Please help me understand the Audi issue...

[RSTPerformance]

So.... I am trying to understand why the Audi is such a big deal in the future of IT right now.

From what I can figure out these are the facts:

acording to the current process it is classed 200 a 300 lbs over weight.

5 years ago I qualified pole for the ARRC with my brother .01 behind me on the grid... The next car was 1 second back from that. In the race I was involved in a turn one accident that put me in last place. I worked my way back up through the field to 3rd I think while beating the shit out of the car causing a wheel bearing failure. This caused me to loose the wheel mid turn... Needless to say I DNF. My brother had a wire short to the fuel pump on the third lap while barely leading the field and also DNF. We were not the fastest cars in the race despite our qualifying times and my charge through the field. The next day in the enduro we were much slower than 2 or 3 of our competiors. Niether car was torn down to verify legality however I will say that someone did question our air intake setup prior to the race (we felt it was legal and still to this day run the same set-up).

Prior to that success (if you call it that) in 2003 (?) the record was set nearly 1 second a lap faster than the Audi times with Peter Keenes Honda.

Since this race many new cars have been classed and beat our cars lap times reguarly at most races/tracks we run. The records and normal lap times at road Atlanta are now more than 2 seconds a lap faster than us and at the first IT Fest we were not even top 5.

Other fun facts are:

in the rain I qualified Pole at the NARRC runoffs in a 40 car field of ITS and ITB cars a couple Yeats ago... 2 weekends ago I started 5th in a 40+ car field at the Pro IT race with mostly ITR, ITS & ITA cars. Yes it was raining in qualifying but I hope that shows you I Sorta know how to drive and I would like to think that the sucess of our cars comes not only with the car but also the driver.


So with a that said... What facts am I missing? Why should this car/team combo be influencing the IT classification process and why does anyone still feel that the car should not be run through the same process that all the others that now easily beat us?

Raymond "Stephen, sorry if you don't like the posts but I really don't get this and I am increadably fustrated with all of the "Audi" references that obviosly refer to us" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Very simple:

The Audi is a FWD car with 110 stock crank HP. Since very few are out there (and you guys have never been to a dyno) there are no numbers for us to use to class the car. We use the standard 25% increase. That results in a weight ~200Lbs lighter than you are now.

<CRB Mode> The CRB sniffs that weight and says no. Based on on-track results, the car is competitive a classed and would likely hurt ITB if it was at it's process weight. They push it back to the ITAC for further review. <Mode off>

All the while this triggers the CRB to pull back on our ability to reset legacy cars in the ITCS.

Bottom line, it's not about YOU per se, its about what to do with cars that SEEM competitive on the track at their current weight but the process says take a chunk of weight out of. So many issues and ideals surrounding that thought that hav been hased out here a million times. The CRB would like to err on the side of 'class competition isn't broken so don't throw a potential wrench into the gears'.

And they got spooked enough to return to pre-great realignment where cars are almost locked in forever at their weights unless they run off the front end.

[joeg]

Torquey motor.

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

I'd buy all that, if the PCA clause wasn't in the ITCS. The CRB has already shown that they were willing to use the most extreme (and most un-tested) method allowed, to 'fix' the E36 BMW, they threw an SIR at it (two, actually). So, you've already got something in place to address an issue where the process falls short, and the CRB have demonstrated that they're not afraid to use it.

My take on what has 'spooked' the CRB, is that they realized how rapidly they were losing the power to do whatever they wanted to do w/ IT. Not to mention, if they were going to do something, under the proposed system, they would have had to justify it and back it up. If you guys were able to codify the process, that's what they would have had to use. No more setting weights because 1 or 2 guys think that they can make xxx hp, or the car just 'looks fast'. After all, they're the CRB, and they don't want those kinds of constraints on them. The CRB have also shown that they have no problem w/ taking a 'wait and see' approach after a change has been implemented. How many times have you read 'we are continuing to monitor its performance' in FasTrack? And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. You need some period of post-change evidence gathering to determine the effect of the change.

My take, the CRB felt that you guys (ITAC) were getting 'too big for your britches', and decided to shut things down before it was too late, and they lost their power to lord over IT. It has nothing to do w/ 'stability' or 'competitive landscape'. And anybody that's willing to accept random, arbitrary, and inconsistent classifications, in the interest of preserving 'stabilty' or the 'competitive landscape' has no business being in any kind of policy-impacting or setting position. Not unlike the quote from Ben Franklin, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security, deserve neither, and will ultimately lose both."

But as I said, I think they're (CR trotting that out to hide the real reasons and agenda behind their actions.

[seckerich]

Andy,

I'd buy all that, if the PCA clause wasn't in the ITCS. The CRB has already shown that they were willing to use the most extreme (and most un-tested) method allowed, to 'fix' the E36 BMW, they threw an SIR at it (two, actually). So, you've already got something in place to address an issue where the process falls short, and the CRB have demonstrated that they're not afraid to use it.

My take on what has 'spooked' the CRB, is that they realized how rapidly they were losing the power to do whatever they wanted to do w/ IT. Not to mention, if they were going to do something, under the proposed system, they would have had to justify it and back it up. If you guys were able to codify the process, that's what they would have had to use. No more setting weights because 1 or 2 guys think that they can make xxx hp, or the car just 'looks fast'. After all, they're the CRB, and they don't want those kinds of constraints on them. The CRB have also shown that they have no problem w/ taking a 'wait and see' approach after a change has been implemented. How many times have you read 'we are continuing to monitor its performance' in FasTrack? And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. You need some period of post-change evidence gathering to determine the effect of the change.

My take, the CRB felt that you guys (ITAC) were getting 'too big for your britches', and decided to shut things down before it was too late, and they lost their power to lord over IT. It has nothing to do w/ 'stability' or 'competitive landscape'. And anybody that's willing to accept random, arbitrary, and inconsistent classifications, in the interest of preserving 'stabilty' or the 'competitive landscape' has no business being in any kind of policy-impacting or setting position. Not unlike the quote from Ben Franklin, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security, deserve neither, and will ultimately lose both."

But as I said, I think they're (CR trotting that out to hide the real reasons and agenda behind their actions.

Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner!!!!

[RSTPerformance]

Plenty of people have had extreme success with their cars including current CRB members IE: Peter Keene, look at the history of his Honda. I see this as all political BULLSHIT and I am not accepting it.

Other examples of "exceptional" success

Andy B, Kirk, Greg Amy, Sam Moore, the Moses, Beren P, Scott carlson, etc have all had great success... Just because don't use a dyno does not mean that we havn't had great the same reasons... Great, well set up car/driver combo.

Raymond

[gran racing]

Ray and Stephen,
You both know or should know that I have a tremendous respect for your driving abilities, and the way in which you race. I’ve always wondered what you’d both do behind the wheel of a high level built car – actually I already know.

So with a that said... What facts am I missing? Why should this car/team combo be influencing the IT classification process and why does anyone still feel that the car should not be run through the same process that all the others that now easily beat us?

Since you’re looking for some type of explaination of where this is coming from, I’ll give you my speculation of the Audi situation. When reading this, please understand that these are NOT ALL my personal beliefs.

You guys did well, darn well at the ARRC and brought the spotlight onto you. I believe a decent portion of the attention was based on the back straight speed the Audis showed and not just about the lap times. The cars never finished and had an opportunity to be put through the tech shed.

You put a considerable amount of time and effort building the Audis. Given your build budget, you’ve done quite an amazing job and in my mind is what IT should be all about. While I don’t doubt your engine builds are good, I personally believe a pro built engine by someone such as Flatout or Kessler Engineering would be better. Then there’s the tuning aspect. You eminently have never done engine tuning on a dyno, where gains are there to be had. I know when my engine assembly was complete, that was only a portion of the process. Even this year when I was happy with my power results we put it back on the dyno and tried a few new things (advanced timing and a couple other items). This makes people wonder what could happen with a full on built Audi. IF there truly were more power to be had, how much? Maybe the reality is it’s trivial compared to what you guys have but it leaves room for people to speculate or “have fear of.” I’d actually prefer you don’t find out. J

On the flip side, Chris Albin looked into building an Audi (he also personally owned one), but concluded it wasn’t one of the cars to have and decided to build a Golf III. Based on what others believe and makes sense, there’s another Audi which benefited by a larger budget and pro race car builder – Shine. For whatever reason, that car hasn’t done what some might have anticipated (the key to this is…) including straight line speed. Why? Who knows. Maybe during the build they were conservative. Maybe given the amount of time you guys have been married to these cars, even on a limited budget you can do better than their pro build. I personally don’t know what type of effort was put into that Shine Audi.

Ironically the other item supporting the Audi weight reduction is we don’t know for sure if the Audis are / were legal. This is yet another key reason why we can’t use results to determine a car’s weight. For the record, I do not think for one second that either of you would do anything illegal on purpose. I’ve heard people say that some other block could be used which is extremely difficult to know that it’s different, so much so a person could accidently use it without even knowing. Again, I’m not saying this is what I believe to be the case but don’t know.

* personal aside – not knowing isn’t a knock. You don’t truly know if I’m legal. Even when someone mentioned about my car, he rightfully said “I think it’s legal, but don’t know. We both can go into a full tear down confident, but until that happens others won’t know and there will always be some amount of wondering.

In order to help bring this to an end, I suggested doing something a bit unique. After a key event invite you both to bring the Audis to either Flatout or Kessler’s shop. Have them check to ensure the block is the right one (no idea what’s involved in doing that) and put both cars on the dyno. The purpose would not have been to do a tear down or a hunt for illegal parts rather a casual way to get some HP and torque numbers. You mentioned being okay with bringing it to a dyno so thought maybe something like this could be agreed upon. I even offered to pay some money to help you guys make this happen. After doing this the ITAC would have dyno numbers that they obtained and at least have more ammunition / facts to base things on.

My personal feelings - assuming the 5 cyl goes into the process equasion and torque, if the yard stick says remove 200 lbs from the Audi do it. But at the same token (and again, personal feelings), I want my car to be given the same opportunity to go up against that yard stick.

[philstireservice]

My Audi never made 110 at the crank...more like 90-92.......

[pfcs]

What?? If it's factory rated 120hp, how is that? Do you mean @wheels?

[philstireservice]

What?? If it's factory rated 120hp, how is that? Do you mean @wheels?

Yes I meant at the wheels.......

[RSTPerformance]

What?? If it's factory rated 120hp, how is that? Do you mean @wheels?

Factory is 110 @ 5500 RPM... Add the Quattro header and you get 115 @ 5500 RPM. Not sure where 120hp comes from?

Raymond

[pfcs]

It comes right out of the VW/Audi dealer's parts program "Etka" in the engine code section of "ATP" that lists every VW/Audi engine by it's code, including basic info like displacement, output, and application.