THE BACK ROOM or ....

[Knestis]

NO.

While the information available to the ITAC is obviously crucial, what is really important is that the Process is not just math - the point that we couldn't get the CRB to understand before the schism. The math would require only 1/2 page to describe. The rest is about established practices to allow the ITAC to make subjective assessments of cars that evidence suggests are "special cases," and to do so in transparent, repeatable, documented ways.

The most important degree of freedom, which the Process grants to the committee to accomplish that, is in the power multiplier. Everything else is either simple math or a dichotomous measure.

K

EDIT - One can assume the gains, but don't assume that the result is the "final answer," if it's a car that doesn't appear to behave like those assumptions predict. This SHOULD be a small portion of all the cars but by the nature of how these things work, they represent a LARGE portion of the cars we talk about.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

JJJ's math is very off on some cars just looking at it quickly. Show us your Accord LX and Jetta numbers.

IIRC, the Accord is spot on and the Jetta/Golf are 50lbs light because for a short time, we were giving an additional 50lbs off for a beam rear (non independent like struts or DW's). That was short lived and written out later.

 

[jjjanos]

NO.

...and to do so in transparent, repeatable, documented ways.

And that sir is the hogwash. It is little more than a formal and set-in-stone way of throwing weight on a car because "we" think it needs it.

EDIT - One can assume the gains, but don't assume that the result is the "final answer," if it's a car that doesn't appear to behave like those assumptions predict. This SHOULD be a small portion of all the cars but by the nature of how these things work, they represent a LARGE portion of the cars we talk about.

Unless someone does a 100% build within the first few years of listing and submits to an "accepted" dyno test, the car will never fail the test. The results will be rejected as not being a full effort (for those with multipliers too high) or will never have a dyno sheet submitted (for those with multipliers too low).

 

[jjjanos]

JJJ's math is very off on some cars just looking at it quickly. Show us your Accord LX and Jetta numbers.

The inputs were given for ITC. In error, I believe I applied the FWD modifier to the 2002 and neglected the DW adder to the Accord.

For the ITB cars:
CRX Si:
91 x 1.3 x 17 *.98 =>1970 lose 160 lbs.

BMW 2002 (HP Source)
100 x 1.3 x 17*1 => 2210 (corrected), lose 70lbs

Accord LX: Didn't include DW adders
110 x 1.3 x 17 * .98 + 50 => 2430 (corrected) lose 120lbs

Jetta III:
HP: 115
115 x 1.3 x 17 * .98 => 2490, GAIN 140lbs

If larger multipliers are used for the Hondas, the discrepancy gets smaller, but that only makes the problem worse for the Jetta. If the Jetta gets smaller, it looks better, but that makes things worse for the Hondas. And if should suggest that the Hondas get larger and the Jetta gets smaller, I'll suggest what can be done with this "objective" process.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Accord LX: Didn't include DW adders
110 x 1.3 x 17 * .98 + 50 => 2430 (corrected) lose 120lbs

Jetta III:
HP: 115
115 x 1.3 x 17 * .98 => 2490, GAIN 140lbs

Accord is 120hp.

Golf/Jetta classed as such:

115*1.25*17 -50 for FWD - 50 for beam rear = 2345

If reclassed today:

115*1.25*17*.98 = 2395

 

[JeffYoung]

Accord would be 2650 if processed at 30%?

And the 2002 is just 70 lbs off now?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Accord would be 2650 if processed at 30%?

And the 2002 is just 70 lbs off now?

But it didn't. These things are SOOOO easy for me to remember.

120*1.25*17 -50 for FWD +50 for DW = 2550.

Using todays way, 2549 rounded to 2550.

 

[jjjanos]

Accord is 120hp.

I gave you a public source for that HP, which is repeated at numerous places. You give me a number you pulled out of somewhere

Though at 120HP, (120 x 17 x 1.25 x .98) + 50 is dead nuts on.
I'll take that though since it will put the new CRX weight at 1895.

Golf/Jetta classed as such:

115*1.25*17 -50 for FWD - 50 for beam rear = 2345

If reclassed today:

115*1.25*17*.98 = 2395

Great, that'll but the CRX weight down to 1895. I'm an HP-car now.

 

[JeffYoung]

According to Wiki it was 110 for the 86-87 cars, and 120 for the 88-89 cars.

Also, you are assuming that if the Accord gets a 25% gain modifier the CRX Si should as well. Those are different engines. I wasn't on the committee at the time, but I am assuming they were looked at and found to make different gains.


A20A3 and A20A4
The A20A3 and A20A4 were the fuel injected versions of the A20A engines. They were run by Honda's PGM-FI system on a partial OBD-0 computer. The A20A4 gives a slightly higher power output because of not having emissions components. The A20A3 was offered in the 1984-1987 Honda Prelude 2.0Si, the 1989 Honda Accord SE-i, and the 1986-1989 Honda Accord LX-i.
Specifications

• PGM-FI
• Displacement: 1,955 cc (119.3 cu in)
• Bore:82.7 mm (3.26 in)
• Stroke:91 mm (3.6 in)
• Power:
  • 1986-1987: 110 hp (82 kW) @ 5500 rpm & 114 ft·lbf (155 N·m) @ 4500 rpm
  • 1988-1989: 120 hp (89 kW) @ 5500 rpm & 122 ft·lbf (165 N·m) @ 4000 rpm (12 valve)

 

[Knestis]

And that sir is the hogwash. It is little more than a formal and set-in-stone way of throwing weight on a car because "we" think it needs it.

Unless someone does a 100% build within the first few years of listing and submits to an "accepted" dyno test, the car will never fail the test. The results will be rejected as not being a full effort (for those with multipliers too high) or will never have a dyno sheet submitted (for those with multipliers too low).

Scratch very deeply and I believe that, given ONLY a choice between a pure formula - with no room for subjectivity - and the free-for-alls of the past, the formula would be better. You can find evidence of that in the archives of this forum.

However, over the past 10 years of wrestling with these issues, I've come to understand that some form of compromise is necessary. And subjectivity is not what's worst of the possible issues - a lack of transparency and repeatability is.

Go back and look at the language in that bulletin that describes how exceptional cases should be considered.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I gave you a public source for that HP, which is repeated at numerous places. You give me a number you pulled out of somewhere

I gave you 88-89 number which is also repeated in numerous places. Geez dude. Do some research.

Though at 120HP, (120 x 17 x 1.25 x .98) + 50 is dead nuts on.

Yes, I knew that.

I'll take that though since it will put the new CRX weight at 1895.



Great, that'll but the CRX weight down to 1895. I'm an HP-car now.

Why do you think what one weight is at has ANYTHING to do with another weight? The mulitiplers are different. AGAIN, the bhiggest reason you can't just 'know' the process and think you 'know' a weight a car should be at. It takes debate, data review and a vote.

 

[tom91ita]

my take on the crx and accord engines were that they were:

1. similar architecture (both 12 Valve, 3 per cylinder engines)
2. similar specific output 61.x HP per liter from the same OEM (91 hp per 1.488 vs. 120 per 1.97ish per memory)
3. similar vintage 85-87 for the crx and 86-89 for the accord

what specific differences there may be in throttle body's and valve sizing, etc. that might make additional reasons why would be 1.25 for the accord vs. 1.4ish for the crx (what you need to input to get to the current weight), i do not know.

 

[Knestis]

FWIW, I think Tom's assumptions are pretty solid. Not enough to make a "confidence" determination but then he shouldn't have to argue for *not* using the standard mulitplier, absent enough information for the ITAC to make a confidence-based judgment to do otherwise.

K

PS - I ignore for this point the issue of whether the standard for those cars should be 1.3. I don't think it should.

 

[lateapex911]

But it didn't. These things are SOOOO easy for me to remember.

120*1.25*17 -50 for FWD +50 for DW = 2550.

Using todays way, 2549 rounded to 2550.

Actually, reading that document, it's a multivalve car, so, the multiplier SHOULD be 1.3.

So, 120 x1.3 =156 x17 = 2703 x .98 =2649. +50 for DW = 2700.

 

[JeffYoung]

3 valve motor. 2 intake valves, and one exhaust. So, multivalve but not 4 valve.

A dilemma!

 

[shwah]

Accord is 120hp.

Golf/Jetta classed as such:

115*1.25*17 -50 for FWD - 50 for beam rear = 2345

If reclassed today:

115*1.25*17*.98 = 2395

Wait a minute? So the Golf 3 is classed correctly with the top line at 2350?

Why then did you guys recommend pulling 10 lbs out of the A2 on my request to review?
105*1.3*17 - 50FWD - 50 beam rear = 2220 --> current spec 2280
(working with the 30% adder that I was told by the ITAC was used for the A2, though I have not been able to duplicate it with a significant effort).
Not even bringing up the fact that the 2.0 in the newer car can see the same or greater gains (much better flowing head in stock form with thin stem valves, and cross flow design, with better flowing air metering device), the numbers don't jive.
Where were the extra 50 coming from when you guys reviewed the Golf 2 in the old structure? Anyone that was in that discussion recall what I am missing here?

Now the "today" version in your post does hit dead nuts on
G2 = 105*1.3*17*.98 = 2274 --> current spec at 2280.

I'm Glad to know that I have a chance to be on par with new classifications, but worried that there are enough on the books the old way to have codified some significant inequities...

EDIT - just to clarify, these are both 2 valve per cylinder cars, so by my understanding the 'base' power adder is 25%. I noticed others above starting to apply the 1.3 to the Jetta 3, and figured there might be some assumption that it was a 16v motor there. It's not.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually, reading that document, it's a multivalve car, so, the multiplier SHOULD be 1.3.

So, 120 x1.3 =156 x17 = 2703 x .98 =2649. +50 for DW = 2700.

IIRC, the original draft said 16V, not 'multi-valve'. The OD is what the CRB guys keep referring too as law when this issue comes up. No issue with 16V cars in ITR, ITS, ITA or VTEC cars that were classed - all referenced in the same draft...

Like I have always said, it was a draft - never written in stone but used as a guideline. Then when ITB cars were to be classed or moved, it became law.

I hate this topic.

 

[lateapex911]

IIRC, the original draft said 16V, not 'multi-valve'. The OD is what the CRB guys keep referring too as law when this issue comes up. No issue with 16V cars in ITR, ITS, ITA or VTEC cars that were classed - all referenced in the same draft...

Like I have always said, it was a draft - never written in stone but used as a guideline. Then when ITB cars were to be classed or moved, it became law.

I hate this topic.

Right...THIS document has re-termed it "multivalve" and also added ITC to what we were told was "the Deal": All 16V cars going in ITB get 30%.

Of course, this is an internal guideline so the ITAC is free to 'define' 'multivalve' as they see fit. And I really doubt certain members are looking to hurt the competitive positions of the .... ahem..... 3 valve cars.

 

[tom91ita]

i would define "multi-valve" as any car with more than 1. then everyone gets the 1.3 factor.

 

[Knestis]

From Darin's September 2005 letter to the CRB, announcing the Great Realignment:

1. [FONT=&quot]Determine IT-Prepped flywheel horsepower potential. If available, use accepted/reliable Dyno HP figures. Otherwise, start using stock HP figures and calculated an estimated IT-Prepped HP figure as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
1. [FONT=&quot] Determine accepted stock HP figures [/FONT]
2. [FONT=&quot]Multiply stock HP by the estimated percentage of HP gained with IT-prep.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ex: 1.20 or 20% for 2V Carbureted[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 1.25 or 25% for 2V FI cars or older ECU cars[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 1.30 or 30% for Multi-Valve FI cars or Modern ECU cars[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 1.35+ or 35%+ for V-Tech, Vanos/Double Vanos, or other engine designs known to have higher potential/gains[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
3. [FONT=&quot]Discuss whether or not this number makes “sense” and recalculate if necessary. [/FONT]
4. [FONT=&quot]For Rotaries, it is generally accepted that an IT prepped 12A makes ~ 45% over factory and that a 13B ~35% over factory.[/FONT]


<snip>
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

I think this was probably THE original, first time a process was codified. Either (1) there's another "original" version of the internal ITAC guide to the Process that's being invoked, (2) the "1.3 multivalve ITB" rule cherry picks from the above ('cause it's NOT all being applied), or (3) someone is revising history to invoke "the deal we made when [Hondas] were allowed in B."

K

PS - The 12v Accord, multiple-stock-power-listings issue should be reconciled by the steps described in the new document. It's NOT safe to assume that they should start with 120hp.