ITB - what a bunch of crap

The Pinto was reprocessed last year and the weight went from 2490 to 2340.(thanks itac)
Numbers are:
92hp x 1.25 x 17(itb) + 50 (a-arm)= 2005 lbs oops…hmmm math wrong?
92hp x 1.45(“smogged up '70s POS” ???) x 17(itb) + 50(a-arm) = 2333 lbs
I actually think 2340 would be a pretty good weight.
The problem, even at 2340 pounds, is in actually loosing the weight.
If the VW Golf is accurately Processed, and is being used as the standard for ITB, and is already a pretty good car( being generous here) then a lot of cars are going to end up loosing weight when reprocessed. But the problem in IT is that you can’t actually take anything off the car! (heater cores for example:rolleyes:) So then you end up with a very narrow obtainable weight range. Unless of course you ADD weight to the typically faster/friendlier subjectively(?) process-ified cars, and that probably ain’t gonna happen.
 
A possibility would be a move to C.

92 x 1.45 x 18.4 +50 is approximately 2500 lbs.

If the "lower" weight in a "higher" class is not obtainable, the next option is to move down a la the now ITB MR2.
 
If the VW Golf is accurately Processed, and is being used as the standard for ITB...
Click to expand...

It doesn't even appear that the A2 Golf is accurate:
105x1.25x17=2231
-50 (fwd)
+50 (tq)
= A process weight of 2230. Current spec is 2280 so even it is 50lbs overweight.

As far as losing weight to get to minimum, sometimes that costs money. Don't confuse "can't" be done with "I don't want to spend the money to do it."

Remember that simply saving 5lbs per wheel gets you 20lbs. Not only 20lbs but 20lbs of rotating mass.
 
Do the FWD cars in ITS/ITR get a 100lbs deduct?

do these look right?

93 prelude 190hp x 1.25 = 237.5 x 11.25 =2670 - 100lbs = 2570 + 50 for A arms? - 50? for no torque = current weight of 2570?

RSX 200 x 1.25 = 250 x 11.25 = 2812 - 100 for fwd - 50 for struts?
2662 round up 2665 current weight
 
Catch22 said:
It doesn't even appear that the A2 Golf is accurate:
105x1.25x17=2231
-50 (fwd)
+50 (tq)
= A process weight of 2230. Current spec is 2280 so even it is 50lbs overweight.

As far as losing weight to get to minimum, sometimes that costs money. Don't confuse "can't" be done with "I don't want to spend the money to do it."

Remember that simply saving 5lbs per wheel gets you 20lbs. Not only 20lbs but 20lbs of rotating mass.
Click to expand...
edit = nevermind, found my mistake.
 
Last edited:
Catch22 said:
Its a part of being transparent and consistent.
If I have 100lbs of ballast in my car then a calculator should easily explain why.
Click to expand...

Actually, ballast has nothing to do with anything. The calculator should be able to explain people weights - regardless of ballast. Just because you have ballast in your car doesn't mean you got 'extra' weight, it just means your car may be 'light' when stripped down to IT build for the hp it will make.

My Miata carries 70lbs of ballast.
 
Catch22 said:
It doesn't even appear that the A2 Golf is accurate:
105x1.25x17=2231
-50 (fwd)
+50 (tq)
= A process weight of 2230. Current spec is 2280 so even it is 50lbs overweight.
Click to expand...

And a good example of why the crap hits the fan if everyone runs their car through the 'process'. You say it's 'innaccurate'. I am not sure the A2 was classed during the process tenure but it could have easily been this:

105 x 1.3 x 17 = 2321
-50 (fwd)
2271 or 2270.

We have been documenteing everything over the past year...another reason why going in a checking (and correcting) everything is a good idea IMHO.

I took ITB last night and 'corrected' all of them. There are easily 25-30% of the cars that don't make ANY sense because of old HP ratings. Do the excersize and tell me that you would be happy with the result - AND be able to defend your position.

I think now my position has changed. I think we reset about half of the cars and wait for requests on the ones that have little info. When someone requests a looksie, that person had better have a metric-shit-ton of info to help us help them...or else its all just a huge SWAG.

Example: Plymouth Fire Arrow @ 110 hp. 2.6L and rwd. Go for it. Currently at 2360.

Dave Gran - front suspension type?
 
Yes what is really missing is the documentation of when the cars were classed and/or reviewed. That is a great improvement that you guys have made:happy204:.

More likely IMO, the car was classed in the early/mid 90s, Chris Albin won the ARRC 3 times with it, and no way no how was weight going to come off during the realignment. We like to say that on track performance does not impact performance. It appears that a similar effect has taken place with the Civic.

Again, this is all just fun interwebdebation unless the ITAC or CRB will actually be permitted to make changes on a larger scale. If not then it will be as current status quo - review on a as requested basis, and leave the giant tolerance in place.
 
Knestis said:
First a short answer: My preference would be to re-process cars only by member request, and to leave the output at the nearest 5 pounds. I'd further document the assumptions with which the process was applied (e.g., engine power multiplier) and make those figures available to the membership.

I honestly think that the current process (more on that word in a separate post) is pretty damned close. Most of my questions about it are academic (i.e., probably unhelpful) rather than intended to fix some major problem.

K
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I would like to see. :happy204:

This way when things like the DX come up, some accountability can be held.
 
Catch22 said:
Here is a homework exercise for anyone that thinks the current situation is not busted.

VW A3 GTI
VW A2 GTI
1st Gen Honda CRX Si


Go ahead and do some math. ....

The range is HUGE, with some of the cars being closer to the ITC p/w target than the ITB target while other are UNDER the target of 17.
.....
Click to expand...

okay, some snips from Scott's post and an example but i decided to do the math (not even sure which Golf this is i did).

To make sure I understand the way the process as outlined in this thread, this is the way this should work out right?

So the Golf (using HP numbers and the formula shown in this thread) should be at 115*1.25*17 = 2444 - 50 (FWD) - 50 (suspension) = 2344 or 2350 if we round to the nearest 50 #'s which is the weight in the GCR.

And a CRX Si (which I have) similarly should be 91*1.25*17 = 1934 - 50 (FWD) = 1884 and round to the nearest 50 would be 1900 vs. 2130 #'s in the GCR.

I am asking because when I ran this car when it was in ITA, I would typically find myself running with ITB. After the addition of 150#'s and the drop to ITB, I still run with some cars but wow do I get pulled on the straights.

and my car has struts/torsion bars up front (not real good) and what i consider a relatively poor suspension in the back (solid beam axle) but i was unsure and did not do a correction of 50 #'s for that.

and i don't think i can get down to 1900. i did have the car down to 1800 at one time in ITA trim. it was 1800 for the car as i recall and later was 1980 for car with driver. then went to the 2130 for ITB trim. i get lots of comments that i have lots of ballast in the car. yup, about 135 #'s.

so i guess i should write a letter....
 
tom91ita said:
So the Golf (using HP numbers and the formula shown in this thread) should be at 115*1.25*17 = 2444 - 50 (FWD) - 50 (suspension) = 2344 or 2350 if we round to the nearest 50 #'s which is the weight in the GCR.

And a CRX Si (which I have) similarly should be 91*1.25*17 = 1934 - 50 (FWD) = 1884 and round to the nearest 50 would be 1900 vs. 2130 #'s in the GCR.
Click to expand...

Bad math. Read Kirks post on the process more closely.
The current approach figures strut suspension as the default, so there is no -50 on the VW for that. Its also a large powerplant (in ITB terms) with excellent torque, so I would argue that needs a +50.
Using those numbers you get a process spec weight of 2445.

For your CRX you need to use a 35% adder (because Hondas can typically get that and its a 12v MPFI motor). That puts you at 2040.


Honestly, I thought about this alot last night, and you could even put guidelines in place to help guide you in the subjectivity of the HP adder.
You can use things like 8v vs 12v vs 16v coupled with TB Injection vs. Carbed vs. MPFI to get you pretty darned close to where you need to be. After that you can look at things like variable valve timing and cross flow head designs...
I ran a few samples of this through my own mini process and it actually is damned close to reality.

Perfect? Nope.
Will there be exceptions to the rule (like cars under or over rated from the factory)? of course.

But you can't just sit back and be afraid to address things. A 225lb delta between 2 cars in the same class just won't cut it. Having ANY cars currently in competition where the spec weight just "doesn't make sense" won't cut it.

I do agree with the "fix as requested" approach, for the variety of reasons already mentioned.
 
Last edited:
my ITA integra went through the "system" and had weight added to it. i hate it but nobody gave a rat's ass. so why should i care if others are pissed because they have the same fate? why do certain cars get wacked while others do not?:shrug:
 
Write your letters. Maybe if the membership let the ITAC and CRB know that +/- 100 was not currently acceptable, we could make a change.

Again, be prepared for your weight to go UP. Cars like the 130hp Storm/Prism twins can expect a move to ITA as well.

Here are a few ITB cars for you 'process runners' to chew on. These types of cars are one of the main sticking points of the 'neys'...Please post your conclusions:

Dodge Charger/Plymouth Horizon 2.2L, 96hp and FWD. Now at 2320 in ITB.
Alfa Romeo GTV2000 2.0L, 129hp and RWD. Now at 2410 in ITB.
Audi Coupe 2.2L 5cyl, 100hp and FWD. Now at 2490 in ITB.
Porsche 914-4 1.7L, 80hp, RWD and mid engine. Now at 2080 in ITB.
 
Catch22 said:
Bad math. Read Kirks post on the process more closely.
The current approach figures strut suspension as the default, so there is no -50 on the VW for that. Its also a large powerplant (in ITB terms) with excellent torque, so I would argue that needs a +50.
Using those numbers you get a process spec weight of 2445.
Click to expand...

Actually, his math is correct, and yours is off - again defining why this is such a hard excersize over any forum. The 'base' car is a strut-based, IRS, RWDer. The Golf has no adder for TQ and a -50 for a beam rear axle. Argue the validity all you want, but that is what it is.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
I took ITB last night and 'corrected' all of them.
Click to expand...

No fair keeping secrets.

There are easily 25-30% of the cars that don't make ANY sense because of old HP ratings. Do the excersize and tell me that you would be happy with the result - AND be able to defend your position.
Click to expand...

"These are the rules underwhich new cars are classified. Consistency and fairness requires that all cars be classified under the same system. Your car received an unfair advantage/disadvantage because it was classified using a system that was deemed inaccurate. If your car no longer is competitive/an underdog, please refer to the IT section of the GCR where it clearly states that we do not guarantee the competitiveness of any car."

I think now my position has changed. I think we reset about half of the cars and wait for requests on the ones that have little info. When someone requests a looksie, that person had better have a metric-shit-ton of info to help us help them...or else its all just a huge SWAG.
Click to expand...

I like that solution, but I'd like to suggest an adder - if the car hasn't been raced in the last 3 years, delist it if the information isn't available. When/if a request to classify it occurs, either the required information is produced or the factors used are the most disadvantaged. (i.e. if 35% is the max HP multiplier for any car, then no info = 35% HP multiplier).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top