THE BACK ROOM or ....
- Thread starter pfcs
- Start date
gran racing
Super Moderator
Somewhat forgot about this but guess it's still in progress, 13 plus months later. Still never saw anything in print about the Accord weight adjustment. lol
Mon, April 9, 2012 9:00:19 PMSCCA Letter #4229 Update
From:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Dave Gran,
Your letter has been reviewed by the IT committee, and a recommendation has been made to the CRB. The CRB will review your letter and the IT committee's recommendation on their next conference call. Your letter details are below:
Letter #4229
Title: Multivalve Adder
Request: Eliminate the default 30% gain above stock horsepower in IT trim for multivalve engines when processing ITB and ITC cars. Instead, assume a gain of 35% above stock horsepower in IT trim while still allowing the ITAC to use protocol in the documented ITAC Operations Manual to adjust accordingly. I see no way in which this rule makes sense especially given that the design benefits are already factored into stock HP. If after further discussions the ITAC votes that a multivalve adder should still be in place, it needs to be further defined and utilized. As an amendment to the Operations Manual, define what multivalve engines this increased 5% applies to – 3 valve and/or 4 valve engines. Additionally, if the multivalve truly deserves an automatic increase in expected gains the factor needs to be applied to ITR, ITS, and ITA even if on a sliding scale. There is no reason
why a multivalve ITB car gains 5% by this design yet an ITA car has no advantage.Thank you for taking the time to review and discussing this request.
Thank you,
CRB
Mon, April 9, 2012 9:00:19 PMSCCA Letter #4229 Update
From:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Dave Gran,
Your letter has been reviewed by the IT committee, and a recommendation has been made to the CRB. The CRB will review your letter and the IT committee's recommendation on their next conference call. Your letter details are below:
Letter #4229
Title: Multivalve Adder
Request: Eliminate the default 30% gain above stock horsepower in IT trim for multivalve engines when processing ITB and ITC cars. Instead, assume a gain of 35% above stock horsepower in IT trim while still allowing the ITAC to use protocol in the documented ITAC Operations Manual to adjust accordingly. I see no way in which this rule makes sense especially given that the design benefits are already factored into stock HP. If after further discussions the ITAC votes that a multivalve adder should still be in place, it needs to be further defined and utilized. As an amendment to the Operations Manual, define what multivalve engines this increased 5% applies to – 3 valve and/or 4 valve engines. Additionally, if the multivalve truly deserves an automatic increase in expected gains the factor needs to be applied to ITR, ITS, and ITA even if on a sliding scale. There is no reason
why a multivalve ITB car gains 5% by this design yet an ITA car has no advantage.Thank you for taking the time to review and discussing this request.
Thank you,
CRB
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I too wrote a letter so long ago I'd actually forgotten about it. It requested that a 4 valve 125hp car in ITB carry the same factor (25%) that a 4valve 125hp car in ITA has. 25%.
It has been sent to the CRB with a ITAC recommendation.
I assume it was held up in the larger ITB dissection.
It has been sent to the CRB with a ITAC recommendation.
I assume it was held up in the larger ITB dissection.
Rabbit05
New member
Jeff,
I don't need another book. Does this mean that now the car weight will be recalculated to the proper HP number. Or will I need to resend a letter to the crb or itac ?
-John
Bill Miller
New member
Dave,
You really asked for a 35% gain, or was that a typo? BTW, I applaud you writing that letter. Let's see what happens. I totally agree that you can't say an ITB/C 3-4 valve car will make a higher percentage gain that an ITR/S/A 3-4 valve car
gran racing
Super Moderator
Typo. 
But I quickly sent communications to the ITAC and CRB to ensure they were aware of the correct 25% percentage I meant to type. Although I wouldn't be totally shocked it if gets rejected with that as an excuse as that got lost (I did get written confirmation that they received the correct percentage.)
Page 10, post 184 of this thread is when I submitted that and the Accord.
But I quickly sent communications to the ITAC and CRB to ensure they were aware of the correct 25% percentage I meant to type. Although I wouldn't be totally shocked it if gets rejected with that as an excuse as that got lost (I did get written confirmation that they received the correct percentage.)Page 10, post 184 of this thread is when I submitted that and the Accord.
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
John, manual's still sitting on my floor -- sorry about that.
We've discussed the issue with the Audi stock hp and don't have a solution yet. The 110 hp is in the manual, the 120 (I think) is in the internal Audi document. Not clear either way.
Dave/Jake/Bill:
I think most of us on the ITAC do not prefer the 30% multivavle adder in ITB. At the same time, it's there, it's in the Ops Manual, and its been used to process cars for a while now. For consistencies sake, we will not revisit it.
HOWEVER - I think all of us will take a harder look at a multivalve motor in B to see if the 30% makes sense as a default than we would with a 25% default motor in any other clause.
Last, we made the recommendation to add (100?) weight to the Accord and I believe it passed and was in Fastrack. We've already gotten letters to change it back.....
We've discussed the issue with the Audi stock hp and don't have a solution yet. The 110 hp is in the manual, the 120 (I think) is in the internal Audi document. Not clear either way.
Dave/Jake/Bill:
I think most of us on the ITAC do not prefer the 30% multivavle adder in ITB. At the same time, it's there, it's in the Ops Manual, and its been used to process cars for a while now. For consistencies sake, we will not revisit it.
HOWEVER - I think all of us will take a harder look at a multivalve motor in B to see if the 30% makes sense as a default than we would with a 25% default motor in any other clause.
Last, we made the recommendation to add (100?) weight to the Accord and I believe it passed and was in Fastrack. We've already gotten letters to change it back.....
when i submitted letter # 1333, the accord was 2550 #'s. it is now 2650.
i just got an update regarding my evap emissions letter. i responded that updates to me are no longer necessary since i am no longer a member.
perhaps not 100% accurate since i intend to be a weekend member at a couple of races this year and must comply with the rules for the class i enter.
Bill Miller
New member
Re: the 30% thing, I'm one of the biggest critics around, having the poster child car for it's failing: the MR2. I never miss an opportunity to express my displeasure with it on comittee, and I have been equally loud here when the topic was being raised.
that said, it's a happy coincidence that MANY of the cars run with that number are either making their 30% (or higher) process number, or have enough other "mojo" working for them that they are doing well regardless. same is true for many "default" 25% cars accross IT land, many of which are doing very well despite not matching perfectly with their number. there's a lot of variables at play, and the process is intentionally simple, so it doesnt' have a lot of inputs.
for now, political winds are not with a change to the 30% rule. I'm not happy about that but it's the case. luckily we do have the presence of mind, now, to really dig in any case where this number would be applied as a default to make sure that it "makes sense". maybe fortunately, we haven't had occasion to do so recently.
that said, it's a happy coincidence that MANY of the cars run with that number are either making their 30% (or higher) process number, or have enough other "mojo" working for them that they are doing well regardless. same is true for many "default" 25% cars accross IT land, many of which are doing very well despite not matching perfectly with their number. there's a lot of variables at play, and the process is intentionally simple, so it doesnt' have a lot of inputs.
for now, political winds are not with a change to the 30% rule. I'm not happy about that but it's the case. luckily we do have the presence of mind, now, to really dig in any case where this number would be applied as a default to make sure that it "makes sense". maybe fortunately, we haven't had occasion to do so recently.
ajmr2
New member
Thanks again for all your support, Chip.
So after more than a year, almost 300 posts and SEVENTEEN THOUSAND views just on this thread, we're still debating this???
Last edited:
JeffYoung
New member
People are passionate about IT, hence the debates. Can be frustrating but a healthy sign in many ways I think.
On the 30% in ITB adder, I actually think (and I disagree with it as well) that its potential harmful impact has been mitigated pretty well.
I think this committee is going to look long and hard at any multivalve car in ITB before it gets the 30%, and we have data out there to support a different decision we will use it. Plus, by sheer luck, most cars (other than the MR2, and a few others) do actually make 30% with a multivalve motor. So the impact has not been as great as it otherwise might be although I agree the MR2 has had it rough from the start.
On the 30% in ITB adder, I actually think (and I disagree with it as well) that its potential harmful impact has been mitigated pretty well.
I think this committee is going to look long and hard at any multivalve car in ITB before it gets the 30%, and we have data out there to support a different decision we will use it. Plus, by sheer luck, most cars (other than the MR2, and a few others) do actually make 30% with a multivalve motor. So the impact has not been as great as it otherwise might be although I agree the MR2 has had it rough from the start.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Jeff, I understand the situation the ITAC finds itself in, and I'm sure it's frustrating.
Glad to hear the Accord was adjusted in line with the rest of the cars though. I wonder who's sending in letters?
Live by the sword, die by the sword......
Bill Miller
New member
What about the A/S/R multi-valve cars? Are they only making 25%?
some are "making" 10 or 15% (ITR S2000's, no idea what actual HP is). but yeah, every other class defaults to 25% unless it's a rotary or a strait 6. that last point is just as silly as the multivalve rule and is also vetted thoroughly when called upon.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Also, I failed to thank you Jeff and Chip, in my earlier post, for hanging with us and shining some sunlight into the 'back room'. Much appreciated.
JeffYoung
New member
C'mon now -- we all know the logical inconsistencies in the rule. Some aren't happy about it, but guess what? That's committee work. If everyone is happy about it all the time then something is probably wrong.
gran racing
Super Moderator
No Art, I just happened to receive an e-mail that my request to review it from more than a year ago is being reviewed by the CRB. I truly don't care about it anymore although still think it's dumb. While I may have confidence in one ITAC group, who knows about the next and as said it's in the books. The debate is done, moving on.