Actually you infered in your post that I pulled the 120hp out of my ass. I simply stated the HP (known, so you could recalculate) in the first post. I treated your post with the same respect you treated mine. I had no idea we were now required to cite sources for HP numbers when they are indeed widely known. So be it.
No, I implied it. As for HP numbers being widely known, I googled the car and got HP numbers that differ from yours. Excuse me. You throw out some 120HP number, great. Is that stock? Is that after the IT-build? I'm not taking anything as Gospel.
Why? Based on architecture? I suggest that is a trigger but not the end-all. Intake manifold design, compression ratio, throttle body sizing, etc, etc preclude such hard line assumptions. The early smaller motor was classed using the old-style of 'what was known' in terms of WHP.
Doubtful and more probably that the car was classified with fear as a bogey-man. The CRX was one the CRB's Michael Meyers (it certainly is among the Prod community) and the current weight almost certainly is a derivative of the original weight set. And that weight, almost certainly, is based on
non-IT builds.
Even if the weight was set with definitive numbers from somewhere and someone, those numbers are irrelevant under the current process without the documented proof of source, legality, etc. being put forth.
That means, unless and until demonstrated otherwise, the first gen CRX gets the 1.25 multiplier.
It's not meaningless in that it influenced the current Process - INCORRECTLY. My point is that some of the PTB have referenced that original draft when hard-lining policy...in an INCORRECT and INCONSISTANT (see previous facts and history) manner. And the elephant it has created is the 'multi-valve for ITB and ITC' issue.
NO. The intent and previous wording absolutely is meaningless and irrelevant if what was posted in the first thread is the real process. It's pretty damn clear that weights are set by: HP x Multiplier (wiggle room, but process given) x Class Modifier x FWD + adders.
The document says multi-valve. Therefore, earlier intentions are irrelevant unless and until the document is revised.
And....we can't look to the existing "balance" (of unknown legality, prep level and skill) of a few cars in one series at one track in the country to determine if the apple cart has been upset.
And you can't look at some theoretical "balance" to set real world weights either and I'm beginning to realize that the process was exactly that -- some idea of perfection without sufficient consideration of the real world.
The 2002 will be "fine" if processed.
Remains to be seen if they have that sort of weight to eliminate. The 1G CRX will be fine too if reprocessed. I'd love to have an IT car at the HP weight.
Interestingly though, it seems to fit, very well actually, the newer cars in ITB, like the Mk III Golf, the Civic, the Accord, the Prelude, etc.
Given that their weights essentially were set with the some version of the process, is the above surprising? There is a multitude of existing cars, categorized under a previous rules regime, that are going to lose weight. Weight that might not be stuck in place. Worse, the new process probably won't be applied uniformly and certain cars are going to be told to pound sand because of bias (er... I mean confidence levels).
I just want the current ITAC to remember that they must recuse themselves
entirely when the discussion of reclassifying
any car in their class is on the table.
2. Adjust the class to the 142. This would entail adding significant weight to the other popular cars in the class.
Seems to me that most of the "popular" cars in the category already have that weight and that's the point being overlooked. It's only the
newer cars that would carry the so-called excess weight. Seems to me that rather than asking some of these older cars to shed 3-digits of weight - weight that might not be shedable - a middle ground would have been wiser.
Other than at one track in one region, I think (2) will do far more damage to ITB than good.
Well, the weight of evidence is entirely in my court. I've given evidence where these changes were done without consideration to their impact on a well-established and healthy competition that averages over 15 ITB cars each race.
Give me examples of people foregoing building an ITB car because, despite being competitive atthe heavier weight, the car weighs too much. I.e. "Yeah, the car is competitive at 2255, but until everyone loses 15% of their process weight, the car will just sit in my shed."
Like I said, I'll love having the CRX at HP weight. I might be able to get 2 seasons out a single set of tires.
