ITAC News.

[mc-integra111]

1.35+ or 35%+ for V-Tech, Vanos/Double Vanos, or other engine designs known to have higher potential/gains

OK, here is where I think the biggest problem is. General assumptions like this are just wrong. Some of the Honda VTEC motors will likely gain much less than comparable non-VTEC cars. For example, I think my B18A makes good process power improvements (not great, but good). However, the B18C5 (Type R motor) is likey to make much smaller improvements as that thing is basically built to the hilt from the factory.

[Knestis]

OK, here is where I think the biggest problem is. General assumptions like this are just wrong. Some of the Honda VTEC motors will likely gain much less than comparable non-VTEC cars. For example, I think my B18A makes good process power improvements (not great, but good). However, the B18C5 (Type R motor) is likey to make much smaller improvements as that thing is basically built to the hilt from the factory.

...which is precisely why the ITAC c.2007-2009 didn't apply that assumption, and v.2 codified not using it. The S2000 is the poster child for "scary engine architecture" but probably won't gain much at all because it's highly optimized from the factory.

K

[Ron Earp]

. The S2000 is the poster child for "scary engine architecture" but probably won't gain much at all because it's highly optimized from the factory.

K

Don't forget the extra scary "V8". Boy that one was a lot of fun with the ITAC/CRB.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have yet to be proven wrong on what I remember vs other and I can tell you that what Bob posted was an early version. We used 25% as a default when nothing was known. The real issues that are surfacing now are the acuracy of the 'what we know' in ITB-land.

V.2's two biggest changes were the % for FWD instead of a set number and the evidentiary and documentary standards applied to 'what we know'.

V.2 solves all these effing issues people.

[jjjanos]

I have yet to be proven wrong on what I remember vs other and I can tell you that what Bob posted was an early version. We used 25% as a default when nothing was known.

Andy,

I know whose memory is sharper. I know what was posted was superceeded. The question is why doesn't the chair of the CRB know that or, at the very least, why is an outdated method being posted as the current method?

Got to use what the head honcho says is being used.

V.2 solves all these effing issues people.

Which would be nice if it was what the CRB claimed to be using.

[JeffYoung]

V2 is what the ITAC has used, and is using (for new cars), and therefore defacto what the CRB is using when it has approved new classifications and adjustments.

The only part of the "old assumptions" on power gains that gets used still (and I personally disagree with it) is all 16v motors in ITB get 30%. Everything else is 25% default unless proven otherwise by actual data.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The only part of the "old assumptions" on power gains that gets used still (and I personally disagree with it) is all 16v motors in ITB get 30%. Everything else is 25% default unless proven otherwise by actual data.

Actually, this is wrong too. If you were to go by that old first-cut sheet, EVERYTHING 16V is supposed to get classed at 30%. In EVERY class. Just simply didn't happen like that. In every class 25% was used. When the first 16V car that was to be classed for ITB hit (MR2), all of the sudden 30% was 'what we used'.

I don't care who you are or what your recollection, this is what happened. I can go back and look at every ITA car that was classed or reclassed and prove 25% was used. I ask those who fought for 30% on the MR2, where was that 'fight' when every other car 16V was being classed?

Ugh.

[lateapex911]

Andy,

I know whose memory is sharper. I know what was posted was superceeded. The question is why doesn't the chair of the CRB know that or, at the very least, why is an outdated method being posted as the current method?

Got to use what the head honcho says is being used.



Which would be nice if it was what the CRB claimed to be using.

Why is it being used now??? Revisionist history is one reason, althought thats not a reason, actually.

WHY...that's the question. Kirks point about the ITB spreadsheet, and the Audi debacle triggering a giant pull back suggests those in charge were very uncomfortable, suddenly. But i really don't know the true motivations. We were told at teh time that the BoD had come down on them for operating outside the rulebook.....but then, I asked BoD guys and got blank stares. We were then told that the CRB WOULD get in trouble for operating outside the rules. Even though we'd been doing exactly that with full CRB knowledge and involvement for 5 years.

SOMEthing pissed SOMEbody off, that's for sure.

[lateapex911]

OK, here is where I think the biggest problem is. General assumptions like this are just wrong. Some of the Honda VTEC motors will likely gain much less than comparable non-VTEC cars. For example, I think my B18A makes good process power improvements (not great, but good). However, the B18C5 (Type R motor) is likey to make much smaller improvements as that thing is basically built to the hilt from the factory.

See my above comments...those factors are from an early version that was written before my time.
I'm inferring here that the reason those factors came to play is because, at the time, the big bad boys of IT were teh BMW E36, and the CRX in ITA. Both cars were unique in their ability to exceed factory rated hp by a significant amount, but it wasn't due to architecture. But, I think the authors of that document were reacting to those two cars, and that Process was the result. SOP hasn't followed those recommendations for years.

[jjjanos]

Mr. Dowd strongly implied that any versions of the process after TGRA were void and null, or at least I infered it.

Let's run the numbers again using the 1.25/1.30/1.35 multipliers

First Gen CRX: 91 * 1.25 * 17 = 1935 (OW: 2130) Pre-add error: 195
"Newer" Golf : 115 * 1.25 * 17 = 2445 (OW: 2350) Pre-add error: -95

Now that imples that a CRX with it's poor torque and much smaller brakes has either a suspension or other advantage that requires a 290 pound weight advantage for the Newer Golf.

First Gen CRX: 91 * 1.30 * 17 = 2010 (OW: 2130) Pre-add error: 120
"Newer" Golf : 115 * 1.30 * 17 = 2445 (OW: 2350) Pre-add error: -190

Darn, thought we had it when the CRX weight increased, but so does the Golf. The CRX is a 310 pound better car now.

So, let's take the highest multiplier for the CRX - 1.35 and the lowest for the newer Golfs (1.25) ...

CRX: 2130 (OW) - 2090 (Pre-adder weight) = 40 pounds too heavy
"Golf": 2350 (OW) - 2445 (Pre-adder weight) = 95 pounds too light.

So, the difference between the two translates into throwing 135 pounds onto the CRX. Let me see... both are FWD cars so it cannot be that. Torque? I'd say advantage Golf, but let's call it a draw. Brakes? Obviously I need to talk to someone because I fail to see the advantage of rear-wheel drums over huge rear discs. Suspension? Nope.

[shwah]

Mr Brakes? Obviously I need to talk to someone because I fail to see the advantage of rear-wheel drums over huge rear discs. Suspension? Nope.

Seriously? You want to consider rear brakes on fwd race cars when classing them.

In VW land we spend as much effort trying to keep the rears from working as we do optimizing the fronts.

IMO the G3 is about 100 under, or it is 50 under and most others are 50 over.
I don't know enough about the CRX to comment on what it should or shouldn't be capable of. Maybe a healthy dose of uncovering more 'what we know' about that motor in IT trim is in order.

[jjjanos]

Seriously? You want to consider rear brakes on fwd race cars when classing them.

Somebody must have because the ITAC's own math says the ITB CRX is a heck of a better car than the VWs. It's got to be suspension, brakes or torque.

In VW land we spend as much effort trying to keep the rears from working as we do optimizing the fronts.

For the ITC CRX, the rears are useful for keeping the car from rolling off the jackstands when the front is in the air. For the ITB car - same sized front calipers as the ITC car, the extra weight and extra speed, the drums come into play.

IMO the G3 is about 100 under, or it is 50 under and most others are 50 over.
I don't know enough about the CRX to comment on what it should or shouldn't be capable of. Maybe a healthy dose of uncovering more 'what we know' about that motor in IT trim is in order.

Won't matter... neither an error nor omission as defined by the CRB.