THE BACK ROOM or ....

[gran racing]

Me, me, me! Then again I'll just modify those pages to show 130 SAGran and sell it to Ray. Or shall I send it to John?

[RSTPerformance]

Me, me, me! Then again I'll just modify those pages to show 130 SAGran and sell it to Ray. Or shall I send it to John?

Dave.. If it said 90hp then it would be worth something!!!!

[gran racing]

Somewhat forgot about this but guess it's still in progress, 13 plus months later. Still never saw anything in print about the Accord weight adjustment. lol


Mon, April 9, 2012 9:00:19 PMSCCA Letter #4229 Update

From:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Dave Gran,
Your letter has been reviewed by the IT committee, and a recommendation has been made to the CRB. The CRB will review your letter and the IT committee's recommendation on their next conference call. Your letter details are below:

Letter #4229
Title: Multivalve Adder
Request: Eliminate the default 30% gain&nbsp;above stock horsepower in IT trim for multivalve engines when processing ITB and ITC cars. Instead, assume a gain of 35% above stock horsepower in IT trim while still allowing the ITAC to use protocol in the documented ITAC Operations Manual to adjust accordingly. I see no way in which this rule makes sense especially given that the design benefits are already factored into stock HP. If after further discussions the ITAC votes that a multivalve adder should still be in place, it needs to be further defined and utilized. As an amendment to the Operations Manual, define what multivalve engines this increased 5% applies to &ndash; 3 valve and/or 4 valve engines. Additionally, if the multivalve truly deserves an automatic increase in expected gains the factor needs to be applied to ITR, ITS, and ITA even if on a sliding scale. There is no reason
why a multivalve ITB car gains 5% by this design yet an ITA car has no advantage.Thank you for taking the time to review and discussing this request.


Thank you,

CRB

[lateapex911]

I too wrote a letter so long ago I'd actually forgotten about it. It requested that a 4 valve 125hp car in ITB carry the same factor (25%) that a 4valve 125hp car in ITA has. 25%.

It has been sent to the CRB with a ITAC recommendation.

I assume it was held up in the larger ITB dissection.

[Bill Miller]

Somewhat forgot about this but guess it's still in progress, 13 plus months later. Still never saw anything in print about the Accord weight adjustment. lol


Mon, April 9, 2012 9:00:19 PMSCCA Letter #4229 Update

From:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Dave Gran,
Your letter has been reviewed by the IT committee, and a recommendation has been made to the CRB. The CRB will review your letter and the IT committee's recommendation on their next conference call. Your letter details are below:

Letter #4229
Title: Multivalve Adder
Request: Eliminate the default 30% gain&nbsp;above stock horsepower in IT trim for multivalve engines when processing ITB and ITC cars. Instead, assume a gain of 35% above stock horsepower in IT trim while still allowing the ITAC to use protocol in the documented ITAC Operations Manual to adjust accordingly. I see no way in which this rule makes sense especially given that the design benefits are already factored into stock HP. If after further discussions the ITAC votes that a multivalve adder should still be in place, it needs to be further defined and utilized. As an amendment to the Operations Manual, define what multivalve engines this increased 5% applies to &ndash; 3 valve and/or 4 valve engines. Additionally, if the multivalve truly deserves an automatic increase in expected gains the factor needs to be applied to ITR, ITS, and ITA even if on a sliding scale. There is no reason
why a multivalve ITB car gains 5% by this design yet an ITA car has no advantage.Thank you for taking the time to review and discussing this request.


Thank you,

CRB

Dave,

You really asked for a 35% gain, or was that a typo? BTW, I applaud you writing that letter. Let's see what happens. I totally agree that you can't say an ITB/C 3-4 valve car will make a higher percentage gain that an ITR/S/A 3-4 valve car

[gran racing]

Typo. But I quickly sent communications to the ITAC and CRB to ensure they were aware of the correct 25% percentage I meant to type. Although I wouldn't be totally shocked it if gets rejected with that as an excuse as that got lost (I did get written confirmation that they received the correct percentage.)

Page 10, post 184 of this thread is when I submitted that and the Accord.

[JeffYoung]

John, manual's still sitting on my floor -- sorry about that.

We've discussed the issue with the Audi stock hp and don't have a solution yet. The 110 hp is in the manual, the 120 (I think) is in the internal Audi document. Not clear either way.

Dave/Jake/Bill:

I think most of us on the ITAC do not prefer the 30% multivavle adder in ITB. At the same time, it's there, it's in the Ops Manual, and its been used to process cars for a while now. For consistencies sake, we will not revisit it.

HOWEVER - I think all of us will take a harder look at a multivalve motor in B to see if the 30% makes sense as a default than we would with a 25% default motor in any other clause.

Last, we made the recommendation to add (100?) weight to the Accord and I believe it passed and was in Fastrack. We've already gotten letters to change it back.....

[tom91ita]

...........
Last, we made the recommendation to add (100?) weight to the Accord and I believe it passed and was in Fastrack. We've already gotten letters to change it back.....

when i submitted letter # 1333, the accord was 2550 #'s. it is now 2650.

i just got an update regarding my evap emissions letter. i responded that updates to me are no longer necessary since i am no longer a member.

perhaps not 100% accurate since i intend to be a weekend member at a couple of races this year and must comply with the rules for the class i enter.

[Bill Miller]

I think most of us on the ITAC do not prefer the 30% multivavle adder in ITB. At the same time, it's there, it's in the Ops Manual, and its been used to process cars for a while now. For consistencies sake, we will not revisit it.

Well ok then.

[lateapex911]

Last, we made the recommendation to add (100?) weight to the Accord and I believe it passed and was in Fastrack. We've already gotten letters to change it back.....

Jeff, I understand the situation the ITAC finds itself in, and I'm sure it's frustrating.

Glad to hear the Accord was adjusted in line with the rest of the cars though. I wonder who's sending in letters?
Live by the sword, die by the sword......