March 2011 Fastrack [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Chip42

02-23-2011, 10:39 PM

Which is FINE until Kirk shows up at a race by airplane, with the car getting hauled around on a $/mile basis, only to discover that some enthusiastic tech inspector has made that his cause celebre for the weekend, and makes him fix it before going out on the track. At night. In the rain. With materials from Home Depot.

Stupid, ignorant, spineless...

K

KK,

IF your sliders were of the double-captured type we beat to death on this forum a few weeks back, then that was REALLY stupid.

If they were stock, I have to give it to tech.

that was most likely my father - Chief of Tech for the SC region. Don't hold it against me or vice versa ;). He's on a mission to get all seats required to have a back brace. we don't see eye to eye on it. he's a very well educated man, chemist, lawyer, but he's stubborn. if you follow the fastracks, you'll see his name and mine pop up on opposite sides of this issue. We don't get to see each other much. He's part of the anti-FIA cult. I think they never got over being snubbed by De Gaul and hold all of France and all thinks even remotely french to blame.

My take: fix the MOUNTING guidelines/rules so the bubblegum and poprivet BS is put out. correct the impressions of the old people that a seat must be rigid throughout its length (only its base must be, the rest should give a designed amount to damp out the shock of an impact). re-examine the slider rules to disallow stock components but allow quality racing gear and purpose built devices of adequate strength.

oh - and yay for a "what do you think" for non USDM motors in STU!! wait - what about L?

JeffYoung

02-23-2011, 10:57 PM

No kidding! That's your dad?

He's a great guy in tech at CMP. We always chat a bit about lawyer stuff.

Anyway, merits of the issue aside, I really enjoy talking to him.

Greg Amy

02-23-2011, 11:15 PM

Chip42

02-24-2011, 12:02 AM

Chip, we gotta put together a list of talking points for next Thanksgiving dinner... ;)

No STL 'cause it's not really on the RADAR right now; let's focus on STU, the National class, and see how that works out. If good things come from that then STL will be sure to follow.

Just as an exercise, however, what JDM engines that are <200 hp do you think would be good candidates for STL...?

GA

Greg, I promise the weather here is better for thanksgiving than it is up there. come on down and drive an MR2 at turkey trots. seriously.

JDM motors I can think of off the top of my head (not all <200hp but I don't remember that being a requirement and I think it's a bit of a Pooma number given the engine rules) in no particular order:
SR20DE for RWD applications
SR20DET*
SR20VE
SR16VE
20v 4A-GE
B16B*
K20A*
3S-GE gen 3
3S-GE gen 4 AKA "BEAMS"*
later 3S-GTE*
1JZ-GTE*
RB25DET*

*for STU, not L.

Duc

02-24-2011, 12:06 AM

Just as an exercise, however, what JDM engines that are <200 hp do you think would be good candidates for STL...?

GA

I had asked for:

Title: Increase valve lift by 0.025 across the class
Class: STL
Car: none
Request: 9.1.4.G.5 Valve lift is limited to .600 inch for STO and STU. STL Valve lift is
limited to .450 inch for 4 valve/cylinder engines, .450 inch intake
and .475 inch exhaust for 3 valve/cylinder engines, and .475 inch
for 2 valve/cylinder engines. Camshafts and camshaft timing are
free.

That would give the Celica another home. 0.025 of a inch increase.

Knestis

02-24-2011, 12:16 AM

KK,

IF your sliders were of the double-captured type we beat to death on this forum a few weeks back, then that was REALLY stupid.

If they were stock, I have to give it to tech.

that was most likely my father...?

My case was hypothetical but it's confidence inspiring to hear that it could actually happen.

My rails are indeed the actual Recaro double captured high-zoot sliders, purchased specifically because they are the right parts for the job.

K

Chip42

02-24-2011, 12:20 AM

No kidding! That's your dad?

He's a great guy in tech at CMP. We always chat a bit about lawyer stuff.

Anyway, merits of the issue aside, I really enjoy talking to him.

Dad's a great guy with a huge heart in general, and particularly for SCCA racing.

he's one of the few people in the world I can have a conversation with for hours - spanning politics, history, cars, women, whatever. we'll agree about 15% of the time and enjoy every minute of it, never getting angry, just presenting arguments and counter arguments interspersed with filthy jokes and sarcasm.

I wish I got to see him as often as you do. even if he is wrong on this one.:p

Greg Amy

02-24-2011, 08:08 AM

...not all <200hp but I don't remember that being a requirement and I think it's a bit of a Pooma number given the engine rules...
It's not a requirement, but it is a bit of a POOMA benchmark. This is easily inferred by the performance level set by the STAC between, for example, the Integra GS-R and the Integra Type R. The explicit reason that the GS-R (170hp stock) is allowed and the Type R (190hp?) is not is because the B18C5 engine exceeds the POOMA performance level set for the class.

With that in mind, you can pretty much expect that nothing much more powerful than 170/180hp will get approved for STL...

^^^ All personal opinion, not official positions of the STAC, and easily inferred by anyone via existing public information.

I had asked for [increased cam lift]
There's a few things that got missed in this month's Fastrack; I think this was one of them. I don't think I speak out of turn to reveal that unless something happened in the sausage factory after the STAC got it, we declined this request for the same reason as I describe above, that this would allow the performance level of the class to exceed the expected benchmark.

We've got our implied performance level for STL, and that's in the 170/180hp stock crank range. Anything more powerful than that is going to be pushed to STU. Keep that in mind as you consider the class going forward... - GA

Duc

02-24-2011, 08:42 AM

It's not a requirement, but it is a bit of a POOMA benchmark. This is easily inferred by the performance level set by the STAC between, for example, the Integra GS-R and the Integra Type R. The explicit reason that the GS-R (170hp stock) is allowed and the Type R (190hp?) is not is because the B18C5 engine exceeds the POOMA performance level set for the class.

With that in mind, you can pretty much expect that nothing much more powerful than 170/180hp will get approved for STL...

^^^ All personal opinion, not official positions of the STAC, and easily inferred by anyone via existing public information.

There's a few things that got missed in this month's Fastrack; I think this was one of them. I don't think I speak out of turn to reveal that unless something happened in the sausage factory after the STAC got it, we declined this request for the same reason as I describe above, that this would allow the performance level of the class to exceed the expected benchmark.

We've got our implied performance level for STL, and that's in the 170/180hp stock crank range. Anything more powerful than that is going to be pushed to STU. Keep that in mind as you consider the class going forward... - GA

Understood, the 2ZZ is on that boarder, stock. The stock cam gives a lift of .450 and I was hoping to get the extra .025 added then the car would be allowed in the class without a stock engine. I really don't really want to go STU. And it is the 180 HP stock range. Ah to have a car that is on the fringe of everything.

StephenB

02-24-2011, 09:00 AM

ITB
1. #2643 (John VanDenburgh) run Audi Coupe GT thru the current IT classing method. In 9.1.3, ITB, Audi GT Coupe (84-86), change weight from 2540 to 2500. [The Audi Coupe (81-84) is classified appropriately.] .

This is a perfect example of why things need to be documented. This process is only going to destroy things more... 81-84 coupe is at 2490. the coupe GT WAS at 2540. And they actually had a reason for it back when they classified these cars. Looks like everyone with an 81-84 now needs to go out and purchase all new brakes, bumpers, headlights, grills and sets of wheels.

THANKS ITAC...Love you guys :(
Stephen

Maybe someone on the ITAC with some balls will chime in on the "process" that they used to come up with the 2500. doubt it though.

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 09:20 AM

I don't find the tone or the wording of your post appropriate.

We have all tried to do the right thing with these very problematic cars (difficult to determine stock hp, difficult to determine gain, unusual motor, etc.).

In my personal opinion, and correct me if I am wrong, you and your brother didn't do yourselves many favors by relying on stock horsepower numbers that I am pretty sure you knew were inaccurate.

I don't know much about these cars, but listened to what others had to say and voted according to what I thought was right.

I'll try later tonight to go back and figure out how the numbers ran and post them for you.

Greg Amy

02-24-2011, 09:29 AM

...the 2ZZ is on that boarder, stock. The stock cam gives a lift of .450 and I was hoping to get the extra .025 added then the car would be allowed in the class without a stock engine....And it is the 180 HP stock range...
Were I in your position, I'd make a specific request to allow the 2ZZ engine into STL with stock cams, and include with that request detailed specs, including manufacturer-rated output numbers (and dyno charts, if you have them).

PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT NOT NOT implying that it would get approved. In fact, I highly doubt it would, given the STAC's focus is on STO/STU right now and the 2ZZ approval into STL with stock cams would require a specific deviation/allowance in the rules (and we're kinda sour on the idea of a lot of exceptions as a general guideline). But the STAC is a big proponent of STL and really wants to see it become successful (and, hopefully soon, a National class); the request could generate some internal discussions vis-a-vis STL philosophy and direction.

Food for thought. - GA

Andy Bettencourt

02-24-2011, 09:34 AM

Rabbit05

02-24-2011, 10:14 AM

Andy,
ummm..120 is not stock hp.

I think its 110 hp for the Audi CGT. At least everything I have read and seen says 110 hp..and I have owned CGT's , and reluctantly restored them, for the last few years. 120 hp sounds big to me.

I was also thinking there would be more weight to be lost there.
I have been trying to understand the formula for processing cars. I cant seem to get a grasp on the "process", can you explain your math ?

From what I have read....
It's stock hp and add 25%...then ITB is 17lb per hp...then they said add 50 lbs max for a torque-y-ish motor..so i just added 50lbs. I am coming up with 2387...using the 110 hp stock number.

What am I missing ?

-John

Andy Bettencourt

02-24-2011, 10:16 AM

jjjanos

02-24-2011, 10:20 AM

Stephen,

I have no idea why you would say that the 81-84 guys would have to buy anything if nothing has changed.

The GT math looks simple to me:

120*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2499 rounded to 2500.

Exactly why additional documentation is needed. I know jack about these cars, but using google, the consistent HP is given as 110 (http://www.audiworld.com/model/coupe-gt/86-coupe.shtml). Another (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1981-1987-audi-quattro-coupe-coupe-gt.htm).

110 * 1.25 * 17 * .98 = 2290

Not saying the 120 is wrong, but the source of that 120HP suddenly becomes a big "?".

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 10:46 AM

Dave Gomberg

02-24-2011, 10:52 AM

...
There's a few things that got missed in this month's Fastrack; I think this [Celica cam lift] was one of them. ... GA
Not missed. Letter 4022 in the Not Recommended section of the Minutes.

Dave

Knestis

02-24-2011, 11:09 AM

This is a perfect example of why things need to be documented. This process is only going to destroy things more... 81-84 coupe is at 2490. the coupe GT WAS at 2540. And they actually had a reason for it back when they classified these cars. Looks like everyone with an 81-84 now needs to go out and purchase all new brakes, bumpers, headlights, grills and sets of wheels.

THANKS ITAC...Love you guys :(
Stephen

Maybe someone on the ITAC with some balls will chime in on the "process" that they used to come up with the 2500. doubt it though.

In June '09, the ITAC recommended that the earlier Coupe be processed at 110hp (so under the then-current protocol, 2290#) based on what we unearthed at that time. That's consistent with my recollection that the LATER Coupe was listed at 120hp - so deserved the heavier race weight.

I *think* we may have reached a point - whether on purpose or not - where the two versions of car have essentially been merged into one functional spec line. Stephen is talking about "all new brakes, bumpers, headlights, grills and sets of wheels," which I infer is about updating to the newer model. Of course, that's not legal unless the entire result is identical to a '84-86.

What's LOST in this muddle is the fact that the later car has a higher compression ratio. I have a suspicion that equally lost, by some over the years, is that cars on the "old model" spec line would have to run the low-CR engine and NOTHING that was unique to the later one - came, induction/injection, etc.

If in fact documentation showed that some versions of the earlier car did indeed have 120hp, that's that. I worry though that we might have plunked them all together by accident or as a de facto consolidation influenced by what people saw on track or understood racers to be already doing...

K

Rabbit05

02-24-2011, 12:09 PM

Jeff,
Sooo...you are basing on track performance from 1 race ..what 5-6 years ago ? And under-developed..?? I'll let the Blethens chime in on that one. And if you are basing performance on race results, why havent a whole lot of weight been dumped on Honda/Acuras ,which for a while now, have dominated most IT fields ?? Just curious..:D

And actually the early Coupes came with a 100 hp motor.(done on a quick search.) And I am pretty sure I can dig up my owners manual saying that the 85-87 motors are 110 hp. I believe you guys might have been looking at the Audi 4000 motors..which may be the reason for your higher HP numbers.(having to lug the Quattro system around).

Although I would like to see where I might obtain the same info you guys got on the Audi Hp motors.

Hey if I am wrong..I am wrong... and I'll be the first to admit that.

-John

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 12:22 PM

No, we (or I at least) are not using on track performance to make a weight change.

I am very leary of on track performance being used at all. However, here, like with the E36 and the MR2 and the CRX, I think it was done appropriately - use on track as a trigger to investigate further if the numbers we were using are right.

Here, a lot of digging by others on the committee turned up information from Audi that the motor stock is 120 hp. I agree with you that should be properly documented, but that is what happened.

I was convinced that what was presented was accurate and voted for the change.

benspeed

02-24-2011, 06:40 PM

STU
1. #3654 (Ben Phillips) Class 2000-04 Boxster S in STU
In 9.1.4.2.G, add to table: Porsche Boxster S (2000-05) at 3179cc, 3300 lbs., Notes: "Engines are permitted 0.040 overbore, 0.5 point increase in compression. Engines must use the OEM camshaft lift."

Well hot diggity!!! I'm thrilled to see this car listed. If I didn't like my 968 so much I'd be shopping eBay right now. Figure I might be looking for an S engine for my '98 Boxster, plus all the other goodies STU allows. This will make it things a little more fun in the class :-)

StephenB

02-24-2011, 07:13 PM

I am not trying to be a dick but the SCCA has already screwed around and tried to claim it had nothing to do with on track performance. Suck it up and admit it... you are either listening to others that based their opinion based on "on track performace" or you don't know much about the subject and events. Re-read post #24 and you can clearly see that on track performance from 1 day in 1 session at 1 event triggered the ITAC to consider a higher weight for this car. like it or not the car has a higher weight based on "on track performance". That on track performance which is 2+ seconds slower than the track record, 1 second slower than the track record that year set by a honda. Oh and did I mention it was from dong bump drafting with my brother and the ONLY session we went that fast was for 3 laps in 1 session on 1 day at a high profile event 6 years ago? At that time NO new golfs had been built yet other than Chris Albin who hadn't done any real development. (He didn't even have a working ECU that day) Also the same time when the ITAC set a standard for weights that was LOWER than the "then current" ITB cars that were classified. Read the backroom thread where the ITAC admits that the weights were done incorrectly because of false information based on Volvos.

Now onto my concern that I have always had with this process. Using this example of the coupe vs. coupe GT. The original IT committee back in the 80's I think actually looked at cars and made informed decisions based on the attributes that the cars had when comparing them. NoOt on a rigid formula. The 81-84 coupe (NOT GT) has smaller brakes compared to the 84-87 coupe GT which was the reason for the 50lb difference. Possibly better aero according to Audi but that is up for debate as far as performance gains that I can't speak to. If the ITAC said we are changing the weight to be the same because we do not think the bigger brakes provide an advantage then so be it. I would be Ok with that since they are the ones setting the rules. The fact is they had no clue and just changed the weight based on a rigid process. (the should also just combine the spec line so that the other coupes that exist can update legally to the better brakes)

On another note that has now been posted and concerns me is the reason the weight was asigned has NOTHING to do with what the CRB said just a year ago. The OFFICIAL response to my brother and I had nothing to do with 120 stock HP and had to do with amount of torque these cars had. If the current ITAC used the 120 stock HP number then they are just making up HP numbers to get to an end weight that they like. I think that someone brought this concern up in another thread but I am not going to go digging.

I will openly admit that The 100HP and 110HP ratings I do not think is fair to use since essentially the motors are all the same and should in my mind be rated at the 115HP stock since headers and downpipes are free anyway.

MY ORIGINAL (negative, disrespectfull, and rude) POST from earlier is more about inconsistany in policy, poor follow-up, terrible communication, and non existant documentation on decisions that are made. this club will forever be in a mess if we can't get this right. Document the reasons and stick to them. You have not heard 1 peep out of my brother and I in over a year. the CRB finally came out and said the torque numbers are to high and you deserve the weight penalty. WE sucked it up, shut up and dealt with it. I will say not all members will accept the decision of the CRB (that is influenced by the ITAC) but in reality I think the CRB is trying to make an effort to do the best for the club. Going forward PLEASE start documenting things so that you can have consisant results through consistant policy, with accurate follow-up, and then for gods sake just communicate it to the members!

Sorry If I sound out of line but your only giving excuses if you never have the same answer,
Stephen Blethen
Under developed Audi Coupe driver that kicked but agains the ITAC members and CRB members in '05

************************************************** *******************************
The following is off of memory which was submitted back about 2 years ago that you could probably find posted somewhere here on the site from me but I don't feel like digging. Read on but be carefull to take this data as supporting evidence for anything since it is off of memory and I am not looking it all up again... I have moved on and accepted the torque reponse from the CRB.

As far as HP... ALL AUDI 4000 models including quattro, coupe, and coupe GT between 1983 and 1987 had the same specs INSIDE the engines. you can do all the digging you want and you wont find anything...

The EARLY coupe 1980-1982 DID have a different injection system and mechanicaal lifters, however this is NOT the same coupe or coupe GT in question. (This is the one that had 100HP)

The other coupe 1981-1984 had hydrolic lifters, cable clutch, and CIS injection. rated at 110HP You can identify this coupe over the original coupe because it has a wing not a lip.

The Coupe GT offered from 1984-1987.5 had the same internals as the 1981-1984 coupe but had bigger brakes, different bumpers, different bolt pattern with bigger hubs and bearings, and it had a hydroloc clutch.

Then in 1987.5-1988 they offered a 130HP coupe GT that is classed in ITA.

To add to this mix they had the 4000 quattro that had 115HP only difference in the HP rating is from the better factory header and downpipe

The difference in HP ratings between the coupe, coupe GT, and quattro is the header and downpipe. ALL THREE cars have the same internals.

************************************************** *********************************

StephenB

02-24-2011, 07:17 PM

Here, a lot of digging by others on the committee turned up information from Audi that the motor stock is 120 hp. I agree with you that should be properly documented, but that is what happened.

I was convinced that what was presented was accurate and voted for the change.

Jeff,

Don't trust those people. Ask them exactly where they got that information. In short they lied directly to your face. If I am wrong and they have REAL documentation feel free to call me out on it and post it in public or PM me if your more comfortable with that.

Stephen

CRallo

02-24-2011, 07:17 PM

Been busy Ben? We've been missing you :p

Cool to see it classified! I like those cars, but its far out of my budget...

What's with the notes?

STU
1. #3654 (Ben Phillips) Class 2000-04 Boxster S in STU
In 9.1.4.2.G, add to table: Porsche Boxster S (2000-05) at 3179cc, 3300 lbs., Notes: "Engines are permitted 0.040 overbore, 0.5 point increase in compression. Engines must use the OEM camshaft lift."

Well hot diggity!!! I'm thrilled to see this car listed. If I didn't like my 968 so much I'd be shopping eBay right now. Figure I might be looking for an S engine for my '98 Boxster, plus all the other goodies STU allows. This will make it things a little more fun in the class :-)

Greg Amy

02-24-2011, 07:21 PM

What's with the notes?
All more-than-3-liter cars in STU get approved with prep restrictions.

Read the rulez, Rallo!

StephenB

02-24-2011, 07:21 PM

No, we (or I at least) are not using on track performance to make a weight change.

I am very leary of on track performance being used at all. However, here, like with the E36 and the MR2 and the CRX, I think it was done appropriately - use on track as a trigger to investigate further if the numbers we were using are right.

I have no issue with this philosiphy or policy but say it as it is. ON TRACK PERFORMACE AFFECTED THE PROCESS WEIGHT. If no-one ever raced it what would the weight be? Why hide behind this? It is OK to say that on track performance affected the weight if it is justified by the "digging in" and further research. (I don't agree that the coupes on track performance is justified but that is just a difference in opinion that I have accepted)

Stephen

PS: not trying to throw stones... just saying it as it really is.

Stephen

Rabbit05

02-24-2011, 07:24 PM

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o314/Rabbit051977/1030091006.jpg

I dug for a few minutes

......From my Owners Manual-1985 Audi Coupe GT...possibly a factory Hp resource ?

-John

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 07:28 PM

You're wrong. On track performance did not affect process weight it. It played no part - zero -- in the calculation.

It did cause us to do more research on the stock hp nuumber.

That's a key point, it's true, and if you don't "get" that then you'll never be happy with what we have done and we'll just have to leave it at that.

Thanks.

Jeff

I have no issue with this philosiphy or policy but say it as it is. ON TRACK PERFORMACE AFFECTED THE PROCESS WEIGHT. If no-one ever raced it what would the weight be? Why hide behind this? It is OK to say that on track performance affected the weight if it is justified by the "digging in" and further research. (I don't agree that the coupes on track performance is justified but that is just a difference in opinion that I have accepted)

Stephen

PS: not trying to throw stones... just saying it as it really is.

Stephen

StephenB

02-24-2011, 07:47 PM

fair enough. I am fine with agreeing to disagree. we are adults and I refuse to instigate and be inconsiderate of different well founded opinions that I disagree with. In reality we are just disagreeing on words... I think you would prefer to use the word "trigger" rather than change.

maybe we can agree on both words :)
On track performance "Triggers" a possible change...

On another note can you honestly see if you can find out the 120HP rating documentation? I am not likely racing my Audi again but I am curious since I have done so much research in my past on this and I just don't know what I missed. Again the CRB noted torque not HP as the reason for additional lbs.

Thanks
stephen

Rabbit05

02-24-2011, 07:51 PM

Jeff,

1.)If I dig up the correct HP rating, would/could the Audi CGT be rerun through the process ?
2.) Or am i just doing this --->:dead_horse:

-John

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 07:51 PM

A fair post, I agree with you some of this is semantics, and a fair request.

One last comment though -- it wasn't just that one performance at the ARRC that triggered the more in depth look. Some of it was the "unknown" with this engine -- a 5 cylinder and on the large side for B. That all caused us to look harder.

You are entitled to know where we got the 120 hp figure and I'll get that for you.

Some quick searching on Wiki shows a 118 DIN hp (that's close to 120 SAE I think) "KX" designation 2.2 being installed in the car from 85 to 87. That may be it.

Greg Amy

02-24-2011, 07:58 PM

Some quick searching on Wiki...
Which source takes precedence: Wikipedia or the factory shop manual? If the former, then as a tech inspector can I overlook technical information printed in the FSM, superseding it with that "written" on Wikipedia...?

Just askin'...

GA, who bristles anytime someone uses Wikipedia as a source...for anything. Except maybe info on Britney Spears. Or Pink. Or maybe Constitutional Law...

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 08:06 PM

Of course the factory information takes precedence. The issue here is a complex one that I don't fully understand - I relied on others on the committee who did the digging. I posted that for Stephen as a start. I'll find what was actually used and post it.

JY -- Who bristles [snip because I'm not stooping to your level].

Which source takes precedence: Wikipedia or the factory shop manual? If the former, then as a tech inspector can I overlook technical information printed in the FSM, superseding it with that "written" on Wikipedia...?

Just askin'...

GA, who bristles anytime someone uses Wikipedia as a source...for anything. Except maybe info on Britney Spears. Or Pink. Or maybe Constitutional Law...

cchandler

02-24-2011, 08:13 PM

This is gonna be cool!! Lots of track time for Nimmer. :smilie_pokal:

"#3783 (Robert Nimkoff) Classify Aston Martin N24 in STO
In 9.1.4.1.H, add "Aston Martin Vantage N24 (2007-08)", 4280 cc at 2900 lbs."

Greg Amy

02-24-2011, 08:27 PM

Yeah, and it's a BEEEUUUTEEFUL car, and sounds WUNNERFUL. See Top Gear UK, S10E01, the one where they went looking for the best driving road in the world. They hated the car on the street, but it's obvious it'll be a super race car (it was developed by Aston for the Nurburgring 24 race).

I'm glad we were able to get him on the track, I can't wait to see - and hear - that car run. - GA

preparedcivic

02-24-2011, 08:32 PM

Of course the factory information takes precedence. The issue here is a complex one that I don't fully understand - I relied on others on the committee who did the digging. I posted that for Stephen as a start. I'll find what was actually used and post it.

JY -- Who bristles [snip because I'm not stooping to your level].

This is a VAG car being talked about. The only published shop manuals I know of are from Bentley, at least for vehicles like these produced in the '80's. Wikipedia just might be a more reliable specification source.

Bill Miller

02-24-2011, 08:42 PM

JJJ, I would think this is one of this issues you would applaud us for.

On track performance on these cars -- two underdeveloped examples doing extremely well at the ARRC -- caused us to dig deeper.

As I understand it, the actual stock hp number is given in Audi technical manuals and is 120. A few folks on the committee did a lot of work in digging that information up and, I believe it to be correct.

I think some of the Audi/VW crowd knows this but was quiest about it for a long time.

Not trying to pick on you Jeff, but what about the clause in the new ITAC Ops manual that talks about "a minimum of 5 unique cars, somewhere in the country" being needed to warrant a PCA? Does that go out the window if the car has a major deviation during the classification process? If so, I think you would need some pretty compelling evidence. From what I can tell, you've got conflicting evidence at best. When I googled 85 Audi GT Specs, I got this (http://www.audiworld.com/model/coupe-gt/85-coupe.shtml) as the first link. Shows 110hp @ 5500 rpm and 122 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm. That's for the 2.2L (2144cc) motor. Same specs for the 2226cc motor. The 2.3L motor (2309cc) shows 130hp @ 5600 and 140 lb-ft @ 4000. But the compression on the 2.3 is 10:1 vs 8.5:1 for the 2 different 2.2L versions.

Unless there's some pretty solid documentation to the contrary, I think you've got to go w/ factory published hp numbers, and adjust the car w/ a PCA if it's warranted. To me, that is the way the process should work, and is what PCA's are designed to address.

And since we're talking about VW/Audi products getting the short end of the stick, I guess I'll trot out the Rabbit GTI once more. Factory specs, 90hp, 100lb-ft.

90*1.25*17*.98 = 1874.25 (1875 rounded).

Current spec weight is 2080#

2080/.98/17/90 = 1.387 power factor or that it makes just shy of 125hp at the crank (124.8xx).

I have been playing w/ these cars for over 25 years, and I can tell you, with 110% certainty, that it is unpossible to get 125hp out of that motor w/ a legal IT build. Call Shine, Bertils, Techtonics, and BSI and they'll back that up. I know everybody talks about what a performance choke the stock intake manifold is, and it really is. All the tuning books from back in the day would say don't bother changing the cam or the throttle body if you didn't change the stock manifold. Heck, even going w/ a stock Rabbit (non-GTI) manifold was a significant improvement. But the point is, w/o changing the cam and the throttle body, you're not going to get close to 125hp. Half a point of compression, the best header in the world, and all the balancing and blueprinting isn't going to do it. It just doesn't move enough air. If you want another reference, talk to Walt Puckett, he's down your way. The Pucketts built some of the best race headers for VW motors going.

Oddly enough, given the current process, it would land right in ITC at it's current ITB weight (actually a tick heavy).

90*1.25*18.84=2040.75

This car got boned because one guy, who should have kept his mouth shut, made an unsubstantiated claim, that got further exaggerated.

Greg Amy

02-24-2011, 08:44 PM

The only published shop manuals I know of are from Bentley...Wikipedia just might be a more reliable specification source.
Rob, these are not Haynes or Chilton manuals we're talking about; Bentleys *are* the factory shop manuals. They were contracted by VWAG to create the manuals, and the data that's in the manuals was provided to them by VWAG. I personally know guys that worked for Bentley and they were provided factory-new cars to pull apart, to measure all the stuff, and to put them back together to create those manuals. Hell, the techs in the VWoA dealerships use Bentley as their exclusive source for repair procedures and data specifications.

I don't know where this prejudice against Bentley comes from within the non-VWoA crowd, but I'd trust Bentley info LONG before I'd trust anything else, because that's as factory as it can ever come. And, anecdotally speaking, I've found the Bentley manuals to be the most-useful, most-complete set of information I've ever found for the decades of VWoA products I've worked on. I've got a shelf-full of them (but, sadly, not one covering this Audi Coupe GT). I'd trust nothing else*.

Personally, I have no dog in this fight, but since the Bentley (as posted by John above) indicates 110hp, regardless of what anything else on the Internet lists (short of official specs posted on VWoA's own web site) is simply wrong. The Bentley is the factory specifications. Period.

That's not to say we can't adjust it on "what we know", but given we're not being made aware of any evidence that this engine makes more than "process power" we have to rely on what the Bentley says...

GA

* Well, John Muir's "Idiot" book was far more useful in terms of the Zen of working on air-cooled VDubs, but I'd hardly call it "official" data. "Interesting and entertaining", yes; but not "official".

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 08:51 PM

No worries.

This isn't a PCA. The request was to run the Audi through the process. We're trying to figure out that the stock hp really is.

If we had processed the car, and a few years down the road had a E36 situation at process weight, then the PCA clause kicks in if we have enough data points to do something.

Not trying to pick on you Jeff, but what about the clause in the new ITAC Ops manual that talks about "a minimum of 5 unique cars, somewhere in the country" being needed to warrant a PCA? Does that go out the window if the car has a major deviation during the classification process? If so, I think you would need some pretty compelling evidence. From what I can tell, you've got conflicting evidence at best. When I googled 85 Audi GT Specs, I got this (http://www.audiworld.com/model/coupe-gt/85-coupe.shtml) as the first link. Shows 110hp @ 5500 rpm and 122 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm. That's for the 2.2L (2144cc) motor. Same specs for the 2226cc motor. The 2.3L motor (2309cc) shows 130hp @ 5600 and 140 lb-ft @ 4000. But the compression on the 2.3 is 10:1 vs 8.5:1 for the 2 different 2.2L versions.

Unless there's some pretty solid documentation to the contrary, I think you've got to go w/ factory published hp numbers, and adjust the car w/ a PCA if it's warranted. To me, that is the way the process should work, and is what PCA's are designed to address.

And since we're talking about VW/Audi products getting the short end of the stick, I guess I'll trot out the Rabbit GTI once more. Factory specs, 90hp, 100lb-ft.

90*1.25*17*.98 = 1874.25 (1875 rounded).

Current spec weight is 2080#

2080/.98/17/90 = 1.387 power factor or that it makes just shy of 125hp at the crank (124.8xx).

I have been playing w/ these cars for over 25 years, and I can tell you, with 110% certainty, that it is unpossible to get 125hp out of that motor w/ a legal IT build. Call Shine, Bertils, Techtonics, and BSI and they'll back that up. I know everybody talks about what a performance choke the stock intake manifold is, and it really is. All the tuning books from back in the day would say don't bother changing the cam or the throttle body if you didn't change the stock manifold. Heck, even going w/ a stock Rabbit (non-GTI) manifold was a significant improvement. But the point is, w/o changing the cam and the throttle body, you're not going to get close to 125hp. Half a point of compression, the best header in the world, and all the balancing and blueprinting isn't going to do it. It just doesn't move enough air. If you want another reference, talk to Walt Puckett, he's down your way. The Pucketts built some of the best race headers for VW motors going.

Oddly enough, given the current process, it would land right in ITC at it's current ITB weight (actually a tick heavy).

90*1.25*18.84=2040.75

This car got boned because one guy, who should have kept his mouth shut, made an unsubstantiated claim, that got further exaggerated.

Bill Miller

02-24-2011, 08:54 PM

This is a VAG car being talked about. The only published shop manuals I know of are from Bentley, at least for vehicles like these produced in the '80's. Wikipedia just might be a more reliable specification source.

Rob,

At the risk of getting into a VW vs. Honda pissing match, how about providing some evidence to support that. Like Greg, I've been using Bentley manuals for years to work on VW's, and they're solid. I know both dealer VW techs as well as guys that work at indy shops, and that's what they use, Bently manuals.

pfcs

02-24-2011, 08:59 PM

"In my personal opinion, and correct me if I am wrong, you and your brother didn't do yourselves many favors by relying on stock horsepower numbers that I am pretty sure you knew were inaccurate." Jeff Young

That's pretty nasty, and I bet you can't support it with facts. Steven and I may be on opposite sides of some issues, but one personal interchange with him made it clear to me that he is humble, honest and has integrity. I don't guess for a second that he was being deceptive about what he "knew" about stock horsepower numbers and I think he's due a sincere apology. This stuff (finding what's real about complex questions like old [&new] engines/modified) isn't simple and maybe impossible given what this community has to work with. I do appreciate that an effort is made, however. See below:

"We have all tried to do the right thing with these very problematic cars (difficult to determine stock hp, difficult to determine gain, unusual motor, etc.)." That's the truth for sure. Unfortunately it's true for many cars, perhaps every car.

PS: Steven-could you possibly take down that face now?

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 09:00 PM

I just dropped $120 to have a 84-87 Audi Coupe and GT Bentley manual overnighted to me.

The indications I have seen today in some searching are that the 86 and 87 cars may have gotten a 118 DIN/120 SAE version of the 2.2 motor. We were told on the con call that 120 was in the factory shop manual.

I will now see if that is the case.

Bill Miller

02-24-2011, 09:00 PM

Jeff,

I guess what I'm saying is that I think the same level of rigor that's applied to the application of PCA's should be applied to deviation from factory spec during the initial classification. You just don't have the benefit of on-track performance during the initial classification. However, in the case of cars that get 're-processed', I think a deviation from factory spec is a de-facto PCA, and therefore should be required to meet the same standards. Just because it got hosed in the initial specification process doesn't mean that it shouldn't get a fair shake. Especially in this situation, where there's really no evidence to point to it being an overdog. You've got 1 or 2 data points, at best, from 6 years ago.

No worries.

This isn't a PCA. The request was to run the Audi through the process. We're trying to figure out that the stock hp really is.

If we had processed the car, and a few years down the road had a E36 situation at process weight, then the PCA clause kicks in if we have enough data points to do something.

/edit

Jeff, regarding the DIN to SAE Net conversion, I thought I saw something in the other thread that indicated that 100hp DIN ~= 98hp SAE Net. So your 118 DIN number is closer to 115-116 SAE Net, not 120.

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 09:02 PM

We were told the correct factory hp from an Audi document was 120. That's not a deviation, if true. It's a correction.

I will do what I can find out what I can about this.

Jeff,

I guess what I'm saying is that I think the same level of rigor that's applied to the application of PCA's should be applied to deviation from factory spec during the initial classification. You just don't have the benefit of on-track performance during the initial classification. However, in the case of cars that get 're-processed', I think a deviation from factory spec is a de-facto PCA, and therefore should be required to meet the same standards. Just because it got hosed in the initial specification process doesn't mean that it shouldn't get a fair shake. Especially in this situation, where there's really no evidence to point to it being an overdog. You've got 1 or 2 data points, at best, from 6 years ago.

Greg Amy

02-24-2011, 09:06 PM

I just dropped $120 to have a 84-87 Audi Coupe and GT Bentley manual overnighted to me.
Holy f**k, dude....I'll give you "that's dedication"...but couldn't we have looked around for one before you dug into your pocket...?

Every VW engine has an engine code, typically two-digits alphanumeric. That engine code is unique for the equipment, and results in an output. there are rare cases where the same engine code has "in reality" different engine outputs, but in those rare cases it's kinda like the 1.8L Miata where there's two ratings, but for a reasonable point (e.g., the whole G-grind camshaft thing, which was in reality a parts-system superceded camshaft.)

Your goal will be to find what engine codes were used throughout the Audi Coupe GT range (they'll be listed in the front of the book in a "specs" section) and, if necessary, classify the cars based on those engine codes, which themselves determine output.

Kudos, bud. But next time let's see if we can't do it cheaper...

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 09:11 PM

It's KX for this motor.

I'll sell you my Lawrence Tribe American Constitutional Law and On Reading the Constitution for $120 to make up for it.

Holy f**k, dude....I'll give you "that's dedication"...but couldn't we have looked around for one before you dug into your pocket...?

Every VW engine has an engine code, typically two-digits alphanumeric. That engine code is unique for the equipment, and results in an output. there are rare cases where the same engine code has "in reality" different engine outputs, but in those rare cases it's kinda like the 1.8L Miata where there's two ratings, but for a reasonable point (e.g., the whole G-grind camshaft thing, which was in reality a parts-system superceded camshaft.)

Your goal will be to find what engine codes were used throughout the Audi Coupe GT range (they'll be listed in the front of the book in a "specs" section) and, if necessary, classify the cars based on those engine codes, which themselves determine output.

Kudos, bud. But next time let's see if we can't do it cheaper...

Greg Amy

02-24-2011, 09:12 PM

It's KX for this motor.

I'll sell you my Lawrence Tribe American Constitutional Law and On Reading the Constitution for $120 to make up for it.
;)

Hell, I may actually buy that guy from you to add to my shelf collection...there's a big hole in there for the Audi Coupe GT waiting to be filled...

On edit: I'll give you one "F**K Bentley!": I can't get paper for my '00 S4 or my '10 Jetta; it's all electronic. What a major PITA! Ever try using your laptop while trying to install a water pump/timing belt? Maybe I'm becoming a "Get off my lawn!" but give me paper and post-it notes for marking and working on a car.

Besides, DVDs laying down on a shelf aren't sexy.

preparedcivic

02-24-2011, 09:13 PM

Rob,

At the risk of getting into a VW vs. Honda pissing match, how about providing some evidence to support that. Like Greg, I've been using Bentley manuals for years to work on VW's, and they're solid. I know both dealer VW techs as well as guys that work at indy shops, and that's what they use, Bently manuals.

I've poked around Bentleys a fair amount in my many years of rules nerding on the pylon side of the club, including judicating protests. Where they are good, yes they are good, but on a number of things that have mattered the info plain old hasn't been there.

What will help confirm this, and frankly most any VAG car issue is to find someone with an ETKA login. That's official info there.

Greg Amy

02-24-2011, 09:21 PM

What will help confirm this, and frankly most any VAG car issue is to find someone with an ETKA login. That's official info there.
Rob, the ETKA ("Elektronischer Teilekatalog" - "Electronic Part Catalog") is just the parts system catalog. It's neither service info nor vehicle-specific info, it's just the list of parts and part numbers. I've got one, I'll look, but I don't recall vehicle specs in there...

GA, former VWoA dealership parts manager...

StephenB

02-24-2011, 09:22 PM

Mine is not in great shape... been to the racetrack and back for 11 years... most of which I wasn't very carefull with it! However I would send it to you to look at as long as you will send it back. Not sure if that is a conflict of interest but it's all original. I think it is missing a few pages but I am sure they are not in that section.

If you did purchase it feel free to contact me when you get it. I would love to go page by page with you. Heck I would do it on a conferance call format and anyone could listen in.

Stephen

PS: Doing this is a good example of your dedication and character. We will certainly agree to disagree on a lot of things in our future but I respect you and if you stick to what you honestly feel is best and you listen to feedback then none of us can be upset with your decision... Disagree yes but upset no.

Bill Miller

02-24-2011, 09:25 PM

I've poked around Bentleys a fair amount in my many years of rules nerding on the pylon side of the club, including judicating protests. Where they are good, yes they are good, but on a number of things that have mattered the info plain old hasn't been there.

What will help confirm this, and frankly most any VAG car issue is to find someone with an ETKA login. That's official info there.

What would you like to know?

Jeff,

Like Greg said, you get a dedication award for that one. And you also make a point about it being errata rather than a deviation. Was it that kind of documentation?

Greg,

Not only don't those DVD's look sexy, you can't look back through them and remember what job you did by the grease smudges on the pages! I've got an '81-'84 Rabbit/Scirocco/Jetta Bentley that I've had for the better part of 25 years. Got a couple of dog-eared pages and a few stains on it. A little duct tape too, but that was the time I threw it across the shop. :rolleyes:
No

pfcs

02-24-2011, 09:26 PM

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showpost.php?p=297622&postcount=67
http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showpost.php?p=297633&postcount=72
http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showpost.php?p=297701&postcount=80
http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showpost.php?p=297825&postcount=99
http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showpost.php?p=297826&postcount=100
http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showpost.php?p=297828&postcount=102
http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showpost.php?p=297849&postcount=110
Jeff-I have the Bently GT manual and confirm what Steven saw in it-it's somewhere in the conversations above. Perhaps you should re-read the whole lengthy thing (not just these snippets). Answers and the truth are not always so simple.

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 09:27 PM

I appreciate that and I do apologize about calling you out on the stock hp issue. After looking at it in detail its complicated and not as straightforward as presented to me on the con call.

I'll also mail you the manual when I'm done with it, no charge. On me, for your patience in dealing with this issue.

I may take you up on working through it. I've seen some indication that the later KX motors made more power. We'll see what the manual says.

Thanks.

Jeff

Mine is not in great shape... been to the racetrack and back for 11 years... most of which I wasn't very carefull with it! However I would send it to you to look at as long as you will send it back. Not sure if that is a conflict of interest but it's all original. I think it is missing a few pages but I am sure they are not in that section.

If you did purchase it feel free to contact me when you get it. I would love to go page by page with you. Heck I would od it on a conferance call format and anyone could listen in.

Stephen

PS: Doing this is a good example of your dedication and character. We will certainly agree to disagree on a lot of things in our future but I respect you and if you stick to what you honestly feel is best and you listen to feedback then none of us can be upset with your decision... Disagree yes but upset no.

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 09:28 PM

You're right. I was too hard on him. I've apologized.

Your turn. You owe Jake an apology and you owe the community an explanation as to where you got the Ops Manual.

Man up.

"In my personal opinion, and correct me if I am wrong, you and your brother didn't do yourselves many favors by relying on stock horsepower numbers that I am pretty sure you knew were inaccurate." Jeff Young

That's pretty nasty, and I bet you can't support it with facts. Steven and I may be on opposite sides of some issues, but one personal interchange with him made it clear to me that he is humble, honest and has integrity. I don't guess for a second that he was being deceptive about what he "knew" about stock horsepower numbers and I think he's due a sincere apology. This stuff (finding what's real about complex questions like old [&new] engines/modified) isn't simple and maybe impossible given what this community has to work with. I do appreciate that an effort is made, however. See below:

"We have all tried to do the right thing with these very problematic cars (difficult to determine stock hp, difficult to determine gain, unusual motor, etc.)." That's the truth for sure. Unfortunately it's true for many cars, perhaps every car.

PS: Steven-could you possibly take down that face now?

StephenB

02-24-2011, 09:30 PM

You mentioned the KX engine code but the more I think about this we need to justify the 120HP for the early coupe as well since it was stated that it was correctly processed.

***edit*** I am 90% sure that you will find the difference in the KX engine vs the JT engine is the header and downpipe design. Also used on the quattro. I am really reaching back in memory now since this was a long long time ago!

Also was any consideration given to the larger brakes?
Given the only difference between the early coupe and the coupe GT is brakes and bumpers/headlights/sideskirts can the lines be combined so that the early coupes can upgrade the brakes legally? (HP is obviously the same since they were both processed at 120HP)

Should I send in a letter or am I missing something obvious?

Stephen

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 09:34 PM

We didn't view the brake sizes as significant enough to warranty any adder/subractor. Well, to be more specific, I know nothing about the brake differences but it is only extremely rare cases where that would matter.

All the easily available data I see shows the 2.2 KX motor in the "early" cars at 110 hp and the 2.3 NG motor in the very last ones at 130 hp EXCEPT for the Wiki page where the "late" KXs made 120. If that's the case, with the update/backdate rule you'd get the 120 for all cars with the KX on that spec line.

If the cars are on the same line, you can use the later car's brakes on the earlier car.

You mentioned the KX engine code but the more I think about this we need to justify the 120HP for the early coupe as well since it was stated that it was correctly processed.

Also was any consideration given to the larger brakes?
Given the only difference between the early coupe and the coupe GT is brakes and bumpers/headlights/sideskirts can the lines be combined so that the early coupes can upgrade the brakes legally? (HP is obviously the same since they were both processed at 120HP)

Should I send in a letter or am I missing something obvious?

Stephen

preparedcivic

02-24-2011, 09:36 PM

Rob, the ETKA ("Elektronischer Teilekatalog" - "Electronic Part Catalog") is just the parts system catalog. It's neither service info nor vehicle-specific info, it's just the list of parts and part numbers. I've got one, I'll look, but I don't recall vehicle specs in there...

GA, former VWoA dealership parts manager...

Greg:

I was thinking of it as a way to back-door into the motor via cam/pistons/intake etc. to figure out if there really was a power change in the later years of the car, but with different displacements too, everything would likely be different in any case. My last ETKA experience was in '07 or '08 trying to determine what differences there were, if any, between USDM and Canadian Audi TT's. IIRC, there were specs posted besides parts lists and graphics, but this was for a late model car.

Despite all the documentation and research over the long term on the Audi Coupes, it's amazing this one has stayed as fuzzy as it appears. Anecdotally, these cars were something I lusted over when in college, so I paid attention to them when they were new back in the day. I thought they did get a horsepower bump around '85 which would correspond to the 110/120 business. But everything is pointing towards that not being the case.

Bill Miller

02-24-2011, 09:39 PM

I've poked around Bentleys a fair amount in my many years of rules nerding on the pylon side of the club, including judicating protests. Where they are good, yes they are good, but on a number of things that have mattered the info plain old hasn't been there.

What will help confirm this, and frankly most any VAG car issue is to find someone with an ETKA login. That's official info there.

Just looked it up. ETKA lists the 2.2 (KX) engine at 85Kw and the 2.3(NG) engine at 100Kw. According the the converter I used on americanmachinist.com, 85Kw ~= 114 hp and 100Kw ~= 134hp. That sure seems consistent w/ the published 110 and 130 numbers in the Bentley manual (in terms of the same delta between the two engines). So, if you use 114hp instead of 110hp, you get 114*1.25*17*.98 = 2374.05 (round to 2375). So at 2490, it's still over 100# heavy.

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 09:40 PM

The below is from Wiki. It shows a 118 DIN (so about 120 SAE right? or wrong?) KX motor in the 85-87 Coupe.

The problem is that every other listing for the motors that came in that car appears to be wrong.

DIN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIN)-rated motive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_power) power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)) & torque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque) outputs, ID codes 79 kilowatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt) (107 PS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_horsepower); 106 bhp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower)) — WU 85 kilowatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt) (116 PS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_horsepower); 114 bhp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower)) — KZ, WB 88 kilowatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt) (120 PS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_horsepower); 118 bhp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower)) — KX, PX 89 kilowatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt) (121 PS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_horsepower); 119 bhp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower)) — JT 96 kilowatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt) (131 PS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_horsepower); 129 bhp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower)) — KE, KF, KL 98 kilowatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt) (133 PS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_horsepower); 131 bhp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower)) — KV 100 kilowatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt) (136 PS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_horsepower); 134 bhp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower)) — HY, KK, PR, WC, WG, WK 101 kilowatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt) (137 PS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_horsepower); 135 bhp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower)) — HX, KU applications Audi 80 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_80) (KK/KL: 08/82-07/84), Audi 90 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_80#B2) (KV: 06/84-12/91, HY: 06/84-03/87, KX: 01/85-03/87, JT: 08/85-03/87), Audi Coupé (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_80#B2) (KE: 08/81-07/84, KL: 08/82-07/84, HY: 08/84-07/88, KV: 08/84-07/91, KX: 01/85-07/88, JT: 08/85-12/87), Audi 100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_100) (WG: 08/76-07/80, WC: 08/76-07/84, WB: 04/78-07/84, KF/WU: 08/82-07/84, KZ: 08/84-09/86, HX: 08/84-12/87, KU: 08/84-12/90, PX: 08/85-07/86, PR: 08/89-12/90), Audi C2 200 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_100#C2) (WK: 10/79-09/82, WC: 10/79-07/84, KU: 08/84-07/85), Volkswagen Passat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Passat) (HY: 08/84-07/88, KV: 01/85-03/88, KX: 08/85-03/88, JT: 08/85-07/88)

lateapex911

02-24-2011, 09:41 PM

All the easily available data I see shows the 2.2 KX motor in the "early" cars at 110 hp and the 2.3 NG motor in the very last ones at 130 hp EXCEPT for the Wiki page where the "late" KXs made 120. If that's the case, with the update/backdate rule you'd get the 120 for all cars with the KX on that spec line.

If the cars are on the same line, you can use the later car's brakes on the earlier car.

Except if the difference in power is attributable to something that is part of IT Prep, like the ECU or exhaust system. See "Bettencourt Miata vs the Process", and the "Ops manual" as examples. ;)

StephenB

02-24-2011, 09:41 PM

Eagle7

02-24-2011, 09:44 PM

We were told on the con call that 120 was in the factory shop manual.
Huh? I guess I had gotten the picture that all the ITAC's evidence was permanently recorded in some kind of electronic files that all members had access to. Your record of the evidence is that someone told you on the phone? You can't pull up the file for this weight change and review all the evidence and calculations? I think I'm going to be sick.

pfcs

02-24-2011, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Rob, the ETKA ("Elektronischer Teilekatalog" - "Electronic Part Catalog") is just the parts system catalog. It's neither service info nor vehicle-specific info, it's just the list of parts and part numbers. I've got one, I'll look, but I don't recall vehicle specs in there...

GA, former VWoA dealership parts manager...

Greg-when you open EKTA, there's a row of icons/acronyms in the upper/right area. I think its the icon that looks like a lined page-click on it and it opens a list. I think engine is the first item. Click on that and there's a list of all engine codes, HP, kW, C/R, torque?, applications, etc. At the bottom is a window to input the engine code which takes you directly to all info for that unit including apps

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 09:48 PM

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.

I'm the first to admit our document collection and recordation practices need to improve.

We are working on it, we are light years ahead of where we were even a few years ago.

But I can't take much issue with your concern. I'm not saying I'll squeaky clean on this, but when asked to look into an issue I do try to document it as best I can. I did a lot of work on the 2.2 Mopars and wrote up my findings.

The MR2 plots are pretty well documented as well (not my effort).

So it is hit and miss.

Huh? I guess I had gotten the picture that all the ITAC's evidence was permanently recorded in some kind of electronic files that all members had access to. Your record of the evidence is that someone told you on the phone? You can't pull up the file for this weight change and review all the evidence and calculations? I think I'm going to be sick.

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 09:49 PM

Man up.

Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Rob, the ETKA ("Elektronischer Teilekatalog" - "Electronic Part Catalog") is just the parts system catalog. It's neither service info nor vehicle-specific info, it's just the list of parts and part numbers. I've got one, I'll look, but I don't recall vehicle specs in there...

GA, former VWoA dealership parts manager...

Greg-when you open EKTA, there's a row of icons/acronyms in the upper/right area. I think its the icon that looks like a lined page-click on it and it opens a list. I think engine is the first item. Click on that and there's a list of all engine codes, HP, kW, C/R, torque?, applications, etc. At the bottom is a window to input the engine code which takes you directly to all info for that unit including apps

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 09:50 PM

Good luck on finding out why that is on this motor.....

Except if the difference in power is attributable to something that is part of IT Prep, like the ECU or exhaust system. See "Bettencourt Miata vs the Process", and the "Ops manual" as examples. ;)

Andy Bettencourt

02-24-2011, 09:53 PM

Again the CRB noted torque not HP as the reason for additional lbs.

Thanks
stephen

Stephen,

Focus for a second and hear me. When the CRB was giving you the 'reasons' for not reducing the weight 2 years ago, they were all over the board. It was a very tense time in IT-land - a time which resulted in my resignation because or many issues coming from that group. That is the past, this is the present. What the CRB said than is moot.

Help them find the correct stock hp, and if they find documentation showing 120, either accept it or help prove it is wrong.

Just don't mix and match policies and committees. It's innacurate and simply the wrong thing to do. And if you think the committee that originally classed these cars had ANY idea on how to make classifications any other way than by POOMA, you be worng. The Process isn't ridged, it's just using inputs you don't agree with and a result you don't like. If those can be proven wrong, it will adjust.

pfcs

02-24-2011, 10:03 PM

Huh? I guess I had gotten the picture that all the ITAC's evidence was permanently recorded in some kind of electronic files that all members had access to. Your record of the evidence is that someone told you on the phone? You can't pull up the file for this weight change and review all the evidence and calculations? I think I'm going to be sick

Yeah-this may be insightful of how loose and political a clubhouse can be. I wonder if I was the one who did "a lot work" on this one.
Jeff-I respect what you all are trying to do and it's well motivated, and I believe you have integrity and appreciate your amends to Steven but this stuff looks pretty weak:
"As I understand it, the actual stock hp number is given in Audi technical manuals and is 120. A few folks on the committee did a lot of work in digging that information up and, I believe it to be correct.
I think some of the Audi/VW crowd knows this but was quiest about it for a long time.

And, I'm afraid that if I was in your shoes I wouldn't be doing any better. Maybe what's simplest works best.

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 10:11 PM

I don't know the first thing about Audi 5 cylinder motors, nor can I become an expert on every car we process. I do know a fair amount about more of the motors in S and A.

So when someone who has done the work on a particular motor makes a presentation, I listen. It may be loose or "political" in your book, but we do the best we can for volunteers with at times an overwhelming amount of work.

What is simplest is a repeatable process. Far simpler than what went on before. We have that now.

And, again, are you going to tell us where you got the Ops Manual? This is getting pretty ridiculous.

Huh? I guess I had gotten the picture that all the ITAC's evidence was permanently recorded in some kind of electronic files that all members had access to. Your record of the evidence is that someone told you on the phone? You can't pull up the file for this weight change and review all the evidence and calculations? I think I'm going to be sick

Yeah-this may be insightful of how loose and political a clubhouse can be. I wonder if I was the one who did "a lot work" on this one.
Jeff-I respect what you all are trying to do and it's well motivated, and I believe you have integrity and appreciate your amends to Steven but this stuff looks pretty weak:
"As I understand it, the actual stock hp number is given in Audi technical manuals and is 120. A few folks on the committee did a lot of work in digging that information up and, I believe it to be correct.
I think some of the Audi/VW crowd knows this but was quiest about it for a long time.

And, I'm afraid that if I was in your shoes I wouldn't be doing any better. Maybe what's simplest works best.

StephenB

02-24-2011, 10:13 PM

Stephen,

Focus for a second and hear me. When the CRB was giving you the 'reasons' for not reducing the weight 2 years ago, they were all over the board. It was a very tense time in IT-land - a time which resulted in my resignation because or many issues coming from that group. That is the past, this is the present. What the CRB said than is moot.

Help them find the correct stock hp, and if they find documentation showing 120, either accept it or help prove it is wrong.

Just don't mix and match policies and committees. It's innacurate and simply the wrong thing to do. And if you think the committee that originally classed these cars had ANY idea on how to make classifications any other way than by POOMA, you be worng. The Process isn't ridged, it's just using inputs you don't agree with and a result you don't like. If those can be proven wrong, it will adjust.

Andy,

I accepted the reason then and I will accept it now.

What I do have a problem with is that I don't think that the Improved Touring Catagory within the SCCA should "mix and match policies" (your words) with different committees over a span of only 2 years. If they were "all over the board" then maybe we just got the wrong excuse. no problem with that now that I know.

I never said I didn't like the inputs.

What I did say is that I think my car is at a distinct disadvantage to the later coupes because I have smaller brakes. I also posted that I didn't think this was taken into consideration. Jeff stated "We didn't view the brake sizes as significant enough to warranty any adder/subractor." so therfor I accepted that response and I will most likely request for the spec lines to be combined since the two cars no longer have a difference.

I think you are wrong about the orignal comittee. They created one of the best catagories in SCCA and amateur racing in the US. If they didn't class the cars in a reasonable way the class never would have succeeded.

Stephen

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 10:16 PM

They didn't class the cars in a way that had any -- ANY -- relationship with power to weight or performance. It was all curb weight.

And they weren't subject to the scrutiny that we are now because there was no internet, you didn't get to communicate with them and all you saw was what was in fast track.

Maybe we were better off "blissfully unaware" but if THAT evironment existed NOW -- IT would be dead.

Andy,

I accepted the reason then and I will accept it now.

What I do have a problem with is that I don't think that the Improved Touring Catagory within the SCCA should "mix and match policies" (your words) with different committees over a span of only 2 years. If they were "all over the board" then maybe we just got the wrong excuse. no problem with that now that I know.

I never said I didn't like the inputs.

What I did say is that I think my car is at a distinct disadvantage to the later coupes because I have smaller brakes. I also posted that I didn't think this was taken into consideration. Jeff stated "We didn't view the brake sizes as significant enough to warranty any adder/subractor." so therfor I accepted that response and I will most likely request for the spec lines to be combined since the two cars no longer have a difference.

I think you are wrong about the orignal comittee. They created one of the best catagories in SCCA and amateur racing in the US. If they didn't class the cars in a reasonable way the class never would have succeeded.

Stephen

StephenB

02-24-2011, 10:24 PM

agreed. It was "reasonable" and worked at the time with what they had.

This feels like a chat line tonight! Heading to bed! see you all tomorrow... ;)

Stephen

JeffYoung

02-24-2011, 10:26 PM

good night, and thanks again for your patience.

Your car is a tough one to get right, but I'm convinced you want the right result not the most advantageous one and I appreciated that.

Jeff

StephenB

02-24-2011, 10:30 PM

good night, and thanks again for your patience.

Your car is a tough one to get right, but I'm convinced you want the right result not the most advantageous one and I appreciated that.

Jeff

I will make this final post... I think torque matters and should be considered. I am afraid that another car like mine will pop up and mess things up. It probably already has and we just don't know it yet.

Stephen

Bill Miller

02-24-2011, 10:45 PM

Hey Stephen,

What ever happened to Phil Phillips' old car? I know it was pretty fast back in the day. My friend's dad bought it several years ago, but sold it. Not sure where it ever ended up.

Z3_GoCar

02-24-2011, 11:18 PM

Not much, but one interesting item:

Still no action on my engine mount request. Maybe this month.

Jake,

What's your request number, so that I can reference it in my request.

Knestis

02-24-2011, 11:50 PM

Which source takes precedence: Wikipedia or the factory shop manual? If the former, then as a tech inspector can I overlook technical information printed in the FSM, superseding it with that "written" on Wikipedia...?

Just askin'...

GA, who bristles anytime someone uses Wikipedia as a source...for anything. Except maybe info on Britney Spears. Or Pink. Or maybe Constitutional Law...

I really like Pink...

K

RSTPerformance

02-25-2011, 12:45 AM

I have basically avoidEd the "Internet side" of our club for a long time for a reason... I am so disapointed again with SCCA... The club has a lot of great people in it but the ITAC, CRB and BOD are a friggen joke. They have always spewed more bullshit and lies than just about any other organized group of people I know. Don't get sucked into all the crap.

If you are new to the club here are the facts that I have learned over the past couple years that some want to say and others are going to be pissed I said it...

1) MOST members on the organizations above have thier own agenda and will tell you bullshit "in private" to make you feel like they are helping you. If you want something done kiss ass get on the committee and solve your agenda. Otherwise don't give a shit; Just race, and avoid the gossip (your opinion DOES NOT matter and you will only get angry)!

2) Stewards and Tech are only going to check safety items and weight on IT cars. CHEAT like a bastard, run in the front (but don't dominate) and have fun. Don't piss rich people off who like to gamble with money and you won't get protested by other drivers. As mentioned the stewards won't check unless it is in the supps for the race (ARRC) because if they don't find anything the club has to pay.

3) don't get sucked it to peoples comments on the Internet and avoid reading all this bullshit...

Raymond "just another guy typing how he feels" Blethen

PS: Jeff- Phils comments are very accurate, I have never asked for changes based on HP numbers I knew were inaccurate. Also how hard is it to get people to understand the facts on our ARRC performance. Stephen posted a good summary. We drive the wheels off the cars and the cars had and have a TON of development. I would argue most people don't take the risks we do to do as well as we have... As far as I can tell you fit right in on the ITAC or CRB (I have no idea where you are a member). You listen to biast comments to make your decisions and fail to do your own research (Imagine a committee member who calls or asks members driving the cars for an opinion). It's to bad you wasted $120 for a car that in reality very few people care about... It's a little late to do your own research. As Phil pointed out years ago the hp ratings I have quoted were acurate from the factory manual. The numbers he posts are from some top secret dealer manual that also lists alternate parts not originally offered on the car. The manual required in tech to be refered to is the one you ordered... Please post the hp numbers when you read it!

JeffYoung

02-25-2011, 12:53 AM

A ton of development on your cars? Has it ever been tuned on a dyno?

I obviously don't appreciate or agree with 99% of what you wrote.

But I am interested in this dealer manual that lists a different hp rating. That you are apparently aware of.

Until you volunteer and spend time working on a committee, you really should spend more time thinking about what you say and how you say it. As best I can tell, you only care about THIS issue and YOUR car. ME. ME.

We've got far more to deal with than THIS issue and THIS car. But we all try to do the right thing on each decision we make.

I have basically avoidEd the "Internet side" of our club for a long time for a reason... I am so disapointed again with SCCA... The club has a lot of great people in it but the ITAC, CRB and BOD are a friggen joke. They have always spewed more bullshit and lies than just about any other organized group of people I know. Don't get sucked into all the crap.

If you are new to the club here are the facts that I have learned over the past couple years that some want to say and others are going to be pissed I said it...

1) MOST members on the organizations above have thier own agenda and will tell you bullshit "in private" to make you feel like they are helping you. If you want something done kiss ass get on the committee and solve your agenda. Otherwise don't give a shit; Just race, and avoid the gossip (your opinion DOES NOT matter and you will only get angry)!

2) Stewards and Tech are only going to check safety items and weight on IT cars. CHEAT like a bastard, run in the front (but don't dominate) and have fun. Don't piss rich people off who like to gamble with money and you won't get protested by other drivers. As mentioned the stewards won't check unless it is in the supps for the race (ARRC) because if they don't find anything the club has to pay.

3) don't get sucked it to peoples comments on the Internet and avoid reading all this bullshit...

Raymond "just another guy typing how he feels" Blethen

PS: Jeff- Phils comments are very accurate, I have never asked for changes based on HP numbers I knew were inaccurate. Also how hard is it to get people to understand the facts on our ARRC performance. Stephen posted a good summary. We drive the wheels off the cars and the cars had and have a TON of development. I would argue most people don't take the risks we do to do as well as we have... As far as I can tell you fit right in on the ITAC or CRB (I have no idea where you are a member). You listen to biast comments to make your decisions and fail to do your own research (Imagine a committee member who calls or asks members driving the cars for an opinion). It's to bad you wasted $120 for a car that in reality very few people care about... It's a little late to do your own research. As Phil pointed out years ago the hp ratings I have quoted were acurate from the factory manual. The numbers he posts are from some top secret dealer manual that also lists alternate parts not originally offered on the car. The manual required in tech to be refered to is the one you ordered... Please post the hp numbers when you read it!

StephenB

02-25-2011, 01:05 AM

Raymond, really?
You haven't been paying attention if you ask me. I would suggest you go back to avoiding the internet again.

Sorry bud... wrong way to react,
Stephen

RSTPerformance

02-25-2011, 01:13 AM

Jeff- I don't agree with 99% of the way the ITAC/CRB/BOD goes about things or what they think so we are even!

As for the Audi, I have not commented on it in probably more than a year. My fustratuon is not with the cars classification as I always seem to have someone to race with and that is what matters most to me... I could care less about most of the rules as long as if someone is cheating They are not dominating the class.

I DO CARE about The process and what I am told especially when it is blaintant bullshit. I would be glad to send you the bullshit e-mails from Bob (CRB member) that mention everything but 120hp as being the reason the Audi was set where they are. I have said it for years... I don't care what the Audi weighs just treat the cars equal to all other cars.

As for this other manual read what other members are telling you, Phil mentioned it at the end of the last 15 page argument about the Audis and brought it up again in this post. I have never seen this mystirical document but have to say I am somewhat pleased that the possability exists that the CRB has something to back itself up.

Raymond

Did the car get all the subrtactors other cars get such as solid rear axle?

RSTPerformance

02-25-2011, 01:21 AM

Sorry Stephen... This stuff is all a friggen joke though. I shouldn't have posted because the stuff does matter to some people but it doesn't matter to me anymore. I have zero respect for those committee and I doubt my mind will change anytime soon. Thus my thoughts are not needed.

Raymond

JeffYoung

02-25-2011, 01:22 AM

I guess you didn't read the Ops Manual published in the other thread, that sets out the process you contend we aren't following/don't have/is bullshit.

No live rear axle deduct for any cars in S/A/B. Only R. Plus, your car is FWD so the beam axle in the rear is not a peformance issue.

Is this really all about you and your car? You sure make it sound that way.

Jeff- I don't agree with 99% of the way the ITAC/CRB/BOD goes about things or what they think so we are even!

As for the Audi, I have not commented on it in probably more than a year. My fustratuon is not with the cars classification as I always seem to have someone to race with and that is what matters most to me... I could care less about most of the rules as long as if someone is cheating They are not dominating the class.

I DO CARE about The process and what I am told especially when it is blaintant bullshit. I would be glad to send you the bullshit e-mails from Bob (CRB member) that mention everything but 120hp as being the reason the Audi was set where they are. I have said it for years... I don't care what the Audi weighs just treat the cars equal to all other cars.

As for this other manual read what other members are telling you, Phil mentioned it at the end of the last 15 page argument about the Audis and brought it up again in this post. I have never seen this mystirical document but have to say I am somewhat pleased that the possability exists that the CRB has something to back itself up.

Raymond

Did the car get all the subrtactors other cars get such as solid rear axle?

RSTPerformance

02-25-2011, 01:34 AM

Jeff- I didn't read anything anyone has posted over the last year. I appologise for my comments, it's not about the Audi, I can promise you that. I am amaized at the 120hp number and disapointed that I was lied to by private e-mails from the CRB and others when this car was originally an issue. If someone said we made our decision based on 120hp go away I would have.

Again I should not jump right in, I just see the same old bullshit over and over whenever I do come take a look... Be it the Audi, MR2, Older VW's or some Honda... I think the club has done and continues to do a terrible job with classifications in several areas (not just IT) and I wish that we had seen change by now.

Raymond "Sometimes I wish I had a SRF" Blethen

JeffYoung

02-25-2011, 01:39 AM

That is a far more reasonble post.

I agree with have some issues in IT, but I think for the vast majority of cars we got it right. We don't have these issues in S or R...AT ALL. We have the "Miata Problem" in A, but beyond that (and I think the issue is overblown) the class is close and competitive.

C no one complains about.

B, although the racing is good, is a nightmare. We have spent, over the last year, I'd gues 80% of our time on B cars. And we have some issues. But we are trying to correct them.

Bob Dowie did not lie to you by the way. While I disagree with Bob on some things, and not on others, he's as honest as they come. He told you what he believed to be the case when it was told you. Remember, as Andy said, the ITAC/CRB relationshp was in turmoil at that time, and the means used to class cars in a bit of a unstable zone.

In any event, I'd like to know as much abou tthis dealer manual as possible especially since it seems to be the genesis of the 120 hp number we were told was the facctory number.

What can you tell me?

Jeff- I didn't read anything anyone has posted over the last year. I appologise for my comments, it's not about the Audi, I can promise you that. I am amaized at the 120hp number and disapointed that I was lied to by private e-mails from the CRB and others when this car was originally an issue. If someone said we made our decision based on 120hp go away I would have.

Again I should not jump right in, I just see the same old bullshit over and over whenever I do come take a look... Be it the Audi, MR2, Older VW's or some Honda... I think the club has done and continues to do a terrible job with classifications in several areas (not just IT) and I wish that we had seen change by now.

Raymond "Sometimes I wish I had a SRF" Blethen

RSTPerformance

02-25-2011, 01:56 AM

If you really want to continue a conversation a out Bob Dowie and the rest of the CRB memberswe can but I would rather not.

As for the Manual... Phil Hunt (pfsc on here) has all your answers, I don't. If I knew anything about this manual I would share but I havn't a clue.

Raymond

tnord

02-25-2011, 02:02 AM

lateapex911

02-25-2011, 02:08 AM

Raymond Raymond Raymond....
Step away for the edge....
:shrug:
I think you need to apologize....you have served as a steward, and that's great. But you haven't served on the ITAC. You really need to walk a mile or two in mans shoes before you rip him a new one.

Here's how it works. You've got maybe 5 to 8 guys on the committee at any given time. They've got jobs, wives, kids. They try to race themselves. Honestly, I've been disappointed in some of them in the past and their approach and level of involvement....but hey, I don't have a wife and three kids in college and it's easy for me to criticize. Be that as it may, it's not a paying position, and the number of guys in the country who have the knowledge base, the big picture view, who will put up with the political BS and have the time to do the job can maybe be counted on both hands.

Bottom line is that there is too much research, too many cars, OVER 300!) and too many rules for each guy to handle. NO WAY IN HELL can Jeff do all the research on every car. I'm sure you've heard of delegation. So Jeff is told by another member they have researched it and cites his findings. Jeff feels the guy has done good work and accepts it. Sure, it's easy for you....a guy who has lived and breathed 5 cylinder Audis for nearly a DECADE, to find flaws in that research. Jeff assumes the research will be documented and is legit...HE CAN'T DO EVERYTHING!

So, he comes on here, trying to communicate (Which we, as rank and file racers, should be DAMN happy he's doing) accepts the criticism, finds a way to get his OWN documentation TOMORROW, for $120 of HIS OWN money, and frankly you act like a spoiled brat and rip him a new one?

You should know better.

And you've ripped me a new one too! I've spend hundreds of my own money doing research and flying places to do work to make the category better. I'm not alone. I'd wager MOST guys who serve on committees are spending their own money. Trust me, I didn't do it for the thanks and attaboys, LOL. Remember the abuse Andy got over the E36 issue? Sheesh.

Regarding the cars, you guys have done a great job with an odd package. You've worked very hard. But "a TON of development"? Please. How many dyno sessions have you spent trying different exhaust headers and pipe diameters? And modifying fuel ratios and pressures? How may balance and blueprint jobs have you done to the engine using parts bin methods? How many flow bench hours spent fine tuning intake tracts? Valve jobs? How many days testing with data aq to determine ideal ratios and shift points and setups? Can you honestly say that if oh, Turner Motorsport was charged with developing the car that they'd be running the same times?

Think big picture. Think about it from the other guys view.

Listen, maybe you have a point, maybe you don't. But don't crap all over Jeff, he's going to bat for you!

lateapex911

02-25-2011, 02:20 AM

I am amaized at the 120hp number and disapointed that I was lied to by private e-mails from the CRB and others when this car was originally an issue.

Your private emails were from CB chair Bob Dowie. I can assure you he did not lie to you. He told you what he felt, and what he knew at the time.*
Now, he might have changed what he felt a week or a month or a year later, but I know he communicated you the situation as he saw it at the time.

I also know that he wasn't pushing his own agenda.

*At the time, Bob felt that the ITAC wasn't giving displacement enough weight in the Process. He went so far to say, "You'll never convince me that using stock horsepower is a good way to class a race car". I remember well, because I was shocked he said that as we had been operating in such a manner for years. And I believed in our system and had campaigned hard for it. I felt that stock hp and tq told us what we needed to know in most cases. He felt the Audi had big displacement for the class and should be treated uniquely. He really did feel that way. Remember, he comes from a much different background: GT and Prod racing, where stock parts that restrict HP, like cams and such are free game. Big engines make big power. It would appear that, since I left the committee, he has altered his view, perhaps because of discussions with the ITAC.

RSTPerformance

02-25-2011, 02:27 AM

Jake- I appologise again... And I will again...

I don't think Jeff should have dished out $120 for a manual... Its not his obligation and it's not going to give him the information he wants to back up the classification. I also do think he should be able to trust other committee members recomendations. Unfortunatly I don't really care for some of the members so my opinion sucks... :( and I admit that also.

I also just saw that the classification process was posted. I had not read that... So I appologise again. This is another great step in the right direction.

I however did not like Jeffs comments that I somehow cheated the system by arguing for lower published hp ratings than what I "knew" or know. I also get overly fustrated with any reference to my performance at the ARRC as it is completely not relevant to todays ITB class.

Travis- non of us are always classy are we?

Rabbit05

02-25-2011, 07:53 AM

Jeff,
I would of mailed you my Bently ! You didnt need to drop $120 on a book. I commend you for trying to find an answer on this. And if there is anything I can do to help....

Let me know [email protected] is my email. :023:

And the picture that i had posted from before(I believe it is on page two). This was from the Owners Manual issued from the factory. The one you would find in the glove box , not the Bently.

I am wrong in thinking this could be used as a reliable factory document....?

Also the two engine codes you are looking for are the WE and KX motor. The WE being used in the early cars and the KX used in the later ones. From asking the Audi crowd I was told that on Page Two of the Bently should have the motor info. A friend of mine has my book and I will go get it afterwork today to confirm this.

Thanks for looking into this Jeff, and like I said you need anything give me a shout.

-John

Greg Amy

02-25-2011, 08:10 AM

...that i had posted from before...was from the Owners Manual issued from the factory....could be used as a reliable factory document....?
No. Bentley is king.

GA, who's a bit dismayed, having inferred you posted info from the Bentley... <_<

Rabbit05

02-25-2011, 08:53 AM

Ah its ok Greg ...you meant well.:D

I figure that perhaps a owners manual would be a solid reference point as well ? I cant imagine that it can be dismissed as mis-information..? :shrug:

-John

Greg Amy

02-25-2011, 10:08 AM

Rabbit05

02-25-2011, 10:32 AM

I do own a Bentley .. but it's at my engine builders place right now. I am going to trudge through the snow today and get it .

-John

StephenB

02-25-2011, 11:34 AM

It can be used as a reference point, but the factory shop manual is the end-all, be-all, final word on specifications.

You state above you have the Bentley (http://bentleypublishers.com/audi/repair-information/audi-4000-84-87-factory-repair-manual.html)...what does it indicate is the rated SAE output of the KX engine...?

- GA

info from the bently...

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 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 to the new KX mentioned below.

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 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 was in the GCR for 50lbs more than the Coupe.

ALL 3 combinations of cars above are legal in ITB. (Coupe with a WE, Coupe with a KX, or CoupeGT with a KX) I happen to have an 84 Coupe with a KX engine. Smaller brakes, older bumpers.

The JT variation which was available from January of 1983 through 1987 on the 4000S 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.

The NG didn't exist before 1988 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 this is the 1987 2.3L ITA car classified in the GCR!

FYI The JN was offered through October of 1983 with 88BHP at 5500RPM and MG offered through 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 which I admitadly said would be the multiplier that I would use. Eventhough it never came in the car it is the highest factory HP rating for that engine in that era from Audi.

Stephen

PS: Raymond don't bother posting if your not going to help clarify things. Stirring the pot is useless. They are doing the best they can.

Matt93SE

02-25-2011, 11:56 AM

On edit: I'll give you one "F**K Bentley!": I can't get paper for my '00 S4 or my '10 Jetta; it's all electronic. What a major PITA! Ever try using your laptop while trying to install a water pump/timing belt? Maybe I'm becoming a "Get off my lawn!" but give me paper and post-it notes for marking and working on a car.

you got a printer?

Call me a tree killer, but I like having both a .pdf and a print version. sometimes the print version is much easier to flip through than to open a .pdf, but I prefer to reference the PDF since I can print a single page and take it with me to a machine shop or out to the garage.
I've printed the most-used pages from my manuals and keep them in the garage in a folder. I pull those out when I need them and leave the print manual on the shelf and the laptop in the house.
If they get greasy (that never happens), then I trash it and print another couple pages off the .pdf and the full manual stays clean and shiny.

It's great when I'm assembling a tranny or engine because I can just tape all 10 relevant pages together in a banner and then tack it above me on the wall so its out of the way and I can see all the steps at once.
you can't do that in a print manual or read that ish off a laptop without covering everything in gear oil or assembly lube.

I've also come to like the .pdfs. If they're done right, I can also search them for a random resistance spec of an idle control valve instead of flipping through a 1200pg phone book looking trhough the electrical, engine mechanical, and emissions sections trying to figure out just which one has the number I need.

Greg Amy

02-25-2011, 12:20 PM

info from the bently...
Interesting, in a couple of aspects (assuming this data is correct):

- The older, non-GT Coupe with the 100 hp WE engine is likely overweight. A lot. And it's not an "updateable" engine where it can co-exist with the other engines.

- The 110 hp engine KX car is also overweight, given it is being based on the 120 figure.

- The JT engine, even if functionally the same long block (of which I'm cynical, given my knowledge of VWoA engines) is not legal for use in the Audi Coupe/GT.

Here's where a really interesting conversation comes in: since the 115hp JT engine was never available in the Coupe or Coupe GT (only the 4000) and since the Coupe/GT is a separate line from the 4000, despite the fact that the 115hp number came from an IT-allowed modification (exhaust), can that higher 115hp number be used to classify the car (a la 1.8L Miatae)?

I don't think so...it can be used as a point of reference for future "what we know" should the engine ultimately be found to produce more than 125%, but I don't think that, to the "process", it can legitimately be used to classify the car with a 115hp baseline... Like I said, "interesting"...Stephen, can you photo/scan those pages?

It would be my suggestion that the ITAC specify the engine code and fuel injection in the "notes" section to ensure there's no confusion; e.g., for the 1981-1984 Coupe add "WE engine, CIS fuel injection" in the notes, then make the other line "Coupe/GT (84-87)" and "KX engine, CIS-E injection" in the notes. Given that I'm reading there's no weight breaks for brakes, then put all KX engined cars on the same spec line and let the competitors update/backdate to the best brakes (sorry, Stephen, I know you won't like that, but them's the breaks...har-de-har).

you got a printer?
I'm a book-as-a-workshop-manual kinda guy. I don't like to have to seek out and print the pages I *think* I want, only to almost always find out I was wrong (remove "that" part. The procedure for which is in a totally different section.) Plus, it's a real PITA while I'm working over an engine to have to lay a laptop on the engine covers, or on the fender cover, or on the roof of the car, or across the floor and not worry about it sliding off, or turning away from me while my hands are dirty, or whatever.

Finally, I've been known to successfully troubleshoot electrical probs while "busy" in the porcelain room.

Gimme a book, every time.

Dave Zaslow

02-25-2011, 01:29 PM

FYI from E*K*

pfcs

02-25-2011, 01:40 PM

Also interesting that all ETKA values for Golf/Jetta engines is identical to what was used to process them and what is accepted fact.

Dave Zaslow

02-25-2011, 02:07 PM

Also interesting that all E*K* values for Golf/Jetta engines is identical to what was used to process them and what is accepted fact.

Phil,

Engine codes please.

DZ

Chip42

02-25-2011, 02:43 PM

pfcs

02-25-2011, 02:44 PM

Dave-first, thanks for publishing the ETKA page.
and I guess I should take the prev statement back-I'm at home/etkas @work and although I have a photographic memory, nothing develops. When I was active w/my ITB A2, the numbers in ETKA matched the prevailing wisdom, i.e: 1.8 A2 GTIs & Digifant cars 105 and 108hp by exhaust system.
The A3s seemed to check out also, but to state it w/ certainty I'd have to revisit the question with facts before me.

shwah

02-25-2011, 03:09 PM

How different is the 5 cylinder from the 4 cylinder 8v VAG motor? I was always under the impression that they were essentially the same, other than obvious factors such as intake manifold, and one more hole.

Rud

02-25-2011, 03:10 PM

Since we're playing with Audis and ETKA: can anyone confirm/deny for me whether the gear ratios for the 016 transmission that went into the 4000 quattro are listed?

Matt93SE

02-25-2011, 03:54 PM

I'm a book-as-a-workshop-manual kinda guy. I don't like to have to seek out and print the pages I *think* I want, only to almost always find out I was wrong (remove "that" part. The procedure for which is in a totally different section.) Plus, it's a real PITA while I'm working over an engine to have to lay a laptop on the engine covers, or on the fender cover, or on the roof of the car, or across the floor and not worry about it sliding off, or turning away from me while my hands are dirty, or whatever.

Finally, I've been known to successfully troubleshoot electrical probs while "busy" in the porcelain room.

Gimme a book, every time.

I hear ya there. I definitely like having the print versions for that kind of stuff.
The other side of that is that *most* of the work I do on the car doesn't require a manual, or I know it already. I don't need directions on how to remove an alternator or power steering pump. I just want clearance information and torque specs for the most part. I'll print that off the .pdf and take it to the workbench, then throw it away when I'm done or file it if I think it'll be useful later.
If I'm rebuilding a tranny, I need the 1st two and last two pages of the section to tell me which order to remove the shift rods and which shaft to pull where. once that's done, the guts are easy enough to figure out, and the table of shim thicknesses and torque specs is in the back of the section. I'll print 4-6 pages out and that's what sits on the bench and gets greasy. the full manual stays clean and dry on the shelf.

If it's a street car and I'm trying to hunt down an electrical problem and have a 15pg foldout wiring diagram I have to chase, different story. paper manual every day. sooo much easier to read.

DavidM

02-25-2011, 04:05 PM

Does that screen shot show the KX motor at 120hp? Am I missing something?

Greg Amy

02-25-2011, 04:22 PM

Does that screen shot show the KX motor at 120hp? Am I missing something?
DaveZ posted up a screen capture from the "ETKA", the dealership parts software, indicating the KX engine's output is 120hp. Stephen wrote above that the Bentley indicates 110hp.

I'm curious to see what Jeff's Bentley shows when it arrives. That's the end-all, be-all final authority on engine (and vehicle) specs...

GA

lateapex911

02-25-2011, 04:26 PM

FWIW the ETKA power numbers, both kW and the hp (DIN) both convert to SAE at ~118 (KX) and ~113 (WE). I don't know if those numbers are gross or net, but I thought I'd do the math as an impartial party.My understanding is that DIN is the German equivalent to US SAE Net, in that the accessories are mounted and operational as the engine will be used in the car.

Is the Etka known to use DIN figures?

Gary L

02-25-2011, 04:28 PM

I'm struck by the many differences in what Stephen is reporting from the Bentley manual vs the ETKA data, to wit:

WE engine

- Bentley says 2.2 ltr, 100 SAE hp
- ETKA says 2.1 ltr, 79kw 107 DIN hp (106 SAE)*
*based on conversion from kw

KX engine

- Bentley says 2.22 ltr, 89.4 kw 110 SAE hp**
- ETKA says 2.23 ltr, 88 kw 120 DIN hp (118 SAE)
** note - 89.4 kw converts to 120 SAE hp, not 110

JT engine

- Bentley says 2.22 ltr, 115 SAE hp
- ETKA says 2.20 ltr, 89kw 121 DIN hp (119 SAE)

It seems that one (or both) of these documents may be seriously flawed.

DavidM

02-25-2011, 04:30 PM

The obvious question is going to be which source is correct (if they disagree). I can certainly see how you would expect the number from a manufacturer database to be accurate.

Greg Amy

02-25-2011, 04:33 PM

Is the Etka known to use DIN figures?
Drop the ETKA from your brain; it is a parts manual, not an official vehicle specs manual. Further it, like the Bentley, are produced by outside orgs (i.e., the ETKA isn't more "official" than the Bentley). And the Bentley quotes SAE, no conversion necessary.

For comparison, the whole supporting basis for the (higher-lift) G-grind Rabbit GTi cam was that the ETKA - the official parts source for VW - showed it as the official replacement part. That logic was soundly rejected by this community, as I recall...

Bentley = good for specs, ETKA = good for part numbers (and, I might add, the ETKA cannot be legally purchased by anyone except a dealership...all the copies that we all have on our PCs are, as I understand it, Russian pirated copies...) - GA

Jeremy Billiel

02-25-2011, 04:37 PM

How about trying to dig up any old articles that had dyno sheets of what brand new stock cars were putting down?

Gary L

02-25-2011, 04:45 PM

My understanding is that DIN is the German equivalent to US SAE Net, in that the accessories are mounted and operational as the engine will be used in the car.

Is the Etka known to use DIN figures?

As pointed out in an earlier post, the kw numbers in the ETKA tables convert correctly to DIN hp. So yes... ETKA apparently uses DIN, not SAE.

As far as I've been able to ascertain, the testing regimens (SAE vs DIN) are the same. But there is a conversion (about 1.5 % difference, DIN numbers are bigger) due to the fact that DIN uses a "metric" horsepower unit, while SAE uses the "international" horsepower unit - 75 meter-kg/sec and 550 foot-lbs/sec respectively.

benspeed

02-25-2011, 05:33 PM

Been busy Ben? We've been missing you :p

Cool to see it classified! I like those cars, but its far out of my budget...

What's with the notes?

Whazzzzzup!

Been real busy. Major motor develoment work - about 40 dyno pulls to get the software dialed in perfect and adjust for max power below the curve. I make some solid ITR power now. Pimped up the car a little but couldn't paint it - blew half a seasons budget on development but results will hopefully prove worth it.

Boxster S! Hey, those guys on the STAC and the CRB did right by putting a competitive Porsche in the mix. I have a sweet Boxster that might need an S motor in a couple years....:026:

lateapex911

02-25-2011, 05:39 PM

How about trying to dig up any old articles that had dyno sheets of what brand new stock cars were putting down?

Well, that would add MORE doubt.
1- "Putting down" =chassis dyno. Operated by whom, and to what standards?
2- How does a stock chassis dyno have any reflection on IT prep?

JeffYoung

02-25-2011, 07:35 PM

My personal notes show that the decision to use the 120 hp came from an "internal Audi document." I suspect that was EKTA.

Everything else I've seen says exactly what Stephen posted. Early cars at 100 hp with the WE engine, later with the KX at 110, then that very last bunch with the NG at 130. No mentioned of 120 except that Wiki listing I posted.

No manual on theporch today. Order must have gone in too late to get out yesterday. As soon as it arrives I'll post what it says (I got the one for 84-87).

My guess though is that we are going to be dealing with a situation where the manual says 110 and EKTA says 120.

No idea how to resolve that although I tend to agree with Greg the authorized factory shop manual is the one to go with.

pfcs

02-25-2011, 08:19 PM

Rabbit05

02-25-2011, 08:57 PM

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o314/Rabbit051977/coupebook1.jpg

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o314/Rabbit051977/car008.jpg

Here is the info in question from the Official Audi Factory Manual as I am required to have, per the SCCA GCR.

-John

gran racing

02-25-2011, 09:40 PM

I really have no idea what the stock HP rating for the Audi is. I do understand why Ray is as upset as he is, regardless of how anyone here likes his reactions.

It's not the current or even the last ITAC per se, it's an accumulation of crap that has been dealt over the years. There are only a couple of guys from the ITAC, well, actually just Jeff and Travis who post here now. Who are these other guys? Hell, do they even race IT cars? Maybe they're the best candidates but they're not in the public eye. This matters and is something SCCA needs to improve upon.

Seriously, I get the impression that many would prefer people on these boarda to just be quite, or more appropriately shut the F up. I can't help but wonder if Jeff and Travis' days are already numbered. Hell, we all saw what happened when that SCCA thread was started calling out the CRB. Then what happened when the previous ITAC communicated to membership? Why would people trust what's going on? In reality, there could be great stuff but it's a matter of membership believing this. Who knows, not me, not Stephen, not Ray, not former ITAC members.... I had a lot more trust in the ITAC before but again maybe that's just about exposure and comfort level.

I do believe that certain members are doing the right things and not giving up to pressure. Honestly, having Dick as a BOD has been a major confidence booster overall.

Hell, as much crap as Andy probably gave me for the submissions that I sent, it's all about trust. (For the record yet again, I do trust Peter believes he's doing the right thing and I do respect that.) I am not so sure that I trust others who will have significant impact on IT though. Hell, maybe I would if I / we got to know them, but we don't.

Now that I've become such a skeptic.... John, you're a smart guy, and not to put you on the spot too much but why did you build this Audi given it's classification?

Damn it, this is what pisses me off about racing. Even on the Club level there most definitely is an appearance of politics. Guess it's just inevitable no matter what is done.

Z3_GoCar

02-25-2011, 10:09 PM

Hey Dave,

Don't forget Josh posts here often as well. If you want to know about the others, you should google their names, I'm sure several will show up.

shwah

02-25-2011, 10:43 PM

We should be careful not to assume that the small number of IT racers that participate in online forums do in fact represent "the public eye" of IT racers in general.

Knestis

02-25-2011, 11:15 PM

between "authorized" and "factory".
By the mid 80s VAG factory repair information went to microfiche. Ten ? years later it went digital (think ETKA, which despite Gregs best wishes, is official/factory document in electronic format) I mentioned 2 years ago that the "factory" workshop manual requirement was not any longer a reasonable requirement for many competitors in IT.
These ad nauseum postulations only serve to illustrate the practical difficulties (I changed that from impossibilities) of getting a reasonable/workable program going in a democratic system. I sometimes think a benevolent dictatorship might work better. I agree-it would be nice if we could get the car classifications a little less granular, but not if the deal with the devil spells the death of a great class. It's a little like the inmates have taken over the asylum and I'm getting tired of all the noise!
Let the rulers get on with it-balance out the Bs & Cs, be pragmatic, but if car looks funny, handle it by being practical. People flocked to this class in great diversity when it clearly stated that there would be no comp adjustments. Hmmm?? Again, I respect everybody's great effort to make the class perfect, but fear the operation might kill the patient.

It's been my experience that an individual's happiness with a process is often tied to the outcome. If the result suits their interests, then the system is working great. If it doesn't, it's flawed. That's the equivalent of the little kid who cries "NO FAIR!" when they don't win.

People flocked to the wild west in the 1800s too, but eventually folks got tired of living in a outlaw society and started enforcing rules. The only ones who lamented that change were the ones who were benefiting from the lack of order, and lost their advantage when everyone had to start playing fair.

I'll say it again - a Volvo holds the ITB lap record with a 22 at VIR. I'll be he was a happy camper, and probably thought Improved Touring was perfect! Of course, it wasn't REALLY ITB now, was it...? He had his own little game going so it was easy to be a winner. Or do you believe, Phil, that it was a legal car? If so, why aren't they out there repeating that performance today?

Fast forward to today, and the ITAC and CRB have to try to balance the interest of a LOT of drivers, of a LOT of different cars, in a LOT of different places in the Nation. That's a hell of a lot harder than keeping one 142 owner happy on one weekend in Virginia.

We are a HELL of a long way from the "death of a great class" - quite the opposite in fact, particularly with the release of the operating manual. There are a few glaring issues that remain to be resolved but we're in a far better position to actually change them now, than we were just months ago - let alone YEARS ago.

K

Andy Bettencourt

02-25-2011, 11:15 PM

We should be careful not to assume that the small number of IT racers that participate in online forums do in fact represent "the public eye" of IT racers in general.

So lets address this Chris. I would have agreed with this as recent as even 4-5 years ago but when you start something in this day and age, how do you do your research? Am I foolish to think that joining the online community where all the discussion about clases, cars and rules resides is such a rare thing? Geez, I am a lurker on an H/O slot car forum, a Vette forum, etc. It's where you find the experts.

Maybe the % of actual racers is small, but I bet the % of PEOPLE WHO GIVE A CRAP is large.

Rabbit05

02-25-2011, 11:37 PM

Dave,
I bought it because I like Audi Coupes. I had one as a street car..which was turning to a race car. I was thinking of doing track days and all that. So i cut out the build the car thing and bought one , race ready-ish. I used the proceeds from my street car sale. I went out to Cincy to get it. Ironically ,i believe he is now running an ITC Rabbit. But alas, I did the VW thing and I always had a thing for German cars and the Audi is newish to me.:023:

-John

shwah

02-26-2011, 12:36 AM

So lets address this Chris. I would have agreed with this as recent as even 4-5 years ago but when you start something in this day and age, how do you do your research? Am I foolish to think that joining the online community where all the discussion about clases, cars and rules resides is such a rare thing? Geez, I am a lurker on an H/O slot car forum, a Vette forum, etc. It's where you find the experts.

Maybe the % of actual racers is small, but I bet the % of PEOPLE WHO GIVE A CRAP is large.

Maybe this is a bit of a regional issue then. I know plenty of active and involved (in going to races) IT racers, and have only seen two of the semi-local ones on line with any regularity, and often find myself surprised when I tell some of a compelling topic of conversation that we get ourselves into here, which they knew nothing about.

Yes this seems really odd to us, but some folks just don't use the web like we do. I don't think that has any bearing on whether their interests are of valid consideration. I don't think it necessarily means they don't give a crap. I don't think that the interests of IT racers who don't give a crap about the online group's arguments are invalid.

That's not directed at you Andy, but at us. It is an easy assumption for all of us to make.

Just because we dont see a racer online it does not mean they don't race, or should not be permitted to volunteer their time on the AC. Of course I also think that in these times, saying that someone needs to be an active IT racer can have a pretty wide definition. Heck - I have participated in 2 race weekends as a driver since 2008, but it is not because I left, or am leaving.

lateapex911

02-26-2011, 03:50 AM

Just because we dont see a racer online it does not mean they don't race, or should not be permitted to volunteer their time on the AC. Of course I also think that in these times, saying that someone needs to be an active IT racer can have a pretty wide definition. Heck - I have participated in 2 race weekends as a driver since 2008, but it is not because I left, or am leaving.

Chris, I agree that AC people can come from many walks and not being online isn't a deal breaker. But...I think the ACs are charged with knowing their constituents. Otherwise, teh CRB could do the job, with little actual real world involvement.
The ideal AC guy would be a traveler so he had a feel for the action and character of IT racing across the country, would be a big picture thinker and be able to see the larger view, would have infinite automotive knowledge, or be able to find the answers quickly, would be able to express themselves to the members and his fellow committee members, would understand policy management and implementation, and had mechanical and driving abilites so he understood what makes out micro world tick.

Of course, such a guy doesn't exist. But, some of the current and certainly ex ITAC guys I know do have many of those attributes. If you don't have maybe three of those boxes checked though, I do think that the committee work isn't for you.

As for understanding the issues and dilemmas of the IT category, where WOULD somebody go if they weren't online? I have to think they probably wouldn't be as well versed. But maybe I'm wrong. I just wouldn't know where else you could glean such a broadbase of information...

Knestis

02-26-2011, 08:13 AM

This won't be popular but I'd argue that the least helpful perspective - from a national, category-level point of view - is from the racer who's really committed and involved but only locally. He or she is going to come to any conversation with strongly held convictions formed from a soda-straw perspective.

He'll be POSITIVE that the Bruce's Renault Encore is too fast or ITC based on comparisons among four cars, and that it's really not a big deal of Wayne's Datsun 1200 runs a race cam because it's the only way he can keep up with Bruce.

This guy is fictional. A lot of others are not.

K

Andy Bettencourt

02-26-2011, 08:48 AM

Maybe this is a bit of a regional issue then. I know plenty of active and involved (in going to races) IT racers, and have only seen two of the semi-local ones on line with any regularity, and often find myself surprised when I tell some of a compelling topic of conversation that we get ourselves into here, which they knew nothing about.

Yes this seems really odd to us, but some folks just don't use the web like we do. I don't think that has any bearing on whether their interests are of valid consideration. I don't think it necessarily means they don't give a crap. I don't think that the interests of IT racers who don't give a crap about the online group's arguments are invalid.

That's not directed at you Andy, but at us. It is an easy assumption for all of us to make.

Just because we dont see a racer online it does not mean they don't race, or should not be permitted to volunteer their time on the AC. Of course I also think that in these times, saying that someone needs to be an active IT racer can have a pretty wide definition. Heck - I have participated in 2 race weekends as a driver since 2008, but it is not because I left, or am leaving.

I guess I disagree...in this way. In todays day and age, this stuff is right at our fingertips. My suggestion is that while these people most certainly ARE active racers, they belong in the silent minority that really doesn't care to put in the time to know the issues, both local and national. Like Kirk said, they KNOW what they KNOW, in a very narrow view. All they see is what they see.

I can also tell you that any ad-hoc member who isn't on-line and 'up to speed' with issues, discussions and viewpoints can waste HOURS of con-call time hashing, rehashing and generally stalling topics because they were simply not informed.

Simply put, the people who really care take the time and effort to at least lurk. They will comment as they see fit, but at least they are watching. Those that don't, are fine with the world, however oblivious they are to it.

Tkczecheredflag

02-26-2011, 09:19 AM

M$%^$%RF#$%#. Sorry for the language, but it's well-deserved in this case:

2. #4176 (CRB) Clarify 9.3.41 Clarify 9.3.41 as follows: “Seats with a back not attached to the main roll hoop or its cross bracing may be mounted on runners only if they were part of the FIA homologated assembly specified in an FIA homologated race car.”

Fortunately, they f****d it up again: there's no GCR glossary definition of "runners" (unless they're referring to "a duct of an induction system leading to the cylinder head"...)

A couple of years a ago my "seat runners" were attached to the main hoop - Tech, during my Annual made me cut them out, totally compromising the safety of the seat set up, stating that these were two addtional cage monting points and stiffened the car - needless to say that there are many of these cage/runner set ups. The next year they changed the rules to allow for these mounting points - make up your minds please.

Gary L

02-26-2011, 12:12 PM

Something occurred to me on the Audi stock HP issue (Bentley vs ETKA vs whatever)... and I realize it is not typically the ITAC's job to dig this deep (and then again!). In any case, this issue seems to be so contentious that I thought this would be worth mentioning.

What if - the primary source documents for the horsepower figures were not in any form of "horsepower" at all? What if, for instance, those source documents were in kW and in the process of conversion to SAE net HP for the various 3rd party documents, the wrong conversion factors were used for some or all? I bring this up because of what appears to be a disconnect in the one Bentley-derived kW vs HP figure that Stephen presented a page or two back. I noted it at the time in a responsive post, but just in case anyone missed it... 89.4 kW is not 110 SAE net HP, it's 120, give or take a few tenths.

Obviously, the seemingly errant ratio of that one pair of numbers could also have been the result of a bad conversion in the other direction. Or... Stephen, did you fat-finger the kW number, perchance?

Interestingly, John's photo of the spec page from his Bentley (I think?) manual doesn't mention kW at all. :shrug:

Rabbit05

02-26-2011, 01:09 PM

Gary,
Yes the picture above is from my Bentley manual.

-John

NATW

02-26-2011, 03:16 PM

I have a copy of ETKA too. My version shows different information than Dave's, this is circa 2001 version. It seems that VAG is confused about the horsepower also.

Nat Wentworth
ITB Volvo 142

Gary L

02-26-2011, 04:31 PM

I bring this up because of what appears to be a disconnect in the one Bentley-derived kW vs HP figure that Stephen presented a page or two back. I noted it at the time in a responsive post, but just in case anyone missed it... 89.4 kW is not 110 SAE net HP, it's 120, give or take a few tenths.

Aw, crap! Stephen's post says 84.9, not 89.4. Geez - dyslexia is obviously setting in.

However, comma... even 84.9 doesn't result in 110, it converts to 114. Good gawd.

lateapex911

02-26-2011, 04:33 PM

lateapex911

02-26-2011, 04:40 PM

.

I can also tell you that any ad-hoc member who isn't on-line and 'up to speed' with issues, discussions and viewpoints can waste HOURS of con-call time hashing, rehashing and generally stalling topics because they were simply not informed.

.

X2.The ITAC has a forum, yet for some reason certain guys wouldn't bother checking all month. Some contentious letter would have 30 posts associated, from may be 4 of the 7 guys. And one guy on the con call would inevitably say, "Hey guys, give me a second to absorb and review this", then would ask questions that were answered in post 3 or 4. ARRRRRG!
Only 30 letters to go!

Some of you remember Texan IT poster George Roffe who served on the ITAC. Man, I remember how his eyes were opened when we finally convinced him to attend the ARRCs.

Gotta see the world if you want to understand it....

JeffYoung

02-26-2011, 05:18 PM

Our internal board is unfortunately getting less use, not more.

lateapex911

02-26-2011, 05:57 PM

Our internal board is unfortunately getting less use, not more.

Somebody needs to whip some ass, or heads should roll.
It's the best way...everything is recorded for future use. Most of your work is done before a con call.

I think having guys on committees who aren't active and keeping up aren't 'neutral', they are negatives. A non vote is better than a dumb, or wrong or misinformed vote.

jhooten

02-26-2011, 07:41 PM

Still no action on my engine mount request. Maybe this month.

It was brought up at the CRB town hall at the convention. I can assure you the CRB is still debating the issue.

StephenB

02-26-2011, 08:22 PM

Hey guys,

I posted the numbers from the bently. That's all I can do other than to write in for a correction but I will let John fight for that. Been there, done that. Accepted the outcome right or worng in my opinion doesn't matter, rules are rules.

Thanks for the time and the debate. I hope that for the whole (not just this car or class) we can learn from whatever the outcome is. I think one thing is clear... we need to start documenting decisions so we don't keep changing the reasons. Members want transperancy and consistancy. It looks like an ITAC private forum exists and could be utilized for this purpose to archive particular classes and cars.

Stephen

Knestis

02-26-2011, 08:56 PM

Somebody needs to whip some ass, or heads should roll.
It's the best way...everything is recorded for future use. Most of your work is done before a con call.

I think having guys on committees who aren't active and keeping up aren't 'neutral', they are negatives. A non vote is better than a dumb, or wrong or misinformed vote.

Absolutely. All members must participate. Participation is defined as being on the calls, being PREPARED for the calls, reviewing information, and using the web board for ongoing communication. There is NO way that all of the committee's work can get done in one evening each month. No way.

And the back-channel BS - like, uh, oh I can't think of any good examples right now - is the single worst influence on effective governance. Maybe in a tie with "not keeping records" but it's right at the top of the list.

It sounds like official communication channels have improved and the conduit for member requests to the ad hoc then back to the CRB seems to have been cleaned up. There was a time when I was amazed at how bad it was but it's good to see the improvements.

K

Rabbit05

02-27-2011, 10:48 AM

Stephen,
I would be happy to "pick up the torch and run with it". A letter of support from you and Raymond would be great ! :023:

I am , however,unclear on how I would get the correct information to the people that makes these decisions.

Jeff ,
Would you be able to steer me in the right direction on this ? I have to imagine the board will want some sort of hard evidence for me to prove the car has been given a weight using the wrong HP numbers. Perhaps I could fax/email/snail mail copies of my manual data to the CRB..ITAC , or you could share the info from your new Audi manual with said board memebers.

And if Greg is correct, and I am sure that he is, that the factory Manual is "end all, be all" in determining HP and car info according to the rules. Then, really the Audi HP issue should be .....well a non-issue. And the car should be rerun through the process using the correct HP numbers. Additionally, the ETKA numbers that have been brought up as a HP source have proved to be unreliable. There have been two different HP numbers, using the ETKA, for the same motor have shown up on this thread .

-John

JeffYoung

02-27-2011, 11:03 AM

I will of course share what I find in the manual (I paid $25 to have it shipped over night, got a shipping notice and still no manual -- better be here tomorrow) with you and the committee.

I'm also going to do a write up on the Audi hp on our internal board this a.m.

However, this is not cut and dried. Greg is write that the manufacturer's manual is the end all be all for tech compliance, but we do not have any such internal procedure (that I am aware of) for determining stock hp.

We've had situations before were stock hp was wrong, or difficult to determine (the RX8 comes to mind).

In my view, we look at all of the evidence and make a call. We've got the manual and the EKTA evidence, and the difference in these numbers makes a big difference in the "Real world."

I'd really like to know why the number seems to have changed from the manual to EKTA. The change seems supported by a few strands of evidence that suggests the later KX motors got more power.

Eagle7

02-27-2011, 11:22 AM

Our internal board is unfortunately getting less use, not more.
And this is where the ITAC seems not to have gone far enough in documenting procedures. You should not be allowed to vote a confidence level in any evidence unless it has been recorded in "the file", and you've had some time to review it. You should not be voting on evidence that you have not reviewed. And if members make a habit of not coming prepared, they should be asked (told?) to resign. Josh, sounds like you've got some housekeeping to do.

JeffYoung

02-27-2011, 11:27 AM

Marty, it's not that cut and dried.

And most ITAC members are prepared for calls.

But it's impossible to be fully educated on every car and issue that comes up for a vote, and to have read every scrap of information on it. Sometimes we have to rely on others to do the homework for us. That part of the system I think works well.

Based on what happened here, I think the guys who looked at the Audi issue (I did not) found the exact same stuff we are finding now and went with the 120 hp. That's certainly a plausible conclusion to reach.

Because this is a controversial issue, I'm on my own time looking deeper into it. Any change to this car wil be difficult to make given how much attention it has received, but I do want to make sure we are as right as we can be.

Right now, I see a range of numbers coming from Audi with no real way to tell which one is correct.

And before we see people saying this is a problem with the process, sure, it is, but it is a minor one. For most (not all) cars, stock hp is pretty well documented.

Dave Zaslow

02-27-2011, 11:55 AM

I have a copy of ETKA too. My version shows different information than Dave's, this is circa 2001 version. It seems that VAG is confused about the horsepower also.

Nat Wentworth
ITB Volvo 142

Nat,

I went back to an older E*K* and found your numbers. Both versions agree on 88KW. The conversion to HP is what is confusing. See the attached. It appears that 118 US HP and 120 Metric HP are close.

DZ

Greg Amy

02-27-2011, 12:08 PM

I'd really like to know why the number seems to have changed from the manual to EKTA.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record:

- The Bentley is VWoA's factory specifications manual for all cars imported into the United States. Period. It's what you get when you go to the dealer and ask for official manufacturer documentation.

- The ETKA is a parts manual. Period. Further, all copies presented here - including the ones I have myself - are illegal, pirated copies from Russia*. You cannot go to a VWoA dealer (or anywhere else) and buy a copy of the ETKA, it is copyrighted material and only available to dealers. Further, the source of that data is suspect and is only in the ETKA to be used for reference for finding the correct parts based on engine code.

- While there is legitimate debate in regard to how horsepower was measured and converted for USA consumption (I especially like Gary's implied suggestion that the differences are possibly due to conversion errors from kW/PS/hp and DIN/SAE) if you select anything but the factory's expressly-published numbers in the factory's shop manual, you are seriously bastardizing "the process" with POOMA. You do that and you might as well throw your process out the window, as it would illustrate that it's nothing but a thin veneer being used as cover for "whatever the hell the smoke-filled room wants to do".

In the end, you always reserve the right to adjust based on "what you know", but right now all you "know" is what the factory manual says; that differs strongly from "what we - and its competitors - want it to be". This decision, right here, will become the touchstone moving forward on how serious you are about this "process"...

GA

* If, for example, I can come up with a Russian-pirated DVD photocopy of the Mazda microfiche (that I bought from "some guy on eBay") that shows the 1.8L Miata to have 133hp throughout its full range of production, will you increase the baseline weight of the car in ITA? Just askin'...

Rabbit05

02-27-2011, 12:20 PM

Jeff,
I again commend you for spending personal time and MONEY to look into this matter.:happy204:

For arguemant sake.....If I get torn down i tech and they ask for my car information..do i say.... go to the ETKA web site. OR do I hand them my Audi manual ?

By using the ETKA as a reference, to me this means the offical factory book is irrelevent.

The later cars in question I believe are the 4000 quattros..which would/should be a different spec line all together.

-John

JeffYoung

02-27-2011, 12:25 PM

I understand that the 4000s had a different downpipe, etc. on the KX motor and made more power as a result.

We use the factory manual to ensure you have factory parts on the car, etc.

No one, despite what Greg has said, has ever set in stone how we determine factory hp.

Some cars for this era have numbers from the factory that are not consistent. Mine is one. You see 133, you see 138, and you see 148 -- all from the factory.

This problem has subsided some as factory hp documentation has gotten better and more accurate.

I think the correct approach here is to look at all of the data and try to figure out which one is correct. EKTA is a part of that. There is a reason why the number in EKTA -- an Audi document -- is different. Maybe it is a mistake, I don't know, but we need to know the answer.

Blindly relying on anyhing, especially for cars of this era, is asking for trouble.

JeffYoung

02-27-2011, 12:29 PM

I'm not sure how looking at various conflicting information from the factory and trying to decide which is correct is "bastardizing" the process.

I lean strongly towards relying on the factory manual but I want to know WHY some online information suggests the 86 and 87 KX motors in the Coupe were at 120 hp and why EKTA seems to confirm that.

Blindly relying on at times incorrect and inconsistent data from the factories - which in the 70s and 80s could be all over the place -- seems far more problematic to me.

[QUOTE=Greg Amy;318777]
- While there is legitimate debate in regard to how horsepower was measured and converted for USA consumption (I especially like Gary's implied suggestion that the differences are possibly due to conversion errors from kW/PS/hp and DIN/SAE) if you select anything but the factory's expressly-published numbers in the factory's shop manual, you are seriously bastardizing "the process" with POOMA. You do that and you might as well throw your process out the window, as it would illustrate that it's nothing but a thin veneer being used as cover for "whatever the hell the smoke-filled room wants to do".

QUOTE]

Greg Amy

02-27-2011, 12:47 PM

I'm not sure how looking at various conflicting information from the factory and trying to decide which is correct is "bastardizing" the process.

Because the only "conflicting" information comes from:

- The Internet/Wikipedia. Unless the source of that information is verifiable, it's useless. For each number you come up with "on the Internet" I can find one that nullifies it (e.g., http://www.audiworld.com/model/coupe-gt/85-coupe.shtml. Is AudiWorld.com more "official" than Wikipedia?)

- The ETKA. It's a parts manual, not a service manual, and every copy you have access to is pirated, unofficially-obtained information. If you could go to the dealer and buy an official copy, then you'd have a legitimate source of "conflicting" information, but you can't so you don't.

You have only one single source of official, factory-supplied information. And it says 110hp SAE.

Hey, if you want to do it at 120hp, you're the ITAC, feel free; you can do whatever you want in that room. But if you do that, and you lean on the above sources for your baseline information, you leave yourself vulnerable to similar sources when someone else comes up with yet another request that they want, with information that's in direct contrast with the factory-supplied official specifications.

Understand this debate, in my mind, is about more than just the Audi Coupe GT in ITB...

GA

JeffYoung

02-27-2011, 12:53 PM

Hypothetical.

The factory quoted hp is wrong (happens, trust me). We don't have any IT builds and dyno data to use your version of "what we know."

So we just class the car incorrectly based on erroneous factory information?

No, we don't.

Because of the incomplete and sometimes inconsistent information on factory hp from this era, we look at it all and make a call. I will certainly lean heavily on the factory manual, but when evaluating the stock hp of cars from the 70s and 80s, stopping there when it is clearly inaccurate is a mistake.

And yes, of course this is a bigger issue than the Audi in ITB.

Because the only "conflicting" information comes from:

- The Internet/Wikipedia. Unless the source of that information is verifiable, it's useless. For each number you come up with "on the Internet" I can find one that nullifies it (e.g., http://www.audiworld.com/model/coupe-gt/85-coupe.shtml. Is AudiWorld.com more "official" than Wikipedia?)

- The ETKA. It's a parts manual, not a service manual, and every copy you have access to is pirated, unofficially-obtained information. If you could go to the dealer and buy an official copy, then you'd have a legitimate source of "conflicting" information, but you can't so you don't.

You have only one single source of official, factory-supplied information. And it says 110hp SAE.

Hey, if you want to do it at 120hp, you're the ITAC, feel free; you can do whatever you want in that room. But if you do that, and you lean on the above sources for your baseline information, you leave yourself vulnerable to similar sources when someone else comes up with yet another request that they want, with information that's in direct contrast with the factory-supplied official specifications.

Understand this debate, in my mind, is about more than just the Audi Coupe GT in ITB...

GA

Greg Amy

02-27-2011, 01:16 PM

The factory quoted hp is wrong (happens, trust me). We don't have any IT builds and dyno data to use your version of "what we know."

So, Jeff, lacking confirming dyno info, who are you ("royal you") to say what is accurate and what is not? Which source is "more correct" than others...? It's pretty damn arrogant to think that, lacking further information, you have the ability to correctly "choose" which one you THINK is right, especially if it flies in the faces of official publications...

If you came out and said, "well, we've seen that the car is competitive in ITB as-is, and we believe it would upset our version of competition balance by classifying based on the published factory manual specifications, and thus we are proclaiming a 'what we know' based on observed on-track performance" then you'd have me at "well...". But you're not; you're proclaiming that you - Jeff "you", though I'm assuming the ITAC is on board - have simply decided that you think the FSM is wrong and the parts manuals and Wikipedia are right, with no reasonable supporting information other than "because I'm the mom, that's why".

Respectfully, Jeff: bullshit.

Now, here's what I think may be happening. Yes, the car is competitive on track as-is. And no disrespect to the Blethens, but their success is more based on driving those cars like a raped ape than any kind of really good prep (I wish I had a nickel for each part that's fallen off one of those cars -- VERY BIG WINK!!!). And I'm on record as saying that's one of the cars to have in the class. Given that, I'm guessing the engine was measured in Der Faderland in kW, possible even DIN, and something was lost in the translation to SAE BHP. But I have no evidence to support that theory! I do not place any credence on the parts manual; after all, if it was a kw/DIN measurement, was the error in the original measurement? Or was it in conversion to SAE BHP? If it was a conversion error, why not the same error for both sources, given same source? So absent any supporting evidence (such as a manual from Germany in German that lists the engine's output for the USA car in kw/DIN/SAE) I have no logical support for that thesis! It becomes nothing more than a weakly-supported POOMA.

You've mentioned a couple times that it "has never set in stone how we determine factory hp." Jeff, you are not determining factory horsepower, the factory is! Since your process is based off of manufacturer-stated horsepower number, you have no logical choice in my mind but to accept manufacturer-stated horsepower numbers. You can, in hindsight, adjust the weights based off of subsequent "what you know" to change them, but to pull the responsibility out of thin air to decide what manufacturer-stated horsepower numbers are accurate is just wrong. And, in my mind, doing so degrades your legitimacy.

Your Bentley, when it arrives tomorrow, will likely show 110hp SAE (unless we get lucky and subsequent versions have corrected that info, assuming it needs to be). What you guys do with that info will say a lot about this process... - GA

JeffYoung

02-27-2011, 01:34 PM

I - and I speaking about me here not the ITAC -- am not going to use a published number that may have changed or be incorrect.

That's all this is. I'm not determining factory hp. I'm looking at conflicting factory information and trying to decide what the hell it means.

Maybe that's arrogant. But it's just flat out stupid to use a number that even the factory later said was wrong but didn't bother to correct in a manual (maybe because 10 years after the car is sold the "correct" stock hp doesn't matter one iota to them?). I'm not saying Audi did that here, but as you said, this isn't just about the Audi. Your rule would require us to use data that is wrong even if later factory information not from the manual exposed the error.

And you are completely wrong on the last part, as to me. It's very simple, for me. I want to know why the factory number changed.

So, Jeff, lacking confirming dyno info, who are you ("royal you") to say what is accurate and what is not? Which source is "more correct" than others...? It's pretty damn arrogant to think that, lacking further information, you have the ability to correctly "choose" which one you THINK is right, especially if it flies in the faces of official publications...

If you came out and said, "well, we've seen that the car is competitive in ITB as-is, and we believe it would upset our version of competition balance by classifying based on the published factory manual specifications, and thus we are proclaiming a 'what we know' based on observed on-track performance" then you'd have me at "well...". But you're not; you're proclaiming that you - Jeff "you", though I'm assuming the ITAC is on board - have simply decided that you think the FSM is wrong and the parts manuals and Wikipedia are right, with no reasonable supporting information other than "because I'm the mom, that's why".

Respectfully, Jeff: bullshit.

Now, here's what I think may be happening. Yes, the car is competitive on track as-is. And no disrespect to the Blethens, but their success is more based on driving those cars like a raped ape than any kind of really good prep (I wish I had a nickel for each part that's fallen off one of those cars -- VERY BIG WINK!!!). And I'm on record as saying that's one of the cars to have in the class. Given that, I'm guessing the engine was measured in Der Faderland in kW, possible even DIN, and something was lost in the translation to SAE BHP. But I have no evidence to support that theory! I do not place any credence on the parts manual; after all, if it was a kw/DIN measurement, was the error in the original measurement? Or was it in conversion to SAE BHP? If it was a conversion error, why not the same error for both sources, given same source? So absent any supporting evidence (such as a manual from Germany in German that lists the engine's output for the USA car in kw/DIN/SAE) I have no logical support for that thesis! It becomes nothing more than a weakly-supported POOMA.

You've mentioned a couple times that it "has never set in stone how we determine factory hp." Jeff, you are not determining factory horsepower, the factory is! Since your process is based off of manufacturer-stated horsepower number, you have no logical choice in my mind but to accept manufacturer-stated horsepower numbers. You can, in hindsight, adjust the weights based off of subsequent "what you know" to change them, but to pull the responsibility out of thin air to decide what manufacturer-stated horsepower numbers are accurate is just wrong. And, in my mind, doing so degrades your legitimacy.

Your Bentley, when it arrives tomorrow, will likely show 110hp SAE (unless we get lucky and subsequent versions have corrected that info, assuming it needs to be). What you guys do with that info will say a lot about this process... - GA

dickita15

02-27-2011, 01:39 PM

So, Jeff, lacking confirming dyno info, who are you ("royal you") to say what is accurate and what is not? Which source is "more correct" than others...? It's pretty damn arrogant to think that, lacking further information, you have the ability to correctly "choose" which one you THINK is right, especially if it flies in the faces of official publications...

If you came out and said, "well, we've seen that the car is competitive in ITB as-is, and we believe it would upset our version of competition balance by classifying based on the published factory manual specifications, and thus we are proclaiming a 'what we know' based on observed on-track performance" then you'd have me at "well...". But you're not; you're proclaiming that you - Jeff "you", though I'm assuming the ITAC is on board - have simply decided that you think the FSM is wrong and the parts manuals and Wikipedia are right, with no reasonable supporting information other than "because I'm the mom, that's why".

Respectfully, Jeff: bullshit.

Now, here's what I think may be happening. Yes, the car is competitive on track as-is. And no disrespect to the Blethens, but their success is more based on driving those cars like a raped ape than any kind of really good prep (I wish I had a nickel for each part that's fallen off one of those cars -- VERY BIG WINK!!!). And I'm on record as saying that's one of the cars to have in the class. Given that, I'm guessing the engine was measured in Der Faderland in kW, possible even DIN, and something was lost in the translation to SAE BHP. But I have no evidence to support that theory! I do not place any credence on the parts manual; after all, if it was a kw/DIN measurement, was the error in the original measurement? Or was it in conversion to SAE BHP? If it was a conversion error, why not the same error for both sources, given same source? So absent any supporting evidence (such as a manual from Germany in German that lists the engine's output for the USA car in kw/DIN/SAE) I have no logical support for that thesis! It becomes nothing more than a weakly-supported POOMA.

You've mentioned a couple times that it "has never set in stone how we determine factory hp." Jeff, you are not determining factory horsepower, the factory is! Since your process is based off of manufacturer-stated horsepower number, you have no logical choice in my mind but to accept manufacturer-stated horsepower numbers. You can, in hindsight, adjust the weights based off of subsequent "what you know" to change them, but to pull the responsibility out of thin air to decide what manufacturer-stated horsepower numbers are accurate is just wrong. And, in my mind, doing so degrades your legitimacy.

Your Bentley, when it arrives tomorrow, will likely show 110hp SAE (unless we get lucky and subsequent versions have corrected that info, assuming it needs to be). What you guys do with that info will say a lot about this process... - GA

Greg, I have to call bullshit.
There is a reason we have boards and committees instead of spreadsheets. Every one of these people I have met on our various committees is re trying to do what they think is best. There is always going to have to be value judgments made about if data given us is right or wrong and in classes with older cars it is going to be worse. With the development of The Process we have a rule set that is more objective than anything SCCA has ever seen however the first responsibility of the committees in implementing changes is to do no harm. To say that one needs to blindly obey a piece of data because it is printed in the right official document is a bit over the top.

Bill Miller

02-27-2011, 01:45 PM

I wouldn't get all caught up the ETKA data. I have the older version that Nate references. There's some internal inconsistency in what they list for power. If you go to an '87 Audi GT and look at the engine, it lists p/n 034 100 104 AX as a KX short block making 85 Kw. If you look at the list of engine codes (what Nate posted), it lists it at 88Kw and 115hp. Even that documentation has no internal consistency.

Here's the way I see what happened. You've got some people that believe the motor can make more power because it's a bit of an anomaly (I5). They find 1 or 2 references that list a higher stock hp # than is published in several other places (factory service manual, owners manual, sales brochure, etc.) and latch onto that as justification as to why the weight should be higher.

The bottom line is that no one knows what a brand new KX engine makes. I doubt anyone knows what any engine makes, exactly, w/o a dyno run. And just because one example makes xxx hp doesn't mean that another example will make exactly the same hp.

Take a page out of SRF history. Enterprises dynos those motors to get w/in 2-3 hp. Even spec motors, that are supposed to be the same, don't make exactly the same power. That's why you had stories of folks w/ lots of money buying multiple engines and testing for which ones made the most power. These are sealed engines, that are supposed to be the same. That's just the kind of variation you're dealing with. And those aren't big-power motors either, they're essentially in that same 100hp +/- range that most of the ITB motors are in. And again, they're supposed to be spec motors.

To think that just because the factory says that the 2.0 SOHC FI motor in the Borgwart GTR makes 115hp, that every single one of those motors is going to make exactly 115hp is not a very informed position.

The problem lies, in that in lower output cars (like B and C cars), small changes in hp lead to a significant change in weight. For example, an ITB car (no adders) that makes 100hp, weighs 2125#. If that same car makes 105hp, it weighs 2230#. So, in ITB, every 5hp is worth ~105# (in ITC, it's ~120#). That gets to be a real issue when you've got conflict information.

I think as long as you're going to use published hp as the basis of setting the weight, you've got to take the value that seems to be the most consistent (in other words, appears in the most places). Hopefully that variation should normalize out w/ a proper IT build. However, you will have cases where it's flat out understated across the board (or you make more than 25% gain w/ an IT build). That's the point where "what do we know" takes over and you use PCA's. This is the position I advocated from 10 years ago when we first started talking about this. Develop a model, apply it, and if you can justify and document why you have a variance, make an adjustment for that specific entry. In 10 years, nothing that's transpired or been discussed, has changed my feeling on that.

So, to sum it up, if you're going to use published hp as the basis for classification, use the most frequently occurring value. If there's no clear value, do a weighted average on the values you have, and use that (but document what you did). If it turns out an adjustment should be made, document it, and make it. The tools are there.

Eagle7

02-27-2011, 01:49 PM

Marty, it's not that cut and dried.

And most ITAC members are prepared for calls.

But it's impossible to be fully educated on every car and issue that comes up for a vote, and to have read every scrap of information on it. Sometimes we have to rely on others to do the homework for us. That part of the system I think works well.
I'm not suggesting that you read every scrap of information, nor that each of you dig up your information independently. What I AM suggesting is that if evidence is worth voting on, then it should be officially recorded in "the file", and you should read that info in "the file" before you vote. This "Joe told me he read someplace that stock is 120 hp" is BS. If you can't get to that level of repeatability and transparency then I don't want you using subjectivity at all. Just run every car using a rigid formula.

JeffYoung

02-27-2011, 01:53 PM

That's just not possible with the volume of requests we have, the number of different cars involved and and the variety of documentation in question.

I'm telling you this as someone who spends a fair amount of time on ITAC matters in a month. Not as much as Jake or Andy did before, or Josh now.

For this system to work we have to be able to rely on -- question and debate sure, but rely on -- the research done by others.

I'm not suggesting that you read every scrap of information, nor that each of you dig up your information independently. What I AM suggesting is that if evidence is worth voting on, then it should be officially recorded in "the file", and you should read that info in "the file" before you vote. This "Joe told me he read someplace that stock is 120 hp" is BS. If you can't get to that level of repeatability and transparency then I don't want you using subjectivity at all. Just run every car using a rigid formula.

Greg Amy

02-27-2011, 01:59 PM

Dick's "I call bullshit" noted; I admit am starting to feel a bit melodramatic (and Don Quixote) about this...

I want to know why the factory number changed.
It hasn't. The FSM has always said it was 110hp SAE.

Allow my poor allusion: Counselor, when you're questioning the opposing witness, you do your best to call to character that person. If that person's character/believability is questionable, it calls to question their testimony.

That's all I'm saying the ETKA/Internet is: testimony of questionable character.

The sole source of unquestionable testimony of that highest character is the factory service manual. That's our "expert witness", what we use as the arbiter of official resource, in scrutineering and in competition. Unless proven wrong by opposing testimony of comparable character, that's the one that a jury will believe.

You are certainly correct in calling that character into question, but you need something of comparable character in which to do it.

A pirated parts manual and Wikipedia is not of comparable character.

I'm going to grab a beer, head to the garage, and build an engine. A B18C1, not a KX.

GA

Eagle7

02-27-2011, 02:19 PM

That's just not possible with the volume of requests we have, the number of different cars involved and and the variety of documentation in question.

I'm telling you this as someone who spends a fair amount of time on ITAC matters in a month. Not as much as Jake or Andy did before, or Josh now.

For this system to work we have to be able to rely on -- question and debate sure, but rely on -- the research done by others.
When "Joe" does the research that you rely on, why does he not record it in "the file"? Doesn't seem like too much of a burden to me. He either has an electronic document, or can grab a screen shot, or scan an image. Do I remember correctly that you are a lawyer, Jeff? These practices should be raising all kinds of red flags in your mind (hearsay evidence?). [Edit - I see Greg beat me to the punch on the legal analogy.]

I think you are saying that this research done by others causes the weight of a car to be set at a value that deviates from the "formula", but is never officially recorded. Then when questions come up about how the weight was set, you're in a "I think" or "I remember" or "I don't remember" situation. There's no institutional memory of how you arrived at your conclusion. If that is true it is total BS, and does not meet my expectations.

JeffYoung

02-27-2011, 02:27 PM

JeffYoung

02-27-2011, 02:32 PM

Certainly different sources of information will be given greater weight and certainly the factory shop manual is one of the best such sources. I'm not sure where I said anything different.

We agree on that.

Where we don't agree is that is not the end of it. If someone can show the factory manual is not right -- and that is a distinct possibility for this era of car -- we look at other stuff, weight its "credibility" and make a decision. Or at least I do.

Oh yes. One thing for the internet attorneys. Actually, no, evidence of character is not admissible in most cases (Fed. R. Evidence 608)

Dick's "I call bullshit" noted; I admit am starting to feel a bit melodramatic (and Don Quixote) about this...

It hasn't. The FSM has always said it was 110hp SAE.

Allow my poor allusion: Counselor, when you're questioning the opposing witness, you do your best to call to character that person. If that person's character/believability is questionable, it calls to question their testimony.

That's all I'm saying the ETKA/Internet is: testimony of questionable character.

The sole source of unquestionable testimony of that highest character is the factory service manual. That's our "expert witness", what we use as the arbiter of official resource, in scrutineering and in competition. Unless proven wrong by opposing testimony of comparable character, that's the one that a jury will believe.

You are certainly correct in calling that character into question, but you need something of comparable character in which to do it.

A pirated parts manual and Wikipedia is not of comparable character.

I'm going to grab a beer, head to the garage, and build an engine. A B18C1, not a KX.

GA

Gary L

02-27-2011, 03:08 PM

Nat,

I went back to an older E*K* and found your numbers. Both versions agree on 88KW. The conversion to HP is what is confusing. See the attached. It appears that 118 US HP and 120 Metric HP are close.

DZ

Actually, the conversion factors are pretty straightforward:

kW x 1.341 = SAE HP
kW x 1.360 = DIN net HP
DIN HP x .986 = SAE net HP
SAE HP x 1.014 = DIN HP

Those numbers are rounded to 3 decimal points to save typing, but the important thing is that you consistently see these same relationships, regardless of where you source the conversion... there should be no gray area here.

Andy Bettencourt

02-27-2011, 03:13 PM

Actually, the conversion factors are pretty straightforward:

kW x 1.341 = SAE HP
kW x 1.360 = DIN net HP
DIN HP x .986 = SAE net HP
SAE HP x 1.014 = DIN HP

Those numbers are rounded to 3 decimal points to save typing, but the important thing is that you consistently see these same relationships, regardless of where you source the conversion... there should be no gray area here.

So we now have 110, 115, 118 and 120hp.

Nice.

lateapex911

02-27-2011, 05:05 PM

Jeff, if I were on the ITAC, this is how I'd handle it..if I were king.
1-Factory documentation (Which is the Bentley, in this case) determines power. That is 110 in all cases/copies we've seen, IIRC.
2- To change that, somebody needs to make a case that that number isn't representative of:
A- What a stock version makes,* or
B- An IT prepped car makes more, or less than 25% more than that factory number. (What we know)

Once the person presents the case and submits evidence, the committee votes their confidence. This should be recorded per person, and the math done.

In this case, if what Mr Miller says is true, that there are internal inconsistencies in the ETKA, then the confidence votes should be low, and the case should not achieve the required minimum confidence level.

If you find, in your research, that there is consistency in the parts related to the serial number and engine codes that the ETKA higher HP numbers are due to changed actual hard parts in the car (a cam?) then that could explain the ETKAs inconsistencies. Then you will need to decide on whether to split the listing, or you use the higher number for all years.

Now if you determine the hard parts used that result in an increased power listing are something like the downpipe, then you use the lower number as exhaust is free in IT. (See Miata case for precedence and the ops manual which explains the standard procedure)

I would not let any preconceived thoughts enter my mind.
If somebody says, "Yea, but, that car goes like stink, it must have more power, we should just use the larger number, it's pretty legit". stop them.
IF they are saying the car is too fast for that power level, then it is up to them to provide, and prove a case to the proper level of confidence.
The key here is to stick with the proper procedure.

As a case in point, the RX8 was listed at, over the years, various ratings. The committee couldn't ignore the numbers, even though we 'knew' they were wrong, and sought to disprove them. In the end, we got several dyno sheets within 1% of each other from independent sources of engines built to the IT type ruleset.

Eagle7

02-27-2011, 07:47 PM

I've told you before our documentation efforts need to be improved. Some things we have documentation for, others we could do much better.

You guys really need to stop with the "total BS" stuff. You have a group of volunteers spending collectively 50-60 or more hours a month of their own time trying to get this right. We don't do this for money or glory, mostly we do it so we don't get bitched at too much on the internet.

As Dick said, I've not met a single person on the ITAC who hasn't tried to get this right.

On your side, you could work on your manner and method of criticism. I get -- and did from my first response to you -- that we can improve our documentation efforts. To be told that my volunteer work on your behalf is total BS is a but much, no?
Point taken. I'm sorry that I expressed that in a way that you took personally. I have a great deal of appreciation for those that serve on these committees (especially you, Jeff, who have been so open with us on the board), and the last thing I want to do is to discourage one of y'all.

What got me going was a sudden realization that one of my "first principles" (hope I'm not murdering the appropriate use of that term) is in jeopardy. When "the process" was explained a couple years ago, one of the foundational principles was the objective and careful documentation of evidence. Without that I don't thing "the process" can ever succeed. I suggest that if you don't have time to record your evidence prior to voting then you should reduce the scope of your work so that you can get that done. It's more important to do it right than to do it quickly.

JeffYoung

02-27-2011, 09:57 PM

Thanks, I appreciate it, and I agree with all of the below.

I think the weak link right now is precisely what you indicate. We still need to document better. We record votes and "confidence levels," but we really need to put the evidence we collect in storage somewhere.

Point taken on that.

Also, you are right. Better to slow down and get it right.

Point taken on that as well.

I do appreciate your input.

Thanks Marty.

Jeff

Point taken. I'm sorry that I expressed that in a way that you took personally. I have a great deal of appreciation for those that serve on these committees (especially you, Jeff, who have been so open with us on the board), and the last thing I want to do is to discourage one of y'all.

What got me going was a sudden realization that one of my "first principles" (hope I'm not murdering the appropriate use of that term) is in jeopardy. When "the process" was explained a couple years ago, one of the foundational principles was the objective and careful documentation of evidence. Without that I don't thing "the process" can ever succeed. I suggest that if you don't have time to record your evidence prior to voting then you should reduce the scope of your work so that you can get that done. It's more important to do it right than to do it quickly.

JLawton

02-28-2011, 08:23 AM

I think you guys are being a "little" tough on Jeff (and the ITAC in general). He is trying to do the right thing and putting money and time into it to try and make the best informed decision. Not only did he buy his own Audi manual but he also signed up on one of the Audi boards to try and get the right information.

If you guys think we're (they) going to come up with the perfect process, you need to put your crack down and come back to reality.

Who here thinks the process now is better than the one ten years ago? If you didn't raise your hand it's because you weren't around ten years ago in IT. It's amazing how we were all happy and ignorant back then.........

And I know no one wants to believe this but driver skill and prep level have a LOT more to do with competativeness than 100 extra pounds. (I know, EVERYONE thinks they are THE one where 100lbs will make a difference over their skill or prep level........... Now I'M the one calling bullshit!!)

Chill out!

.

Knestis

02-28-2011, 09:53 AM

...Who here thinks the process now is better than the one ten years ago? ...I couldn't agree more with everything you've said, Jeff (L). However, with publication of the ITAC operations, it's super-important that the membership be confident that they are followed. That's the nature of raising the bar - it gets increasingly harder to clear it.

One common argument for NOT putting the Process out to the membership was that every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the Club would question each decision, and the ITAC would be deluged with Monday morning quarterbacking and arguing about minutiae of specifications.

The solution to that is to scrupulously follow the defined practices. It's really unfortunate, how the Audi spec and the Ops manual hit the air at the same time but the Coupe weight can't help but smell a little like decision-driven data making. I deal all the time with people who will look past 20 pieces of evidence that say "X," but latch onto the one that says "Not X" because it's consistent with their desired outcome. The "120" stock figure looks like a case of this.

Someone will ALWAYS argue about any given outcome but we're not really doing a better job if the processes that produce it are impeachable. As the first one out of the box under the new regime, and an example from the recent past of how NOT to do it, the Coupe really must be done by the book and documented in a way that can be clearly explicated to the naysayers.

K

JeffYoung

02-28-2011, 08:46 PM

I can't remember which thread this needs to go in, but the manual has arrived.

85-87 KX motor is listed as 110 BHP (SAE Net).

Who wants a brand spanking new Audi 4000/Coupe 84-87 manual?

Greg Amy

02-28-2011, 08:50 PM

John, you need to keep an extra laying around...lowball him, I bet he takes it.

And if you only want one, buy his nice one and I'll buy yours from you, throw it on my shelf.

JeffYoung

02-28-2011, 08:54 PM

Seriousy guys, no charge -- I'll donate it to whoever needs it most.

Greg Amy

02-28-2011, 08:58 PM

And, seriously, I'll pay shipping for the crappy one you're replacing when you snag his...

(I'd snag it, Jeff, but a good copy should go to an owner. I just like to keep them on the shelf for reference...)

Eagle7

02-28-2011, 09:53 PM

I can't remember which thread this needs to go in, but the manual has arrived.

85-87 KX motor is listed as 110 BHP (SAE Net).

Who wants a brand spanking new Audi 4000/Coupe 84-87 manual?
Do NOT ship that thing without scanning that page. :D

Bill Miller

02-28-2011, 10:30 PM

Do NOT ship that thing without scanning that page. :D

Marty,

I think someone posted a scan of the page in this thread.

lateapex911

02-28-2011, 11:29 PM

Seriousy guys, no charge -- I'll donate it to whoever needs it most.Aren't you supposed to be dialing into a concall to tell them that the engine mounts are a no brainer? That control of engine movement has been allowed since day 1? And that the current solution - fabricated stayrods attached to engine and chassis) is MORE Prod-like than the requested IT- like (bolt on) solution??

;)
They say last minute campaigning gets the most votes :D

lateapex911

03-01-2011, 01:56 AM

Aren't you supposed to be dialing into a concall to tell them that the engine mounts are a no brainer? That control of engine movement has been allowed since day 1? And that the current solution - fabricated stayrods attached to engine and chassis) is MORE Prod-like than the requested IT- like (bolt on) solution??

;)
They say last minute campaigning gets the most votes :D

Well, I got the update letter....
it's been....

tabled.

RSTPerformance

03-01-2011, 02:50 AM

Understand this debate, in my mind, is about more than just the Audi Coupe GT in ITB...

GA

I am glad some people are starting to get it...

Originally I got so upset because it took over a year and a half to get an answer... (Thankfully this seems to have improved with the online request process). Once I did get a reply it was that the car was not changing due to our suceess and because even though other cars were changed the CRB realized it was actually against the rules.

Then more recently the rules changed to allow weight changes and classifications. I submited my request a second time to see how much things actually changed. with disapointment my request was denied and I don't think I said a word, it was a timely response. However I realized not much had changed

Most recently I saw that a third review was done on the same car and again no change. I got upset this time because a new "excuse" was used after this new process came out. This time a number of 120hp was used to make the classification. None of the ITAC members seem to have the actual data to back that decision. It is interesting that it seems that the ITAC did not even use the ETKA data and actually relied only on Wilipedia... Afterall Jeff had to get the ETKA numbers from Phil Hunt a few pages back on this forum after the decision was published.

In reality I agree with Jeff L that 100lbs or maybe even 200lbs wont win you a race or even get you on the podium in most races... I also agree that the Audi's are competitive to reach podium with the right setup and driver (but they will never beat a Golf III with the same combination). However I do feel strongly about the Audi because I think it (and my experience) is a perfect example of a major problem in our class and unfortunatly the communication of our club. I have to wonder why this car is treated so different than the ITA and ITB cars that currently dominate and achieve far more success than a couple old Audi's. I am also 100% certain that other cars have similar issues and I would love to argue for those cars instead of my own but unfortunally I know a lot more about the Audi than all the other cars in the ITAC combined.

For the good of the class and our club I comend all those putting in thier 2 cents, $120.00, and most importantly time. I agree we have come a long way, but it seems we all (sorry about the earlier BS comments again) have a long ways to go. No matter what peoples opinions are, If we don't speak up things wont keep improving.

Raymond

JoshS

03-01-2011, 02:50 AM

Well, I got the update letter....
it's been.... tabled.

Patience, patience ... a rule change can't be effective until 2012 due to the rules season, so there's plenty of time.

JoshS

03-01-2011, 03:00 AM

Most recently I saw that a third review was done on the same car and again no change. I got upset this time because a new "excuse" was used after this new process came out. This time a number of 120hp was used to make the classification. None of the ITAC members seem to have the actual data to back that decision. It is interesting that it seems that the ITAC did not even use the ETKA data and actually relied only on Wilipedia... Afterall Jeff had to get the ETKA numbers from Phil Hunt a few pages back on this forum after the decision was published.

This is just not the case. It is unfortunate that Jeff didn't have the specifics -- he has had access to all of the same data that I have. I have seen both the 110 and 120 hp numbers myself and the ETKA was the source of the 120 number, and that's what I shared with the committee, and a screen shot like those posted here has been available to the committee for a while.

I can see you aren't happy. I'm really sorry about that. But we're not as dumb as you think we look.

lateapex911

03-01-2011, 03:27 AM

Patience, patience ... a rule change can't be effective until 2012 due to the rules season, so there's plenty of time.

As long as the correct decision is reached, no problem. ;)
Not that my RX-7 has enough power or torque to damage it's 25 yr old mounts, ...it's more about rules housekeeping to me.

RSTPerformance

03-01-2011, 04:18 AM

This is just not the case. It is unfortunate that Jeff didn't have the specifics -- he has had access to all of the same data that I have. I have seen both the 110 and 120 hp numbers myself and the ETKA was the source of the 120 number, and that's what I shared with the committee, and a screen shot like those posted here has been available to the committee for a while.

I can see you aren't happy. I'm really sorry about that. But we're not as dumb as you think we look.

Josh- Never siad you were or anyone else was dumb... I am glad that you had the information, it is to bad it wasn't reviewed by the rest of the committee especially when the car has been through this process three times. :blink:

A precedent is about to be set, and it is being watched closely by a lot of people. I would not want to be on the committee that needs to decide to use information available to the public and its members or to use private dealer only informaiton. Either decision will not make everyone happy but I have to commend Jeff on his efforts to make things right now and in the future for everyone and every car.

I personally agree with what was said before... the ITAC should classify all cars based on the information avialable to the public using the process. Use actual on track performance at the process weight to make a comp adjustment if you create an overdog. Also make comp adjustments if someone is able to prove that with full IT prep more or less hp is created as compaired to the process multiplier

Raymond

Rabbit05

03-01-2011, 07:33 AM

Jeff,
I am not really in need of a book . But a nice new one would be really cool. I'll give Stephen or Raymond first dibs on the book. They have been fighting this Audi battle long before I came along.

Jeff are you sure you don't want to keep it ? At least until after the re-process of the vehicle. That way you , a neutral party, has the correct info moving forward . Or does the SCCA have a "library" of car info. Perhaps it could go into that ? But if no one wants it I would love a new book.

My question is this...what do I /we do from here . Do I write in a letter to the CRB ? Or is this an internal type thing ? I just want to make sure myself and/or the Blethens are kept in the loop on things.

Jeff I applaud your actions on this matter. :happy204: And thanks again for taking personal time and money looking into this mess.:023:

-John

Rabbit05

03-01-2011, 07:45 AM

Greg,
If I wind up with the new book. Sure you could have my old one, np.:birra:

-John

Andy Bettencourt

03-01-2011, 08:24 AM

A precedent is about to be set, and it is being watched closely by a lot of people.
Raymond

Nope.

The only thing that happened here is that the ITAC knew of conflicting stock HP information, did extensive research and ran the car through at the number they thought was the most accurate.

Whether you or I agree with that number is a whole 'nother thread.

JeffYoung

03-01-2011, 08:43 AM

I'll go back and look but I don't think that is the case or if it is/was then the EKTA screenshot was old and not posted this last go round on the Audi. All I remember being discussed was that an "internal Audi document" showed the 120 number.

More importantly, a lot of the information that came out in this thread was not available to us when making our decision. I think that is a product of nothing other than we were too busy to dig as deep as we needed to on this car. But this car is a poster child for doing more digging when the numbers appear confusing.

We do need to improve our documentation procedures.

This is just not the case. It is unfortunate that Jeff didn't have the specifics -- he has had access to all of the same data that I have. I have seen both the 110 and 120 hp numbers myself and the ETKA was the source of the 120 number, and that's what I shared with the committee, and a screen shot like those posted here has been available to the committee for a while.

I can see you aren't happy. I'm really sorry about that. But we're not as dumb as you think we look.

Andy Bettencourt

03-01-2011, 08:58 AM

More importantly, a lot of the information that came out in this thread was not available to us when making our decision. I think that is a product of nothing other than we were too busy to dig as deep as we needed to on this car. But this car is a poster child for doing more digging when the numbers appear confusing.

The CRUX of my last letter.

JeffYoung

03-01-2011, 09:06 AM

I'll scan the page in and post it on the ITAC board so we have it.

Send me your address and I'll mail you the manual after that.

You can certainly write another letter but my guess is that original decision on this car will stand.

Jeff,
I am not really in need of a book . But a nice new one would be really cool. I'll give Stephen or Raymond first dibs on the book. They have been fighting this Audi battle long before I came along.

Jeff are you sure you don't want to keep it ? At least until after the re-process of the vehicle. That way you , a neutral party, has the correct info moving forward . Or does the SCCA have a "library" of car info. Perhaps it could go into that ? But if no one wants it I would love a new book.

My question is this...what do I /we do from here . Do I write in a letter to the CRB ? Or is this an internal type thing ? I just want to make sure myself and/or the Blethens are kept in the loop on things.

Jeff I applaud your actions on this matter. :happy204: And thanks again for taking personal time and money looking into this mess.:023:

-John

gran racing

03-01-2011, 09:15 AM

a rule change can't be effective until 2012 due to the rules season

For any cars that are run through the process (existing cars), do those weights change in 2012 or does that take place when announced?

dickita15

03-01-2011, 09:26 AM

For any cars that are run through the process (existing cars), do those weights change in 2012 or does that take place when announced?

That is within the discretion of the CRB

Knestis

03-01-2011, 10:13 AM

That is within the discretion of the CRB

I'm puzzled by that, Dick. It's either a "rule change" or a "correction." There should be definitions of each so that it's not discretionary, and the guidelines of what has to wait until next season seem pretty clear. Unless I'm missing something...?

K

Rabbit05

03-01-2011, 10:14 AM

I'll scan the page in and post it on the ITAC board so we have it.

Send me your address and I'll mail you the manual after that.

You can certainly write another letter but my guess is that original decision on this car will stand.

When you say the original decision, do you mean that the most recent of classification weight/number that came out in this March Fast track ?

And I'll send my address via PM. That of course, if Stephen or Raymond does not want the new book.

-John

Bill Miller

03-01-2011, 12:45 PM

Nope.

The only thing that happened here is that the ITAC knew of conflicting stock HP information, did extensive research and ran the car through at the number they thought was the most accurate.

Whether you or I agree with that number is a whole 'nother thread.

Since you threw this out there, what criteria were used to determine 'most accurate'?

The 120hp number is in ETKA v7, a version that was released long after these cars were out of production. The prior version states both 85Kw and 88Kw (and 115hp) for that motor. All of the other documentation (published factory spect, factory (Bentley) service manual, etc.) states 110hp.

I'm genuinely curious as to the standard that was applied to determine 'most accurate'.

You can certainly write another letter but my guess is that original decision on this car will stand.

If that's the case Jeff, I would hope that someone will provide some detail behind the decision (per the Ops Manual), and not just another "Car is correct as classified". If you're (royal, not you as an individual) are going to make a classification based on a deviation from the accepted norm, please have the sack to back it up. That's been my beef all along. If you're going to tell me 'correct as classed', you damned well better be able to tell me what that is based on.

StephenB

03-01-2011, 01:04 PM

And I'll send my address via PM. That of course, if Stephen or Raymond does not want the new book.

-John

John,

I am building an new car in a different class and to be honest karma is a bitch... Raymond and I don't deserve it based on our posts here alone.

ITAC,

Thank-you for getting us the info on how you made your decision with the 120HP number. I think that anything documented that is used by an official dealer should be used as evidence. (Basically if jo shmo posted it on wiki or made a website then it shouldn't count, but something like ETKA that a company made for use by actual dealerships should have some ground to stand on.) The ITAC could have easily said that it has 20% more pistons and we think it can make 20% more HP than a normal IT build so we are assigning it a 30% multiplier. At least this decision like it or not has written documentation to back it up. Other car owners are not as fortunate.

One last question.. are you going to add to the notes what engine codes are eligible for each car on each spec line? Based on these findings the early coupe will easily get a 200lb reduction in weight when/if requested.

Stephen

Knestis

03-01-2011, 01:23 PM

That's a good point, Stephen. Part of the "documentation" imperative is getting clear(er) about spec line definitions. Those narrow distinctions matter.

For example, the MkIII Golf gets the "alternate" gear ratio set because we were able to document that it did come in some US models. (Not many but that's not the test.) However, we denied the request to allow them for the same generation Jetta, because the same source indicated that they were *not* ever available in that chassis. It might seem like a silly suggestion if one gets loose about applying update/backdate thinking but it's explicitly correct.

It would clearly not be OK to extend the 120hp stock figure to the older version, based on what (I think) this documentation shows.

K

JoshS

03-01-2011, 01:30 PM

I'm puzzled by that, Dick. It's either a "rule change" or a "correction." There should be definitions of each so that it's not discretionary, and the guidelines of what has to wait until next season seem pretty clear. Unless I'm missing something...?

Kirk, it's in the December Fastrack, BOD notes:

Motion Merideth/Sheridan - Move to approve the following Operations Manual Changes to
support the clarification of CRB authority. Changes also to be incorporated into the CRB Manual.

I. Structure of SCCA
B. Organization
5.2 The Club Racing board is authorized to:
i. Clarify a rule – characterized as adding/subtracting/changing language to reinforce the intent of the rule without changing the
core definition
ii. Make specification changes (competition adjustments) – this includes weight and air/fuel management.
iii. Classify cars.
iv. Correct errors and omissions.
v. Implement rule changes for all classes in cases where parts are no longer available and such a shortage would negatively
affect the ability to compete.
vi. Recommend rule changes and car reclassifications to the Board of Directors for
approval.
Rule Change
- can sometimes affect an entire class
- can also apply to significant changes to one car in a class
- should have member input
- Traditionally presented for BoD approval at or before its October meeting effective January 1st of the following year.
- safety related items may be dealt with at any time
Competition Adjustments
- Purpose is to modify by increasing or decreasing the performance of a specific make/model of a car in order to better balance
the class.
- Every effort should be made to limiting competition adjustments during the competition year to small changes as early as
possible.
- First year cars have the following exception. The one year starts at the effective date of the classification. More adjustments
to the newly classed car may be needed during this time for the good of the car or class. These adjustments include rim size,
springs, shocks, and bars.
- Changes can be made at the end of the competition year effective January 1st of the following year, or any time up to the July
FastTrack of the current year with an effective date of no later than July 1st.
- Changes limited to weight, tire size (not rim), and/or the diameter of air intake restrictors of any type.
- These may be found on the appropriate vehicle specification line. Other than competition
adjustments, spec line items are subject to the rules change process.
- Weight and induction changes may be considered a rules change if applied to a mature
established class or one with restricted specifications (SM, FC are examples of this)
Errors and Omissions
‐ No change to CRB Opns manual

StephenB

03-01-2011, 01:35 PM

I actually have internet so I can put in a request finally!! I always use my phone to lurk here and you cannot put in a CRB request with cell phone internet...

Anyway I have asked to reclassify the early coupe with the WE engine... It should shed about 400+ lbs and I will start looking for a new engine for my car!

CRB Letter Tracking Number #4317

100*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2082 rounded to 2100

Stephen,

I have no idea why you would say that the 81-84 guys would have to buy anything if nothing has changed.

The GT math looks simple to me:

120*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2499 rounded to 2500.

And NO, back when they classified these cars there was NO rhyme or reason as to the weights. So, the GT is now in line with ITB given the 120hp starting point.

Rabbit05

03-01-2011, 01:39 PM

It would clearly not be OK to extend the 120hp stock figure to the older version, based on what (I think) this documentation shows.

K

I would clearly not be OK to use the 120 hp stock figure at all. As it has been shown that the Audi Coupe never came with a 120 hp motor. So again , why is it acceptable to use the 120 hp stock number to determine a car classification, for any Coupe. Just as it was example you provided, the Jetta did not receive the tranny option because it never had it. So whats the difference here ??

-John

JeffYoung

03-01-2011, 01:45 PM

Are they on the same spec line (the early and late Coupes)?

Can a Coupe get to that weight? Curb weight?

I actually have internet so I can put in a request finally!! I always use my phone to lurk here and you cannot put in a CRB request with cell phone internet...

Anyway I have asked to reclassify the early coupe with the WE engine... It should shed about 400+ lbs and I will start looking for a new engine for my car!

CRB Letter Tracking Number #4317

100*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2082 rounded to 2100

StephenB

03-01-2011, 01:47 PM

Just came up with a better idea... why get the smaller engine when I can update the entire chasis to the 2.3 engine and run in ITA. I am putting in a new request for that car now... I still get to loose 200lbs in that trim!

130*1.25*14.5*.98 (for FWD) = 2309 rounded to 2300

Or maybe they can stick the 2.3 in ITB at this weight? I think it is a PIG and will destroy tires though!
130*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2707 rounded to 2700

StephenB

03-01-2011, 01:54 PM

Are they on the same spec line (the early and late Coupes)?

Can a Coupe get to that weight? Curb weight?

It would be tough but I am willing to try. We are below 2400 without even trying...

Stephen

CRallo

03-01-2011, 02:16 PM

Thought you were building another car :p

tnord

03-01-2011, 02:17 PM

John,

I am building an new car in a different class and to be honest karma is a bitch... Raymond and I don't deserve it based on our posts here alone.

especially after the letter your brother just sent.

StephenB

03-01-2011, 02:26 PM

Well I have no idea what letter he just sent, please make sure it is not a reflection on me. He is a completly different person than me. I was just saying that I didn't deserve it based on my posts and that I am building a different car, and that he as a seperate person IMHO certainly didn't deserve it.

Stephen

PS: I just sent in 2 letters requesting the early coupe and the later coupe to be reclassed... didn't think that those were negative at all though, just a simple reprocessing request.

StephenB

03-01-2011, 02:28 PM

Thought you were building another car :p

I am but it is still sitting inside the trailer! I will race it from time to time. The racing and people in b is something I will miss!

lateapex911

03-01-2011, 03:08 PM

Since you threw this out there, what criteria were used to determine 'most accurate'?

The 120hp number is in ETKA v7, a version that was released long after these cars were out of production. The prior version states both 85Kw and 88Kw (and 115hp) for that motor. All of the other documentation (published factory spect, factory (Bentley) service manual, etc.) states 110hp.

I'm genuinely curious as to the standard that was applied to determine 'most accurate'.
.

Yes, that aspect IS troubling. It appears, from this threads references, that the ETKA has multiple versions, and within those versions multiple power specifications. AND am I right in saying that in one case, they list two power origins, (Kw), yet those result in the SAME power number?

Math is math, and that aspect suggests a math error, or a mid ETKA version conversion factor change...that results in two base numbers becoming the same HP number. Rather unlikely.

Ergo, the ETKAs appear inconsistent...and inconsistent regarding a long ago engine...and that strikes me as 'flawed testimony'.
I just don't have confidence in that.

Now, you might say, "Yea, but, that stock number in the manual seems low". Maybe so, but it's at least consistent. The ETKA number seems to be all over the place 120, 115, ...etc. Add to that the fact that the tech dept uses factory service manuals as it's evidence body in a protest to deem legality, and it's hard to conclude that the same manual should NOT be used to determine the stock factory rating.

Now, if somebody want's to introduce evidence that the thing makes 160 in IT form, well have at it.

JoshS

03-01-2011, 03:16 PM

Yes, that aspect IS troubling. It appears, from this threads references, that the ETKA has multiple versions, and within those versions multiple power specifications. AND am I right in saying that in one case, they list two power origins, (Kw), yet those result in the SAME power number?

Math is math, and that aspect suggests a math error, or a mid ETKA version conversion factor change...that results in two base numbers becoming the same HP number. Rather unlikely.

Ergo, the ETKAs appear inconsistent...and inconsistent regarding a long ago engine...and that strikes me as 'flawed testimony'.
I just don't have confidence in that.

I actually look at it differently (and this is just me as an individual talking, not the ITAC as a whole.) The original spec of 110hp was generated when the car was built, and yes, appears all over the place because everyone shares the same source.

However, the fact that the ETKA has changed, especially after production has ended, is very interesting to me. These things don't "just change" ... somebody changes them. And believe me, with big companies and big volumes of data, they change with purpose, not accidentally. So in my mind there's something significant about the updated numbers. I suspect that if you buy a KX crate motor now, it has 120hp. What's different, I have no idea. But that the number has changed is a big clue that SOMETHING has changed.

[ Again -- that's not from the ITAC, that's just from me. ]

tnord

03-01-2011, 03:16 PM

service manuals are printed and issued at the time of initial production.
parts catalogues have to constantly be updated throghout the life of the vehicle and beyond as suppliers change (ie...SM cam specs).

there's really nothing to prove, or disprove any of the numbers. my default approach tends to be risk averse in uncertain situations.

EDIT; believe it or not Josh hadn't posted yet when i started mine. i actually had a longer version of the same thing typed up a week ago or so, but then my internet crashed at home and i never retyped it.

Knestis

03-01-2011, 03:52 PM

I would clearly not be OK to use the 120 hp stock figure at all. As it has been shown that the Audi Coupe never came with a 120 hp motor. So again , why is it acceptable to use the 120 hp stock number to determine a car classification, for any Coupe. Just as it was example you provided, the Jetta did not receive the tranny option because it never had it. So whats the difference here ??

-John

It sounds like the ITAC accepted that the KX - the engine in the later ones - is listed in an authoritative document as having 120hp. Again, like it or not, there IS some latitude necessary to allow for judgment in the ad hocs. I fear that there might be some self-fulfilling prophecy stuff going on but at the end of the day we have to trust them to make these calls.

Now, if that 120 number were to get generalized to the earlier (non-KX) cars, THEN my undies would bunch up. That's clearly not supported by the evidence in consideration.

I'm more concerned with the ability of the system to document and communicate what the ad hocs do...

K

tnord

03-01-2011, 04:01 PM

I fear that there might be some self-fulfilling prophecy stuff going on but at the end of the day we have to trust them to make these calls.

K

not for me. i've only ever been on track with an Audi GT once, have no vested interest in ITB, and wasn't a part of the previous ITAC/CRB discussions and I seem to have a pretty similar viewpoint to Josh. :shrug:

Greg Amy

03-01-2011, 04:17 PM

dickita15

03-01-2011, 04:24 PM

I'm puzzled by that, Dick. It's either a "rule change" or a "correction." There should be definitions of each so that it's not discretionary, and the guidelines of what has to wait until next season seem pretty clear. Unless I'm missing something...?

K

Josh answered your question pretty well but I wanted to point out that while it says when the CRB has to wait, it does not say they have to rush.
We see that with competition adjustments (yea I know, Bleah) in other categories all the time where they will give a month or two for the change.

lateapex911

03-01-2011, 04:52 PM

The original spec of 110hp was generated when the car was built, and yes, appears all over the place because everyone shares the same source.

Well, it appears in the same source as the same number over time as well. Ignoring "all over the place", because that's not relevant, right?

However, the fact that the ETKA has changed, especially after production has ended, is very interesting to me. These things don't "just change" ... somebody changes them. And believe me, with big companies and big volumes of data, they change with purpose, not accidentally. So in my mind there's something significant about the updated numbers. I suspect that if you buy a KX crate motor now, it has 120hp. What's different, I have no idea. But that the number has changed is a big clue that SOMETHING has changed.

Agreed, something has changed. But, if the ETKA has, as reported, DIFFERENT power numbers but the SAME base number in the SAME revision...doesn't that strike you as an error? And if there's one error, then I think I'd want to KNOW and understand WHY the numbers changed. Again, if it changed because the downpipe changed, then using the higher number is unfair, as precedents and the op manual require the lower number be used.

service manuals are printed and issued at the time of initial production.
parts catalogues have to constantly be updated throghout the life of the vehicle and beyond as suppliers change (ie...SM cam specs).

there's really nothing to prove, or disprove any of the numbers. my default approach tends to be risk averse in uncertain situations.

EDIT; believe it or not Josh hadn't posted yet when i started mine. i actually had a longer version of the same thing typed up a week ago or so, but then my internet crashed at home and i never retyped it.

No, I think there IS something to prove...you're accepting one over the other. Why? One is consistent, the other seems to give multiple choices. Which are you choosing and WHY?
Hey, maybe it' is a trigger that results in some more research, and the research shows a different head. Or a throttle body or cam, or who knows what, but BAM, you now have the reason. Great. But without finding WHY the numbers vary, it's basically 'picking" one because you 'feel' a certain way.

And if that's the case, fine, but it needs to be codified so when this situation arises again, the course is clear and cars are classed consistently.

DavidM

03-01-2011, 04:58 PM

This thread is definitely drama llama approved.

Anyone that says the ITAC is playing games or hiding things needs to STFU. You may not agree with what they decide, but they are definitely trying to do what they think is right. Kudos to Jeff, Josh, and Travis for putting up with the crap in this thread.

Hoof Hearted

03-01-2011, 05:12 PM

So if my math is correct on my 84 Scirocco...

90*1.25*17*.98 = 1,874.25 rounded to 1875... ...down 255 from 2,130?

I would have to fill the tires with helium and install a remote control system to remove driver ballast in order to even come close to the minimum.

tnord

03-01-2011, 05:14 PM

Jeff, what's the revision date of your Bentley?

Josh, absent supporting evidence for that change, you have no clue whether there's a basis for it -- or it's just a mistake.

Sounds like the decisions have already been made. Jeff wasted $120...for what? For show?

GA, who's BEGGING to find a Russian-pirated Mazda parts microfiche someday "proving" that the actual horsepower of the ITA 1.8L Miata is 133, and that everything else prior to that was just "stale data"... - GA

that's right, nobody has anything to prove beyond doubt one way or the other which number is correct. or they could ALL be correct at a point in time.

and please, go find whatever crap from russia you want on the miata. there's plenty of documentation laying out what happened, or if you don't believe that, you can call Tim Buck at Mazda yourself. or, unlike our "super-developed-Audi" friends who have never been on a dyno, there's plenty of data to support the current classification menthod. as much as you want them to be similar situations, they're not.

lateapex911

03-01-2011, 05:16 PM

tnord

03-01-2011, 05:22 PM

No, I think there IS something to prove...you're accepting one over the other. Why? One is consistent, the other seems to give multiple choices. Which are you choosing and WHY?
Hey, maybe it' is a trigger that results in some more research, and the research shows a different head. Or a throttle body or cam, or who knows what, but BAM, you now have the reason. Great. But without finding WHY the numbers vary, it's basically 'picking" one because you 'feel' a certain way.

And if that's the case, fine, but it needs to be codified so when this situation arises again, the course is clear and cars are classed consistently.

i'm not accepting any of the numbers as absolute fact. if raymond "school on sunday" blethen or any other Audi GT driver cares enough to figure it out, i'm perfectly willing to listen. if it really is just a change in the downpipe....you're right...it should be in at 110. but given the fact that this issue has been out there for years and to my knowledge nobody has cared enough to send in any data on the part change or actual dyno data.....i doubt that'll happen.

people who are looking for stability should applaud the application of the 120, as that is the most risk averse path that is least likely to upset the balance of the class while still giving a weight reduction to the audi.

lateapex911

03-01-2011, 05:23 PM

t........ as much as you want them to be similar situations, they're not.

There ARE similarities:
Some early versions have a base number that is lower. Some later revisions of documentation indicate higher numbers.
That data applies to all car that are on one spec line.

IF there is a legit difference, then there is a WHY.
So far, based on the ITAC members personal posts, they feel the number started low, and ended high. That means there was a mechanical change. (or an error in publication) The ops manual lays out how some mech changes result in the use of the lower number, and some in the use of the higher number. Ergo, the onus is on the committee to determine the WHY. THEN the course will be clearly visible.

In the MIatas case it was attributable to changes allowed in IT.

In this case, we don't know.......yet.

Hoof Hearted

03-01-2011, 05:29 PM

90? Sounds like an ITC car...

Same motor as the '83-'84 Rabbit GTI... ...I'd rather continue to be trounced by Mr. Schaafsma then be shuffled to the non-existent CenDiv ITC.

Rabbit05

03-01-2011, 05:45 PM

Travis,
As a SCCA member, could you please send me your information on the 84-87 Audi CGT ?

I have provided visual evidence, pictures... and has been verified from and ITAC member (Jeff) of my 110 HP claim. It is shown in the factory manual I am required to have for SCCA Tech inspection. If Tech says I have to have this book, why is the information in the Factory Manual being ignored ?

And I will not applaud the use of wrong Data to classify a car...doesnt matter what car is at question...

Also is Dyno testing now a requirement for classifing cars ?

-John...the other Audi driver...VanDenburgh

StephenB

03-01-2011, 05:46 PM

unlike our "super-developed-Audi" friends who have never been on a dyno, there's plenty of data to support the current classification menthod. as much as you want them to be similar situations, they're not.

Travis,

I assume you are talking about me? The one that said I agreed with Josh and Jeff and ACCEPTED the decision.

To clarify I dont think anyone argued the classificatioion method, just the 120HP data point. As Kirk pointed out the ITAC has ruled that te ETKA is a reliable resource (in the minds of the ITAC) that they accept and therfor we need to as well. I am 100% OK with is ruling and decision. It is what it is, and I am THRILLED that I had the opportunity to challenge an ITAC member here and he proved me wrong and stuck to his guns. I LIKE this competency in him and as a committee member I am glad he is representing me as an IT racer.

On another note I don't understand why or how dyno numbers would help you. Just so that you can have a number last time I checked I had 132HP (peek). I hope this helps in your calculations and reasoning.

Stephen

PS: I think if you dig a little you will find some differences in those ETKA files on some replacement part numbers after the 2.3 was introduced in 1987. I do not have access so I cannot do the research.

StephenB

03-01-2011, 05:55 PM

i'm not accepting any of the numbers as absolute fact. if raymond "school on sunday" blethen or any other Audi GT driver cares enough to figure it out, i'm perfectly willing to listen. if it really is just a change in the downpipe....you're right...it should be in at 110. but given the fact that this issue has been out there for years and to my knowledge nobody has cared enough to send in any data on the part change or actual dyno data.....i doubt that'll happen.

people who are looking for stability should applaud the application of the 120, as that is the most risk averse path that is least likely to upset the balance of the class while still giving a weight reduction to the audi.

Travis,

I 100% agree with your second paragraph!

As far as the first paragraph you need to understand some history on this specific car...
1.) We were told from the CRB that it was specifically NOT being changed because of tourque. no formula numbers, no adders, just that it was correctly classed. NO RESEARCH TO BE DONE on our part. ACCEPT it as we did and move on.
2.) NOW move forward to last week we see a new formula with new data stating that 120HP is being used. This is the FIRST that any of us with coupes found out that this number was beind used in an actual forumla. So naturally we challenged it. (some being more mature than others!)

The fact is the ITAC and/or CRB comunicated to us DIFFERENTLY than in the past. As you see from my post a few minutes ago that I typed (as you typed) I DO THINK parts are different however that information is not available to the public so sadly I will have to rely on the ITAC to do the work to figure out the difference.

Again I don't get why dyno numbers matter. WE just asked for the cars to go through the process. We never argued for a lower multiplier like the MR2 for example.

I hope this makes sense
Stephen

shwah

03-01-2011, 06:03 PM

CRallo

03-01-2011, 06:09 PM

So... how do you figure out or prove if/that the HP rating improvement is due to something open in IT? And, is that "1.8 Miata situation" documented/discussed somewhere here on the forum?

Hoof Hearted

03-01-2011, 06:19 PM

Brooke - the A1 ITB cars are definitely getting a larger than 25% adder. They were very choked down on the exhaust side (all had the crappy single outlet manifold), and should see greater gains than the A2 (which had much better flowing dual outlet manifolds stock) - which is processed at 30%.

I would question why your car is heavier than the A1 GTI for sure though. No difference at all, other than outside shape, no 13" wheels and bumper weight.

Voo-doo math? :shrug: I understand that the 30% is/was only used for multi-valved ITB/ITC cars... ...even using 30% calculates to a "Hydroxycut" of 180 lbs. To come up with the GCR weight of 2130, one would have used a 42% adder...

Andy Bettencourt

03-01-2011, 06:50 PM

So... how do you figure out or prove if/that the HP rating improvement is due to something open in IT? And, is that "1.8 Miata situation" documented/discussed somewhere here on the forum?

You take the time and do the research. And yes, it has been discussed plenty here.

RSTPerformance

03-01-2011, 07:22 PM

Travis-

First sorry you didn't like my request but I don't think it was rude nor do I think it should be commented on here. In short I simply asked the CRB to apply guidlines to the ITAC requiring consistancy thoughtout the classification process. It was sent via a non-public forum so if you would like to discuss it further please send me an e-mail or give me a call (both were provided in my request). Stephen, they are not as dumb so I know that they realize we are two completely different people who look similar despite my extra ballast!

I don't know what an ETKA is or if every car has one... I expect most SCCA members don't. From what I can tell and maybe learned (?) it is private information provided to dealers (not the public) listing car specs and replacement parts. As parts change or get updated specific details such as hp ratings in the ETKA get updated (miata is an example and the Audi could (?) be)...

If this is the case then I do support the ETKA however it raises a HUGE issue. I am now competing with a 110hp baseline motor because I have no access to an ETKA and SCCA has not advised me on what has changed to get that extra 10hp*1.25 (12.5hp) to be competitive.

Also Tech does not always have the accurate information (Shop Manual) needed to advise Stewards in a protest or RFA.

Raymond

Andy Bettencourt

03-01-2011, 07:36 PM

(miata is an example and the Audi could (?) be)...

No it's not. Do you REALLY know what you are arguing about?

Let's keep one guys dream of a heavier Miata seperate from this factory/ETKA debate.

The bottom line is that ANY conflicting data for ANY car should be admitted into evidence for the ITAC to consider...on ANY topic. Then they can sort it out. It's why they make the big bucks.

RSTPerformance

03-01-2011, 08:13 PM

No it's not. Do you REALLY know what you are arguing about?

Nope trying to understand this ETKA thing and how it relates to our class. I did not read up on the Miata thing so if it is not related disregard and if you can help us understand why please do!

No argument on your "bottom line." However I would argue considering something is far different than using something you don't understand (if that is the case).

Raymond

JoshS

03-01-2011, 08:14 PM

The ETKA is the official Audi/VW parts catalog.

lateapex911

03-01-2011, 08:23 PM

Let's keep one guys dream of a heavier Miata seperate from this factory/ETKA debate.

Thats funny right there, LOL

Knestis

03-01-2011, 08:29 PM

Josh answered your question pretty well but I wanted to point out that while it says when the CRB has to wait, it does not say they have to rush.
We see that with competition adjustments (yea I know, Bleah) in other categories all the time where they will give a month or two for the change.

I'm not feeling like I've soaked up the subtleties and implications but thanks to both of you for the additional info. I missed that information that Josh posted.

...Anyone that says the ITAC is playing games or hiding things needs to STFU. ...Let's be clear about what is - and is not - being said here. The Audi is something of an acid test for the new operating manual. There are some concerns. I don't think I've seen ANYONE suggest that the ITAC is "playing games," but that doesn't mean folks can't be worried.

John (et al.) - Pragmatically, I suspect that the ITAC would love to go with the "What we know" approach on the Coupe, if for no other reason than it's been a point of contention in the past. (I might of course be WAY wrong.) While dyno data isn't a prerequisite for specification, it's one route to resolution. One route. I daresay that if we'd had substantial dyno data from multiple sources the FIRST time we addressed the Coupe, it would have been resolved long ago. We might not all have LIKED the resolution, but it would have been done.

The Scirocco II is a "legacy" listing. It hasn't had any attention that I know of since the Great Realignment. Any effort to make it makes sense in the context of other cars more recently spec'd will result in head banging. Don't do it.

Rock on.

Kirk

Andy Bettencourt

03-01-2011, 08:33 PM

Thats funny right there, LOL

True! Got caught up in the context of the thread - of which Raymond was using as some sort of fact - like he has with other stuff in the thread. More reading Raymond!!!

rcc85

03-01-2011, 11:39 PM

Let me see...110 hp * 1.25 = 137.50 less 15% driveline loss = 116.87 at the wheels.
Am I right on this?

120 hp * 1.25 = 150 less 15% driveline loss = 127.50 at the wheels.

125 hp * 1.25 = 156.25 less 15% = 132.8.

Of course, the problem with dyno numbers, just like on track performance, is that you don't know if it is an 8/10ths build or a 12/10ths build.

Bob Clifton
ITB Dodge Daytona

Bill Miller

03-02-2011, 04:08 AM

I actually look at it differently (and this is just me as an individual talking, not the ITAC as a whole.) The original spec of 110hp was generated when the car was built, and yes, appears all over the place because everyone shares the same source.

However, the fact that the ETKA has changed, especially after production has ended, is very interesting to me. These things don't "just change" ... somebody changes them. And believe me, with big companies and big volumes of data, they change with purpose, not accidentally. So in my mind there's something significant about the updated numbers. I suspect that if you buy a KX crate motor now, it has 120hp. What's different, I have no idea. But that the number has changed is a big clue that SOMETHING has changed.

[ Again -- that's not from the ITAC, that's just from me. ]

I'm inclined to go the other way on that one Josh. I'll call the local Audi dealer to confirm, but I would imagine that a crate KX motor is NLA, and probably has been for a while. The earlier version of ETKA that I looked at (Ver. 6) covers cars up to 2003. It shows two different power ratings for a KX motor, 85Kw and 88Kw. That's the lack of internal consistency w/in the same document that I mentioned before. I'm not convinced that VW would go back and change specs on older stuff like that. Unfortunately, w/o any kind of additional documentation, you can't know why the numbers are different. Is it due to a real change in hard parts or is it just a clerical error? And if it's a change in hard parts, are those parts that you could change in an IT build? If so, that would probably impact your ability to reach a 25% gain w/ an IT build.

I don't know much about the Audi motors, other than they were essentially 1.8 4-cyl motors w/ an extra cylinder stuck on the end. I don't know what changed over the years w.r.t. hard parts. I can look at the ETKA version I have and see if there are different part #'s for things like cam, crank, manifold, etc. over the years.

Nope.

The only thing that happened here is that the ITAC knew of conflicting stock HP information, did extensive research and ran the car through at the number they thought was the most accurate.

Whether you or I agree with that number is a whole 'nother thread.

Andy,

Not sure if you missed this when I asked it before, but what criteria did you guys use to determine 'most accurate'?

Andy Bettencourt

03-02-2011, 07:13 AM

Andy,

Not sure if you missed this when I asked it before, but what criteria did you guys use to determine 'most accurate'?

Sorry Bill, I didn't miss it. I haven't been on the committee for over a year. Current ITAC members will have to volunteer their personal opinions.

lateapex911

03-02-2011, 08:08 AM

tnord

03-02-2011, 09:32 AM

this isn't a courtroom, the laws around "methods of discovery" do not apply. i'm using all information i have availalbe to me to make the best decision i can.

Knestis

03-02-2011, 10:30 AM

I'm trying to remember a case like this, actually, Andy. The RX8 we had several publications from Mazda revising the power, and even then we knew that one wasn't right but were able to solve that with great real data.
The Miata was a case that decided current op manual policy, but that one was different as well: a known revision, as opposed to a "Which of the FOUR ratings is right" question.

IF I were on the ITAC now, I'd need convincing to use one of the ETKA options....but hey, I'm not, LOL, so, they'll have to fill us in when...or it...they decide to look deeper and make any changes.

The RX8 was a "what we know" situation because it's a horse of a completely different color. It's substantively different than the Coupe question.

I'd propose that Coupe racers think hard about what they'd like to see in terms of reconciling the older, lower-power version into the bigger picture. Do you want them all rolled into one spec line - older and newer, all with the same stock power starting point for weight - or do you want the older one on a separate line?

This is one reason that ITB is a bigger challenge than the other classes. It captures some very popular cars like the 4-cyl Mustang, that had long lives and went through lots of evolutionary changes. When looking into that particular car for the "ITB Spreadsheet" (boy, do I want THOSE hours back!) it was a hot mess. Based on what I could find for specs, an argument could be made that it should be on SIX spec lines, with stock power ratings from 88 to 112hp.

K