It says that it(whatever you happen to call it) must be attached to the body, but not ONLY the body. So where is the confusion about mounting?
And why ban limited production OEM stuff if you can make/buy custom? I never understood that.
It says that it(whatever you happen to call it) must be attached to the body, but not ONLY the body. So where is the confusion about mounting?
And why ban limited production OEM stuff if you can make/buy custom? I never understood that.
Chris Rallo "the kid"
-- "wrenching and racing" -- "will race for food!" -- "Onward and Upward"
I was trying to imply that the only rule needed is the shadow rule.
Mounting rules bother some cars more than others and are really not needed as long as the entire air control devices are covered by the body shadow rule.
Mike Ogren , FWDracingguide.com, 352.4288.983 ,http://www.ogren-engineering.com/
And I am not understanding the Accord bitching. We all know how we got here and nobody has to like it - but here is the net result:
All ITB cars processed at 25%, 30% multi-valve boner gone
MR2 finally gets it's dyno data read and approved at a lower %
If the MKII VW's can make 25% over stock, they are fine. If they can't, send in the data.
So where's the data that supported the A2's being run at 30% (and the A1's being run at 38%)? If there's no data to support applying a higher multiplier, why is the higher # being used? You said you guys chucked the default 30% multiplier for multi-valve ITB/C cars, but are going to look closer at them. Why should anything else that doesn't have supporting evidence that justifies a higher multiplier be treated any differently?
You've got a long time member of this forum, and ITB racer, that has finally had enough of the BS. You've got the guy w/ the ITB Scirocco, that had it take over a year and a half to get his letter through, and they still stuck it up his ass, w/o any supporting data. I'd say that is the kind of stuff that makes people disinterested.
HP is filling up with VWs.
Good stuff. MM
Mike Ogren , FWDracingguide.com, 352.4288.983 ,http://www.ogren-engineering.com/
the "minimum" multiplier for ITB/C multivalve cars has been removed. if and when justification exists to use something higher or lower than 25%, it will be used.
re existing classifications - we can change them IF there is data substantiating them. yes, it can mean proving a negative. the idea is to NOT make it easy to change willy nilly. I don't have the data in front of me that lead to the A2 weight. it's been around a while. but if it can be proven "heavy" then I'd support the change. ditto any other car being too light or heavy for it's class. but in many cases the committee doesn't know enough about the situation of any specific car to initiate that change on our own.
I am terribly upset to hear that ANYONE is upset with the changes to date. everything we recommend is done with the intention of matching power to weight in the class using as close to actual output as we can agree on and the process formula. that's the idea behind the process, right?
re the 'rocco - timing was ITAC, we dropped the ball, simple as that. as for the weight it was given, that was a decision made by the CRB. thats how the system works sometimes. not a lot the ITAC can do about that, though we can push further with support.
Last edited by Chip42; 10-21-2012 at 01:52 PM.
The way I see it Chip, is if there isn't compelling evidence to use a number other than 25%, regardless if the car is currently classified or not, no one should have to prove that it should get the default multiplier. I thought that was the underlying principle of the ITAC ops manual. If you want to use a different number, you damned well better have data to support it. Not only that, you need a high level of confidence from the rest of the committee to support using a different number.
If a car is classed with a different multiplier, and there is no supporting data/documentation, the weight should be set at the default process weight until such time as someone can provide evidence as to why it shouldn't be.
And there's the real problem. Someone can jump through all kinds of hoops, and provide all kinds of supporting evidence, but if the CRB doesn't want it to go that way, it won't. And they don't have to give any reasons for it. Do you really think that's the right way to run this, especially after all the hard work that has been done by the ITAC to develop a transparent, objective process?Originally Posted by chip
When did this happen? I received an e-mail not that long ago that my request to eliminate the 30% multi-valve was declined.All ITB cars processed at 25%, 30% multi-valve boner gone
The bitching is about getting all cars given a fair shake. There's been plenty of data on the Accord. Hell, one of the CRB members (former? don't even know anymore).And I am not understanding the Accord bitching.
Yeah Tom, the Prelude I have has 110 stock HP. The differences between them are CR as you noted, and a couple of other non-legal IT mods.
Dave Gran
Real Roads, Real Car Guys – Real World Road Tests
Go Ahead - Take the Wheel's Free Guide to Racing
Forget where I read it, maybe the Box, but all ITB now processed at 25% with a proactive look for power numbers on anything with Multi-valve before classification or correction.
So it would seem we are there. 25% on new classifications. If a car is classed at over that based on the boner, then it should get swapped back per the Ops Manual. If it's processed over that based on dyno numbers, so what?The bitching is about getting all cars given a fair shake. There's been plenty of data on the Accord. Hell, one of the CRB members (former? don't even know anymore).
It says it must be attached to the body (except for those with Integrated bumper assemblies who may attach to the bumper assembly.)
9.1.3.D ....Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.So, yes, it is only to the body or the integrated bumper assembly.
Seems perfectly clear to me.So where is the confusion about mounting?
9.1.3.D ....Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.That's the issue. The GCR specifies how these are to be mounted. There is no allowance to mount them anywhere but the body. It may be a stupid restriction, but it is the rule.
The reason for that restriction lies in 1985, when cars has separate bumpers (prior to plastic aerodynamic bumper covers). The reason for specifying mounting them to "the body" (and limiting the attachment to below 4" above wheel centerline) was to keep competitors from mounting them to separated bumpers, thus closing out the whole front of the car. - GA
My post was a response to others. Did you read them? I ask because you might misunderstand my post if you took it out of context.
The word I highlighted, you grasped out of mid air. It is NOT in this rule. Andy understands me. In fact my very point was the absence of that word in the rule. No confusion there IMHO.
Oh and on that theme, your conclusion at the bottom is not a true statement/summary.
Last edited by CRallo; 10-18-2012 at 12:02 AM.
Chris Rallo "the kid"
-- "wrenching and racing" -- "will race for food!" -- "Onward and Upward"
Bookmarks