Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[Andy Bettencourt]

You see where this is going ?

John,

It's obviously not a great situation but the car we are talking about here is missing a critical piece of information used to classify cars. The suggestion that dynoing the Blethen cars for a data point is just silly. The information gained is 100% useless. Sorry to say, but it is.

So if you want a 'correction' you have to provide data that the ITAC can bite into and run with. Why would they reset your weight on non-developed power numbers when the power numbers are at the center of the weight number?

It doesn't have to be built by a pro shop, build it yourself. It just needs to demonstrate that the allowances are accounted for so that you can make a reasonable argument that it's representative of a 'best of breed' effort. There is no way around it.

I don't know what the weight is on that thing now but if it were me, I would set it using the 120hp @ 25% and make a change like to the MR2 once a handful of full builds are on dyno sheets or someone came up with the definitive stock hp number.

And what I mean by full build?

- compression bump
- IT legal head prep (lots to do there)
- overbore
- exhaust development
- intake development
- programmable ECU

These are just the core items. Like I said, does it suck Yes. But there is no way you can ask for a reset on weight when 'hp in IT trim' can not be estimated.

[DavidM]

Crank HP in IT trim? Just how does one go about getting that number? Oh yeah, you have to back-calc it from WHP measured on a dyno. And that calculation will always be subject to a percentage error because drive line loss is different for each car. With the HP numbers we're talking about in A/B/C that drive line loss error can be the difference between a car appearing to make 30% vs 25% over stock.

[pfcs]

but I agree 100% with it. He is absolutely right. I have always asked that dyno results not be considered. And It's only ONE reason why dyno results are useless in this context. Others are: how accurate the dyno and it's operator are,
what kind of tires are used (frictional//heat loss through tires is a BIG variable),
are correction factors for air density and temperature properly applied?
What are actual driveline losses for this specific car?
How well is the incoming air sequestered from contamination of exhausted air?
Has the car been mis-tuned to give a lower output and skew the result?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Crank HP in IT trim? Just how does one go about getting that number? Oh yeah, you have to back-calc it from WHP measured on a dyno. And that calculation will always be subject to a percentage error because drive line loss is different for each car. With the HP numbers we're talking about in A/B/C that drive line loss error can be the difference between a car appearing to make 30% vs 25% over stock.

Well it's the actual result that is plugged in then to be multiplied by the target power to weight for each class. In most cases it's stock hp*1.25. In some the ITAC uses a dyno number they are confident is representative of attainable power and then ESTIMATES crank hp in IT trim using the OPS manual. 15% losses for FWD and 18% losses for RWD.

NOBODY EVER SAID this was spot-on accurate. It's a framework we live by and try to be consistent with. Does it fail some cars? Sure. Is there a desire to micromanage the classifications? NO.

[JeffYoung]

John,

It's obviously not a great situation but the car we are talking about here is missing a critical piece of information used to classify cars. The suggestion that dynoing the Blethen cars for a data point is just silly. The information gained is 100% useless. Sorry to say, but it is.



I do not agree. If the Blethen's car makes less than 120 whp, then we know the 120 stock crank number is wrong.

It's not definitive in anyway, but it's a piece of a multi-faceted puzzle that needs to be considered. It's no different than what you, Kirk, Jake and Josh did with using builds "similar" to IT prep levels with the Neon, the RX8 and others.

[preparedcivic]

FYI; there is one of them 4AGE powered ITB Geo Prizms in our Hooptie movie from this year's IT Fest linked a page or two back. It looked a little awkward on track and didn't have the straight line one would expect.

For full disclosure, our camera car is a 1G CRX Si. Very well driven and gets around turns well despite a seriously underdeveloped chassis, and being sad-motored as well. Compared to my 103 whp autocross 3G Civic EW4, the ITB car seat of pants feels like about 85 tops. These motors make 91hp crank BTW. These are the Hondas that lost 160 lbs last year, and are still at a 30%+ multiplier given the accepted 100 +/- whp for these motors in full-build IT trim. Doing the math on the previous 2130lb weight, that factor was at something over 40%. A totally arbitrary number that a previous ITAC and CRB pulled out of ass or thin air.

Having been on SCCA advisory committees and program boards for years, I wholeheartedly respect the effort the current ITAC and CRB put in, however I will offer, from that 10 years of previous experience, it is not in the best interests of a category to be too "activist". Turbos in IT? Why? The Audi Coupe STILL being discussed? It's been 3 or 4 years already. The A2 VW? These cars have been running in IT for almost 20 years. No data anywhere on what a legal build in these cars makes power-wise?

[jjjanos]

So if you want a 'correction' you have to provide data that the ITAC can bite into and run with. Why would they reset your weight on non-developed power numbers when the power numbers are at the center of the weight number?


Except I don't believe anyone is disputing the IT-multiplier on the car. It's the number that goes into it. Putting anything other than a stock car on the dyno is going to get "well. it's not fully prepped" because certain people "know" the car makes 120 stock.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I do not agree. If the Blethen's car makes less than 120 whp, then we know the 120 stock crank number is wrong.

Help me understand this line of thinking. I can't figure out any foundation for a theory like this. If Blethen's car make 117whp, how is it possible to understand what stock crank number was accurate?

The issue at hand is this theoretical 117whp is of totally unknown origin. Is it 15% lower than it's capable of or is he within 1% of the 'max' by shit luck?


It's not definitive in anyway, but it's a piece of a multi-faceted puzzle that needs to be considered. It's no different than what you, Kirk, Jake and Josh did with using builds "similar" to IT prep levels with the Neon, the RX8 and others.

Disagree 100%. The Neon numbers were taken from a factory IT kit from MOPAR and the RX-8 numbers were taken from full-tilt GAC Speedsource builds, which given the allowances for a rotard, was EXACTLY an IT build. Those numbers were then backed up by Pro Formula Mazda sealed engines with Motec.

Any attempt to get data like that was only considered if it was maximizing allowances from IT. If say a stock ECU was used, it would have been useless data.

I am just not getting it. How does a data point from a 5 year old motor with no compression bump, off the shelf intake and header, stock ECU and NO tuning of timing or fuel help?

What if it was a 120hp (crank) that made 117whp? That's a 15% gain. Reasonable given the development. But that 117whp on 110 crank would be 25%.

A Miata like mine - in similar prep as these cars - would make about 120whp. On a stock number of 128hp. Trying to draw a line to stock HP with an unknown subject is impossible to me.

Help a dummy understand! I have to be missing something.

I think we have to agree that we don't know the real stock HP and unless you find one in a museum somewhere, you never will. So you have to use dyno data to 'correct' the listing. And the only data that would be worth the paper it came on was a proper effort.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Except I don't believe anyone is disputing the IT-multiplier on the car. It's the number that goes into it. Putting anything other than a stock car on the dyno is going to get "well. it's not fully prepped" because certain people "know" the car makes 120 stock.

I disagree here too. Nobody has gotten to the multiplier because nobody can agree on the starting point. If that dust were to settle, then the debate starts on if the cars can get to the estimated power.

Maybe Audi owners would be happy with 25% if it were applied to 110 but furious if it were applied to 120...why? Because all that matters if the calculated number. The crank-in-IT number. 137.5 vs 150. Or 212.5lbs in ITB.

Right now - at 2500, they are classed at 120 / 25%. I don't see any way to move off of this unless real dyno data or a magic paper appeared with the 110 on it.

[jjjanos]

I disagree here too. Nobody has gotten to the multiplier because nobody can agree on the starting point. If that dust were to settle, then the debate starts on if the cars can get to the estimated power.

We "know" the multiplier for the car is 1.25 because the imposed stock HP is 120. The powers-that-be have declared that this car can make 149HP in ITB trim. Dyno any IT-prep car and any result less than 149 will be deemed "not 100% prepared" by those powers. Anything over 149 will result in the multiplier increased. If someone admits the car makes 120 stock and gets a dyno pull of 144 (implying a 1.20 multiplier), the result will be deemed not applicable as the car is not 100% built.

[Rabbit05]

Andy ,

I have provide TWO piece of "magic paper"....The factory Maunal which everyone in the planet uses since the car was built . And at one point I had the Original Owners manual for said car .

Some of the powers that be CHOOSE to believe one parts list . In this , am I do deduce that the powers that be deem that all Factory information supplied with cars is in inaccurate ?? Soooo should I toss the book for my wife's 2009 Jetta Sportwagen ?? And I should reference the ETKA or what ever microchife instead ?? Do you see how I percieve this whole situation...I know different people see things in different ways..but when evidence is 2-1 n favor of 110 hp ?

And why would they choose to believe dyno information ? There would be endless discussion , as already proven on here, of the "Build" Quality and the variances of that .

So to summerize .... it's 2-1 in favor of 110 HP .....


Here is a third ...or unless a whole website of Audi fans is incorrect as well...

http://www.audiworld.com/model/coupe-gt/85-coupe.shtml

[Ed Funk]

Can't trust dyno numbers cuz it's not a 100% build.
Can't trust dyno numbers cuz they might be sandbagging.
Can't trust dyno numbers cuz they might be cheating.

Why do dyno numbers...they make no one happy. The "other side" is always going to point at the dyno number and cry "foul".

It is impossible to make every car in the list cross the finish line at the same time, lots of smart people have been trying for a few years now, still hasn't happened...and won't. All they've accomplished is making themselves frustrated and making the rest of us pissed off.

Publish the list of approved cars, publish the list of approved modifications (the same for everyone), publish the weights (based on manufacturer listed delivered curb weight). Go racing. If if Roddy Hotshoe can't win in his rear engine front wheel drive Galaxy Supreme, it's either his fault or he picked the wrong car. It is NOT the fault of the rest of us or even them (CRB or ITAC).

[Andy Bettencourt]

We "know" the multiplier for the car is 1.25 because the imposed stock HP is 120. The powers-that-be have declared that this car can make 149HP in ITB trim. Dyno any IT-prep car and any result less than 149 will be deemed "not 100% prepared" by those powers. Anything over 149 will result in the multiplier increased. If someone admits the car makes 120 stock and gets a dyno pull of 144 (implying a 1.20 multiplier), the result will be deemed not applicable as the car is not 100% built.

Not true. You don't just get to submit a sheet. You get to submit the details of the allowances you have taken advantage of. The ITAC then looks at the whole picture. Having said that, we all understand that it is much harder to prove a negative but hopefully the MR2 has paved the way to some more enlightened thinking.

And one dyno sheet does not a weight change make.

[jjjanos]

Not true. You don't just get to submit a sheet. You get to submit the details of the allowances you have taken advantage of. The ITAC then looks at the whole picture.

You get to submit the details of the allowances you of which you say you have taken advantage. That's the problem with this car. Someone has determined that the car makes 120 stock HP and ain't nobody going to believe this car is going to have a crappy multiplier.

The MR2 was a different situation. Too many builds. Too many experts saying the car responds poorly to IT build. I don't see that in the Audi.

I also think it is a waste of time to deal with the Audi. There are 3 (?) of them around, correct? Bigger fish to fry with the rest of the VW crowd.

[Chip42]

So get or become "audi experts" to DO what the MR2 crowd did. the audi has a history of success in ITB the MR2 never had, so it should be a lesser disincentive to those trying to get there.

flow the heads and manifolds to identify the restrictions, tell me about the valve overlap, get pipemax / burns type numbers and verify the headers are at least close to that. play with exhaust lengths. try looser bottom ends, tune the fuel and spark on a dyno. try hotter coils and different heat plugs. head work. setup the intake to take advantages of the rules allowing positioning in the engine room vs. intake temp. smooth things out. underdrive the accessories.

once the car is classed correctly, this stuff is defacto required to be competetive in any championship that is contested seriously. if you don't think its necessary, then what you are really saying is that you're OK not being competitive.

that's a separate issue form the car being misclassed, and both have to be addressed, but if we have to fall back on dyno numbers, all we can get is a warm fuzzy about the stock number unless you've at least given it a college try.

FWIW, the stock hp number is not a smoke and mirrors "we know best" answer. it's one we very seriously discussed in my time, and obviously was done so before then as it predates me. you can disagree with it. I do. but I ask you to respect the process that lead to it's use. no one is trying to screw anyone.

[gran racing]

If the Blethen's car makes less than 120 whp, then we know the 120 stock crank number is wrong.

Really? With my Prelude's first engine build our goal was to get the stock crank number on the dyno. We've since gotten more than that, but it took a LOT more work and another all out build.

John, the Audi has been at this weight for a while. Why did you build this car knowing that and how the weight has been discussed in great lengths already? Not saying you shouldn't be moving forward with the hp factor, but...

[Bill Miller]

140hp FWD hatch? ITA.

Yep, considering that you've got cars like the A2 Golf/Jetta and Scirocco II 1.8 16v cars that are listed at 123hp and are FWD, and are ITA cars.

And all this talk about microfiche, etc. is silly. Most people will figure that if you have multiple sources of information, and they all agree except one, that the one that is different is most likely not correct. Especially if the sources involved have similar levels of veracity.

And once again, no one has been able to produce any hard, published data that supports why the VW's get the weight that they do. And even the hearsay about the A1 GTI (and now the Scirocco II 1.8 8v) doesn't support the weight that those cars are at. The A1 GTI was part of the initial adjustment (i.e. The Great Realignment). That was a time when there really was no formal process. The comments that I heard, after the fact, were essentially that no car was going to lose more than 100#. Coincidentally, that's exactly how much the A1 GTI lost (and I think the A2 GTI as well).

We've heard that members of the ITAC 'know nothing' about these cars. And no one can seem to be able to put their hands on any documentation that supports a higher weight. So why not treat it like a new classification? Run them through the process and call it a day.

And maybe try using the process the way it is written. As Josh said, use 25% and adjust w/ a PCA if needed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We've heard that members of the ITAC 'know nothing' about these cars. And no one can seem to be able to put their hands on any documentation that supports a higher weight. So why not treat it like a new classification? Run them through the process and call it a day.

And maybe try using the process the way it is written. As Josh said, use 25% and adjust w/ a PCA if needed.

Because the stock HP is in question.

[Ron Earp]

Jeebus, it has been years. Refresh my memory as to why the stock hp is in doubt?

[ShelbyRacer]

Because the stock HP is in question.

The 90 hp for the stock 1.8L 8v? Sorry, I'm coming in late to the party on this one.

[Bill Miller]

Because the stock HP is in question.

That's the first I can recall hearing that. 90hp for a stock 1.8 8v solid lifter JH motor has been around for years. I have copies of the factory sales brochures that list that, it's listed in ETKA, as well as the factory service manual. I can honestly say that I've never seen it disputed until now.

So Andy, why exactly is it in question, and who is questioning it? Is there some microfiche somewhere, similar to the Audi, that states a different value? What I have heard, over the years, is that many people feel that the JH motor responds well to a proper build, due to the very restrictive stock exhaust manifold. And I agree, that manifold is horrible. Heck, even switching to a stock, dual-port, earlier Rabbit manifold helped. In fact, all of the old VW tuning info from back in the day said to not bother spending a dime on performance mods like different cams, bigger throttle bodies, etc., until you got rid of the stock exhaust manifold.

But once that was done, you needed to start changing the cam and throttle body, and doing some significant port work to really get power out of those motors. None of which is legal in IT. The current weight for those cars translates back to 125hp at the crank (or 106hp whp, assuming 15% driveline loss). That's just not possible w/ an IT-legal JH motor.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This isn't about a 90hp variation. If that weight is wrong, it's because nobody has cared enough about that car to ask for a correction - not unlike probably 50 other cars listed in ITB.

The issue is with a specific variation of the Audi Coupe. Two differing pieces of documentation say opposing stock HP's. One says 110, one says 120. Since this is the very FIRST number that is put through the process, it's a non-starter until you can weight the car based on dyno data (insert bitching about full build etc...sorry, it's the way it has to be).

I am not sure how the ITAC can get hammered on a car that has vague stock HP data and ZERO legit dyno data. Not fair to the class to move this car off it's current number (which BTW is correct IF the 120hp number is correct).

[Ed Funk]

Not sure, Andy, but I think that Bill is talking about the VW and not the Audi.

[Ron Earp]

T

The issue is with a specific variation of the Audi Coupe. Two differing pieces of documentation say opposing stock HP's. One says 110, one says 120.

Why don't you guys just call or write the Audi museum in Ingolstadt and ask them how much horsepower the motor made? I suspect they would respond to the request and it seems like to me they'd be the last authority on the matter.

I'm sure there are probably some folks here versed in German. But if not I can struggle through a draft and have many contacts in Germany that can finish the job.

R

[Chip42]

I bet kai could be convinced to help, too.

[Bill Miller]

This isn't about a 90hp variation. If that weight is wrong, it's because nobody has cared enough about that car to ask for a correction - not unlike probably 50 other cars listed in ITB.

The issue is with a specific variation of the Audi Coupe. Two differing pieces of documentation say opposing stock HP's. One says 110, one says 120. Since this is the very FIRST number that is put through the process, it's a non-starter until you can weight the car based on dyno data (insert bitching about full build etc...sorry, it's the way it has to be).

I am not sure how the ITAC can get hammered on a car that has vague stock HP data and ZERO legit dyno data. Not fair to the class to move this car off it's current number (which BTW is correct IF the 120hp number is correct).

Andy,

Ed was correct, I thought you were referring to the VW. But yeah, someone did ask for a correction on the JH-powered VW. A guy asked to have the Scirocco II 1.8 8v car corrected. He provided all the numbers, even running it through the process. What did he get? The ignored the data and slapped the same, unsupported weight of the GTI on it and said "Thanks for playing".

As far as the Audi goes, it's my understanding that it's not just two pieces of documentation that differ. I'm a VW guy, but not an Audi guy, but from what I've read, the 110hp number is in several different documents (owner's manual, factory service manual, sales brochure, etc.) and the 120hp number is in only one place, this microfiche. As I said, most people will consider the value w/ multiple citations to be 'more correct' than a value that shows up in just one place.

[Ron Earp]

but from what I've read, the 110hp number is in several different documents (owner's manual, factory service manual, sales brochure, etc.) and the 120hp number is in only one place, this microfiche. As I said, most people will consider the value w/ multiple citations to be 'more correct' than a value that shows up in just one place.

I'd go with the factory service manual. If it says it is 110hp, it is 110hp. Case closed. Next!

This is a perfect example of where a benevolent dictator >>> a committee.

[Bill Miller]

I'd go with the factory service manual. If it says it is 110hp, it is 110hp. Case closed. Next!

This is a perfect example of where a benevolent dictator >>> a committee.

I don't think that test is enough Ron, as the 120hp doc is a factory doc as well.

[Flyinglizard]

The Audi is about 5/4 of the JH engine. Both have the same pistons( 79bore or 81 bore ) @ 8.5- 9/ to one.
The early Audi had less cam, and smaller valves. The early 5cyl was solid lifter, the later was hydro. All very small valve lifts, Re to the VW.
125% of 90 is about 112.
If the Audi had the the HT, 10/1 pistons and more cam, than the 120 would be possible.
I think that the JT was the 5cyl version of the HT engine. I had two, one each engine version. Solid and hydro.
I will look again at the manuals. I am pretty sure that there were two versions. Pretty sure that I still have the factory manual.

[JoshS]

As far as the Audi goes, it's my understanding that it's not just two pieces of documentation that differ. I'm a VW guy, but not an Audi guy, but from what I've read, the 110hp number is in several different documents (owner's manual, factory service manual, sales brochure, etc.) and the 120hp number is in only one place, this microfiche. As I said, most people will consider the value w/ multiple citations to be 'more correct' than a value that shows up in just one place.

That has no importance to me. Most sources get their data from the same place. All of those internet sites with car stats? Same source. Aftermarket owner's manuals? Same source. What happened is that at some point, one part of Audi published 120hp and another part published 110hp. The 110hp got repeated in many places and the 120hp didn't. Doesn't make either one any more or less "true."

[RSTPerformance]

I am on to the RX-8's now and will only bring the Audi's out once in a while to have fun so I really still don't care about this car but I do care about the secrets. My biggest issue is nobody will supply this microfiche information. My suspision is because it has other information that could get us to the 120hp (euro parts, different replacement parts etc.) or some other flaw could be found that would be detrimental to those on the committee. If it wasn't an issue we would have been provided with the documents by now.

Raymond "What are you hiding?" Blethen

[RSTPerformance]

Any information used in the classification of any car should be made available to all members. But let's not forget, this is the Secret Car Club of America!

Raymond

[JoshS]

I am on to the RX-8's now and will only bring the Audi's out once in a while to have fun so I really still don't care about this car but I do care about the secrets. My biggest issue is nobody will supply this microfiche information. My suspision is because it has other information that could get us to the 120hp (euro parts, different replacement parts etc.) or some other flaw could be found that would be detrimental to those on the committee. If it wasn't an issue we would have been provided with the documents by now.

Raymond "What are you hiding?" Blethen


Any information used in the classification of any car should be made available to all members. But let's not forget, this is the Secret Car Club of America!

Oh, for crying out loud. The information has been published on this website in threads that you and all of the other interested parties have been involved in. Here's just one of the posts.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showpost.php?p=318699&postcount=107

[RSTPerformance]

Thanks Josh... I did't remember seeing that post... I have blocked the Audi BS issues from my memory as it really made me upset to the point if walking away, if only we had NASA up here! I looked back and I still have to admit, it was competitors that provided that info, not the ITAC or the CRB. Those people on the comittees then then just fed lines of BS, not sure who is on what now!

I wish I never looked at this thread and saw "Blethens" and Audi coupe because it sucked me in... When I looked back at the thread, I noticed another competitor posted the same page from His software and it listed 115hp in the "same"' parts book. http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1881&d=1298747709

Raymond "Keep me away from IT.Com" Blethen

[JeffYoung]

Actually, that's about 0% like it went down.

Geez man. No one is out to get you.

It made you upset to the point of walking away, but you still wouldn't spend the $100 it would have taken (and my offer to pay for it still stands) to put your car on a dyno?

[Bill Miller]

That has no importance to me. Most sources get their data from the same place. All of those internet sites with car stats? Same source. Aftermarket owner's manuals? Same source. What happened is that at some point, one part of Audi published 120hp and another part published 110hp. The 110hp got repeated in many places and the 120hp didn't. Doesn't make either one any more or less "true."

I would agree w/ that Josh, except that I consider things like owner's manuals, factory service manuals, and sales brochures, all of which are issued by the car maker, to be at the very least, equivalent in validity to a factory parts catalog. If anything, those documents may be slightly 'more valid', as they were all produced at the time the car was being introduced. The version of the VW/Audi parts catalog that Dave Z. posted those shots from, is at least a couple of generations down the road, from the time the car was produced. I'm not sure when the Windows-based version of that catalog was released, but I'm pretty sure it was w/in the last 10 years. I'll see if I still have the previous version, and see if I can find the listing for the Audi engine(s) in question.

[Ron Earp]

I don't think that test is enough Ron, as the 120hp doc is a factory doc as well.

You missed the point. This is why in this instance a benevolent dictator works better than a committee. The decision gets made and we move on.

From the posts below I understand that we have the following ratings:

*110 hp stock from factory brochures and shop manuals
*115 hp stock from a screen shot of some Audi CD
*120 hp stock from a microfiche that only a few have seen

Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to just call it 115hp and move to other topics? As I understood it there were three people that raced these cars and one of them has stated he doesn't care about the issue any longer, leaving two ITB Audi racers?

[Rabbit05]

I noticed in the pictures of the ETKA.....

And Jeff can verify my findings, as he owns the factory book . The JT and KX are the SAME EXACT motor. Head, valves, pistons , crank, ect.... The JT received a "header" type exhaust manifold, this is why it has a higher HP according to the factory Audi manual .

The ETKA says the JT is 2.20 L and the KX is a 2.23 L motor ???

The ETKA has the JT at a higher HP number but listed as less Liter cap than the KX ???

This discrepancy in the ETKA information proves that this parts list information is INACCURATE and should NOT be used in determining stock HP on the Audi.

[Chip42]

there were 3 who post here. the blethens and John. the blethens are the ones who have moved on to RX8s. there's at least 1 more coupe running in the SEDIV at times, made roebling in may and was leading until wheel bearing failure. nice car.

there have been others.

it's a hard situation from our perspective.

[JeffYoung]

You missed the point. This is why in this instance a benevolent dictator works better than a committee. The decision gets made and we move on.

From the posts below I understand that we have the following ratings:

*110 hp stock from factory brochures and shop manuals
*115 hp stock from a screen shot of some Audi CD
*120 hp stock from a microfiche that only a few have seen

Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to just call it 115hp and move to other topics? As I understood it there were three people that raced these cars and one of them has stated he doesn't care about the issue any longer, leaving two ITB Audi racers?

Roughly what we did, if I remember correctly.

[Knestis]

An interesting thought...

The sub-process (if you will) for what to do if the same car is released with different stock power figures matured somewhat post-Audi 4000 listing, with the Miata.

The question here should NOT be what multiplier to use. That's BS distraction from historical bias and perceptions (aka in the SCCA as "what we know"), primarily on the part of key CRB members (Albin, Keane, others?) and PRIMARILY based on one ARRC.

The question SHOULD be, "What makes the two listed cars different?" Is it something that is open under the IT rules (e.g., exhaust) or is it something inherent in the rest of the design that will make a difference (e.g., CR, head design)? If the latter, do we want the car listed on two spec lines or one, counting on update-backdate?

ALL of the distractions with dynos and other reverse engineering crap are COMPLETELY pissing off one of IT's longest supporters.

K

EDIT - and Jeff (et al.) who are suggesting dyno testing a particular example - there is zero win in that solution. It's one data point but it's a completely flawed data point. NO value in that game what so ever.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Roughly what we did, if I remember correctly.

Running the napkin math, the car sits at 120 * 1.25.

[Ron Earp]

it's a hard situation from our perspective.

I respect what the ITAC does, but it is as hard as you/ITAC wishes to make it. The GCR section on IT clearly states in not so many words that the class will not be balanced perfectly. Classing it at 115 hp splits the difference and the car will be 50lb to heavy to some and 50 lbs to light to others. That's damn close enough and well within the frame work of obligation set forth in the GCR and ITAC process/manual.

[JeffYoung]

An interesting thought...

The sub-process (if you will) for what to do if the same car is released with different stock power figures matured somewhat post-Audi 4000 listing, with the Miata.

The question here should NOT be what multiplier to use. That's BS distraction from historical bias and perceptions (aka in the SCCA as "what we know"), primarily on the part of key CRB members (Albin, Keane, others?) and PRIMARILY based on one ARRC.

The question SHOULD be, "What makes the two listed cars different?" Is it something that is open under the IT rules (e.g., exhaust) or is it something inherent in the rest of the design that will make a difference (e.g., CR, head design)? If the latter, do we want the car listed on two spec lines or one, counting on update-backdate?

ALL of the distractions with dynos and other reverse engineering crap are COMPLETELY pissing off one of IT's longest supporters.

K

EDIT - and Jeff (et al.) who are suggesting dyno testing a particular example - there is zero win in that solution. It's one data point but it's a completely flawed data point. NO value in that game what so ever.

I have to disagree, strongly. It's a data point. Using ONLY it to do something I agree is an error. Using it as a piece of a puzzle is not.

Again, despite Andy's protestations to the contrary, it's no different than using an SSA dyno sheet to set the weight on the 300ZX, or Grand Am dyno sheets for the RX8, or a Mopar add or "similar" Mopar builds on a Neon forum to set the weight for the Neon. And don't get me started on the FWD simulation software.....

[gran racing]

Geez man. No one is out to get you.

It made you upset to the point of walking away, but you still wouldn't spend the $100 it would have taken (and my offer to pay for it still stands) to put your car on a dyno?

There's a lot more to this than just another data point (microfiche) from Ray's perspective. The source of their original frustration was the other story of how two Audi's went down to the ARRC, people used that information against the car, people who had influence on the decisions used that and other BS information against the Audi's. Remove all of that garbage, and I bet the Blethen's outlook would be different. The actions back then bother me too and I sure would have considered moving on. We are at a different place now with the Audi but it's going to be hard for them to wipe away that history.

There have been a lot of questions about the true HP, the 5 cyl sure makes this car unique, and how it should be classed. I think it's a tough one.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have to disagree, strongly. It's a data point. Using ONLY it to do something I agree is an error. Using it as a piece of a puzzle is not.



So tell me what you learn if:

His car makes 113whp

and/or

His car makes 126whp

There are pieces to a puzzle that can be used to form a picture - and there are pieces that simple don't fit. Like I said in an earlier post, what would you have don't with a 'piece of the Miata puzzle' if you had a dyno sheet that said 120whp? You would investigate the mods and then disregard it completely based on lack of allowances taken advantage of.

Now if he had a programmable ECU and a day to do some tuning and he had a IT-spec head, then maybe the piece fits into the puzzle.


Again, despite Andy's protestations to the contrary, it's no different than using an SSA dyno sheet to set the weight on the 300ZX, or Grand Am dyno sheets for the RX8, or a Mopar add or "similar" Mopar builds on a Neon forum to set the weight for the Neon. And don't get me started on the FWD simulation software..... We could debate these over and over. Not the same.

The Audi is exactly where it should be IMHO until other info comes in on stock HP or dyno sheets.

[Bill Miller]

Am I the only one that sees submitting dyno sheets as a massive way to sandbag a classification? Sure, we'd all like to believe that everyone is honest, and wouldn't knowingly do anything that wasn't above board. Unfortunately, that ranks right up there w/ the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

I'll take Andy's example. Here comes a new guy w/ a 5cyl, 2.2L, 10v, FWD, Borgward Coupe GT. There is conflicting published data on the hp, so it gets classed heavy. Everybody bitches, but nobody produces a dyno sheet. So, this guy takes his new Borgward to the shop, and gets a dyno pull on it. Shows 113whp. Now mind you, this is a bone stock Borgward Coupe GT. But Racer X sends in his letter w/ his dyno sheet and proceeds to list all of the things that were done to the motor (full-tilt build), and says "See, even w/ all these goodies, the thing doesn't make anywhere near the power to justify the weight. Please re-process."

Who's going to verify what was done to the motor? And before you say "Send in the receipts.", do you think that someone that would fabricate the story would have any problem w/ fabricating receipts?

[Rabbit05]

. We are at a different place now with the Audi but it's going to be hard for them to wipe away that history.



That is a problem....considering the History they basing it on is one race....almost a decade ago. And if we are adding weight as a PCA for the Audi due to this result...why hasn't this been done to various other makes/models that have won the ARRC ??


And looking at the what Ray had posted and a previous post ....there is now 2 different HP numbers given from the ETKA . (inconsistent data)

Where as there are 2 SAME HP numbers from Audi Factory documents . (consistent data) And other various sources back the 110 hp number.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Am I the only one that sees submitting dyno sheets as a massive way to sandbag a classification? Sure, we'd all like to believe that everyone is honest, and wouldn't knowingly do anything that wasn't above board. Unfortunately, that ranks right up there w/ the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

I'll take Andy's example. Here comes a new guy w/ a 5cyl, 2.2L, 10v, FWD, Borgward Coupe GT. There is conflicting published data on the hp, so it gets classed heavy. Everybody bitches, but nobody produces a dyno sheet. So, this guy takes his new Borgward to the shop, and gets a dyno pull on it. Shows 113whp. Now mind you, this is a bone stock Borgward Coupe GT. But Racer X sends in his letter w/ his dyno sheet and proceeds to list all of the things that were done to the motor (full-tilt build), and says "See, even w/ all these goodies, the thing doesn't make anywhere near the power to justify the weight. Please re-process."

Who's going to verify what was done to the motor? And before you say "Send in the receipts.", do you think that someone that would fabricate the story would have any problem w/ fabricating receipts?

An inherent issue with the dyno-know-what-we-know scenario. That's why (I believe) the ITAC would like to have a 'pile' of sheets so that they can draw a reasonable conclusion. One sheet would be the start or the puzzle, but it does need to be validated. And that is also why the ITAC has a 'confidence vote' on how valid and confident they feel about such information. If it doesn't pass the sniff test, it doesn't trigger more action.

In the end, we know there is no silver bullet and a car like this, with sketchy documentation, compounds the problem. That is where you sometimes have to lean back (reluctantly) on the 'no guarantee' stipulation IMHO.

The ITAC is busting their balls on this car - and a lot in ITB - it's just much harder with over 40 years worth of info (or lack thereof).

[Gary L]

Ron - your point may be relevant, but I think you need to check your math... a five hp shift results in a 105 lb (rounded) difference: 5 x 1.25 x 17 = 106.25 lbs.

BTW, here's some more mud for this particular puddle of water. In the two "screen capture" documents linked earlier (one each at 115 and 120 hp for the KX engine), there is agreement, if you look hard enough. The KW rating for that engine in both documents, is 88. It happens that 88 KW converts to 120 metric (DIN) hp. So... I would have to conclude there's a very strong possibility the 115 hp number is the result of someone using an incorrect conversion factor.

(OTOH, while the 120 hp number appears to be converted correctly, that conversion is to DIN hp, not the SAE net hp we're supposed to be using as the basis for the process. So just for giggles, if 88 KW is correct, we're talking 118 SAE net.)

Anyhow... this all makes me wonder what the KW rating is in all the "other" documents (shop manuals, owner manuals, etc.) that show 110 hp?

[Ron Earp]

Ron - your point may be relevant, but I think you need to check your math... a five hp shift results in a 105 lb (rounded) difference: 5 x 1.25 x 17 = 106.25 lbs.

No arithmetic done from my side. I was purely talking in general terms. While 105 lbs is considerable the point is still valid - as others have stated there is no guarantee the class will be perfectly balanced and no obligation to make every model just as competitive as the others. Those conditions would be ideal but this isn't utopia.



So... I would have to conclude there's a very strong possibility the 115 hp number is the result of someone using an incorrect conversion factor.

Anyhow... this all makes me wonder what the KW rating is in all the "other" documents (shop manuals, owner manuals, etc.) that show 110 hp?

Very good points.

[Bill Miller]

An inherent issue with the dyno-know-what-we-know scenario. That's why (I believe) the ITAC would like to have a 'pile' of sheets so that they can draw a reasonable conclusion. One sheet would be the start or the puzzle, but it does need to be validated. And that is also why the ITAC has a 'confidence vote' on how valid and confident they feel about such information. If it doesn't pass the sniff test, it doesn't trigger more action.

In the end, we know there is no silver bullet and a car like this, with sketchy documentation, compounds the problem. That is where you sometimes have to lean back (reluctantly) on the 'no guarantee' stipulation IMHO.

The ITAC is busting their balls on this car - and a lot in ITB - it's just much harder with over 40 years worth of info (or lack thereof).

But that's the rub Andy, it's an unusual car, not many out there, people are discouraged from building them because they are boned on weight, no one really knows what the potential of a full-tilt build is, so where is the incentive to spend the cubic $ to get there? This is only exacerbated by the climate of the SCCA PTB.

I thought one of the main reasons behind developing an objective classification process for IT, was to get more people out there racing IT cars. People are much more inclined to get involved w/ a category if they feel that things are done objectively, and out in the open. We've seen it all too often that if someone can't get to the preconceived notion of what the power output should be, they're obviously leaving something on the table. Things like conflicting information, unsubstantiated claims, and grossly high weights that have no supporting data behind them don't give many people a warm, fuzzy feeling that their car will be treated fairly and objectively.

And while thankfully it is now gone, the fact that people even considered using a different multiplier for a given engine configuration based solely on the class that it was in was absurd. The fact that it got to the point of being codified really makes one wonder what the hell people were thinking, and what kind of twisted logic did they use to justify it.

I say look at IT like it was new. Class all the cars using the process, and the standard 25% power multiplier. For cars where there is known data that supports a deviation (either + or -), adjust the weight, and list the PCA in the spec line for the car. For example:
The AW11 Toyota MR2 w/ the 4A-GE engine, runs at xxxx#, rather than the yyyy# that the process would dictate, because there is strong evidence that the car can not achieve a 25% gain w/ a legal IT build. The data indicate that this car makes xx% gain w/ a full-tilt, IT-legal build. Therefore, that is the power multiplier that is used to determine the weight. Use them, that's why they were put in there.

[Rabbit05]

Gary,
I see your point ....but again you are comparing data form a spreadsheet with now known differences in data . So how can the information supplied there be considered true or factual ?? (BTW its a parts list this info is coming from)

[Bill Miller]

(BTW its a parts list this info is coming from)

John,

I believe it is from ETKA, the official VW/Audi dealer parts system. I think the one in the Dave Z. posted is v7. I have a copy of v6 (non-windows version) somewhere. It's supposed to be only available to dealers, but there have been bootleg/cracked copies of it floating around the internet for years now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But that's the rub Andy, it's an unusual car, not many out there, people are discouraged from building them because they are boned on weight, no one really knows what the potential of a full-tilt build is, so where is the incentive to spend the cubic $ to get there? This is only exacerbated by the climate of the SCCA PTB.

I am not sure they are boned on weight. If the 120hp is correct, they are spot on @ 25%.

There is no incentive. If you have a car that the process fails, build something else.


I say look at IT like it was new. Class all the cars using the process, and the standard 25% power multiplier. For cars where there is known data that supports a deviation (either + or -), adjust the weight, and list the PCA in the spec line for the car. For example: Use them, that's why they were put in there.

Where are we missing each other? Two stock hp ratings are in play. How do you class it 'as new'?

[Rabbit05]

Andy ,
This is where you go off track.... it s not that the process failed the car. Its using incorrect data to Process the car .

Also , I dug up a Car and Driver review of the car ....

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/1985-chevy-camaro-berlinetta-vs-ford-mustang-svo-archived-comparison-audi-coupe-gt-page-9


Stating 110 hp in the article....soooo a large , National, creditable magazine..published incorrect information as well ?

[Bill Miller]

I am not sure they are boned on weight. If the 120hp is correct, they are spot on @ 25%.

There is no incentive. If you have a car that the process fails, build something else.



Where are we missing each other? Two stock hp ratings are in play. How do you class it 'as new'?

For some reason, that just doesn't jive w/ what I think IT and the process is all about. I think one of the long-standing traits of IT, is that it gave a lot of folks to do something they always wanted to do, and that is race a car that they love. And another thing, w/ all the work that went into the IT process (including the PCA provisions), the process really shouldn't fail any car. What the problem is, is when someone won't let the process be applied correctly.

As far as the 2 different stock hp numbers, I'd be inclined to go w/ the lower one, and see what happens. If it's wrong, adjust w/ a PCA. In my view, it's easier to add than to take away. I would have treated the MR2 the same, from the outset. Class it at 25%, and adjust it w/ a PCA when it's demonstrated that it can't make 25%. But in that case, you didn't have conflicting published hp numbers, so you have to initially go w/ the number that's out there. Granted, the car has been around a long time, and there should be a decent amount of info on it. That means I don't think it's inconceivable to class and adjust w/ a PCA at the same time. Car is submitted for move to ITB, process says that it should weigh xxxx, data is submitted at the same time that supports a 20% gain, and a subsequent weight of yyyy. If anything, it's 2 entries in FasTrack.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Except where the process doesn't define what to do in this situation. You stated that you would go with the lower number, and added a reasonable description as to why. SOme would say that they would go with the higher number first so as to not screw with the larger group of people effected - the class.

Both arguments have merit but neither procedure is spelled out in the Ops Manual because this is an anomaly. So there is no path to be 'applied correctly'.

As to the documentation, the C&D article does muddy the waters. The conversions from Gary also cloud my mind.

[Rabbit05]

But Andy,
...... "not to mess with the class" contradicts the " not guarantee to be competitive".

So you are suggesting that some say not to mess with the weight because the whole class with be ruined ??

[Bill Miller]

Except where the process doesn't define what to do in this situation. You stated that you would go with the lower number, and added a reasonable description as to why. SOme would say that they would go with the higher number first so as to not screw with the larger group of people effected - the class.

Both arguments have merit but neither procedure is spelled out in the Ops Manual because this is an anomaly. So there is no path to be 'applied correctly'.

As to the documentation, the C&D article does muddy the waters. The conversions from Gary also cloud my mind.

I do understand that Andy, and maybe I should have fleshed out my response a bit more. If it were a case of exactly the same amount of info, w/ the same apparent level of confidence, reporting the the different numbers, then I'm not sure what the best course of action would be. Maybe taking the average (and documenting that). Baring that, I would go w/ the number that had the greater number of unique, valid (i.e. factory publications, major magazine articles, etc.) instances. In the case of the Audi, there seem to be more of these that point to 110hp.

And please don't think that I'm not sensitive to the existing balance of the class. But the reality of it is, that you don't get tons of a given car showing up right after they're classified, so there's a bit of 'lag' in terms of how they impact the current status quo. It would take a watchful eye, to see how the cars do early on. If you start seeing the early cars, do really well right out of the gate, I would look pretty hard at that. Who built them? Who were they running against? Are all the examples performing similarly? Etc.

Several years ago (pre-ITR), there was a guy in the PNW running an ITS E36 BMW. He bragged about he he was cleaning up in ITS w/ a J/Y motor and other mods that were far from a 10/10ths build. Granted, he wasn't running against the top ITS cars in the country, but it was another data point that was consistent w/ the E36 not being correctly classed / spec'd. So I guess what I'm saying is that you have to look at the build level (hard to develop a car to be a front runner right away, if it's classed appropriately to its competition), as well as how it performs.

[gran racing]

Remove all of that garbage, and I bet the Blethen's outlook would be different. The actions back then bother me too and I sure would have considered moving on. We are at a different place now with the Audi but it's going to be hard for them to wipe away that history.

John, THEY was referring to my appreciation that it would be hard for the Blethen's to not still have ill feelings towards that situation. It was not stating the ITAC or CRB is using any on-track performance as the rationale for the 120 HP rating.


Also , I dug up a Car and Driver review of the car ....

Stating 110 hp in the article....soooo a large , National, creditable magazine..published incorrect information as well ?

Really? Absolutely! There's a reason why they had their legal department write such a long disclosure about the information they publish, but here's a small snippet:


Car and Driver. ... HEARST ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERROR, OMISSION, INTERRUPTION, DELETION, DEFECT,....


There is no incentive. If you have a car that the process fails, build something else.

Exactly.

This car was classed this way before John built it and there is plenty of information out there about the horsepower ratings and related debate. You've been around racing for a while, you had the opportunity to build a lot of different cars. Why the Audi if you felt this way?

I'm honestly having a difficult time finding sympathy at this point for ya. I spent quite a bit of time making friends with two Honda dealerships, working with Honda Performance Development on various challenges. If it were me and it were that important, I would find a way to get access to that microfiche, send an e-mail to Audi in Germany (I'm sure Kia would be willing to translate an e-mail), make a bunch of phone calls, whatever needed to be done.

We can't expect the ITAC to do all of the leg work for us. The car has received a significant amount of discussion, now it's up the members such as you to do the work.

[Rabbit05]

Dave,
1.)My apologies for misunderstanding what you said. My bad...


2.)Ok legal jargon...yup the magazine had to write the legal disclaimer. Doesn't mean its not true.

3.) And you seem pretty interested on why I built an Audi ...I like AUDI'S !! Sooo why on earth would I go build something else...As YOU stated previously ..it s a ton of money and commitment to do this stuff. I going to build something I am into . I have always liked VW's and I owned an Audi Coupe street car. I am into German cars...:) Plus I already had the caged shell .

4.) I am not asking for sympathy. I am not asking the ITAC to dig up more info...I have already did that . I have submitted this info on here for everyone to see. Yet the info the CRB has remains a secret , other than they say 120 hp now go pound sand. I feel I have dug up a substantial amount of consistent info comfirming my findings.


Dave you campaigned to have the multi valve done away with ...why is wrong for me to campaign to have the car I race corrected ??

[gran racing]

You're right, I was interested in why you choose the Audi given how you feel about its weight. :) And there's nothing wrong with your pursuing a change to your vehicle. Never said that. But again, if it were something I felt passionately I'd gain access to that microfiche. How you proceed is obviously up to you.

I choose to pursue the multivalve deal as it was a ITB and ITC philosophy which I felt was not inline of the process. It would have an impact on all future multivalve classed cars, raised questions about existing cars (ie the Accord), and IMO could have created a mess especially for future ITAC generations which had that as the documented process.

As of now, I plan to run in SM for the next two years or possibly even ITA not that really matters. Although I do feel that I have some unfinished business in B. :D

[JoshS]

Yet the info the CRB has remains a secret , other than they say 120 hp now go pound sand. I feel I have dug up a substantial amount of consistent info comfirming my findings.

There is no secret. The ITAC accepted 120hp from the ETKA as the base weight. End of story.

[Rabbit05]

Thanks Josh for that info......Now it's not a secret anymore .

So in review....

1.) The CRB used info off the ETKA (a parts list) to class the Audi...In this thread alone there has been 2 conflicting HP ratings from the ETKA. ( 120hp & 115hp )

2.) Other factory information such as the Audi factory manual, and Owners Manual for the car, as sold in the US, showing HP info (110 hp) have been regarded as not good enough information . (2 pieces of factory information)

3.) Secondary sources such as Audi enthusest forums and National published articles on the car , also confirms 110 hp .

Anyone else see a problem with this picture ?

[JoshS]

It never was a secret. Go back and re-read the whole thread that I linked to yesterday.

I'll repeat what I said in that thread -- the fact that the ETKA changed is telling to me. Companies leave old documents unchanged unless there's a reason to change them. Someone went in and changed it. It likely wasn't an accident. I don't know WHY it changed, but I know that it DID change, and I'm willing to accept the changed value as somehow true. Since it appeared to me that there's no single "right" answer for the Audi published weight, therefore, there is also no wrong answer. So, as Andy surmised, I felt that we're better off going the low-risk route and negatively affecting fewer people with our decision.

As someone now uninvolved, I'd advise you -- let it go. It's done. Go drive. Drive harder. Drive some more. Race. Have fun. Have more fun. Show your competitors that it doesn't matter, go win despite those know-nothings on the ITAC.

[Rabbit05]

How can you be so certain that it was changed on purpose ? Do you have proof ? How do you know it's not a misprint/typing error, have you ever written or typed the wrong thing ?

And I pose this question ....

At the time of this decision , was the Audi manual on hand or any information other saying 110 HP ??

[JoshS]

How can you be so certain that it was changed on purpose ? Do you have proof ? How do you know it's not a misprint/typing error, have you ever written or typed the wrong thing ?

And I pose this question ....

At the time of this decision , was the Audi manual on hand or any information other saying 110 HP ??

I'm glad you revised your original imflammatory reply.

This will be my last post on the topic.

1) The document changed. It had one value in one version, and then a different value in a different version. Therefore, it changed. Since computers aren't smart enough yet to do these things on their own, therefore, someone changed it. It *could* be a typing error, of course. But unless someone intended to make a change, it wouldn't be different than the previous version.

2) Yes, of course, ALL OF THIS INFORMATION was available. ALL OF IT. There is nothing new.

[Bill Miller]

Ron - your point may be relevant, but I think you need to check your math... a five hp shift results in a 105 lb (rounded) difference: 5 x 1.25 x 17 = 106.25 lbs.

BTW, here's some more mud for this particular puddle of water. In the two "screen capture" documents linked earlier (one each at 115 and 120 hp for the KX engine), there is agreement, if you look hard enough. The KW rating for that engine in both documents, is 88. It happens that 88 KW converts to 120 metric (DIN) hp. So... I would have to conclude there's a very strong possibility the 115 hp number is the result of someone using an incorrect conversion factor.

(OTOH, while the 120 hp number appears to be converted correctly, that conversion is to DIN hp, not the SAE net hp we're supposed to be using as the basis for the process. So just for giggles, if 88 KW is correct, we're talking 118 SAE net.)

Anyhow... this all makes me wonder what the KW rating is in all the "other" documents (shop manuals, owner manuals, etc.) that show 110 hp?

Gary,

I didn't see this for the KX engine. I saw 3 listings in those screen captures, all of which listed 88KW and 120hp. What I found interesting, was that none of those motors was listed as a "USA" model. One is listed as a "CDN" model, one is listed as an "SA" model, and the third has no comment. I'm not sure you can concluded that this means all other or not, or that it is the "USA" model. Several other entries have "USA" in the comments. I did notice that there's a KZ engine, w/ the same displacement, but at 85KW and 115hp. But that engine isn't listed for the Coupe GT.

And honestly Josh, while what you say is possible, it's also entirely possibly that it was a transcription error. No way to divine the intent on that one.

I will try and find the older version of EKTA that I have.

[Rabbit05]

I'm glad you revised your original imflammatory reply.

This will be my last post on the topic.

1) The document changed. It had one value in one version, and then a different value in a different version. Therefore, it changed. Since computers aren't smart enough yet to do these things on their own, therefore, someone changed it. It *could* be a typing error, of course. But unless someone intended to make a change, it wouldn't be different than the previous version.

2) Yes, of course, ALL OF THIS INFORMATION was available. ALL OF IT. There is nothing new.


Cool thanks for your insite on the matter . :)

[JeffYoung]

Didn't the weight on this car just go down some? Or am I getting these mixed up again?

[Gary L]

Gary,

I didn't see this for the KX engine. I saw 3 listings in those screen captures, all of which listed 88KW and 120hp. What I found interesting, was that none of those motors was listed as a "USA" model. One is listed as a "CDN" model, one is listed as an "SA" model, and the third has no comment. I'm not sure you can concluded that this means all other or not, or that it is the "USA" model. Several other entries have "USA" in the comments.

What I meant when I said "one each" was that there were two different screens linked, and those two contained conflicting information... one says 88 KW and 115 hp, the other says 88 KW and 120 hp, both for the KX engine installed in an Audi Coupe.

Meanwhile, I think the lack of an entry in the remarks column (e.g. "USA", "SA", CDN, etc) would mean... "all markets". In other words, "USA" in that column means... "USA only". Just an opinion, of course.

[Chip42]

Didn't the weight on this car just go down some? Or am I getting these mixed up again?

the 1987 car in ITA did get a weight break in August, per process. 2490->2230

[RSTPerformance]

It never was a secret. Go back and re-read the whole thread that I linked to yesterday.

Sorry Josh... That is complete BS... It took months if not longer for a competitor to provide this information. The ITAC members (to many to list) fed lines of BS excuses for months and our CRB liason Bob Dowie flat out lied about the entire situation.



As someone now uninvolved, I'd advise you -- let it go. It's done. Go drive. Drive harder. Drive some more. Race. Have fun. Have more fun. Show your competitors that it doesn't matter, go win despite those know-nothings on the ITAC.

I don't disagree with this but I also support John or anyone else with any car not classed right.

This particular shit storm has dragged on because in the beginning the 120hp was NEVER mentioned. I still feel this is just the strongest argument that has been discovered AFTER the original lies and it has dragged on Sooooo long that current members of the ITAC have nothing else to believe and the CRB is so old they have CRS.

Current and past members... PLEASE don't deny this was handled poorly by the ITAC and the CRB and stop making excuses or defending yourselves. Simply state real facts now and in the future. You are comfortable classifying the car as is despite the high probability that accurate documentation is not available (for any hp rating discussed) and accurate information was probably not used. If you really feel a 2 - 4% (50 or 100lbs) makes a huge difference on your performance run light in practice and see how much faster you really are. If you were faster, drive the same. It doesn't make a second a lap difference.

I have tried to make my arguments about maintaining a fare process for all cars. I hope the Audi has improved the process for others. I really don't want to make posts but when I notice flat out BS or lies I am going to call you on it.

Raymond

[JeffYoung]

* No one lied about this situation.
* Folks have always tried to do what they thought right.
* You need to settle down.

[Rabbit05]

Jeff, Chip and other ITAC members and fellow SCCA members,

My plan is to compile my collection of Audi documents, all stating 110 HP. I would like to digital copies..(as long as my wife helps me with the scanner) and submit to the ITAC and CRB for another review of the car.

I also will compile a list of the earlier Audi Coupes and their motor HP's. Hopefully I can get this onto a spreadsheet . And submit those as well.

I feel I have enough documentation to prove that the original info used to classify the Audi is inaccurate , hence my intention to push forward on this issue and my hope is to have the Audi "line(s)" corrected .

[Andy Bettencourt]

Excellent post John. Napkin math shows a weight based on 110hp to be around 2290lbs.

[Knestis]

I'll reiterate that the issue might be more complex than documenting instances where evidence shows 110. Since at least SOME documentation shows more power, you've got to illustrate what's explains that difference.

K

[JeffYoung]

John, I appreciate your efforts on this and by all means submit that information.

The thing is though that we have seen it all. I believe Stephen B. offered the only plausible explanation for the 120 hp figure (it involved the use of an exhaust downpipe that did not come on the car) on the EKTA microfiche. That's really what you need.

You don't need to convince me. I think the car's stock hp number is 110 hp. Others on the CRB beleive it was higher. It's the explanation that matters; this is not a simple 4 sources v. 1 source type deal.

Thanks again for the effort.

[Rabbit05]

Thanks Jeff,

So my question is this.. how should I proceed with this ? ( I will still document the Audi motors and the such with the information I have.)

My (simplistic) view on this is to come up with enough Factory sources to overcome the ETKA's validity...which is poor at best now.

If I need to explain why there is a difference in ETKA numbers, how would that be possible ? Who would I contact in this matter ?

[Ron Earp]

If I need to explain why there is a difference in ETKA numbers, how would that be possible ?

Call or write the Audi museum. You might get lucky and get in contact with a closet Coupe enthusiast who will bend over backwards to assist you. See if the Audi Coupe Enthusiasts have documentation as to the difference.

[gran racing]

John, multiple suggestions have already been made. Find out what the 120 number means and how it is derived. If that means reaching out to Audi in Germany, people have provided you a resource who I'm sure would be willing to help with any translations. Make friends with Audi an dealership(s), find a way to see this microfiche yourself. You need to figure out what that number truly represents, and prove it to be incorrect.

[StephenB]

John,

My bud that worked for Audi is just VW now and no longer has access to Audi, just VW. I will talk to raymond calmly and we can send out a mass e-mail to some of our old friends that may be able to help. Since this wasn't the original reason for the weight of the car we didn't pursue all avenues as you are now. This 120hp starting point reason came out several YEARS after our original request. We did look at this briefly and I think you will find it is the manifold/header design. We basically chalked it up that we couldn't do anything about that and took the loss and moved on. Afterall this is for fun! I hope that at least gives you a good starting point on what you may be looking for in those files, now we just need to figure out how to get copies of it! I would set up an account on Audiclub and see if you can find someone on that site, I can't imagine you couldn't find at least one person on that site that work for audi.

Stephen

PS: I will try and keep Raymond calm. I think the thing that bothers him is that this 120hp reason came out years after the other reasons. Remember the chain of events that happened. First reason was for our performance at the ARRC. Second reason given was for the increased tourque a 5cyl makes. Third reason was because of the rules in the GCR not allowing any weight adjustments after a car is listed for 5 years, then a year or so later it was made known that they were using a non public starting HP rating.

[Rabbit05]

Hey Stephen,
Yeah I haven't put the word out yet on any of the Audi forums I frequent as of yet. I think this will definitely need to be someone within Audi to try and figure this out.

I do, however , have an appointment to talk to someone from Audi USA this afternoon . I just need the VIN off the car and some of my paperwork at the house.( i'm at work now)

I have not been able to find a contact to the curator to the Audi museum in Germany ,although I do think that will be a dead end . As I already have documents, artilces, ect. from that time period.

I totally agree with you that the header makes the difference in HP.(4000 exhaust in comparison to the CGT exhaust) And I know of all the excuses that came out , and the premise of "just leave it alone" , bothers me.


And I agree this is totally for fun...it's a great hobby and fun to do. At the end of the day we are all racing for a $300 - $400 mug/trophy/bragging rights :D .


Ill keep plugging away ....:024:

....any help from you and Ray would be awesome !

[Knestis]

... PS: I will try and keep Raymond calm. I think the thing that bothers him is that this 120hp reason came out years after the other reasons. Remember the chain of events that happened. First reason was for our performance at the ARRC. Second reason was for our performance at the ARRC. Third reason was was our performance at the ARRC, then a year or so later it was our performance at the ARRC.

As the cool kids say, "FTFY." And remember that your argument is pretty much completely with the CRB - or key members thereof - and not the ITAC, past or present.

K

[Ron Earp]

As the cool kids say, "FTFY." And remember that your argument is pretty much completely with the CRB - or key members thereof - and not the ITAC, past or present.

K

Why is the CRB so concerned about a single team's performance in ITB at a single race? Doesn't the CRB have a few folks in some obscure Production class to dicker with? Flattered and a bit scairt that IT means so much to the CRB, I mean, IT doesn't matter in the SCCA except for participation numbers and paying bills for a race weekend.

[Racerlinn]

+Juan

[Knestis]

One of my ah-ha moments during the early days of the ITAC blow-up a couple years back - based completely on my inferences, mind you - was that the CRB didn't really act as a body on recommendations for categories. They appear to lean heavily on key members who "know the category." The net result is that a single member can steer a decision a particular way.

We also (at the time, it's SUPPOSED to be better now) had some "gatekeeper" stuff going on in communication between the ITAC and the CRB. The Board didn't always get everything we sent up, and/or not always in precisely the form we intended. That influences how recommendations are received.

My big gripe, and a key reason I left the position, was that the CRB wouldn't even act on some recommendations. They'd send things back and tell us to "sharpen our pencils" or "give it another look," sometimes with specific explanation of what they might do and sometimes without.

K

[JeffYoung]

Thanks Jeff,

So my question is this.. how should I proceed with this ? ( I will still document the Audi motors and the such with the information I have.)

My (simplistic) view on this is to come up with enough Factory sources to overcome the ETKA's validity...which is poor at best now.

If I need to explain why there is a difference in ETKA numbers, how would that be possible ? Who would I contact in this matter ?


I don't know on the last point.

But I'll give you an example. One of the things we heard a lot of during the MR2 discussions was that this was a "Formula Atlantic" motor that would respond well to gains. To rebut that, the MR2 crowd submitted pretty detailed technical documentation showing the flow issues with the head. Coupled with dyno sheets, that was pretty convincing.

You need something similar. Best case would be someone at Audi could actually explain why EKTA went from 110 to 120. If it is the Quattro downpipe as Stephen thinks, then this is easy: that's "free" under the IT rules and we use the 110 as the stock hp number.

Good luck with it and let us know what you find out.

[Flyinglizard]

FWIW the first gen of the 5cyl engine was based upon the 1.7 4cyl. 38mm intake valves, small cam, low compression.
My Fact shop manual has all the intake valves @ 38mm. No w ay it made 120hp.
My math shows 125% of 88.

Idont have any specs post 86, or HP 4x4 Quatro.

[Bill Miller]

John, I appreciate your efforts on this and by all means submit that information.

The thing is though that we have seen it all. I believe Stephen B. offered the only plausible explanation for the 120 hp figure (it involved the use of an exhaust downpipe that did not come on the car) on the EKTA microfiche. That's really what you need.

You don't need to convince me. I think the car's stock hp number is 110 hp. Others on the CRB beleive it was higher. It's the explanation that matters; this is not a simple 4 sources v. 1 source type deal.

Thanks again for the effort.


So why are they allowed to hold up unsubstantiated information, or not have to explain/justify why their number is valid, and one that shows up in a lot more official places isn't?

That's the real issue Jeff. And reading Kirk's last post is pretty disconcerting.

[JoshS]

So why are they allowed to hold up unsubstantiated information, or not have to explain/justify why their number is valid, and one that shows up in a lot more official places isn't?

That's the real issue Jeff. And reading Kirk's last post is pretty disconcerting.

Alright, fine, lifting my embargo on this thread.

This was NOT a CRB vote that overrode an ITAC vote. It was the ITAC that recommended the weight based on 120hp, and the CRB accepted the recommendation.

And I personally voted for making that recommendation. I have explained my thought process several times, John (and Bill), in this thread and the previous one back when the weight was changed. I can't speak for the others that voted for it.

[Ed Funk]

Alright, fine, lifting my embargo on this thread.

This was NOT a CRB vote that overrode an ITAC vote. It was the ITAC that recommended the weight based on 120hp, and the CRB accepted the recommendation.

And I personally voted for making that recommendation. I have explained my thought process several times, John (and Bill), in this thread and the previous one back when the weight was changed. I can't speak for the others that voted for it.

Huh!!

[Knestis]

Alright, fine, lifting my embargo on this thread.

This was NOT a CRB vote that overrode an ITAC vote. It was the ITAC that recommended the weight based on 120hp, and the CRB accepted the recommendation.

And I personally voted for making that recommendation. I have explained my thought process several times, John (and Bill), in this thread and the previous one back when the weight was changed. I can't speak for the others that voted for it.

But that was the LAST recommendation to the CRB re: the Coupe. I'm pretty sure that we made an earlier recommendation, based on the lower stock power figure, that led to the gears of the Process getting busted prior to my quitting.

In fact, it was that very situation - the CRB not making an up-or-down vote on a recommendation because we were "blindly adhering to a formula" or some such - that pushed me to my "contact your board member" post here. That in turn resulted in the gag order, which tipped me completely over the edge.

I've still got email exchanges somewhere with Jim Drago about that exact topic...

My recollection - without digging into the archives - is that the 120hp solution was a later and more palatable answer, so it got approved. That's how the Board liked the system to work, so they didn't HAVE to vote to override the ad hoc.

K

[Bill Miller]

Alright, fine, lifting my embargo on this thread.

This was NOT a CRB vote that overrode an ITAC vote. It was the ITAC that recommended the weight based on 120hp, and the CRB accepted the recommendation.

And I personally voted for making that recommendation. I have explained my thought process several times, John (and Bill), in this thread and the previous one back when the weight was changed. I can't speak for the others that voted for it.

Well Josh, that question was directed at Jeff, since he made the comment. Nice of you to not only speak for him, but throw him under the bus as well. Also, this issue isn't just about the Audi, it's also about the A1 and A2 VW's. After all this time, I sill haven't gotten a straight answer as to why the A1 GTI (and more recently the Scirocco II 1.8 8v) are saddled w/ a weight that corresponds to an ~38% power factor.

A while back, the response was that a former ITAC member "had seen ones that put down 100whp". Even if that were true, that math doesn't get you to the current weight. As I've said before, that car (A1 Rabbit GTI) was one of the first cars that was adjusted (I guess it's 5 or 6 years ago by now). The process hadn't been fully formalized at that time, but still, no one could come up w/ any math that got those cars to that weight. The one comment I got from someone on the ITAC at the time (I wish I could remember who said it), was that no car was going to loose more than 100#. Coincidentally, the Rabbit GTI weight went down by 100#.

And no disrespect to Raymond, Stephen, John, and anyone else that's raced an Audi GT, but there have been a lot more Rabbit GTI's on the track. I'm guessing the main reasons why the Audi has gotten more play here, is two-fold. A) Raymond and Stephen are active and vocal members of this community, and B) the Audi was the first case that came to light where a decision was made based on the performance at 1 race.

[JoshS]

Well Josh, that question was directed at Jeff, since he made the comment. Nice of you to not only speak for him, but throw him under the bus as well.

Sorry, Jeff, if I did that. Not only did I not mean to, I don't even see where I did that.

[JoshS]

But that was the LAST recommendation to the CRB re: the Coupe. I'm pretty sure that we made an earlier recommendation, based on the lower stock power figure, that led to the gears of the Process getting busted prior to my quitting.

My memory is fuzzy about that, but it's certainly possible that that's how it went down. I recall the last discussion pretty well, but not the earlier one.

[StephenB]

Yes Kirk is right. That was a year our so later than the first THREE reasons. No reason to dig it all up, let's move on since all that is in the past and John wants a better future!

Bill I do agree with you and also an even bigger problem than that IMHO. I think a lot of the cars listed in the 2000 and earlier GCR are now out classed. HOWEVER, the new ITB is pretty well classed and has some awesome racing! I still think it is the coolest, closest, and best amateur class in the country!

Stephen

[JeffYoung]

Sorry, Jeff, if I did that. Not only did I not mean to, I don't even see where I did that.

No problem, I didn't read your post that way either.

[JeffYoung]

So why are they allowed to hold up unsubstantiated information, or not have to explain/justify why their number is valid, and one that shows up in a lot more official places isn't?

That's the real issue Jeff. And reading Kirk's last post is pretty disconcerting.

Because there is some value -- and I fully agree with this -- in not making changes willy nilly without a reason for them.

Look, it's a fact that some guys on the CRB would attribute more weight to on track performance than the ITAC, or the Process, would allow. That just "is." It isn't morally wrong or something, it's just a different view on classing. I don't agree with it, but I do so respectfully because that position doesn't come from some desire to fark up the class, or to protect a self interest. As far as I can tell, it comes from a desire to keep ITB as competitive as possible.

So with the Audi, you had a mathematical process that would have resulted in a huge weight drop on a car that already appeared to be competitive at its "old formula" weight.

I voted for and advocated the new weight.

However, it is the CRB's job to ask us why we are doing what we are doing, and to point out information about the car (the EKTA microfiche) that we didn't have. WE on the ITAC couldn't satisfy them that the 110 was right because we had no explanation for the 120 which didn't come from a Car & Driver article, or a printed shop manual but from an internal Audi document that looked pretty damn official.

[JeffYoung]

STephen B -- I think this supports what you were saying about the 120 hp for the Audi Coupe coming from the Quattro:

http://www.cars-data.com/en/audi-coupe-quattro-22-120hp-50264/specs.html

[StephenB]

STephen B -- I think this supports what you were saying about the 120 hp for the Audi Coupe coming from the Quattro:

http://www.cars-data.com/en/audi-coupe-quattro-22-120hp-50264/specs.html

Yes, this is the car (coupe QUATTRO) John should be looking at to compare differences. It also has all the same engine components of a 4000 quattro in the same year.

Stephen

[Rabbit05]

I don't think this Audi Coupe was ever available to the US market. The only Audi Coupe Quattro available in the states came with a MC1 engine (turbo) .

The link you have there , looks to be , from the numbers, to be Euro motors only.

Jeff ,
Since you have an Audi Manual , and I considered non biased in this issue ,do you mind if I ask you to check or reaffirm some references to the Audi manual ?

If yes thank you in advance. :)

There is exhaust header difference. The illustration begins on page 26.4 of the Audi Manual. The first illustration being used on Quattro models. The second illustration is on page 26.6 ,this shows the Coupe GT exhaust manifold .

[JeffYoung]

That is correct. The illustration for the Quattro shows a 4-2-1 with the "2" being a downpipe before the cat.

On page 26.6, the illustration shows a 4 into 1 for the Coupe GT with "1" being the downpipe.

Clearly different pieces. Cat appears very different too.

[Flyinglizard]

Does anyones book show 40mm intake valves?

[Rabbit05]

Mine book does not show a 40 mm intake valve.

The KX is as such : Intake 38 mm and Exhaust is 33 mm.


Iirc...the 40 mm intake valve is on the NG motor. But that is going by memory.

[Bill Miller]

That is correct. The illustration for the Quattro shows a 4-2-1 with the "2" being a downpipe before the cat.

On page 26.6, the illustration shows a 4 into 1 for the Coupe GT with "1" being the downpipe.

Clearly different pieces. Cat appears very different too.


How do you get a 4-2-1 out of a 5-cyl motor?

Just busting your chops Jeff. :023:

[JeffYoung]

No, that's a damn good point and I looked at it too quickly.

The Quattro downpipe is actually THREE tubes, not two. The Coupe GT is just one. So the Quattro exhaust manifold's five ports go 1/1/1/1/1 to 2/2/1 to 1.

The Coupe GT goes 1/1/1/1/1 to 1. Very different design.

I did not see valve sizes on a quick search.

[Rabbit05]

Ha I missed that too in Jeff's post ! ...The good one to have in the Audi world is the 4000q exhaust manifold...it is 5-3-1....vs the crappy Coupe GT one.

In other news , here is the response from Audi USA about the Coupe GT hp . I had to use the VIN number off of my Audi so the customer rep could look up the cars specs as it left the factory.

Reference # 120672226

Dear Mr. VanDenburgh:

Thank you again for contacting Audi of America regarding the horsepower for your 1985 Audi Coupe GT. Please accept this written response.

Upon research I have found that your specific vehicle has a 2.2 Liter engine which has 110 hp. This specific engine was available for all model years you requested (1985, 1986, and 1987.) With that being said, the horsepower could vary from model year based on the size of the engine. I do hope this information has been helpful to you.

Thank you for the opportunity to assist you, Mr. VanDenburgh. If you require further assistance, feel free to contact me at the Audi Customer Experience Center at (877) 615-2834; my extension is 43192. We are available Monday- Sunday, 8am-11pm; Eastern Standard Time. If I am unavailable at the time of you call, simply provide the reference number at the top of this email and any of my associates will be more than happy to assist you.

Sincerely,



Shelby Meyers
Audi Customer Advocate


Straight from Audi USA ...using 2012 information.....:D