off topic discussion about current IT issues and more specifically ITB.

After following and participating on forums for a while now, and have become more and more involved in trying to help out. I know it has been mentioned before, (I believe by Andy B.) But has anybody else noticed that a lot of the weird problem child recent re-classifications or cars that were a part of the issues between the ITAC and the CRB have notoriously been ITB cars? Other cars in other class of IT, the CRB has taken the ITAC's recommendation. However for some reason for ITB, many issues have risen.


Is this just a coincidence?

thoughts..

I'll say this. Not in defense of the CRB, but as just a factual issue, ITB seems to have the greatest cross section of cars in IT. Seriously, there are cars from the 60s, and cars from 6 or so years ago. So it represents a huge change in technology. And that makes classing difficult.

I'll let Andy expand upon the factor applied to cars in ITB, specifically the 30% 'standard' for 16V cars going into ITB. He's got the best handle on the situation, but, generally speaking, when first adopted, I think the Process represented a bit of fear of 16V cars. (I was just coming on board the ITAC at this point) I think this was due to some problem children that were 16V. As it turns out, those cars were over achievers for different reasons, like under rated factory HP. But the Process suggested higher power factors for those cars. It also said "Discuss to make sure this makes sense" for every classification.

In the Great Reorg, certain cars were classified with higher factors than 25%, especially in ITA. See reasons for that above. And subsequently, there have been some classifications of 16V cars in ITB. (2 at 30% that I can think of) The CRB has been very insistent that 16V cars going into ITB MUST be at 30%. "That's how we were able to agree to put 16V cars in ITB" they say.

(It should be pointed out that, some people have set ideas of what 'kind' of car fits in what class. For example there was a distinct opposition among certain ITAC and CRB members against putting the American Pony cars into ITR. "They'll ruin the class", "It will look like a stock car race", "ITR is for SPORTS cars", were some of the remarks. And there is, among some members, the feeling that ITB isn't the place for "new" technology, like 16V cars.)

Anyway, somewhere along the way, the "Check to make sure this makes sense" clause resulted in most 16V cars NOT getting the higher gain factors, and in some cases, lesser factors than standard. it became the operative standard to start at 25%, and entertain evidence to the contrary. If none existed, the cars are classed at 25%. It's been that way for -3+ (?...Andy?) years now.

Additionally, adjustments where we knew something have been made. If the data exists and has the confidence vote of the ITAC, the weight will be calculated using actual hp. The recent RX-8 adjustment is an example.

So, at the time I left the ITAC, there was disagreement regarding a number of cars in ITB, most notably the MR2. The CRB insists that 30% is the right factor, the ITAC insists 25% is the standard, and that's before actual numbers are used. A case could be made to use 20% based on evidence.

Now, why haven't the issues occurred in other classes? Well, ITC sees little committee action. ITA...I dunno. ITS and ITR have their situations, but they are different.

Broadly speaking, I'd also suggest that while ITA saw a substantial increase in its "index" - approximately how fast leading cars are - around the time of the (not so) Great Realignment, ITB did NOT. It wasn't forced to shift performance, so the "old order" and the "new order" are forced to coexist. Further, there were (and still are in some cases) ex-ITA cars that were left out after the bump in performance there. I *believe" that some members still think of some of those them as "ITA cars," so are resistant to including them.

Finally - and I'm going to be VERY explicit about my language here - it's the category with which the "IT members" of the CRB are most familiar. I absolutely do NOT believe that Chris A. and Peter K. are manipulating the listings to the advantage of the cars they drive...

^ ^ ^
READ THAT AGAIN BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER

...however, they have a TON of experience closely watching the class, as it is today and as it has changed over the years. That leaves them with a perspective that is essentially impossible for them to escape, when they look at how "right" car weights are. You could tell either of them that Model X should weigh XXXX pounds in ITB and they could instantly formulate a position about what they think it would do to the class.

They are probably, mostly, pretty close.

HOWEVER, this concentration of decision-making - to the degree that they can influence the final weight of cars in ITB - simply looks bad. I was a classroom teacher and coach of girls athletics, so I know a little something about the sucky realities of that kind of deal. It's NOT necessary for something hinky to have been going on, for people to get it in their heads that it's not OK for Mr. Knestis to wait all alone with little Cindy in a gym late at night after a volleyball game...

I make no apologies about the belief that this is a huge part of the reason that Process v.2 is superior ot the practices applied to the recent listings we've seen - most pointedly, the MR2. An appearance of impropriety is as damaging to an organization or culture as actual shenanigans.

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lateapex911

(It should be pointed out that, some people have set ideas of what 'kind' of car fits in what class. For example there was a distinct opposition among certain ITAC and CRB members against putting the American Pony cars into ITR. "They'll ruin the class", "It will look like a stock car race", "ITR is for SPORTS cars", were some of the remarks. And there is, among some members, the feeling that ITB isn't the place for "new" technology, like 16V cars.)

---

That's some pretty funny stuff right there Jake. I didn't realize a car that was 25 years old (like the AW11 MR2 w/ the 4A-GE engine) was considered 'new' technology. What other 'new' technology shouldn't be in ITB, EFI? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

Finally - and I'm going to be VERY explicit about my language here - it's the category with which the "IT members" of the CRB are most familiar. I absolutely do NOT believe that Chris A. and Peter K. are manipulating the listings to the advantage of the cars they drive...

^ ^ ^
READ THAT AGAIN BEFORE YOU GO ANY FURTHER

...however, they have a TON of experience closely watching the class, as it is today and as it has changed over the years. That leaves them with a perspective that is essentially impossible for them to escape, when they look at how "right" car weights are. You could tell either of them that Model X should weigh XXXX pounds in ITB and they could instantly formulate a position about what they think it would do to the class.

---

Kirk,

There shouldn't even be the chance for them to manipulate listings to the advantage of the cars that they drive, as they shouldn't be voting on things related to specific cars in the class(es) that they run in (in this case, ITB). And while I'm sure they can formulate very good opinions about the impact of of a new ITB classification, they really should keep it to themselves.

You really have to head it off at the pass. Don't give people any ability to make claims of impropriety. I'm one of the leaders in my son's Boy Scout troop. We have VERY specific guidelines about adults being alone w/ the boys. We are required to go to specific training on the subject, and have to have refreshers every two years. Yes, a main purpose is to educate people. But it's also to CYA.

You know what they say, perception is reality. And if someone thinks that there's a chance for monkey business, that's all it takes. The SCCA's past history sure doesn't help in that regard.

I don't think the Process has served ITB particularly well in the last few years. I can only speculate if V2 would have been any better. I think a measure of adjustment based on observed on track performance is the simplest way maintain or reestablish balance in the class. And, I dont care who makes the decisions or if it is transparent and repeatable, as long as it nets good results.

I think I'm the Anti-Kirk. Instead of "transparent and repeatabe" I favor "Checks and Balances"

This is not to say I'm against using and further refining "The Process". I think it's a great peice of work. But, I don't think some of it's creators respect the limitations of the process. These limitations seem to be most apparent in ITB due to the diversity of the cars in the class. ITR is also a devirse class and I wouldn't be surprised if it has similar issues as the class develops.

I kinda like that term "Problem Child".

Actually, the Process didn't fail ITB. I probably failed ITB to some extent. There have been cars over the past years that have been classed in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, one person can only argue so much until it becomes a situation of coming to a conclusion. I should have fought harder then - and V.2 put in place policies where I wouldn't have had to fight at all.

Cars have been classed from 25% to 30% in ITB while other classes have used 25%. More cars in ITB have been refused 'process based adjustments' than in any other class. These cars could be at 40+%. So you have a variety of weights based on a variey of menthods. It's not a flaw in the Process, it's a flaw in the consistancy of it's application. For those who think ITB is the most broken class, think about what I just wrote. Allowing V.2 to go and revise these issues would bring ITB in line quicker than you would imagine.

Quote:

---

I think a measure of adjustment based on observed on track performance is the simplest way maintain or reestablish balance in the class. And, I dont care who makes the decisions or if it is transparent and repeatable, as long as it nets good results.

---

Charlie, I can't possibly disagree with you any more (with all due respect of course lol). I only know of one other person in the country that races a 2nd gen ITB Prelude. Using your theory, I never should have built my car much, not bothered to work hard on becoming a better driver and could have simply waited for my car to be adjusted due to on track performance. Nice! Then once I got that adjustment, built the car to its full potential. Wheeee!

Since you don't car who makes the decisions and I now won't have to bother making my decision transparent, I'm slapping on 400 lbs to any VW and Volvo because.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Broring

..... I think a measure of adjustment based on observed on track performance is the simplest way maintain or reestablish balance in the class. .............".

---

i agree 100% that it is the simplest. i also think it is not the best or most fair.

Charlie, i see a volvo in your profile. is that your ITB of choice?

with regards to on track performance, my car sucks because i am the one driving it. it is always my hope that i can get better times than the ITC version of my car when at the ARRC. i will post up the multipliers for my car later.

I've got a theory - that I can't substantiate with anything other than anecdote and hearsay - that might bear on your perspective, Charles:

I think that the ITB Volvos are the victim of perceptions, going back to the days pre-(not so)-Great-Alignment. A few, key, cheater examples raised perceptions of what that car could do "on the track," that persisted and got considered during what I think of as the "soft use" of the very first (nsGR-era) process.

I think it's damned hard to make a legal Volvo competitive now because current weights are a legacy of codfying observed performance of a few illegal cars into the 142 spec line, and beyond into the other "Scary Volvos" in the book...

As Andy explains, v.2 would have allowed the ITAC to address issues like that, that exist all the way through the ITB section of the ITCS.

And as I've tried to explain elsewhere, WHOSE results should be used to establish "balance in the class?" How about my performances at the IT fest and SIC in 2008? (Nice, high profile events like the RubOffs, that establish the benchmarks for National cars.) The Golf III would weigh 200# less than it does by that standard. Sure, you say - a couple other Golfs ran really well at Mid-O but what if (as Dave alludes to) I had been driving the only Fiat Brava, and that it had been prepared to what is arguably a pretty damned high standard by Cameron Conover?

Surely it would deserve to get lighter, right?

K

PS - I personally think a Fiat Brava would be a kick-ass cool ITB car, and if I had $40K of spare dough laying around, I'd build one. Then having proved it's too heavy, I'd lobby for a weight reduction with another basket full of dough... ;)

EDIT - A little napkin math suggests that the 2.1 version of the 242 needs a power multiplier of something like 1.65(!) to get to its current ITCS spec weight. REALLY...? In IT-legal form, we think that's going to happen...?? NFW. Version 2 would be on that like stink on a Road Atlanta porta-john in mid-August.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Broring

I don't think the Process has served ITB particularly well in the last few years. I can only speculate if V2 would have been any better. I think a measure of adjustment based on observed on track performance is the simplest way maintain or reestablish balance in the class. And, I dont care who makes the decisions or if it is transparent and repeatable, as long as it nets good results.

I think I'm the Anti-Kirk. Instead of "transparent and repeatabe" I favor "Checks and Balances"

This is not to say I'm against using and further refining "The Process". I think it's a great peice of work. But, I don't think some of it's creators respect the limitations of the process. These limitations seem to be most apparent in ITB due to the diversity of the cars in the class. ITR is also a devirse class and I wouldn't be surprised if it has similar issues as the class develops.

I kinda like that term "Problem Child".

---

Charlie,

Can you give some examples of what you mean by 'not serving ITB well'? Also, what do you consider 'good results'?

From what I've seen, most think ITB is pretty well balanced, but there a few cars that have gotten hosed along the way (Audi, 4A-GE Toyotas, Rabbit GTI, etc.). I haven't seen anyone that thinks there's an overdog in ITB, and if you want to use on track performance, look at recent ARRC results, there's nothing that seems to be a 'class killer'. What cars do you think have 'unbalanced' ITB?

Using on track performance really only works in one direction. You need a LOT more info to convince someone that a car is just slow than you do to convince someone that it's an overdog. If a car isn't performing that well, it can be due to a number of things, driver ability, prep level, budget, as well as the car. Much harder to quantify. If you've got multiple examples of a car that's always at the front, or runs away from the field, it's much easier to convince someone that it's probably the car.

How is it not uncool for ITAC or CRB members to vote on cars in their own class? I don't mean IT drivers voting on any IT classification. I mean a ITB driver voting on a ITB classification. Conflict of interest by definition no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

EDIT - A little napkin math suggests that the 2.1 version of the 242 needs a power multiplier of something like 1.65(!) to get to its current ITCS spec weight. REALLY...? In IT-legal form, we think that's going to happen...?? NFW. Version 2 would be on that like stink on a Road Atlanta porta-john in mid-August.

---

So can anyone on the BoD, CRB, ITAC explain why a 98 hp 2.0L OHV Volvo 240, a 107 hp 2.1L SOHC Volvo 240, and a 114 hp 2.3L SOHC Volvo 240 all have the same curb weight? If they're all going to have the same weight, wheelbase & brakes they might as well be one line item.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsportvolvo

So can anyone on the BoD, CRB, ITAC explain why a 98 hp 2.0L OHV Volvo 240, a 107 hp 2.1L SOHC Volvo 240, and a 114 hp 2.3L SOHC Volvo 240 all have the same curb weight? If they're all going to have the same weight, wheelbase & brakes they might as well be one line item.

---

<sigh>

BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T ALL BEEN THROUGH THE SAME SPECIFICATION PROCESS.

(Yes, I was hollering but for Pete's sake, people - we've been saying this over and over and OVER here for MONTHS.)

That kind of situation was right on the table in front of the ITAC last spring, as we finalized and codified "version 2" of the Process. We wanted to address these glitches systematically, the CRB (it seemed) wanted to retain the option of picking race weights they were more comfortable with, than those that the Process determined.

We had people theoretically doing the due diligence on several of the Volvos at the time but I fear that may all have gone PFFFTT! in the ensuing months. Or who knows? Maybe it will all get ironed out with the April Fastrack...

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mom'sZ

How is it not uncool for ITAC or CRB members to vote on cars in their own class? I don't mean IT drivers voting on any IT classification. I mean a ITB driver voting on a ITB classification. Conflict of interest by definition no?

---

The ITAC members typically abstain. On issues involving my RX-7 in ITA, I would present info, make recommendations, but didn't vote. Same for Andy and his Miata. At that juncture, the committee was larger and usually there were enough votes and most issues resulted in one sided votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knestis

<sigh>

BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T ALL BEEN THROUGH THE SAME SPECIFICATION PROCESS.

(Yes, I was hollering but for Pete's sake, people - we've been saying this over and over and OVER here for MONTHS.)

That kind of situation was right on the table in front of the ITAC last spring, as we finalized and codified "version 2" of the Process. We wanted to address these glitches systematically, the CRB (it seemed) wanted to retain the option of picking race weights they were more comfortable with, than those that the Process determined.

We had people theoretically doing the due diligence on several of the Volvos at the time but I fear that may all have gone PFFFTT! in the ensuing months. Or who knows? Maybe it will all get ironed out with the April Fastrack...

K

---

So my request last spring to review the Volvo 240 line items was just for corrections? What was the point of digging up all the data and filling out the VTS forms? That's really disappointing if my request was not taken seriously. I know Les Chaney helped me out a bunch getting all of the info situated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lateapex911

The ITAC members typically abstain. On issues involving my RX-7 in ITA, I would present info, make recommendations, but didn't vote. Same for Andy and his Miata. At that juncture, the committee was larger and usually there were enough votes and most issues resulted in one sided votes.

---

I thought I remembered you mentioning that Jake and I think that is cool. Seems having to write it (ITAC members not voting on issues that effect their specific IT class or their specific car) into the rules would kind of suck especially if the group is small or composed of a lot of guys from one class but...
I guess that's what bums me out the most about the recent departures from the ITAC... I had come to trust you guys. Not by blind faith, but by watching what you (not just you Jake, but you the whole commitee) had done and how you had done it.

David, your request and many others were taken seriously by the ITAC. That's not where the problem lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gran racing

David, your request and many others were taken seriously by the ITAC. That's not where the problem lies.

---

I know the ITAC took my request seriously, it's the BoD and CRB that I take issue with. Maybe I should just re-request a line item review. The squeaky wheel gets the grease!

David, I can't remember exactly, and I can't go look it up anymore, but there were some volvo questions that took some sorting. I seem to recall your letter was specific regarding spec line issues, but more ambiguous about the cars weight. As in, it wasn't worded in such a way as to be clear that you wanted a weight review.

The committee was/is rather specific in it's responses to questions. If you feel the weight is in error, then by all means re submit. (I'm not sure what the standard will be going forward regarding such requests though...although Bob Dowie stated that it would be 'business as usual" (?) in the SCCA thread. )

That's another point about letters, it makes more sense (to me at least) to send separate letters for separate requests/issues. That way, it's easier for committees to knock it out. If they have to research or table any item of a multi item request, everything gets held up. So, in the future, I'll separate my requests into individual letters when I send them in.

I tried to cover too much in my request. There were errors in the spec lines that were fixed. I intended or assumed the cars would be run through the process as standard procedure, mistake on my part. Per your suggestion I will request a weight review for each line item as a separate letter.

Sorry for the thread hijacking!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsportvolvo

So my request last spring to review the Volvo 240 line items was just for corrections? What was the point of digging up all the data and filling out the VTS forms? That's really disappointing if my request was not taken seriously. I know Les Chaney helped me out a bunch getting all of the info situated.

---

Again, we loop back to definitions. The ITAC at the time defined "correction" in terms of the degree to which any given car's weight didn't square with what the Process said it should be. What "correction" means now - not to be too much of a bitch about it - seems to be, "How different it is from what some key members of the CRB think it should be."

To be fair though, the CRB never actually GOT a recommendation from the ITAC on the Volvi. They got sucked into the "do we call a do-over on ITB?" vortex, then the "nothing is getting approved turmoil," then the "I just can't be part of this anymore" hoedown.

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gran racing

Charlie, I can't possibly disagree with you any more (with all due respect of course lol). I only know of one other person in the country that races a 2nd gen ITB Prelude. Using your theory, I never should have built my car much, not bothered to work hard on becoming a better driver and could have simply waited for my car to be adjusted due to on track performance. Nice! Then once I got that adjustment, built the car to its full potential. Wheeee!

Since you don't car who makes the decisions and I now won't have to bother making my decision transparent, I'm slapping on 400 lbs to any VW and Volvo because.

---

Dave I'm OK with the weight on the VW but wish you would reconsider the poor old Volvo.

There is a pretty common opinion down at Summit that the MK-3 VW and both the big and little Honda's have outdated the older ITB cars. Both you and your car made a very impressive showing down at SP Labor day. I hope you can make it back this season. Possibly the Volvo and Prelude can share that 400 pounds? 200 each? or maybe 100 and 300... oh never mind.

Charlie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Broring

Dave I'm OK with the weight on the VW but wish you would reconsider the poor old Volvo.

There is a pretty common opinion down at Summit that the MK-3 VW and both the big and little Honda's have outdated the older ITB cars. Both you and your car made a very impressive showing down at SP Labor day. I hope you can make it back this season. Possibly the Volvo and Prelude can share that 400 pounds? 200 each? or maybe 100 and 300... oh never mind.

Charlie

---

Charlie,

How old were the the tires you were using? How many seasons are on your motor? I know that the little Hondas were running fresh rubber and 2 of 3 had brand-new motors this season (and the third motor isn't that old). The shocks on the CRXs were rebuilt recently... how old are the suspensions on the European Tanks?

The little Hondas have 1.5 liter motors, 91 HP and 93bhp@4500RPM
The 142Es have 2 liter motors, 118 HP and 123bhp@3500RPM.
The Golf III, has got a 2liter, 115HP and decent torque.

Running all through the process giving by Dowie at the SCCA forums, and depending on what one adds for having enough torque to pull a semi out of the mud, the 142Es are probably 175-230 lbs too heavy. The CRX is carrying an extra 250 pounds. The Golf is close to 200 pounds too light!

I'll give you the 230, but only if the CRX gets to lose it's extra driver too.

Jeff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Broring

Dave I'm OK with the weight on the VW but wish you would reconsider the poor old Volvo.

There is a pretty common opinion down at Summit that the MK-3 VW and both the big and little Honda's have outdated the older ITB cars. Both you and your car made a very impressive showing down at SP Labor day. I hope you can make it back this season. Possibly the Volvo and Prelude can share that 400 pounds? 200 each? or maybe 100 and 300... oh never mind.

Charlie

---

Charlie, I'm not agreeing OR disagreeing with what's heavy, and what's not.
But...keep in mind that's one track, one event. I know you feel the 'modern era' ITB cars are outpacing the 'old skool' era ITB cars, but, one of the villians at Summit, Dave Gran, saw his car gets spanked at the Glen....by a BMW 2002. Old skool reigns! And sets a track record. (Albeit in qualifying)

Also, consider that a certain RX-7 set a track record that same weekend. Should the RX-7 get weight? ;) (As you know, that record was set in the IT-7 class).

So, it's partly good prep, bringing resources, and a bit of luck.

BUT, being allowed to use V2 would certainly give us a good point of reference.

I already share some weight with ya Charlie. ); Using he same process that says your car is too heavy, mine has an extra 110 lbs (or there abouts, can't remember exactly anymore). I won't bring up the Golf III or IV because pretty much everyone knows my thoughts on those cars.

Going back to using performance - there are simply too many factors that impact things. I took the Labor Day weekend pretty seriously knowing that would be one of the three race weekends I could participate in '09. For the event, I had 2 sets of brandy new Hoosiers. I know plenty of other ITB drivers choose not to be so silly with their tire allocation.

I had an engine overheating issue in my subsequent race but have the Labor Day event at Summit as one of the ones I really want to attend this year. Awesome event overall and you guys were more than welcoming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jjjanos

Charlie,

How old were the the tires you were using? How many seasons are on your motor? I know that the little Hondas were running fresh rubber and 2 of 3 had brand-new motors this season (and the third motor isn't that old). The shocks on the CRXs were rebuilt recently... how old are the suspensions on the European Tanks?

The little Hondas have 1.5 liter motors, 91 HP and 93bhp@4500RPM
The 142Es have 2 liter motors, 118 HP and 123bhp@3500RPM.
The Golf III, has got a 2liter, 115HP and decent torque.

Running all through the process giving by Dowie at the SCCA forums, and depending on what one adds for having enough torque to pull a semi out of the mud, the 142Es are probably 175-230 lbs too heavy. The CRX is carrying an extra 250 pounds. The Golf is close to 200 pounds too light!

I'll give you the 230, but only if the CRX gets to lose it's extra driver too.

Jeff

---

Here is the deal on the GolfIII guys. It is spot on the process except we subtracted 50lbs for the beam rear axle. In V.2 clarified the 'crappy rear suspension' subtracter to just a solid axle for rwd cars. That car wouldn't get a torque adder with my vote and it was processed at 25%. So it's 50lbs too light according to V.2.

The other cars could get redone should the CRB allow the ITAC to help them.

Here we go again. If the G3 is 50 light, the G2 is at least 50 heavy - not the 10 requested. The math does not add up, because some unknown point of data convinced the ITAC that the G2 gains 30% (or was that 27%?), yet the G3 is processed at 25%. It has the same compression ratio, longer stroke, larger bore, cross flow head with thinner valve stems that flows better than the counter flow head/valves on the G2, and uses a better flowing MAF. Now the process does not take those items into account, only a documented higher power output. The G3 is capable of the same or higher gains than the G2, but I predict that data will never be made available to the ITAC.

The cars have literally identical chassis designs, albeit the G3 has a wider track and larger brakes. If you consider the cars equivalent and assume that the power gain is the only differentiator you see that the current G3 specification must assume a 22% power gain. So something does not jive in how these cars were 'processed' at approximately the same point in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt

Here is the deal on the GolfIII guys. It is spot on the process except we subtracted 50lbs for the beam rear axle. In V.2 clarified the 'crappy rear suspension' subtracter to just a solid axle for rwd cars. That car wouldn't get a torque adder with my vote and it was processed at 25%. So it's 50lbs too light according to V.2.

The other cars could get redone should the CRB allow the ITAC to help them.

---

You miss my point. The Volvo is just fine in weight. Most old cars except for the poor early VW's are fine. Even the Audi is fine. A few recently classed cars, most notibally the VW MK 3 are significantly too light or just too fast. The process formula is off in ITB and you will never see it unless you look at on track performance.

I've said too much. Back into the woodwork.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shwah

Here we go again. If the G3 is 50 light, the G2 is at least 50 heavy - not the 10 requested. The math does not add up, because some unknown point of data convinced the ITAC that the G2 gains 30% (or was that 27%?), yet the G3 is processed at 25%. It has the same compression ratio, longer stroke, larger bore, cross flow head with thinner valve stems that flows better than the counter flow head/valves on the G2, and uses a better flowing MAF. Now the process does not take those items into account, only a documented higher power output. The G3 is capable of the same or higher gains than the G2, but I predict that data will never be made available to the ITAC.

The cars have literally identical chassis designs, albeit the G3 has a wider track and larger brakes. If you consider the cars equivalent and assume that the power gain is the only differentiator you see that the current G3 specification must assume a 22% power gain. So something does not jive in how these cars were 'processed' at approximately the same point in time.

---

The G3 is processed @ 25%, the G2 is processed @ 30%, and the G1 is processed at 39%.

Chris,

I agree with you that if the G2 is processed @ 30%, it's at least 50# heavy. If they processed the G3 @ 30%, it would need ~140#. And if you processes the G1 @ 30%, it should lose ~140#.

If you process the G1 and G2 @ 25%, you get 1865# for the G1 and and 2140# for the G2. I don't think it's possible to get an IT-legal G1 that light. If you process the G1 for ITC, you get 2070# @ 25% and 2155# @ 30%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Broring

You miss my point. The Volvo is just fine in weight. Most old cars except for the poor early VW's are fine. Even the Audi is fine. A few recently classed cars, most notibally the VW MK 3 are significantly too light or just too fast. The process formula is off in ITB and you will never see it unless you look at on track performance.

I've said too much. Back into the woodwork.

---

Then you miss my point. The ITAC uses a Process to class cars. Some of the Volvo's, the Audi's and numerous other ITB cars reside in the ITCS at weights that are undocumented and unexplainable. In order to bring THEM in line, they have to be re-examined under the current way of doing things, so it is those cars that are 'wrong'...for no other reason than nobody has any idea why the weights were set and if those methods where comparable then.

I assume the VW 2.0L is a 8 valve? didn't they make a 16 valve one, or did that not come over to teh states?

I think they did, and they are in ITA. Also the 16V 1.8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quadzjr

I assume the VW 2.0L is a 8 valve? didn't they make a 16 valve one, or did that not come over to teh states?

---

Correct on the on we race. The 2.0 16v did come in the last MkII GTIs (the ITA car) and Passats.

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quadzjr

I assume the VW 2.0L is a 8 valve? didn't they make a 16 valve one, or did that not come over to teh states?

---

As noted. Golf 3 2.0 is an 8v crossflow head. It was also available with a 1.9 TDi and a 2.8 VR6. Golf 2 was available in 1.8 8v, 1.8 16v and 2.0 16v flavors. The 16vs are ITA cars.

Allegedly some of the 8vs 'sound' like ITA cars though :shrug:

cough286cough

:)

K

What's 286?

It's the "stock" cam that seemed to be pretty popular in Rabbits and Golfs (including at least one SSC '86 GTI I knew of) back in the day.

I drove a 1.6 Rabbit that a guy was trying to sell me, that had the amazing ability to keep up with BMW 2002s on the straight. And I didn't think at the time that the Bimmers were legal.

It does make them make purty noises.

K

EDIT - Make no mistake. It's NOT stock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gran racing

What's 286?

---

A top of the line Intel processor circa mid '80s :D

What is all this mewling about?

Not that on-track results mean anything but:

The 2009 NARRC championship was contested over a 14 race season;

There were 48 different ITB entrants over the course of the year; and

Seven entrants ran 5 or more races.

Of those seven:

A Volvo 142 dominated the competition;

A Volvo 142 was second in the championship;

VW Golf A3's were third and fifth;

VW Golf A2's were fourth and sixth; and

A BMW 2002 was seventh.

A certain yellow Prelude destroyed the Watkins Glen ITB track record for the long course, taking that distinction from an A3 Golf who in turn took it over from a Volvo 142.

Certainly there are corrections needed to individual listings. Perhaps the Volvo 242 should be at a different weight.

I certainly would not object to 50 lbs on my A3, nor reducing the A2's by 50 lbs. It is far too granular for what we are doing to male much difference. But the standards and processes for setting weights should be tight and transparent.

Personally, I predict the Prelude will dominate next year if it can get out to more races.

Just spouting off,

DZ