January Fastrack

[Tristan Smith]

RE: the 300ZX

I hope you guys asked the MYRIAD of builders who know them from Prod and GT. AND learned what they made in stock form in the old SSA.

Ya blew it. Sorry Tristan, what information did you submit to refute the 30%?

Actually I couldn't find anyone that made the wheel horsepower that you (and the initial classification) claimed it would, with not only an IT-like build, but with mods that aren't allowed in IT.

 

[Ron Earp]

There is simply zero data to back up the MR2 at 30% nevermind a class-based policy that differs from the others in the entire category. It's based on architechture - yet not applied evenly across the category - which is a core value in IT, no?

Just. Fix. It.

Why is this so damn hard to fix? It seems that everyone knows it was done poorly and wants the cars "fixed". Hell, I want it fixed so I don't have to read about it anymore. From reading these boards one would get the impression that ITB has tied the entire ITAC up for a year.

 

[Chip42]

Bad refrain I know, but working on ITB...working on ITB.....

Jeff - I appreciate all that you and the others on the side of the mkI MR2 adjustment have done. I'm not asking for the ITAC to fix it. there are those in this world who cannot rationalize the differences between a 1985-89 street car motor and it's full-bore Atlantic counterpart. some of these people are on the comittees and boards that need to validate a change. I've come to terms with that. for the sake of those who HAVE ITB cars, I hope you are successful.

at the moment my car is in limbo. ITB? likely as it's the easiest path to the track, but the goal had switched to STU until august, when the kybosh was put on my JDM 2.0L (MkII 94-97 MR2 2.0L NA, not a BEAMS) plans with the fastrack release. STL seemed a good alternative, but that motor is a grenade and there's very little I like about L when compared to U. toyota has nothing else (viable) that fits in the 2 in these classes unless I go turblow and I wanted to stay NA. so i'm kinda feeling like a man without a country.

 

[JeffYoung]

My guess is, as to individual cars, we've spent more time on the ITA Miata and ITB in general than all other issues combined.

 

[JeffYoung]

Understood. I'm speaking totally from a personal perspective here: I think the MR2 should be one of the group of cars that make up the "core" of ITB. I'm perplexed why we can't get to that point, as based on the dyno sheets I've personally seen the car is overweight and doesn't stand much chance in ITB.

Steve Ulbrik submitted a very detailed summary of why the (is it 4AGE?) motor is very different mechanically from the Atlantic motor. It persuaded me.

Again, personally, I am doing what I can to fix what I perceive is an issue with the MR2, but this is committee work and others can reasonably disagree with me. I hope you guys will stay in ITB with these cars, and that once the process plays out they have as fair a chance as any other car in ITB, but I understand if the frustration level has reached its limit.

Thanks guys.

Jeff - I appreciate all that you and the others on the side of the mkI MR2 adjustment have done. I'm not asking for the ITAC to fix it. there are those in this world who cannot rationalize the differences between a 1985-89 street car motor and it's full-bore Atlantic counterpart. some of these people are on the comittees and boards that need to validate a change. I've come to terms with that. for the sake of those who HAVE ITB cars, I hope you are successful.

at the moment my car is in limbo. ITB? likely as it's the easiest path to the track, but the goal had switched to STU until august, when the kybosh was put on my JDM 2.0L (MkII 94-97 MR2 2.0L NA, not a BEAMS) plans with the fastrack release. STL seemed a good alternative, but that motor is a grenade and there's very little I like about L when compared to U. toyota has nothing else (viable) that fits in the 2 in these classes unless I go turblow and I wanted to stay NA. so i'm kinda feeling like a man without a country.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

IAs a whole, the committee felt that 4 valve motors in ITB typically resulted in a 30% gain, and that is the default for those cars. I respect the committee's decision, and the process used to reach that conclusion.

You may disagree with that decision, or even think it dumb, but shenanigans is a pretty strong and very inappropriate word for it.

Name one car please that has the documentation to back up that policy.

I can count on one hand how many DOHC cars there are in ITB that aren't Alfas or Fiats. What 4 valve cars typically result in 30% in ITB?

 

[JeffYoung]

Andy, you know the answer to that and you know my thoughts on this.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, you know the answer to that and you know my thoughts on this.

Actually, I don't know the answer. I DO know your position, but you just introduced new evidence into the "ITB 30% trial" as it relates to the majority.

If (obviously), the majority of the ITAC thinks that cars classed in ITB that have multi-valve architecture produce 30% as a rule, I would think someone would be able to rattle off a pile of them for us. Since the Alfas and Fiats are non-existant (and if they do exsist, they would be moot data due to previous HP measuring standards) then these are the remaining DOHC cars in ITB:

Geo Prism/Geo Storm
Mazda 626
Mazda Protege ES
Nissan Sentra
Saab 900
Suzuki Swift
Toyoyta FX-16
Toyota MR2
Golf 2.0

Wow. Some real overdogs there.

Time for me to write a letter instead of blathering here.

 

[JeffYoung]

That is appreciated. A letter would be appreciated.

Is the version of the Honda Civic that Scott G. and Jeff Underwood built 4-valve? For that one there is a lot of information (many thanks to Scott on that). For that car I would say there is documentation available, but I'm not as up on Honda engines as I should be and don't even know if it is 8 valve or 16.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

That is appreciated. A letter would be appreciated.

Is the version of the Honda Civic that Scott G. and Jeff Underwood built 4-valve? For that one there is a lot of information (many thanks to Scott on that). For that car I would say there is documentation available, but I'm not as up on Honda engines as I should be and don't even know if it is 8 valve or 16.

No DOHC Honduhs in ITB.

 

[Chip42]

Add isuzu stylus XS to that list (4dr version of Geo Storm GSi). it's shown as "OHC" in the ITCS.

many if not all of the Alfas and Fiats are DOHC 2valve motors, too.

but the point remains - these aren't 30% gainers (maybe, MAYBE the swift) most are more likely ~20%. they were "optimized" from the OEM more so than most of the older tech cars. So if anything, the 30% is in the WRONG direction from the nominal gainer.
ITB was a great ARRC race between 4 valve SOHC 1.5L and 3 valve SOHC 2.0L hondas. SOMETHING is being done right, if selectively.

 

[JeffYoung]

I'm confused by the above -- sorry guys.

Andy says no 4 valve Hondas in ITB, Chip suggests Underwood and Ruck's cars are? Which is it?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm confused by the above -- sorry guys.

Andy says no 4 valve Hondas in ITB, Chip suggests Underwood and Ruck's cars are? Which is it?

I said no DOHC. I guess we need to slice it up even more for this new 'rule'. . Maybe anything other than 2V is multi-valve in the 'rule'.

IIRC the guideline that was being clung to when saying the MR2 should be 30% was "16V", not 'multivalve' if you want to get techincal.

Isn't Scott's Honda a 12V?

 

[JeffYoung]

As I recall the discussion it focused on valves per cylinder. I may be wrong. I get lost in some of the lengthy discussions about the smaller Honda/Nissan/Toyota motors. There are people on the committee with a lot more knowledge about them than me.

 

[Chip42]

tKR, underwood etc.. civics are 16v. older ones are 2/3 depending (have to check ITCS and don't have the time). they are all SOHC. I know the 92-95 Civic DX is classed at >25%

Accord LXi/SEi, 2L Golf 3, many others are 12v SOHC

the DOHC list andy provided are all 16v. a lot of the DOHC Italian stuff is 8v.

ITCS should thus list valves/cyl as well as/ instead of cam type and count?

the point remains that as a blanket rule, the 16v at >25% concept fails to be acurate. there are cases where it may be true (some SOHC 16v hondas for sure) but more where it is not (nissan GA16DE, toyoter 4AGE, etc...) and then there are the isuzu twins at different weights neither of which match process (way under 25% for the storm). it's a cluster.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

So the net result is that an 'architecture rule' is being based on a small generation of overacheiving 12V Hondas yet it is applied to anything 'multivalve', regardless of MFG, in JUST ITB.

Write your well-founded letters now please. A policy change should result in the MR2 issue going away.

 

[lateapex911]

If we published the process, and let people know how individual cars were classed, that would go a long way towards resolving the issue you identify.

Kirk, what I can tell you is it was discussed at length, hashed out, and was the result of committee action. I personally don't think any individual biases or any such shenanigans were involved. As a whole, the committee felt that 4 valve motors in ITB typically resulted in a 30% gain, and that is the default for those cars. I respect the committee's decision, and the process used to reach that conclusion.

You may disagree with that decision, or even think it dumb, but shenanigans is a pretty strong and very inappropriate word for it.

Jeff, I fully accept that you feel the above statement is accurate.
But I'm calling BS on it. (With all no disrespect to you!)

When I was on the ITAC, (and this MR2 thing has been going on YEARS!), various hollow reasons were trotted out defending the absurd factor the MR2 was classed at, and lot's of comical things were stated.
"Its a Toyota Atlantic motor " is one, and that is the SECOND most absurd reason I've nearly EVER heard.
But, the number one big stinking pile of poop was the statement by Peter Keane on one of the con calls. "The deal we made to allow 16V cars into ITB was that they must be classed at the higher factor". That's an exact quote: "The deal we made...."
When I questioned the origin of that 'deal' I found out that refers to stuff that was happening just before my joining the ITAC.

Now if THAT isn't 'shenanigans' then NOTHING is.


I'm with Andy. How can the ITAC, on one hand, say, 25% is the standard default, yet SUPPORT the ludicrous stance that the MR2 motor makes 30 or 35%? IF they require 'EVIDENCE" to waver from 25%, then show us the evidence that supports the 30%!!!

You just can NOT have it both ways.

 

[Chip42]

Letters should be in support of "the process" or in opposition to the inequality of the process as applied to >3v/cyl cars in ITB? as I understand it, "the process" isn't an officially recognized classification mechanism, and this methodology isnt "published".

can a letter to the CRB be in stated opposition to an unrecognized, unpublished rule-making methodology understood to be used by an AC? or did I miss it when the CRB/BoD recognized the ITAC process? where is it published?

 

[lateapex911]

You are right on the SHO, Legend, Stealth twins and Contour.

I think the Porsches got less than 25%.

.

I disagree. I think it's 25% for them.
I know in the air cooled cases, that it will be a cold day in hell before we see a Porsche air cooled product on an IT grid making 25%.

 

[lateapex911]

Anyway... is it safe to assume that all new classifications (or old cars being adjusted to the process weight) will use the 25% multiplier unless multiple documented dyno charts exist to warrant a higher or lower multiplier.

Does this set a new precedent going forward? Or will the rules change depending on the car or percieved performance?

Thanks,
Stephen

Just me speaking here, need to be careful about that and add a Greg Amy disclaimer to my posts.

My understanding is that we use 25% as a default unless there is sufficient EVIDENCE (not just dyno charts) to warrant a change.

This isn't that different from previous experience; I would just say, at least for me, the preference for the 25% default is stronger.

My post actually has nothing to do with the mr2 or my 10valve Audi....I am more concerned with new cars being classified and how the committee would decide if weight should be added to an already classed car. The 300zx has now set the precedent in what will happen with future requests... am I wrong?

I am spending thousands of dollars building a new car for ITR and I would like to see consistent policy.

Stephen

For me, the default is 25% unless there is pretty strong evidence to the contrary.

I fully agree with you on consistency and I think that -- a strong default rate -- helps keep things consistent.

Stephen is asking a specific question, and is not getting, I think, the answer he's seeking.
Specifically, I'm betting that what he's really asking is "If you got a request to re-examine the RX-8, would that car be set at 25%?"
Jeff's answer is more generic, and probably is setting alarm bells in Stephens head. Essentially, the 300ZX reweight has set a precedent that the 'evidence' used to initially set the weight was inadequate.
Now, the current RX-8 weight was an adjustment and the result of multiple dyno sheets from unbiased builders building engines to the same ruleset but for a different class. Those numbers had a very high degree of repeatability. And the committee voted it's confidence in those numbers, and it passed. We have records of that vote and the sources.
I would hope that such evidence would not be ignored, either now, while it's a fresh memory, or in the future when the memory is more distant, unless equally compelling contrasting evidence is revealed.
Jeff, Josh, thoughts?