Del Sol VTEC - Please Contact me

Yep, you're our favorite guy to abuse...and you seem to like it. At least you listen. I wish I could say the same for all the race stewards. Somehow, I feel I just placed myself at the end of a black flag. :o
 
Hi, there is one more item for consideration. Although I don't have the HP dyno curves at hand, I think and would encourage the committee to evaluate whether the average of the HP may need to be considered in ITS rather than just peak hp. As I understand it, the peak number is used for rule making.

I spend many hours looking at HP curves in Sports Compact Cars, (sorry, I throw my old issues away so I don't have any to share). My hypotheseis is that the average HP of five "200 hp" different type motors (Wankle, VTEC, 16 valve, 16 valve with variable cam timing, and 8 valve) over the best 30% of their rpm range is substantially different.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is 15% to 20% difference between the average HP for the best example (big displacement low RPM engine) and the worst example (small displacement high rpm engine). I think it would be good for somebody to look at that and see if there is any merit to the hypothesis.

This may not be technically as hard as it might appear. It may be that for an engine type, the curves are similar even if the peaks are not. If thats the case, all the committee needs to do is pick the most appropriate curve, and use it as a averaging factor.

Again, using averages should only be done if it creates a compelling improvement in the rule making. If the difference between the best and worst was more than 20%, it may be worth considering. It its less than 10%, forget about it.


ps If this is already been considered, thanks

regards
bob
 
I'm afraid I'm a little late in entering this discussion, but I'd like to step back to primary issue of the thread.

First off, lets agree that this was a comp adjustment to the Del Sol, since there is no other legal way to change the weight of a current IT car.

Then let's look at the rule governing the PCA process (see GCR 17.1.4.C). Except in rare or extreme circumstances (i.e. BMW E36) the PCA process is fixed after the vehicle has been classed for four years. The Del Sol in question was introduced in 2002, so it is still eligible for typical PCA review, however, the rule clearly states that the factor used in the PCA evaluation is "the vehicle's racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class". Not fitting a 'process' isn't justification for any PCA, only on track performance is.

One word of caution if/when you dispute this PCA however -- The same thing was done to the E36 a few years back, before PCA's were allowed at all. We cried foul and successfully had it reversed. Now we have the SIR.

Then there were the cars classed more than four years ago…


Grafton
 
I'm afraid I'm a little late in entering this discussion, but I'd like to step back to primary issue of the thread.[/b]
Click to expand...

And it seems you haven't read the other threads on similar topics. No issues, there are many.

First off, lets agree that this was a comp adjustment to the Del Sol, since there is no other legal way to change the weight of a current IT car.[/b]
Click to expand...



Not a chance. Comp adjustments are a no-no in IT as a rule - other than PCA-based extreme examples. The Del Sol and Civic changes were a month late due to the ITAC missing them in the 'correction' in the Feb FT addendum in which all IT cars were run through the new classification process in order to bring all cars under the same classification umbrella. New cars classed, cars getting re-classed and now everything in the ITCS is based on this process. Not a mish-mash of previous regiemes classifications. No more real or perceived overdogs - no more 'have-nots'. Will the best still be the best? You bet but all are now measured by the same stick.

One word of caution if/when you dispute this PCA however -- The same thing was done to the E36 a few years back, before PCA's were allowed at all. We cried foul and successfully had it reversed. Now we have the SIR.

Grafton [/b]
Click to expand...

Are you inferring that the SIR is some sort of retaliatory punishment for the 'foul cries'? If so, you are barking up the wrong tree. This has been explained a ridiculous amount of times but I will hit it once more for you:

The E36 is the only car not classified at it's 'process' weight. In order to fit ITS UNRESTRICTED, it would have to weigh 3150-3200lbs with no 'adders' (none necessary at this weight IMHO). The CRB decided, that seeing as how the cars were already built to a 2850 minimum, adding that kind of ballast was not the right thing to do. So they reverse-engineered the process given the 2850 minimum. To do this, you cap the hp so that at 2850, you hit the target pw/weight or the class. It's all been details and debated to death.
 
The E36 is the only car not classified at it's 'process' weight.[/b]
Click to expand...

While I don't know the specific adders, I've run the whole ITS field through the formula as I understand it, and there are a lot of cars that appear out of line. For one of the best examples, look at the 3.0L Alfa Milano vs. the 2.5L Alfa Milano. Both cars are virtually identical except for different engines (the 3.0 has nearly 30 more hp). However, they're both classed at the same weight! And the 'process' agrees? I could start a new thread with more examples if you'd like.

As I said before, the PCA process is the ONLY method allowed in the GCR to change the weight of any current IT car. The retroactive implementation of this 'process' is illegal per the GCR. Can you show somewhere in the rules where this 'correction' is allowed? If not, I see no reason to continue the discussion. Put the Del Sol (and every other car illegaly adjusted by the 'process') back to the correct weight.

Grafton
 
"Correct weight" or "orignial weight"? :wacko:

<span style="color:#3333ff size2"><span style="color:#ff0000">the vehicle’s class (per the ITCS).

The way I read it, PCA's allow a change to the weight or classification of a car at any time in it's life in the interest of class equity. Within 4 years it's allowed and after 4 years it's allowed - albiet on rare occasion. This revision has only happened once - rare?

Could this not be considered a PCA-based move with individual class equity in mind as well as category-wide equity?</span></span></div>
</span></span></span></span>
 
I think what Andy is saying is that some of the weights for IT cars were classified, initially, incorrectly, and this has now been fixed. The fixes are not PCAs because they are not based on performance, at all, nada, nilch, zilch, nippo, zippo. I also think (Andy, correct me if I am wrong) that some cars were not run through the process because the ITAC was not aware of any of them being raced -- there are limits to people's time (and yes, I am aware of the Butler's 3.0 Milano here in NC).

That's the answer for whether this was all a PCA or not.

Now, can a BMW driver please defend 2850 for me, using the process that has been used to set the weight for all other IT cars except for orphans that are not typically being run?

Thanks.

Jeff
 
The way I read it, PCA's allow a change to the weight or classification of a car at any time in it's life in the interest of class equity. Within 4 years it's allowed and after 4 years it's allowed - albiet on rare occasion. This revision has only happened once - rare?

Could this not be considered a PCA-based move with individual class equity in mind as well as category-wide equity?[/b]
Click to expand...

Andy,

The way I read the rule, all of the language is singular, looking at each car individually; it is a big stretch to apply it to a large number of vehicles. The PCA process is there to fix problems caused by newly classed vehicles, I don't think there was any intent to allow large scale changes like these.

To be honest, I'd have a lot less problem with this 'correction' if I had confidence that it is rare. There were a few extra (overlooked) vehicles last month. What about later on? The limitations on the PCA process provide the competitor some stability, giving confidence that the factors used when selecting a vehicle won't be changed.

I currently drive and E36. Our team is sorting out our options now that we have the SIR. We have seriously considered moving on to another car (or away from IT all together). Several of the cars that look good to us appear to be between 100 and 300 pounds underweight per the 'process'. I'd like to know that they aren't going to be corrected later on if/when they prove to be fast.

I'm hearing two stories here. One says all cars have now been through the process, the other says that some aren't raced enough to be reevaluated. In the second case, more cars will be corrected, but only after some poor guy has spent a lot of time and money. I'd rather kill this correction now, than risk further changes in the future.


Jeff,

I don't think anyone should have to defend the BMW's weight at 2850. There was a method used to determine that weight, and I can only assume it was applied universally. I won't argue that I didn't think it was the best car for the class (pre SIR), that's the reason I drive one!

Now we have something new, and it says what it does.

I would think you'd be leading the charge to get the odd-balls run through the 'process'. Do you realize that before adders, the TR8 is roughly 400 pounds heavy right now?

Grafton
 
Grafton, I appreciate your honesty -- the BMW was probably teh best car in class pre-SIR, and that was a problem.

The problem as I understand it (you have been doing this a lot longer than me) is that pre the latest go around with the process, cars were classed haphazardly based on what could be obtained (looking at curb weight) and some rough estimate of their potential. This lead to some mistakes.

The BMW obviously is one. I would like a rational discussion of why a car that everyone acknowledges can make 195 whp, and which credible sources put far above that, should be classed at 300 to 400 under its process weight.

I have a lot of sympathy for the BMW guys on the idea of the SIR, and the timing of it. I don't think there was any intention to do you guys wrong, but it worked out that (especially timing). Somethings that were promised abou the SIR weren't true and the CRB went against the ITAC's recommendation to add weight.

Where I don't have any sympathy is where you guys seem to think the "answer" should be the status quo when, putting results aside, the objective numbers show the BMW (already one of the best chassis in ITS) to be several hundred lbs light via the "process."

My car is a poor example for the process -- one of a few -- because (1) it makes stock torque far in excess of the stock hp, which the process does not objectively account for and (2) it probably has as high of an IT prep gain as any car out there, save yours. I just can't drive the damn thing yet, and I still don't have the motor developed as well as I should. It is making 157 whp and 195 wtq now, and there is a LOT to be done to it. At 2560, that is getting close to competitive. At 175 whp, it is very competitive, and I am pretty sure 175 will be fairly easy to get.

I am actually concerned that the process might class my car light. But that's not for this thread.

Can you justify the car at 2850 and 195-210 whp in ITS?
 
I'm hearing two stories here. One says all cars have now been through the process, the other says that some aren't raced enough to be reevaluated. In the second case, more cars will be corrected, but only after some poor guy has spent a lot of time and money. I'd rather kill this correction now, than risk further changes in the future.
*******************************

I would think you'd be leading the charge to get the odd-balls run through the 'process'. Do you realize that before adders, the TR8 is roughly 400 pounds heavy right now?

Grafton


[/b]
Click to expand...

G,

We have gone over and over the details on the correction. Try a search and if you can't find it, drop me a PM and I will give you the details.

If *I* were looking to build a new car, and thought I had found one with an advantage, I would ask the ITAC if it had been through the process. If it had, I would feel confident that it was solid. All we want is for the cars to be set using the same 'set of tools'. The cream will rise to the top.

Like the TR8, there are plenty of cars where you have to look deaper at in orderto estimate the power potential. How about the 110stock hp Buick Skyhawk in ITA? 3.8l V6, unknown amount of smog stuff chocking it down, huge engine and torque potential - yet a solid axle and nobody running them. No need to endanger the competitive balance of ITA/ITB by forcing the car through the process with weird specs and little knowledge. High risk, low reward.

You REALLY think that there was a 'system' for doing weight as little as 3-4 years ago? The same 'system' that had 134hp VW Golfs and 140hp Sentra SE-R's in ITS? That is a little disingenuous. Take a casual look at the ITS classifications in 03-04, you think there is/was any rhyme or reason?

We are just establishing a real ground-zero to build from. All I can tell you is that one of the reasons PCA's are there is to be able to correct a car that is outside the scope of a class's envelope - regardless of the timing. Applying them one-by one 50 times in a row is seemingly the same as applying them once for 50 cars. It's a baseline where none has existed before. I understand your read of the 'intent' of the rule but people only play that card when they figure out they haven't been reading it the same as everyone else....happened with pistons and SB's ealier this year.
 
As I said before, the PCA process is the ONLY method allowed in the GCR to change the weight of any current IT car. The retroactive implementation of this 'process' is illegal per the GCR. Can you show somewhere in the rules where this 'correction' is allowed? If not, I see no reason to continue the discussion. Put the Del Sol (and every other car illegaly adjusted by the 'process') back to the correct weight.

Grafton
[/b]
Click to expand...

Man, you sure are grumpy!

Define "rare".....

And yes, due to the hundreds of cars, and therefor thousands of data considerations, it was impossible to look at each car. There are cars out there that don't fit the process, but they aren't thought to be raced in significant numbers, or out of whack in a defendable manner. If the future brings new information to light, there may be more changes.

Think of it this way. you looked at the rules, picked a car you knew was an overdog. Now....you're crying foul and asking everything be reversed. But what if, another car was added to ITS...say the E46 at say 2750. What would you say then?

Well, that's how EVERY guy in ITA felt when the CRX got added...and every guy in ITS felt when the E36 hit. But instead of adding other cars to match the BMW like they did in ITA with the CRX, the line was drawn, and the system got a good looking at. It was obvious that the old system had, shall we say, some inconsistencies. It is a goal of this ITAC to create a system that can be carried forward, by others, in a consistant manner. While it seems like there are a lot of changes, they are in fact rare if looked at thru the scope of time as well as car counts.
 
Think of it this way. you looked at the rules, picked a car you knew was an overdog. Now....you're crying foul and asking everything be reversed. But what if, another car was added to ITS...say the E46 at say 2750. What would you say then?[/b]
Click to expand...

As much as I hate it, the E36 PCA is legit. I'm not complaining about that one here. The others however, do not meet the requirements in the GCR. If a newly classed car proves too fast (based on on track performance), then the PCA definitely applies.

My apologies to the Honda crowd for hijacking this thread. My only intent here was to rally support from some others who don't want illegitimate weight added to their cars.

Over and out.

Grafton
 
Where I don't have any sympathy is where you guys seem to think the "answer" should be the status quo when, putting results aside, the objective numbers show the BMW (already one of the best chassis in ITS) to be several hundred lbs light via the "process."
(snip)
Can you justify the car at 2850 and 195-210 whp in ITS?
[/b]
Click to expand...
No.... and I've never tried to justify the car at that weight. Me personally, I can see the rationale and data for an adjustment. What I've had a problem with is the proposed (now implemented) solution to the problem. I think it's possible to advocate AGAINST the proposed remedy without advocated FOR the status quo, isn't it?

tom
(in a Honda thread no less!)
 
Tom, Grafton, I think we agree completely. SIR bad. Weight, if done properly, ok.

You are right, I have hijacked this. Sorry guys.

Jeff
 
In July 2000, my '95 Del Sol was issued a ITS logbook and was raced in ITS. How can it then 6 years later have its weight adjusted? Isn't the only weight adjustment allowed a performance competition adjustment?

If this was a PCA, the ITCS as quoted below allows PCA's based only upon actual racing performance. Is there evidence is there that a Del Sol has ever won in ITS, much less than dominate its class like the E36 has in order to justify a weight adjustment?

My point is the '95 Del Sol has had 220 pounds added to its minimum weight. It got its ITS logbook in 2000 so it seems like a PCA. No body of evidence showing "on track performance" has been shown that justifies it. So what within the ITCS empowered this change? The quoted section of the rule is below.

thanks
bob


"On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing
performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may
reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or
in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such
an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within
the vehicle’s class."
 
My point is the '95 Del Sol has had 220 pounds added to its minimum weight. It got its ITS logbook in 2000 so it seems like a PCA. No body of evidence showing "on track performance" has been shown that justifies it. So what within the ITCS empowered this change?
[/b]
Click to expand...

You've got it exactly right Bob. I'd suggest a letter or email to the Club Racing Board with those same comments. Hopefully they will follow the GCR.

Now to convince the ITA Honda and Acura guys to do the same. I doubt many of the guys who lost weight will be complaining.

Grafton
 
Can somebody advise the email for the Club Racing Board?
Also, if somebody has the reason within the ITCS that this is allowed, feel free to explain.
tks

bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top