99-03 Golf is now in ITB - any thoughts?

[Beran]

Just saw the fasttrack and the 99-03 Golf is in ITB now.
Any thoughts on how good this car will be?
Beran

[shwah]

The first thought I have is that it is basically the same car as the Beetle. So why again is the Beetle a C car?

The MkIV chassis is not a huge advancement over the previous generations. It still has mac strut front, twist beam rear, bad camber curves and an instant roll center that moves too low if you lower it too much.

The unibody is a bit stiffer than the MkIII.

The motors are not significantly better IMO.

The brakes are better.

[JamesB]

Having worked on both the NB and many many many golfs of this platform there is a big difference. The NB would never get down to weight, but I think the mk4 could go on a diet and get pretty close to that min weight for ITB. The rear seatbacks alone weight more then the mk3 golf seatbacks. There is a LOT more insulation to remove. It does have 11.3 brakes, but camber will have to come strictly from the camber plates as there is no adjustments like the mk3 has at the spindle.

Motor is no better, gear ratios are about the same. The car should not be lowered too much if at all due to the front suspension geometry. Unibody is much better then mk3, but really nothing different after a proper cage is installed.

Disabling traction control is pretty easy, ABS is not as easy as some methods cause a complete limp mode. Good chip tuning support through the OBD2 port for instant programmming, though utilizing the aftermarket ECU rules and an early 99-00 drive by cable car would be easier then the later drive by wire cars. I dont know if I would build one myself, but I would definetly help anyone who wanted to build one up.

[Knestis]

The fact that there hasn't been a rush to build NB's for C was taken into consideration during ITAC discussions about the Golf. They are both close enough that the question becomes "perhaps too light in B or a fat-ass in C?" Consensus was that since the latter approach with the NB didn't seem to set anyone on fire, we'd lean the other direction with the Golf.

Not having any direct experience to call on, we presumed that the Golf follows current industry practice of simply piling more junk into a similar steel box as previous versions. Regardless, the ITAC is currently willing to accept that a too-low minimum weight might result - one that's REALLY tough to get to - if that's what the math says it should be.

At this point, the only reasons I'd go the MKIV route would be similar to those I considered when choosing a MkIII over a MkII - it's a generation newer so the parts stream will be longer. I wonder too (based on my experience now w/the MkIII) if the IV's share the awful rust problems we seem to be stuck with...

K

[JamesB]

For rust, I haven't seen it too bad, but they are later model cars. I guess it would depend on if it got past the insanely thick undercoating on these cars.

[shwah]

The brake are a big jump from the Golf III. Thus the spec weight surprises me.

I think it could be a competitive car.

[Knestis]

On 15x6" wheels.

I doubt that the brakes are going to make it significantly better than the MkIII. They've never been a limiting factor on my car, even at places like CMP. But then, I'm not King of the Late Brakers either.

K

[Bill Miller]

The fact that there hasn't been a rush to build NB's for C was taken into consideration during ITAC discussions about the Golf. They are both close enough that the question becomes "perhaps too light in B or a fat-ass in C?" Consensus was that since the latter approach with the NB didn't seem to set anyone on fire, we'd lean the other direction with the Golf.

Not having any direct experience to call on, we presumed that the Golf follows current industry practice of simply piling more junk into a similar steel box as previous versions. Regardless, the ITAC is currently willing to accept that a too-low minimum weight might result - one that's REALLY tough to get to - if that's what the math says it should be.

At this point, the only reasons I'd go the MKIV route would be similar to those I considered when choosing a MkIII over a MkII - it's a generation newer so the parts stream will be longer. I wonder too (based on my experience now w/the MkIII) if the IV's share the awful rust problems we seem to be stuck with...

K

Interesting Kirk, as that was one of the main arguments as to why the Protege went to C instead of B, because the B process weight would be tough to get to.

See my comments in the April FasTrack thread. Based on the published curb weights, is there really 260# of extra stuff (that can legally be removed) from a Mk IV over a Mk III?

As far as the NB in ITC, and people not jumping to build them. I wonder if it's a case of it being a car that people are not interested in racing? The fact that it's a tad on the heavy side would probably help push the fence-sitters. Regardless, maybe it makes sense to move it to ITB. If the philosophy is to class cars at weights that may not be achievable, why not?

[Knestis]

Yeah - it seems like for some of the options we're asked to list, there's no really good answer.

We can go heavy one way or light the other, but with the "tweeners" there are as many good reasons to NOT choose one course of action as there is to choose it. The MkIV tipped the scale one way, the Protege the other - based on the best information we had to work with.

It's impossible to know the Truth before someone an example of a new car, and frankly still really tough to sort the facts from fiction AFTERWARD. (See also, "1st generation MR2")

K

EDIT - And please remember that my comments about the ITAC as a body are filtered through my perceptions. I cannot see into the souls of my fellow committee members on a conference call. Recognize too, we work toward consensus decisions - one definition of which is that EVERYONE is a little pissed off about the final answer. :)

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

You do know that you're making a pretty strong case for dual-classification w/ posts like this, don't you? ;)

I admit, it's a tough call. Are people more likely to build a car that they know they can't get close to the spec weight on, or are they more likely to build one that's seems to be overly bloated? And I know it's not as simple as that. There's the issue of exactly which classes are in question. I don't think you'd have the same issues w/ ITS vs ITA as you would ITB vs ITC. By that I mean to say, I don't think the class would come into play (much) w/ the ITS/A case, as it would w/ the ITB/C case. ITS and ITA are pretty healthy, regardless of where you go. The same can't be said for ITC. So, people may be less inclined to build a car for ITC, regardless of the other factors. Having something that's carrying a bunch of extra weight doesn't help sway them in a positive way (assuming that you want them to build the ITC car).

So, why not class the cars in both places, and let the 'market' decide? I know it gets stick on the ITA/B side, because of the wheel issue. And I know it gets sticky when you have class weights that are on either side of the cage size boundaries. That means you probably won't get a lot of cross-over cars running both classes, but if you're looking at new cars, it becomes less of an issue, as people will build the cars for the class they want to race in.

I'm trying to get my hands around the resistance to dual-classification. Or at least what people see as major reasons not to.




Yeah - it seems like for some of the options we're asked to list, there's no really good answer.

We can go heavy one way or light the other, but with the "tweeners" there are as many good reasons to NOT choose one course of action as there is to choose it. The MkIV tipped the scale one way, the Protege the other - based on the best information we had to work with.

It's impossible to know the Truth before someone an example of a new car, and frankly still really tough to sort the facts from fiction AFTERWARD. (See also, "1st generation MR2")

K

EDIT - And please remember that my comments about the ITAC as a body are filtered through my perceptions. I cannot see into the souls of my fellow committee members on a conference call. Recognize too, we work toward consensus decisions - one definition of which is that EVERYONE is a little pissed off about the final answer. :)

[Rabbit05]

Now that the MKIV has been classified.:happy204:

I wanted to ask for your guy's honest opinion. Since you all have been running VW's longer than I have, and have way more experience. Can the MKII Golf still a competitive package in ITB? I see that Beran , and Kirk are runnign MKIII's , along with Tim M.s MKIII here in the NE . Has the MKII gone the way of the MKI ? :shrug:

Thanks for your Opinions in advance.

-John

[Beran]

John -
I have raced all three, the MK1, 2 and 3. I have most of my racing hours in a couple different MK2s. (since 1993)
IMHO the MK3 is better than the 2 and the 2 is better than the 1.
Of course car preparation and driver skill provides enough of a difference in lap times to allow someone to win or place ahead of the Mk3 or MK2.
So - driver and prep being equal the order is Mk3, Mk2, and Mk1.
This is especially true for longer tracks.... not as much true for shorter tracks like Lime Rock.
I actually like the feedback from the MK2 a little better than the Mk3.
We do have a 2 door Mk4 that I just picked up a couple weeks ago for $500 that is in very good condition. I have been driving it on the road and I like the feedback and general feel of the car allot however I am not positive it will be faster than the MK3 for a number of reasons.
We are in the middle of building a second Mk3 (2 door this time) and we are incorporating everything we have learned from my current Mk3 4 door... and changes that should make it better.
So far VW has made the MK series better each time they make changes even within the Mk3 platform... e.g. later years are better.... just not sure if that will carry to the Mk4
My .02
Beran
feel free to call or email me -
beran at beranpeter dot com
also - the front air dam and other stuff I use i'd be happy to share...

[Knestis]

I'm convinced at this point that if equally prepared and developed there's not much separating the MkII and MkIII platforms. In fact, I think you might be able to get closer with a moderate budget with a MkII.

I chose the newer one ONLY because I wanted something that was a generation farther from vintage status, with parts still available, etc. If you put a good shoe in the MkII that Bildon still hasn't sold (so far as I know), it would be competitive.

The MkIV is going to be right in there, too.

Your mileage may vary and note that Beran's judgments are from firsthand driving experience. Mine are bigger and wobblier so I'd trust his input if I were you.

K

[Beran]

I agree with Kirk.
The MK2 has not gone the way of the MK1 at this point. The MK2 is right there. In New England region there are MK2's that win and beat the MK3's consistently.
From an investment point of view, avilability of parts, and longevity - one would not consider an MK1 platform for ITB at this point. If the price is right then an MK2 is a great way to go. Some of the stuff you can move over from your MK2 to an MK3... struts, rims, etc. The MK3 will hold it's value longer if there is such a thing in a race car then the MK2.
B

[Rabbit05]

Well asking the guys in the know is what i was after. I have a MKII ,with all the go fast stuff, It just needs to be built. But with the addition of the MKIV ,I was interested in something new and exciting. I think I will stick with the older car, I tend to do better with those.:eclipsee_steering:

Beran ,
I have a few questions to ask of you about the MKII . I 'll drop you an email in the morning. Gotta run ,the future wifey is calling. (6 weeks and counting till W-Day) :smilie_pokal:


-john

[Bill Miller]

I agree with Kirk.
The MK2 has not gone the way of the MK1 at this point. The MK2 is right there. In New England region there are MK2's that win and beat the MK3's consistently.
From an investment point of view, avilability of parts, and longevity - one would not consider an MK1 platform for ITB at this point. If the price is right then an MK2 is a great way to go. Some of the stuff you can move over from your MK2 to an MK3... struts, rims, etc. The MK3 will hold it's value longer if there is such a thing in a race car then the MK2.
B

Beran,

Do you feel that the decision to not go w/ a Mk I is solely based on age of the car / availability of parts? Rabbits (and Mk I Sciroccos) still seem fairly popular in ITC, although I don't know if anyone is building new cars out of them. And as far as the availability of parts, the mechanical stuff is all still readily available, it's the body parts that are getting harder to find.

[Conover]

I don't think it's going to be any better, probably a little worse. Mini Cooper is going to be nice, someone please send me a mini and a big ol check!

[Beran]

Bill - yes the Mk1 is impossible to get sheetmetal for. I can buy a fender or hood for an MK3 for cheap money and get it from many sources. You can actually buy almost any part including floor panels which we did for the current one we are building.
Sooner or later we all need body work done - either from on track stuff or even off track hauling, moving, dumb moves etc. Aside from age related issues they are great/fun and easy to work on.

John - feel free to email.

B

[Knestis]

... You can actually buy almost any part including floor panels which we did for the current one we are building.

Yay! Beran's in the club!

K

[Rabbit05]

I dont know if you guys know about this site, heres the page :

http://www.rsjparts.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=29_30&osCsid=2c108196d618d7526944884fcea6493a

Not bad deal for MKI panels and stuff.

You would think the MKI would be a little better, being that it's lighter. And the GTI's came with vented front rotors..Does the MKI put out the same HP as the CIS MKII ?

-John

[Andy Bettencourt]

Does the MKI put out the same HP as the CIS MKII ?

-John

Not being a wise-ass, just trying to stay up to speed...

SHOULD they put out the same hp? There is a 200lb (10%) difference in min weight...

Bill could answer this probably: Max whp for each of the 3 Gens.

[Greg Amy]

Rabbit (Mk1) 1.8L GTi is rated at 90hp crank (JH engine, 8.5:1 compression). Uses hydro-mechanical Bosch K-Jetronic. Some say the "90" was optimistic...

Golf (Mk 2) 1.8L (8-valve) GTi was rated at 102hp crank (RD engine; 10.1:1 compression). Uses CIS-E KE-Jetronic. Same basic hydro-mechanical with some electronics control. Later Digifant with 105hp.

Golf (Mk 3) 2.0L (8-valve) GTi was rated at 115hp (ABA engine?; 10:1?). UsesMotronic electronic fuel injection.

Golf (Mk 4) 2.0L (8-valve) was rated at 115hp (same ABA engine as Mk3, I believe?)

Bill (or whomever) please double-check this info.

Andy, you're not implying you won't re-run them through the classification process unless you have real-world, built, dyno numbers, are you...?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am trying to remember why the 90hp VW is not in ITC. I have a feeling it is because it responds well to IT prep.

[AjG]

Oh come on… trying to decide which Golf is worse.
All four of them probably still make the top 5 ITB “cars to have”.
My eyes hurt from rolling.

[Greg Amy]

I am trying to remember why the 90hp VW is not in ITC. I have a feeling it is because it responds well to IT prep.
The Rabbit GTi had a TERRIBLE exhaust manifold from the factory. Absolutely dreadful. The head is NOT a crossflow, though the cam was a bit aggressive (certainly relative to the 76hp 1.7L.) It'll get some ponies from the 1/2 compression bump. I'm thinking we saw ~100 wheel ponies from Jeff Lawton's old Kessler-built Rabbit GTi...?

I suggest the most likely reason it's not considered for ITC is that it started in ITA (I actually raced one way back then), and is now in ITB. Plus, the drivers probably don't want to go to ITC. With a base of 90 ponies, it's certainly, on paper, an ITC candidate... - GA

[Knestis]

I think things would be a little clearer were it not for the "G" camshaft. That option kind of weaseled its way into common practice on the MkI GTI and I seem to recall that it makes a pretty substantial difference. That influences perceptions - positively - about what the car is capable of. I've been clear with Andy and the rest of the ITAC that I continue to be uncomfortable with the practice of using "known gains" or "real power" in classification decisions, but there's still a strong temptation to gut-check the math against perceptions.

I'm also pretty sure that there's no way we can be expected to account for something as qualitative (and small) as the differences between CIS and Digifant injection.

Finally, I am on record as thinking that the MkIII Golf is about spec'd about 50# light, relative to where the raw math puts it. General practice says that +/-50 is within the tolerances that ITAC members are OK with - in this case, the error is in favor of the MkIII. That accounts for some of the difference.

K

[gran racing]

:D I'm sure Andy and Jake are thinking "that's just what Dave needed to hear." LOL! Out of curiosity, do you guys use the 50+/- for all IT classes? Or do you use a different tolerance for slower classes that have 100 hp where 50 lbs means much more than a car that has 240 hp?

So why shouldn't the MK IV be classed at the process weight of 50 lbs higher? Now granted if the Golf III is essentially the same car and classed at the lower weight, it could be easily argued that the new Golf should have the same weight. Or do you class another car knowing it's off by 50 lbs, while not sure what long-term consequences it may (or probably wouldn't?) have. I can't honestly say which way this should go since the Golf III will remain at its current spec weight.

One part of me thinks back to what happened to ITA. One car got in there classed incorrectly, which lead to more and more then it became the new class standard. Is the Golf III now the car in which new cars are being classed to mirror? I also recognize that what essentially became the spec CRX / Integra class was a much greater difference than 50 lbs.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually, the MKIII is classed right on in terms of the process. There is no 'mirror' car.

Where ITA is now isn't exactly where you think it is Dave. If you are refering to the CRX, remember, once the process was applied, cars got heavier and lighter that were outside that envelope (100lbs). So that envelope is not designed around anything that was 'misclassed'.

David M came up with a good idea to use a % of weight and I am trying to think about how to put that into 'production', but yes - currently 100lbs is the barometer for consideration (not +/- 50). I am thinking 4% right now. That's 100lbs on a 2500lb car, 80lbs on a 2000lb car and 120lbs on a 3000lb car. But then again, are we squabbling over 20lbs in IT?

[gran racing]

Where ITA is now isn't exactly where you think it is Dave. If you are referring to the CRX, remember, once the process was applied, cars got heavier and lighter that were outside that envelope (100lbs). So that envelope is not designed around anything that was 'misclassed'.

Sure it is. Prior to this regime, a car(s?) was classed and it did better than anticipated. Another car was classed to be on par with that. The once front running RX7s and other cars got pushed down in terms of their competitiveness potential in the class. A new standard was created.

[JLawton]

I think people are getting too wound up thinking the MK1 is not competative. It is FAR from going the way of the 1st gen RX7. And from what I've seen so far (granted, I'm going by on-track performance <slapping own hand>) the MKIII is not the next BMW 325.

[Knestis]

>> Or do you class another car knowing it's off by 50 lbs...

Dave - you need to revisit the difference between what "Kirk thinks" and what the "ITAC knows."

My personal position (and I'm allowed to have them distinct from the ITAC) is influenced by my rounding down to make sure folks understand that I'm not pimping my own ride. I'm going to continue to take a conservative view of my own make/model's competitive position because frankly, I don't for one second buy that the we got our ARRC win because of 50 pounds. Or 100 pounds. Or whatever you think should be added to the MkIII. And I think perceptions of my role on the ITAC are more important than whatever minuscule advantage a few less pounds might get me.

ITAC members don't really have the luxury of being able to lobby for their personal interests, like some folks spend a lot of effort doing.

K

[Bill Miller]

Rabbit (Mk1) 1.8L GTi is rated at 90hp crank (JH engine, 8.5:1 compression). Uses hydro-mechanical Bosch K-Jetronic. Some say the "90" was optimistic...

Golf (Mk 2) 1.8L (8-valve) GTi was rated at 102hp crank (RD engine; 10.1:1 compression). Uses CIS-E KE-Jetronic. Same basic hydro-mechanical with some electronics control. Later Digifant with 105hp.

Golf (Mk 3) 2.0L (8-valve) GTi was rated at 115hp (ABA engine?; 10:1?). UsesMotronic electronic fuel injection.

Golf (Mk 4) 2.0L (8-valve) was rated at 115hp (same ABA engine as Mk3, I believe?)

Bill (or whomever) please double-check this info.

Andy, you're not implying you won't re-run them through the classification process unless you have real-world, built, dyno numbers, are you...?

Your numbers are on the money Greg.


I think things would be a little clearer were it not for the "G" camshaft. That option kind of weaseled its way into common practice on the MkI GTI and I seem to recall that it makes a pretty substantial difference. That influences perceptions - positively - about what the car is capable of.

Kirk,

Any Rabbit GTI running a G-grind cam is flat out cheating. It is certainly a better cam than the stock GTI cam, but it's not legal in a Rabbit GTI. We keep hearing about some mythical allowance that let's people run them in the ITC 1.6 cars, but I have yet to see anyone produce anything, other than hearsay, that supports its legality. Jeremy certainly doesn't have anything. And, I suspect that were someone to protest one that was in an ITC car, that car owner would be shopping for a new camshaft.

Off the top of my head, here's the cam specs as best as I can recall. Stock Rabbit GTI cam, .396" of lift, stock 1.6 Rabbit/Scirocco cam .405" of lift, G-grind (euro GTI 1.6 10:1 Heron motor cam) .423" of lift.

The G-grind was an easy power gain on the GTI's, but ONLY if you dumped that horrible exhaust manifold first.

100whp out of a Rabbit GTI is pretty close to what you would expect from a good IT build, assuming you get a 30% gain out of IT prep. 30% may be a better estimate than 25%, as that stock exhaust manifold was really bad.

Jeff,

All else being equal (prep, driver, etc.), at the new weight, a Mk I and a Mk II are probably pretty well matched. No way does a Mk I stand a chance against a Mk III in that situation. The Mk II is pretty much in the same boat. 70# for 10 more hp in stock form (which turns into 13 more hp w/ a IT build)? Doesn't add up. 125-150#, maybe. Which is pretty much where Kirk puts it w/ his estimate of the car being 50# light.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sure it is. Prior to this regime, a car(s?) was classed and it did better than anticipated. Another car was classed to be on par with that. The once front running RX7s and other cars got pushed down in terms of their competitiveness potential in the class. A new standard was created.

I will disagree. The RX-7 fits the ITA target just as well as anything else in the class. Tough to define the 'new standard' when they all fit the process.

[gran racing]

I don't for one second buy that the we got our ARRC win because of 50 pounds. Or 100 pounds. Or whatever you think should be added to the MkIII

Kirk, I never said that nor ever meant to imply it. I fully agree and honestly am no longer lobbying for the Golf III's weight to be increased. While I still think it's a bit light, it's been through the process and it is what it is. But how could this thread not peek my interest? And how it could impact the classification of another Golf model.


The RX-7 fits the ITA target just as well as anything else in the class.

I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying; maybe you read it too quickly or I didn't write it clearly? My point was that ITA had a performance target, cars were classed which eventually lead to that target being increased (by accident, ala CRX / Integra), which caused issues. Isn't that exactly why you guys reduced the RX7 weight among the other adjustments?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm saying; maybe you read it too quickly or I didn't write it clearly? My point was that ITA had a performance target, cars were classed which eventually lead to that target being increased (by accident, ala CRX / Integra), which caused issues. Isn't that exactly why you guys reduced the RX7 weight among the other adjustments?
But we decreased the weight of the RX-7. So the target was somewhere in the middle of the two cars original weight.

Maybe my point is that each class NEVER had a documented performance taget. That was the whole trigger for a need for a process. There was never a methodology or any written targets. So to say it 'moved' is why I am hung up on it.

[gran racing]

There was never a methodology

So they just took turns throwing darts to see which class & weight cars got classed in? :p Maybe it wasn't document, then again nor is "the process" at least on a public level, but I don't for a minute believe previous ITAC members completed their jobs blindly.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So they just took turns throwing darts to see which class & weight cars got classed in? :p Maybe it wasn't document, then again nor is "the process" at least on a public level, but I don't for a minute believe previous ITAC members completed their jobs blindly.

I'll give you my opinion on that over a beer in private...:D

[JLawton]

>> ITAC members don't really have the luxury of being able to lobby for their personal interests, like some folks spend a lot of effort doing.

K


Ahmen brother. As the song says, "shut up and drive!!"


:)

[Knestis]

>> So they just took turns throwing darts to see which class & weight cars got classed in?

Prior to the Miller Ratio idea (c.2000) and Darin taking the first draft of the "Process" to the board, prior to the Great Realignment, you only WISH it was that repeatable. IT History Quiz: What year did the 2-liter Nissan NX finally find its way out of ITS? We need to remember that it was not long ago at all, that things were well and truly f'd up.

K

[shwah]

Heck the Rabbit GTI started life as an ITA car. That is how much the classing process has changed over the years.

One comment on all the hp numbers that keep getting bantered about on this board. Whp numbers car vary widely using the same car on the same brand machine, heck even the same machine - due to the variables involved - even when applying a correction factor. Yet they are often tossed out as gospel.

[Knestis]

That is indeed another factor, Chris - performance creep. (That's different than rules creep.) This happens in all of our classes as a sort of natural selection as drivers tend to choose cars that are marginally faster. The imaginary "index" of performance rises.

To suggest that the classing process has changed over the years suggests that there used to be one process, and now there's another. In fact, there have been perhaps dozens of ad hoc processes applied (as opposed to Ad Hoc Committee) over the years.

K

[dickita15]

The RX-7 fits the ITA target just as well as anything else in the class. Tough to define the 'new standard' when they all fit the process.:(

Then I guess there are still some issues with the process. I think it has failed this car.

[lateapex911]

Since you brought it up...
(and I know this is about Golfs, but as we're discussing paradym shifts and class history....an ITA history lesson---

Back in "the day"...say '91 or so, the RX-7 was enjoying much success in ITA. Some saw it as the "dominant" car. It was, if you defined "dominant" as "the car with the most wins". But...a well prepped and well driven Mazda RX-3Sp could always run with an equally well prepped and well driven RX-7. And BMW 2002tii's were right there as well, except few had the skills and patience to deal with the Kleiglefucher (I know, a little joke there, the real name escapes me) mechanical injection system.

Then came the CRX. On paper, it didn't look wrong...but then a certain driver (who weighed over 300 pounds), started beating track record holders. And other CRXen got built and did very well. In time, the PTB (at that time I don't think the ITAC existed) saw the issue. (We've been over this- sorry for those that know the ending) What to do? Can't lower the weight, although it's an obvious mistake...(born from the car being more than it's stock numbers suggested, or a simple misweight, or it being a classic overachiever in the engine dept, you choose) so, the only solution is to add other cars to keep the class from becoming a one horse show. Enter the 240SX, and the Integra, etc. And, the track records fell. Indeed, the class performance bar had been raised. No RX-7 or 2002tii or RX-3 could compete.
(Rough numbers: CRX: 2140 lbs, 127 or so at the wheels with tq in the 115 range..(help me if I'm remembering wrong), good susp. and brakes.
RX-7: 128- 130 or so at the wheels, 102 tq, live rear axle and ok brakes, but...2380 pounds. 240 pounds more, inferior handling and braking, (relative) and about a 15% deficit in tq. See the issue?

Enter the ITAC...it matures and shows it's worth, and in time, develops the "Process" and makes a major adjustment, know as the "Great Realignment"(TM) henceforth known as "GA"....which is Not theGreg Amy.

Among other things, the RX-7 went to 2280, and the CRX got 110 pounds added. So, the GA attempted to right the wrongs of the past, but there were constraints...the RX-7 for example was thought to be at the absolute minimum...or even an unachievable level with it's new weight. Is it enough?
Some say no....but it's better than it was, obviously.

So, to sum up, YES, the performance paradigm shifted higher when the CRX (and subsequent 'fixes') joined ITA, and it was lowered somewhat in the GA, but....not nearly to earlier levels.

As to the RX-7, it is my feeling that it is a car that isn't treated well by the process in ITA, as the process fails to account for it's dismal TQ, and there is no nod to the "antique" suspension, but as the car sits at a weight most can't get to, how could there be? What to do? (We've beaten that to death, so we won't go there..this isn't about the RX-7 per se' anyway)

(Now, this is my opinion...as an ITAC guy I say "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and my attention focuses on other issues. And as I have an RX-7, it's certainly not my place to champion it's causes in the ITAC.)

[Knestis]

...and I know that I'm guilty of cross-pollination of topics but this is a good example. If we blindly ran the basic "formula," the first RX7 would be in even worse shape than it's in - both absolutely and relative to the CRX (on paper).

It's the easy way out to be for a system if it works for us and against it if we perceive it hurts our personal competitive interests. I think we should have forced this kind of conversation before implementing the Realignment but going forward...?

What do we believe?

K

[RSTPerformance]

Since you brought it up...
(and I know this is about Golfs, but as we're discussing paradym shifts and class history....an ITA history lesson---

Back in "the day"...say '91 or so, the RX-7 was enjoying much success in ITA. Some saw it as the "dominant" car. It was, if you defined "dominant" as "the car with the most wins". But...a well prepped and well driven Mazda RX-3Sp could always run with an equally well prepped and well driven RX-7. And BMW 2002tii's were right there as well, except few had the skills and patience to deal with the Kleiglefucher (I know, a little joke there, the real name escapes me) mechanical injection system.

Then came the CRX. On paper, it didn't look wrong...but then a certain driver (who weighed over 300 pounds), started beating track record holders. And other CRXen got built and did very well. In time, the PTB (at that time I don't think the ITAC existed) saw the issue. (We've been over this- sorry for those that know the ending) What to do? Can't lower the weight, although it's an obvious mistake...(born from the car being more than it's stock numbers suggested, or a simple misweight, or it being a classic overachiever in the engine dept, you choose) so, the only solution is to add other cars to keep the class from becoming a one horse show. Enter the 240SX, and the Integra, etc. And, the track records fell. Indeed, the class performance bar had been raised. No RX-7 or 2002tii or RX-3 could compete.
(Rough numbers: CRX: 2140 lbs, 127 or so at the wheels with tq in the 115 range..(help me if I'm remembering wrong), good susp. and brakes.
RX-7: 128- 130 or so at the wheels, 102 tq, live rear axle and ok brakes, but...2380 pounds. 240 pounds more, inferior handling and braking, (relative) and about a 15% deficit in tq. See the issue?

Enter the ITAC...it matures and shows it's worth, and in time, develops the "Process" and makes a major adjustment, know as the "Great Realignment"(TM) henceforth known as "GA"....which is Not theGreg Amy.

Among other things, the RX-7 went to 2280, and the CRX got 110 pounds added. So, the GA attempted to right the wrongs of the past, but there were constraints...the RX-7 for example was thought to be at the absolute minimum...or even an unachievable level with it's new weight. Is it enough?
Some say no....but it's better than it was, obviously.

So, to sum up, YES, the performance paradigm shifted higher when the CRX (and subsequent 'fixes') joined ITA, and it was lowered somewhat in the GA, but....not nearly to earlier levels.

As to the RX-7, it is my feeling that it is a car that isn't treated well by the process in ITA, as the process fails to account for it's dismal TQ, and there is no nod to the "antique" suspension, but as the car sits at a weight most can't get to, how could there be? What to do? (We've beaten that to death, so we won't go there..this isn't about the RX-7 per se' anyway)

(Now, this is my opinion...as an ITAC guy I say "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and my attention focuses on other issues. And as I have an RX-7, it's certainly not my place to champion it's causes in the ITAC.)

Jake-

Very well summed up... Growing up I remember watching every Northeast ITA race from the begining through the mid 90's watching Dad until he moved on and my bro and I went on into ITB... I remember the Capri, Corvaire, and RX-3 battles then the MR2 and 914 came into play as the cars to have before the RX-7 moved in... I can say it sucks that Chuck got those CRX's so fast and that the ITAC ignored the problem and just added faster cars basically destroying the "old" ITA class for years to come. However I do think that the new process is 100 times better than it used to be. I would have liked to see a class added between ITS and ITA rather than ITR added, but that is another story... At least we no longer have "a car to have" for each class. We now have 5+ options of competitive cars per class. They might not be the cars we want or remember, but at least we have options again.

Raymond "I guess Chuck wasn't cheating way back then?" Blethen

[lateapex911]

Jake-

..... I can say it sucks that Chuck got those CRX's so fast and that the ITAC ignored the problem and just added faster cars basically destroying the "old" ITA class for years to come. .........

Raymond "I guess Chuck wasn't cheating way back then?" Blethen

Remember, the ITAC didn't exist then...it came to be in the late 90s ....and don't blame the CRB for ignoring the situation, there was nothing they could do. Thank yourself, Kirk Knestis, Bill Miller, Scot Giles, Andy Bettencourt, myself and a bunch of others, especially Darin Jordan, for finding a way in the GCR that resulted in the ability to move and re-weight cars. Without that, we'd be nowhere.

That period, which I'll call "The members unite", henceforth know as TMU (TM) was pivotal in the history of IT.


Jake, "Don't be so sure of that, LOL" Gulick

[RSTPerformance]

Remember, the ITAC didn't exist then...it came to be in the late 90s ....and don't blame the CRB for ignoring the situation, there was nothing they could do.

Jake, "Don't be so sure of that, LOL" Gulick


Jake-

In those early 90's I was far to young to get involved in the politics of the club... I was just getting over the period in my life when I ran the checkered flags from the pits back to start finish at Bryar... LOL

Thanks for the education, I wasn't aware that the ITAC didn't exist. For those interested can you give us some history on how/why the ITAC started and maybe some of the milestones that the group has had at making this entire class structure one of the best in the country?

thanks;

Raymond "Way off topic, but this is interesting and this does explain a lot of the VW classification changes over the years" Blethen

[dickita15]

In the old days IT was kind of a throw away class and because it had the “no guarantee of competitiveness” clause “regional class only” clause, there was not a lot of thought given to adjustments by the CRB or as it was called then Competition Board. It just was not taken seriously.
At some point as the number grew people had to recognize the IT racing had to be taken seriously.

[Greg Amy]

Wow, has it been THAT long now...?

[Scirocco#28]

Does anybody know if the MkIV Jetta is in the pipeline for classification? They seem to be way easier to source from the wreckers and insurance yards.

[Knestis]

Nobody has requested classification - at least not that's made it from the club racing office to the ITAC agenda.

K

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

I'm not sure why a proactive approach wasn't taken on the Jetta. Same chassis/drivetrain as the Golf, same suspension, etc. Only difference is the body configuration. All of the other generations of Golf/Jetta are classified.

I do see where it might be an issue though, as it shows a curb weight of ~220# greater than the Golf (2892# vs 2671#). I would expect the spec weights to be the same. Given that it's still a big ? if the Golf can actually make weight, it's probably a real stretch for the Jetta to lose that extra 220#.

A little further digging shows the Jetta to have a great curb weight than a New Beetle from the same year, in the same trim level (2892# vs 2817#).

[Knestis]

I made a little noise on the ITAC web forum about doing just that but there's enough business on the committee's plate that I think we need to pay attention to actual members' requests first. Had it been as simple as duplicating the Golf IV, we could have done it but I looked at the curb weights, too and came to the same questions you've listed. Those "can it make weight, what class is it in?" conversations use up a lot of conference call time - particularly to list a car that nobody has requested and might never get built, so I didn't push it.

K

[Bob Burns]

Remember, the ITAC didn't exist then...it came to be in the late 90s ....and don't blame the CRB for ignoring the situation, there was nothing they could do. Thank yourself, Kirk Knestis, Bill Miller, Scot Giles, Andy Bettencourt, myself and a bunch of others, especially Darin Jordan, for finding a way in the GCR that resulted in the ability to move and re-weight cars.

To all, I apologize for resurrecting an old thread, but I saw some things here that I thought bore revision.

Just prior to the 1990 SCCA National Convention, I was asked by Doug Reed, who was then a manager at SCCA Club Racing, to join the Comp Board's IT Ad-Hoc Committee. At that time, the committee consisted of Frank Eubel as Chairman, Brian Holtz, myself, and a few other guys whose names escape me. The IT Ad-Hoc Committee was the only such committee the Comp Board had at that time.

When Frank was appointed to the Comp Board a few years later, Brian became Chairman of the IT committee. Then, when Brian was appointed to the Comp Board in 1994, I was appointed Chairman of the IT committee. A couple of years later, American Sedan was made a National class and I petitioned the Comp Board to form an AS Ad-Hoc Committee and appoint me Chairman. They acted affirmatively on both requests. I've been sitting here trying to remember who was appointed Chairman of the IT committee after I left, but I've killed too many brain cells since then.

I was later appointed to the Comp Board and served from 1997 through 2000.

After I left the Comp Board, it was renamed to the Club Racing Board and the ad-hoc committees were renamed advisory committees. So, while the ITAC, in that name, is a recent invention, there has been a advisory committee for IT issues for a long time.

No, the Comp Board did not ignore IT back then, but, as you say, there wasn't much they could do. The Board of Directors was firmly against any kind of competition adjustments in IT. We did reclassify cars (I was on the IT committee when the 1st gen RX-7s were moved to ITA and I think I was on the Comp Board when the A2 GTIs were moved down to ITB). We also "corrected" weights when we thought they were wrong. The weight of the A1 GTI was always an issue back then because it was based on a bogus weight supplied to the SCCA by VWOA.

Back to the BoD, the Comp Board tried three times during my years either on the committee or on the Comp Board to free up the ECU rules and each time it was shot down by the BoD. A lot has changed in IT over the years. I pushed for some of those changes and I stood in the way of other changes. It is what it is.


Now, this is my opinion...as an ITAC guy I say "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and my attention focuses on other issues.

You are not the first to apply Spock's line to IT. Frank Eubel, may he rest in peace, took that position many years ago. Heck, Frank once told me that the reason he supported IT cars keeping their stock headliners was that he wanted guys to be able to look up at that headliner while driving down the straightaway at 120MPH and be reminded "this is basically a STOCK car".

Bob...

[Sandro]

saw this in the new gallery feature:

http://www.improvedtouring.com/gallery/displayimage.php?imageid=70


could this be the first ITB MKIV to be built? Bill??

[lateapex911]

I've been sitting here trying to remember who was appointed Chairman of the IT committee after I left, but I've killed too many brain cells since then.

Bob...

Could it be Rick Pokock? (Sp?)

Thanks for the deeper history lesson. I raced briefly in '92, and returned in '97, and started getting more involved a bit after that. I think the ad hocs were much more under the radar back then.