Review and adjust weight of ITB CRX Si as appropriate

[Ron Earp]

2. Term limits, hell yes. 3-4 years of this and it is time for new blood. The problem, as Josh has pointed out, is finding it. Not a lot of folks want to do this. For obvious reasons.

I submit that if you get term limits and an IT participation clause then you'll dissolve some of the "old boy network" and you'll attract new talent. New guys don't want to come into a quagmire created and still managed by some old guys that have been on the ITAC for 10 years and "know how it is done" and "know what members want".

Get that done and I'll sign up for some time on the ITAC - if that time comes and if I'm still actively involved in IT.

 

[tom91ita]

There is NO allowance for correcting "errors" outside that 5-year window - period.

which is why i am concerned about approaching the 5 year timing for the weight change of my car going from ITA to ITB. even though i have been asking for it to be re-processed via the "process" since 2008.

What NOBODY ever advocated was "We won't consider the reprocessing of that car because it does just fine on-track" ...

Actually Andy, i respectfully disagree since i feel that if not stated in words, that "feels" alot like what has happened to me in response to my requests.

has anyone actually said that? no. has the end result been effectively the same? in my view, yes.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually Andy, i respectfully disagree since i feel that if not stated in words, that "feels" alot like what has happened to me in response to my requests.

has anyone actually said that? no. has the end result been effectively the same? in my view, yes.

Tom,

I am not sure that you undertand that your car may be processed perfectly. You know the math now. Agree or disagree, even under the 'old' ITAC, your car wouldn't be getting any consideration for a change without substantial data that proved the math was/is wrong.

My comments are specifically applied to the ITAC as was constituted when I was on. The CRB was different.

 

[tom91ita]

I am not sure that you undertand that your car may be processed perfectly. You know the math now. Agree or disagree, even under the 'old' ITAC, your car wouldn't be getting any consideration for a change without substantial data that proved the math was/is wrong.

basically i disagree and was trying to give the data both based on the multiplier comparison and, since i have read different times that some members of the CRB and/or ITAC think that displacement is a key factor, in terms of # per liter.

i think that 1.35 is realistic based on feedback from people like Greg above and Catch/Scott. i don't think that this 12V motor that is quite similar to the other Honda 12V motors in terms of HP/Liter can have power gains effectively the same as Honda 16V motors.

but the difference between 1.35 (1.35*91*17-50 = 2038.45 so call it 2040) and the current 2130 is 90 #'s and i think this is worth asking for.

is the preferred method for me to build the motor and submit the dyno runs rather than make comparisons between similar cars & motors?

i know the on-track performance method can't be used because i stink at Road Atlanta and can't keep out of the way of the front running ITC CRX's.

 

[JoshS]

Tom, displacement is not and has never been part of the weight calculations, even though some members of some committees think that would be sensible.

 

[lateapex911]

Josh, that's true as it's written, I guess. But, the flip side is that weights that have been recommended have been rejected, and displacement was the reason given, so, in the end, it HAS been used to set weights, albeit in a reverse method.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Tom, displacement is not and has never been part of the weight calculations, even though some members of some committees think that would be sensible.

I am going to disagree on principle. It may not be a consideration in a new classification, but it is when cars are looked at for review. So by default, it is a factor the CRB uses when refusing to 'Process' legacy cars, no?

 

[JeffYoung]

Do you mean the CRB looks at displacement, or that under the Process, we did not?

I agree that at this point, yes, displacement is considered in classification decisions. It is considered "architecture" for one. Two, a specific example is teh 528e which was deemed to simply have too large of a motor for ITB.

I disagree with all of that, but it is the decision of the committee and the CRB. I personally do not think displacement is relevant (Andy's 2.0 SE-R motor to S2000 motor comparo is spot on) and is already accounted for via the torque modifier anyway. I also think that no car has "too big" or "too small" a motor for a particular class. Process it, and see where it fits best weight wise - heavy in the lower class, or lighter in the higher one.

I am going to disagree on principle. It may not be a consideration in a new classification, but it is when cars are looked at for review. So by default, it is a factor the CRB uses when refusing to 'Process' legacy cars, no?

 

[steve b]

How is this for an idea...
Instead of pointing at any one specific car, put in a request to include the weight calculation on the spec line of all cars.

If this is passed, wouldn't that force every car to get looked at and put through "the process" (whatever interpretation is picked)?

Granted, a lot of work for someone, but if most of it has already been done, not really. Once it is done, no one would ever have to look back at it again.

But then, what would we talk about on this board???

 

[Chip42]

in regards to the architecture argument - agreed that an SE-R's 2.0 L DOHC 16v vs. S2000's 2.0L DOHC 16v is not fair. but that isn't to say that 2 or 3 12v honda 4 cylinders wont behave similarly in terms of hp/litre, they will.

actually, if you consider the architecture, fully, the 12v hondas in the accord LXi and the CRX are pretty simillar, while the SE-R and the S2000 are very dissimillar. bore/stroke ratio, rod ratio, valve and cam size / duration / orientation, port size, CR, induction system plenum volume / engine swept volume ratio, TB diameter, etc... it's a fair basis for a lot of estimates for an unknown engine from a known one of simillar design.

not that the ITAC should have to look at all of that info, the "process" seems to work, by and large when it is allowed to be used. but if a competitor wants to dig up all or some of the above as PART of the argument for or against a classification or reclassification of a particular car, I think it's fair to consider it, and not dismis the effort as it relies, if only in part, on architecture. that said, if someone uses the SER/S2000 example above, call them out on it because those things only match on a window sticker level understanding of the motor.

btw who is on the ITAC now and the CRB? the lists on the SCCA website do not include a number of people that I have heard ARE on (a honda driving floridian for one). who is/are the IT liason(s) from the CRB? what's the best message to comunicate to my area director to motivate a change? "I'm upset with it" might not get us too far.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Do you mean the CRB looks at displacement, or that under the Process, we did not?

I agree that at this point, yes, displacement is considered in classification decisions. It is considered "architecture" for one. Two, a specific example is teh 528e which was deemed to simply have too large of a motor for ITB.

I disagree with all of that, but it is the decision of the committee and the CRB. I personally do not think displacement is relevant (Andy's 2.0 SE-R motor to S2000 motor comparo is spot on) and is already accounted for via the torque modifier anyway. I also think that no car has "too big" or "too small" a motor for a particular class. Process it, and see where it fits best weight wise - heavy in the lower class, or lighter in the higher one.

I mean that when ever anyones says 'like displacement and architecture', it's a factor.

 

[jjjanos]

Jjanos, there has been a lot of discussion over that paragraph, what it meant before the Great Realignment, and what it was intended to mean now.

What the paragraph is intended to mean? Give me a freaking break. There is absolutely no, zero, zilch, zippo, nada, nichts room for interpretation of whether a classification of a particular car in a specific IT class may be altered in anyway other than through the addition of an intake restrictor. There is no errors/omission clause in the IT rules, period.

The CRB says it cannot reclassify a car unless there was an error because of that paragraph. I.e. 9.3.1 does not grant them that power. Very well, let us accept that the CRB may only act where the GCR grants them specific powers. Point to the text in 9.3.1. that grants them the authority to reclassify on the basis of an error....

It isn't there. Therefore, under their own half-brained rule, they have no power to make any correction outside that 4-year window.

I didn't create their rules - they did, so they need to live within them.

I actually AGREE with the CRB that we are by rule prohibited from reprocessing cars by request based on that rule. But we did it anyway, and they let us -- for a while I would say that right there is the biggest reason we had a lot of folks resign. Once we started to touch some sacred cows with the reprocessing, we had some issues.

Irrelevant. An error is an error is an error regardless of the source. If one may correct one type of error, then one may correct ANY error. Anything less is disingenuous and dishonest.

 

[lateapex911]

Yea, an glaring error is one that I was party to, we used the wrong multiplier on the MR2. It was SOP at that point to use 25% across the board, but, and I'm responsible, as Andy was traveling and not on the call, we used 30% accidentally...a simple math error. Now, in my defense, I was traveling too, and running the meeting on a laptop instead of my usual 27", 24" AND a laptop, but it happened.

Yet, even after identifying, and requesting to correct the error, it has been rejected.

Not to mention that even the 25% number makes little sense....but, hey, why bring reality into it?

Why that car can not be corrected is beyond me..there is NO legitimate reason that it can't, yet the Powers that can refuse it keep refusing it.

 

[jjjanos]

Yea, an glaring error is one that I was party to, we used the wrong multiplier on the MR2. It was SOP at that point to use 25% across the board, but, and I'm responsible, as Andy was traveling and not on the call, we used 30% accidentally...a simple math error. Now, in my defense, I was traveling too, and running the meeting on a laptop instead of my usual 27", 24" AND a laptop, but it happened.

Yet, even after identifying, and requesting to correct the error, it has been rejected.

The Club Racing Rules Process....

These rules are approved by the CRB: clarifications (these add or change language to mkae clear the original intent of a rule); errors and omissions (corrections to typos or information that was omitted when originally adopted); Sports Car, June 2010, page 52
​

Seems pretty obvious that the error above fits the definition.

Why that car can not be corrected is beyond me..there is NO legitimate reason that it can't, yet the Powers that can refuse it keep refusing it.

Ethical failure?

One simple question... the CRB liasons to the ITAC... IT drivers or not? If so, then they have no business being the advisor as the CRB operations manual specifically prohibits them being involved in any part of adopting a rules to change that would affect them personally. If they race an ITS car, then the moment discussion turns to classifying an ITS car, the liason must recuse themselves from being part of the discussion within the ITAC and the CRB and cannot vote at the CRB on the matter.

 

[Knestis]

...which (I believe) is exactly the opposite of what happens at the CRB level. I'm pretty sure that other members defer to the CRB "IT experts" for guidance on all IT class questions.

K

 

[rcc85]

Well, I've decided to jump into the fray and submit a request to the CRB. I guess it worked, I haven't received and email confirmation yet.

Here it is:

"Please review the weight of the 1984-1989 Dodge Daytona as classified in ITB. There are currently five Dodge & Plymouth models using the same basic 2.2L SOHC engine classified in ITB as follows:

1981-85 dodge O24/Charger & Plymouth TC3/Turismo
2320 lbs
Best stock hp/torque: 96 hp/119 lbs/ft

1984-84 Dodge Shelby Charger
2430 lbs
Best stock hp/torque: 110 hp/ 129 lbs/ft

1984-89 Dodge Daytona
2630 lbs
Best stock hp/torque: 99hp/121 lbs/ft.

1980-90 Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon
2320 lbs
Best stock hp/torque: 96hp/119 lbs/ft

1989-91 Dodge Shadow
2680 lbs
Best stock hp/torque: 93 hp/122 lbs/ft.

As you can see, the Daytona is 200 lbs heavier than the more powerful (by 11 hp) Shelby Charger and 310 lbs heavier than the slightly less powerful (by 3 hp) Charger/Turismo/Omni/Horizon.

I cite the recent weight correction for the 1977-79 BMW 320i (2.0) in ITB as precedent for this request.

The attachment details engine availability and stock power ratings by model and year.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me."

We'll see what happens next.

Bob Clifton
#85 ITB Dodge Daytona

 

[tom91ita]

if you submitted to the SCCA website tracking system, you should have automatically gotten a response almost instantly.

 

[rcc85]

if you submitted to the SCCA website tracking system, you should have automatically gotten a response almost instantly.

That's what I thought, Tom, but I haven't received one. I submitted the request via www.crbscca.com as indicated in the current issue of SportsCar. After I filled in the CRB request form and hit the "submit" button, the only thing that happened was that the category & class returned to "AS".

I wonder what I did wrong?

Bob Clifton
#85 ITB Dodge Daytona

 

[iambhooper]

That's what I thought, Tom, but I haven't received one. I submitted the request via www.crbscca.com as indicated in the current issue of SportsCar. After I filled in the CRB request form and hit the "submit" button, the only thing that happened was that the category & class returned to "AS".

I wonder what I did wrong?

Bob Clifton
#85 ITB Dodge Daytona

yes, an automated response should have been generated. you may want to resubmit the request.

 

[rsportvolvo]

The ITAC is reviewing the Volvo 240 line items. My original request was to correct errors and I foolishly thought the line items would be re-evaluated. Since that was not the case I submitted requests for the 2 smaller engined line items to be re-evaluated. Still slated for discussion. This falls outside of the 5 year window and is similar to the Mopar request above.

This entire situation is quite ridiculous, par for the course with SCCA, but I digress. Since IT is a regional class, however popular, there is no need for national class advisory boards. I'm with Mr. Conover on this as I think he has provided a very good solution to the IT dilemna.