August 2012 Fastrack

[Chip42]

Chip, do me one BIG favor. Don't spend a lot of time on my behalf. If it becomes an internal argument then don't bother waisting resources on it. I WAS going to do more racing with the Audi but I can't afford to run the Audi and the RX8. If I ever do anything with it I am certainly not building a new engine (unless I blew it up!)

I promise - I won't but it was caught and will be looked at. no promises beyond that, it's still a committee.

on the TSX - I think the weight is not absurdly low, and like jeff said, general preference has been "better a little lower than realistic than carying a floorboard full of lead." again, if desired, we'll look at moving it down to S at added weight (default 3175#). of note, this car WAS run using the published process, which differs from the "old" process that was used on most ITR listings. as such, it lost 6% rather than a flat 100#, and gained weight for having wishbones. works out to something like 25# lighter than it would have been a few years ago. we're still reviewing all of ITR and might move all listings to the published process, the old process, or a hybrid. whatever we choose will 1) be the answer that seems most balanced and requires the lowest number of spec line changes and 2) be updated into the ops manual.

The 03-05 Accord we actually went the other direction on, because they really didn't seem to have a prayer of getting to ITS weight (2490#). the CL was a pretty obvious fit in A.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

and gained weight for having wishbones.

So it's official that the ITAC has decided to go with the DW adder in ITR?

 

[Chip42]

So it's official that the ITAC has decided to go with the DW adder in ITR?

read on...

we're still reviewing all of ITR and might move all listings to the published process, the old process, or a hybrid. whatever we choose will 1) be the answer that seems most balanced and requires the lowest number of spec line changes and 2) be updated into the ops manual.

 

[Knestis]

Sigh.

It's WAY the heck too early for some kind of re-do of ITR, particularly if we're going to start picking and choosing from among the factors considered for each individual listing.

There's no other class that captures that narrow range of model years - so technologies. There isn't a lot of oddball crap that you have to accommodate. The only motivation for doing otherwise is because someone has qualitatively decided - individually or collectively - that some cars are faster than others if that's done.

THAT IS PERFORMANCE ADJUSTMENTS. THAT IS WRONG.

Run them all through the process initially used when the class was developed and step away.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

read on...

My fault Chip, I skimmed the original post. Thanks. I THINK (and hope) you will find that cars like the 944's, 968's etc that don't have DW's are just as capable as the cars that do in ITR. It would accomplish many things IMHO: Keep weights the lowest they can be and also result in the fewest spec line changes. I really do think that the DW adder has value in classes where 'econo-boxes' with strut designs engineered for packaging - is the right thing to do. But not in ITR.

 

[JeffYoung]

Chip and I rarely disagree but I would not support a redo of ITR unless it used the existing process, with no changes.

If that is what we are doing, I support it whole heartedly. ITR right now is a mess, a hodge podge of different versions of the process.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chip and I rarely disagree but I would not support a redo of ITR unless it used the existing process, with no changes.

If that is what we are doing, I support it whole heartedly. ITR right now is a mess, a hodge podge of different versions of the process.

Yes, set the process and go. Looking at ITR, if it were me, I would 'correct' the error that left out the codifying of no DW adder in ITR, and then redo it. There is certainly language in there that allow some of the multipliers to stay the same. It's a GREAT class so the issue is to make sure you don't stick so hard and fast by the 25% that you crush cars that can't make it and allow cars that overachieve to get light. REALLY do the homework for any change.

 

[Chip42]

One process, all cars. Whatever we decide, all spec lines in ITR will get run through. We already had this discussion here and on the box. I agree that most of the strut cars are not at a measurable detriment to the DW cars, except FWD, where struts ARE a detriment. Ditto stick axles. But its just concept phase now, and only 2 cars are "off" (tsx and vette). We also need to run it through committee and CRB. So everyone calm down.

 

[StephenB]

Thanks Stephen - The 06 civic Si is listed in GCR under ITS at 3000 lbs, albeit a little heavy IMO. Where you suggesting non-Si civic as well?

I guess I don't know my Hondas well at all. I think/thought I was racing against the SI in Pirelli World Challenge a few weeks back. certainly a lot more HP than the other ITR cars but I am guessing it could be classed correctly with weight in ITR. I know they are running in the Castrol Canadian Touring Car Series as well

Stephen

Some other cars I was wondering about
Solstice and the Scion Tc?

 

[mossaidis]

I guess I don't know my Hondas well at all. I think/thought I was racing against the SI in Pirelli World Challenge a few weeks back. certainly a lot more HP than the other ITR cars but I am guessing it could be classed correctly with weight in ITR. I know they are running in the Castrol Canadian Touring Car Series as well

Stephen

The Si's in WC you noticed are probably the 2012 models with the K24Z7 (2.4L) and not the K20Z3 (2.0L) which were available on the 06-11 models. There's heaps more torque in the K24Z7, at least, relative in the Honda world, 201chp and 170 ctq vs 195 chp and 139 ctq in the K20Z3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_Si#2006.E2.80.932011

So, the K24Z7 in the 2012 Si is very similar to the 04-08 TSX engines, K24A2, though I don't know all the differences between the motors, they're some and some of those are overcome in IT prep.

Tangentially, the other obvious difference between the all TSX models and all 06-12 Civics are that the TSX has front DW and the 06-12 Civics do not.

Last, the curb weight of the 06-12 Si's varies from 2877 and 2954 lbs.

Mickey

PS. It's very early in the am, so other Honda guys should feel free to correct my references if need be.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

One process, all cars. Whatever we decide, all spec lines in ITR will get run through. We already had this discussion here and on the box. I agree that most of the strut cars are not at a measurable detriment to the DW cars, except FWD, where struts ARE a detriment. Ditto stick axles. But its just concept phase now, and only 2 cars are "off" (tsx and vette). We also need to run it through committee and CRB. So everyone calm down.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[mossaidis]

on the TSX - I think the weight is not absurdly low, and like jeff said, general preference has been "better a little lower than realistic than carying a floorboard full of lead." again, if desired, we'll look at moving it down to S at added weight (default 3175#). of note, this car WAS run using the published process, which differs from the "old" process that was used on most ITR listings. as such, it lost 6% rather than a flat 100#, and gained weight for having wishbones. works out to something like 25# lighter than it would have been a few years ago. we're still reviewing all of ITR and might move all listings to the published process, the old process, or a hybrid. whatever we choose will 1) be the answer that seems most balanced and requires the lowest number of spec line changes and 2) be updated into the ops manual.

The 03-05 Accord we actually went the other direction on, because they really didn't seem to have a prayer of getting to ITS weight (2490#). the CL was a pretty obvious fit in A.

Thanks ITAC!

 

[Greg Amy]

http://www.scca.com/assets/12-fastrack-aug.pdf

 

[mossaidis]

Talk about technicalities...

Cooper MacNeil vs. SOM COA Ref. No. 12-07-GL

 

[John Nesbitt]

Talk about technicalities...

Cooper MacNeil vs. SOM COA Ref. No. 12-07-GL

I read that a little differently.

As clunky as the system sometimes appears to be, it is strongly committed to providing due process and fairness in rules enforcement.

I was not in any way a party to this case, but, from the outside, it appears that the Court of Appeals decided that the original process was so flawed that Mr. Cooper did not get a complete/fair hearing. Hence their decision to overturn the original judgment.

Nobody wants to go through the stress and bother of filing an appeal. And I write as one who has been party to a fair number. However, I read this judgment as the system's working, correcting an error, and actually delivering justice. A Good Thing.

 

[Rabbit05]

" IT
1. #4315 (Raymond Blethen) Where to get stock HP numbers?
Thank you for your letter. The committees consider all credible data collected when reviewing a request.
2. #4317 (Stephen Blethen) Reprocess the weight of the 1981-1984 Coupe with the WE engine.
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315.
3. #4360 (John VanDenburgh) Please re-run 84-87 Audi Coupe GT
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315.
4. #4361 (John VanDenburgh) Please classify/rerun 80-83 Audi Coupe GT
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315."



A waste of time I guess....

Can I request a copy of whatever HP is being used to class the Audi's please ? If I show up to tech with my factory manual and, I guess, has the wrong info ..I don't want to be DQ'ed.

Thanks,

 

[jumbojimbo]

I read that a little differently.

As clunky as the system sometimes appears to be, it is strongly committed to providing due process and fairness in rules enforcement.

I was not in any way a party to this case, but, from the outside, it appears that the Court of Appeals decided that the original process was so flawed that Mr. Cooper did not get a complete/fair hearing. Hence their decision to overturn the original judgment.

Nobody wants to go through the stress and bother of filing an appeal. And I write as one who has been party to a fair number. However, I read this judgment as the system's working, correcting an error, and actually delivering justice. A Good Thing.

I didn't get that at all. As I was reading I was seeing "ok, so the paperwork wasn't perfect..." and I never really saw "your right to a fair judgement was compromised". So I was a little surprised everything was dropped in the end. At the very least I expected a strong waggy finger and a word of warning about the driving.

Now we need the video so the court of public opinion can weigh in.

 

[JeffYoung]

" IT
1. #4315 (Raymond Blethen) Where to get stock HP numbers?
Thank you for your letter. The committees consider all credible data collected when reviewing a request.
2. #4317 (Stephen Blethen) Reprocess the weight of the 1981-1984 Coupe with the WE engine.
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315.
3. #4360 (John VanDenburgh) Please re-run 84-87 Audi Coupe GT
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315.
4. #4361 (John VanDenburgh) Please classify/rerun 80-83 Audi Coupe GT
Thank you for your letter. Please see letter #4315."



A waste of time I guess....

Can I request a copy of whatever HP is being used to class the Audi's please ? If I show up to tech with my factory manual and, I guess, has the wrong info ..I don't want to be DQ'ed.

Thanks,

No, it's not a waste of time. We have explained in long detail here what happened with the Audi, why and where the information used came from.

You won't be DQ'ed for having a factory manual. The question is the accuracy of the listing in it. I/we've explained before that there is an internal Audi document that shows 120 for that motor. Is that enough to bump the number used in the process up? For some it was.

 

[Rabbit05]

Jeff,
Yeah I know ...beating a dead horse here...but just for argument sake...if what you are telling me that the factory manual information cannot be trusted..does that make the whole manual..well, an unreliable source of information ?

If so ...then in my case ...what reference should I use for factory torque specs and the such ??...considering this is/was the manual used in Dealers country wide. See where I am coming from ?

Also would/could you or someone on the board email me a copy of this internal Audi document ? My email is [email protected] .

Thanks,

 

[JeffYoung]

Yes, this is a dead horse, beat. There are a number of factory manuals with incorrect info, including stock hp (the RX8 among others). It doesn't invalidate the whole manual; let's stay rational here.

I do not have a copy of the microfiche sheet in question. I saw it once or twice. I can't remember if that was online or from someone on the committee.