ITB - what a bunch of crap

[tom91ita]

Audi Coupe GT
Engine/Engine Design
Arrangement: Front mounted, longitudinal
Type: 5-cylinder,10 valve, in-line
Bore: 3.19 in. (81.0 mm)
Stroke: 3.40 in. (86.4 mm)
Displacement: 136.0 cu. in. (2226 cc)
Compression Ratio: 8.5:1
Horsepower (SAE Net): 110 @ 5500 RPM
Torque: 122 ft. lbs.@ 2500 RPM


....major snips....

Remember this is a 10 valve motor that was very well built from the factory .......

Ray,

tom here from the ITB race at mid-ohio. i was beside you or the other audi at the 2007 IT Fest. my crx was the one with the flame job in the pits...

those are some interesting numbers for the HP vs. TQ compared to other cars. one thing that bothers me about OEM hp numbers is that some de-rate to meet certain govt. restrictions and others seem to have smaller horses because they want to look more powerful. these number do get manipulated somewhat.

what i find interesting in your numbers is the HP per CC and TQ per cc. here is the comparison of yours to mine (i am 91 hp and 93 TQ, btw).

audi: 4.94 HP per 100 cc (110hp 2226 cc)
crx: 6.12 HP per 100 cc (91 hp 1488 cc)

audi: 5.48 TQ per 100 cc (122 TQ (okay, ft-#'s, etc.))
crx: 6.25 TQ per 100 cc (93 TQ)

on the face of it, i would think that your car could gain quite a bit since it is starting with such a large motor. now some of this no doubt due to mine having 3 valves per cylinder vs. the two you have.

however, when looking at weight per motor size, my car as classed is 1.43 #'s per cc vs. yours is 1.14 #'s per cc.

i have said that the TQ is a bit of a red herring because most of the numbers i had seen were not that much different in the TQ to HP ratios. but mine is 1.02 and yours is 1.11.

not trying to start an argument, just trying to understand how the classing was applied to the two cars.

hope to see you on the grid this next year at mid-ohio. but hopefully out the driver's window instead of ahead of me on the grid and out the passenger window!

good luck. i hope the general requests being to get to the process weights within a 5# window instead of a 100 # window are good to you.

tom

[JeffYoung]

The prod like discussions above, while interesting and most offered with the best of intent, starting to scare me.

[Knestis]

The prod like discussions above, while interesting and most offered with the best of intent, starting to scare me.

I have to agree with Jeff but I think maybe we come to different conclusions: He *might* say, "This is an argument for not addressing these issues." I would *certainly* say, "Sorry, guys - none of that is going to be considered for IT classification or specification purposes." **

Kirk (who's afraid that Tom missed the point about the inconsistencies being the result of the process NOT being applied top to bottom, front to back, on all IT cars. Your question about "how the classing was applied to the two cars" moves from an incorrect first assumption)

** EDIT - were it my decision, which it's not.

[RSTPerformance]

Jeff-

It scares me a bit also... It seems like it might be hard to make everyone happy with this process, afterall people are already arguing that the Audi is "different" and should not be run through the process the same. I have to be honest and say that I never expected to run the process on the Audi and get those numbers, but I do think that if that is our process then we need to stick with it or change it. What is good for one, has to be good for the other, expecting a car to get a 39% gain in power because of an extra cylinder is rediculouse.

Andy/Greg... remember we can not use on track data to determine car classifications. Sure the Audi is good at Atlanta and Pocono, but go to NHMS... they are at least 1-2 seconds off the normal lap times. Would your thoughts on the classification change if NHMS was the high profile "ARRC" race??? Andy, you don't want to go down that "race-track" because I would have to side with Greg and beat you up on the Miatas ability at Lime Rock... and Greg don't get to excited, your old "egg" was dominant at a track or two if I remember correctly.

Raymond "Lastly... If anyone else sends me a PM to buy Dicks suspension... lol!!! We have spent thousands of dollars testing our own different front suspension designs on our cars, I think we have a better setup, but to each his/her own" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff-

It scares me a bit also... It seems like it might be hard to make everyone happy with this process, afterall people are already arguing that the Audi is "different" and should not be run through the process the same. I have to be honest and say that I never expected to run the process on the Audi and get those numbers, but I do think that if that is our process then we need to stick with it or change it. What is good for one, has to be good for the other, expecting a car to get a 39% gain in power because of an extra cylinder is rediculouse.

Andy/Greg... remember we can not use on track data to determine car classifications. Sure the Audi is good at Atlanta and Pocono, but go to NHMS... they are at least 1-2 seconds off the normal lap times. Would your thoughts on the classification change if NHMS was the high profile "ARRC" race??? Andy, you don't want to go down that "race-track" because I would have to side with Greg and beat you up on the Miatas ability at Lime Rock... and Greg don't get to excited, your old "egg" was dominant at a track or two if I remember correctly.

Raymond "Lastly... If anyone else sends me a PM to buy Dicks suspension... lol!!! We have spent thousands of dollars testing our own different front suspension designs on our cars, I think we have a better setup, but to each his/her own" Blethen

The point is not to hold up on-track results as the end-all. It's that one of your cars key strengths is power...and you are trying to tell us it's unbalanced and doesn't handle.

[67ITB]

Jeff-
Raymond "Lastly... If anyone else sends me a PM to buy Dicks suspension... lol!!! We have spent thousands of dollars testing our own different front suspension designs on our cars, I think we have a better setup, but to each his/her own" Blethen

I will see if Dick has Dyno #'s in Lournecos car. But I am not sure if they had ever taken it to the Dyno before Allan "retired" from racing.
Just looking at what Shine did for our little 1.8 makes me think he could get some gains from that thing

Ok, so no PM, but I will talk to Eli and see if we have some in our pile that he would be willing to part with. I am not sure what the future plans are for Tims car, so he may not want to part with any spares just yet.

Matt bal

[Greg Amy]

Raymond "Lastly... If anyone else sends me a PM to buy Dicks suspension... lol!!! We have spent thousands of dollars testing our own different front suspension designs on our cars, I think we have a better setup, but to each his/her own" Blethen

Am I the only one that finds that absolutely freakin' HILARIOUS, considering you're unhappy with the handling of the car...?

[Ed Funk]

[quote=Greg Amy;277842]

absolutely freakin' HILARIOUS
at least mildly amusing

[StephenB]

Am I the only one that finds that absolutely freakin' HILARIOUS, considering you're unhappy with the handling of the car...?

I don't think its hilarious at all. I wouldn't take another suspension set-up if it was FREE. My set-up on my car I feel is the best set-up for the car. The only thing I think that could use honest develepment is struts and shocks that I simply do not have the deep pockets for or the knowledge for.

I do feel that other cars with less front end weight should probably handle a bit better but I do not have this personal experience to claim this as true or not. (I have 830ish pounds on both front wheels and 420 pounds on each of the rears.) with a large wheelbase. I truelly do not know the balance of other cars as this is the only car in this class that I have worked on and have experience with.

Stephen Blethen
ITB Audi Coupe #50
The best handling 2wd Audi Coupe in SCCA! Yes mine is better than Raymonds.

[StephenB]

Andy... Since Raymond never answered.

NO dyno work ever.

Stephen

[R2 Racing]

I do feel that other cars with less front end weight should probably handle a bit better but I do not have this personal experience to claim this as true or not. (I have 830ish pounds on both front wheels and 420 pounds on each of the rears.) with a large wheelbase.

Stephen, I hate to tell you this, but my Integra corner weighs right around 870/430, and on a wheelbase longer than yours. I think it does alright.

[tom91ita]

The prod like discussions above, while interesting and most offered with the best of intent, starting to scare me.

i guess i am unsure what a prod like discussion is.

i was trying to be civil and discuss what might have been part of the basis for the classing. that is one very large motor in an ITB car. i have no idea if the car went through "The Process" but i do know the car was "classed."

i have sent my letter to the CRB asking that the process be done for all cars to the nearest 5 or 10 #'s or 0.5% of what scales can read, etc. if the scales can't find 5#'s, it might be a bit much to have the process designate it. so to the nearest 10#'s would be fine with me.

i also disclosed in the letter that i think a review of the process would improve my situation with the 86 crx si. i thought it only proper to state what i was driving and where i thought it should be. i am also hoping that it will improve Ray's situation. over the course of a 20 lap race, that is a lot of mass to slow down, etc.

i want to beat Ray at the mid-ohio IT Fest because my car is better prepared and better driven. not because of inadvertent weighting that occurred when the cars were classed.

besides, it is kind of embarassing to get beat by a car that has the weight "penalties" his has.