not for nothing but I know the guy who tuned the best known example of the breed, and he has diarhea of the mouth. 30% is about right for the A20A3.
THE BACK ROOM or ....
- Thread starter pfcs
- Start date
not for nothing but I know the guy who tuned the best known example of the breed, and he has diarhea of the mouth. 30% is about right for the A20A3.
Noodling over the implications of this, I'm coming around to understand that it might be a very productive question to answer; a sort of acid test for the "multivalve" rule. It's got the added value of the "two different stock powers" question to resolve, too.
Call it a case study in the New Order Situation Helping IT. Reference my name when you use the acronym.
:026:
K
We could tackle JJJ's "gap" concern and split it into two classes. But then the fight would be over whether to call the new one "B-Minus" or "C-Plus." Both will be perceived as pejorative.
K
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Which may be true, and if that is the crux of the letter fine. Otherwise, to me, it seems like a petty way to add weight to a car.
Let's solve the big problem and the rest will fall into place. 25% standard, then apply what we know. If that happens, and the 30% if correct like you say, the evidence should be found and applied.
gran racing
Super Moderator
Absolutely no shot being taken against any car; quite the contrary. I even added that...
"The key to the Accord Lxi classification lies with the multivalve default of 30% which correlates to letter number 4229."
Now using the process as I believe it should be, the default should be 25% and then use the OPS manual to adjust that if needed. Hell, maybe the number after looking at things closer is 30% for some of the multivalve car. I just don't agree that should be the default, especially in only ITB.
If nothing else, hopefully the Accord classification will bring to lite a few things and maybe force more of a discussion. Besides Andy, if I were going to take a shot at a car it would be the Golf III. LOL
I honestly have NO problem with where the Accord is classed and to be honest, don't really care much about the Golf III weight. Having members requests and the cars in the category treated equally and not be about politics? Yup.
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Yes, you have written your letters on that car plenty.
I still don't get your rationale with the Accdord specifically. It IS classed at 25%. If they re-run it at the 25% you ask, nothing changes. So what was the point? If you are asking them to re-run the Accord, what is your desired outcome?
Long day - I may be missing the obvious. Sorry.
To affect a change in the de facto default 30% for "multivalve" cars.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Except the more-than-likely short-term outcome is a 30% multiplier applied, no?
Yes, but then at that point it would be an equitable outcome to the current rules. As it stands now, the car does not meet "the process" and is illegally light...
I'm sure his preference would be that someone will stop and say "you know, this is a pretty stupid move" and change the system instead, but them's the chances you take...gotta admire the moxie...
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Yes, but then at that point it would be an equitable outcome to the current rules. As it stands now, the car does not meet "the process" and is illegally light...
I'm sure his preference would be that someone will stop and say "you know, this is a pretty stupid move" and change the system instead, but them's the chances you take...gotta admire the moxie...
Not true. Every 'multi-valve' car except the MR2 was processed at 25% during my tenure (barring any 'what we know'). So no, this would not be an equitable outcome, it would be the singling out of one car to make a point. Might be equitable 'going forward' but not to all the cars previously classed.
Now THIS particular car with indeed force some unique discussion because of who used to drive them but...
And to me, you have more Moxie if you tell them they are stupid instead of an end-around.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I think Dave already sent in a protest letter on the 30% stuff.
This aspect sort of forces the hand and puts it all in a revealing light.
They have options:
1- Drop the ridiculous 30% factor and move on, and reject Daves request for reprocessing the Accord.
2- Refuse to reprocess the Accord based on the fact that that particular car isn't 'multivalve enough".
3- Draw a line i the sand, refuse to rescind the vote for 30%, and accept the lumps.
My sixth sense tells me #3 will be chosen. No, #2. Actually, both, LOL.
This aspect sort of forces the hand and puts it all in a revealing light.
They have options:
1- Drop the ridiculous 30% factor and move on, and reject Daves request for reprocessing the Accord.
2- Refuse to reprocess the Accord based on the fact that that particular car isn't 'multivalve enough".
3- Draw a line i the sand, refuse to rescind the vote for 30%, and accept the lumps.
My sixth sense tells me #3 will be chosen. No, #2. Actually, both, LOL.
I Completely agree. I'm not asking that the accords be re-run at 30%, just pointing out that there is some evidence that that multiplier is accurate IN THIS CASE, so I know it's not out of line to do so. The car in question is driven VERY well, and deserves the wins it has - the object is to push the rules to the limits. they have, and the result is that they are prabobly getting 5+ more horses than anyone else in that car. good for them. last time I checked, the car wasn't exactly race worthy - so it's irrelevant anyhow unless the objective is to throw mud in the eye of the "deal" maker - an unnecessary act.
yeah, the class does need fixin. I'd be thrilled with the 4AGE whcih was just "parlty fixed" at 25% IF Steven hadn't gathered so much data from so many builds and all of the objective evidence regarding the substantial differences between it and an atlantic, proving it to be a 15% car at best. and that 15% is a pretty loft goal when you really look at it.
Last edited:
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I differ Chip, (and I nearly always agree with your points), on the unnecessary act angle. Whether the car is race ready or not isn't really the point in my book. To me, it's if the cars in ITB that are multivalved are supposed to be classed at 30% then the ARRC winning ITB multivalve car sure as heck should be! Fair is fair, after all.
That particular car is rather key to the question and I think a reprocess request puts the issue into sharp relief.
(While I'd love common sense to come to bear on the 30% issue, I am so incredulous as to how an entire committee voted in favor of the concept that i don't see them rescinding the standard> So while I agree that getting back to consistency would be the ideal situation, I just don't see that happening. I'd love to be wrong)
That particular car is rather key to the question and I think a reprocess request puts the issue into sharp relief.
This is another case of a result that smells for all the world like a 'compromise' by the committee. They had reams of good data showing less than 15%. They have this silly 30% standard. So they threw it a bone. I could accept that they had data and rounded up to 15%, and were concerned that every stone hadn't been turned and every option exhausted on the builds they got and went with the next increment up to account for that, at 20%. But 25% is like saying, "We don't trust your numbers, but we're getting SO much flak over this from all sides that we have to do something, so 25% it is."
(While I'd love common sense to come to bear on the 30% issue, I am so incredulous as to how an entire committee voted in favor of the concept that i don't see them rescinding the standard> So while I agree that getting back to consistency would be the ideal situation, I just don't see that happening. I'd love to be wrong)
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
In my opinion, we had decent data on the MR2 but not great. The best technical discussion I saw was a complete debunking of "this is a Formula Atlantic" motor.
The dyno data was decent, but not overwhelming (and that is not a reflection on the folks who collected it). The problem with the MR2 versus say "processing" the 2nd Gen RX7 or the E36 is that with those cars you had a ton of actual IT build dyno plots. ITA Miata too.
With the MR2, it was tough to tell 100% for sure what we were looking at (and again no knocking the submitters).
I personally believed the car was a 15% car, but I had some doubt. I think 25% is on the high range of a reasonable assessment of the situation, but it's not totally unpossible. I'm not sure anyone has done a full on, 100% build on this motor in IT trim. It's possible somewhere there is a power secret people havent done/missed.
On the Accord, I can't speak for the committee. My personal approach to the default rule is to acknowledge it's where I have to start, but I will be pretty willing to accept evidence to the contrary as enough to override the default.
The dyno data was decent, but not overwhelming (and that is not a reflection on the folks who collected it). The problem with the MR2 versus say "processing" the 2nd Gen RX7 or the E36 is that with those cars you had a ton of actual IT build dyno plots. ITA Miata too.
With the MR2, it was tough to tell 100% for sure what we were looking at (and again no knocking the submitters).
I personally believed the car was a 15% car, but I had some doubt. I think 25% is on the high range of a reasonable assessment of the situation, but it's not totally unpossible. I'm not sure anyone has done a full on, 100% build on this motor in IT trim. It's possible somewhere there is a power secret people havent done/missed.
On the Accord, I can't speak for the committee. My personal approach to the default rule is to acknowledge it's where I have to start, but I will be pretty willing to accept evidence to the contrary as enough to override the default.
The problem with that stance, Jeff, is that you put the competitor in a position to have to prove a negative. Plus, given he/she is starting from a disadvantageous position, you're creating a significant disincentive to even pursue it.
If you guys insist on going with "what you know" then you should start from a consistent, across-the-board baseline and let the "what you learn" guide you. You simply cannot start from two differing assumptions and then work with two different forces of proof (YOU get more weight when you make more than "process"; and YOU get reduction in weight when you prove to us you can't make "process".) - GA
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Yup.
JeffYoung
New member
I agree. My personal opinion is that there should be a single 25% default number unless we have enough information to meet our evidentiary standard to move it.
I lost that vote. I have to respect the committee's position on it, and will. That's how committee's work.
I lost that vote. I have to respect the committee's position on it, and will. That's how committee's work.
Yup^2.
This is a concern for me, about the operations manual. It provides two options for determining the multiplier, without clearly establishing either as the default AND stipulating when Plan B really should be implemented. It leaves the opportunity for talking out of both sides of the collective ITAC mouth, as it were.
K
Disagree. I would say you have to accept the committee's position, but respecting it is an entirely different kettle of buckets.