ITAC News

JeffYoung

JeffYoung

New member
Ok, so we had a productive call tonight. Gist of it was:

1. A fair amount of time spent discussing the update/backdate issue discussed in Ron Earp's thread below. This one remains under consideration, and any member input on it would be appreciated. Basically, it appears have a situation where there is "older" language in the rule (the "don't create a model" sentence) that may be unecessary after the VIN rule changed.

2. We worked more on the 240s -- David, the request was sent back from the CRB to make sure that our classification recommendation was correct. After further thought, we decided to put it out for member comment.

3. We handled a few letters classifying and processing a few cars.

4. We had a lengthy discussion about the 30% default rule in ITB in an effort to try and figure out what the right thing to do for the class is now. Matter remains open and under discussion.

I'm open to any questions about my own personal beliefs/opinions on the above.

Thanks.

Jeff
 
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. ;) )
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

lateapex911 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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 said:
2. We worked more on the 240s -- David, the request was sent back from the CRB to make sure that our classification recommendation was correct. After further thought, we decided to put it out for member comment.
Click to expand...

Jeff,

Thanks for the update. What specific member comments/input are you looking for?
 
lateapex911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 still 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.
 
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.

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

Russ
Click to expand...
 
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.


gran racing said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
All of the 24x models we are looking at make somewhere between 100 and 114 hp. At their curb weights, it does not appear to us that the ITB process weight is acheivable. So we calculated both a B and C weight and asked for member input on whether the car should go to B and C. Primarily we are looking for the (very few we understand it) members who are building or interested in building these cars telling us whether they prefer ITB, or ITC.

rsportvolvo said:
Jeff,

Thanks for the update. What specific member comments/input are you looking for?
Click to expand...
 
jjjanos said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Chip42 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

jjjanos said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
If we get the gain numbers right, what the default "is" shouldn't matter, or matter most on new cars coming into the class.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top