Please help me understand the Audi issue...

[StephenB]

Stephen, please, take a deep breath.

The CRB believed that dropping 200 lbs from the Audi (something I voted for) could create problems since they viewed the car as already competitive. They saw this as an example of why they thought "blind" use of the process could create overdogs -- hence my statement.

I trust the process and voted for the weight reduction. However, their position is not entirely unreasonable nor is it some plan to destroy IT. It is a difference of opinion on the use of the process, and the role of on track results in it.

By the way, Steve summed up my thinking on that question pretty much to the T.

Jeff, you avoided the question just as a CRB member would. EXPLAIN how you came up with the conclusion that the Audi is an example of an overdog. You yourself said it was a good example in your post. If you meant to say the CRB used this as an example than you as an ITAC member should demand that they would need to expain it. Using the fact that it beat 2 of the CRB members at the ARRC in 1 session at 1 track 5 yrs ago about 1 second slower than the track record at the time can't possibly be a good example of an overdog. Can it?

Stephen

[seckerich]

Put the damn car on the dyno and quit the guessing game. Did I not see in an earlier post you have no clue what you actually make? How do you know it is wrong or right without any real data? Not picking on you but it is like the junkyard claims of the past. Not asking you to post the numbers but that car might just make more than anyone thinks.

[StephenB]

Stephen, calm down buddy!

I am calm don't worry, just a rainy day off and I had the time to do the research on our engines that I should have posted a long time ago. All the facts on the engines are available in the previous post for anyone to reference. Reality is in my opinion is that the ITAC had the wrong power to weight ratio for new cars being classified that allow for ECU changes and now those newer cars are "overdogs" compaired to the older cars classified. Reality is our cars will fade farther and farther to mid pack, other cars like the older VW's running for years will continue to do so as well. ITB as we know it no longer exists. A few cars that I have never been able to beat when well driven will hopefully continue to be competitive.

Stephen

[StephenB]

Put the damn car on the dyno and quit the guessing game. Did I not see in an earlier post you have no clue what you actually make? How do you know it is wrong or right without any real data? Not picking on you but it is like the junkyard claims of the past. Not asking you to post the numbers but that car might just make more than anyone thinks.

No problem do you know anyone that will do it? I work everyday except wednesdays this time of year. True I have no clue what my car makes for power. I will post any info that I get since it doesn't matter to me. I just want the classification process fair so that I can be competitive with newer cars getting classified in years to come.

Also please stop thinking about my personal car and lets look at the actual car that is classified. Data on engines is posted in previous post.

Stephen

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

If you want to know if the BoD are getting letters, why don't you just ask them?

[JeffYoung]

I'm not avoiding the question; frankly I think you aren't taking the time to understand the answer.

I have not come to the conclusion that the Audi is an example of an overdog at process weight. I voted for the 200 lb weight reduction -- said so right above but you maybe missed that. That's ok.

I am telling you it is an example of a car that the CRB believes could be an overdog based on its process weight, and yes that belief is based on what you and your brother did at the ARRC. Is that reasonble? It's not persuasive to me, personally, but the CRB's position on it is not "crazy" in my view.

You could really help yourself by putting your car on a dyno and giving us sheets.

Jeff, you avoided the question just as a CRB member would. EXPLAIN how you came up with the conclusion that the Audi is an example of an overdog. You yourself said it was a good example in your post. If you meant to say the CRB used this as an example than you as an ITAC member should demand that they would need to expain it. Using the fact that it beat 2 of the CRB members at the ARRC in 1 session at 1 track 5 yrs ago about 1 second slower than the track record at the time can't possibly be a good example of an overdog. Can it?

Stephen

[seckerich]

Jake,

If you want to know if the BoD are getting letters, why don't you just ask them?

The sad truth is that many letters to the BOD and CRB never reach them. Ask the ITAC how long it took to get their 3 plus month old emails forwarded. I understand the need to filter out spam and plain old hate mail, but the system is a joke. If you want to communicate with any of them just do it the old fashion way, or at least call to see that your email was received.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, you avoided the question just as a CRB member would. EXPLAIN how you came up with the conclusion that the Audi is an example of an overdog. You yourself said it was a good example in your post. If you meant to say the CRB used this as an example than you as an ITAC member should demand that they would need to expain it. Using the fact that it beat 2 of the CRB members at the ARRC in 1 session at 1 track 5 yrs ago about 1 second slower than the track record at the time can't possibly be a good example of an overdog. Can it?

Stephen

HE's not saying that it IS an overdog...think in the cup half full/empty method.

The perception (right or wrong) is that the car is currently competitive. IF it lost 200 HUNDRED plus pounds, the perception is that it would be MORE competitive.

That's simple and easy to understand, right?

The ENTIRE rest of the club, (ad hocs) thinks in terms of weight adjustments based on what they see with their own eyes on the track. Since the CRB is made up of guys from other ad hocs, it is easy to see that the IT method of classing first via a process that largely ignores on track performance, then using on track performance to trigger a closer look/more research, is 180 degrees opposite everything they've done for their entire racing careers.

So, when the Audi recommendation sprang up, the CRB thought we were NUTS. It just didn't make sense.

OF COURSE we argued the case, that we didn't know the cars, the legality of the cars, that the perception of speed was just a perception, that the cars hold no track records, etc etc, etc, but 200 hundred pounds is a LOT. And of COURSE we argued that should the weight reduction result in obvious on track dominance, we'd use the loop back methods built into the V1.2 of the process to dig deeper, find the data, and adjust based on the data.

But, the CRB thought we were nuts. And I'm told, along that time, an edict was handed down form the BoD to cease using the E & O as a method of adjusting existing cars. (Along with other things that were being done, presumably by other committees.)

It's my view that the CRB should have held the recommendation up, and returned it to the ITAC, with a note: "Fails stink test, please research and return recommendation with real world data to support this, or whatever recommendation you wish to make".

Instead, we got the "no more adjusting existing cars" (on the books for 5 years or more), "and only overodgs get adjusted (with V1.0), and new cars can be classed".

So that's where we are.

[Bill Miller]

HE's not saying that it IS an overdog...think in the cup half full/empty method.

The perception (right or wrong) is that the car is currently competitive. IF it lost 200 HUNDRED plus pounds, the perception is that it would be MORE competitive.

That's simple and easy to understand, right?

The ENTIRE rest of the club, (ad hocs) thinks in terms of weight adjustments based on what they see with their own eyes on the track. Since the CRB is made up of guys from other ad hocs, it is easy to see that the IT method of classing first via a process that largely ignores on track performance, then using on track performance to trigger a closer look/more research, is 180 degrees opposite everything they've done for their entire racing careers.

So, when the Audi recommendation sprang up, the CRB thought we were NUTS. It just didn't make sense.

OF COURSE we argued the case, that we didn't know the cars, the legality of the cars, that the perception of speed was just a perception, that the cars hold no track records, etc etc, etc, but 200 hundred pounds is a LOT. And of COURSE we argued that should the weight reduction result in obvious on track dominance, we'd use the loop back methods built into the V1.2 of the process to dig deeper, find the data, and adjust based on the data.

But, the CRB thought we were nuts. And I'm told, along that time, an edict was handed down form the BoD to cease using the E & O as a method of adjusting existing cars. (Along with other things that were being done, presumably by other committees.)

It's my view that the CRB should have held the recommendation up, and returned it to the ITAC, with a note: "Fails stink test, please research and return recommendation with real world data to support this, or whatever recommendation you wish to make".

Instead, we got the "no more adjusting existing cars" (on the books for 5 years or more), "and only overodgs get adjusted (with V1.0), and new cars can be classed".

So that's where we are.

What's easy to understand Jake, is that these guys make it up as they go along. That's the way they've always done it, and the way the will continue to do it. And of course it has nothing to do w/ the fact that two CRB members race against the car.

Since the CRB is made up of guys from other ad hocs, it is easy to see that the IT method of classing first via a process that largely ignores on track performance, then using on track performance to trigger a closer look/more research, is 180 degrees opposite everything they've done for their entire racing careers.

Uh, two of those guys race IT cars, and are former members of the ITAC. Hate to bother you w/ facts.

[pfcs]

"Corrected Data From The Original Factory Audi Manual. (not the internet)???"

ETKA, the VW/Audi dealer parts program, supplied by the factory/manufacturer to their dealers is my information source-not something off the internet. And it says the engine you say you have (KX) produces 120hp. That is a fact. Check with a parts/service buddy at any dealer and they will corroborate it.

And if that is so-it would sensibly lay all this BS about the Coupes to rest, wouldn't it?
I believe I've seen Greg Amy and Dave Zaslow refer to ETKA information-ask them to check for you if you don't believe me. And while you're checking, notice that the factory information about the ITB A2 is exactly what is historically known and accepted: RV/PF-105/107hp. If persued, I'm certain that information in ETKA trumps whatever manual you have (Robert Bently "official" ,<not really>"factory repair manual"?) These are not the "factory" manuals-don't believe everything you read.

"Just to clarify this is the KX engine that they stuck in the 4000 QUATTRO not the 4000 and it had a different header/downpipe only requiring a different engine code... the JT. All internals are the same. The Audi Manual shows this as a 2.22 with 115BHP SAE as in my previous post."
AND to clarify (muddy the waters?) further, ETKA specifies the JT-what's in your car-at 121hp.
From my personal observations and experience, and using the most reliable technical resources at hand, it seems likely that the assumptions about power to weight for the Coupe are flawed. One benchmark I can use is comparing your straight line speed to mine-you drove away from me. And my A2 was very well prepared, nothing left on the engine development table. It developed 101hp on a calibrated hub dyno, just what I'd expect from a 10/10 legal A2.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So according to the official factory documents, what do the two listings show for factory hp?

Audi Coupe 81-84
Audi Coupe GT 84-86

[Bill Miller]

One benchmark I can use is comparing your straight line speed to mine-you drove away from me. And my A2 was very well prepared, nothing left on the engine development table. It developed 101hp on a calibrated hub dyno, just what I'd expect from a 10/10 legal A2.

That's VERY interesting Phil, seeing as an ex-ITAC member(s?) claimed 100hp out of an ITB legal A1 GTI. Hard to believe that you're only getting 1 additional hp, w/ 2 pts of compression, and a larger throttle body.

[jimmyc]

a few things-

Phil there is no such thing as a calibrated "hub dyno".

There are typically 3 different variations of them.

Group1.) dynos lower then the typical dyno-jet.

Group2.) dynos relativly dead on with typical dyno-jet.

Group3.) dynos higher then the typical dyno-jet.

These are all "calibrated" hub dynos. It just depends when they were made and what calibration they used. As if you wanted you could have a new (ie produced durning a different time period) dyno-pack calibrated to what your old dyno was calibrated at. (shawn Church of Church Automotive had this done.

This is backed up by real world testing. Locally we have a dyno-jet and dyno-pack that read fairly close to each other. (within 2%)

At NASA nationals a dyno-pack was rented by Shawn Church so that he could dyno some of his customer cars and make sure their tune was good. Modular depot also had there dyno jet there. Three of the cars we were paddocked around/are freinds with ALL dyno'd HIGHER on the Modular depot dyno-jet, then they did on the Dyna-pack. Roughly 10% to 15% higher.

Dyna-packs are great for tunning, but are rather inconsistent from one machine to the next.

[Knestis]

I honestly think what drove their opposition to using the process on all cars was threefold:

1. They didn't completely understand the process (that's our fault, the ITAC's).

2. They saw the process, if "blindly" (in their view, in our view we would use the words transparently and repeatability) applied could create overdogs. The Audi is an example of this.

3. They want some element of on track performance as part of car evaluation.

1 and 2 are reasonable and explainable, and I think things we can get past. 3, depending on how key a role they want on track to play, could be a roadblock.

But, as Andy notes, folks are talking about this stuff and looking for an agreeable way forward.

I see it a LITTLE bit differently, Jeff. It's like politics: They understood what they wanted to understand, irrespective of any explanation by people holding different preconceived notions. They GOT it - they just didn't LIKE it.

K

[Bill Miller]

I honestly think what drove their opposition to using the process on all cars was threefold:

1. They didn't completely understand the process (that's our fault, the ITAC's).

2. They saw the process, if "blindly" (in their view, in our view we would use the words transparently and repeatability) applied could create overdogs. The Audi is an example of this.

3. They want some element of on track performance as part of car evaluation.

1 and 2 are reasonable and explainable, and I think things we can get past. 3, depending on how key a role they want on track to play, could be a roadblock.

But, as Andy notes, folks are talking about this stuff and looking for an agreeable way forward.

Jeff,

With all due respect, please let them speak for themselves. If the CRB didn't understand the process, then I wouldn't be real comfortable w/ those folks making any kind of decisions that impacted rules. And while I wasn't involved in the discussions, I know there are some sharp folks on the ITAC (yourself included) that would have answered any and all questions regarding how the process worked and would be applied. I think it's as Kirk has said, they heard what they wanted to hear (a bit of a paraphrase, my apologies if it's wrong). And here's the kicker, I'd be all for using some measure of on track performance, as part of car evaluation, but (and I think this is the real issue) do it from a perspective where everyone's on the same page. In other words, set all the cars at the process weight, then look for the overdogs, and correct them. Throw the Magic 8-Ball out the window, and use some hard data rather than this BS that they pull out of their asses.

What's happening to the Audi's, is a travesty. If Raymond and Stephen went to Atlanta 5 years ago, and ran 2 seconds under the track record, and ran away from everybody, _maybe_ (and that's a big maybe), it would be worth taking another look at the cars. But to use that one data point they way they are is BS.

[StephenB]

So according to the official factory documents, what do the two listings show for factory hp?

Audi Coupe 81-84
Audi Coupe GT 84-86

Andy, sorry I added a middle year that would fall under 81-84 coupe in the GCR. Thought it may help clarify what my car is.

Brom my Bently Audi Manual:

Audi Coupe 81-84 100BHP
WE engine code was available in 1981 through 1984 and was a 2.2L CIS available in 49 states, california, and Canada. had 100BHP SAE at 5100RPM

Audi Coupe January 84 through October 84 110BHP
KX engine code with the CISE as in the Coupe GT below however it used the same body and brakes from the Coupe. I think the other major difference not mentioned before is that it had a cable clutch like all Coupes which the Coupe GT did not. Basically a transition year from the early Coupe to the Coupe GT.

Audi Coupe GT 84-86 110BHP (They actually made some of these in early 87 as well)
KX engine code was available in January 1984 through 1987 and was a 2.22L (136 cu.in) CISE available in 50 states. Had 84.9KW or 110BHP SAE at 5500RPM

[RSTPerformance]

Put the damn car on the dyno and quit the guessing game. Did I not see in an earlier post you have no clue what you actually make? How do you know it is wrong or right without any real data? Not picking on you but it is like the junkyard claims of the past. Not asking you to post the numbers but that car might just make more than anyone thinks.

Stephen, I think thier is a dyno in Concord... Near the airport on the road that connects to the chrysler dealership... I think it is next to D & V towing company. Maybe you can take a drive down and see what it costs. Not sure I have the money to spend on this foolish issue but, maybe it is worth it for us and the ITAC. I am sure the CRB won't care either way though.

What on dyno results are you looking for on a fully developed FWD ITB car with drum rear brakes and a solid rear axle that weighs 2490 or 2540?

Raymond "all I want it the lazy CRB to do is look at my requests, determine an reasonable documented result and post the answers to my requests within a reasonable amount of time" Blethen

[JeffYoung]

Dyno time is about $100/hour. One hour should be more than enough for you guys to get baseline pulls done on both cars and send them to us.

I will pay for the dyno time; PM me your address and I'll mail you a check.

Bill, with all due respect back, I see a lot of attribution of various motives to the CRB here that, based on my limited interaction with them, seem 100% wrong. These guys DO have the best interest of the category in mind. They just come at it completely differently than we do.

[gran racing]

Wow, that's really cool of you Jeff. You guys should take him up on this and bring the car to a dyno.

The sad truth is that many letters to the BOD and CRB never reach them.

Really? Now this pisses me off. What's the point of them having an e-mail address and looking for memebership input then? They really need to get their act together if this is true. It's really not that difficult to generate an automated case number so requests could at least be tracked.

[Bill Miller]

Dyno time is about $100/hour. One hour should be more than enough for you guys to get baseline pulls done on both cars and send them to us.

I will pay for the dyno time; PM me your address and I'll mail you a check.

Bill, with all due respect back, I see a lot of attribution of various motives to the CRB here that, based on my limited interaction with them, seem 100% wrong. These guys DO have the best interest of the category in mind. They just come at it completely differently than we do.

We'll agree to disagree Jeff. You're fairly new to the SCCA game, they've been operating this way for a loooooong time. And honestly, I think they've got you snowed. You've got two guys on the CRB that are ex-ITAC members, that were probably involved in a lot of the process discussions. There is some solid knowledge of the whole process idea, and how it should work, already on the CRB, there should be no ambiguity (unless it's the strategic kind that Kirk mentioned) or misunderstanding. If that's what they're claiming, they're playing dumb. And that's a really cool gesture you offering to cover the dyno time. Nicely done!