time/manufacturer/configuration data to make prediction, even if they are well founded. The prelude and accord have the same engine code, with some minor differences. That's a lot closer than a motor 25% smaller that simply shares some design concepts.

[tom91ita]

... dave, we all know that prelude is effectively the same engine and should be treated the same way. write us a letter. or don't, if you are tired of seeing changes.....

Dave,

be very, very careful here. if they deem your motor as being "effectively the same engine" then you are likely to gain 100 #'s to the 2550 same as the accord. because if your motor is "the same" then we need to start with the same stock HP as the accord.

i maintain that your motor has a "similar" design. the lower CR (8.8 vs. 9.3) means that your 0.5 bump only gets you to be "effectively the same" as the accord is stock.

Chip,

i am not really that upset but i want to make sure that i am understanding the design differences in the Honda family of 1986 vintage fuel injected motors that would result in the dyno readings. you inferred at RRAX that there is good data on the 1986 crx si motor that supports the 1.3.

i am not disputing that right now since i do not have any dyno readings for a full built motor of my vintage. but as an engineer, i would like to know the design differences that give my motor so much more mojo gain per liter than the accord/prelude 2.0 L.

my issue with the dynos is that these could be manipulated if one is so inclined. both up or down. both by an engine builder or a competitor.

WOW! look at the big HP numbers i generated, pay me big $$! WOW! look at the low HP numbers i generated, i need a lower factor!

i see the similar engine design and the dyno results as both being data points that should be considered.

tom

[Rabbit05]

my issue with the dynos is that these could be manipulated if one is so inclined. both up or down. both by an engine builder or a competitor.

WOW! look at the big HP numbers i generated, pay me big $$! WOW! look at the low HP numbers i generated, i need a lower factor!

i see the similar engine design and the dyno results as both being data points that should be considered.

This is why I have not bothered to take the Audi to the dyno shop down the street from me....even I go spend the money to go dyno my car, and turn this info over to the powers that be . They can say ,"we dont trust your numbers , now go pound sand"...

Like what Dave said , what kind of politics are being played behind closed doors to push this through ?


I like Chris S's idea...and I was just perusing the Prod rules yesterday too...sounds like a decent alternative to go play there.

( and I am still waiting to see the "secret Audi HP info" that is not for SCCA members to see...)

[Rabbit05]

sure = 2550 classification, 25% gain, so working backwards is (2550-50(SLA))/17 = 147 hp. assume ~125 whp target. 20% over stock is roughly what we saw, though



Chip,
So just so I am not confused, 125 hp is the number you used to get to 2550 lbs ?

-John

[Chip42]

No, 25% over oem hp. Straight math.

[tom91ita]

John,

as i understand the process (mostly from memory)

Accord would be 120 HP stock * 17 pounds per hp * 1.25 (estimated gains with IT mods) + 50 (double wishbone suspension) - 50 (Front wheel drive deduct) = 2550 #'s

with the previously "default" 1.30 factor for ITB multi-valve motors, 2652 #'s so say 2650 #'s.

i believe i was treated rather fairly when the 86 crx si was re-ran. i went from a factor of ~1.41 to 1.3 when others got the 1.3 ITB multivalve factor. the car went from 2130 to 1970. one reason i think it was fair is that the 1.41 factor was quite close to what the 16V hondas had for a factor

i am just asking questions now because the accord engine and crx engine in stock form both have specific outputs of 61.4 (120/1.955) and 61.2 HP/liter (91/1.488), respectively.

for the prelude, the comment is the motors are similar and about the same. but for my car, it is not a similar design yet the specific outputs are...

sort of like Danny Glover in Dirty Harry, "i gots to know"

respectfully,

tom