The "strut/beam" suspension didn't get a subtractor. The A-arm cars get an adder. That same vestigial 50# accounts for a chunk of the difference between where the MkIII is and where it should be, too.
K
Printable View
That's not entirely fair. The CRB hasn't voted on any recommendation for the CRX because it hasn't actually been processed. That was all pending a decision about the idea of a total reset of ITB. That big idea was a victim of the CRB hold, whether formally or because we got distracted...
...but this is a GREAT case study. It should be self-evident in some comparisons, whether things are in line or not. And if they are not (e.g., using 1.3 as the power multiplier on the MkII), then that should be known to the membership.
AND if some weight gets added - or subtracted - beyond what the ITAC process says should be the case, THAT should be known by us as well.
Being on the outside - even for a few days - has made me even more acutely aware of the danger of the "you can't handle the truth!" way of thinking.
K
If the CRB OK'd a comprehensive do-over of B, and let the current process work - including the evidence/confidence-based use of alternate power factors - it would NOT be the case. It is only because the process as it is currently constituted, hasn't been allowed to do what it's designed to do.
Right before the doo-doo hit the fan - just after our August con call - the ITAC was in conversation with the CRB about doing just that, and were in fact looking at compilation spreadsheet of 80+ B cars that I've been working on for ages. They asked if that was a picture of what we'd recommend for the class. My answer was "NO!" because, while we had the basic information for each example, very few had been through the multi-step process of considering non-standard power factors - which might reasonably be triggered for any given make/model by perceptions of competitiveness...
Without that step, which critics seem to ignore when the process gets accused of being inflexible and overly formulaic, the "Process" - the REAL PROCESS - isn't done.
K
I get the italicised point. I just worry that if you get it wrong in one direction you will have some data to work with there, and in the other direction not. So even if triggered, the extra look will not be empowered to make the correction.
Well. That was my idea. If it sparks something positive, cool. If it just isn't the right answer, I hope we keep looking. I don't think I can add much to it without repeating myself.
And there is the point in all of this Chris. Once you know the facts and what is used to class your car you have more confidence in the system and that there is transparency. If all IT cars in the GCR included the process math in their spec line we would all be better off. This would assume that all active cars get run through the process, and the oddballs that never get run and are so ancient we do not even have specs get dropped. Then if there are cars that are wrong either way you can present evidence for a possible change.
The Reader's Digest Version - correct where wrong -
1. The Audi is 200lbs over its process weight.
2. At the ARRC (and maybe some regionals) the car turned some really competitive lap times. It didn't finish high enough to get torn down.
3. The ITAC recommended removing the 200lbs and the CRB said look at it again.
4. Some portion of the CRB, presumably someone in authority like the chair or the BoD liason since nobody else has that authority, got his panties in a wad over the forums discussing the issue.
Essentially correct?
How much on-track performance evidence is there that the car is competitve as classified? Is it a single observation or is it repeatable in a field of cars that most would accept are at the top of the curve? Because if this is a one-off or getting the draw to an inside straight situation, I'd say there really isn't convincing evidence that things should be left alone.
Now, let's say we take the weight off the car and the IT gain is more than 25%. The car becomes an overdog at process weight, when a full build is done. What mechanism or procedure is in place to rectify that situation that does not depend on the good faith of the owners of the car in question? As far as I can tell, there is none and that means that there isn't convincing evidence that the weight should be changed because, once it is changed - it won't be readjusted.
Irrelevant.
Without reliance upon on-track performance, there is no basis to apply this adjustment. Adjusting weights in a zero-tolerance for subjective performance world requires hard data - HP in excess or below the assumed HP gain, realization that the car does not have FWD, etc.
A former member of the ITAC has implied that the ITAC would like a 100% objective classification process. Seems to me that the CRB has reasonable and justifiable doubts about such a move. One side seems to be saying, there's subjective evidence that this car is correctly classified and the other is saying no there isn't and we should wait until we put another IT class on life support like did with ITS and the BMW.
Seems to me that both sides seem are willing to meddle with process weights via competition adjustments. The only disagreement is when to throw out the process.
This is sounding more and more like a debate as to whether Christ did, or did not own his own clothes.
>> How much on-track performance evidence is there that the car is competitve as classified? Is it a single observation or is it repeatable in a field of cars that most would accept are at the top of the curve? ...
That's the $64,000 question right there. I'd argue that in the Audi case we have something just slightly better than "single observation." And OTHER observations of the same cars paint a different picture.
When we do qualitative research, we adhere to methodological standards for rigor. (It is NOT true that all qualitative research is sloppy: Only sloppy qualitative research is sloppy.) One necessary step in the analysis of any narrative or similar evidence is what we call "searching for disconfirming evidence," where the researcher actively goes looking for evidence in the data that says his or her inferences are not warranted.
If we are just looking for scraps of evidence that any given car is uber-competitive, we can find them. What we need to do - if we're going to go traipsing down the competition adjustment path (bleah!) is look for evidence that the same car is NOT competitive and give it the same kind of weight. In all of the races ever run by an Audi GT, how many times has it NOT won? How many different make/model cases have finished ahead of the Blethen's examples, since they are being held up as the gold standard?
Damn, people. We are not stoopid. THINK about this stuff.
If you are among those who think the ITAC and/or CRB should include a mechanism for injecting their anxieties, biases, paranoia, urban myth, etc., into how IT cars are specified, picture for a minute how you'd feel if you got 200 pounds because two brothers who happen to drive the same kind of car as you were SMART enought to go to the ARRC and bump-draft down that mother of a straight...
K
So, the question is not whether the Audi has the correct weight as is; the question is whether the Audis that gave the "fast" observations were legal when they did it. I.e. if one legal car can be that "competitive", it must be assumed that they all can. Good luck proving that.
Wrong standard. The rest of the Audi's do not matter other than to cast doubt as to the legality of the "fast" Audi. To me, the correct standard is "How many times has the fast Audi turned similar performances and, if possible, under what conditions ?"Quote:
If we are just looking for scraps of evidence that any given car is uber-competitive, we can find them. What we need to do - if we're going to go traipsing down the competition adjustment path (bleah!) is look for evidence that the same car is NOT competitive and give it the same kind of weight. In all of the races ever run by an Audi GT, how many times has it NOT won? How many different make/model cases have finished ahead of the Blethen's examples, since they are being held up as the gold standard?
Which would, IMO, disqualify the observations as not displaying the actual performance of the car.Quote:
If you are among those who think the ITAC and/or CRB should include a mechanism for injecting their anxieties, biases, paranoia, urban myth, etc., into how IT cars are specified, picture for a minute how you'd feel if you got 200 pounds because two brothers who happen to drive the same kind of car as you were SMART enought to go to the ARRC and bump-draft down that mother of a straight...
Member emeritus of the ITAC?
Tom,
Run the same exercise for the '83 - '84 Rabbit GTI. Should fall pretty much where the '86 Civic / CRX Si does (90hp for the GTI, 91hp for the Si). Yet the spec weight is 2080#. That's ~150 over the process weight. (~100# if there is no strut/beam subtractor). To get to 2080# (assuming the 17lb/hp # is correct), and assuming no strut beam subtractor, you need a power factor of almost 1.4 (1.392 by my calculation). That translates to getting 125+hp out of that motor, with an IT-legal tune. I've been playing w/ those cars for a looooong time, and I can tell you, you don't get that kind of power out of an IT-legal tune. They came w/ a very restrictive exhaust system, but even after you take that away, you've still got a restrictive throttle body and a crappy cam. The 1.25 power factor is much more on target for an IT-legal tune.
And the Rabbit GTI was one of the cars that was run through the process during tGR. How'd the 1.4 power factor get justified? And more importantly, where is it documented?
i wrote a letter a year ago to the CRB and noted that to make the weight i have, i must have nearly a 1.44 factor. i see that my math was off slightly since i subtracted 50 # for my suspension when i should not have as K noted, it was an adder to those that had it, etc..
but the gist of my letter was that if you back calculate (i love excel "goal seek" by the way) you get my 1st gen crx si having essentially the same power multiplier as the ITA crx si.
i know they both have the mighty "H" on the nose (well actually mine fell off..........) but there is no way a 12 valve vacuum advance distributor is going to get the same power multiplier as the 16 valve OBD0 ECU 2nd gen.
one reason i picked the ITB accord is because
1. it was much closer to the "process" weight (or right on if it has A-arms?)
2. it has essentially the same hp/cc ratio listed in on-line spec resources as mine
3. one of the variants has done rather well at the ARRC
4. i thought one of the names listed for the CRB looked like a name i had seen at the ARRC driving an accord (not even sure if it was the one i picked for the comparision)
and somewhere on this site i saw the outline of the process and i had made notes that it was 17 #/hp for ITB. can't remember where that was at or maybe it is a sticky?
but i would at least like to know if the formula is as follows;
1.25 x 91 x 17 - 50 (FWD) + 246(CRB) = 2130
note that i am implying that there is apparently some unknown CRB fudge factor.
or if my car can get 35% and then it is;
1.35 x 91 x 17 -50 + 92 (CRB)
i don't KNOW there is a CRB fudge factor, i am suggesting that my car NOT moving is apparently the result of the CRB (or ITAC although i do not think/know this) thinking it is okay.
i would think the rabbit and the crx would be similar with regards to the 90 vs. 91 hp. However, I do/should have the magical, mystical "H" on my hood. Bill, i will loan you a magic marker and we can give you an "H" on your hood as well? or i have a friend that does vinyl that could make an "H"?:)
Kirk,
This is not directed at you, so please don't take it like that. It's directed at the ITAC as a whole. What exactly was the point in this whole exercise if you were going to throw it out the window right out of the gate? Exactly how is it any better now than it was before? You guys ran cars through the process, and didn't even have enough faith in it to trust the output? You talk about transparent, repeatable, and objective, but you're still doing business as usual. No wonder people's confidence in the whole thing is shaken, you guys don't even believe in it yourself.
Remember Bill that we run into issues if we judge historical acts by the standards of a different time. I need to reiterate the distinction too, between the MATH that makes up the process and the "Process" as it was constructed as of this month. What has changed since the GR is NOT the math. What changed was the practices and policies wrapped around the math.
There's no question that the GTI got some subjective poundage when viewed through a 2009 helmet visor, but at the time that was perfectly OK per the practices of the ITAC in place.
We - well, they - have been working toward transparent, repeatable, and objective (more about this last one in a sec) over the past 2 years. It's the fact that the CURRENT practices of the ITAC got us very, VERY close to that ideal that I think has created the backlash among members of the CRB, as we moved away from the internal allowances that let the Rabbit be too heavy. The CURRENT ITAC members are as a whole pretty much on board with the ideals behind your point.
As regards "objective" (and this goes to JJJ's point above), that current process still has one - but ONLY ONE - place where ITAC members can inject subjectivity. I've come to understand that this is both necessary and reasonable, based on our work this past winter and spring.
K
EDIT - ...and documentation is one of the major changes over that time, Bill - thus eliminating most of the concern you describe.
It's been an uphill climb. It's not like the ITAC hasn't wanted to do certain things, or move in certain directions, but harnessing the power politically isn't easy. Apparently we might be bumping against a soft ceiling. Maybe not. We'll see.
IIRC, the VW experts on the ITAC at the time had evidence that 100whp was possible from that Rabbit.
In today's system, that person would have to present the evidence, the committee would vote on their confidence in the evidence and, if it passed muster, it would be documented and recorded.
Point in fact for those who may be missing something here: The 'Process weight' of a car is not neccessarily based on a 25% increase. It's only based on that number as an assumption if no numbers are available (common in new classifications)
Given the state of flux we are in right now, I think it almost imperative that we:
a. finalize the process.
b. write it and our procedures down and "adopt them" formally.
c. publish.
At this point, stability seems to me (personally) to be the most important goal.
I have read much of this thread and it seams a major point of contention is actual power. There have been lots of good points made on all sides in this discussion. It would seem to me the best way to level the field on power and at the same time squash cheating would be to use an SIR on all cars. The SIR works well on low cam overlap engines(stock). It would make the formula used in IT classification simple. Plug in your target HP and use X size SIR. Done. No squabbling over Joey getting an unfair advantage because he has brand X car. Only reason not to do it this way would be the difficulty building an air box for the entry level guy. Then the discussion turns full circle on what is IT. Entry level racing? Yes or no? Just saying.
From a technical standpoint - and were one to be starting from scratch - that idea wouldn't be completely nuts. You're right that it would be a pain to implement but who knows...? The classes could be called "IT[diameter in mm]"
:)
K
I like what NASA does - bring a dyno to the track and test. Over a certain power threshold and you are bounced from the class until you reduce power. That will make folks zero in on chassis which is what we all ought to be doing and is easier on the wallet. Chassis is more about race craft than cubic dollars.....
Using a dyno also will validate the "process" which is pretty darn good already - excepting a few examples. Like the incredibly unfair weight on the Porsche 968.......not that I would be caring only about myself......right?
Not really true... if you wanna spend cubic dollars you can still do it, with the downturn in the economy you can get on a 7post rig for closer to 5,000 dollars for a day, and yes even on a lowly IT car where you can't move the suspension pickupoints you can make gains. Not saying it would ever be a need to do thing, but it can certainly be the easybutton approach to having a close to sorted car handling wise much faster. Ultimately you may be able to eliminate a nasty trait that you can't find the cause of any other way as well. Be careful what you wish for.
Here's the rub on the dyno idea. ECUs are free. If I were to have to go on a dyno, you know I'd have two power settings. Race, and 'other'. ANd it's not like you can 'sneak' a dyno up on a car in impound.
The solution to that of course, is on board boxes, but even that is fraught with issues.
Come on guys... quit trying to reinvent the wheel, we got a pretty good thing going. Let's get a letter writing campaign going, get Kirk reinstated, get the codified process implemented, run all the cars through over the winter and GO RACING!!!
Kirk resigned knowing, I think, that most of us on the ITAC would be very disappointed. If you can talk him into coming back, well, that's more than fine with me...
As for the rest of the stuff, well, we're working on it. Not sue how much we'll be able to accomplish, but that's all under discussion.
I like the dyno idea for non-ecu cars but Jake speaks the truth. My Benz has six different ignition maps with resultant loss of HP while the mixture remains optimal.
Still, I'd be willing to pay an extra $10 per entry to have the mobile dyno come to the track and run the top three in impound. Data points for the process....
Chuck
I appreciate the thoughts on the SIR and dynos at the track, but to this ITAC member (my opinion only) they are based on an assumption that I don't think we want in "IT Land" -- and that is that there is some magic way to get all cars 100% equal.
Going down that path in IT was a total nightmare on the SIR, as it was not as easy as slap it on and presto, the E36 is now equal to RX7s and 240zs. It required a ton of work to even get the car to run with an SIR, and then a ton of time and money to tune it to make power.
That's a single example, but I think it is a critical one to remember. Due the many, many different attribute and varieties of cars in IT, there just is no simple easy way to balance them all equally.
Get'em close and let'em race.
Great point Jeff! Even if there was a way to equalize engine horsepower, that would not make all IT cars equal. Differences in suspension design, gearing and brakes (just the things accounted for presently when setting wieght) would make different cars faster or slower. Guess what folks... we'd still need some type of formula!
just another thing on trying to get all cars having the same hp to wt ratio with SIR's. if the characteristics of the motors are completely different but the hp numbers are close or the same with the SIR which motor did the SIR hurt more? the high revving motor which needs lots or air to move in and out or the slow revving motor which depends more on its tq numbers. just food for thought
While I totally agree that you could/can fudge dyno numbers, I'd be ok with the idea that maybe at IT fest where I know a portable dyno is nearby(or the arrc) it could be worked out for 10-15 dollar add on to the entry getting them to come down and dyno the top x number of finnishers. Pull them immediately to the side in pit lane, follow them straight to the dyno before they go to tech. I don't think this should be common practice, and it would be better at the arrc where the winners would also be torn down, but I think It would fill in some anwers as to what power multipliers should be on cars believed to be legal. Don't tell people how many cars your gonna pull ahead of time. Yeah you could have somebody who had everything rigged to be able to switch, but depending on ecu's etc. it isn't necessarily that easy to do if you are immediately impounded. You'd have to have it rigged up ahead of time inside the car. However, I don't know that I think it is feasible to dyno every car, and I certainly wouldn't wanna make assumptions on power without some Idea of the cars legality. You definetly can still get around it if you want. This approach would give you evidence to present to the CRB should something like the audi come up again. you could say, heres the dyno information and it only made 1.25 for a power adder. The qualifying must have been good driving/bumpdrafting. If the standard multiplier was too low you'd have all the information you needed to justify adjusting the power multiplier.
All that said I really don't know that it is necessary. My personal opinion is that for the most part if overdogs exist and they show up too big races eventually somebody will build it and submit dyno sheets and then you'll have both the performances to trigger looking into it and the information to back up changing the power multiplier. IT isn't broken right now, although the idea of honest to goodness comp adjustments makes me think the chess match may begin soon. How much do you build, and how much do you show becomes the question?
Good points.
I'll add that for whatever reason, we have never failed to get dyno plots from overdogs...E36, rX7, Z car, Integra, Miata, CRX, 325e, Golf, etc. In practice, despite what I agree are serious concerns, the system seems to work.
I would in no way even think of running in IT if I had to run an SIR. Go over to the GT board and see what goes on with an SIR. It is not as simple as bolting one in.
Blake Meredith
Can you imagine all the new people run away with just the mention of a SIR? I'd shake my head and consider my options.
Ok, a couple of things here. I re-ran my math, and I was a bit off. Turns out that the Rabbit GTI is almost 220# over its 'process' weight (217.5# by my calculations), and that's w/o a strut/beam subtractor.
Kirk,
While I understand that fudging the numbers may have been ok w/ the ITAC at the time of tGR, I don't think any of the rest of us figured that that's what they were going to do.
Andy,
Do you really expect me not to throw the BS flag on that one? You used mfg. published hp for every other car, yet you took someone's claim that they got 100 whp on a dyno? No other data to determine how accurate the data were? An example of a bone-stock version, to get an idea on drive line loss? It's pretty well accepted that there is a significant variation in the various brands of dynos. Did you have actual dyno plots, as well as tear-down infor on the motor to guarantee that it was legal? Did Chris Albin's opinion carry more weight, just becasue he was 'the VW guy on the ITAC'?
You guys sold people a bill of goods when you did tGR. Cars were supposed to get treated the same, and treated objectively. You guys did neither.
Oh, and to get the process weight, even using your 100 whp #, you have to assume a 20% drive line loss. And regardless if you're looking a mfg. stated hp or measured whp, if you're getting 100 whp, you're still at almost a 1.40 power factor. That's just not happening w/ a legal IT tune on that motor. What other car in the ITCS gets saddled w/ a 1.40 power factor?
People are talking about the Audi being 200# heavy, the Rabbit GTI is more than that, and show me the anecdotal evidence that's even close to that of the Audi's.
You guys blew it when you didn't run all the cars in the ITCS through the process, and let the chips fall where they may. Have the faith in the PCA process to be able to correct things that were wrong. Instead, you tried to pull the wool over people's eyes. Now that stuff is all coming home to roost.
I'm really starting to regret ever coming back to this board. Nothing's changed, and nothing is going to change. As I said before, it sure will be interesting to see what IT is in 3-5 years.
One final thought on this, why the hell does the CRB and the BoD even give this stuff a second look? There's the 'no guarantee' clause in IT, and if you guys had just treated all the cars the same, they (CRB and BoD) would have been off the hook. They could have pointed to the 'no guarantee' clause and pointed to the fact that all the cars were treated the same, and been done with it. End of story. I still don't understand why IT is getting so much play w/ the PtB, unless they've got something else cooking in the back room.
/edit
To me, the whole SIR (bleh!) concept is really counter to what IT is all about. IIRC, the SIR allowance in the PCA language was something that was thrown in at the last min. by the CRB. They then screwed the pooch by throwing it at the E36 BMW. They really mucked it up when they got the size wrong. They (CRB) haven't even tried to throw them at Prod (they still keep dicking w/ weight), and I don't think the GT crowd are happy w/ them yet. They really have no place in IT.
I don't know any specific answers, but the Rabbit GTI should make more gains than either Golf in ITB. It has the WORST exhaust manifold ever installed on a VW - swapping from the toilet bowl single outlet to the later dual outlet gives a 5hp bump on the A2. It has a lower stock compression and thus gains a bit more % wise with the .5 bump. I don't think the solid lifter head has any measureable differences from the later hydro. I would be surprised if it all added up to a 1.4 factor, but could see it being .05 more than the A2.
Chris,
I agree that the 'toilet bowl' exhaust manifold is soooo crappy, that it doesn't even make a good boat anchor. However, some differences between the A2 8v hyd. lifter motor and the A1 8v solid lifter motor (both 1.8). The A2 gets two things that help it, over the A1, see more gains when you put a better exhaust system on it. First, the A2 has a larger throttle body, so you can actually get more air into the engine, and second, it's got a higher lift cam (.400" vs. .369" for the A1). The A2 also gets a slightly longer duration (214 deg. vs 212 deg for the A1, both measured @ 0.050".
I know everybody trots out the crappy exhaust manifold, and I agree, it's a POS. But to start seeing real gains on the A1 motors, you've got to start swapping the cam and the throttle body as well.
As far as the gain from the .5 pt bump in compression, I'm not sure exactly how much you're seeing. Look at a stock JH (A1, 8.5:1) vs a stock RD (A2, 10:1). The JH makes 90 hp, and the RD makes 103 hp. The essential differences are compression, cam, and throttle body. Hard to say what makes the most contribution. Back in the day, one of the quick, cheap fixes to get some power out of a JH motor was to swap the exhaust manifold and cam from a 1.6 motor, and the t-body from either an A2 or an Audi 5k. That was said to give somewhere between 7 and 10 more hp. But keep in mind, you went from a .369" lift cam to a .405" lift cam. And again, you're back to a larger t-body, and a higher lift cam, neither of which are legal in IT. How much do you think you'll get out of that .5 pt bump in compression? 3hp? 5hp? 7hp? 10hp?
I'm sorry, but getting 30-35 hp out of a .5 pt bump in compression, a tweaked exhaust system, and a good balance & blueprint just doesn't happen w/ a JH motor. And those are the kinds of gains that are needed to justify the current spec weight.
I'm curious, have you guys ever dyno'd the motors out of the car, and in the car, just to get an idea of drive line loss? I know it's apples and oranges, and the differences are probably lost in the margin of error for the dyno, especially at these low numbers. Just curious as to what you guys think the drive line loss is.