May 2011 Fastrack

JeffYoung said:
I can only speak for myself on the MR2. We do have a fair amount of dyno data, but (in my view) we still don't have a full title 100% IT build dyno sheet.

My personal view is the car is a 15% car. Others disagree, and without someone doing a balls to the walls full ECU tune, crank scraper, lightweight rings, exhaust dyno tested, Burns merge collector whole gee whiz shebang there will always be room for someone to legimitately say we should use the 25% default. I can't say their conclusion is outside the range of reason. I disagree with it, but I understand it.

I do not think (personally) the MR2 will get another look without the submission of new data. What that means (in my mind) is someone spends a LOT of dollars on an IT build, and is able to disclose to the ITAC exactly what they did.

This car is a poster child for what can go wrong with the Process, and it's a shame because it should be a mainstay of ITB.
Click to expand...

Good thing that is what I just built (engine). I already have a custom built header for the car with the correct primaries length and diameter, and a tuned ECU.

I plan on very shortly remaking the header using the same lenghts as it matches what I did matmatically and was built on teh dyno by playing with adjusting lengths.

Tomorrow I am breaking the motor in under load. Hopefully sometime this next week I am bringing it to the dyno to tune it. Following that I am going to a HPDE test with spring and shock setups end of May.

I have an idea of what I will get, and hoping for 108hp, as that isteh current record. Which way does the ITAC like to receive dyno data? using different correction factors can really change the data. My personal preference is to have all correction factors off. If I owned a 985hp supra.. I would put a massive fan in front of the car, and change the correction factor to get it to 4 digits.:D
 
iambhooper said:
2. #4583 (Josh Sirota) Adjust weight of first-generation Honda CRX Si​
In 9.1.3, ITB, Honda CRX Si (84-87) change weight from 2130 to 1970, based on a 30% horsepower multiplier.

DAYAM! That car will truely kick @$$ at that weight... if you can make it!

hoop
Click to expand...

And a Rabbit GTI, which starts our w/ less power, and has 4 less valves, is 110# heavier.

:dead_horse::dead_horse::dead_horse::dead_horse::dead_horse:
 
My Pinto is 400lbs. heavier. I'll just use the extra heft to knock them outa the way (when they come around to lap me).

Russ
 
The Honda has been faster than the ITB class leaders, since the begining. So dropping weight and dropping the car to B makes perfect sense.
Who comes up with this crap? Who is on the CRB for IT?
 
Bill Miller said:
And a Rabbit GTI, which starts our w/ less power, and has 4 less valves, is 110# heavier.
Click to expand...

the listing might need looking at, I can't say (I owned one long enough to fix it and sell it, never drove it at speed) - but I will go on record as stating that the number of valves per cylinder, as a discrete variable, is not relevant. If you've been reading along for the past 3-5 years, you'll see that that logic is part of the reason ITB is so confused right now.
 
Flyinglizard said:
The Honda has been faster than the ITB class leaders, since the begining. So dropping weight and dropping the car to B makes perfect sense.
Who comes up with this crap? Who is on the CRB for IT?
Click to expand...

Mike, it's the 1st gen car, 91hp factory rating, SOHC 12V. It's been in B for a while @ 2130# (equivalent to a 41% power multiplier, which is unrelaistic if you ask those who know the car, who I presume offered such info convincingly to the ITAC. at least one is a regular poster here). Have faith in the process. once everything is run through equitably, it should all be pretty well balanced. seems to have worked in ITA through R (there will always be tweeners, it's not perfect).

If the whole balance of power in ITB is suddenly turned upside down, and the 1g CRX Si is the only thing that can win - then 2 things will happen: the classification will be corrected, and someone will make a ton of money by producing aftermarket OE-equivalent plastic fenders.
 
Last edited:
Flyinglizard said:
The Honda has been faster than the ITB class leaders, since the begining. So dropping weight and dropping the car to B makes perfect sense.
Who comes up with this crap? Who is on the CRB for IT?
Click to expand...

Not correct.

The "Underwood" generation Civic was the poster child for preemptive rewards weight until it was addressed while I was on the committee. The "Ruck" era Civic was added based on the new - and correct - assumptions we applied to that previous decision. The first-gen version was the last to get fixed.

In fact, evidence I saw from the inside indicated that there were clear organizational - or at least individual - biases applied to the Hondas in B "since the beginning."

K
 
Correct.

Well, actually, what we did was run it through at 30% for multi-valve (3 valves) as the default in B since there was zero evidence the car made 40% or whatever it was tagged at.



Chip42 said:
Mike, it's the 1st gen car, 91hp factory rating, SOHC 12V. It's been in B for a while @ 2130# (equivalent to a 41% power multiplier, which is unrelaistic if you ask those who know the car, who I presume offered such info convincingly to the ITAC. at least one is a regular poster here). Have faith in the process. once everything is run through equitably, it should all be pretty well balanced. seems to have worked in ITA through R (there will always be tweeners, it's not perfect).

If the whole balance of power in ITB is suddenly turned upside down, and the 1g CRX Si is the only thing that can win - then 2 things will happen: the classification will be corrected, and someone will make a ton of money by producing aftermarket OE-equivalent plastic fenders.
Click to expand...
 
So, Jeff, that means that 3 valve cars get 30%? because it's a multivalve? And a 4 valve car gets 'the standard" of 25%? (The recent MR2 reweighting) ???

See where this is going?
 
Stop looking for trouble where there is none.

The standard is 30% for multivalve (more than 2/cylinder) engines.

The MR2 got that initially, but based on a lot of information, the ITAC chose to make an exception to the process.
 
Based on what I know, I find trouble in each of those aspects. But yea, I've made that opinion known.

It does clear up the definition of "multivalve" though.
 
That is generally correct. The default gain percentage in ITB is 25%, except for multivalve (more than 2 valves per cylinder) which gets 30%. The MR2 got 25% due to evidence showing it couldn't make 30%.

If your issue is with the Accord, yes, I understand the issue and we are discussing it.
 
except for multivalve (more than 2 valves per cylinder) which gets 30%.
Click to expand...

I still fail to see why this is the case. I sure would love to hear the ITAC / CRB discussion on this subject. How is the conversation going, it it is being discussed?
 
Last edited:
JeffYoung said:
Correct.

Well, actually, what we did was run it through at 30% for multi-valve (3 valves) as the default in B since there was zero evidence the car made 40% or whatever it was tagged at.
Click to expand...

My memory is suspect but i remember treating that as a "what we know" situation, albeit pre-confidence voting process...

K
 
Dave, no offense, but I think we have sort of beat that horse to death (the 30% default). I can only speak for myself, and while I don't like it, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Kirk, I think that is right. Before my time but when I joined, as a history lesson, you recommended that I go read the thread on the ITB CRX/Civic and yes, it was eye opening.....
 
I didn't realize a decision had been made by the ITAC on the 30% default review that I submitted. In the Sandbox thread, there certainly seemed to be many who thought it was BS and raised a few eyebrows from ITAC members. Guess I'll get some type of official reply to the request I sent on that specific issue in a Fastrack shortly? Right now the status is simply that is has been received. Sorry, didn't realize the ITAC confirmed it's ruling. (The Accord is a seperate item.)

Oh, and does this still just apply to ITB & ITC or is it now being equally applied to the other classes. :rolleyes:

I truly hate the feel of politics and inconsistency that goes on in IT and many other categories.
 
"right" or not, the default 30% seems to work in B, it is the most competitive class in IT!

but yea, dead horse indeed...
 
gran racing said:
I didn't realize a decision had been made by the ITAC on the 30% default review that I submitted. In the Sandbox thread, there certainly seemed to be many who thought it was BS and raised a few eyebrows from ITAC members. Guess I'll get some type of official reply to the request I sent on that specific issue in a Fastrack shortly? Right now the status is simply that is has been received. Sorry, didn't realize the ITAC confirmed it's ruling. (The Accord is a seperate item.)

Oh, and does this still just apply to ITB & ITC or is it now being equally applied to the other classes. :rolleyes:

I truly hate the feel of politics and inconsistency that goes on in IT and many other categories.
Click to expand...

calm yourself dave.

any "politics" that you think is occuring in IT exists only in your own head.
 
Travis - "The feel of politics" and yes, I can't help but question some items even if some they orginated a while ago and haven't been resolved. I also have finally come to terms that's just a part of this sport regardless of what level we're talking about.

And to clarify, I do honestly thing the ITAC is and has been making great progress. Unfortunately there are still areas which need to be overcome, and the "politics" might not stem from the ITAC itself.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top