Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Jeremy Billiel]

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.

Well Jeff be careful now because some of those dyno plots are engine builders that are using them to sell more engines and *may* be inflated.

[Xian]

What other car in the ITCS gets saddled w/ a 1.40 power factor?

Take a look at the 106hp CRX/Civic in ITA. Also the Integra in ITA is pretty far up there...

I've definitely got some concerns about what I'm seeing (reading) that is going on WRT the CRB and ITAC (not the folks ON the ITAC though!) but that power adder isn't the complete one off that you act like it is.

Christian

[JeffYoung]

Or from people submitting sheets with underreported figures trying to game the system.

It's not a precise science, but I think the ITAC collectively does a pretty good job as a group in reviewing dyno data in a critical fashion. With the number of us on the committee, and the differing perspectives we bring, there are a fair number of individual checks and balances that seem to prevent drastic mistakes.

But we are constantly learning. For example, the perception a few years back was that a Dynapak always read lower than a Jet. That's not the case, and we have educated ourselves (or I have, the others may have already known this) on these points.

[Knestis]

>> 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.

I dare say that there's more than a little possibility that the "correct" Rabbit GTI weight, established during the GR, *might* have been influenced by observations of on-track performance of a few cars that *might* not have had the right cam. There was a period of time during what I think of as the "cowboy days" of IT (c.1985-1995, when "stock cam" was loosely interpreted as "286."

K

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

The standard line you heard pretty much any time a Rabbit GTI was mentioned, was that they were all cheating, and they were all running the 'G'-grind cam. Swap the exhaust manifold, go w/ a K&N air filter, bolt on an Audi 5k t-body, and drop in a 'G' cam, and it definitely woke those cars up a bit. That was what was referred to as a 'Stage I' tune, back in the day. What was nice, was that you could do the whole thing for <$200 in parts. Spend a little more, and get the Techtonics exhaust system, and it was even better. It was one of the first things I did to mine, way back when. It was still only ~ 15 extra hp. I had a friend that had a stock '86 8v GTI, and our cars were pretty evenly matched*.


*seat-of-the-pants dyno, and several off-the-light runs.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

Well, on the BS flag, you would lose the time out. We DIDN'T and DON'T use mfg published hp for every other car. Think through the process Bill, you know how it works. We use it as a starting point and then apply what we know, if we know anything. The VW guys on teh committee at the time (IIRC) were adiment that 100whp was possible. I recall them even saying they had done it. Not sure what else to tell you on that.

You sound like you want every car in the ITCS run throughat 25% regardless of what they actually have the capability to make. You know this isn't how its done. We also didn't blow it by not running every car through during the first GR. It was a fine line then that the B0D would even let us and we picked our cars as best as we could. To me, it was to be a stepping stone once proven to be able to go back and request the REAL GR...

[JeffYoung]

I wasn't on the ITAC at the time, but as a member at large, I certainly understood the realignment to be limited to a set of few key cars in each class. I don't think it was ever sold or presented as every car being run through the process, which while it should be done will involve a ton of work.

The Josh Sirota Theorem may help though -- for large batches of the "unloved and unraced" we simply delete the weight and don't process the car until a request to do so comes in.

But now I'm just more concerned about the process as a whole, and really see a need to move quickly to finalize it, codify it (to the extent we can within the ITAC), and publish it. Things like this acquire their own inertia and if we can get it in before anything "rash" happens, it might have a better chance of "sticking."

[lateapex911]

I wasn't on the ITAC at the time, but as a member at large, I certainly understood the realignment to be limited to a set of few key cars in each class. I don't think it was ever sold or presented as every car being run through the process, .........."

Correct, it's been presented here and elsewhere as such a million times. 10% of the cars were responsible for 90% of the problems. or something like that.

[Bill Miller]

Well, on the BS flag, you would lose the time out. We DIDN'T and DON'T use mfg published hp for every other car. Think through the process Bill, you know how it works. We use it as a starting point and then apply what we know, if we know anything. The VW guys on teh committee at the time (IIRC) were adiment that 100whp was possible. I recall them even saying they had done it. Not sure what else to tell you on that.

You sound like you want every car in the ITCS run throughat 25% regardless of what they actually have the capability to make. You know this isn't how its done. We also didn't blow it by not running every car through during the first GR. It was a fine line then that the B0D would even let us and we picked our cars as best as we could. To me, it was to be a stepping stone once proven to be able to go back and request the REAL GR...

C'mon Andy, an objective process based on one or two guy's claims w/o any supporting data? Please. And let's just say for the sake of arguement, that you can get 100 whp out of one of those motors, legally (I don't believe you can, but I'm playing along). IIRC, the process used published crank hp, not whp. As I said in an earlier post, you would need 20% drive line loss to make your numbers jive w/ what the weight is. Any data to support that?

And please tell me what would happen if you guys got a letter to run the Rabbit GTI through the process? How would it be handled any differently than the Audi?

/edit

As far as what happened w/ the BoD and tGR, I think you guys (ITAC) got played. I can hear it now, when you guys request to run all cars in the ITCS through the process.

Wait, didn't you just do that a couple of years ago? You didn't? Why not, you had the opportunity. We need stability in the category, and changing weights every couple of years is counter-productive to that goal. But thanks for playing.

[lateapex911]

As far as what happened w/ the BoD and tGR, I think you guys (ITAC) got played. I can hear it now, when you guys request to run all cars in the ITCS through the process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoD
Wait, didn't you just do that a couple of years ago? You didn't? Why not, you had the opportunity. We need stability in the category, and changing weights every couple of years is counter-productive to that goal. But thanks for playing.

Where did that quote you used come from?

[gran racing]

It was a joke Jake. That was pretty funny and could imagine that being said. LOL!

[Bill Miller]

It was a joke Jake. That was pretty funny and could imagine that being said. LOL!

Hey Dave,

I think Jake's post was even funnier!

And yes Jake, it was a joke. Sadly though, I don't think it's that far off.

[Knestis]

I think we need a rhetorical device icon...



K

[dickita15]

Kirk,
Sorry to hear of your resignation. Just got back from the runoffs so I am late to the party. I believe that your contribution to the ITAC in a short time will be long felt.

By the way from what I saw at the tent meeting the GTAC and the CRB have come to an understanding and all is well.

[lateapex911]

Kirk,
Sorry to hear of your resignation. Just got back from the runoffs so I am late to the party. I believe that your contribution to the ITAC in a short time will be long felt.

By the way from what I saw at the tent meeting the GTAC and the CRB have come to an understanding and all is well.

Dick, what was the situation that created the need for an understanding?

[JeffYoung]

There was this crazy Audi that....nevermind..lol....

[dickita15]

My understanding as an outsider was that there were recommendations from the GTAC that were not being implemented. Some charged the CRB with not respecting the vision and hard work of the AC. Some say the CRB did not believe the AC was applying their proposed changes consistently. It looks like both groups have worked hard to see the other point of view and a middle ground was reached.
Caution, any analysis of the facts is my own based on things heard and read over the last year in many places and is not based on any inside information.

[Knestis]

So, there was an ITAC con-call last night. Now that I'm on the outside looking in, I'm curious - worried, actually - about what is going on. Is it completely deluded to hope that we might be able to learn something about what to expect...?

K

[JoshS]

So, there was an ITAC con-call last night. Now that I'm on the outside looking in, I'm curious - worried, actually - about what is going on. Is it completely deluded to hope that we might be able to learn something about what to expect...?

Yes.

A couple of points:

1) No one, including members of the CRB, has ever asked to make competition adjustments based solely on on-track results. In fact, it's the ITAC that wants to change weights (based 100% on the process) ... the CRB as a whole would rather leave the current weights alone because they do seem to be producing excellent competitive environments.

2) Everyone should re-read the last two paragraphs of 9.1.3.C. Adjusting car weights based solely on the process is not allowed for in the rules as they stand today.

Note that this doesn't mean that no weights can be changed (again, see those sections of 9.1.3.C) and the current ITAC has every intention of using the process to adjust weights when, in fact, adjusting weights is called for.

I'd also remind everyone (and these are the words of another ITAC member, he can speak up if he wants to), that the ITAC is an advisory committee -- we advise. It is not necessarily the case that every recommendation -- whether weight-oriented or allowance-oriented, will be adopted.

[Bill Miller]

Yes.

A couple of points:

1) No one, including members of the CRB, has ever asked to make competition adjustments based solely on on-track results. In fact, it's the ITAC that wants to change weights (based 100% on the process) ... the CRB as a whole would rather leave the current weights alone because they do seem to be producing excellent competitive environments.

2) Everyone should re-read the last two paragraphs of 9.1.3.C. Adjusting car weights based solely on the process is not allowed for in the rules as they stand today.

Note that this doesn't mean that no weights can be changed (again, see those sections of 9.1.3.C) and the current ITAC has every intention of using the process to adjust weights when, in fact, adjusting weights is called for.

I'd also remind everyone (and these are the words of another ITAC member, he can speak up if he wants to), that the ITAC is an advisory committee -- we advise. It is not necessarily the case that every recommendation -- whether weight-oriented or allowance-oriented, will be adopted.

With all due respect Josh, that's a bunch of political double-talk. Maybe you could enlighten us as to when you feel that 'adjusting weights might be called for'?

And your first point sure makes it seem as if my hypothetical quote is not so hypothetical after all.

Also to your first point, what else besides on-track results were the reason(s) that the E36 got an SIR?