Please help me understand the Audi issue...

[RSTPerformance]

So.... I am trying to understand why the Audi is such a big deal in the future of IT right now.

From what I can figure out these are the facts:

acording to the current process it is classed 200 a 300 lbs over weight.

5 years ago I qualified pole for the ARRC with my brother .01 behind me on the grid... The next car was 1 second back from that. In the race I was involved in a turn one accident that put me in last place. I worked my way back up through the field to 3rd I think while beating the shit out of the car causing a wheel bearing failure. This caused me to loose the wheel mid turn... Needless to say I DNF. My brother had a wire short to the fuel pump on the third lap while barely leading the field and also DNF. We were not the fastest cars in the race despite our qualifying times and my charge through the field. The next day in the enduro we were much slower than 2 or 3 of our competiors. Niether car was torn down to verify legality however I will say that someone did question our air intake setup prior to the race (we felt it was legal and still to this day run the same set-up).

Prior to that success (if you call it that) in 2003 (?) the record was set nearly 1 second a lap faster than the Audi times with Peter Keenes Honda.

Since this race many new cars have been classed and beat our cars lap times reguarly at most races/tracks we run. The records and normal lap times at road Atlanta are now more than 2 seconds a lap faster than us and at the first IT Fest we were not even top 5.

Other fun facts are:

in the rain I qualified Pole at the NARRC runoffs in a 40 car field of ITS and ITB cars a couple Yeats ago... 2 weekends ago I started 5th in a 40+ car field at the Pro IT race with mostly ITR, ITS & ITA cars. Yes it was raining in qualifying but I hope that shows you I Sorta know how to drive and I would like to think that the sucess of our cars comes not only with the car but also the driver.


So with a that said... What facts am I missing? Why should this car/team combo be influencing the IT classification process and why does anyone still feel that the car should not be run through the same process that all the others that now easily beat us?

Raymond "Stephen, sorry if you don't like the posts but I really don't get this and I am increadably fustrated with all of the "Audi" references that obviosly refer to us" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Very simple:

The Audi is a FWD car with 110 stock crank HP. Since very few are out there (and you guys have never been to a dyno) there are no numbers for us to use to class the car. We use the standard 25% increase. That results in a weight ~200Lbs lighter than you are now.

<CRB Mode> The CRB sniffs that weight and says no. Based on on-track results, the car is competitive a classed and would likely hurt ITB if it was at it's process weight. They push it back to the ITAC for further review. <Mode off>

All the while this triggers the CRB to pull back on our ability to reset legacy cars in the ITCS.

Bottom line, it's not about YOU per se, its about what to do with cars that SEEM competitive on the track at their current weight but the process says take a chunk of weight out of. So many issues and ideals surrounding that thought that hav been hased out here a million times. The CRB would like to err on the side of 'class competition isn't broken so don't throw a potential wrench into the gears'.

And they got spooked enough to return to pre-great realignment where cars are almost locked in forever at their weights unless they run off the front end.

[joeg]

Torquey motor.

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

I'd buy all that, if the PCA clause wasn't in the ITCS. The CRB has already shown that they were willing to use the most extreme (and most un-tested) method allowed, to 'fix' the E36 BMW, they threw an SIR at it (two, actually). So, you've already got something in place to address an issue where the process falls short, and the CRB have demonstrated that they're not afraid to use it.

My take on what has 'spooked' the CRB, is that they realized how rapidly they were losing the power to do whatever they wanted to do w/ IT. Not to mention, if they were going to do something, under the proposed system, they would have had to justify it and back it up. If you guys were able to codify the process, that's what they would have had to use. No more setting weights because 1 or 2 guys think that they can make xxx hp, or the car just 'looks fast'. After all, they're the CRB, and they don't want those kinds of constraints on them. The CRB have also shown that they have no problem w/ taking a 'wait and see' approach after a change has been implemented. How many times have you read 'we are continuing to monitor its performance' in FasTrack? And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. You need some period of post-change evidence gathering to determine the effect of the change.

My take, the CRB felt that you guys (ITAC) were getting 'too big for your britches', and decided to shut things down before it was too late, and they lost their power to lord over IT. It has nothing to do w/ 'stability' or 'competitive landscape'. And anybody that's willing to accept random, arbitrary, and inconsistent classifications, in the interest of preserving 'stabilty' or the 'competitive landscape' has no business being in any kind of policy-impacting or setting position. Not unlike the quote from Ben Franklin, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security, deserve neither, and will ultimately lose both."

But as I said, I think they're (CRB) trotting that out to hide the real reasons and agenda behind their actions.

[seckerich]

Andy,

I'd buy all that, if the PCA clause wasn't in the ITCS. The CRB has already shown that they were willing to use the most extreme (and most un-tested) method allowed, to 'fix' the E36 BMW, they threw an SIR at it (two, actually). So, you've already got something in place to address an issue where the process falls short, and the CRB have demonstrated that they're not afraid to use it.

My take on what has 'spooked' the CRB, is that they realized how rapidly they were losing the power to do whatever they wanted to do w/ IT. Not to mention, if they were going to do something, under the proposed system, they would have had to justify it and back it up. If you guys were able to codify the process, that's what they would have had to use. No more setting weights because 1 or 2 guys think that they can make xxx hp, or the car just 'looks fast'. After all, they're the CRB, and they don't want those kinds of constraints on them. The CRB have also shown that they have no problem w/ taking a 'wait and see' approach after a change has been implemented. How many times have you read 'we are continuing to monitor its performance' in FasTrack? And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. You need some period of post-change evidence gathering to determine the effect of the change.

My take, the CRB felt that you guys (ITAC) were getting 'too big for your britches', and decided to shut things down before it was too late, and they lost their power to lord over IT. It has nothing to do w/ 'stability' or 'competitive landscape'. And anybody that's willing to accept random, arbitrary, and inconsistent classifications, in the interest of preserving 'stabilty' or the 'competitive landscape' has no business being in any kind of policy-impacting or setting position. Not unlike the quote from Ben Franklin, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security, deserve neither, and will ultimately lose both."

But as I said, I think they're (CRB) trotting that out to hide the real reasons and agenda behind their actions.


Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner!!!!

[RSTPerformance]

Plenty of people have had extreme success with their cars including current CRB members IE: Peter Keene, look at the history of his Honda. I see this as all political BULLSHIT and I am not accepting it.

Other examples of "exceptional" success

Andy B, Kirk, Greg Amy, Sam Moore, the Moses, Beren P, Scott carlson, etc have all had great success... Just because don't use a dyno does not mean that we havn't had great the same reasons... Great, well set up car/driver combo.

Raymond

[gran racing]

Ray and Stephen,
You both know or should know that I have a tremendous respect for your driving abilities, and the way in which you race. I’ve always wondered what you’d both do behind the wheel of a high level built car – actually I already know.


So with a that said... What facts am I missing? Why should this car/team combo be influencing the IT classification process and why does anyone still feel that the car should not be run through the same process that all the others that now easily beat us?

Since you’re looking for some type of explaination of where this is coming from, I’ll give you my speculation of the Audi situation. When reading this, please understand that these are NOT ALL my personal beliefs.

You guys did well, darn well at the ARRC and brought the spotlight onto you. I believe a decent portion of the attention was based on the back straight speed the Audis showed and not just about the lap times. The cars never finished and had an opportunity to be put through the tech shed.

You put a considerable amount of time and effort building the Audis. Given your build budget, you’ve done quite an amazing job and in my mind is what IT should be all about. While I don’t doubt your engine builds are good, I personally believe a pro built engine by someone such as Flatout or Kessler Engineering would be better. Then there’s the tuning aspect. You eminently have never done engine tuning on a dyno, where gains are there to be had. I know when my engine assembly was complete, that was only a portion of the process. Even this year when I was happy with my power results we put it back on the dyno and tried a few new things (advanced timing and a couple other items). This makes people wonder what could happen with a full on built Audi. IF there truly were more power to be had, how much? Maybe the reality is it’s trivial compared to what you guys have but it leaves room for people to speculate or “have fear of.” I’d actually prefer you don’t find out. J

On the flip side, Chris Albin looked into building an Audi (he also personally owned one), but concluded it wasn’t one of the cars to have and decided to build a Golf III. Based on what others believe and makes sense, there’s another Audi which benefited by a larger budget and pro race car builder – Shine. For whatever reason, that car hasn’t done what some might have anticipated (the key to this is…) including straight line speed. Why? Who knows. Maybe during the build they were conservative. Maybe given the amount of time you guys have been married to these cars, even on a limited budget you can do better than their pro build. I personally don’t know what type of effort was put into that Shine Audi.

Ironically the other item supporting the Audi weight reduction is we don’t know for sure if the Audis are / were legal. This is yet another key reason why we can’t use results to determine a car’s weight. For the record, I do not think for one second that either of you would do anything illegal on purpose. I’ve heard people say that some other block could be used which is extremely difficult to know that it’s different, so much so a person could accidently use it without even knowing. Again, I’m not saying this is what I believe to be the case but don’t know.

* personal aside – not knowing isn’t a knock. You don’t truly know if I’m legal. Even when someone mentioned about my car, he rightfully said “I think it’s legal, but don’t know. We both can go into a full tear down confident, but until that happens others won’t know and there will always be some amount of wondering.

In order to help bring this to an end, I suggested doing something a bit unique. After a key event invite you both to bring the Audis to either Flatout or Kessler’s shop. Have them check to ensure the block is the right one (no idea what’s involved in doing that) and put both cars on the dyno. The purpose would not have been to do a tear down or a hunt for illegal parts rather a casual way to get some HP and torque numbers. You mentioned being okay with bringing it to a dyno so thought maybe something like this could be agreed upon. I even offered to pay some money to help you guys make this happen. After doing this the ITAC would have dyno numbers that they obtained and at least have more ammunition / facts to base things on.

My personal feelings - assuming the 5 cyl goes into the process equasion and torque, if the yard stick says remove 200 lbs from the Audi do it. But at the same token (and again, personal feelings), I want my car to be given the same opportunity to go up against that yard stick.

[StephenB]

I had a response written but hit the wrong button and I need to go to work... so some quick facts to correct some posts above.

FACT I went to the tech shed in 2004 and finished 3rd. The tech shed made the choice not to tear me down.
FACT the shine racing Audi is as fast as us in a straight line along with the honda, volvo, BMW, Golf, should I go on? The simple fact is that the Shine built Audi does not have a Good suspension in it. wether you feel it is pro built or not it's not as good.
FACT John Buffam, Frank Sprongle, Force 5 Auto and other PRO Rally teams have had a significant influence in our tuning and engine builds. Our "Heads" have been built by REAL PRO shops that build engines for PRO-Racing efforts not just SCCA regional racing.
FACT never been on a dyno and you are probably right... we are leaving a little, not a lot, on the table.
FACT Chris Albin was on the ITAC that decided on the undocumented weight of his ITB VW which went 1 second faster in the following year ARRC. :shrug:
FACT Idiots in regards to Audi engines THINK yo ucan screw it up but the fact is the blocks you are referencing are the same. However just to keep those idiots happy we fixed that and you can check the numbers on the block, they are visible when the hood is open. No mysteries in that.
FACT The Honda was in ITB then moved to ITA due to on track performance, then was moved back to ITB. The move back to ITB involved Peter Keene who owned the very one that had the previous CRB members decide to move it up to ITA. No documention I'm sure :shrug:

If you honestly ask me I would say the GOLF and Prelude are the two cars to have in ITB that are the current overdogs based on on track performance... both driven by CRB members.... how is it that 2 CRB members, of the what 6 or 7, drive in ITB and an ITB car F'd up the entire process? :blink:

Stephen

[gran racing]

Stephen, I didn’t create this post and ask why some people are arriving at their perception. I also didn’t say they are all accurate. However I think this is how some are coming to their conclusions. I also won't argue with you about the block - I have no freaking clue. If I had been truly that concerned with it, I'd have done my research and asked you guys nicely to let me take a look.


If you honestly ask me I would say the GOLF and Prelude are the two cars to have in ITB that are the current overdogs based on on track performance... both driven by CRB members.... how is it that 2 CRB members, of the what 6 or 7, drive in ITB and an ITB car F'd up the entire process?

So you agree with using on track performance????

To correct one of your facts, the Honda you mention above is an Accord Lxi and not a Prelude. The ONLY Preludes I’m aware of being run are mine and one other in the N.E. who hasn’t been at the track in a couple of years. No one on the CRB is racing a Prelude.

The GCR: Honda Accord Lxi 12V Coupe & HB (86-89). 2550 lbs min weight.

Again, for the record I also asked for my Prelude to be run through the process and let the chips fall where they may.

[lateapex911]

If you honestly ask me I would say the GOLF and Prelude are the two cars to have in ITB that are the current overdogs based on on track performance... both driven by CRB members.... how is it that 2 CRB members, of the what 6 or 7, drive in ITB and an ITB car F'd up the entire process? :blink:

Stephen

Albin drives A Golf. Not sure which Golf you are referring to. And no ITAC or CRB member drives a Prelude.

[IPRESS]

Albin drives A Golf. Not sure which Golf you are referring to. And no ITAC or CRB member drives a Prelude.

I tried not to post, but Jake, the pitch you threw was a 80 mph fastball with no movement.
CORRECTION: "Albin drives the F'ing wheels off a Golf."

[MMiskoe]

Ray & Stephen:

Can you easily get 200# out of your car? If so I'd be very curious to see what happens if you were to do a back to back test with the current weight and the process weight.

Its possible that the reduction in weight might not be as big a gain as people think.

Plus it might put to bed some of the concerns, at least people could shrug & say "it mght be wrong, but so what"

[Xian]

Peter and Deuce Keene... one drives a Prelude and the other an Accord LXi, no? Or am I mis-remembering?

[lateapex911]

Peter and Deuce Keene... one drives a Prelude and the other an Accord LXi, no? Or am I mis-remembering?

I think both are in Accords.

[Charlie Broring]

There is another good example of Audi performance potential from some years back in the MARRS series. At one time Dick Shine built an A2 Golf for Don Barrack and at the same time did an extensive rebuild on Jim Gilly's Audi. Both were pretty much state of the art full on builds and ran together at Summit. The drivers raced head to head, tried each others cars, and a consensus of relative performance was reached. The Golf handled a bit better, but the Audi had more power with an over all edge given to the Audi. I remember that Mr Shine held the Audi in pretty high regard at that time. Unfortunately, Jim's Audi met an untimely end at Mid Ohio, but I remember it as being a very competitive car.

So, if the Audi is already at least a decent ITB car, why should it get a whopping 2-300 pound weight reduction? Is it posible that the "Process" doesn't always serve ITB well?

Charlie

[lateapex911]

Albin drives A Golf. Not sure which Golf you are referring to. And no ITAC or CRB member drives a Prelude.

Just rereading this. I think you are insinuating that they blocked the weight change based on personal gains. (As in you won't beat them if you are overweight)

I don't think I buy that. I think the CRB honestly looked at your car and thought, "Isn't that car pretty darn fast as it is? 200 pounds? Seems like a lot. Doesn't pass the sniff test. No"

Pursuant to that thought process is that many other cars seem to have been dropped from the agenda that were up for adjustment as well, and ALL weren't ITB cars.

I don't honestly know what's up with those cars. It could be that they just didn't get on the list, or that they got dropped or who knows. Hopefully we'll find out.

[lateapex911]

So, if the Audi is already at least a decent ITB car, why should it get a whopping 2-300 pound weight reduction? Is it posible that the "Process" doesn't always serve ITB well?

Charlie

It is possible.
I suggested that instead of a flat refusal that the CRB send it back to us for a scrub down. Make us do our homework. Make us go out and get the proof that it needs the weight break. Maybe we find it. Maybe we don't. Currently, the Process puts it at over a 40% hp gain. That seems pretty high. But maybe it does. Maybe it hits 35%? Or 30%?

I'd be happy to scrub it down and either stand on the recommendation, revise the recommendation or withdraw the recommendation in line with what our evidence showed.

But, to my understanding, it's been refused, with no further action.

[seckerich]

Call the CRB head and find out, pretty simple. Why do we wait another 30 days to find out what they should be communicating to our adhoc?

[Charlie Broring]

The old saying is "Horsepower sells engines. Torque wins motor races." Peak horsepower is not directly related to how well a car accelerates.

[benspeed]

The men or women racing in IT who are in positions of authority or power over IT rules should recuse themselves from any rules changes effecting the classes in which they race.

That's just common sense in my opinion.

[gran racing]

So where does that put the ITAC Ben?

I don't think it's a bad thing to have IT people involved with where the future of the category goes. Like ITAC members do, they take themselves out of conversations dealing with cars they personally race.

[DavidM]

The old saying is "Horsepower sells engines. Torque wins motor races." Peak horsepower is not directly related to how well a car accelerates.

And that saying seems to be something of a misnomer. There was a good discussion on here about the affect of gearing on acceleration. High hp/low torque cars that rev high can still generate good torque/acceleration at the wheels via appropriate gearing. High torque cars typically don't rev that high and thus gearing has less of an effect. At least that's how I interpreted the discussion.


The men or women racing in IT who are in positions of authority or power over IT rules should recuse themselves from any rules changes effecting the classes in which they race.

That's just common sense in my opinion.

I definitely think this is what should happen, but since we don't have access to records of CRB votes we don't know. Unfortunately, I don't think this was done.

David

[lateapex911]

And that saying seems to be something of a misnomer. There was a good discussion on here about the affect of gearing on acceleration. High hp/low torque cars that rev high can still generate good torque/acceleration at the wheels via appropriate gearing. High torque cars typically don't rev that high and thus gearing has less of an effect. At least that's how I interpreted the discussion.

David

Yup, there are a lot of factors. I linked an article that showed how it all works. But, in the end, if tq was the be all end all, the Cummings diesel would be faster than an F1 car.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Yup, there are a lot of factors. I linked an article that showed how it all works. But, in the end, if tq was the be all end all, the Cummings diesel would be faster than an F1 car.

Speaking of Audi's and Diesel's... They are pretty fast! :D

[trhoppe]

Could this be that a CRB member has an ITB car???

:black helicopter:

[shwah]

I still think an issue like this, where the process does not match the perception (define as you will) could be addressed with the 'two step' adjustment that I proposed in the other thread. If that sort of thing were allowed...

Don't anyone worry about the blocks, they are the same. No possible benefit I can think of. Just make sure the right head is on top.

[RSTPerformance]

Dave-

I have not had much time to post today.... probably a good thing :)

Anyway, we did OK at the 2 ARRC events we went to, but we didn't kill the competition as people suggest. We were well off the pace of a track record, and we spent a lot of money on that one event... things were set up perfect for us. We had new tires just about every session, the cars were weighed specifically to end every session with 2 maybe 3 pounds extra weight, we had a huge crew that flew in, we ran the test day with both cars and gather TONS of data and tweaked the set-up on the car between every session (sometimes during the sessions. Anyone whom would have brought that "game" would have done equally as well or better. The only tracks where are cars have historically done really well are at Pocono and at the Road Atlanta. We do not have the fastest straight line cars. Every BMW 2002 we have raced against out pulls us on the straights, so does the new Golf III and the Volvo's pull us even if we have a draft on them. The only thing that helped us that year and years prior at Pocono is the top end gearing/speed. On the street an older Audi will run up to 125 - 130mph before it runs out of gearing, A VW will reach 115 -120. I have tested it. I have noticed several times the only thing the Audi has is a higher top speed (FROM FACTORY), and with the newer cars classed I don't think that is an advantage anymore.

Now as for legality... I am glad people question it! We all should question anyone whom has done well be it Peter Keene and his Accord, Sam Moore in the Volvo, Chris Albin in any of his VW's or My brother in the Audi (obviously it would be him and not me!). The MAJOR ISSUE I HAVE is that CRB/ITAC/BOD members all say, we do not classify cars based on "on track performance." WHY US??? It is not right. It is not faire to me and it should not be affecting ALL IT classes. At this point I wish my car was illegal so that the process was perfect and knowone questioned it. I regret ever putting in a request, and no member should ever have to feel this regret.

I am also extremely disappointed in the lack of responses I have received over the past year to my requests. I have received plenty of great feedback from ITAC members however the CRB is completely useless at this point. I wrote e-mails last night to the CRB and received zero replies. I Cc’d a steward that I respect a lot and I included my BOD representative, I did not expect a reply, tonight the e-mails will go further and include all BOD members asking for their help. I hope someone is able to help me.

Raymond

PS: Not sure if we could ever find 200 lbs...

PSS Chris: The bottom end could be switched out (or the original bored out to be a 2.3L). That would be very easy to do and would gain lots of HP. It is basicaly a 60 over piston. The heads, not many options on that, they are all basically the same on all Audi's except the 5000's from 1984 - 1987. The header is the difference which is an allowable modification.

If you know of something else PLEASE let us know (a PM or e-mail to rst at rstperformance dot com is fine) so we can check our cars. Many people have said the head can be switched and we have asked everyone even Chris Albin after he told everyone we were cheating to tell us/educate us on what to look for. Know one has been able to help in this area.

[gran racing]

For the record Ray, I agree with what you said. Don't rush into an e-mail if you're not ready for it yet. I know that I'm holding off till next week after I absorb some of this more.

[seckerich]

You hold off until the BOD has their October meeting and you might as well not bother. It will be all done for next year--period.

[jjjanos]

Just rereading this. I think you are insinuating that they blocked the weight change based on personal gains. (As in you won't beat them if you are overweight)

Not saying that this happened this time, but it wouldn't be the first time that self-interest entered into what was decided by the various SCCA boards.

That was the nice thing about "the process." It was all laid out and you would know why a car got a specific weight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

That was the nice thing about "the process." It was all laid out and you would know why a car got a specific weight.

And even if you thought it was heavy or not 'the' car for the class, you (the collective you) are ok with that right? Better to be transperant and consistant than try and 'wiggle' the right number with no backup...because at the end of the day, neither are gonna be right.

[Knestis]

>> The MAJOR ISSUE I HAVE is that CRB/ITAC/BOD members all say, we do not classify cars based on "on track performance."

The ITAC has said that. The fundamental issue is that the CRB has said exactly the opposite.

K

[shwah]

PSS Chris: The bottom end could be switched out (or the original bored out to be a 2.3L). That would be very easy to do and would gain lots of HP. It is basicaly a 60 over piston. The heads, not many options on that, they are all basically the same on all Audi's except the 5000's from 1984 - 1987. The header is the difference which is an allowable modification.

If you know of something else PLEASE let us know (a PM or e-mail to rst at rstperformance dot com is fine) so we can check our cars. Many people have said the head can be switched and we have asked everyone even Chris Albin after he told everyone we were cheating to tell us/educate us on what to look for. Know one has been able to help in this area.

Raymond - I figured the block is no more likely than any other block in IT to gain an advantage. We can all put bigger pistons and cranks in without anyone seeing it when the hood is up (well not Jake...). I don't 'know' anything about any specific cars, and didn't mean to sound like I did - sorry about that. I was talking to the audi in general, and I could swear there were some 5cyl heads with bigger valves, so if I were trying to find by sight something wrong with that motor I would try to figure out how to differentiate the heads.

[StephenB]

Just rereading this. I think you are insinuating that they blocked the weight change based on personal gains. (As in you won't beat them if you are overweight)

I don't think I buy that. I think the CRB honestly looked at your car and thought, "Isn't that car pretty darn fast as it is? 200 pounds? Seems like a lot. Doesn't pass the sniff test. No"


Jake,

YES and No... I don't think they think I personally will be faster in the future and that they want or need to protect themselves but I think they do wonder what if that car was classified with 200lbs less all those years ago... I wouldn't have had a chance against them. Basically I think the 1 weekend, 1 session, 5 years ago at 1 race they made an observation and are sticking with it. I think that if I did not go to those 2 events things would be different. So YES they have formulated the opinion of the potential of the car because they raced with me and now they are reluctant to change things and no I dont think it is to protect themselves on track, afterall I never plan on going down that way with my current career expectations.


Matt... Very difficult to get 200lbs out. we do have lead inside and we do have power windows and a spare in it but with all that I am guessing only a 100lbs or so. I do think you are on to something and will most likely try it next season. I have run 50lbs light and up to 75lbs heavy and it didn't seem to make a difference.

Dave and to all others... Sorry about mistaking the prelude and Accord. they look like the exact same car to me. What is the differences? what are the wieghts of each? Was the prelude classed after the flip flop of the Accord?

Raymond you are forgetting about your 20V head you stuck on yours aren't you? :p Actually you really are forgetting about the early coupe mechanical head vs our heads Ours is much better which was used from I believe 82.5 through 87.5 on various models of cars.


Stephen


PS: I still am fine with the decision not to process ANY of the cars currently classified, at least it is a decision which the CRB hasn't had the balls to do all year. If other cars do get reclassified then all hell will brake loose and I will be pissed.

[Bill Miller]

Just rereading this. I think you are insinuating that they blocked the weight change based on personal gains. (As in you won't beat them if you are overweight)



Well Jake, you were on the ITAC when Albin claimed that a Rabbit GTI could make 100 whp w/ no other documentation.

As far as him driving the wheels off his Golf, yeah, looks like he can do that, right into the side of another car.

[pfcs]

From an old memory-there were 3 5cyl blocks, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3L, several piston configurations, and there were several heads.
The classified ITB cpe engine is the low compression (8/1 2.1/2.2L version with small intakes (38mm) and, I believe, a pretty mild cam.
I expect that except for the 5th cylinder, it resembles the 85-87 non GTI/GLI 1.8 Golf/jetta CIS Lambda cars which were 90?hp (38mm in/lo compr/mild cam) while the ITB classed Golf GTI and 88-92 Golfs were 105/107hp (40mm in/10/1, more cam).
Certainly theres a lot of combinations of ingredients that could produce much more than expected/illegal output.

[RSTPerformance]

From an old memory-there were 3 5cyl blocks, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3L, several piston configurations, and there were several heads.
The classified ITB cpe engine is the low compression (8/1 2.1/2.2L version with small intakes (38mm) and, I believe, a pretty mild cam.
I expect that except for the 5th cylinder, it resembles the 85-87 non GTI/GLI 1.8 Golf/jetta CIS Lambda cars which were 90?hp (38mm in/lo compr/mild cam) while the ITB classed Golf GTI and 88-92 Golfs were 105/107hp (40mm in/10/1, more cam).
Certainly theres a lot of combinations of ingredients that could produce much more than expected/illegal output.

Phil-

You are a smart man, but honestly I have no f'ing clue how to even begin digesting all the info you can spit out here... I wish I could. You have seen our cars up close and personal... what are your thoughts on the CRB's actions?

I do have a set of the "big Valves" that will work, they are off a 1995 long Block VW Eurovan... They are not even close to what we have, I am sure those would give us some power!!! I also have the crank (stroker kit) wonder what that would do??? Probably break valves when I put the timing together backwards :rolleyes:

Raymond "at least I am smiling right now, thanks Phil!" Blethen

[tom91ita]

i guess my basic take on all of this is that if the CRB is going to "trump" the ITAC and its recommendations, they should have a detailed rationale that amounts to something more definitive than "because......."

and when it comes to "passing the sniff test" portion of this, it does not look good if a CRB member has a car that appears to be very close to or less than the "process" weight and the CRB then tells others that they cannot have the process weight or needs 200#'s more (or 196#'s more in my case). and yes i am taking literary license is stating what they said inasmuch as it is actions or lack of actions that seem to be speaking and being interpreted.

ray, fwiw, i thought you were pulling away from me very much like the 2002's at mid-ohio a couple of years ago and you were not quite as good in the corners as i recall. i don't think some were as good in the turns (e.g., T1) as i was but honestly i chalked most of that up to it being many folks first time at mid-ohio for the IT Fest.

it was the classic power vs. handling trade-off in my opinion.

[RSTPerformance]

Tom-

I would say that in that race I did pull you a slight bit if I got the turn right... but the 2002's, and Golf III kill both of us. And from what I remember the 924 did also. I agree that in that race it was the classic power vs. handling trade-off between us, but if we were both 200lbs lighter maybe that trade off would have been battling closer to the frontend of the pack instead.

Raymond

[RSTPerformance]

PS: Tom... that is your smoke in my sig!!!

Raymond

[gran racing]

Ray, off to LRP and I honestly don't remember all the differences off the top of my head. One thing is the engines are different with the Accord starting off with more HP. Sorry, gotta run...

[Knestis]

>> i guess my basic take on all of this is that if the CRB is going to "trump" the ITAC and its recommendations, they should have a detailed rationale that amounts to something more definitive than "because......."

It might get rationalized in any number of ways but any "trumping" will be done based on on-track observation. Conversations about the Audi - and I was in them - spun around and around about various questions, like this thread, but for those who thought it should stay too heavy, it ALL came back to the observation that "they are already fast." The quote from CRB members was that they would become "class killers," and "I'll build one tomorrow" if the 200# recommended decrease came through from the ITAC.

It did.

K

[Bill Miller]

And that's the point Kirk (as I know you know), they've (CRB ) got the tools they need to address it, should that come to pass. The fact that they folks (CRB ) are willing to trade repeatability, objectivity, and fairness for some level of perceived stability says a couple of things.

They have no faith in their own ability to handle an issue, should it arise.

The don't want to give up the power & control, and are hiding behind strategic ambiguity.

They've got something else up their sleeve

BTW, did they CRB members that this would directly impact, recuse themselves from the discussions? Just lilke you pointed out that Andy went out of his way to stay out of the 1.8 Miata discussions, did Mr. Albin and Mr. Keane stay out of the Audi discussion, or the plan to run all of ITB through the process? If not, that would seem to be a pretty clear-cut case of conflict of interest, if they voted against it.

[seckerich]

I think you all assume that ALL the members of the CRB actually see and are part of these decisions. You would be wrong. Most times they are just dealt with by the Liason to the specific ADHOC. Starting to get the picture? You need to pick up the phone and speak directly with those members in your area. They need to be informed. Please don't assume that this entire group has it out for you. I did until I got deeper into this. They need to be given both sides of the arguement. Some that made these decisions will try to hide behind the letter you have posted about "errors and omissions" used in error. It has been proven repeatedly that the entire ITCS before the GR was nothing but a dart board SWAG with no repeatable process. We were given the go ahead to do that and so far it has worked well. It is an error that they were classed under 10 different criteria over the years and now are getting fixed. This will be an agenda item for them Tuesday night so now is the time to act. Do you care enough to pick up a phone?

[Knestis]

I think you all assume that ALL the members of the CRB actually see and are part of these decisions. You would be wrong. ...

I'm having a really big DUH moment here.

The natural way for the CRB - as a whole - to deal with the challenge of managing car-level decisions for such a diverse list of categories is to count on its members who are "in the know" about each one.

In all my time on the ITAC, I ASSUMED - naively, perhaps - that the CRB as a body knew what we were doing. If that's not the case, I think I am back in the game. I've been reluctant to get involved in communication to the BoD because I don't want to distract discussion with what could be perceived as my personal issues re: the mandate to not communicate publicly, and subsequent resignation. BUT maybe the ENTIRE CRB needs to know what was communicated to me through Andy, as representing their position...

K

[seckerich]

I'm having a really big DUH moment here.

The natural way for the CRB - as a whole - to deal with the challenge of managing car-level decisions for such a diverse list of categories is to count on its members who are "in the know" about each one.

In all my time on the ITAC, I ASSUMED - naively, perhaps - that the CRB as a body knew what we were doing. If that's not the case, I think I am back in the game. I've been reluctant to get involved in communication to the BoD because I don't want to distract discussion with what could be perceived as my personal issues re: the mandate to not communicate publicly, and subsequent resignation. BUT maybe the ENTIRE CRB needs to know what was communicated to me through Andy, as representing their position...

K

You would be correct. The BOD should also be personally made aware and brought up to speed. Please everyone remember these are for the most part good people that volunteer their time to the club. All I have spoken with are very polite and took time from their daily life to talk things over. Return that respect and be polite and to the point about what we want for IT. A fair shot at a level playing field free from personal motives. If you disagree with that statement let them know that as well.

[RSTPerformance]

All I have spoken with are very polite and took time from their daily life to talk things over.

Its just to bad that they (CRB) can't be bothered or polite enough to call us. Instead they have secret discussions behind closed doors about people like myself... Some even go as far to complain and start rumors on one hand about possible cheating while on the other hand they say that the performance is valid to use towards classifications. :eek:


Return that respect and be polite and to the point about what we want for IT.

I don't think anyone on the CRB has ever shown me respect... although Bob did send me an e-mail last night saying he would get back to me tonight after his first e-mail that didn't satisfy my original e-mail... Its early but I am waiting and hoping that your first quote will come true... I will let you know either way!


A fair shot at a level playing field free from personal motives.

We would all like that I think, but from what I can tell this is not what any of the CRB members are looking for at this time... We probably need a complete revamp of the current committee. Kirk would get my first vote as a member... oh wait we as members don't get to choose who is on that committee do we??? Politics at its best :blink:

Raymond

[RSTPerformance]

Its just to bad that they (CRB) can't be bothered or polite enough to call us. Instead they have secret discussions behind closed doors about people like myself... Some even go as far to complain and start rumors on one hand about possible cheating while on the other hand they say that the performance is valid to use towards classifications. :eek:



I don't think anyone on the CRB has ever shown me respect... although Bob did send me an e-mail last night saying he would get back to me tonight after his first e-mail that didn't satisfy my original e-mail... Its early but I am waiting and hoping that your first quote will come true... I will let you know either way!



We would all like that I think, but from what I can tell this is not what any of the CRB members are looking for at this time... We probably need a complete revamp of the current committee. Kirk would get my first vote as a member... oh wait we as members don't get to choose who is on that committee do we??? Politics at its best :blink:

Raymond

Never recieved that e-mail as promised.... Same bullshit I have been told for 9 months... "We will get back to you..."

mass E-mail mode goes into effect tomorrow... Can't belive I am even giving a grace period... Realisticly it is because it is to late tonight to send an e-mail that probably wouldn't be recieved until Monday anyhow.

Raymond "yet another disapoitment" Blethen

[lateapex911]

Bobs at Lime Rock racing. Maybe he's having a tugh time getting on line?

[RSTPerformance]

Bob is a good guy... He got back to me, I will digest and share my final thoughts later... as mentionedd by others, anyone who wants cars classed in IT without the potential political or personal influence and those whom want a process that is fair and open for everyone to understand should write to the CRB NOW!!!

Raymond

[Bill Miller]

Raymond,

Glad to hear that Bob got back to you, but that certainly doesn't sound good.

[philstireservice]

My Audi never made 110 at the crank...more like 90-92.......

[pfcs]

What?? If it's factory rated 120hp, how is that? Do you mean @wheels?

[tom91ita]

............ anyone who wants cars classed in IT without the potential political or personal influence and those whom want a process that is fair and open for everyone to understand should write to the CRB NOW!!!

Raymond

just forwarded last year's CRB note with additional comments and request for process in general and my car in particular.

well, actually sent it to the BOD and cc:ed the CRB and ITAC.

btw, Kirk is still part of the ITAC per the contact page info so sent it to him as well when adding the ITAC members.

[philstireservice]

What?? If it's factory rated 120hp, how is that? Do you mean @wheels?


Yes I meant at the wheels.......:shrug:

[RSTPerformance]

What?? If it's factory rated 120hp, how is that? Do you mean @wheels?

Factory is 110 @ 5500 RPM... Add the Quattro header and you get 115 @ 5500 RPM. Not sure where 120hp comes from?

Raymond

[pfcs]

It comes right out of the VW/Audi dealer's parts program "Etka" in the engine code section of "ATP" that lists every VW/Audi engine by it's code, including basic info like displacement, output, and application.

[RSTPerformance]

Phil-

If you get a chance please send me the info on the Audi motors, I have never seen anything posted above 115hp.

To all that have followed my drama-

End results... the "displacement to weight" ratio is on target for ITB and our performance has proven that the car is properly classed. The ITAC process obviosly does not work for all cars.

As promised by the chair of the CRB the November Fasttrack has my denied requests... oh wait, I must be blind, I don't see anything yet. 10 months, maybe we can get a year out of this request!

Raymond

[gran racing]

A year? You're such an underachiever.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Phil-

If you get a chance please send me the info on the Audi motors, I have never seen anything posted above 115hp.

To all that have followed my drama-

End results... the "displacement to weight" ratio is on target for ITB and our performance has proven that the car is properly classed. The ITAC process obviosly does not work for all cars.

As promised by the chair of the CRB the November Fasttrack has my denied requests... oh wait, I must be blind, I don't see anything yet. 10 months, maybe we can get a year out of this request!

Raymond

Raymond,

There is no dispacement to weight ratio in IT. You really need to read those emails from Bob more closely - or call me like I asked you to in an e-mail.

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

I stoped Cc'ing the worldso you do not think you got the last reply from Bob. He was clear that displacement and the performance of the car is what his dicision was based on for the Audi... I will try to call you later today.

Raymond

[Knestis]

To be fair, Raymond, the CRB can make their decisions based on whatever information they want. They really ought to be transparent about them - voting to not make a change in response to a member's request rather than just ignoring that it happened - but that's their purview.

Now, if you don't like that they are applying different guidelines than the ITAC, address that to Club leadership. Andy is not the problem here.

K

[RSTPerformance]

To be fair, Raymond, the CRB can make their decisions based on whatever information they want. They really ought to be transparent about them - voting to not make a change in response to a member's request rather than just ignoring that it happened - but that's their purview.

Now, if you don't like that they are applying different guidelines than the ITAC, address that to Club leadership. Andy is not the problem here.

K


Agreed Andy is not the problem... Also agreed that the CRB uses whatever process it wants and has the authority to do so. Also think that it should change...

First thing though that needs to happen is our requests need to be acnowledged in Fasttrack and the CRB actually has to start making decisions instead of BS everyone with something different every month.

Raymond

[Bill Miller]

Andy-

I stoped Cc'ing the worldso you do not think you got the last reply from Bob. He was clear that displacement and the performance of the car is what his dicision was based on for the Audi... I will try to call you later today.

Raymond

Raymond,

I think I know where Bob came up with the weight / displacement thing. Take a look at STU, that's how they determine weights on cars, based on engine displacement.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And again, these guys operate with dispalcement as consideration all the time. Unfortunately, we are at odds with how we consider it. For me, cc's have an impact when you can run huge compression, open cams, change intakes and ungrade carbs and throttle bodies. In IT, you can have the 'biggest' motor in class but if you have sucky stock cam specs, a crappy intake manifold and are sipping throug a straw, the size of your slugs don't mean crap.

[Knestis]

The way I remember displacement coming up in conversation re: the Audi, the belief was that it's essentially 5/4ths of a MkI GTI. Do the math! It'll make 1.25x whatever power the Golf does. Right...?

K

[pfcs]

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/image.php?u=7559&dateline=1200723082 (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/member.php?u=7559)RSTPerformance (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/member.php?u=7559) Offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NH, US
Posts: 3,436
Images: 18 (http://www.improvedtouring.com/gallery/browseimages.php?do=member&imageuser=7559)
http://72.167.111.130/forums/images/chromium/blue/misc/im_aim.gif (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26776&page=3#)

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfcs http://72.167.111.130/forums/images/chromium/blue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=296843#post296843)
What?? If it's factory rated 120hp, how is that? Do you mean @wheels?

Factory is 110 @ 5500 RPM... Add the Quattro header and you get 115 @ 5500 RPM. Not sure where 120hp comes from?

Raymond
__________________


Raymond: Per VW/Audi factory electronic parts catalog, some listings:
("engine code" section which is 4rth item in dropped menu; accessed by clicking on lined page icon just to right of pencil icon)
Coupe, 1/81 to 12/83: WE eng code, 2.1L 79kW/107hp
Coupe, 1/84 to 6/30/87: KX eng code, 2.23L 88kW/120hp This is the classified ITB car
Other 5cy SA motors from the same time frame that resemble yours:
Coupe, 2/87 to 7/87 NF eng code, 2.3L 98kW/133hp!!
5000, 8/84-9/86: KZ eng code, 2.23L 85kW/115hp
5000 11/84-3/87: KH eng code, 2.2L 100kW/136p!!
4000 11/84 to 03/87&Quantum, 85-88 2.2L 89kW/121hp
Coupe
I scanned the entire list to be certain I \didn't miss other Coupe engines. Excepting 20Valve and turbo, there aren't any others listed.

[Bill Miller]

The way I remember displacement coming up in conversation re: the Audi, the belief was that it's essentially 5/4ths of a MkI GTI. Do the math! It'll make 1.25x whatever power the Golf does. Right...?

K

Math is closer to 1.22 (from either a displacement perspective or a factory hp perspective). But given the way that the Mk I GTI got boned, I'm not sure that your example is a good one. Or given the way the Audi is getting boned, maybe it is....

[Andy Bettencourt]

In my mind, we had no data so you go with 1.25. A logical argument was made that the arcitechture was similar to (IIRC) another Golf that was at 30% so putting this one at 30% makes a small weight reduction both logical and pallitable.

[Bill Miller]

In my mind, we had no data so you go with 1.25. A logical argument was made that the arcitechture was similar to (IIRC) another Golf that was at 30% so putting this one at 30% makes a small weight reduction both logical and pallitable.

So how does that jive w/ the Rabbit GTI @ 35%-39%, depending on what you use for driveline loss (18%-20%)? BTW Andy, what do you guys use for driveline loss when you get whp #'s from a dyno?

[rcc85]

Are the Audi's really 120 hp stock??!!

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona
99 hp stock/2630 lbs per the GCR

[pfcs]

THAT, as they say, is the question.
The information in ETKA is pretty official and reliable.
The secondary question is "Was the wrong assumption made about the multiplier?"
And third-thru some mixing of parts (not necessarily intentional)was a killer engine created. There are so many combinations/iterations of this series of engines that anything is possible.
I can vouch for the effectiveness of the Blethem Coupes-they certainly get down the road! And I can promise you they get the wheels driven off them, sometimes literally!

[Andy Bettencourt]

So how does that jive w/ the Rabbit GTI @ 35%-39%, depending on what you use for driveline loss (18%-20%)? BTW Andy, what do you guys use for driveline loss when you get whp #'s from a dyno?

Bill,

VW guys with those cars said 100whp possible as has been stated. 15% for FWD and 18% for RWD is used throughout when needed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

THAT, as they say, is the question.
The information in ETKA is pretty official and reliable.
The secondary question is "Was the wrong assumption made about the multiplier?"
And third-thru some mixing of parts (not necessarily intentional)was a killer engine created. There are so many combinations/iterations of this series of engines that anything is possible.
I can vouch for the effectiveness of the Blethem Coupes-they certainly get down the road! And I can promise you they get the wheels driven off them, sometimes literally!

You guys are mixing cars. The Audi's in question are 110hp stock.
There was never an assumption made about the multiplier on this car as it has never been through the process wrt its current weight.
Legality (intentional or otherwise) is ALWAYS a danger when looking at singular examples of on-track as 'evidence'. Just another reason the ITAC hates it until it becomes commonplace.

[pfcs]

Andy-what is your source for the 110hp spec?
The spec I refer to is from the official/VW-Audi factory parts program currently used by all VW/Audi dealers and produced by the manufacturer.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

VW guys with those cars said 100whp possible as has been stated. 15% for FWD and 18% for RWD is used throughout when needed.

If that's the case Andy, can you please explain how the Rabbit GTI gets to 2080#?

100whp / .85 =approx. 118chp * 17 = 2000# - 50# FWD = 1950#. What am I missing here?

[Andy Bettencourt]

If that's the case Andy, can you please explain how the Rabbit GTI gets to 2080#?

100whp / .85 =approx. 118chp * 17 = 2000# - 50# FWD = 1950#. What am I missing here?

Well we must be missing something. Is that the car that got reduced to 2080 from some other number?

[Bill Miller]

Well we must be missing something. Is that the car that got reduced to 2080 from some other number?

Yes it is Andy, it went from 2180# to 2080# during tGR, IIRC.

/edit

And if 1950# turns out to be the process weight, even w/ the increased power gain multipler, that puts it @ 1770# w/o driver. I don't think it's possible to get one of those cars that light w/ just IT allowed stuff. Curb weight on those cars was just a tick over 2000#. IIRC, my HP Rabbit is ~1750# w/o driver, and that's w/ a fiberglass hood, totally gutted interior, including doors, and lexan all around.

[StephenB]

__________________


Raymond: Per VW/Audi factory electronic parts catalog, some listings:
("engine code" section which is 4rth item in dropped menu; accessed by clicking on lined page icon just to right of pencil icon)

Coupe, 1/81 to 12/83: WE eng code, 2.1L 79kW/107hp ITB CAR LISTED IN GCR
Coupe, 1/84 to 6/30/87: KX eng code, 2.23L 88kW/120hp This is the classified ITB car I am almost positive that this is INCORRECT DATA. I will get the correct data tomorrow for you.

Other 5cy SA motors from the same time frame that resemble yours:
Coupe, 2/87 to 7/87 NF eng code, 2.3L 98kW/133hp!! This is in the GCR as an ITA car. :rolleyes: 60 over pistons... pretty easy to see a cheater here!

5000, 8/84-9/86: KZ eng code, 2.23L 85kW/115hp Really? how can you use this as an example :rolleyes: Totally different car and intake system easy to see from the outside.
5000 11/84-3/87: KH eng code, 2.2L 100kW/136p!! Again? Totally different car and intake system easy to see from the outside.

4000 11/84 to 03/87&Quantum, 85-88 2.2L 89kW/121hp What the hell is this? Give me an engine code... is it a VW or an Audi??

I scanned the entire list to be certain I didn't miss other Coupe engines. Excepting 20Valve and turbo, there aren't any others listed.


This will turn up ugly next year guarenteed. you will find out what is in my car AFTER I beat my time from this year at a certain track.

[pfcs]

"4000 11/84 to 03/87&Quantum, 85-88 2.2L 89kW/121hp What the hell is this? Give me an engine code... is it a VW or an Audi??"

VW Quantum/Audi 4000: both had code JT engines, 121hp.

And my point about the other engines was not that the entire engine might be used (although that's still possible), but that there's a lot of interchangeable parts out there for the 5 cyl family and many possible brews are possible.
Even today, when we need a VW/Audi 1.8T 20v head, the junkyards supply whatever they have, expecting us to make it work. (there are at least 6 different combinations, all with the same valve size, all interchangeable, but having different size and configurations of ports, camshaft specs, etc.)

Another point that lends credence to the 120hp Cpe spec: the applicable Golf ITB engines are spe'd in ETKA just as everyone else expects them to be: 1.8L Digifant RV mtr w/single downpipe manifold 105hp; PF mtr w/double downpipe manifold 107hp.

Don't feel picked on please. Hold it as a possibility that there is a real anomaly at play here. I'm as ready as the next person to see black helicopters when it comes to club racing!
But in the case of the Coupe, maybe there really is something amiss. 5hp=100lbs?

[Bill Miller]

Well we must be missing something. Is that the car that got reduced to 2080 from some other number?

Andy,

Any chance this was discussed on last night's con-call?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Any chance this was discussed on last night's con-call?

Sorry Bill. The ITAC has no ability under the current rules to review anything that has been classed for 5 years or more. We looked at new classification requests and rule requests. It's the new world unless the CRB allows us to change the rules as written in the ITCS.

[quadzjr]

Sorry Bill. The ITAC has no ability under the current rules to review anything that has been classed for 5 years or more. We looked at new classification requests and rule requests. It's the new world unless the CRB allows us to change the rules as written in the ITCS.

I thought the CRB has told the ITAC to not look into/review any car that already has been classed?

<-Don't know what direction to take to correct (in my opinion and maybe others) the Mk1 MR2 weight.

[Bill Miller]

Sorry Bill. The ITAC has no ability under the current rules to review anything that has been classed for 5 years or more. We looked at new classification requests and rule requests. It's the new world unless the CRB allows us to change the rules as written in the ITCS.

Is that the new mandate from the CRB? Even though they (CRB) 'broke the rules' when they changed the weight from 2180# to 2080# (not to mention all the other cars that were changed)? Looks like I was right w/ my prediction about the Golf III not getting that 50# back from the rear beam negative adder that shouldn't have been applied.

Looks like all the hard work that Darin, you, and many others have put in over the last few years is pretty much down the drain. As I said before, they'll trot out the GCR when it suits their agenda, and will throw it out the window when it doesn't. Sorry to see it go this way Andy, I know you always wanted what was best for ALL of IT.

/edit

So how will requests for reviews of cars that have been on the books for 5 years or more be handled? Are they not even going to publish those requests in FasTrack? Will the response be something along the lines of "The Puddlebee GXR was classified prior to 2004, therefore you can go pound sand."

[Andy Bettencourt]

Is that the new mandate from the CRB? Even though they (CRB) 'broke the rules' when they changed the weight from 2180# to 2080# (not to mention all the other cars that were changed)? Looks like I was right w/ my prediction about the Golf III not getting that 50# back from the rear beam negative adder that shouldn't have been applied.

Looks like all the hard work that Darin, you, and many others have put in over the last few years is pretty much down the drain. As I said before, they'll trot out the GCR when it suits their agenda, and will throw it out the window when it doesn't. Sorry to see it go this way Andy, I know you always wanted what was best for ALL of IT.

/edit

So how will requests for reviews of cars that have been on the books for 5 years or more be handled? Are they not even going to publish those requests in FasTrack? Will the response be something along the lines of "The Puddlebee GXR was classified prior to 2004, therefore you can go pound sand."

Those are to be dealt with only if something is 'running off the front end' - or in plain terms - is an overdog. Misclassed and needs a correction.

Given the way the last couple calls went, and some changes on the CRB, I think the ITAC is going to work within the current constraints for a while while the dust settles and then propose new wording that allows us to do what we think the membership would like. Not saying it would happen - obviously the CRB has the final say - but we need to remove the ITCS constrains that don't allow us to do what we think is the right thing.

[quadzjr]

I thought the CRB has told the ITAC to not look into/review any car that already has been classed?

<-Don't know what direction to take to correct (in my opinion and maybe others) the Mk1 MR2 weight.

Andy or other ITAC members?

[Bill Miller]

Those are to be dealt with only if something is 'running off the front end' - or in plain terms - is an overdog. Misclassed and needs a correction.

Given the way the last couple calls went, and some changes on the CRB, I think the ITAC is going to work within the current constraints for a while while the dust settles and then propose new wording that allows us to do what we think the membership would like. Not saying it would happen - obviously the CRB has the final say - but we need to remove the ITCS constrains that don't allow us to do what we think is the right thing.

Andy,

What exactly are these 'constraints' that the CRB claims are in the ITCS? Why can't these things be handled under E&O?

[gran racing]

<-Don't know what direction to take to correct (in my opinion and maybe others) the Mk1 MR2 weight.

Nothing will happen. Next.

If you haven't already written the BOD and CRB, do so.

[Knestis]

...Why can't these things be handled under E&O?

And THAT is the $64,000 question. It all has to do with how something is defined as an "error."

Any measure of whether - or the degree to which - something is "wrong" requires a point of comparison. If the question is "Who is buried in Grant's tomb?" then the correct is Ulysses S. Grant. If someone answered "General Lee," that is wrong. So is "Cary Grant," even though it's closer. Regardless, there's some benchmark against which comparisons can be made to determine whether the answer is correct.

The ITAC spent the past couple years defining "error" as "not the theoretical weight specified by the process." We'd do the math, make the comparison, and determine if the current ITCS spec was "right" or "wrong."

The first challenge with respect to the CRB was defining our tolerances - how "not right" a weight had to be (again relative to the theoretical "correct" weight based on physical attributes of the car) - in order to be worth changing. For a long time there was an unwritten and inconsistently applied tolerance of +/- 50 or 100 pounds, depending on who you asked and when. That was a source of fudging. The ITAC, based on conversations with a lot of members, decided to commit to defining "right" as relative to the process and recommend car weights to the CRB at exactly what the process defined.

That was the Golf II experiment, where the CRB demonstrated a vote of no confidence in the first principles of what we were doing by voting against an admittedly tiny change for that car. Not coincidentally, this was the beginning of the end.

The current CRB - in line with the rules-making culture of the entire club, frankly - that "error" is simply a screw-up. If a plain ol' dumbass mistake was made somewhere - like when the ITAC used the wrong power multiplier as "standard" on several cars back in April 2008, or when the wrong information for the ITR muscle cars was posted in Fastrack - that's still probably fixable under E&O.

By the way, those corrections were recommended to the CRB in June of 2009 and ARE BEING HELD HOSTAGE BY THE CURRENT POLITICAL SITUATION.

ITB 91-95 Toyota MR2
ITB 99-00 Protege
ITA 00-03 Neon SE, ES, SXT
ITA 01-03 Neon R/T, ACR

...were all processed at 1.3 rather than the then-standard 1.25. I participated in the mistake. Andy wasn't on the call and we simply dorked it up because we were operating on memory of what "standard" was. I speak only for myself but that embarrassing experience was a catalyst to get the process locked the hell down and documented. It also took way the hell too long to undo that genuine error.

The other way that "wrong" is defined by most of the Club is the degree to which on-track performance is "off." That is, if a make/model appears to be exceedingly fast, it's "wrong." In most other categories, it's also the case that if a person can rustle up enough support, a case can be made that a car is too slow "wrong." People keep telling me I'm "wrong" about where IT is going but I'm fearful that this is our future.

K

[quadzjr]

By the way, those corrections were recommended to the CRB in June of 2009 and ARE BEING HELD HOSTAGE BY THE CURRENT POLITICAL SITUATION.

ITB 91-95 Toyota MR2
ITB 99-00 Protege
ITA 00-03 Neon SE, ES, SXT
ITA 01-03 Neon R/T, ACR

...were all processed at 1.3 rather than the then-standard 1.25. K

I assume or hope you mean the ITB 85-89 Toyota MR2

[Bill Miller]

And that's pretty much what I banged my head about towards the CRB for years over. How many times were requests met with 'Correct as specified'? My contention was, (and still is) correct based on what? If you're going to tell me that a weight is correct, that implies that you have some method of determining what the correct value is, and what an incorrect value would be.

This goes waaaay back to when I first inquired as to how ITB weights were determined. I spoke to Sven Pruett at the time, and was given that 'formula' that they supposedly used, which was based on curb weight, and had nothing to do w/ engine output at all.

IIRC, it was something like:

(curb weight * .95) + 120# for cage - 120# for what could be taken out. So it boiled down to essentially the spec. weight w/ driver, was 95% of the published curb weight.

That got me doing some math, and things didn't add up. Wrote letters, made phone calls, asked questions. Got a bunch of run-around, and no answers. If you recall several years ago, there were requests in FasTrack to publish how weights were determined for ITB cars (I think Dave Zaslow also wrote a letter). There was a bunch of lip service about how they were going back to the AdHoc to determine what it was, and they would eventually publish it. That never happened.

Nothing ever changes w/ these ass-clowns. The rules are only useful to them when they benefit their agenda.

[JeffYoung]

Bill, I understand (some) of your frustration but I don't see the CRB has hell bent on destroying IT. I see the opposite, they want to maintain what they believe is presently a very competitive class.

That said, they approach it totally different than us. The process, for them, is just a tool we (the ITAC) use to class new cars and reevaluate old ones.

On when to reevaluate, you and Kirk are right. We've hit something of a roadblock between the two types of thinking on this.

The CRB would prefer that we not adjust cars simply because they are not at process weight; we would prefer to fix all of them and set the weight using the process. The CRB, as I understand it, would reserve reevaluation until we "see" an overdog on track.

I don't think the CRB's position is the end of the world. I prefer our approach and will continue to advocate for it, but the status quo is still fairly balanced classes with a few cars that are dorked up.

[Bill Miller]

Jeff,

I never said they were 'hell bent on destroying IT'. But for a group that should be concerned with making sure that everyone gets treated the same way, to thumb their noses at something that would go a long way towards achieving that goal, just doesn't seem to make much sense. It's not about them being against IT, it's about them wanting to maintain control over everything, and to not want to be held accountable for anything.

[JeffYoung]

I honestly think what drove their opposition to using the process on all cars was threefold:

1. They didn't completely understand the process (that's our fault, the ITAC's).

2. They saw the process, if "blindly" (in their view, in our view we would use the words transparently and repeatability) applied could create overdogs. The Audi is an example of this.

3. They want some element of on track performance as part of car evaluation.

1 and 2 are reasonable and explainable, and I think things we can get past. 3, depending on how key a role they want on track to play, could be a roadblock.

But, as Andy notes, folks are talking about this stuff and looking for an agreeable way forward.

[StephenB]

I honestly think what drove their opposition to using the process on all cars was threefold:

1. They didn't completely understand the process (that's our fault, the ITAC's).

2. They saw the process, if "blindly" (in their view, in our view we would use the words transparently and repeatability) applied could create overdogs. The Audi is an example of this.

3. They want some element of on track performance as part of car evaluation.

1 and 2 are reasonable and explainable, and I think things we can get past. 3, depending on how key a role they want on track to play, could be a roadblock.

But, as Andy notes, folks are talking about this stuff and looking for an agreeable way forward.


Jeff EXPLAIN IT I want you to explain #2 and "The Audi is an example of this" Your quote is above for your reference to see that you said you could explain this entire thread for all of us.

Stephen

[seckerich]

I honestly think what drove their opposition to using the process on all cars was threefold:

1. They didn't completely understand the process (that's our fault, the ITAC's).

2. They saw the process, if "blindly" (in their view, in our view we would use the words transparently and repeatability) applied could create overdogs. The Audi is an example of this.

3. They want some element of on track performance as part of car evaluation.

1 and 2 are reasonable and explainable, and I think things we can get past. 3, depending on how key a role they want on track to play, could be a roadblock.

But, as Andy notes, folks are talking about this stuff and looking for an agreeable way forward.

You are on the right track Jeff and they will always reserve the right to use on track performance in classing. That said the "on track" should just be a trigger to see what information used in the initial classing was incorrect. That should be limited to process power only. All else should be the same for all cars. If the car is an overdog it is because it makes too much power for its weight. If it is handling let the best tuner/driver kick our tail. They worked for it.

[JeffYoung]

Stephen, please, take a deep breath.

The CRB believed that dropping 200 lbs from the Audi (something I voted for) could create problems since they viewed the car as already competitive. They saw this as an example of why they thought "blind" use of the process could create overdogs -- hence my statement.

I trust the process and voted for the weight reduction. However, their position is not entirely unreasonable nor is it some plan to destroy IT. It is a difference of opinion on the use of the process, and the role of on track results in it.

By the way, Steve summed up my thinking on that question pretty much to the T.

[lateapex911]

Stephen, calm down buddy!

This situation could be seen as being caused by the Audi situation, but it's really a confluence of events. Just like a tornado takes a bunch of things to happen at the same time and place, so did this. The Audi was merely the most visible aspect of it. But, in reality, it existed before the Audi.

For my part I'm most disappointed in the lack of communication between all the organizations at play here. The ITAC, the CRB, and the BoD. I thought things were going along nicely (albeit slowly) and I was proud of the work the ITAC did to really raise the game and be able to measure up to the standards the racers expected of us. Things take time, I understand that.

I was very surprised when I heard things about the CRB's position and their feelings that the refined version of the Process was deemed highly unworkable and very much a dead fish before it swam. What confuses me is that the CRB was on the months of calls where the principals, and the details were hashed out...why was the objection not exposed earlier?

I'm also rather troubled with the distance between me and the BoD. I'm told that things have to get by the BoD, and the CRB is representing the wishes of the BoD, but on the other hand, I wonder what the BoD really knows, and thinks.

Do all the BoD members get the members letters regarding this? Are they knowledgeable on the history and the situation? Do they know the 'pulse' of the membership?

They should, but I just don't think they do.

[StephenB]

__________________


Raymond: Per VW/Audi factory electronic parts catalog, some listings:
("engine code" section which is 4rth item in dropped menu; accessed by clicking on lined page icon just to right of pencil icon)
Coupe, 1/81 to 12/83: WE eng code, 2.1L 79kW/107hp
Coupe, 1/84 to 6/30/87: KX eng code, 2.23L 88kW/120hp This is the classified ITB car


Corrected Data From The Original Factory Audi Manual. (not the internet)
WE engine code was available in 1981 through 1984 and was a 2.2L CIS available in 49 states, california, and Canada. had 100BHP SAE at 5100RPM
KX engine code was available in January 1984 through 1987 and was a 2.22L (136 cu.in) CISE available in 50 states. Had 84.9KW or 110BHP SAE at 5500RPM

The WE was only available on the Coupe never the CoupeGT and the biggest difference was the Electronic CIS and I think the hydrolic Vs Mechanical lifters. The KX was availale in the later 1984 Coupes AND offered in the Coupe GT 85-87 (Coupe GT has different bumpers, headlights, grill, sideskirts, brakes, and is in the GCR for 50lbs more than the Coupe. ALL 3 combinations of cars are legal in ITB. I happen to have an 84 Coupe with a KX engine. Smaller brakes, older bumpers and such and I am classified 50lbs lighter than the Coupe GT.

AND YOU FORGOT the JT variation which was available from January of 1983 through 1987 on the 400S Quattro. This was a 2.22L CIS-E(136cu.in.) with 115BHP SAE at 5500RPM. This is the EXACT SAME ENGINE as the KX except for a better flow downpipe that also dropped down differently next to the driveshaft. This IS the engine that raymond had in his car that caused Chris Albin to say we were cheating. (which obviosly he is not knowledgeable about) Lets be honest look it up... EVERYTHING inside is exactly the same but the 4000S Quattro was produced in a much higher QTY and engines are plentyfull. HOWEVER to make people beleive we skipped 2 races and spent over $1,000 on a new one just to change it so the code would be correct on the outside of the block. Feel free to check it anytime it was corrected a long time ago! My Car has always had the KX engine in it since the day I picked it up in Boston MA in 1999.



Other 5cy SA motors from the same time frame that resemble yours:
Coupe, 2/87 to 7/87 NF eng code, 2.3L 98kW/133hp!!
5000, 8/84-9/86: KZ eng code, 2.23L 85kW/115hp
5000 11/84-3/87: KH eng code, 2.2L 100kW/136p!!
4000 11/84 to 03/87&Quantum, 85-88 2.2L 89kW/121hp

NF didn't exist before 1988 and it should be the NG you referenced which had 130HP at 5600RPM this was offered in the 1987 Coupe GT and was the engine that was offered in the Audi 90 that replaced the coupe in 1988 through 1991ish. This is a 2.3L engine with pistons that are 82.5MM in size vs the 81mm that is in the 2.2L and 2.22L. It also had the KE-III Jetronic injection. By the way the 1987 2.3L is an ITA car classified in the GCR!

I do not have any info on the 5000 or the quantum since these are totaly different cars.

You also never mention the 4cyl 1.8L engines! The JN was offered October of 1983 with 88BHP at 5500RPM and MG offered October of 1984 with 102BHP at 5500RPM. Both these engines have the same bore stroke ect so don't think there is any swapping of parts here.

Hope this clarifies everything for everyone. swap around parts and you get nothing. my car (the KX with the JT downpipe and header) is the best combo and basically a JT with a KX tranny hooked up to it. This yeilds a factory 115BHP SAE at 5500RPM

Stephen

[StephenB]

"4000 11/84 to 03/87&Quantum, 85-88 2.2L 89kW/121hp What the hell is this? Give me an engine code... is it a VW or an Audi??"

VW Quantum/Audi 4000: both had code JT engines, 121hp.

And my point about the other engines was not that the entire engine might be used (although that's still possible), but that there's a lot of interchangeable parts out there for the 5 cyl family and many possible brews are possible.
Even today, when we need a VW/Audi 1.8T 20v head, the junkyards supply whatever they have, expecting us to make it work. (there are at least 6 different combinations, all with the same valve size, all interchangeable, but having different size and configurations of ports, camshaft specs, etc.)

Another point that lends credence to the 120hp Cpe spec: the applicable Golf ITB engines are spe'd in ETKA just as everyone else expects them to be: 1.8L Digifant RV mtr w/single downpipe manifold 105hp; PF mtr w/double downpipe manifold 107hp.

Don't feel picked on please. Hold it as a possibility that there is a real anomaly at play here. I'm as ready as the next person to see black helicopters when it comes to club racing!
But in the case of the Coupe, maybe there really is something amiss. 5hp=100lbs?

Phil, Not feeling picked on but I wanted to make sure everyone knows that the actual data from Audi was different. I have the original manual which has BHP SAE numbers much different than what you posted. 5% different!

Also after re-reading your post above you pointed out the 4000 and quantum had the JT engine. Just to clarify this is the KX engine that they stuck in the 4000 QUATTRO not the 4000 and it had a different header/downpipe only requiring a different engine code... the JT. All internals are the same. The Audi Manual shows this as a 2.22 with 115BHP SAE as in my previous post.

Stephen

[StephenB]

Stephen, please, take a deep breath.

The CRB believed that dropping 200 lbs from the Audi (something I voted for) could create problems since they viewed the car as already competitive. They saw this as an example of why they thought "blind" use of the process could create overdogs -- hence my statement.

I trust the process and voted for the weight reduction. However, their position is not entirely unreasonable nor is it some plan to destroy IT. It is a difference of opinion on the use of the process, and the role of on track results in it.

By the way, Steve summed up my thinking on that question pretty much to the T.

Jeff, you avoided the question just as a CRB member would. EXPLAIN how you came up with the conclusion that the Audi is an example of an overdog. You yourself said it was a good example in your post. If you meant to say the CRB used this as an example than you as an ITAC member should demand that they would need to expain it. Using the fact that it beat 2 of the CRB members at the ARRC in 1 session at 1 track 5 yrs ago about 1 second slower than the track record at the time can't possibly be a good example of an overdog. Can it?

Stephen

[seckerich]

Put the damn car on the dyno and quit the guessing game. Did I not see in an earlier post you have no clue what you actually make? How do you know it is wrong or right without any real data? Not picking on you but it is like the junkyard claims of the past. Not asking you to post the numbers but that car might just make more than anyone thinks.

[StephenB]

Stephen, calm down buddy!


I am calm don't worry, just a rainy day off and I had the time to do the research on our engines that I should have posted a long time ago. All the facts on the engines are available in the previous post for anyone to reference. Reality is in my opinion is that the ITAC had the wrong power to weight ratio for new cars being classified that allow for ECU changes and now those newer cars are "overdogs" compaired to the older cars classified. Reality is our cars will fade farther and farther to mid pack, other cars like the older VW's running for years will continue to do so as well. ITB as we know it no longer exists. A few cars that I have never been able to beat when well driven will hopefully continue to be competitive.

Stephen

[StephenB]

Put the damn car on the dyno and quit the guessing game. Did I not see in an earlier post you have no clue what you actually make? How do you know it is wrong or right without any real data? Not picking on you but it is like the junkyard claims of the past. Not asking you to post the numbers but that car might just make more than anyone thinks.

No problem do you know anyone that will do it? I work everyday except wednesdays this time of year. True I have no clue what my car makes for power. I will post any info that I get since it doesn't matter to me. I just want the classification process fair so that I can be competitive with newer cars getting classified in years to come.

Also please stop thinking about my personal car and lets look at the actual car that is classified. Data on engines is posted in previous post.

Stephen

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

If you want to know if the BoD are getting letters, why don't you just ask them?

[JeffYoung]

I'm not avoiding the question; frankly I think you aren't taking the time to understand the answer.

I have not come to the conclusion that the Audi is an example of an overdog at process weight. I voted for the 200 lb weight reduction -- said so right above but you maybe missed that. That's ok.

I am telling you it is an example of a car that the CRB believes could be an overdog based on its process weight, and yes that belief is based on what you and your brother did at the ARRC. Is that reasonble? It's not persuasive to me, personally, but the CRB's position on it is not "crazy" in my view.

You could really help yourself by putting your car on a dyno and giving us sheets.


Jeff, you avoided the question just as a CRB member would. EXPLAIN how you came up with the conclusion that the Audi is an example of an overdog. You yourself said it was a good example in your post. If you meant to say the CRB used this as an example than you as an ITAC member should demand that they would need to expain it. Using the fact that it beat 2 of the CRB members at the ARRC in 1 session at 1 track 5 yrs ago about 1 second slower than the track record at the time can't possibly be a good example of an overdog. Can it?

Stephen

[seckerich]

Jake,

If you want to know if the BoD are getting letters, why don't you just ask them?

The sad truth is that many letters to the BOD and CRB never reach them. Ask the ITAC how long it took to get their 3 plus month old emails forwarded. I understand the need to filter out spam and plain old hate mail, but the system is a joke. If you want to communicate with any of them just do it the old fashion way, or at least call to see that your email was received.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, you avoided the question just as a CRB member would. EXPLAIN how you came up with the conclusion that the Audi is an example of an overdog. You yourself said it was a good example in your post. If you meant to say the CRB used this as an example than you as an ITAC member should demand that they would need to expain it. Using the fact that it beat 2 of the CRB members at the ARRC in 1 session at 1 track 5 yrs ago about 1 second slower than the track record at the time can't possibly be a good example of an overdog. Can it?

Stephen

HE's not saying that it IS an overdog...think in the cup half full/empty method.

The perception (right or wrong) is that the car is currently competitive. IF it lost 200 HUNDRED plus pounds, the perception is that it would be MORE competitive.

That's simple and easy to understand, right?

The ENTIRE rest of the club, (ad hocs) thinks in terms of weight adjustments based on what they see with their own eyes on the track. Since the CRB is made up of guys from other ad hocs, it is easy to see that the IT method of classing first via a process that largely ignores on track performance, then using on track performance to trigger a closer look/more research, is 180 degrees opposite everything they've done for their entire racing careers.

So, when the Audi recommendation sprang up, the CRB thought we were NUTS. It just didn't make sense.

OF COURSE we argued the case, that we didn't know the cars, the legality of the cars, that the perception of speed was just a perception, that the cars hold no track records, etc etc, etc, but 200 hundred pounds is a LOT. And of COURSE we argued that should the weight reduction result in obvious on track dominance, we'd use the loop back methods built into the V1.2 of the process to dig deeper, find the data, and adjust based on the data.

But, the CRB thought we were nuts. And I'm told, along that time, an edict was handed down form the BoD to cease using the E & O as a method of adjusting existing cars. (Along with other things that were being done, presumably by other committees.)

It's my view that the CRB should have held the recommendation up, and returned it to the ITAC, with a note: "Fails stink test, please research and return recommendation with real world data to support this, or whatever recommendation you wish to make".

Instead, we got the "no more adjusting existing cars" (on the books for 5 years or more), "and only overodgs get adjusted (with V1.0), and new cars can be classed".

So that's where we are.

[Bill Miller]

HE's not saying that it IS an overdog...think in the cup half full/empty method.

The perception (right or wrong) is that the car is currently competitive. IF it lost 200 HUNDRED plus pounds, the perception is that it would be MORE competitive.

That's simple and easy to understand, right?

The ENTIRE rest of the club, (ad hocs) thinks in terms of weight adjustments based on what they see with their own eyes on the track. Since the CRB is made up of guys from other ad hocs, it is easy to see that the IT method of classing first via a process that largely ignores on track performance, then using on track performance to trigger a closer look/more research, is 180 degrees opposite everything they've done for their entire racing careers.

So, when the Audi recommendation sprang up, the CRB thought we were NUTS. It just didn't make sense.

OF COURSE we argued the case, that we didn't know the cars, the legality of the cars, that the perception of speed was just a perception, that the cars hold no track records, etc etc, etc, but 200 hundred pounds is a LOT. And of COURSE we argued that should the weight reduction result in obvious on track dominance, we'd use the loop back methods built into the V1.2 of the process to dig deeper, find the data, and adjust based on the data.

But, the CRB thought we were nuts. And I'm told, along that time, an edict was handed down form the BoD to cease using the E & O as a method of adjusting existing cars. (Along with other things that were being done, presumably by other committees.)

It's my view that the CRB should have held the recommendation up, and returned it to the ITAC, with a note: "Fails stink test, please research and return recommendation with real world data to support this, or whatever recommendation you wish to make".

Instead, we got the "no more adjusting existing cars" (on the books for 5 years or more), "and only overodgs get adjusted (with V1.0), and new cars can be classed".

So that's where we are.

What's easy to understand Jake, is that these guys make it up as they go along. That's the way they've always done it, and the way the will continue to do it. And of course it has nothing to do w/ the fact that two CRB members race against the car.


Since the CRB is made up of guys from other ad hocs, it is easy to see that the IT method of classing first via a process that largely ignores on track performance, then using on track performance to trigger a closer look/more research, is 180 degrees opposite everything they've done for their entire racing careers.

Uh, two of those guys race IT cars, and are former members of the ITAC. Hate to bother you w/ facts.

[pfcs]

"Corrected Data From The Original Factory Audi Manual. (not the internet)???"

ETKA, the VW/Audi dealer parts program, supplied by the factory/manufacturer to their dealers is my information source-not something off the internet. And it says the engine you say you have (KX) produces 120hp. That is a fact. Check with a parts/service buddy at any dealer and they will corroborate it.

And if that is so-it would sensibly lay all this BS about the Coupes to rest, wouldn't it?
I believe I've seen Greg Amy and Dave Zaslow refer to ETKA information-ask them to check for you if you don't believe me. And while you're checking, notice that the factory information about the ITB A2 is exactly what is historically known and accepted: RV/PF-105/107hp. If persued, I'm certain that information in ETKA trumps whatever manual you have (Robert Bently "official" ,<not really>"factory repair manual"?) These are not the "factory" manuals-don't believe everything you read.

"Just to clarify this is the KX engine that they stuck in the 4000 QUATTRO not the 4000 and it had a different header/downpipe only requiring a different engine code... the JT. All internals are the same. The Audi Manual shows this as a 2.22 with 115BHP SAE as in my previous post."
AND to clarify (muddy the waters?) further, ETKA specifies the JT-what's in your car-at 121hp.
From my personal observations and experience, and using the most reliable technical resources at hand, it seems likely that the assumptions about power to weight for the Coupe are flawed. One benchmark I can use is comparing your straight line speed to mine-you drove away from me. And my A2 was very well prepared, nothing left on the engine development table. It developed 101hp on a calibrated hub dyno, just what I'd expect from a 10/10 legal A2.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So according to the official factory documents, what do the two listings show for factory hp?

Audi Coupe 81-84
Audi Coupe GT 84-86

[Bill Miller]

One benchmark I can use is comparing your straight line speed to mine-you drove away from me. And my A2 was very well prepared, nothing left on the engine development table. It developed 101hp on a calibrated hub dyno, just what I'd expect from a 10/10 legal A2.

That's VERY interesting Phil, seeing as an ex-ITAC member(s?) claimed 100hp out of an ITB legal A1 GTI. Hard to believe that you're only getting 1 additional hp, w/ 2 pts of compression, and a larger throttle body.

[jimmyc]

a few things-

Phil there is no such thing as a calibrated "hub dyno".

There are typically 3 different variations of them.

Group1.) dynos lower then the typical dyno-jet.

Group2.) dynos relativly dead on with typical dyno-jet.

Group3.) dynos higher then the typical dyno-jet.

These are all "calibrated" hub dynos. It just depends when they were made and what calibration they used. As if you wanted you could have a new (ie produced durning a different time period) dyno-pack calibrated to what your old dyno was calibrated at. (shawn Church of Church Automotive had this done.

This is backed up by real world testing. Locally we have a dyno-jet and dyno-pack that read fairly close to each other. (within 2%)

At NASA nationals a dyno-pack was rented by Shawn Church so that he could dyno some of his customer cars and make sure their tune was good. Modular depot also had there dyno jet there. Three of the cars we were paddocked around/are freinds with ALL dyno'd HIGHER on the Modular depot dyno-jet, then they did on the Dyna-pack. Roughly 10% to 15% higher.

Dyna-packs are great for tunning, but are rather inconsistent from one machine to the next.

[Knestis]

I honestly think what drove their opposition to using the process on all cars was threefold:

1. They didn't completely understand the process (that's our fault, the ITAC's).

2. They saw the process, if "blindly" (in their view, in our view we would use the words transparently and repeatability) applied could create overdogs. The Audi is an example of this.

3. They want some element of on track performance as part of car evaluation.

1 and 2 are reasonable and explainable, and I think things we can get past. 3, depending on how key a role they want on track to play, could be a roadblock.

But, as Andy notes, folks are talking about this stuff and looking for an agreeable way forward.

I see it a LITTLE bit differently, Jeff. It's like politics: They understood what they wanted to understand, irrespective of any explanation by people holding different preconceived notions. They GOT it - they just didn't LIKE it.

K

[Bill Miller]

I honestly think what drove their opposition to using the process on all cars was threefold:

1. They didn't completely understand the process (that's our fault, the ITAC's).

2. They saw the process, if "blindly" (in their view, in our view we would use the words transparently and repeatability) applied could create overdogs. The Audi is an example of this.

3. They want some element of on track performance as part of car evaluation.

1 and 2 are reasonable and explainable, and I think things we can get past. 3, depending on how key a role they want on track to play, could be a roadblock.

But, as Andy notes, folks are talking about this stuff and looking for an agreeable way forward.


Jeff,

With all due respect, please let them speak for themselves. If the CRB didn't understand the process, then I wouldn't be real comfortable w/ those folks making any kind of decisions that impacted rules. And while I wasn't involved in the discussions, I know there are some sharp folks on the ITAC (yourself included) that would have answered any and all questions regarding how the process worked and would be applied. I think it's as Kirk has said, they heard what they wanted to hear (a bit of a paraphrase, my apologies if it's wrong). And here's the kicker, I'd be all for using some measure of on track performance, as part of car evaluation, but (and I think this is the real issue) do it from a perspective where everyone's on the same page. In other words, set all the cars at the process weight, then look for the overdogs, and correct them. Throw the Magic 8-Ball out the window, and use some hard data rather than this BS that they pull out of their asses.

What's happening to the Audi's, is a travesty. If Raymond and Stephen went to Atlanta 5 years ago, and ran 2 seconds under the track record, and ran away from everybody, _maybe_ (and that's a big maybe), it would be worth taking another look at the cars. But to use that one data point they way they are is BS.

[StephenB]

So according to the official factory documents, what do the two listings show for factory hp?

Audi Coupe 81-84
Audi Coupe GT 84-86

Andy, sorry I added a middle year that would fall under 81-84 coupe in the GCR. Thought it may help clarify what my car is.

Brom my Bently Audi Manual:

Audi Coupe 81-84 100BHP
WE engine code was available in 1981 through 1984 and was a 2.2L CIS available in 49 states, california, and Canada. had 100BHP SAE at 5100RPM

Audi Coupe January 84 through October 84 110BHP
KX engine code with the CISE as in the Coupe GT below however it used the same body and brakes from the Coupe. I think the other major difference not mentioned before is that it had a cable clutch like all Coupes which the Coupe GT did not. Basically a transition year from the early Coupe to the Coupe GT.

Audi Coupe GT 84-86 110BHP (They actually made some of these in early 87 as well)
KX engine code was available in January 1984 through 1987 and was a 2.22L (136 cu.in) CISE available in 50 states. Had 84.9KW or 110BHP SAE at 5500RPM

[RSTPerformance]

Put the damn car on the dyno and quit the guessing game. Did I not see in an earlier post you have no clue what you actually make? How do you know it is wrong or right without any real data? Not picking on you but it is like the junkyard claims of the past. Not asking you to post the numbers but that car might just make more than anyone thinks.



Stephen, I think thier is a dyno in Concord... Near the airport on the road that connects to the chrysler dealership... I think it is next to D & V towing company. Maybe you can take a drive down and see what it costs. Not sure I have the money to spend on this foolish issue but, maybe it is worth it for us and the ITAC. I am sure the CRB won't care either way though.

What on dyno results are you looking for on a fully developed FWD ITB car with drum rear brakes and a solid rear axle that weighs 2490 or 2540?

Raymond "all I want it the lazy CRB to do is look at my requests, determine an reasonable documented result and post the answers to my requests within a reasonable amount of time" Blethen

[JeffYoung]

Dyno time is about $100/hour. One hour should be more than enough for you guys to get baseline pulls done on both cars and send them to us.

I will pay for the dyno time; PM me your address and I'll mail you a check.

Bill, with all due respect back, I see a lot of attribution of various motives to the CRB here that, based on my limited interaction with them, seem 100% wrong. These guys DO have the best interest of the category in mind. They just come at it completely differently than we do.

[gran racing]

Wow, that's really cool of you Jeff. You guys should take him up on this and bring the car to a dyno.


The sad truth is that many letters to the BOD and CRB never reach them.

Really? Now this pisses me off. What's the point of them having an e-mail address and looking for memebership input then? They really need to get their act together if this is true. It's really not that difficult to generate an automated case number so requests could at least be tracked.

[Bill Miller]

Dyno time is about $100/hour. One hour should be more than enough for you guys to get baseline pulls done on both cars and send them to us.

I will pay for the dyno time; PM me your address and I'll mail you a check.

Bill, with all due respect back, I see a lot of attribution of various motives to the CRB here that, based on my limited interaction with them, seem 100% wrong. These guys DO have the best interest of the category in mind. They just come at it completely differently than we do.

We'll agree to disagree Jeff. You're fairly new to the SCCA game, they've been operating this way for a loooooong time. And honestly, I think they've got you snowed. You've got two guys on the CRB that are ex-ITAC members, that were probably involved in a lot of the process discussions. There is some solid knowledge of the whole process idea, and how it should work, already on the CRB, there should be no ambiguity (unless it's the strategic kind that Kirk mentioned) or misunderstanding. If that's what they're claiming, they're playing dumb. And that's a really cool gesture you offering to cover the dyno time. Nicely done!

[tnord]

hey bill,

i gotta wonder....you seem more wound up about this than anyone. what do you drive and where do you race?

[shwah]

That's VERY interesting Phil, seeing as an ex-ITAC member(s?) claimed 100hp out of an ITB legal A1 GTI. Hard to believe that you're only getting 1 additional hp, w/ 2 pts of compression, and a larger throttle body.

Now Bill, I would expect you to have a better understanding of dyno data than this. Actually all of you, as this has come up time and time again.

I can take my car and run it on one dyno and see 101hp, and take it to another and see 115hp. If the dyno operator does not manage the equipment and other variables consistently you could see swings of 5 and 10 hp on the same dyno. They are great tools for optimizing what you have, and validating improvements when you make them - provided you control the variables such that you are only measuring changes in the engine output and not environmental and/or dyno setup variables as well. However unless accompanied with equivalent data, in equivalent conditions on the same machine from a known good stock example, a dyno number tells me exactly nothing about the gains, or actual power that a car makes.

This is the root of my request, EVERY SINGLE TIME the conversation started up about the process, that we develop a minimum standard of acceptance for data that we use to say 'we know' something. The best answer I got was 'we have', which honestly isn't much of an answer.

The reality is that, in this light, on track side by side accelleration performance is quite possibly a more reliable source of data than dyno sheets from different sources. Put the club's DL1 boxes in the cars and go racing, and a good analyst will be able to deduce relative whp from the data and the weights from tech. BUT that is another story for another time because 'we don't do that' in IT.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not grousing. I'm over this issue completely. Some cars get fudged when the process is used by changing the inputs, some cars get fudged situationally by not being able to be reviewed/changed by the ptb, some cars get a benefit by being processed at std power gains when they make more, some cars get a weight break because of a clerical error when they were initially processed, some cars get extra weight because of a clerical error when they were initally processed. There is plenty of 'noise' to go around, and yet we have a class full of competitive cars with good racing.

Sure I think we can do better, and I still think at some point we will, but I am out of energy to pour into this debate and situation, and am just going to build the heck out of my car and try to win races.

[lateapex911]

Uh, two of those guys race IT cars, and are former members of the ITAC. Hate to bother you w/ facts.

Uh, hate to bother YOU with facts, but I'm told they don't vote on matters IT. (Abstain) And yes, I am aware they race IT cars, as I've spent time at the track with both of them.

The point is that the voting membership of the CRB come at this 180 degrees from the IT point of view.

[lateapex911]

This is the root of my request, EVERY SINGLE TIME the conversation started up about the process, that we develop a minimum standard of acceptance for data that we use to say 'we know' something. The best answer I got was 'we have', which honestly isn't much of an answer.

Well, we are aware of such issues, but, more to the point, we now have to change the answer that didn't stisfy you from "We have" to "we did", LOL. Feel better?


The reality is that, in this light, on track side by side accelleration performance is quite possibly a more reliable source of data than dyno sheets from different sources. Put the club's DL1 boxes in the cars and go racing, and a good analyst will be able to deduce relative whp from the data and the weights from tech. BUT that is another story for another time because 'we don't do that' in IT.

I'd love to do that in IT. Of course, we need to do it at events where we have some confidence in the legality of the cars we're measuring. But, Getting SCCA tech to Atlanta or Mid Ohio is problematic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not grousing. I'm over this issue completely. Some cars get fudged when the process is used by changing the inputs, some cars get fudged situationally by not being able to be reviewed/changed by the ptb, some cars get a benefit by being processed at std power gains when they make more, some cars get a weight break because of a clerical error when they were initially processed, some cars get extra weight because of a clerical error when they were initally processed. There is plenty of 'noise' to go around, and yet we have a class full of competitive cars with good racing.

Sure I think we can do better, and I still think at some point we will, but I am out of energy to pour into this debate and situation, and am just going to build the heck out of my car and try to win races.[/quote]

[tnord]

jake i've suggested to andy multiple times (and CRB members) to take the "black boxes" they use at the runoffs and plop them in at the ARRC and IT Fest when they're not using them anyway.

i'd be willing to run one in my car next year.

[lateapex911]

Fine with me. Couldn't hurt to have data. But I *think* the issue is getting the brass to agree, and supply them, plus whatever tech support is needed.

[Bill Miller]

Uh, hate to bother YOU with facts, but I'm told they don't vote on matters IT. (Abstain) And yes, I am aware they race IT cars, as I've spent time at the track with both of them.

The point is that the voting membership of the CRB come at this 180 degrees from the IT point of view.

Easy to back-track and qualify your statements when you get called on the, isn't it? And why would they abstain from all IT-related votes? If it's something that's at a category level, and doesn't impact their car specifically, or the class they race in, why abstain? As far as someone telling you how the CRB operates, it's nice to see that you're keeping your back-channel communication skills sharp.

If they published the CRB votes (wasn't there something FasTrack a while back about this?), you wouldn't have to speculate as to who abstains from what.


Chris,

Maybe it was hard to see my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, from halfway across the country. ;)

[tnord]

so this is maybe the third time i've asked you bill....

i'll take it from your silence that you don't actually race. which is just priceless.

are you even an SCCA member?

[gran racing]

Travis, many people are extremely frustrated and have said what they needed to say. More people need to be vocal with the BOD and CRB but having the same people re-voice their opinions won't do much. I think this whole thing stinks. The lack of communication really bothers me. If they're not going to do anything about these, at least have the balls to post it in Fastrack.

News broadcast....I just heard a change was made to the rules which now all of sudden grants a brake upgrade just in time for the ARRC. Or was that for the Runoffs?

They'll do what THEY want to do.

[lateapex911]

Easy to back-track and qualify your statements when you get called on the, isn't it? And why would they abstain from all IT-related votes? If it's something that's at a category level, and doesn't impact their car specifically, or the class they race in, why abstain? As far as someone telling you how the CRB operates, it's nice to see that you're keeping your back-channel communication skills sharp.

If they published the CRB votes (wasn't there something FasTrack a while back about this?), you wouldn't have to speculate as to who abstains from what.

.

Bill, spare me your abuse, and stop shooting the messenger, you're lucky to have one.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, spare me your abuse, and stop shooting the messenger, you're lucky to have one.

Given the choice, I'd rather read it in FasTrack. You're not that important. You are however, a legend in your own mind. The ITAC worked before you got there, and will work after you're gone. Speaking of which, isn't your tenure about up?

[gran racing]

Oh cut the crap Bill. Jake is one of the guys we as IT AND SCCA members want on the ITAC or other boards. He puts a TON of effort into this, takes it seriously, puts his own good aside for the sake of the category, and is just a huge asset to the ITAC. Gesh, we're on vaca with a few friends and planning a fun activity. He's planning on where he can find WiFi to part take in a long con call. There's definately devotion there. Sometimes I think he takes it too seriously - but at the same time enjoys being able to add a positive contribution.Trust me, he's not happy with the way things went down and deserves some slack. Infact, he would be an ideal person to have on the CRB or whatever other advisory committee governs other categories. This isn't all being said just because he's a friend of mine either.

[Bill Miller]

We'll agree to disagree Dave.

[tnord]

why should anyone give two shits what a non-racing-not-even-an-SCCA-member thinks?

[StephenB]

[QUOTE=gran racing;297891]
Travis, many people are extremely frustrated and have said what they needed to say. More people need to be vocal with the BOD and CRB but having the same people re-voice their opinions won't do much. I think this whole thing stinks. The lack of communication really bothers me. If they're not going to do anything about these, at least have the balls to post it in Fastrack.[QUOTE]

I agree 100% with this. This is the ONLY thing that pisses me off with this club. ZERO communication above the ITAC to club members. And the communication that they have given is BS to get you to shut up. Their is ZERO accountability at the CRB and BOD level and eventhough they are volenteers we still need accountability.

I think that ALL requests should be posted and ALL requests should be responded to in a time frame that makes sence and that time frame should be published in the GCR. Currently no official process exists for member input. I still think they should use the SCCA website for member input that has forums that are locked that would allow only 1 post as a request then a response would be posted by the CRB within a certain time frame. It's easy and accessable by all to see. you can even narrow it down by catagory and class to keep it organized. The best part is that it NEVER gets deleted so anyone anyplace can see everyones requests. No need to use fasttrack for this type of stuff. We could then use Fasttrack for ACTUAL rule changes and Findings of the court only.

And lastly I am happy that Jake, Jeff, Andy and others lurk here and give input here. YOU are the voice of SCCA for me and YOU are the middle man for me to understand the club and for the club to understand me. I applaud you for dealing with people like me for the better of the club.

Thanks,
Stephen

[benspeed]

Bill, I don't know you but I bet Jake could pop your head like a zit

[lateapex911]

Given the choice, I'd rather read it in FasTrack.

Evidently not. You ask questions pointed at ITAC or CRB actions/functions/protocol. You get answers, but object/disagree (nearly always in a hissy manner). You get a clarification, and then you complain and abuse the guy (if you don't like him regardless of the answer) who bothers to answer. THEN you say you'd rather read it in FASTRACK.

Trust me, from where I sit, you're a chronic malcontent with no stake (As in a non racer who's doesn't race or hold a membership) who will attack some people, yet applaud others who respond with the same message.

I ignore and don't respond to your comments 90% of the time, but, I'll make you happier, that's gone to 100% now.

Expect no further response from me, no matter how false your accusations and comments and other drivel might be. And don't accept the silence to be anything but refusal to play in your silly, forgot- to- take- your- drugs- today moody games.

[Xian]

so this is maybe the third time i've asked you bill....

i'll take it from your silence that you don't actually race. which is just priceless.

are you even an SCCA member?

I can find autoX results for a "Bill Miller" but nothing in club racing?

[tnord]

i didn't find much of anything either.

what i did find had him in some STU car or the like turning obnoxiously slow times.

and now jake says he doesn't even have a membership. what a fucking joke.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I don't know you but I bet Jake could pop your head like a zit

Well Ben, it's a good thing you don't make your living by picking horses. Although, you'd probably do ok as a weatherman.

[pfcs]

So if you ran the Coupe thru the process at 120hp stock and a 25% multiplier, what would the process weight be??
@30%??
Assuming, of course, that there are people who still :)believe all problems are solvable.
:)

[JeffYoung]

At 25% it loses like 200 lbs. At 30%, 125 I think?

You need to use a 40%+ multiplier to get to its current weight.

There are a LOT of cars like this in the ITCS. The 318i in ITA (could be a great, fun ITA car). The V6 Mustang in ITS.


So if you ran the Coupe thru the process at 120hp stock and a 25% multiplier, what would the process weight be??
@30%??
Assuming, of course, that there are people who still :)believe all problems are solvable.
:)

[pfcs]

Jeff-is this at 120hp stock? (NOT 110)

[Z3_GoCar]

At 25% it loses like 200 lbs. At 30%, 125 I think?

You need to use a 40%+ multiplier to get to its current weight.

There are a LOT of cars like this in the ITCS. The 318i in ITA (could be a great, fun ITA car). The V6 Mustang in ITS.

And which 318i in ITA, as they all got adjusted down to 2600lbs along with the Z3 during tGR?

Btw, the m-42 318ti only lost 25lbs while the e-36 318i sedan/coupe lost 240lbs.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff-is this at 120hp stock? (NOT 110)

Phil,

The recommendation on a stock 120hp car in ITB at 25% would be 2500lbs assuming struts.

[pfcs]

Then it seems to be pretty close to properly spec'd @2490, doesn't it? Maybe your magic formula works with the right information, eh?!!
As an aside-regarding my comments about the A2/101hp and so forth: when I built my A2 I KNEW I was building an underdog, but I did it anyway because it was easy for me to do and I could adapt it for the hand controls I needed. I knew I was not going to be as competitive as I had been in my Volvo, but that it would be a suitable anvil, and so it was. (God bless the Pimple, RIP!)
I still think the Golf 2 is classed a little heavy. Maybe, if all this confusion gets settled, and some common sense prevails about power/weight issues, it will loose some weight.
Many people seem to think that LEGAL IT engine prep yields major power increases. I don't think so. Not many IT motors get the benefit of quality engine dyno time, but the 142E motors did, and for years. I spent a lot of time with Griff running them on his Stuksa brake. He has a fairly ideal dynamometer bay, and I'll certify that Harvey Stucksa (or whoever replaced him) gets his load cell and recalibrates it regularly. And Bob certainly knows his way around race motors. Despite all the efforts put into the B20E unit (at least before the open ECU), despite countless header changes/collector designs. near zero leakdown, etc, the best we ever saw out of the (130hp stock)motor was 149hp. 15%!
And as stated earlier, chassis and hub dynos are notoriously variable, as if the dyno makers were in their own horsepower war.
That the 1442E doesn't have a large increase to IT mods is understandable-it's pretty good to start with and breathes well stock. Still, I think the multiplier you choose are a little optimistic. But if you apply them across the board, they wash each other out and you just need a little dither to account for those that benefit more from IT prep and those that don't.
Sounds like a solvable problem!

[RSTPerformance]

Phil,

The recommendation on a stock 120hp car in ITB at 25% would be 2500lbs assuming struts.

-50 solid rear beam axle
-50 FWD

puts it at 2400?

Seams realistic for the Audi based on Phils #'s.... But this data Phil is providing is new to me and I image the ITAC. We are working on the Dyno...

Also the debate Phil is now having is also from what I understand one reason the CRB didn't like the ITAC process as proposed.

What WHP #'s are we looking for in the Audi? - what do people feel it should be making at 2490 and the later car classed at 2540.

Raymond "Bill don't be an @$$ to Jake or the other ITAC members, they are not the problem, they communicate with members" Blethen

Raymond

[Dave Zaslow]

Fyi

[Bill Miller]

Raymond "Bill don't be an @$$ to Jake or the other ITAC members, they are not the problem, they communicate with members" Blethen

Raymond

Raymond,

With all due respect, don't get involved in things you don't know anything about.

[gran racing]

With all due respect, keep it private then.

[Andy Bettencourt]

-50 solid rear beam axle
-50 FWD

puts it at 2400?

Seams realistic for the Audi based on Phils #'s.... But this data Phil is providing is new to me and I image the ITAC. We are working on the Dyno...

Also the debate Phil is now having is also from what I understand one reason the CRB didn't like the ITAC process as proposed.

What WHP #'s are we looking for in the Audi? - what do people feel it should be making at 2490 and the later car classed at 2540.

Raymond "Bill don't be an @$$ to Jake or the other ITAC members, they are not the problem, they communicate with members" Blethen

Raymond

No Ray, that 2500 IS with all adders. There is no deduction for beam rear and the FWD is in there already.

Bring your car to us so that it can be TUNED. I have NO idea how you can think stuff is optimized if you have never been on a dyno and tuned it.

[Gary L]

Despite all the efforts put into the B20E unit (at least before the open ECU), despite countless header changes/collector designs. near zero leakdown, etc, the best we ever saw out of the (130hp stock)motor was 149hp. 15%!

Phil - I have to respectfully disagree with your math... well actually, not your math... but your assumption of stock horsepower. The Volvo 130 hp rating was SAE Gross, evidenced by the fact that the exact same engine was rated at 124 hp DIN in Europe. And it was the exact same engine, as there were no differences at that time (1971) between US and European powerplants coming off the Volvo line. I have some calculations/cross-references somewhere to back this up, can't find them ATM... but I believe the stock '71 Volvo B20E was in fact a 120 hp engine SAE Net. This would put your 149 hp dyno number in the neighborhood of a more typical 24% increase over stock.

[rcc85]

Phil,

The recommendation on a stock 120hp car in ITB at 25% would be 2500lbs assuming struts.


So, if a 120 hp car comes in at 2500 lbs then the math on my Dodge Daytona should be:

99 stock hp * 1.25 = 123.75 IT hp (about 105 whp)

123.75 IT hp * 17 = 2104 lbs

Less 50 lbs for the strut front suspension = 2054 lbs.

That's 576 lbs less than the GCR weight of 2630 lbs!!

And the Audi guys are worried about a mere 200 lbs?

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[JeffYoung]

That's right Bob, and there are a lot of examples of cars like that in the ITCS...although yours might be the most "off." We are trying to come to an agreement with the CRB on how to address these cars within the new framework we have been given.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, if a 120 hp car comes in at 2500 lbs then the math on my Dodge Daytona should be:

99 stock hp * 1.25 = 123.75 IT hp (about 105 whp)

123.75 IT hp * 17 = 2104 lbs

Less 50 lbs for the strut front suspension = 2054 lbs.

That's 576 lbs less than the GCR weight of 2630 lbs!!

And the Audi guys are worried about a mere 200 lbs?

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

No -50 for strut suspension and AGAIN, we use 25% as the first step in the process, it is NOT locked in as such. That 2.2L had a ton of iterations so it would be one for much more research. That stock HP level is much more an ITC car than an ITB car.

But again, cars like this DO SCARE me. They DO have the potential to rip up a class if that stock power number was a dumbed down 80's number that wakes up with no emission equipment and a good exhaust. It would be my vote to have to have the competitor supply a ton of information for cars of that era so that a much more educated guys can be made.

[Rabbit05]

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o314/Rabbit051977/th_1030091006.jpg


I am unsure of where you are getting 120 hp for the Coupe. This is a crappy pic of my Factory Owner's Manual from my 1985 Coupe GT, pulled from my glove box .Which the first line says, Maximum output SAE net : 110 hp @ 5500 rpm.

Every site I have researched , forums and such, and the giant pink factory manual I have says 110 hp stock for 1985 Audi Coupe GT. I believe this is correct from 84 to 86.5 or 1987. Then they had the special 2.3 motor which were in 87.5 Coupes.


-John

[JeffYoung]

I understand Andy's concern, but on that car, the Mopar 2.2 is not going to make a ton of power naturally aspirated. It's torquey but doesn't rev. It's a B car I think (Dayontas were not that heavy stock) and it is another example of a car classed due to curb weight that is several hundred pounds at least off where process would put it.

It is these cars that might be a bit scary, but that also are probably the ones hurt the most by the current moratorium on changes.

[rcc85]

Don't be afraid of the Daytona, Andy. In order to rip up the field at 2630 lbs, I would need to make something like 150 hp at the crank (or 128 hp at the wheels). That would be more than a 50% increase over the highest factory hp rating of any normally aspirated engine installed in a Daytona (99 hp). I'm not ever gonna see numbers like that. I'd be thrilled with 105 whp.

The Daytonas came with the restrictive throttle body fuel injection which, of course, can't be changed in IT trim. ECU mods do a lot of things but they won't increase airflow.

I don't think the TBI cars have the same power potential as the carbed Mopar 2.2's. Glassburner's Omni and Hoffman's TC3 have proven that the carbed 2.2's can be competitive but those cars are also 300 lbs lighter than a Daytona per the GCR.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[pfcs]

"Also the debate Phil is now having is also from what I understand one reason the CRB didn't like the ITAC process as proposed." (Raymond)

Although many things that have happened to IT in the last decade I find regressive (headliners, door gutting, open ECU, etc), the realignment is possibly the most enlightened.
Look at this in a positive light-that the CRB and ITAC are both right. I've been at the front of plenty of ITB fields and the Coupe is competetive as classed and on a par with other ITB front runners. (except maybe the Golf 3) I don't think it needs to loose a lot of weight, possibly none.
The CRB isn't crazy to resist a 200lb reduction; maybe their job performance is commendable.
The ITAC is doing a good job also if the 120hp spec is right . If that is the right hp (and I believe it is) then it goes foward in proving the integrity of The Process and affirms their good work and brings both parties into coherence.
Some simple math: A2=1781cc; Cpe=2220cc; Cpe has 1.246 more displacement!
If so, and knowing the architecture is VERY similar, and the A2=107hp, what would you expect from the coupe-110 or 120 hp? (hint: 1.246x107=133.2).
Finally-I believe that manufacturer's hp numbers-although they may not always be 100% accurate-are more reliable than dyno numbers. (from all over the country from all kinds of different dynos from all kinds of operators, some who may have a need to make big numbers or car owners who's desires are opposite) In my experience, dyno results (esp chassis) are so variable as to be useless unless all performed on the same unit. And all concerned need to be scrupulous when there is an apprent anomaly like the Coupe. The truth WILL set you free-and all problems really are solavable.
AND-I just can't resist-it's hard to behave for long-Bill-what drug are you on to believe a legal A1 could put 100hp to the ground? Spare me a reply.

[lateapex911]

Phil made me laugh. (And I agree with some/many of his points, to a degree.)

[jimmyc]

The reality is that, in this light, on track side by side accelleration performance is quite possibly a more reliable source of data than dyno sheets from different sources. Put the club's DL1 boxes in the cars and go racing, and a good analyst will be able to deduce relative whp from the data and the weights from tech. BUT that is another story for another time because 'we don't do that' in IT.


I have not done it with DL1 but have done it with several other DA systems. Using GPS, or just doing it with time/distance and other factors.

It never right, nor never accurate. Not even just using the delta.

We had a Engineer from a experienced/knowledgeable team helping us out with a issue. One of the crew guys was messing with it (the acceleration/hp function), the guy chuckled and told him he should waste his time with that. He explained back he was just using it for delta type stuff and he said again it isn't very useful.

Three different systems said that the car was making between 220 to 260whp. And the car dynos, on a dynojet, consistently at 205whp to 210whp.

I really wish it was more accurate, but I haven't talked to any one who thinks it is.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Don't be afraid of the Daytona, Andy. In order to rip up the field at 2630 lbs, I would need to make something like 150 hp at the crank (or 128 hp at the wheels). That would be more than a 50% increase over the highest factory hp rating of any normally aspirated engine installed in a Daytona (99 hp). I'm not ever gonna see numbers like that. I'd be thrilled with 105 whp.

The Daytonas came with the restrictive throttle body fuel injection which, of course, can't be changed in IT trim. ECU mods do a lot of things but they won't increase airflow.

I don't think the TBI cars have the same power potential as the carbed Mopar 2.2's. Glassburner's Omni and Hoffman's TC3 have proven that the carbed 2.2's can be competitive but those cars are also 300 lbs lighter than a Daytona per the GCR.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

Bob,

I am not thinking it can make the power the weight has it at, I am afraid to put it at 25% knowing nothing about it's potential. 99hp IS ITC territory...like around 2280 in ITC. It just strikes me as something we should have more info on before moving forward (if we could).

[Bill Miller]

That stock HP level is much more an ITC car than an ITB car.

Andy, if 99 stock hp is an ITC car, what's 90 stock hp?



AND-I just can't resist-it's hard to behave for long-Bill-what drug are you on to believe a legal A1 could put 100hp to the ground? Spare me a reply.

Phil, you would be better to address that question to Andy, Jake, or other members of the ITAC that were around during tGR, as they are the ones that have stated that the VW guys on the ITAC claimed 100 whp for an ITB legal A1 GTI.

/edit Phil, check post #73 on Page 4 from Andy. You posted two posts after that, you didn't see his comment?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, if 99 stock hp is an ITC car, what's 90 stock hp?





Certainly starts out of the blocks as an ITC car but IT-power and attaintable weight all play in at the end.

[lateapex911]

Ah, thanks for making a great point for me guys.

The A1 Golf. A car I don't know. I was brand new on the ITAC when it got it's weight, and honestly, I can't remember too much of the specifics. But, yea, we took the word of our experts at the time. Of course there's no record of the data (if there WAS nay data), or any vote on the data.

I mention this to bring up the current situation: Some say, that our proposed and rejected V2.0 (calling it V1.2 would be better, but whatever), doesn't have enough "wiggle room".

Since none of you have seen it, here's how it differed from 1.0 in that area.

Sometimes, we (the ITAC) KNOW a stock hp rating is wrong, or that a certain car will make more, or less than presumed standard process power. In the early days, like in the case of the Golf 1, our experts said X, and it got accepted/discussed/debated. But in this case, it appears it stuck. (or maybe somebody said 105 but settled on 100, or somebody said 97 but it was rounded up for conservatism, I honestly don't remember, but those are possibilities).

(Obviously, there's room there to 'game' the system.)

Further along, we tightened that kind of methodology down, and became stricter. The RX8 is an example. Stock power says X, it HAS to gain SOMEthing, so it got X+Y as a weight. In reality, many on the ITAC didn't like that weight, but we felt powerless to change it. We wanted to be consistent, and repeatable. So that future ITACs would spit out the same weight. To the detriment of the car though...

So, for V2.0 we developed what I'd call 'managed wiggle room'. When we know a stock rating is wrong, or some car doesn't/won't match the presumed power factor, we can adjust accordingly. Here's how it works: One ITAC member acts as a presenting voice, and lays out the case. He brings research and lays it out. Could be builder dyno sheets, could be reports in publications, could be individuals dyno sheets. Or all of it. Once he builds the case, the entire ITAC would vote a 'confidence level", in a percentage form. If he convinced the entire ITAC to a certain level. (A vast majority), the data and position was accepted.

The advantage to this method (which I'll admit is still not 'perfect", is transparency, documentation, and the removal of politics to the greatest degree possible, and other 'negotiations' from the process, while still allowing the needed 'wiggleroom' and flexibility.

But, V2.0 has been rejected, so, we're back to square 1.

Too bad, I think the transparency and documentation, repeatability and robustness of V2.0 served the members like nothing before it, perhaps in the history of IT, and certainly was ideal in a category with 350 cars on the books.
*I should ammend this. The CRB wasn't impressed with some of the refinements, and left us with this framework: old listings won't be adjusted, unless overdogs, and if so, V1.0 will be used. On new listings we are free to do anything we want, as long as it 'makes sense'. So, we CAN use V2.0 for new listings, as long as it passes the CRBs sniff test and scrutiny.

[JoshS]

Andy, if 99 stock hp is an ITC car, what's 90 stock hp?

A lighter ITC car, all else being equal.

[Bill Miller]

No -50 for strut suspension and AGAIN, we use 25% as the first step in the process, it is NOT locked in as such. That 2.2L had a ton of iterations so it would be one for much more research. That stock HP level is much more an ITC car than an ITB car.

But again, cars like this DO SCARE me. They DO have the potential to rip up a class if that stock power number was a dumbed down 80's number that wakes up with no emission equipment and a good exhaust. It would be my vote to have to have the competitor supply a ton of information for cars of that era so that a much more educated guys can be made.

Andy,

Do the math backwards on Bob's car.

2630# spec weight + 50# FWD adder, = 2680# / 17 = 157.8hp / 99hp = 1.59 power factor. Heck, if you use whp (157.8 * .85 - 134 whp), you end up w/ a 1.35 power factor. And that's based on whp! I don't think you need a whole lot of data to show that the weight is WAY off.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Do the math backwards on Bob's car.

2630# spec weight + 50# FWD adder, = 2680# / 17 = 157.8hp / 99hp = 1.59 power factor. Heck, if you use whp (157.8 * .85 - 134 whp), you end up w/ a 1.35 power factor. And that's based on whp! I don't think you need a whole lot of data to show that the weight is WAY off.

Bill, it's obvious teh weight is way off. The point is that (without knowing anything) dead process weight has it as a 2280lbs ITC car.

Its a car (like the Audi and many others) that I would like to know more about before it got reset. All part of the process.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, it's obvious teh weight is way off. The point is that (without knowing anything) dead process weight has it as a 2280lbs ITC car.

Its a car (like the Audi and many others) that I would like to know more about before it got reset. All part of the process.

And that's where I see a big issue with that approach. Ask yourself this question, would you even consider spending a bucket of cash to build a serious, 10/10ths effort with a car that was that grossly mis-classed? You can't really use info on other builds (non-IT), as who knows if they're legal or not. So, you need IT examples to know if something other than a 1.25 power factor is appropriate, yet nobody's building full tilt examples because the car is 500# heavy. No real-world data to know that 1.25 isn't appropriate, but concerns (which are possibly valid) that 1.25 is low. That's why every car in the ITCS should have been run through the process, and set at process weight. I know you guys were trying to do that w/ ITB, and got the rug pulled out from under you (maybe that's a better visual for Kirk ;) ). The tools are in place to correct those cars that show to be dominant, or warrant a power factor other than 1.25. I don't understand why the CRB doesn't want to use them.

I have no problem w/ different cars getting different power factors, or different adders, my biggest thing has always been to treat all cars the same. If some show that they're better than the sum of the parts, add weight. It's a lot harder to know if they're lesser than the sum of their parts, due to what I said above, but if the arguement is compelling, you can correct those as well.

BTW, if a 99hp Daytona lands in ITC @ 2280#, a 90hp Rabbit GTI should land in ITC @ 2135# (and that's w/ a 1.30 power factor).

[CRallo]

I'll be more respectful than he deserves and spare most of the commentary that comes to mind...

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x140/BlackFireZ28/ban.gif

[Andy Bettencourt]

Running all the cars through wasn't possible then and we are being told is isn't possible now. We wanted it then and we want it now. You are preaching to the choir.

[Bill Miller]

Running all the cars through wasn't possible then and we are being told is isn't possible now. We wanted it then and we want it now. You are preaching to the choir.

I hear you Andy. It just sucks that politics prevents those that should know IT the best (ITAC) from doing what they think is best for the category.

What do you think would happen if everyone sent letters in asking for their car to be run through the process?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I hear you Andy. It just sucks that politics prevents those that should know IT the best (ITAC) from doing what they think is best for the category.

What do you think would happen if everyone sent letters in asking for their car to be run through the process?

I think it would be better if people (who thought it better) wrote in and told the CRB how they wanted their class to be governed. Process first, corrections second. Not 'seat of the pants' first, process sometimes.

The ITAC has told the PTB that we think the IT community prefers 'transparant and repeatable' over 'head of a pin' all day and twice on Tuesday. THAT is the fact that needs to be driven home if any.

[frnkhous]

And that's where I see a big issue with that approach. Ask yourself this question, would you even consider spending a bucket of cash to build a serious, 10/10ths effort with a car that was that grossly mis-classed? You can't really use info on other builds (non-IT), as who knows if they're legal or not. So, you need IT examples to know if something other than a 1.25 power factor is appropriate, yet nobody's building full tilt examples because the car is 500# heavy. No real-world data to know that 1.25 isn't appropriate, but concerns (which are possibly valid) that 1.25 is low. That's why every car in the ITCS should have been run through the process, and set at process weight. I know you guys were trying to do that w/ ITB, and got the rug pulled out from under you (maybe that's a better visual for Kirk ;) ). The tools are in place to correct those cars that show to be dominant, or warrant a power factor other than 1.25. I don't understand why the CRB doesn't want to use them.

I have no problem w/ different cars getting different power factors, or different adders, my biggest thing has always been to treat all cars the same. If some show that they're better than the sum of the parts, add weight. It's a lot harder to know if they're lesser than the sum of their parts, due to what I said above, but if the arguement is compelling, you can correct those as well.

BTW, if a 99hp Daytona lands in ITC @ 2280#, a 90hp Rabbit GTI should land in ITC @ 2135# (and that's w/ a 1.30 power factor).

Bill,

You do realize that the ITB civic makes 90hp from the factory as well and gets a 35% multiplier. Your split to the civic in theory wouldn't change if you were moved to ITC, you'd just screw up a class. If you think you should be moved and the civic shouldn't, well now your just playing give me what I want, not what is best for everyone.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

You do realize that the ITB civic makes 90hp from the factory as well and gets a 35% multiplier. Your split to the civic in theory wouldn't change if you were moved to ITC, you'd just screw up a class. If you think you should be moved and the civic shouldn't, well now your just playing give me what I want, not what is best for everyone.

Well, if they're supposed to be evenly matched in ITB, you should be able to make them evenly matched in ITC. How does the Civic / CRX Si in ITB get to 2130#? Does it get additional adders for the front & rear suspension? My math puts it at between 2035# and 2040#, using the published 91hp, a 1.35 power factor, and the -50# FWD adder.

So yes, if you're going to move one, move the other. But this is where an open, documented process would answer a lot of questions. Like why a 99hp Dodge Daytona would be in ITC, but a 90hp Rabbit GTI and a 91hp Civic/CRX Si would be in ITB.

[frnkhous]

Bill

I guess my point is it doesn't. ITC is the place of 70 crank hp shitboxes. I own one, fortunately it's a 90 civic so if this madness took place i'd be an engine and transmission away from being back in a car that made sense for the class. 99chp cars have no business in ITC unless they can't get under 2500lbs(New Beetle) or they literally make almost zero gains in IT trim. My civic is TB injected and they make 35% gains. If they actually would move a car without evidence that it couldn't make power i'd be shocked. And I definetly don't defend the process, I think ITR is all jacked up personally. And it likely won't ever be straigtened out now. Hell a member of the ITAC won't build a newly listed car because he freely admits it is too heavy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hell a member of the ITAC won't build a newly listed car because he freely admits it is too heavy.

That probably needs to be clarified. 'Too heavy' is perception. Just because you have to ballast it up to meet the target power to weight ratio doesn't mean it's too heavy in comparision to other cars and power levels. It may mean it's too heavy 'in my mind'. I fully feel that way about the 330 BMW. I like less weight but damn that car could make some power.

The great thing about ITR (and what I think is holding it back as well) is that there is no obvious choice. The Bimmers are built and the recipe is known so they fill the grids. People are wary of an 'investment' without a known chance.

[seckerich]

That probably needs to be clarified. 'Too heavy' is perception. Just because you have to ballast it up to meet the target power to weight ratio doesn't mean it's too heavy in comparision to other cars and power levels. It may mean it's too heavy 'in my mind'. I fully feel that way about the 330 BMW. I like less weight but damn that car could make some power.

The great thing about ITR (and what I think is holding it back as well) is that there is no obvious choice. The Bimmers are built and the recipe is known so they fill the grids. People are wary of an 'investment' without a known chance.

To clarify that a little farther Andy, people are smart enough not to make the investment on a grossly misweighted car compared to what it races against. The weight is not an issue if it is relative to what it races. Everything about an ITR build is more expensive. Tires, motors, base car, etc. It is a huge investment in a class that has serious classing issues.

[Bill Miller]

People are wary of an 'investment' without a known chance.

Andy,

I think that holds true for all the IT classes. ITR is just newer, and they're aren't that many cars that have been built yet (BMW's notwithstanding). What actually makes that more relevant for the rest of IT, is that you've got cars out there that people KNOW don't have a chance. You get a few people building them because that's the car they want to run. But most of those folks are just happy to race, they aren't committed to running at the pointy end of the grid. That's why the CRB needs to get their heads out of their butts (didn't someone request this in FasTrack?) and put all of IT on a level playing field, and go from there.

[gran racing]

Post the great alignment, how many cars had weight adjusted in total?

[Bill Miller]

Post the great alignment, how many cars had weight adjusted in total?

It's in FasTrack. I know I looked it up, and thought I posted it in one of the other threads where we were discussing it. I think shortly after Kirk announced his resignation, and the info about the CRB's new position on adjusting cars being in violation of the GCR.

[gran racing]

Yeah, just hoping someone might know the total since that covers a few years now. A number was quoted to me and I'm just curious if that's actually correct.

[Bill Miller]

Yeah, just hoping someone might know the total since that covers a few years now. A number was quoted to me and I'm just curious if that's actually correct.

Dave, IIRC, it wasn't that many cars. I'm thinking maybe more than 10 but less than 20.

[Knestis]

Post the great alignment, how many cars had weight adjusted in total?

Is the question how many got changed during the GR (or not-so-great, as the case may be) or how many have been reviewed SINCE then? Note that the latter category includes some that were not recommended by the ITAC for a change based on the process, some that were and got changed, and some that were recommended but stalled out at the CRB.

K

[JoshS]

Yeah, just hoping someone might know the total since that covers a few years now. A number was quoted to me and I'm just curious if that's actually correct.

I took the time to look through all of the Fastracks published since 2006.

There were a lot of changes in 2006, that I believe were effectively considered en-masse to be "the great realignment." They were published over the course of several Fastracks, from 2/06-12/06.

Assuming that everything prior to the January 2007 Fastrack was TGR and everything since was just corrections, I come to the following numbers:

- 8 weight adjustments to "old" listings (3 in 2007, 4 in 2008, 1 in 2009)
- 25 additions, all done via "the process". Actually more since I clumped like cars into one (Camaro/Firebird, for example.)

The 8 changes since 1/07 are to the following cars:
ITS Mazda MX-6 (1993)
ITS Mercedes 190E 2.3 12V (87-93)
ITA Honda Civic EX Coupe (96-00)
ITB Honda Civic DX (moved from ITA, then weight adjusted)
ITB Pontiac Fiero 2.5 (84-88) (actually 2 spec lines)
ITB Porsche 924/Sebring (77-82)
ITB Mercury Capri 2.3 (79-86)
ITB Toyota MR2 (moved from ITA)

Caveat: I only looked through the tech bulletins. Some things, like the MR2 move, were done in the BOD minutes but never had a tech bulletin. There might be more examples like that one that I didn't list. But if a weight changed through the basic errors-and-omissions thing, it would have been a tech bulletin.

[JeffYoung]

I don't think that was all of them.

In ITS, the Z cars other than the 240z lost weight (the 260z, 280z and 300zx all lost significant poundage). Also the 944 and 924s lost weight, and I think the 944 did as well.

[JoshS]

I don't think that was all of them.

In ITS, the Z cars other than the 240z lost weight (the 260z, 280z and 300zx all lost significant poundage). Also the 944 and 924s lost weight, and I think the 944 did as well.

I did not see any of those. Can you find the Fastracks that contain them?

EDIT: Jeff, I found them. Those were February '06, which yes, was part of TRA, not post-TGR. My list above was post-TGR.

[Knestis]

History is interpreted of course but the "Great Realignment" was really just about the cars that were recommended for change en masse in the "Letter to the CRB" that changed the weights of...

** Seven (7) ITB cars
** Fifteen (15) ITA cars
** Fifteen (15) ITS cars, including those Z cars that Jeff remembers

That letter was drafted in 2005 as a recommendation from the ITAC to the CRB for the 2006 season. All of the changes you list Josh - including the Civic EX Coupe (which I requested) - were subsequent to and enabled by the busting of the logjam. Problem was, as a sop to make the "one-time adjustment" palatable to the Old Guard, that nasty clause was added to the "no guarantee of competitiveness" bit, about limiting future adjustments.

Of course, each of those changes represents a likely violation of that GCR clause, based on the re-interpretation just handed down. Doesn't it...?

K

[JoshS]

All of the changes you list Josh - including the Civic EX Coupe (which I requested) - were subsequent to and enabled by the busting of the logjam.

Exactly.


Of course, each of those changes represents a likely violation of that GCR clause, based on the re-interpretation just handed down. Doesn't it...?

I believe so.

[JeffYoung]

There was another batch of 12 ITS cars (Del Sol, Calais, 92-93 GSR, Volvo 850, etc.) and 2 ITA cars in December of 2006.

[JoshS]

There was another batch of 12 ITS cars (Del Sol, Calais, 92-93 GSR, Volvo 850, etc.) and 2 ITA cars in December of 2006.

Yes, I saw that. That's why I used 1/07 as my starting point for post-TGR.

For completeness, most of the changes happened 2/06, 4/06, 6/06, and 12/06. Between those four months there were BULK changes. I just assumed that this was TGR "phased in" or something. I think all of the changes were effective after the 2006 season. So I picked 1/07 as my starting point.

[JeffYoung]

Although I wasn't on the ITAC at the time, I think it is a bit of a misnomer to split the adjustments up. As I understood it, cars were done in chunks -- and not just by popularity of the chassis -- with the ultimate goal being, at some point, to have them all done or to work on chassis that were grossly over or under weight.

Remember, this was during the time period where folks thought (myself included) that if the car was within 100 lbs either way of process weight, it was ok to leave it alone.

[lateapex911]

Interesting. I would've called "tGR" the Feb addendum, and everything after was business as usual, ut I can see the line being drawn elsewhere.

Any way you cut it, there have been a lot of cars adjusted, many proactively. Recently, most seem to be as a result of member requests.

Going forward, it appears those will be rejected unless the car is deemed an overdog.

[gran racing]

Over the years the ITAC has requested some corrections on classifications that they felt were errors in the way they were treated during the realignment. I'm not sure I would say there has been numerous corrections, looking back at the master tech bulletins in 2007 there were two reclassifications from ITA to B, one weight correction in ITB and one in ITA, 2008 saw two weight corrections in ITB and one in ITS, 09 saw two corrections in ITB and one in A. That's a total of ten changes over three years in a category that has many cars.

This is what I'm trying to determine how accurate of a statement it is. Even with the information posted here, I'm still a bit confused. Maybe I just need to re-read the information a couple more times.

[Knestis]

>> That's a total of ten changes over three years in a category that has many cars.

Sorry, Dave - WHERE is this quoted from...?

K

[gran racing]

An e-mail exchange I had. Out of respect to him, I can't go much further here.

[lateapex911]

Over the years the ITAC has requested some corrections on classifications that they felt were errors in the way they were treated during the realignment.

The way that's phrased...it really is saying that the ITAC has requested corrections on car that it corrected in tGR.

I have to tell you, that over the years since the Feb addendum, it sure seems to me like we've discussed a LOT more than ten cars, and they all get processed, many with changes recommended.

[Knestis]

Super awesome. More back-channel secret crapola.

The problem with communicating with more than one person at a time is, those damned lies are easy to spot. Look for the cultural patterns that persist in our organization: Back-channel, unofficial conversation drives the actual decision making, rather than documented committee discussion; information travels through poorly documented nexuses (nexes?) that rely on one person (e.g., the CRB liaison to an Ad Hoc); those "in the know" play the "you didn't hear it from me, but..." game; there's no actual provision for tracking INACTION on a member request item - they can literally go stale an NEVER be acted on without raising a red flag; etc.; etc.; etc. ...

And now you are part of the problem, Dave. Not for attribution. Great. A hint, if I might? Any time anyone tells you something but suggests that you can't share them as the source, they're - at best - spinning the answer to suit the needs of their communication with you. They almost certainly will tell someone else something different. Regardless, what the mystery person typed is factually innacurate.

ANY COMMUNICATION BY ANYONE IN ANY OFFICIAL CLUB CAPACITY SHOULD BE FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. And that should *not* be interpreted as, "Well, we'd better not communicate with th members then..."

Screw "ad hoc." This is "post hoc" butt covering. It was convenient for the CRB to approve ITAC recommendations that were contrary to one interpretation of the letter of the rules, right up to the point when it wasn't anymore.

K

[gran racing]

More back-channel secret crapola.

No, not at all. I contacted the BOD in my region via e-mail expressing I had concerns about what's going on with IT. We weren't able to connect via phone but he was interested in listening to what I had to say so I sent him an e-mail. He inturn forwarded it on and I received a response.

The individual on the CRB who replied didn't suggest his reply be kept private and the answer certainly was not spun to my liking. Trust me.

I question a portion of the "facts" he provided and included that above in hopes of determining if in reality it's true or not. If it is accurate, then I'm a surprised. If it's not, it would be nice to provide him more information.


ANY COMMUNICATION BY ANYONE IN ANY OFFICIAL CLUB CAPACITY SHOULD BE FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION.

I sent a personal e-mail expressing my displeasure and received a communication back. While his position and belief frustrates me, I still believe in showing him respect by not posting it all on a public forum like this. That's my "fault" - no one elses. While it may have taken a push by a BOD member, at least I received a thought out e-mail even though I don't like his position.



Dear BOD,
I have serious concerns with actions the CRB is taking related to the Improved Touring category. It is my hope that you will intervene with the recent decisions they have made.

The ITAC developed a process that takes much of the subjectivity out of the classification process. This process still has room for exceptions where if something doesn’t look right, additional research can be conducted and utilized to determine the appropriate results. In addition to using this process on new classification requests, it has also been used on existing cars to resolve previous classification errors. This is not a new thing and the CRB has approved / implemented numerous previous corrections. The ITAC recently submitted a batch of cars and now all of a sudden the CRB will not approve any of the recommendations as it can not be accepted under the “errors and omissions” clause. I honestly don’t care which clause allows the corrections but find it absurd that it has been allowed for so many cars before, now it can’t. The CRB also told the ITAC not to have open communication with the IT community on the Improved Touring.com or other public forums. For a club built on membership, this ongoing communication and interactions should be encouraged. I applaud the ITAC and support what they have been doing.

Don’t get me wrong, the IT category is quite good and “works” but there still are many inequalities and the category can be made truly great. We recognize that the classification process will never be perfect, but we should at least have cars classed by the same rules and methodology. As the ITAC receives requests for IT cars to be run through the classification process, review the cars and then make any applicable adjustments. Why is it that existing cars do not deserve the same treatment as a newly requested car being classed? It simply does not make sense.

Your support in approving the recent classification requests, utilization of this process for new and existing cars, and open communication would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, I can be reached during the day or evening at --listed my cell phone number ---. I have also included the e-mail I recently sent to the CRB related to this matter. Thank you for your time and attention.
Dave Gran

[Bill Miller]

Dave,

How do you not see that as back-channel communication? If you're getting an official position from someone that has influence on rules and policy, I would think that would be the same position that they would give everyone. Your comment indicates that you feel that it was a position that was not meant to be made public. Not sure what kind of 'respect' you're showing. I believe the old saying about birds of a feather applies here.

[JoshS]

Interesting. I would've called "tGR" the Feb addendum, and everything after was business as usual, ut I can see the line being drawn elsewhere.

Just for completeness, if we want to draw the line after the Feb addendum, then we will include everything from April 2006 onward (there were no changed weights in March.) But I'll reiterate that it seems that since these are so soon after TGR and that was (I'm told) billed as a one-time event, no more changes would occur, it shocks me that so many changes were apparently allowed to happen so soon and yet were not included in the original proposal. Are you all sure these weren't really part of that proposal? As I didn't join the ITAC until January 2007, it's hard for me to know what really was involved.

Anyway, moving the line back to March '06 adds the following cars to the list I posted above:

ITS Honda Civic Si (99-00) (CHANGED TWICE, 4/06, 12/06)
ITS Del Sol VTEC (94-96) (CHANGED TWICE, 4/06, 12/06)
ITS 300ZX 2+2 (86)
ITS 944 2.7L (89)
ITS Acura Integra GS-R (92-93)
ITS Acura Integra GS-R (94-00)
ITS Ford Probe GT (93)
ITS Ford Contour V6 (95)
ITS Honda Prelude Si (92-93)
ITS Mazda 626 LX/ES (93-97)
ITS Oldsmobile Calais (88-91)
ITS Pontiac Grand-Am (Quad 4) (88-91)
ITS Volvo 850 GLT (93-97)

ITA BMW Z3 1.9 (96-98)
ITA Ford Escort 1.8L 16V
ITA Honda Civic DX (92-95)
ITA Mazda Protege LX (90-93)
ITA Mazda Protege ES (95-98)
ITA Honda Civic DX (88-91)
ITA Honda CRX 1.5 Standard

ITB Toyota Celica 2.2 (74-77)
ITB Toyota Corolla SR-5 (80-82)

Those were all in 2006. Relisting the ones done in 2007-2009:

ITS Mazda MX-6 (1993)
ITS Mercedes 190E 2.3 12V (87-93)

ITA Honda Civic EX Coupe (96-00)

ITB Honda Civic DX (moved from ITA, then weight adjusted)
ITB Pontiac Fiero 2.5 (84-88) (actually 2 spec lines)
ITB Porsche 924/Sebring (77-82)
ITB Mercury Capri 2.3 (79-86)
ITB Toyota MR2 (moved from ITA)

[Knestis]

There's a copy of the "GR Letter" somewhere in the SCCA IT board. It details precisely which cars were recommended as part of the "one-time adjustment" of the number of cars I listed above.

You can see, I think, why it's so dumbfounding for the CRB to suddenly decide to enforce a "rule" that they had encouraged the ITAC to ignore on a pretty substantial scale.

And I'm guessing that you have cataloged only those recommended - and voted on - for a change. Add the cars that the ITAC reviewed and found to be within whatever tolerance was applicable at the time and the list of cars actually ACTED ON during that time increases even more...

K

[seckerich]

There's a copy of the "GR Letter" somewhere in the SCCA IT board. It details precisely which cars were recommended as part of the "one-time adjustment" of the number of cars I listed above.

You can see, I think, why it's so dumbfounding for the CRB to suddenly decide to enforce a "rule" that they had encouraged the ITAC to ignore on a pretty substantial scale.

And I'm guessing that you have cataloged only those recommended - and voted on - for a change. Add the cars that the ITAC reviewed and found to be within whatever tolerance was applicable at the time and the list of cars actually ACTED ON during that time increases even more...

K

Not the CRB guys, it was done by the BOD when they shut down "errors and ommisions" by the CRB for anything but a typo. Unfortunately that was all we had.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Like Jake, the 'Grat Realignment' to me IS the Feb addendum. After that, it was 'business as usual'.

[Knestis]

Not the CRB guys, it was done by the BOD when they shut down "errors and ommisions" by the CRB for anything but a typo. Unfortunately that was all we had.

Sorry - what?

I'm not following that at all...

K

[seckerich]

We were allowed in IT to run the changes through under errors and omissions because there was never any real formula or process used when these cars were classed. At the least they were classed many different ways under the various CRB/BOD over the years. A repeatable process that was fair to all was correcting that error. After the GRA all your changes were under that system. Then it was totally abused by the CRB in another catagory (see big brakes, etc) and changes were done that the BOD saw as comp adjustments that they never saw or voted on. IT got caught in the knee jerk reaction that hit about the same time as you decided to touch the golden child of ITB. Perfect storm and we got screwed. Now we either get on board to fix it or as the line in animal house goes "Thank you sir, may I have another". Your choice. :D

[Andy Bettencourt]

Then shame on the BoD for not taking the time to punish JUST the kids who were palying the game the wrong way. Booo.

[gran racing]

The cars listed by Josh above... Are those part of tGA or subsequent items that were acted on? If the CRB statement of 10 cars in 3 years is inaccurate, I'd like to follow-up with that. Looks like the majority were in '06 and the CRB is considering them as part of tGA.

[Knestis]

Cars recommended for changes during the Great Realignment, by a memo to the CRB and BoD, dated 14 September 2005:



ITB:

Volkswagen
Rabbit
GTI (83-84)
2180
Change weight to 2080

Volkswagen
Scirocco
II 8V (83-88)
2270
Change weight to 2130

Toyota
Celica
III 2.4 (83-85)
2530
Change weight to 2350

Toyota
Celica
III GTS (83-85)
2630
Change weight to 2425

Plymouth
Horizon
1.7 (78-79)
2280
Move to ITC @ 2050

Plymouth
Horizon
TC3 1.7 (79-80)
2320
Move to ITC @ 2110

Mazda
MX-6
(88-91)
2830
Change weight to 2530

Ford
Mustang
2.3 (79-93)
2640
Change weight to 2400


ITA:

Acura
Integra
(90-93)
2480
Change weight to 2595

Acura
Integra
(94-99)
2555
Change weight to 2620

Acura
Integra
1.6 (86-89)
2380
Change weight to 2200

BMW
325e/es
(2 & 4 door) (84-87)
2750
Change weight to 2500

Honda
CRX
Si (88-91)
2140
Change weight to 2250

Honda
Civic Si
(89-91)
2175
Change weight to 2250

Mazda
RX-7
(12A)(79-85)
2380
Change weight to 2280

Mazda
Miata
/ MX-5 (90-93)
2205
Change weight to 2255

Nissan
240-SX
/ S13(89-90)
2530
Change weight to 2630

Plymouth
Laser
/ Eagle Talon / Mitsubishi Eclipse 2.0L
2755
Change weight to 2500

Mitsubishi
Eclipe
(95-98)
2700
Change weight to 2600

Pontiac
Fiero
GT & Formula V-6 2.8 -1988
2780
Change weight to 2600

Toyota
MR2
1.6L(85-89)
2370
Change weight to 2270

Toyota
Celica
GTS (86-88)
2680
Change weight to 2500

Toyota
Corolla
GTS (86-89)
2410
Move to ITB @2445lbs

More in another reply since I got cut off with too many characters...

K

[Knestis]

ITS:

Mazda
MX-3
V-6
2510
Move to ITA @ same weight (2510lbs)

Mazda
RX-7
(13b) (84-85)
2530
Change weight to 2350

Nissan
200-SX
V-6 -1987
2885
Change weight to 2585

Nissan
300-ZX
2+2 -1986
2865
Change weight to 2725

Nissan
300-ZX
(84-88)
2865
Change weight to 2725

Nissan / Datsun
260-Z
(73-74)
2610
Change weight to 2480

Nissan / Datsun
280-Z
(75-78)
2730
Change weight to 2505

Nissan / Datsun
280-ZX
(79-83)
2770
Change weight to 2530

Nissan / Datsun
280-ZX
2+2 (79-83)
2820
Change weight to 2530

Porsche
944
(2V) (83-88)
2715
Change weight to 2575

Porsche
924-S
(86-88)
2715
Change weight to 2575

Toyota
Celica
GT Coupe & Liftback (89-93)
2590
Move to ITA @ same weight (2590)

Toyota
Supra
(82-85)
2890
Change weight to 2750


Porsche
944S
(4V) (87-88)
2850
Change weight to 2990, or restrict to 220hp (flywheel)

BMW
325i/is E36
(2 & 4 door)
(92-95)
2850
Change weight to 3300, or restrict to 220hp (flywheel)

That's it.

K

[Bill Miller]

Then shame on the BoD for not taking the time to punish JUST the kids who were palying the game the wrong way. Booo.

No Andy, shame on the BoD for not actually doing their jobs and paying attention to what's going on. Pretty sure that whenever I read the CRB minutes, there are always 1 or 2 BoD liaisons that participate in the con. call. It should be no big surprise when these things come up, as they would have been discussed in a con. call w/ a BoD member(s?) present. If the liaisons weren't informing the rest of the BoD what was going on, well, that's on them.

And if the CRB really believed in 'normalizing' all of IT, and the effectiveness of the process (we've already heard from ITAC members that some don't), I would think that that's what they would tell the BoD. Something to the effect of
There has been no standard method for classing IT cars over the years. The ITAC has worked to develop a classification process that is objective and repeatable. The IT community supports this, and we feel that it is in the best interest of IT to run all cars in the ITCS through this process.The thing is, it doesn't seem like the CRB (as a group) believes in the process. The BoD edict about not using E&O to correct cars gives them (CRB) a convenient 'out' w/o making them (CRB) look like the bad guys. Something to the effect of
Hey, we'd love to correct all those cars, and run all the cars in the ITCS through the process, but the BoD has told us not to.

I'm sure Kirk knows the 'official' term for this behavior, similar to the 'strategic ambiguity' that he mentioned before.

/edit

Kirk,

Do you have any other info behind that list? Like maybe how the various weights were arrived at?

[robits325is]

ITS:

Porsche
944S
(4V) (87-88)
2850
Change weight to 2990, or restrict to 220hp (flywheel)

BMW
325i/is E36
(2 & 4 door)
(92-95)
2850
Change weight to 3300, or restrict to 220hp (flywheel)

That's it.

K

Interesting

[JeffYoung]

Yes it is. I wonder why the 944S didn't get a restrictor?

Also, I didn't realize the ITAC recommendatin included an alternative -- weight or restrictor? I thought the ITAC always recommended weight?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes it is. I wonder why the 944S didn't get a restrictor?

Also, I didn't realize the ITAC recommendatin included an alternative -- weight or restrictor? I thought the ITAC always recommended weight?

The ITAC NEVER recommended a SIR on either car. Not sure where Kirk got those two but they didn't come from a direct ITAC recommendation. I remember the 944S topic and in the end it ended up getting a lower power multiplier. The two were not tied at the hip even though they had within 1 stock hp.

The E36 325i/is weight recommendation was derived from 210whp potential in IT trim. That number is actually known to be low now.

[JeffYoung]

Got it, thanks for the clarification.

[Knestis]

The ITAC NEVER recommended a SIR on either car. Not sure where Kirk got those two but they didn't come from a direct ITAC recommendation. I remember the 944S topic and in the end it ended up getting a lower power multiplier. The two were not tied at the hip even though they had within 1 stock hp.

The E36 325i/is weight recommendation was derived from 210whp potential in IT trim. That number is actually known to be low now.

That information came from the document titled "2005_IT_letter_to_the_CRB," that Darin drafted to " send to Bob and the CRB." I pulled it from the SCCA ITAC board back when I was first getting up to speed on the history of the committee's work.

It may well have been that the SIR bits got edited out in subsequent conversation inside the ITAC but I didn't see evidence of any later versions. I apologize if this is muddled but it's another case where there should be a clear paper trail of the committee's communication to the CRB, but isn't.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

That information came from the document titled "2005_IT_letter_to_the_CRB," that Darin drafted to " send to Bob and the CRB." I pulled it from the SCCA ITAC board back when I was first getting up to speed on the history of the committee's work.

It may well have been that the SIR bits got edited out in subsequent conversation inside the ITAC but I didn't see evidence of any later versions. I apologize if this is muddled but it's another case where there should be a clear paper trail of the committee's communication to the CRB, but isn't.

K

And knowing the history of this stuff, putting something out as fact without checking first is misleading.

[Knestis]

And knowing the history of this stuff, putting something out as fact without checking first is misleading.

So help fix the problem, Andy.

I was on the inside for 18 months and still obviously had trouble sorting the wheat from the chaff. That's the best information I had on the subject, having taken it at face value based on the evidence in the record at hand. The problem is that the record is sparse, poorly documented, and easily manipulated.

Go ahead - dig into the history documented there, find the actual recommendation that was sent up to the CRB, and share it. If my interpretation of the record is incorrect, it should be easy to rectify it.

Absent any official process for documenting and disseminating the work of the Ad Hocs, CRB, and BoD, we're stuck with informal channels through which information gets out. And it WILL get out. And before someone suggests that the GCR and Fastrack serve that purpose, consider how our state and federal legislative processes would be different if the public only got to see any new law only in its final form as signed and enacted. That is not transparancy.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

So help fix the problem, Andy.

I was on the inside for 18 months and still obviously had trouble sorting the wheat from the chaff. That's the best information I had on the subject, having taken it at face value based on the evidence in the record at hand. The problem is that the record is sparse, poorly documented, and easily manipulated.

Go ahead - dig into the history documented there, find the actual recommendation that was sent up to the CRB, and share it. If my interpretation of the record is incorrect, it should be easy to rectify it.

Absent any official process for documenting and disseminating the work of the Ad Hocs, CRB, and BoD, we're stuck with informal channels through which information gets out. And it WILL get out. And before someone suggests that the GCR and Fastrack serve that purpose, consider how our state and federal legislative processes would be different if the public only got to see any new law only in its final form as signed and enacted. That is not transparancy.

K

Nobody said it was good Kirk, what I was trying to say is that you KNOW it wasnt good, you could have validated with someone who was on the committee at the time the info - or posted that what you found and where you found it first, then we could come in and correct it, should it have been wrong. I just don't like it coming off as fact, when it indeed was not. Before you post what you have saved from your 'pre-tenure', do us all a favor and validate it as what you think it is.

The documentation process we have now is light years better than whatever was in play before. As you state, it was a DRAFT Darin did. Presented to the ITAC and final recomendations were taken directly by the CRB after debate.

The Feb addendum was tGR. We wanted to do more, we were convinced by the CRB that anything outside the +/- 100lbs barrier was going to raise flags with the BoD.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is an example of what I did when I took over as Chair but had no secretary. These were posted to the SCCA site and sent to Dowie for their calls.

Improved Touring Advisory Committee Con Call 8-28-06
AttendingITACCRBSCCANot AttendingBettencourtKeeneNoneRoffeAlbinDowieChaney ClaytonClarkGraserGulik
TopicITAC Input
06-069 ITRThank you for your input
06-070 ITRThank you for your input
06-071 Civic DX to ITBNo change of class recommended, change spec minimum weight to 2000lbs
06-072 Honda CRXNo change of class recommended, change spec minimum weight to 2000lbs
06-073 Dual classThank you for your input
06-074 323iThank you for your input
06-075 300zxThank you for your input
06-076 No dual classThank you for your input
06-077 Civic DX to ITBNo change of class recommended, change spec minimum weight to 2000lbs
ITS MR2 to ITA @ 2545Change listing from ITS to ITA @ 2545lbs and make sure years read 90-94
New members for 2006Ask CRB to put out a request for resumes for 2007 ITAC
2006-2007 Calendar4th Monday of each month to continue
ITAC Tent Meeting at the ARRCGood idea but not plausable
Honda Civic DX (3 & 4 door) 92-95Change minimum weight from 2330 to 2050lbs.

[Bill Miller]

Nobody said it was good Kirk, what I was trying to say is that you KNOW it wasnt good, you could have validated with someone who was on the committee at the time the info - or posted that what you found and where you found it first, then we could come in and correct it, should it have been wrong. I just don't like it coming off as fact, when it indeed was not. Before you post what you have saved from your 'pre-tenure', do us all a favor and validate it as what you think it is.

The documentation process we have now is light years better than whatever was in play before. As you state, it was a DRAFT Darin did. Presented to the ITAC and final recomendations were taken directly by the CRB after debate.

The Feb addendum was tGR. We wanted to do more, we were convinced by the CRB that anything outside the +/- 100lbs barrier was going to raise flags with the BoD.

Andy,

IIRC, one of the main concerns when the whole discussion about a classing process (and the lack of one), was that there was NO documentation about how things were done. You were around during those discussions, as were most of the ITAC members. I'm genuinely surprised that you guys were so cavalier w/ the documentation even after those conversations several years ago.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

IIRC, one of the main concerns when the whole discussion about a classing process (and the lack of one), was that there was NO documentation about how things were done. You were around during those discussions, as were most of the ITAC members. I'm genuinely surprised that you guys were so cavalier w/ the documentation even after those conversations several years ago.

The process was documented Bill, that is what the discussions were about - no guidelines as to how cars were classed back before Darin and myself. In the 'Process Era', the debates were had, using the written process as a guideline and the results were documented. In the Kirk era, he really brought structure to that. Who voted how on what, each step of the calculation is written down, rules on how the process can or can't be applied etc. In the end, it's the lack of wiggle room that created, that got the rug pulled out from under us. I do not know any ITAC member who did not support the way we are documenting now as well as a lack of wiggle room it eliminated.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And what IS documented is the entire SIR discussion on the SCCA board. March of 2006. It ends with Darin telling us it's effectively out of our hands as the CRB was going to place an SIR on the car because an ITS process weight would add enough weight that people would be running over 500lbs of ballast (we had limited balast space then). So again, the threads are there, the discussion is there. No official recomendation made it...but nobody wanted an SIR (Although Darin did buy into the technology at that time).

[Bill Miller]

The process was documented Bill, that is what the discussions were about - no guidelines as to how cars were classed back before Darin and myself. In the 'Process Era', the debates were had, using the written process as a guideline and the results were documented. In the Kirk era, he really brought structure to that. Who voted how on what, each step of the calculation is written down, rules on how the process can or can't be applied etc. In the end, it's the lack of wiggle room that created, that got the rug pulled out from under us. I do not know any ITAC member who did not support the way we are documenting now as well as a lack of wiggle room it eliminated.

Thanks for the clarification Andy. I guess, for some reason, I thought that you guys kept minutes of the ITAC mtgs / con calls. And I don't think that anyone doubts the lack of wiggle room (or to use Kirk's phrase, 'strategic ambiguity') is what got the rug pulled out on you guys. I think the CRB is cowardly hiding behind the BoD edict on E&O, as it gives them an easy 'out'. Not unlike how ITR gave them an easy 'out' on the E36 debacle.

And if back pre-tGR, the CRB was telling you that the BoD would shoot down changes that were w/in the +/- 100# thing, I think they were shining you on. Based on what I've seen over the years, and especially what I've seen lately, I don't have a whole lot of respect for the CRB. I think that for the most part, they are a bunch of political hacks.

[Knestis]

Sorry, Andy - you're right. Even though I acted on good faith, I should have assumed the information was incomplete or inaccurate. My intent was ONLY to document which cars got "fixed" at that point in history, and that looked like as accurate a record as was available re: that point.

K

[seckerich]

I would ask a few questions of the ITAC and the IT community in general:


Was there any car fixed by the ITAC that became an overdog and a class killer?
Did they help the balance of the IT classes?

I say they helped the balance and did no harm. Why is it now the CRB and BOD have no faith in their process? I fully agree there are some cars that are a little off, but most are on the heavy side. Seems with this track record we would get a little more support for our efforts.

[Knestis]

>> Why is it now the CRB and BOD have no faith in their process?

Some CRB member - Jim Drago, most vocally - voiced fundamental philosophical differences with the first principle of the Process, that weights should be spec'd based on physical attributes of the car. As he voiced it, his view was that it was simply wrong to not use on-track performance as the input for weight decisions. I had the sense that he was new to the idea and didn't know what we were doing, or why.

It's illuminating to me that the BoD might have kept the whole class in from recess based on the misbehaviors of a few CRB members who were playing fast and loose with the E&O loophole. The more I think about it, the more sense that makes if some of the stories coming out about changes right before the RubOffs are accurate.

K

[Bill Miller]

>> Why is it now the CRB and BOD have no faith in their process?

Some CRB member - Jim Drago, most vocally - voiced fundamental philosophical differences with the first principle of the Process, that weights should be spec'd based on physical attributes of the car. As he voiced it, his view was that it was simply wrong to not use on-track performance as the input for weight decisions. I had the sense that he was new to the idea and didn't know what we were doing, or why.

It's illuminating to me that the BoD might have kept the whole class in from recess based on the misbehaviors of a few CRB members who were playing fast and loose with the E&O loophole. The more I think about it, the more sense that makes if some of the stories coming out about changes right before the RubOffs are accurate.

K

So how does Mr. Drago suggest setting an initial weight on a newly-classed car? How do you set the weight based on on-track performance when the car hasn't been on-track yet? It's pretty scary when you've got people in that kind of a position, who seemingly have less common sense than a bag of rocks, and probably couldn't buy a clue w/ all the gold in Fort Knox. Not that hard to understand that you set an initial weight based on physical attributes, and then (and only then) look at on-track performance to see if a change is warranted. It's pretty well spelled out in the PCA section.

As far as pre-Ruboffs shenanigans, no big surprise there, that's been going on for years.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's not like that Bill. It has been posted here that the CRB will allow us to use the Process to class new cars. What they won't allow us to do is use the process to reset legacy cars for fear that we may impact the current competitive landscape. They like how it looks now and feel that there is little gain and high risk.

[Bill Miller]

"Little gain and high risk"???

I'm not sure how they can say that with a straight face Andy. Look at Steve's post again, if anything, what you guys did adjusting cars improved things and didn't create any overdogs or class-killers. I think your 'trial balloon' demonstrated that you had a good handle on it. I think they (CRB) are making it up to find some excuse to shut you guys down because they don't like to be made to look bad.

[seckerich]

Bill the general impression I got from most of the BOD members I spoke with was that everything in IT was great, no problems. If you are one of the cars that is classed correctly they are right. Where I differ from them is that the cars currently way off on the slow side do deserve to be looked at. They look at the class as a whole and as long as no car is upsetting the balance they are OK with it. I personally am not willing to go along with that. They are our elected representitives and need to listen a little more to the way we (the active drivers) want things done. We can get there working through the proper channels and not just taking no for an answer.

[Bill Miller]

Bill the general impression I got from most of the BOD members I spoke with was that everything in IT was great, no problems. If you are one of the cars that is classed correctly they are right. Where I differ from them is that the cars currently way off on the slow side do deserve to be looked at. They look at the class as a whole and as long as no car is upsetting the balance they are OK with it. I personally am not willing to go along with that. They are our elected representitives and need to listen a little more to the way we (the active drivers) want things done. We can get there working through the proper channels and not just taking no for an answer.

That's the key point right there Steve. Here's a thought, what would happen if you ran all the cars through the process, published the weights, and got the drivers to sign a petition (or agreement) that those would be the weights that they would go by?

[Ron Earp]

Some CRB member - Jim Drago, most vocally - voiced fundamental philosophical differences with the first principle of the Process,

Why would/should Mr. Drago's opinion carry more weight than the other CRB members or the ITAC collective?

[seckerich]

Why would/should Mr. Drago's opinion carry more weight than the other CRB members or the ITAC collective?

You must realize Ron that this is a group that is used to the constant changes and comp adjustments of the other catagories. They get letters weekly asking for 50 pounds on car A, - 100 on car B because it beat me down the straight at RA. It is an ingrained thought process that they watch cars on track and do knee jerk adjustments to the driver or car of the month. It is just that type of classing and adjustments that drove GT and Production to the brink of destruction. They are pushing back at IT because they do not want us going down that road. What they fail to see is that a repeatable, transparent process with very little room for influence from what X CRB member thinks is the real protection. Jim Drago is responsible for Spec Miata so his opinion does carry some weight with the CRB. It is however a little easier to balance 3 different Miatas than 300 plus IT cars.

[Knestis]

... It is just that type of classing and adjustments that drove GT and Production to the brink of destruction. They are pushing back at IT because they do not want us going down that road. ...

...and Mr. Drago et al. wouldn't hear ANY explanation of how the ITAC's practices PREVENTED that, rather than encouraged it.

Frankly Steve, I think you're being overly kind about this point - that you're actually flat wrong about that motivation, in fact. I think that some key decision-makers want to reserve the right to go straight down that road, if they think that at the micro-level a particular car needs to be faster or slower, absent any evidence beyond it "beat someone down the straight at RA."

Or I might be wrong.

K

[RSTPerformance]

CRB member wins ITB... What a suprise... Kinda looses any respect for ARRC winners IMO. :(

anyone know who actually won the ITB race (out of cars that fit the process weight?)

Raymond

[Bill Miller]

CRB member wins ITB... What a suprise... Kinda looses any respect for ARRC winners IMO. :(

anyone know who actually won the ITB race (out of cars that fit the process weight?)

Raymond

Raymond,

That wasn't Peter that won, it was his brother Deuce, last year's winner IIRC. Peter finished 6th, and his fast lap was 3 seconds slower than his brother's (1:49.050 vs. 1:46.023*)


* New ITB track record

But believe me Raymond, I hear you.

[Knestis]

CRB member wins ITB... What a suprise... Kinda looses any respect for ARRC winners IMO. :(

anyone know who actually won the ITB race (out of cars that fit the process weight?)

Raymond

I am COMPLETELY in your corner about the the "Audi Issue" (which is about a hell of lot more than one make/model) but you insinuation is equally COMPLETELY off-base. To suggest that Keane (or Albin for that matter) is simply trying to protect a competitive position is baseless BS.

Now, does the lack of a transparent process leave the door open for that kind of interpretation...? Yes. It's kind of like if a teacher and a student spent long hours in a private place studying together: There's no way for it to look good.

However, some of us who have been closer to the situation are pretty confident that there's no hanky panky going on in this case. It would be nice if you could focus on the issue rather than defaulting to the tabloid answer.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

120*1.25=150*17=2550

-50 for FWD +50 for DW. Exactly on process weight.

Raymond - like Kirk, I agree with you on the Audi issue. Although we can see now why it can be considered dangerous to make changes on that car when the owners can't even agree on stock hp.

But to come on here, not even KNOW who won the race, and shout out stupididty, doesn't do you any good. Really. And the tone of your recent letter to the CRB is totally disrespectful.

[rcc85]

The point I think some members of the CRB and/or the BoD are missing is that there are some cars whose weight is way, way, way too high. There are also some inconsistencies between cars with the same engine. These are the weights that need to be fixed.

Example: ITB Ford Mustang II 74-78 2830 lbs (2.3L)
ITB Ford Pinto 2.3 74-80 2340 lbs (down from 2490 in 2008)

There's not a lot of difference, mechanically, between a 78 Pinto and a 78 Mustang II but the Mustang is 490 lbs heavier.

My favorite example (and it's not even a Dodge):
ITB Mercury Capri 2.3 79-86 2640 lbs
ITB Ford Mustang 2.3 79-93 2550 lbs

It's only a 90 lbs difference but this was the era when the Mustang and Capri shared a body. They are the same car!!

There are plenty of other examples (look at the ITA Ford 2.8 V6 cars and the ITA & ITB 2.2 Dodges & Plymouths). Some weights just defy logic. Those are the ones that really need to be fixed. The cars that are already competitive can wait.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona (2630 lbs)

[RSTPerformance]

Sorry, I saw that Keane had won... Terrible assumption i should have looked furthethro se if it was his brother... Still doesn't look good IMO for the CRB.

At least we know that a car can compete with the Golf III!

Raymond "Does weight really matter - my fiancé says it doesn't :)" Blethen

[Bill Miller]

120*1.25=150*17=2550

-50 for FWD +50 for DW. Exactly on process weight.

Raymond - like Kirk, I agree with you on the Audi issue. Although we can see now why it can be considered dangerous to make changes on that car when the owners can't even agree on stock hp.

But to come on here, not even KNOW who won the race, and shout out stupididty, doesn't do you any good. Really. And the tone of your recent letter to the CRB is totally disrespectful.

Well Andy, there's "process weight" and then there's "process weight". I think even a casual observer would wonder why the Accord gets a 1.25 power factor when other Hondas from the same time period are getting 1.30 - 1.35 power factors. Use the 1.30 power factor that other Hondas (as well as the Golf II) use, and that car comes in at 2750#.

I think one of the reasons why the BoD & CRB think that IT is 'just fine the way it is', is that they're just out of touch w/ the IT community. Which is really hard to understand, given at least 2 members of the CRB are IT racers (not to mention ex-ITAC members). They don't think that questions like Bob's (and others) matter to anyone.

We've been told by ITAC members that there is no aerodynamic 'adder'. Yet you've got cases where two cars that are the same mechanically, yet have different bodywork weigh the same, and cases where they don't weigh the same. Besides Bob's Mustang / Capri example, here's a couple more. '86-'87 Civic Si and '84-'87 CRX Si both weigh 2130# yet an '83-'84 Rabbit GTI comes in at 2080# but the Scirocco from the same time comes in at 2130#. There's a similar 50# difference between the ITC Rabbits and the ITC Sciroccos. The ITA 1.8 16v Golf weighs 60# less than the corresponding Jetta (2220# vs 2280#), yet the 2.0 16v versions weigh the same (2475#). And both the 1.8 and 2.0 cars are the SAME BODY WORK! This kind of stuff is all over the place.

Then you get cases where you've got significantly different power factors across the same mfg.

'83-'84 Rabbit GTI, 2080#, 90hp stock = 1.39 power factor
'83-'88 Scirocco II 8v, 2130#, 90 hp stock = 1.42 power factor (since we're told there's no aero adder)
'85-'91 Golf 8v, 2280#, 103-105hp stock = 1.33 - 1.30 power factor
'93-'97 Golf III 2.0, 2350#, 115hp stock = 1.23 power factor (in fairness, it has been stated by ITAC members that the car is 50# light)


Even a blind man can see that this stuff is just wrong. For the CRB and BoD to claim that correcting things like this is 'highly risky' and could upset the balance of the class says one of two things. Either they don't have a clue what they're talking about (and subsequently shouldn't been in the positions they're in), or they're looking for an excuse as to why they shouldn't fix things. I doubt it's the former (although based on what Kirk posted about Mr. Drago et. al., I'm not so sure).

Bottom line is that this stuff should be fixed, and as Steve pointed out, you can't take no for an answer.

[JeffYoung]

There is no aero adder, never was.

This is pretty simply actually. "Back in the day," IT cars were assigned weights using a very rough formula that focused on curb weight. Then came the great "realignment" in which the Miller ratio (yes that Miller!) was applied to a fair amount of cars to change the focus to power to weight. For a variety of reasons, this was not done with all cars at once.

We have since been trying to make corrections to the remaining cars as we have had time/requests to do so have come in. We've now been told not to do that.

So, we have some cars whose weight was set by the curb weight "process" and some by the power to weight.

I agree that doesn't make any sense, but it is what it is for now.

Bob, we voted to correct the Capri weight, I think, on one of my first calls on the ITAC back in January. It's one of the corrections hung up "up the chain."

[Bill Miller]

There is no aero adder, never was.

This is pretty simply actually. "Back in the day," IT cars were assigned weights using a very rough formula that focused on curb weight. Then came the great "realignment" in which the Miller ratio (yes that Miller!) was applied to a fair amount of cars to change the focus to power to weight. For a variety of reasons, this was not done with all cars at once.

We have since been trying to make corrections to the remaining cars as we have had time/requests to do so have come in. We've now been told not to do that.

So, we have some cars whose weight was set by the curb weight "process" and some by the power to weight.

I agree that doesn't make any sense, but it is what it is for now.

Bob, we voted to correct the Capri weight, I think, on one of my first calls on the ITAC back in January. It's one of the corrections hung up "up the chain."


Can ya fell the love???? :D

Jeff, I know it's all in good fun. Made me chuckle. It's all good! :happy204:

[JeffYoung]

Hey, I was actually trying to clue in some of the new folks (of which I consider myself one) that you came up with the core idea behind the "process."

It may sound stupid to say it, since it is amateur club racing, but it really was revolutionary, at least for our category.

[Bill Miller]

Hey, I was actually trying to clue in some of the new folks (of which I consider myself one) that you came up with the core idea behind the "process."

It may sound stupid to say it, since it is amateur club racing, but it really was revolutionary, at least for our category.

No worries Jeff, and thanks for the credits. I sure didn't come up w/ it in a vacuum, as there was lots of good discussion around it at the time. I _think_ I may have been the first one to verbalize it (or at least Kirk ascribed it to me). It was one of those things that just seemed to make sense to me.

A little background on how it all came to pass, at least for me. I got to thinking about the fact that there seemed to be no rhyme or reason as to how IT cars were classed when the SEDiv IT folks came up w/ IT7 (not sure which Region started it first). Cars were prepared to ITA specs, but ran as their own class. What really raised my eyebrows, was that they were grouped w/ the ITB cars, and not w/ the ITA cars. I wanted to know why the system had failed a group of racers so badly that they had to resort to going w/ their own class. Fortunately (for them), the 1st gen. RX7 had such a HUGE following, as well as 'installed base', that they had the numbers to reach 'critical mass' to pull it off. That's what got me to thinking that there needed to be some way to _try_ and get the cars close when they were put into a given class. And then the ITS E36 BMW issue just kind of gelled the whole thing.

That's it for today's history lesson, we now return you to your regularly scheduled bickering! :D

[jdrago1]

Guys I figured I would tune in as I heard I was attaining near villian status here this weekend at the ARRC. I don't know many in IT, but there are several in IT who know me fairly well, Andy being one of them. I think Andy will agree if I am anything, it is a guy who is rational and willing to listen to anything and despite popular opinion have a lot of common sense. ;) I often ask Andy's advice on SM items that come up from time to time.
I really don't want to rehash the entire debate, but what Andy said above was on right on target. I also don't feel we rule over the ITAC with an iron fist, nor would I have any desire to do so. If anything was brought to us that made sense( not that the new process didn't)regardless of process etc, I feel certain the CRB would listen, I guarantee we would. This process,new and old, has been discussed more than anything, and I do mean any single issue that has come up during the year I have been on the CRB. This wasn't something we took lightly. So much so we even spent a good 90 minutes of our call with Andy explaining it and going over test cases etc. The CRB we have now is comprised of a lot of racers, real racers not once a year guys. Believe it or not, we want what is best for IT, nothing more, nothing less. There are no hidden agendas, I don't even own an IT car.

I have never had any email or phone conversations with Mr Kinesis or Mr. Miller, so I am not certain where or how they formed their opinions? To think I was just about to put Mr Miller on my x mas card list too :(

I rarely check this forum, however, I respond to ALL emails until they become you are an idiot and ruining IT :) My email is [email protected]

Sincerly,
The above mentioned bag of rocks :)

[Knestis]

I am anything, it is a guy who is rational and willing to listen to anything and despite popular opinion have a lot of common sense. ...

...I have never had any email or phone conversations with Mr Kinesis or Mr. Miller, so I am not certain where or how they formed their opinions? ...

Go back and review your responses to me on the SCCA ITAC board, Jim.

I obviously no longer have access to that resource but you appeared completely UNwilling to consider the most basic first principle of the ITAC's processes and practices - that weights should be spec'd based on the physical attributes of the cars unless substantial evidence was available to convince those making the decision to use something other than the default 1.25 power multiplier.

You position - unequivocally - was that basing weights on on-track performance worked for Spec Miata, so it should be applied to IT. You used as your argument a (misapplied) example of what weights would be for the various SM options, and how far they were off relative to the actual specs determined by the system applied to that class - which you contend on-track parity proves are "right."

Your arguments suggested that you labored (at least at that time) under the misconception that the process was a formula that blindly locked the ITAC into sticking the category with weights that might be "wrong."

Any of this sounding familiar? How about "I guess we'll have to disagree" (I think that's pretty close) as your response re: my trying to explain that the ITAC's practices reflected what we heard members asking for over and over again - a repeatable, transparent process to specify IT car weights that minimizes the opportunity for bias or manipuluation.

Feel free to quote any and all of what I said there, along with your responses. It's been a couple of months so my memory may be flawed but it's all there in the record.

K

[seckerich]

Guys I figured I would tune in as I heard I was attaining near villian status here this weekend at the ARRC. I don't know many in IT, but there are several in IT who know me fairly well, Andy being one of them. I think Andy will agree if I am anything, it is a guy who is rational and willing to listen to anything and despite popular opinion have a lot of common sense. ;) I often ask Andy's advice on SM items that come up from time to time.
I really don't want to rehash the entire debate, but what Andy said above was on right on target. I also don't feel we rule over the ITAC with an iron fist, nor would I have any desire to do so. If anything was brought to us that made sense( not that the new process didn't)regardless of process etc, I feel certain the CRB would listen, I guarantee we would. This process,new and old, has been discussed more than anything, and I do mean any single issue that has come up during the year I have been on the CRB. This wasn't something we took lightly. So much so we even spent a good 90 minutes of our call with Andy explaining it and going over test cases etc. The CRB we have now is comprised of a lot of racers, real racers not once a year guys. Believe it or not, we want what is best for IT, nothing more, nothing less. There are no hidden agendas, I don't even own an IT car.

I have never had any email or phone conversations with Mr Kinesis or Mr. Miller, so I am not certain where or how they formed their opinions? To think I was just about to put Mr Miller on my x mas card list too :(

I rarely check this forum, however, I respond to ALL emails until they become you are an idiot and ruining IT :) My email is [email protected]

Sincerly,
The above mentioned bag of rocks :)

Thanks for posting Jim. I had a good talk with Peter K this weekend at the ARRC, but did not get a chance to speak with you. I was in the tech shed most of the day. Does this mean you will be willing to come to some middle ground besides the 5 year limit expressed by the CRB? Do you believe that all cars currently running in IT are properly classed? Lets move forward with a little more give and take on the part of the CRB. So you did not like V2 of the process as it was described to you so you killed the only avenue we had in IT to make corrections---why? Please explain. Thanks.

[RSTPerformance]

Jim-

I sent you an e-mail but I do have two questions...

Q1: What didn't you like - let's all get the truth instead of second hand info.

Q2: Why doesn't the CRB respond to requests made? Or put another way.. Why do you leave members (what I refer to as customers now) in the dark requiring them to get second hand info on your decisions from the ITAC or other members gossip?

As mentioned in my e-mail, thanks for your time... I do appreciate it.

Raymond "hoping the CRB starts to Listen and better yet communicate" Blethen