May 2011 Fastrack
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
JoshS
New member
All I know is that your username on that board is jyoung. You'll have to figure out your password. If you can't get in, talk to John Bauer at SCCA HQ. All current ITAC members should have access.
JoshS
New member
On the 30% default multiplier for multivalve cars:
In ITB, there are very few multivalve cars, and there are even fewer that have had weights assigned via the process. In ITC, there might be none, but I'm not sure. It's largely an academic argument.
But not 100% academic, I understand that. I believe the following to be a complete list of multivalve engines in ITB, I made it some time ago and just dug it up. Please correct this if it's wrong, it might be useful someday:
Honda:
D15A3 (1st-gen CRX Si, Civic Si)
D15B1 ('88-'91 Civic DX)
D15B7 ('92-'95 Civic DX, Del Sol S)
A18A1 (Prelude 1.8)
A20A3 (Accord LX-i/SE-i)
B20A5 (Prelude Si)
Isuzu:
Geo Storm GSi/Isuzu Stylus XS
Mazda:
Protege ES ('99-'00)
626 ('93-'97)
Nissan:
Sentra ('91-'94)
Saab:
900 16V ('86-'90)
Suzuki:
Swift GT/GTi ('89-'94)
Toyota:
4A-GE (MR2/Corolla GTS/FX16/Geo Prizm GSi)
The Toyotas are not assigned weights using the default multiplier at this point, and I don't think anyone cares about the Isuzu/Mazda/Nissan/Saab. I think perhaps only the Protege actually has a weight assigned by the 30% default multiplier, although admittedly, I cannot keep track of all of these Hondas. So isn't this really just a "why are you penalizing my Honda" question? Just curious, would everyone be less upset if there wasn't a 30% multiplier for multivalve but instead there was a "Honda multivalve engines from the '80s and early '90s just seem to do better than 25%" rule? Not really proposing that as I have no dog in this fight and I'm not on the ITAC anymore.
In ITB, there are very few multivalve cars, and there are even fewer that have had weights assigned via the process. In ITC, there might be none, but I'm not sure. It's largely an academic argument.
But not 100% academic, I understand that. I believe the following to be a complete list of multivalve engines in ITB, I made it some time ago and just dug it up. Please correct this if it's wrong, it might be useful someday:
Honda:
D15A3 (1st-gen CRX Si, Civic Si)
D15B1 ('88-'91 Civic DX)
D15B7 ('92-'95 Civic DX, Del Sol S)
A18A1 (Prelude 1.8)
A20A3 (Accord LX-i/SE-i)
B20A5 (Prelude Si)
Isuzu:
Geo Storm GSi/Isuzu Stylus XS
Mazda:
Protege ES ('99-'00)
626 ('93-'97)
Nissan:
Sentra ('91-'94)
Saab:
900 16V ('86-'90)
Suzuki:
Swift GT/GTi ('89-'94)
Toyota:
4A-GE (MR2/Corolla GTS/FX16/Geo Prizm GSi)
The Toyotas are not assigned weights using the default multiplier at this point, and I don't think anyone cares about the Isuzu/Mazda/Nissan/Saab. I think perhaps only the Protege actually has a weight assigned by the 30% default multiplier, although admittedly, I cannot keep track of all of these Hondas. So isn't this really just a "why are you penalizing my Honda" question? Just curious, would everyone be less upset if there wasn't a 30% multiplier for multivalve but instead there was a "Honda multivalve engines from the '80s and early '90s just seem to do better than 25%" rule? Not really proposing that as I have no dog in this fight and I'm not on the ITAC anymore.
Last edited:
If the ITAC is confident that a single make/model needs a different multiplier, the system is there for them to apply it. It just requires doing.
The Protege was NOT assigned 30% by "default." It was assigned 30% by MISTAKE. No confidence vote was recorded. It doesn't matter if the same result would be achieved by the established process. It should be done so that the ITAC can assure everyone that the same system is being applied across the board. The minute one gets fudged, that's the point at which the ITAC and CRB give the members a stick to hit them with.
YES - it is semantics if the net result is that the ITAC decides that all of these multivalve B and C cars should get something other than a default, I-don't-have-to-think-about-it multiplier. They need to do their homework, go on record with the confidence recording process, and git 'er done. That's what makes the Process powerful.
K
The Protege was NOT assigned 30% by "default." It was assigned 30% by MISTAKE. No confidence vote was recorded. It doesn't matter if the same result would be achieved by the established process. It should be done so that the ITAC can assure everyone that the same system is being applied across the board. The minute one gets fudged, that's the point at which the ITAC and CRB give the members a stick to hit them with.
YES - it is semantics if the net result is that the ITAC decides that all of these multivalve B and C cars should get something other than a default, I-don't-have-to-think-about-it multiplier. They need to do their homework, go on record with the confidence recording process, and git 'er done. That's what makes the Process powerful.
K
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Josh, in my eyes, it is NOT a "Why are you penalizing my Honda" question, because I see the bigger aspect.
Lets say there is a Citroen in ITA and the owner writes in asking to be reclassed to B, stating that he can't keep up in A. Has dyno sheets showing 116whp.
The ITAC looks at the car, and sure enough, it's 112hp and is currently specified at more than Process weight. But, the curbweight is high, and the ITAC feels it can't make ITA Process weight. (110 hp x1.25, x14.5 - 2% =1990.)
So, it decides ITB is the place. At the same time a letter arrives from another car, a Simca, with the same specs and dyno sheets. Again, it looks like a B car.
So, they go to ITB. But, the Simca goes in at 2330, while the 4 valve Citroen goes in at 2425.......about 100 pounds more.
Now both these cars were racing even up in A, but not in B. WHY!?
IF one is a Honda, and the ITAC has seen that every Honda with multivalves from 1984 to 1989 exceeds the standard 25% due to the equipment level or some hp robbing device, then fine, bring about that evidence, get a confidence vote (should be easy, it's been done before), and hit it with the appropriate weight.
But assuming ALL multivalve 4 cylinder engines that have ITB on the doors of their respective cars make an automatic 5% more hp is absurd.
To the current ITAC mebers who respond here, or lurk here, please answer me how you can justify classing cars in this manner?
Travis, what was the answer you got? You've gotten pretty quiet....
Lets say there is a Citroen in ITA and the owner writes in asking to be reclassed to B, stating that he can't keep up in A. Has dyno sheets showing 116whp.
The ITAC looks at the car, and sure enough, it's 112hp and is currently specified at more than Process weight. But, the curbweight is high, and the ITAC feels it can't make ITA Process weight. (110 hp x1.25, x14.5 - 2% =1990.)
So, it decides ITB is the place. At the same time a letter arrives from another car, a Simca, with the same specs and dyno sheets. Again, it looks like a B car.
So, they go to ITB. But, the Simca goes in at 2330, while the 4 valve Citroen goes in at 2425.......about 100 pounds more.
Now both these cars were racing even up in A, but not in B. WHY!?
IF one is a Honda, and the ITAC has seen that every Honda with multivalves from 1984 to 1989 exceeds the standard 25% due to the equipment level or some hp robbing device, then fine, bring about that evidence, get a confidence vote (should be easy, it's been done before), and hit it with the appropriate weight.
But assuming ALL multivalve 4 cylinder engines that have ITB on the doors of their respective cars make an automatic 5% more hp is absurd.
To the current ITAC mebers who respond here, or lurk here, please answer me how you can justify classing cars in this manner?
Travis, what was the answer you got? You've gotten pretty quiet....
Last edited:
part of the multi-valve honda penalty question came up because there is the early version 12V heads and then the later version 16V heads.
85-87 crx civic Si's are 12V (think of a quadrant with two intakes, one exhaust and one spark plug in the four quadrants.
88-91 crx civic Si's are 16V (two intakes and two exhausts, one in each quadrant plus a sparkplug in the center).
there is no distinction between the two. now if an 8V gets the 25% factor and the 16V gets 30%, then what does the 12V get? right now 30% (which very well might be fair).
85-87 crx civic Si's are 12V (think of a quadrant with two intakes, one exhaust and one spark plug in the four quadrants.
88-91 crx civic Si's are 16V (two intakes and two exhausts, one in each quadrant plus a sparkplug in the center).
there is no distinction between the two. now if an 8V gets the 25% factor and the 16V gets 30%, then what does the 12V get? right now 30% (which very well might be fair).
JeffYoung
New member
No argument from me.
Now, say that you had this system in place for 2 years or so, and had (a) classed cars using it for a while and (b) created an expectation that this is the way things would be done from here forward.
You at least now have some reason not to change it, which is it will result in more weight changes in an already perceived to be unstable class.
But what ultimately makes the 1.3 default in ITB liveable for me is I can always approach it with a different view on confidence factor than I do the 1.25. Meaning that I may personally find it easier to move a 1.3 multi valve car to 1.25 based on less evidence than I would to move a 1.25 8v car to a higher or lower number.
My approach is not perfect, or aproblematic, but it is sort of a rough justice approach for me in dealing with the 1.3 default. I don't agree with it, but I accept it and work with it as best I can.
Right now guys, while we are not being told we have to do anything, I don't think a strong push to change the 1.3 default would get anywhere. In my opinion, the CRB considers it to be part of the Process, and a critical one in maintaining balance in ITB. Since I don't race in ITB, it's easier for me to say I'm willing to accept that minor (in my view) glitch in return for Process adherence and stability in all classes. At the same time, I understand why say a Dave Gran might see it as a much more important issue.
Now, say that you had this system in place for 2 years or so, and had (a) classed cars using it for a while and (b) created an expectation that this is the way things would be done from here forward.
You at least now have some reason not to change it, which is it will result in more weight changes in an already perceived to be unstable class.
But what ultimately makes the 1.3 default in ITB liveable for me is I can always approach it with a different view on confidence factor than I do the 1.25. Meaning that I may personally find it easier to move a 1.3 multi valve car to 1.25 based on less evidence than I would to move a 1.25 8v car to a higher or lower number.
My approach is not perfect, or aproblematic, but it is sort of a rough justice approach for me in dealing with the 1.3 default. I don't agree with it, but I accept it and work with it as best I can.
Right now guys, while we are not being told we have to do anything, I don't think a strong push to change the 1.3 default would get anywhere. In my opinion, the CRB considers it to be part of the Process, and a critical one in maintaining balance in ITB. Since I don't race in ITB, it's easier for me to say I'm willing to accept that minor (in my view) glitch in return for Process adherence and stability in all classes. At the same time, I understand why say a Dave Gran might see it as a much more important issue.
Edited to be clear for the record, so in the future when someone goes looking, they'll understand that it's NOT part of any process codified between 2005 and this past winter.
The CRB pressed it - presumably as part of the negotiation that got the current Process codified - and the ITAC agrees with it, so it's the law of the land. Make no mistake though, that y'all (the Ad Hoc) own it now.
I admit that I get VERY worried about your workaround there, Jeff. Each ITAC member should always judge alternate multipliers by the merit of the evidence, not jigger their thinking to result in the outcome they think is most correct...
...and (big picture warning) it sets a lousy precedent, both in terms of leaving a practice in place that you admit you don't like while developing a workaround to avoid adhering to it, AND for what is says about how the ITAC does its work and manages its relationship with the CRB. You make recommendations; they decide. They decide; you make a recommendation to do something different; they decide anyway. That's how it's supposed to work. That, as opposed to "they unofficially decide but 'we are not being told we have to do anything,' we unofficially decide not to make a stink about it, but we don't REALLY support it so have come up with a way to diddle it."
Nobody wants to own it but again, you do.
If you let the system work this way on THIS issue, you WILL let it work the same way on another so it is NOT JUST AN ITB PROBLEM. And you've made the Process a little less dink-proof along the way.
K
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Jeff, I appreciate the thoughts and response.
My thinking about the "But it's been in place for awhile" aspect is, (Assuming that's the case...a big assumption, but for the sake of discussion) well, ok, but the cars that have been classed by it are:
A- WRONGLY classed.
or
B- Correctly classed.
Yea, duh! I know. hear me out. IF the ITAC finds evidence that supports the 30% as being appropriate, fine, USE the evidence, have a confidence vote, and do the math. As the Proceedural manual describes. Where it lands is where it lands.
If the ITAC has no evidence...or not enough to achieve the 75% go /no go, then it gets classed....correctly...at 25%.
Simply put, I really don't care about the saving face aspect of not adjusting a car that just got adjusted. If it was classed at 30% for ITB, and it wouldn't have been in ITA, then it needs to be done right, once and for all.....if there is no compelling evidence to the contrary.
And as for the REST of ITB, well, this 30% thing has nothing to do with the other cars. If the other cars are right, they are right...if they are wrong, de-list them, ignore them, or fix them.
The "instability" argument is a red herring, in my view. Bigger picture is most important.
Regarding the comment about the CRB considering it an important aspect of maintaining balance in ITB, HOW can that be? So I'd like to modify my above request for ITAC mebers who lurk to speak up, and ask that CRB members please help me see the light. My above example is the way you are doing things now, and clearly it UNbalances cars that enter ITB. How is that "An important aspect of maintaining the balance"???
And while YOU may find it easy to move off of 30%, it's clear that other members do not, as evidenced by the MR2. The system needs to be correct at the start, THEN use to options you have to adjust when needed, as opposed to starting all fubared, then attempting to do some workaround to tweak it where you want it. That was the problem with the old system....too many tweaks...and 'deals', and the next thing you know, consistency has gone out the window, and errors are stacking up.
My thinking about the "But it's been in place for awhile" aspect is, (Assuming that's the case...a big assumption, but for the sake of discussion) well, ok, but the cars that have been classed by it are:
A- WRONGLY classed.
or
B- Correctly classed.
Yea, duh! I know. hear me out. IF the ITAC finds evidence that supports the 30% as being appropriate, fine, USE the evidence, have a confidence vote, and do the math. As the Proceedural manual describes. Where it lands is where it lands.
If the ITAC has no evidence...or not enough to achieve the 75% go /no go, then it gets classed....correctly...at 25%.
Simply put, I really don't care about the saving face aspect of not adjusting a car that just got adjusted. If it was classed at 30% for ITB, and it wouldn't have been in ITA, then it needs to be done right, once and for all.....if there is no compelling evidence to the contrary.
And as for the REST of ITB, well, this 30% thing has nothing to do with the other cars. If the other cars are right, they are right...if they are wrong, de-list them, ignore them, or fix them.
The "instability" argument is a red herring, in my view. Bigger picture is most important.
Regarding the comment about the CRB considering it an important aspect of maintaining balance in ITB, HOW can that be? So I'd like to modify my above request for ITAC mebers who lurk to speak up, and ask that CRB members please help me see the light. My above example is the way you are doing things now, and clearly it UNbalances cars that enter ITB. How is that "An important aspect of maintaining the balance"???
And while YOU may find it easy to move off of 30%, it's clear that other members do not, as evidenced by the MR2. The system needs to be correct at the start, THEN use to options you have to adjust when needed, as opposed to starting all fubared, then attempting to do some workaround to tweak it where you want it. That was the problem with the old system....too many tweaks...and 'deals', and the next thing you know, consistency has gone out the window, and errors are stacking up.
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
The confidence level required for a change is inherently personal. I don't think it contrary to the Ops Manual, or good sense, for me to say that you don't have to do as much to convince me to move off of the 1.3 default for a multivalve in ITB to go to 1.25 because I'm not personally convinced that all multivalves make big power.
I'd like for the Process to be perfect. It will never be perfect for everyone, either in how it is set up or how it operates in practice. I think it is entirely unrealistic to say that each ITAC member should "like" every decision that the committee makes in order to accept that decision by the committee. That's just not possible.
But I guess here is what I am driving at. I think a lot of the heated opposition to this rule -- and I fully agree we own it now -- stems from how it came about, not from how it actually is operating in practice. On the former, I understand the frustration. But on the latter, I don't see this as anything other than a minor glitch that isn't causing any fundamental problems in car classifications.
A majority portion of the ITAC thinks that multi-valve architecture in ITB should have us start with a 1.3 modifier. I disagree for a lot of reasons, but I don't think it is a fundamental flaw in the big picture.
I'd like for the Process to be perfect. It will never be perfect for everyone, either in how it is set up or how it operates in practice. I think it is entirely unrealistic to say that each ITAC member should "like" every decision that the committee makes in order to accept that decision by the committee. That's just not possible.
But I guess here is what I am driving at. I think a lot of the heated opposition to this rule -- and I fully agree we own it now -- stems from how it came about, not from how it actually is operating in practice. On the former, I understand the frustration. But on the latter, I don't see this as anything other than a minor glitch that isn't causing any fundamental problems in car classifications.
A majority portion of the ITAC thinks that multi-valve architecture in ITB should have us start with a 1.3 modifier. I disagree for a lot of reasons, but I don't think it is a fundamental flaw in the big picture.
Z3_GoCar
New member
It already isn't an ITB only problem. The all BMW-6's get an automatic 30% has chased me away. Heck, the 2.8 can't even get a fair deal in STU either due to the fact that the thin wall plastic intake manifold CAN NOT be port matched, and they're not about to let it swap intake manifolds there either.
JoshS
New member
If I read the new preliminary August Fastrack right, STU is now allowing the M50 manifold on an M52 engine in an E36 chassis, but not in a Z3 (intake manifold has to match either the engine or the chassis).
As for the I6 thing ... I can't remember for certain, but I think that's been fixed for the Lexus/Toyota I6 and I think there are still letters pending (from me) about BMWs that might not deserve it.
Z3_GoCar
New member
From Greg's post:
That may be an unanticipated consequence of trying to allow fwd motors in rwd chassis. As you say it fixes it in the sedan, but not the Z3's. What does fix it is a motor swap, that's so easy, I still used the 2.8's oil pan, ZF transmission, valve cover/oil seperator, oil filter/cooler, aluminum flywheel, and motor mount brackets.
NOT TRUE.
A newly-spec'd BMW - like ay other car - is assumed to make a 25% increase until the ITAC makes a determination otherwise using one of two prescribed methods.
K
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
HOLY GOD please do the research on the BMW's. The 323's in ITS are making 200+whp, the E36 325's make 215+whp and the 325eta makes big gains too. There is a ton of data on what can be done to a 330 and they are all over 30%.
MAYBE, that one 328 with the weird intake is limited but geezus don't create an overdog because the info wasn't right under our noses. When the tuners grab hold of the VANOS via the ECU, it really lets the horses fly! If you haven't seen dyno sheets with this kind of control, you haven't seen enough to make a change.
Andy, this is STU, not IT. You know, as in World Challenge-level builds? And if they start making power over and above expected levels, they'll get SIRs. That's the nature of the beast.
Let 'em play. Have fun.
GA
gran racing
Super Moderator
Is multivalve 2, 3 or 4? Should a 3 valve and 4 valve receive the same 30% default factor?
So why have any defaults at all? How much evidence is needed to keep a non-multivalve car at the preassigned 25% rating? If it's not the same exact amount that is needed to move a multi-valve car to the 25% factor then it's wrong even with the way you're attempting to rationalize things.
Jeff, I honestly appreciate where you're coming from and working with the system that's in place. I do think it's important to get rid of this now before we get to far with things.
Frustration stems from how it remains AND how it will impact cars in the future. The point of the process, or so I thought, was to establish a method for current and future ITAC members to classify cars. There is no expectation for ITAC members to devise workaround for flaws within the classification structure.
What annoys the crap out of me is no one can provide proof that multivalve engines produce a 5% gain over non-multivalve engines. How all of a sudden an ITA multivalve engine no longer sees this magical 5% gain that ITB and ITC engines sees.
I see that the multivalve request is still pending decision (#4229). Is this not a done deal yet?
So why have any defaults at all? How much evidence is needed to keep a non-multivalve car at the preassigned 25% rating? If it's not the same exact amount that is needed to move a multi-valve car to the 25% factor then it's wrong even with the way you're attempting to rationalize things.
Jeff, I honestly appreciate where you're coming from and working with the system that's in place. I do think it's important to get rid of this now before we get to far with things.
Frustration stems from how it remains AND how it will impact cars in the future. The point of the process, or so I thought, was to establish a method for current and future ITAC members to classify cars. There is no expectation for ITAC members to devise workaround for flaws within the classification structure.
What annoys the crap out of me is no one can provide proof that multivalve engines produce a 5% gain over non-multivalve engines. How all of a sudden an ITA multivalve engine no longer sees this magical 5% gain that ITB and ITC engines sees.
I see that the multivalve request is still pending decision (#4229). Is this not a done deal yet?
The difficulty with establishing an answer to this has to do with a number of things
1 - ITB is a hodgepodge of classification methodologies, so no one is 100% aware of the bogey at this intant. I'd recon it's the A20 accords (which seem very strong from the sidelines and are evidently up for a re-run at 30%), the D15 16v civics, and the A3 VWs until the 2002 and vovi get re-run, and they should be right in the mix - they certainly are supposed to be. but this is just among the cars that are currently being run.
2 - of the cars classified, few are currently raced (i.e. the storm GSi which appears as if it would be a major overdog as weighted) so it's hard to say where the fulcrum of balnace is within the listings.
3 - there are few cars classed with the 30% default, all are new to the class, and of those that were not new to IT, overall numbers weren't very high in the first place (4A-GE sibs) and were moved down as they were not previously competitive in ITA. ***the only exceptions that I know of are the 12v civic and CRX, which were adjusted down to 30% due to that being default, not in response to positive data showing 30% gains.***
So while issues may not have been casued - i.e. no existing competitive car in B was affected by the 30% multiplier, some cars classed with it have been denied the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. in the case of the MR2 (and hopefully its cousins) the recent correction is some justice but the car still appears to be off the pace. having the opportunity to START at this point would obviously not have hurt anything. Ask Spinetti how he feels about his Corolla's chances in B, even at 2385#.
Who knows what the FP-DE protege's potential is? I know of 2, one of them is pretty quick so MAYBE the 30% was right in this case. time might tell - but starting at 25% would privide the same data, maybe sooner. either way, it's not disrupted anything.
the 12V civic/CRX Si may prove to be quite strong at this weight, but that isn't unexpected given the history of the brand in IT trim. while that shouldn't be sufficient to justify the default 30%, it might be sufficient for a confidence vote in using 30 rather than 25, no?
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Nope, my response was in reaction to Josh's post on IT-agendas.