April 08 FastTrack is up

[Andy Bettencourt]

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/08-fastrack-apr.pdf

[JeffYoung]

Thanks Andy.

ITR V8s and RX8 still under review?

[lateapex911]

Thanks Andy.

ITR V8s and RX8 still under review?

Yup, V8s in discussion, RX-8 up next, seen some discussion.

[JeffYoung]

Gotcha. I told Josh S this, I finally (my apologies to Earl and Josh) have the revised ITR spreadsheet done. Will get that to you this weekend after I fill in the last couple of my blocks.

Sorry about the delay, work has been nuts.

thanks again for the hard work.

[77ITA]

no mention of RR damper allowance when originally equipped?.... not even tabled for review?

[dj10]

Gotcha. I told Josh S this, I finally (my apologies to Earl and Josh) have the revised ITR spreadsheet done. Will get that to you this weekend after I fill in the last couple of my blocks.

Sorry about the delay, work has been nuts.

thanks again for the hard work.

Jeff,
Would you please email me a copy too?
Thanks

[JeffYoung]

Dan, I will do that. Remind me again over the weekend if I forget.

Jeff

[lateapex911]

no mention of RR damper allowance when originally equipped?.... not even tabled for review?

I'm not sure why that didn't get a mention...it's getting "heavy airplay" over on the ITAC site. We meet again this coming Monday, I imagine there should be a response forthcoming.

If I read the rules correctly, cars so equipped from the factory MAY change their dampers to units that are non RR, with a max of 2 adjustments. Which means that the OEM units may stay.

[mbuskuhl]

IT – Allow alternate fuel injectors (Ellis-Brown). IT requires stock injectors.


That's a make sense request to me. Nice smart a** reply stating the obvious. You can change fuel with an FPR and ECU but you can't change injectors? Umm, okay.

[Bill Miller]

VW Mk IV Golf to ITB @ 2350#. Would seem to make sense, as it's the same layout/drivetrain as the Mk III, which is spec'd @ 2350#. But, the Mk IV starts w/ ~260# more, based on curb weights listed on Edmunds (2771# for the Mk IV, 2511# for the Mk III, both 2dr GL models). Take off another 300# (180# for driver, 120# for cage), and you need to get that Mk IV down to ~2050#. That's over 700# off the curb weight (over 25% of the cars curb weight). Wow.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Nice smart a** reply stating the obvious.



While we don't write the responses, we sure can do a lot better now that we don't print everything. I will see if we can get more involved and do better.

[gran racing]

That would actually be great idea Andy. Many times I think people come away thinking their items haven't received any attention and just got no, because I said so respone when in reality you guys have spent time discussing it. It doesn't have to be anything lengthy but it would demonstrate that various items were considered.

[seckerich]

IT – Allow alternate fuel injectors (Ellis-Brown). IT requires stock injectors.




That's a make sense request to me. Nice smart a** reply stating the obvious. You can change fuel with an FPR and ECU but you can't change injectors? Umm, okay.


Because if you allow alternate injectors you allow a total change in injection system on some cars. It is always more complicated than it seems on the surface.

[jjjanos]

Andy,

I would have to concur. The printed answers to items 1, 2 and 4 seem rather curt and dismissive.

Item 1. Is asking for a rule change and the cited reason for denying the request to change the rule is the rule itself.
Item 2. Asking for a change in the rule not a clarification of the rule. The cited reason makes it sound like someone is asking for the placement of a comma to create a subordinate clause.
Item 4. The cited reason may leave the impression that the weight was not even reviewed.

Just MO.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am not sure what we can get through but I was thinking something like this: New in bold


1. IT – Allow alternate fuel injectors (Ellis-Brown). Thank you for your input. The committees do not see a need for this allowance at this time.


2. IT – Allow ballast in place of the spare tire (Greene). Thank you for your input. The committees feel the current ballast rules are adequet as written.


3. ITB – Allow alternate gear ratios for the Jetta (Ellis-Brown). Thank you for your input, however no new data has been presented to support the request.


4. ITS – Review the weight of the 1972 Porsche 911E (Allard). Thank you for your input. The car is weighted appropriately in ITS per the classification process.
*************************************************


I know that the 'thank you's' will become almost disingenuous to some but just a few more words could help. Anyone need more than this or am I missing the mark completely?

[jjjanos]

I think you hit the mark dead nuts.

[RacerBowie]

I think you hit the mark dead nuts.

I agree. (My comment has to have at least ten characters.)

[924Guy]

+1... though does anyone out there really think it is even consistent with class philosophy to allow alternate fuel injectors? Maybe I'm missing something, or there's more detail to the request than I'm aware? Sounds (on the face of it) to me like someone wants to run bigger fuel injectors?? Or is it that stock injectors are no longer available??

[mbuskuhl]

I personally don't need bigger injectors, but if you can already control flow with the ECU and an/or FPR, why is it a big deal to allow different injectors? Maybe it's more complicated than the average mechanic understands as Steve hinted to. Would opening up injectors give any car an advantage that couldn't already be achieved with the current rules? Geez, people are talking about RR shocks right now and standalones are legal, injectors are nothing compared to those.

+1 Andy has the right idea on appropriate responses.

[spnkzss]

I personally don't need bigger injectors, but if you can already control flow with the ECU and an/or FPR, why is it a big deal to allow different injectors? Maybe it's more complicated than the average mechanic understands as Steve hinted to. Would opening up injectors give any car an advantage that couldn't already be achieved with the current rules? Geez, people are talking about RR shocks right now and standalones are legal, injectors are nothing compared to those.

+1 Andy has the right idea on appropriate responses.

if you up the fuel pressure your weakest link is still the injector. You can only flow as much fuel as the injector will ultimately allow. Open that up and watch the carb guys scream. Hell, I'm a FI guy and I might have to scream about that one. In a few cases bigger injectors = more power.

I agree with everyone else on the responses to request and how they are posted.

[JamesB]

Sadly but I actually think there may have been more to that. The person may have one of the pesky cars with high impedance injectors but the cheaper ECUs want low impedance injectors. Its not an issue per se, but its an annoying need for a work around.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I seem to be having some formatting issues!

Below is the original request: Seems to be asking for equality between carbs and FI...YMMV.
************************************************** **************************

Rule Change Request

Under item D. Background and current wording,

1a. Reciprocating Engines (only) reads -- “Any carburetor jets, needles, and/or metering rods may be used in the stock or approved optional carburetor(s). Alternate needle valves are permitted. Removable jets may be replaced or resized.”

Carburetors have not been used on American marketed automobiles since the late 80’s or early 90’s. Fuel Injection systems replaced them and some configuration of fuel Injection is now the standard on American marketed cars. The "inner components" of Fuel injectors contain a combination of jets, needles and metering rods that were part of carburetors.

I request that the CRB consider the following changes in order to update the ITCS by incorporating similar / existing language as written in the 2008 ITCS to better reflect the current complement of automobiles that are now included.

Therefore I would like to propose a change to the current ITCS to permit the replacement of fuel injectors on fuel injected vehicles. I submit 2 alternative rule changes to the CRB. To add an item 8 to read:

8. On fuel injected cars it is permitted to replace the fuel injectors as long as no modification is made to the mounting surfaces or inserts of the cylinder head and the stock fuel rail is retained.

OR, to amend item 6 to include

6. ……. Fuel injectors maybe substituted as long as no modification is made to the mounting surfaces or inserts of the cylinder head and the stock fuel rail is retained.


With the most recent changes to the ITCS, specifically the addition of items 6 and 7. on page 331 of the GCR, I believe that this request is within line of the CRB’s philosophy of permitting the upgrading of the Engine Management Computer and the addition of needed / required sensors. I also firmly believe that this change will not add any additional cost or rules creep that is beyond the current thinking of the CRB and the ITCS. I can make myself available at any time to further discuss these change requests and necessary.
************************************************** ***********************

[seckerich]

Or someone with mechanical injection could use the rule to go to electronic and make it work with the opened up ECU and wiring.;) Now you have some serious changes in that classes parity.

[lateapex911]

I personally don't need bigger injectors, but if you can already control flow with the ECU and an/or FPR, why is it a big deal to allow different injectors? Maybe it's more complicated than the average mechanic understands as Steve hinted to. Would opening up injectors give any car an advantage that couldn't already be achieved with the current rules? Geez, people are talking about RR shocks right now and standalones are legal, injectors are nothing compared to those.

+1 Andy has the right idea on appropriate responses.

There are several reasons that the writer might want different injectors....perhaps he actually is rich at certain points, lean at others, and the combination of higher pressure and smaller injectors yields more power. Or vice versa.

To your other points.
"Standalones are legal now." Actually, you should say "Standalones have been legal for years now", assuming you are talking about ECUs. Keep in mind the Process and weighting of the cars was done post open ECU rule.

Which leads to the next point. Cars are classed based on stock hp and a process. The stock HP is made with stock injectors. To now open up injectors would change the balance that exists. Good idea? I think not.

Your RR shock comment is, to my eye, not comparable. First, there is no rule change or proposal regarding RR shocks on the table. Second, people more knowledgeable that I can tell you that RR shocks are not the savior, and won't have seconds off your lap times, no matter how bright you are, compared with monotube or twintube designs. There is a perception that they are the magic bling item that shaves seconds, but that's just it, a perception.

I disagree with the comparison in terms of degree, but mostly because any shock rule would affect all cars more or less evenly while an injector change would not. Any such change would be equivalent to a post classification competition adjustment.

[924Guy]

Or someone with mechanical injection could use the rule to go to electronic and make it work with the opened up ECU and wiring.;) Now you have some serious changes in that classes parity.

EXACTLY. I don't think it's appropriate, at least not with any wording option shown.

Might as well just start re-profiling cams, IMO...

[924Guy]

VW Mk IV Golf to ITB @ 2350#. Would seem to make sense, as it's the same layout/drivetrain as the Mk III, which is spec'd @ 2350#. But, the Mk IV starts w/ ~260# more, based on curb weights listed on Edmunds (2771# for the Mk IV, 2511# for the Mk III, both 2dr GL models). Take off another 300# (180# for driver, 120# for cage), and you need to get that Mk IV down to ~2050#. That's over 700# off the curb weight (over 25% of the cars curb weight). Wow.

Ummm... hang on. I didn't notice this immediately, had to be pointed out... The Mk3 Golf is a single-cam 2.0L, right? But, according to the classification, this is a DOHC 2.0L? Sounds more like an ITA car, to me, than an ITB car. At least at that weight. Bigger brakes than the Mk3 also - doesn't concern me as much, but worth noting...

Doesn't sound like the same car anymore... Did we just move the target?

[Bill Miller]

Ummm... hang on. I didn't notice this immediately, had to be pointed out... The Mk3 Golf is a single-cam 2.0L, right? But, according to the classification, this is a DOHC 2.0L? Sounds more like an ITA car, to me, than an ITB car. At least at that weight. Bigger brakes than the Mk3 also - doesn't concern me as much, but worth noting...

Doesn't sound like the same car anymore... Did we just move the target?

Vaughan,

The Mk IV car has an SOHC motor, not a DOHC motor. VW hasn't offered the DOHC 2.0 since the late A2 Golf/Jetta and the B3/B4 Passats. I didn't catch the issue about the larger brakes.

The reason I posted this, was as a result of the discussion around the Protege landing in ITC. One of the main reasons put forth for it going to C and not B, was it's ability to make the B process weight. It was pretty much the same argument that was used for the New Beetle (which has a curb weight of maybe 50-60# more than the Mk IV Golf). I just don't know how you'll make the ITB process weight w/ a Mk IV Golf. 700# is a lot to get out of a car that starts out at <2800#.

[MMiskoe]

Sometimes I make an ass of myself, here we go.

Current IT rule set says fuel pressure regulators are free as are resistors and sensors.

So why would you lose the protest over having changed your fuel injectors? They are a part of the pressure regulating system....

[924Guy]

Vaughan,

The Mk IV car has an SOHC motor, not a DOHC motor. VW hasn't offered the DOHC 2.0 since the late A2 Golf/Jetta and the B3/B4 Passats. I didn't catch the issue about the larger brakes.

The reason I posted this, was as a result of the discussion around the Protege landing in ITC. One of the main reasons put forth for it going to C and not B, was it's ability to make the B process weight. It was pretty much the same argument that was used for the New Beetle (which has a curb weight of maybe 50-60# more than the Mk IV Golf). I just don't know how you'll make the ITB process weight w/ a Mk IV Golf. 700# is a lot to get out of a car that starts out at <2800#.

OK, cool, thanks for the clarification. I'm definitely no VW expert, just have to go by what's in the book - which is apparently already in need of correction, 'cause it does state DOHC! :blink:

I'm not so sure that larger brakes are so much of a big deal - are the Mk3's so limited in braking? Either way, based on what you've pointed out about the weight, may be a moot point?

As for pressure regulation - is it really reasonable to try to claim that the fuel injectors are part of the pressure regulation system? Put it that way - so's my CIS fuel distributor, so I can replace the whole thing. Good luck with that argument! ;) (but hey, no complaints about playing devil's advocate)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sometimes I make an ass of myself, here we go.

Current IT rule set says fuel pressure regulators are free as are resistors and sensors.

So why would you lose the protest over having changed your fuel injectors? They are a part of the pressure regulating system....

Matt,

Are you saying that the entire 'fuel pressure regulation system', including the injectors, is/are free because you are allowed to ADD an external 'fuel pump pressure regulator'?

[Greg Amy]

Matt,
Are you saying...
Ummm, yeeeeeeeeah. I think Matt's working from "The New Paradigm" but even "The New Greg" finds that a bit of stretch...

;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Funny, I don't see it as a new paradigm so much as I see the intArweb as a vehicle to see how more people 'read' the rulebook. Which is to say I don't think the 'thinking' has changed, just how much you know about other peoples thinking.

[vr6guy]

There are several reasons that the writer might want different injectors....perhaps he actually is rich at certain points, lean at others, and the combination of higher pressure and smaller injectors yields more power. Or vice versa.

To your other points. Actually, you should say "Standalones have been legal for years now", assuming you are talking about ECUs. Keep in mind the Process and weighting of the cars was done post open ECU rule.

Which leads to the next point. Cars are classed based on stock hp and a process. The stock HP is made with stock injectors. To now open up injectors would change the balance that exists. Good idea? I think not.

Your RR shock comment is, to my eye, not comparable. First, there is no rule change or proposal regarding RR shocks on the table. Second, people more knowledgeable that I can tell you that RR shocks are not the savior, and won't have seconds off your lap times, no matter how bright you are, compared with monotube or twintube designs. There is a perception that they are the magic bling item that shaves seconds, but that's just it, a perception.

I disagree with the comparison in terms of degree, but mostly because any shock rule would affect all cars more or less evenly while an injector change would not. Any such change would be equivalent to a post classification competition adjustment.


"perception" huh.... thats a weird word

[seckerich]

Sometimes I make an ass of myself, here we go.

Current IT rule set says fuel pressure regulators are free as are resistors and sensors.

So why would you lose the protest over having changed your fuel injectors? They are a part of the pressure regulating system....

Now thats the biggest streeeeeeetch of a rule I have ever seen.:smilie_pokal:My master cylinder regulates my brake pads and they are free so I will run a tilton setup.:rolleyes: You are thinking outside the box, I'll give you that.

[tom91ita]

brake fluid burns but not real well so it could be a fuel. and fuel pressure regulators are free.

ii think your tilton set-up works on several levels. it is always nice to have spares at the track. spare rules are a good idea as well.

[Knestis]

Injectors are rated based on the volume they flow at give pressures. Aren't they volume regulators, rather than pressure regulators?

I feel bad that I didn't notice the "DOHC" thing in the specs that the ITAC was provided by the Club Racing office.

K

[lateapex911]

"perception" huh.... thats a weird word

Merriam Websters had this entry, which helps illustrate my meaning....


<some sensation of perception of the extremity after amputation is felt by 98% of patients

Perception is a word that is often used to describe that a person believes that something exists in a certain manner, yet in reality, the facts don't always align with the belief, or the perception.

[lateapex911]

Sometimes I make an ass of myself, here we go.

Current IT rule set says fuel pressure regulators are free as are resistors and sensors.

So why would you lose the protest over having changed your fuel injectors? They are a part of the pressure regulating system....

:wacko:

Where's the raised eyebrow smiley?

[MMiskoe]

Well no, I don't reaaaallly think I could win a protest on my logic, but then again, innocent until proven guilty. It is a huge stretch, but what happens when someone gets protested for it and they stand w/ folded arms and tell the scrutineer to prove why it is wrong?

There are two sides to the IIDSYC bit which says, if you can, you can, free = free-for-all.

I just threw this out there for giggles, see what would happen. I have no reason to swap injectors at this time, but I am sure that someone would like to.

Matt

[dickita15]

. It is a huge stretch, but what happens when someone gets protested for it and they stand w/ folded arms and tell the scrutineer to prove why it is wrong?
Matt
My guess is the car would be deemed noncompliant and you argument would be ruled a tortured interpretation.
Reminds me of the SSC driver who put mirrored film on his side windows of his X19. He then ran the runoffs with the windows up based on his interpretation that mirrors are unrestricted. He was told by the stewards that if he ran that way he would be disqualified. He won the runoffs by a good margin and was disqualified.

[shwah]

Hmm. The Golf IV does seem odd to me. Sort of looks like there are two processes for ITB. One for cars classed PP (pre-process), and one for new classifications. I was prepared to wait an see how everything fell out, considering that the Golf III was moved at ITA weight into B - but did happen to fall apparently spot onto process weight. Something seems off, but I was ready to take it as a challenge to prepare/perform better.

But then hearing that the Protege would have been 2140 in B, and seeing that the Golf IV is 2350 in B - I don't know if I have all the confidence that the field is level.

I would love to say I have an altruistic motivation, but of course I race in ITB, and think a lot about how my car stacks up to others, so that is the only reason I start asking questions like:
Why is the Golf III with 12% more displacement, 9.5% more stock power, a modern 'full flow' MAF and 7.4% larger front brakes only 3.5% heavier than my car (with CIS flapper, or vane style MAF)?

Why was the Protege with 12% more displacement, 3% less stock power, vane style MAF and 8.5% larger front brakes 6.5% lighter than my car *(according to ITAC comments about why it was put in C, and what the B weight would have been).

Why is the Golf IV with 12% more displacement, 9.5% more stock power, modern 'full flow' MAF and 17% larger front brakes only 3.5% heavier than my car?

When I ran under the Road America lap record, and had a Golf III that does not have a fully built motor 1.5s faster, I wondered what I can do to get more straight speed out of my car/setup/self, and took it as a challenge. But the numbers just don't add up.

All of these cars are hampered with the same mac strut, fwd layout. When I look at the specs, I struggle to find a reason that my car would be more than 20-30# over the Mazda.

Car------HP stock------CR------displacement-----AFR type------front brake------spec weight
Protege-----102-------9.1-------1991cc---------vane type------10.2"vented---------2140
Golf II-------105-------10-------1780cc----------CIS flapper-----9.4"vented---------2280
---------------------------------------------(or digifant vane flapper)
Golf III------115-------10-------1984cc-------modern full flow---10.1"vented-------2350
Golf IV-------115-------10-------1984cc------modern full flow----11" vented--------2350

Common sentiment is that the process is accurate to within 100#. At this point, I expect my car is very close to that number off (not to mention that if the process is considered accurate to 100#, anything over 50# off process in the ITCS should be corrected - otherwise two cars deemed equal weight by the process that were 'off' in different directions could have up to a 198# gap between them).

I guess I will put this into a letter and send it off to the CRB, and see if I can persuade them to take more than a cursory look at the Golf II, and run it through the same process these other cars are going through.

I hate how that makes me look, and I know competitiveness is not guaranteed, but if we say we believe in the process, we have to use it consistently or it can't do what it was designed to do.

[924Guy]

I guess I will put this into a letter and send it off to the CRB, and see if I can persuade them to take more than a cursory look at the Golf II, and run it through the same process these other cars are going through.

Exactly.

The Golf 3 was just validated, by Gran's letter in I think the previous Fastrack, as a performance benchmark that's appropriate for the class.

[JamesB]

Chris,

What you forget is that when they did the massive look at all of the cars leading into the 2006 season any car within X weight of the process was left unchanged. With how many ITB golfs out there and with no weight change I assume it was close to the process weight.

[shwah]

I didn't forget that.

This is what makes it appear that there is not an equal application of the process.

I have been told that the Golf 2 is maybe 50# over spec weight. Looking at the newer VWs and the Mazda - I don't buy it. If that Mazda would have been 2140, you can't explain away how 3 (or is it 2?) stock hp accounts for 90# (assuming Golf 2 processed to 2230), let alone 140# as I sit today.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I didn't forget that.

This is what makes it appear that there is not an equal application of the process.

I have been told that the Golf 2 is maybe 50# over spec weight. Looking at the newer VWs and the Mazda - I don't buy it. If that Mazda would have been 2140, you can't explain away how 3 (or is it 2?) stock hp accounts for 90# (assuming Golf 2 processed to 2230), let alone 140# as I sit today.

I suppose it's possible that the Golf 2 was classed using known HP instead of the 25% estimate. Write in to the ITAC for 'another look'!

[BlueStreak]

Chris,
You left one out:

Car------HP stock------CR------displacement-----AFR type------front brake------spec weight
Protege-----102-------9.1-------1991cc---------vane type------10.2"vented---------2140
Golf I-------90-------8.5-------1780cc----------CIS-----9.4"vented---------2080
Golf II-------105-------10-------1780cc----------CIS flapper-----9.4"vented---------2280
---------------------------------------------(or digifant vane flapper)
Golf III------115-------10-------1984cc-------modern full flow---10.1"vented-------2350
Golf IV-------115-------10-------1984cc------modern full flow----11" vented--------2350


Warning - (WHINE MODE ON)
The Golf III and the IV are: 20.4 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf II is: 21.7 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf I is: 23.1 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight

Which of the above cases does NOT benefit from the new ECU rule :shrug:

So, not withstanding the big screwing I took in the new ECU rule, I'm stuck running 13% down on "power to weight" to the Golf III. Factor in improvements the later cars get from the new ECU rule, and I wind up down ~ 20% on "power to weight" .

As effective as "the process" is, it would seem that it could still use some tweaking...

Quote from the ITCS: "Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car," - ain't that the truth:rolleyes:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Eddie,

You are using stock number only when making your comparision. Try using wheel hp or actual crank hp in IT trim (if you know it) and see where you come out. Some cars benefit more from IT prep than others. Not saying it changes anything, just an excersize.

Secondly, programmable ECU's have been legal for years now, so the top cars aren't going to gain anything more than they had if they took advantage of the allowance.

[shwah]

I will write in. Regardless of outcome, it will just make me fee better.:)

My experience is certainly only one data point, but 25% is pretty accurate for this motor. More importantly - there is good reason to expect that the newer systems have more potential gain. full flow maf, .017" more cam lift (MkIV), cross flow head.

None of that impacts brake advantages.

[shwah]

Eddie,

Try using wheel hp or actual crank hp in IT trim (if you know it) and see where you come out. Some cars benefit more from IT prep than others. Not saying it changes anything, just an excersize.

I agree that we should use known data when we have it. BUT, then we must go back and review every car at some interval (3yrs?, 5yrs?) for new 'known' data and adjust appropriately. Otherwise the process is not being applied consistently enough to work IMO.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree that we should use known data when we have it. BUT, then we must go back and review every car at some interval (3yrs?, 5yrs?) for new 'known' data and adjust appropriately. Otherwise the process is not being applied consistently enough to work IMO.

This thought process was brought up in the last FT thread. There are some questions in there that need to be addressed before this can happen effectively IMHO.

[BlueStreak]

Eddie,

You are using stock number only when making your comparision.

Andy - I used stock numbers deliberately to sarcastically illustrate how out of whack I perceive things to be. Those with experience with these VWs know that that with the rules as they are now, (was MKII, removed per Chris' suggestion), MKIII, and MKIV will all make a greater power improvement in IT trim than the MKI cars, yet the MKI cars are worse off BEFORE the step up to IT trim comes into play, thus putting them even more behind after everyone steps up to IT trim.

[shwah]

Eddie - I disagree. I don't think the MkII makes any more power with digifant than with CIS type injection.

[BlueStreak]

Chris - I agree, you are correct, I'll update the post. That adjustment aside, do you see my point?

[Knestis]

I'm purposefully silent on this issue out of my "tread lightly" policy where ITB - and particularly Golf III - questions are concerned, to maintain enough distance to satisfy questions of self interest.

While I will share input during ITAC conversations, rather than formally recusing myself from discussions, I soft-pedal my opinions and I'm SURE never going to lobby hard for any particular course of action.

K

[shwah]

Can I say maybe?

The greater point (and it is greater than my own selfish little dilema) is that we have a mixture of cars classed using stock + 25%, because we just don't know any better about them yet either way, and cars classed using something different based on some amount of data that the ITAC members at the time of action felt provided justification to assume greater or lesser power levels from that car. That is fine, but then you have to have a mechanism to go back and fine tune cars that were classed based on a blind 25% assumption as supporting data becomes available to confirm or dispute that.

I think your engine compared to my engine is a good example of why we cannot apply a blanket assumed adder. The differences are: compression ratio (8.5 vs. 10), injection type (CIS lambda for you; CIS lambda, CIS-E, Digifant 2 for me), lifter type (solid for you, hydraulic for me), throttle body (mine is bigger than yours:p) otherwise they share a lot of dimensions and parts, and are very similar motors in most aspects. HOWEVER your motor was saddled with a horrible exhaust manifold from the factory (mine was too, but they changed it before the end of the model run - that alone was worth a 5hp bump in VWs specs). In this case we know, and have empircal data to support, that the Rabbit 1.8 motor will make more gains from a header because of the uber crappy stock manifold.

[shwah]

Kirk - I think that most of us have a lot of trust that you would act as such, even if you didn't say so.

FWIW it is not really about the Golf3 to me. It is also not necessarily about assumed power gains, although that may be the root cause for any one particular percieved inconsistency. It may also be about whether, and to what degree, and how accurately aero is considered, or brakes (I am in your situation - I don't think I have a brake performance problem - but what might happen if I had drastically larger brakes and as a result could try very different pad compound strategies due to different operating temperatures).

The sum of this stuff just does not seem to add up. I am willing to accept that there is a reason for it, but when I send my letter in, if there is a reason for it, I do hope to get a complete accounting of those reasons...

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree that we should use known data when we have it. BUT, then we must go back and review every car at some interval (3yrs?, 5yrs?) for new 'known' data and adjust appropriately. Otherwise the process is not being applied consistently enough to work IMO.

From the other thread:

1. What cars get re-evaluated and when?
2. What sources do you look to for 'evidence'?
3. How much evidence do you need in order to make a change?
4. How small of a change qualifies for an adjustment?
5. If only select cars get re-evaluated, what triggers that evaluation?
6. How do you prove/validate a negative when guys write in and ask for reductions based on their output?

[shwah]

1. Cars that are classed at an assumed 25%
2. What sources were used for evidence on the ones that used empirical data for non 25% justification? Start with those.
3. The ITAC has already decided that by doing this on cars classed today. Enough to convince you I guess.
4. Already addressed by current practice as well.
5. Don't worry any action or non action will cause people to write and complain. It is an unfortunate reality.

The bottom line is that some amount of data has already been determined to be enough to justify variation from the norm in the classing process. The ITAC should keep records of when cars are classed, or re-classed. Look at the cars you classed 5 years ago (or 3 years, or whatever the members of the comittee agree is reasonable). Check to see if any of them are being raced. If they are then go look for data to support expected, or unexpected power gains - I know you can't just look it up in Wikipedia, but you can talk to competitors, engine builders, ITAC members with experience of that engine. Convince yourselves that there is no reason to make a change and tick a check box in the record for that car to indicate that you reviewed it. If there are no cars racing, leave it as is, but check in on it each year when you do this review to see if it needs to be cosidered.

That is an off the cuff shot at a process to do this. It reads like a lot of work, and there is probably a few alternatives at every step that would be better.

You can't pick and choose where you apply a different standard. If it is accepted that some cars don't respond the same, and it has been decided that those cars will be treated differently, we must develop a mechanism to identify those cars on an ongoing basis.

[BlueStreak]

Andy-I'm not after the "process" here. I know how to "fix" that once and for all, and it would incur such a cost that would have to be spread amongst all competitors that it would likely destroy club racing. I'm certainly not after that. So we live with what we have, which, for the costs incurred, is amazingly accurate.

All I'm trying to figure out is how we have arrived at a point where the MKIII and MKIV have a better HP/weight ratio than the MKI car when looking at stock hp/spec weight, when the MKI car has no hope of achieving the ECU power gains possible for the MKIII and MKIV.

So I ask again:

Why are the following cars which will gain power from the ECU allowance classed at a lower weight per HP than similar cars that will NOT gain power from the ECU allowance?

The Golf IV is: 20.4 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf III is: 20.4 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf II is: 21.7 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf I is: 23.1 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight

My suggestion here is that, given the ECU allowance, the list above should be inverted, and I've yet to hear an answer from anyone...




Thanks to everyone who is participating in this discussion- the more I hang around here and ask questions, the more I learn!

[Andy Bettencourt]

1. Cars that are classed at an assumed 25%
2. What sources were used for evidence on the ones that used empirical data for non 25% justification? Start with those.
3. The ITAC has already decided that by doing this on cars classed today. Enough to convince you I guess.
4. Already addressed by current practice as well.
5. Don't worry any action or non action will cause people to write and complain. It is an unfortunate reality.

The bottom line is that some amount of data has already been determined to be enough to justify variation from the norm in the classing process. The ITAC should keep records of when cars are classed, or re-classed. Look at the cars you classed 5 years ago (or 3 years, or whatever the members of the comittee agree is reasonable). Check to see if any of them are being raced. If they are then go look for data to support expected, or unexpected power gains - I know you can't just look it up in Wikipedia, but you can talk to competitors, engine builders, ITAC members with experience of that engine. Convince yourselves that there is no reason to make a change and tick a check box in the record for that car to indicate that you reviewed it. If there are no cars racing, leave it as is, but check in on it each year when you do this review to see if it needs to be cosidered.

That is an off the cuff shot at a process to do this. It reads like a lot of work, and there is probably a few alternatives at every step that would be better.

You can't pick and choose where you apply a different standard. If it is accepted that some cars don't respond the same, and it has been decided that those cars will be treated differently, we must develop a mechanism to identify those cars on an ongoing basis.

1. When do you proactively re-evaluate a car? Do we develop a schedule?
2. What if you can't find the data? How much digging is enough digging?
3. I am asking YOU this. How much evidence is enough to CHANGE a car that has been classed?
4. Again, I am asking you to answer these questions. How small a data is worthy of a weight change?
5. Addressed above
6. You missed this one

[DavidM]

1. When do you proactively re-evaluate a car? Do we develop a schedule?
2. What if you can't find the data? How much digging is enough digging?
3. I am asking YOU this. How much evidence is enough to CHANGE a car that has been classed?
4. Again, I am asking you to answer these questions. How small a data is worthy of a weight change?
5. Addressed above
6. You missed this one

His point Andy is that the ITAC has already answered these questions when they decided to class cars using real numbers. I asked the same question in the previous thread and I don't think ever got an answer. The ITAC would've had to answer 1-5 of your questions in order to class cars with real numbers, so what we're the answers?

The ITAC has set a precedent by classing cars using real numbers and they had better be ready to accept the consequences of doing so. You can't just do a one-time re-evaluation using real numbers for some cars and then say you're never going to do it again. You can't classify some new cars using real numbers because there's data on similar cars, but use the standard 25% on other cars because there's no data. In order to be fair to the cars classed using real data you need an on-going process to re-evaluate cars.

I would say you re-evaluate a car every X years starting X years after the car is classed. 3 years seems like a good number to me. We have a ton of already classed cars, so you spilt them up into thirds and start a rolling evaluation of each third. That's a lot of cars, but the ITAC already has info on most of them, right? All that has to be done is look at the existing info and see if there is any new info.

Race results are a starting point for "evidence". We don't like to use race results as performance indicators, but this is exactly how most of the cars for which real numbers were used were singled out. Dyno sheets are obviously a good source of info. Seems like you'd have to have a dyno sheet in order to know the real world numbers, no? Of course, now that people know the ITAC will use real numbers to classify cars people probably won't be so open anymore. It'd be an interesting exercise to rent a dyno for, say the ARRC, and then require all the IT cars to do some runs (right after qualy). I'm sure there'd be lots of bitching and moaning, but the results would be interesting.

The size of change required for the change to be implemented should be tied to a percentage of the cars classed weight, not some static change like 100 lbs. If the weighting based on the real world data results in a change of X% from the car's current weight then the weight gets updated. 100 lbs is 4% and 50 lbs 2% for a 2500 lb car.

As for proving negatives, I don't think the ITAC does anything about that now so how would that change? Has a car ever been classed using less than 25%? If your car can't make the 25% then maybe you should find another car.

David

[shwah]

1. When do you proactively re-evaluate a car? Do we develop a schedule?
2. What if you can't find the data? How much digging is enough digging?
3. I am asking YOU this. How much evidence is enough to CHANGE a car that has been classed?
4. Again, I am asking you to answer these questions. How small a data is worthy of a weight change?
5. Addressed above
6. You missed this one

Read the words below my listed answers on my last reply too.
1. I actually described proactively developing a schedule in my post. X years after classification look at the cars that you didn't know enough about to do anything else but assume 25%.
2, 3, 4, Sorry Andy. The ITAC has already found a way to answer these questions and take action on some cars already. I don't need to provide a recipe for what you have already done. It may in fact be different answers for each case. You won't be able to write a spreadsheet to do the whole job, just like you can't use one to do the whole classification job.
5. I missed this one on my last reply as a separate item, it was in my response though but you review every car that you blindly assume 25% gain on.
6. I answered this one as 5 the first time.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Guys, I know the ITAC's answers, I am trying to get you to think about what you would do and how you would set this whole thing up if it were you singularly making the decision. I know how much data *I* would like to see in order to validiate it as real - how about you?

Just because we have done stuff a certain way before - or haven't done anything about some things as well, doesn't mean ANY of it is right. YOUR IDEAS are what I am looking for.

I agree that lap times and wins can be a trigger for sure. It is certainly a trigger for a PCA.

I also like the idea on % or car weight. Makes it a lot more fair to the lighter guys.

[shwah]

OK. I get the point.

To be honest I need to stop and think about this for a while. A few days or weeks even. I just don't know if the issue can be institutionalized. By definition each one of these will be a special case. There needs to be some sort of criteria to identify or flag a need for a closer look though.

EDIT - I do hope however that you can understand the frustration of seeing this approach applied already, in the recent past, and then being asked to define how and when it could be applied.

[Knestis]

I worry that these conversations presume (hope?) that every car in the discussion was run through the same process, by the same people, at the same time. That's just not the case. If we could start with a blank slate, there would certainly be fewer inconsistencies.

K

[Bill Miller]

The Golf IV is: 20.4 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf III is: 20.4 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf II is: 21.7 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf I is: 23.1 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight




Look at that list this way Eddie

Golf I: 18.4 lb/hp using 25% gain over stock (90+23=113) @ 2080#
Golf II: 17.4 lb/hp using 25% gain over stock (105+26=131) @ 2280#
Golf III: 16.3 lb/hp using 25% gain over stock (115+29=144) @ 2350#
Golf IV: Assumed to be same as Golf III

These should be reasonable, for the cars in question, as other than that, they're about the same. If anything, the G III and G IV cars should have larger brake adders, so they're really even lighter compared to the G I and G II cars.

Looking at the Golf I, in order for it to be 'in line' w/ the class benchmark for ITB (16.5 lb/hp), it would have to make 126hp in IT trim, or a 40% gain over stock. I've been playing w/ these cars for a looooong time, and I can tell you this w/ 100% certainty, there's no way you get that kind of squeeze out of a 1.8 JH motor in IT trim. Even if you assume a 30% gain, because of the crappy stock exhaust manifold, that puts you @ 117hp and a ratio of 17.8 lb/hp. That's pretty close the current Golf II numbers. The same analysis on the Golf II, to get to a ratio of 16.5 lb/hp puts the output in IT trim @ 138 hp, or a 31%+ gain. Don't see that happening either.

I have to ask though, since the Golf I was run through the process, and did get a weight adjustment, how did it land where it did? Do people really think these cars see a 40% gain in IT trim?

And just for fun:

Protege: 18.4 lb/hp using 25% gain over stock (103+26=129) @ 2375# in ITC
Protege: 16.6 lb/hp using 25% gain over stock (103+26=129) @ 2140# in ITB

[Bill Miller]

I worry that these conversations presume (hope?) that every car in the discussion was run through the same process, by the same people, at the same time. That's just not the case. If we could start with a blank slate, there would certainly be fewer inconsistencies.

K

Kirk,

It's my understanding that when the 'great realignment' was done a couple of years ago, that _most_ of the current members of the ITAC were there.

/edit/ And I'm not sure if you realize it or not, but you've made a good case for documenting and publishing the process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK. I get the point.

To be honest I need to stop and think about this for a while. A few days or weeks even. I just don't know if the issue can be institutionalized. By definition each one of these will be a special case. There needs to be some sort of criteria to identify or flag a need for a closer look though.

EDIT - I do hope however that you can understand the frustration of seeing this approach applied already, in the recent past, and then being asked to define how and when it could be applied.

I understand fully your point, and I am getting the feeling you understand mine. :)

[Dave Zaslow]

Having owned and raced an A1, and owning and racing an A3, I have gone back and looked at the hp/weight ratios of the two cars. With the new A1 weight there is not a lot of difference. I cannot speak to the A2. I would seek out Chris Albin as the go-to person in all things A2.

I hereby authorise Andy to get my dhipped A3's HP & Torque readings from the dyno runs done on Bob Dowie's rig, for ITAC internal use only.

Now please add weight to all Honda's :p !!!!!

DZ

[gran racing]

Come on Dave, I haven't picked on the Golf IIIs for a few months now. (My letter was from this fall.);)

[Knestis]

>> /edit/ And I'm not sure if you realize it or not, but you've made a good case for documenting and publishing the process.

Yup. And not by accident.

We started a spreadsheet prior to last night's ITAC call to record the math and considerations for the cars that are spec'd. Since we are using a process, there's all kinds of good reasons to record how it gets used and the assumptions that underly the decisions that get made during its use.

While at least some of the current ITAC folks were involved in the Great Realignment, record keeping doesn't seem to have been the strong suit of the organization in the past. :)

K

[BlueStreak]

Looking at the Golf I, in order for it to be 'in line' w/ the class benchmark for ITB (16.5 lb/hp), it would have to make 126hp in IT trim, or a 40% gain over stock. I've been playing w/ these cars for a looooong time, and I can tell you this w/ 100% certainty, there's no way you get that kind of squeeze out of a 1.8 JH motor in IT trim.






I have to ask though, since the Golf I was run through the process, and did get a weight adjustment, how did it land where it did? Do people really think these cars see a 40% gain in IT trim?




Thanks Bill, at least someone appears to see my point. Further, when you factor in CIS vs. ECU control, there is a significant difference in performance potential between the cars as weighted. At least I now know 40% is the improvement target - back to the dyno until I make 126:cool:. (now where did I put that Audi throttle body - I'M KIDDING!)

[Bill Miller]

>> /edit/ And I'm not sure if you realize it or not, but you've made a good case for documenting and publishing the process.

Yup. And not by accident.

We started a spreadsheet prior to last night's ITAC call to record the math and considerations for the cars that are spec'd. Since we are using a process, there's all kinds of good reasons to record how it gets used and the assumptions that underly the decisions that get made during its use.

Nice to hear




While at least some of the current ITAC folks were involved in the Great Realignment, record keeping doesn't seem to have been the strong suit of the organization in the past. :)

K


Given all the gnashing of teeth that went on before hand, ESPECIALLY over the lack of any kind of documentation on how car weights were determined (not to mention other little goodies, like the Quad 4 rear brakes :( )it's a real shame that better records weren't kept.


Eddie,

I've got just a little bit of background w/ this one. ;)