January Fastrack

quadzjr said:
Jeff, since I don't get to hear from the other people, what is the logic of the other members that B&C multi vavle engines get the 130% but the other classes get 125%?

If the numbers are to represent the percent gain of a possible engine. how does simply changing a car class change it expected gain in IT trim?

not basing anyone I just don't understand.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that CURRENTLY it's been necessary to invoke "that's the deal that was made" as the last time some kind of "official" OK of ITAC processes the 16v multiplier was in place. It went in place a LONG time ago (a la first application of multipliers, post-Miller-Ratio math by Darrin et al.) out of fear that newer cars would ruin the balance of power in B.

K
 
I heard about it when we were classing a 16V car in ITB, and the factor came up, and was defended with "That's the deal that was made for 16V cars going into ITB".
Yea, I don't get it either. Logically, I don't get it.
But I do "get it". Don't like it...but I get it.

Oh, on edit, to fill in the sequence of events and timing, neither Jeff, nor Josh were on the ITAC when that 'deal' was made, nor was I. My suspicion was that the very first iteration of the Process listed all 16V cars as getting 1.30. But, the very next line said "Check to ensure the results make sense". Which was done, and very quickly it became obvious that that factor was a bad assumption, and it was dropped. Certain cars were known to meet or exceed that factor but those cars got their weights based on actual real world data, not assumptions, during the GR. By the time the aforementioned car needed classing in ITB, the 1.3 factor hadn't been used as a starting point for 16 V engines in years. So, that 'deal' was before mine or Kirk's or Jeff's time, and I think Andy might have been just added to the ITAc, but he'll know for sure.
 
Last edited:
Steve, I don't really feel comfortable explaining the position of others, especially one I don't fully understand.

I think I can generically say that the folks who support the 1.3 factor for 16v cars in ITB believe that the 16v cars in ITB have that power potential.

Some of those folks occasionally post here; maybe they will do so and provide more explanation. That's all I really know.

Also, I hope this comes across correctly. It's not that I don't "care" about B and C, because I do. I'm charged with doing what I think is right for all of IT, including those two classes.

But I just don't have a whole hell of a lot of knowledge about those cars, and motors. Kirk, Scott G., Peter Keane, Les Cheney, etc. -- they all have far more knowledge than me, so unless it is an issue I've personally spent a lot of time with (like the ITB MR2 or the Mopar 2.2 motors) I frankly can't say I know a lot about it. I listen and try to vote appropriately, but I'm most often following others lead on issues related to B and C.

My focus/background is on the cars and motors in R and S, and to a lesser extent A, and I feel much more comfortable speaking about them.

Just some background on my background.

quadzjr said:
Jeff, since I don't get to hear from the other people, what is the logic of the other members that B&C multi vavle engines get the 130% but the other classes get 125%?

If the numbers are to represent the percent gain of a possible engine. how does simply changing a car class change it expected gain in IT trim?

not basing anyone I just don't understand.
Click to expand...
 
The folks that invoked the 'ALL 16V cars get 30%' did so ONLY when a 16V car came up in ITB, not in any other class. Now it's ONLY ITB and ITC? To say so was pure protectionism of ITB at the time. Don't care how anyone else remembers it.
 
Andy do you ever remember any 16V cars getting 30% in ITA? The only ones that got that were based on real world numbers, not assumptions. I'm with Andy, the 30% thing ONLY came up for ITB cars, and THEN the 'defense' was "That's the deal", and "the first iteration of the Process says so". And, "THATs the Process we sold the BoD". Never mind that that version of the process specifically said, "Check to make sure the calculations make sense, these are only guidelines".

I thought it mighty odd how suddenly we had to follow the earliest version, and then ONLY one aspect of it, for ONE class. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top