May 2011 Fastrack
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
JeffYoung
New member
Bob's point is a valid one which is that if there are cars that obviously have far better power/weights than existing cars, that could be trouble. Someone could build one and be very disruptive before it could be caught and "fixed."
The issue of course is what gain will these cars make and are the stock hp numbers correct. That Alfa number looks like a gross hp number rather than net and may be way high. Just another reason to take the weights off the spec line for now until someone actually asks for it to be Processed.
Assuming a 25% gain (is that motor 16v?) the Swift looks like it is 200 lbs off or so.
Assuming a 30% gain and it is 270 or so.
The issue of course is what gain will these cars make and are the stock hp numbers correct. That Alfa number looks like a gross hp number rather than net and may be way high. Just another reason to take the weights off the spec line for now until someone actually asks for it to be Processed.
Assuming a 25% gain (is that motor 16v?) the Swift looks like it is 200 lbs off or so.
Assuming a 30% gain and it is 270 or so.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Yes, I thought there were more than the obvious. The Geo's are ITA cars.
(on edit - meaning they SHOULD be ITA cars)
(on edit - meaning they SHOULD be ITA cars)
JeffYoung
New member
Which takes us full circle back to the "comprehensive do-over of B" idea that we talked about with the CRB before the schism. If I'd had a barn fully of Fire Arrows I would have built one by now, and I have *zero* doubt that with the same effort we've put into Pablo, it would be a killer.
K
K
gran racing
Super Moderator
The more I think about it, the more I really believe the ITAC should remove the weights from cars not being campaigned and run some of these cars through the process.
Which stinks for the person who was smart, looked at the classifications and built based upon the rules. Yes, we want a level playing ground but a person might accept the warts of racing a Geo (heck, the fact they'd be racing a Geo is enough lol) because it's potential. Oh wait, so now someone built one and it's doing well. Guess what.
Potential to be an overdog. Nip it in the bud. No one drives it now or the ITAC doesn't feel it will be built soon? Like Jeff said, remove the weight and wait for the request.
Then if a request comes in for one of these cars, it's equally important that the classification request is processed quickly.
Which stinks for the person who was smart, looked at the classifications and built based upon the rules. Yes, we want a level playing ground but a person might accept the warts of racing a Geo (heck, the fact they'd be racing a Geo is enough lol) because it's potential. Oh wait, so now someone built one and it's doing well. Guess what.
Potential to be an overdog. Nip it in the bud. No one drives it now or the ITAC doesn't feel it will be built soon? Like Jeff said, remove the weight and wait for the request.
Then if a request comes in for one of these cars, it's equally important that the classification request is processed quickly.
JeffYoung
New member
Agree 100%. This needs to be fixed before someone DOES build a killer ITB Geo based on the existing weight, and then gets slammed with 300 lbs in weight or a move to A.
gran racing
Super Moderator
Since we rely on HP rating for the process, why isn't that listed in the GCR where IT cars are classed?
preparedcivic
New member
Yep; 1.3l with a twin cam 4 valve per cylinder head.
...but PLEASE - can we resolve the stupid 1.3 16v-in-B idea BEFORE we make any fixes? We know that's a political, vestigial holdover from some era long past. Nobody who was instrumental in designing the Process - I don't think, anyway - believes it's the correct thing for the class. If we correct issues with a system that's known to have an issue, we're just chasing our tails.
K
K
That makes it sound like a minority of the ITAC is of the belief that the 30% blanket multiplier is wrong...?
K
gran racing
Super Moderator
I think the 30% multivalve B & C only default is such a dumb thing and demonstrates the wonderful political aspects of IT that still exist. I suppose it's about concesions and getting something that kinda works? The ITAC already has the tools to use a higher percentage then the default 25% if deemed the case. Trying to disprove a negative (the 30% default) is so much harder.
think bigger picture kirk.
i admit i don't know the details of every listing that has/should have/should not have 30% applied to it currently, but i see a pretty good, competitive environment in ITB right now as is. sure a couple little things need to be tweaked like adding the 50lbs to the golf, sorting out the volvo, and putting some weight on the accord......but none of those changes fly in the face of what i've seen on track. so it "makes sense."
taking off the 30% and lowering the weight of *i think* vehicles like the underwood and ruck civic....that's tougher to swallow.
as always, things like this have to be thought about in the context of every vehicle, not just the one some dude in WDCR owns.....which hardly anyone ever does.
i admit i don't know the details of every listing that has/should have/should not have 30% applied to it currently, but i see a pretty good, competitive environment in ITB right now as is. sure a couple little things need to be tweaked like adding the 50lbs to the golf, sorting out the volvo, and putting some weight on the accord......but none of those changes fly in the face of what i've seen on track. so it "makes sense."
taking off the 30% and lowering the weight of *i think* vehicles like the underwood and ruck civic....that's tougher to swallow.
as always, things like this have to be thought about in the context of every vehicle, not just the one some dude in WDCR owns.....which hardly anyone ever does.
politics how? i sure as shit don't care about anyone specific or any particular vehicle in ITB. Jeff undoubtedly doesn't either.
do you REALLY think we're playing favorites over here or are you just mudslinging to try and force our hand?
gran racing
Super Moderator
With the way the process is written without the default multivalve adder, that could and most likely should still happen. The ITAC responsiblity should be to take a look at potential power gains, and go from there. That's how the process should work.
I absolutely believe politics impacts the IT category. Unfortunately I think that might just be a nature of the racing beast. I never said that you or Jeff were directly involved. I'm actually really happy both of you are on the ITAC. As we've seen, the political influences and issues might not even be sourced from within the ITAC.
Both are FWD, 16V, SOHC, 1.5L (different intake and EFI setup)
Current process would yield:
The "Underwood" 88-91 Civic DX (D15B2)= 92hp*1.3*0.98*17 = 1992.5 lbs (2110 GCR, or 37.7% adder)
The "Ruck" 92-95 Civic EG DX (D15B7) = 102hp*1.3*0.98*17 = 2209.1 lbs (2345 GCR, or 38.0% adder)
so these two are already processed using "known" hp - and judging from the 2010 ARRC I'd say they are pretty close, at least to each other.
I chalenge anyone to find a multi-valve car running in ITB that was processed with 130% that hits that number. I can think of 125% cars that need to go up, and a lot fo 130% cars that should go down, at least until information shows otherwise.
how about getting rid of the 130% for multivalve cars rule, and continuing to use the process as written otherwise. seems like it'd work just fine.
then "fix" the cars that were processed at 130% blindly, and the old cars that have never been processed, as requested. doesn't seem to be that large of a chore.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Nobody in their right mind can see a logical and defensible reason for the ridiculous 30% multivalve in ITB factor. Travis, Dave Gran says it's political, because, sorry to be blunt, he knows where it originated, which was a "deal" to allow multivalve cars in ITB. That's from before your time, but I heard that phrase used as the reasoning in an ITAC con call. Sorry, but that's the bottom line truth, and if that isn't 'political', well then i don't know what is.
You are on the inside Travis, and you're one of the few that speak to a limited nature in public regarding ITAC affairs, so we are really in the dark as to how the ITAC has defended holding the ground on the 'deal'. Perhaps it's a few guys internally convincing fence sitters, or perhaps it's pressure form other SCCA boards, such as the CRB.
Bottom like is the membership sees it, thinks it's stupid, and it hurts the credibility of the body since nobody can defend it reasonably.
Chip the only "issue" I see with your plan is that the ITACs current standards for accepting 'known power' are very much more strict, and should the 30% multivalve factor get dumped, those cars might get lumped into the "all at 25%" pile, should somebody decide to be difficult and play the 'all or nothing' game. That's a problem I'd like to get to though....