August 2011 Fastrack

[lateapex911]

So, Les Chaney, and Sam Moore, both (ex?) ITB Volvo drivers (although not currently in IT, as far as I know), got together with Rick Benazic, a Honda Civic driver to have the weight of the Civic reduced in ITB??? Huh? LOL

[quadzjr]

So, Les Chaney, and Sam Moore, both (ex?) ITB Volvo drivers (although not currently in IT, as far as I know), got together with Rick Benazic, a Honda Civic driver to have the weight of the Civic reduced in ITB??? Huh? LOL

Don't know enough to support one way or another but last time I talked to Les he was there in support of his friends ITB honda. Les was there with his FP volvo but from what I remember on track shennangans made it it easy for him to skip out on the race.

Curious was this a process move? of recently both the CRX and the Civic in ITB have lost 160lbs.. How much data was presented to get such a reduction? how many 10/10ths builds were handed in to get the percentage correct?

[lateapex911]

Just seemed like an interesting combination....Rick Benazic is a New Yorker (As in close to NYC) I think and Les and Sam were, I thought, more Southern, and you'd think with them being Volvo guys, they wouldn't be on that letter. It's just a surprising combination, that's all.
Now, the letter DOES make sense in light of the recent CRX adjustment, so good on them for that.

[quadzjr]

Just seemed like an interesting combination....Rick Benazic is a New Yorker (As in close to NYC) I think and Les and Sam were, I thought, more Southern, and you'd think with them being Volvo guys, they wouldn't be on that letter. It's just a surprising combination, that's all.
Now, the letter DOES make sense in light of the recent CRX adjustment, so good on them for that.

No I totally agree that if the Civic and CRX have the same power plant they should be classed at the same weight. I was just curious how a car that was alread somewhat competitve (and more competitive than my car) some how got a bigger weight break? I know what I submitted to get 95lbs.. to get 160lbs.. you would think cosworth or someone submitted info or soemting.

I am joking.. but seriously intrigued on how much data backed up the decision for the first (CRX) weight break.

[tom91ita]

No I totally agree that if the Civic and CRX have the same power plant they should be classed at the same weight. I was just curious how a car that was alread somewhat competitve (and more competitive than my car) some how got a bigger weight break? I know what I submitted to get 95lbs.. to get 160lbs.. you would think cosworth or someone submitted info or soemting.

I am joking.. but seriously intrigued on how much data backed up the decision for the first (CRX) weight break.

here is background on what i submitted. i have posted the same basic content here in various formats/threads as well.

http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=9113

take a look at what the accord has for a power to weight or pound per cc, etc. and i think you will notice the difference.

[Harvey]

Jake in case you don't remember I raced a ITC CIVIC for about 8 years or so before I started to run the Volvo and the Civic And the CRX in this case have always and should always go hand in hand.

[lateapex911]

Ah, so THAT's the connection, Les. I never knew you raced a Civic. You're correct about the parallel. Seemed odd to see yours and Sams name on the item, along with Ricks. (Toms letter WAS in the pipeline for wayyyyyy too long)

[StephenB]

How much data was presented to get such a reduction? how many 10/10ths builds were handed in to get the percentage correct?

I am sure they had several dyno sheets and supporting evidence. They don't just run cars through the process without supporting data to do so. I am sure it had supporting data from Kessler. How is it compaired to yours on a dyno Dave? (Gran)

Stephen

PS: I am very suprised at both Hondas having the reduction in weight. Based on "on track performance"

[lateapex911]

I am sure they had several dyno sheets and supporting evidence. They don't just run cars through the process without supporting data to do so. I am sure it had supporting data from Kessler. How is it compaired to yours on a dyno Dave? (Gran)

Stephen

PS: I am very suprised at both Hondas having the reduction in weight. Based on "on track performance"

???

What does the Process spit out for that car!?

I too would be interested to hear what amount of data was needed to gain the 'confidence level" of the ITAC.

[StephenB]

???

What does the Process spit out for that car!?

I too would be interested to hear what amount of data was needed to gain the 'confidence level" of the ITAC.

Jake,

Not sure what the ??? are but
1) Maybe your questioning if Kessler built Ricks engine... I thought so but maybe I am wrong and if so PLEASE correct me. Kessler is a GREAT guy and builds top notch stuff IMHO. That is why I would think the ITAC would have asked for his dyno sheets.

2) As far as what it spits out... no clue. Doesn't matter does it? I didn't think we could change any car without dyno sheets and supporting data.

[Knestis]

Don't know enough to support one way or another but last time I talked to Les he was there in support of his friends ITB honda. Les was there with his FP volvo but from what I remember on track shennangans made it it easy for him to skip out on the race.

Curious was this a process move? of recently both the CRX and the Civic in ITB have lost 160lbs.. How much data was presented to get such a reduction? how many 10/10ths builds were handed in to get the percentage correct?

With respect, the whole "10/10ths build" thing was never the big deal that it's been made for you around the Toyota question. I think you've been led astray by post hoc rationalization of a weight spec on the MR2 that's based in bias and fear.

The Process v.2. simply asked the ITAC members to record their judgment of whatever evidence was presented for a non-standard - other than 1.25 - power multiplier. The idea from the outset, from a guy who helped craft that system, was to impose a pretty high expectation of confidence from the entire committee in order to shift us off of "SOP" and on to "what we know." If we had repeated dyno evidence of a reputable, pro build, that would have been taken into consideration differently than "I've never put it on a dyno but my friend built it and I know it makes like 120whp."

(I hate the term "what we know," by the way, because we NEVER actually KNOW anything.)

The actual change for the CRX Si happened after I left but we looked at a pretty good accumulation of evidence that generated substantial confidence around a 1.3 multiplier for that make/model (with 91 hp stock). Not coincidentally, that multiplier puts it at its current GCR weight. The Civic version should have been done at the same time but wasn't.

You are going to drive yourself crazy looking for a way to make classifications more generally - or the Process v.2 as it was applied c.2008-2010 and should still be applied - align with what happened with (or to) the MR2. That listing is crap. It's always been crap. It should be fixed. Until it is, my confidence in the ITAC is very low.

K

[Bill Miller]

With respect, the whole "10/10ths build" thing was never the big deal that it's been made for you around the Toyota question. I think you've been led astray by post hoc rationalization of a weight spec on the MR2 that's based in bias and fear.

The Process v.2. simply asked the ITAC members to record their judgment of whatever evidence was presented for a non-standard - other than 1.25 - power multiplier. The idea from the outset, from a guy who helped craft that system, was to impose a pretty high expectation of confidence from the entire committee in order to shift us off of "SOP" and on to "what we know." If we had repeated dyno evidence of a reputable, pro build, that would have been taken into consideration differently than "I've never put it on a dyno but my friend built it and I know it makes like 120whp."

(I hate the term "what we know," by the way, because we NEVER actually KNOW anything.)

The actual change for the CRX Si happened after I left but we looked at a pretty good accumulation of evidence that generated substantial confidence around a 1.3 multiplier for that make/model (with 91 hp stock). Not coincidentally, that multiplier puts it at its current GCR weight. The Civic version should have been done at the same time but wasn't.

You are going to drive yourself crazy looking for a way to make classifications more generally - or the Process v.2 as it was applied c.2008-2010 and should still be applied - align with what happened with (or to) the MR2. That listing is crap. It's always been crap. It should be fixed. Until it is, my confidence in the ITAC is very low.

K

Kirk,

This is in no way a reflection on you, or directed at you, but based on things I've been told by various former ITAC members over the years, the bolded part really made me chuckle.

Here's what I believe is the math for how the 1G CRX Si/3G Civic Si's got adjusted to their current 1970lbs:

91hp * 1.30 * .98 * 17 = 1970.8

Tom Lamb's letter languished in the ITAC for years. I wrote mine over the winter in support of his and adding some new points of my own. It was well established the old weight was completely arbitrary when the car was moved down from A to B.

BTW, that previous weight of 2130lbs was a power multiplier of 40%+.

Rob,

The math seems right.

This math however, doesn't

90hp * X * .98 * 17 = 2080 lbs

Or, rearranged to solve for X:

X = 2080 / (.98 * 90 *17) = 1.39

And another:

90hp * X * .98 * .17 = 2130 lbs

X = 2130 (.98*90*.17) = 1.42


The second set of equations is for the 1.8 8v VW Scirocco II. That's a car w/ a 1.8L 8v SOHC engine running CIS. The first set of equations is for the Rabbit GTI. Same chassis as the Scirroco, just a square back vs a slope back, like the Civic Si / CRX Si.

It's well accepted that there's no performance advantage of the CRX body over the Civic body, in IT trim, yet the Rabbit / Scirocco pair is saddled w/ a 50# weight penalty for the slope back body (it's 60# for the 1.7 ITC versions of those cars). I realize that these differences pre-date the GR and were based on some perceived aero advantage, but it seems like such an obvious error and easy correction today.

In light of Jeff's comments, I'm not sure why the 1.39/1.42 power factor hasn't been addressed.

Let me try to cover as much of the above as I can.

1. On the ITB Hondas. When we finally got the "go" to "reprocess" cars, we looked at the ITB CRX based on Tom's letter and others. The existing GCR weight (I can run th calc if someone wants) seemed to have no rational relation to any of the existing gain modifiers. So, honestly, in the absence of any real data, that car should be at 1.30 default rather than the 1.45 or whatever it was at.

We looked at Tom's data (which included dyno information if I recall correctly), Rob's and others. I'm not a Honda or ITB guy but the guys on the committee who are agreed we were not looking at a motor that would make ITA CRX gains.

So the vote was put it at default, or 1.3, for the class. The Civic then followed.

We do have to get away from the notion of "why did you lower weights on cars that are already competitive?" We had that discussion on the ITAC, but once you put something like the Process in place you have to trust it and use it. And that is what we did.

[tom91ita]

Bill,

i would agree with you that the math you outlined does not seem right. that was the basic method i used to arrive at us having a 1.42ish mulitplier. we (ITB CRX si's) had one HP more than your 90 and we had 50 #'s more (2130 vs. your 2080).

my letter writing started in 2008 and continued in 2009 and 2010 and again in 2010 & then the website submission tool/method. one of the things that really bugged me was the 2008 request was not acted on and later i was told that i had missed a deadline. not that i submitted it too late but that they did not review/respond in time.

i recommend you submit the math/methods you outlined above.

did that vintage VW also drop from ITA to ITB about the same time the CRX moved? just curious if it was given an arbitrary amount of weight as well.

good luck (hope that does not sound sarcastic).

i really do wish you well!

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

i would agree with you that the math you outlined does not seem right. that was the basic method i used to arrive at us having a 1.42ish mulitplier. we (ITB CRX si's) had one HP more than your 90 and we had 50 #'s more (2130 vs. your 2080).

my letter writing started in 2008 and continued in 2009 and 2010 and again in 2010 & then the website submission tool/method. one of the things that really bugged me was the 2008 request was not acted on and later i was told that i had missed a deadline. not that i submitted it too late but that they did not review/respond in time.

i recommend you submit the math/methods you outlined above.

did that vintage VW also drop from ITA to ITB about the same time the CRX moved? just curious if it was given an arbitrary amount of weight as well.

good luck (hope that does not sound sarcastic).

i really do wish you well!

Tom,

I took your comments as sincere and genuine. Thanks. The 8v 1.8 VW's have been ITB cars since the mid to late 90's.

I've been banging the VW drum for a LONG time, just ask anyone that's been around here for a while.

I have also championed an objective, repeatable classification process for IT cars for about as long as I've been on this site. (Has it really been 10 years???? )

I am truly glad to see where IT has come in that time, although it was a rough road.
A few folks put in some long hours, did some very heavy lifting, and often times got crap for it. They deserve a lot of credit for getting things done in the face of some tough (and often well connected) opposition.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The math doesn't have to be 'right' when you have an accepted WHP number. If you 'know' 115whp, it might come out to .32 or .27 or whatever.

Not saying this is the case here but the numbers don't always have to fit in a box to be 'correct' per the Process.