Please help me understand the Audi issue...

[jimmyc]

The reality is that, in this light, on track side by side accelleration performance is quite possibly a more reliable source of data than dyno sheets from different sources. Put the club's DL1 boxes in the cars and go racing, and a good analyst will be able to deduce relative whp from the data and the weights from tech. BUT that is another story for another time because 'we don't do that' in IT.

I have not done it with DL1 but have done it with several other DA systems. Using GPS, or just doing it with time/distance and other factors.

It never right, nor never accurate. Not even just using the delta.

We had a Engineer from a experienced/knowledgeable team helping us out with a issue. One of the crew guys was messing with it (the acceleration/hp function), the guy chuckled and told him he should waste his time with that. He explained back he was just using it for delta type stuff and he said again it isn't very useful.

Three different systems said that the car was making between 220 to 260whp. And the car dynos, on a dynojet, consistently at 205whp to 210whp.

I really wish it was more accurate, but I haven't talked to any one who thinks it is.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Don't be afraid of the Daytona, Andy. In order to rip up the field at 2630 lbs, I would need to make something like 150 hp at the crank (or 128 hp at the wheels). That would be more than a 50% increase over the highest factory hp rating of any normally aspirated engine installed in a Daytona (99 hp). I'm not ever gonna see numbers like that. I'd be thrilled with 105 whp.

The Daytonas came with the restrictive throttle body fuel injection which, of course, can't be changed in IT trim. ECU mods do a lot of things but they won't increase airflow.

I don't think the TBI cars have the same power potential as the carbed Mopar 2.2's. Glassburner's Omni and Hoffman's TC3 have proven that the carbed 2.2's can be competitive but those cars are also 300 lbs lighter than a Daytona per the GCR.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

Bob,

I am not thinking it can make the power the weight has it at, I am afraid to put it at 25% knowing nothing about it's potential. 99hp IS ITC territory...like around 2280 in ITC. It just strikes me as something we should have more info on before moving forward (if we could).

[Bill Miller]

That stock HP level is much more an ITC car than an ITB car.

Andy, if 99 stock hp is an ITC car, what's 90 stock hp?

AND-I just can't resist-it's hard to behave for long-Bill-what drug are you on to believe a legal A1 could put 100hp to the ground? Spare me a reply.

Phil, you would be better to address that question to Andy, Jake, or other members of the ITAC that were around during tGR, as they are the ones that have stated that the VW guys on the ITAC claimed 100 whp for an ITB legal A1 GTI.

/edit Phil, check post #73 on Page 4 from Andy. You posted two posts after that, you didn't see his comment?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, if 99 stock hp is an ITC car, what's 90 stock hp?

Certainly starts out of the blocks as an ITC car but IT-power and attaintable weight all play in at the end.

[lateapex911]

Ah, thanks for making a great point for me guys.

The A1 Golf. A car I don't know. I was brand new on the ITAC when it got it's weight, and honestly, I can't remember too much of the specifics. But, yea, we took the word of our experts at the time. Of course there's no record of the data (if there WAS nay data), or any vote on the data.

I mention this to bring up the current situation: Some say, that our proposed and rejected V2.0 (calling it V1.2 would be better, but whatever), doesn't have enough "wiggle room".

Since none of you have seen it, here's how it differed from 1.0 in that area.

Sometimes, we (the ITAC) KNOW a stock hp rating is wrong, or that a certain car will make more, or less than presumed standard process power. In the early days, like in the case of the Golf 1, our experts said X, and it got accepted/discussed/debated. But in this case, it appears it stuck. (or maybe somebody said 105 but settled on 100, or somebody said 97 but it was rounded up for conservatism, I honestly don't remember, but those are possibilities).

(Obviously, there's room there to 'game' the system.)

Further along, we tightened that kind of methodology down, and became stricter. The RX8 is an example. Stock power says X, it HAS to gain SOMEthing, so it got X+Y as a weight. In reality, many on the ITAC didn't like that weight, but we felt powerless to change it. We wanted to be consistent, and repeatable. So that future ITACs would spit out the same weight. To the detriment of the car though...

So, for V2.0 we developed what I'd call 'managed wiggle room'. When we know a stock rating is wrong, or some car doesn't/won't match the presumed power factor, we can adjust accordingly. Here's how it works: One ITAC member acts as a presenting voice, and lays out the case. He brings research and lays it out. Could be builder dyno sheets, could be reports in publications, could be individuals dyno sheets. Or all of it. Once he builds the case, the entire ITAC would vote a 'confidence level", in a percentage form. If he convinced the entire ITAC to a certain level. (A vast majority), the data and position was accepted.

The advantage to this method (which I'll admit is still not 'perfect", is transparency, documentation, and the removal of politics to the greatest degree possible, and other 'negotiations' from the process, while still allowing the needed 'wiggleroom' and flexibility.

But, V2.0 has been rejected, so, we're back to square 1.

Too bad, I think the transparency and documentation, repeatability and robustness of V2.0 served the members like nothing before it, perhaps in the history of IT, and certainly was ideal in a category with 350 cars on the books.
*I should ammend this. The CRB wasn't impressed with some of the refinements, and left us with this framework: old listings won't be adjusted, unless overdogs, and if so, V1.0 will be used. On new listings we are free to do anything we want, as long as it 'makes sense'. So, we CAN use V2.0 for new listings, as long as it passes the CRBs sniff test and scrutiny.

[JoshS]

Andy, if 99 stock hp is an ITC car, what's 90 stock hp?

A lighter ITC car, all else being equal.

[Bill Miller]

No -50 for strut suspension and AGAIN, we use 25% as the first step in the process, it is NOT locked in as such. That 2.2L had a ton of iterations so it would be one for much more research. That stock HP level is much more an ITC car than an ITB car.

But again, cars like this DO SCARE me. They DO have the potential to rip up a class if that stock power number was a dumbed down 80's number that wakes up with no emission equipment and a good exhaust. It would be my vote to have to have the competitor supply a ton of information for cars of that era so that a much more educated guys can be made.

Andy,

Do the math backwards on Bob's car.

2630# spec weight + 50# FWD adder, = 2680# / 17 = 157.8hp / 99hp = 1.59 power factor. Heck, if you use whp (157.8 * .85 - 134 whp), you end up w/ a 1.35 power factor. And that's based on whp! I don't think you need a whole lot of data to show that the weight is WAY off.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Do the math backwards on Bob's car.

2630# spec weight + 50# FWD adder, = 2680# / 17 = 157.8hp / 99hp = 1.59 power factor. Heck, if you use whp (157.8 * .85 - 134 whp), you end up w/ a 1.35 power factor. And that's based on whp! I don't think you need a whole lot of data to show that the weight is WAY off.

Bill, it's obvious teh weight is way off. The point is that (without knowing anything) dead process weight has it as a 2280lbs ITC car.

Its a car (like the Audi and many others) that I would like to know more about before it got reset. All part of the process.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, it's obvious teh weight is way off. The point is that (without knowing anything) dead process weight has it as a 2280lbs ITC car.

Its a car (like the Audi and many others) that I would like to know more about before it got reset. All part of the process.

And that's where I see a big issue with that approach. Ask yourself this question, would you even consider spending a bucket of cash to build a serious, 10/10ths effort with a car that was that grossly mis-classed? You can't really use info on other builds (non-IT), as who knows if they're legal or not. So, you need IT examples to know if something other than a 1.25 power factor is appropriate, yet nobody's building full tilt examples because the car is 500# heavy. No real-world data to know that 1.25 isn't appropriate, but concerns (which are possibly valid) that 1.25 is low. That's why every car in the ITCS should have been run through the process, and set at process weight. I know you guys were trying to do that w/ ITB, and got the rug pulled out from under you (maybe that's a better visual for Kirk ). The tools are in place to correct those cars that show to be dominant, or warrant a power factor other than 1.25. I don't understand why the CRB doesn't want to use them.

I have no problem w/ different cars getting different power factors, or different adders, my biggest thing has always been to treat all cars the same. If some show that they're better than the sum of the parts, add weight. It's a lot harder to know if they're lesser than the sum of their parts, due to what I said above, but if the arguement is compelling, you can correct those as well.

BTW, if a 99hp Daytona lands in ITC @ 2280#, a 90hp Rabbit GTI should land in ITC @ 2135# (and that's w/ a 1.30 power factor).

[CRallo]

I'll be more respectful than he deserves and spare most of the commentary that comes to mind...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Running all the cars through wasn't possible then and we are being told is isn't possible now. We wanted it then and we want it now. You are preaching to the choir.

[Bill Miller]

Running all the cars through wasn't possible then and we are being told is isn't possible now. We wanted it then and we want it now. You are preaching to the choir.

I hear you Andy. It just sucks that politics prevents those that should know IT the best (ITAC) from doing what they think is best for the category.

What do you think would happen if everyone sent letters in asking for their car to be run through the process?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I hear you Andy. It just sucks that politics prevents those that should know IT the best (ITAC) from doing what they think is best for the category.

What do you think would happen if everyone sent letters in asking for their car to be run through the process?

I think it would be better if people (who thought it better) wrote in and told the CRB how they wanted their class to be governed. Process first, corrections second. Not 'seat of the pants' first, process sometimes.

The ITAC has told the PTB that we think the IT community prefers 'transparant and repeatable' over 'head of a pin' all day and twice on Tuesday. THAT is the fact that needs to be driven home if any.

[frnkhous]

And that's where I see a big issue with that approach. Ask yourself this question, would you even consider spending a bucket of cash to build a serious, 10/10ths effort with a car that was that grossly mis-classed? You can't really use info on other builds (non-IT), as who knows if they're legal or not. So, you need IT examples to know if something other than a 1.25 power factor is appropriate, yet nobody's building full tilt examples because the car is 500# heavy. No real-world data to know that 1.25 isn't appropriate, but concerns (which are possibly valid) that 1.25 is low. That's why every car in the ITCS should have been run through the process, and set at process weight. I know you guys were trying to do that w/ ITB, and got the rug pulled out from under you (maybe that's a better visual for Kirk ). The tools are in place to correct those cars that show to be dominant, or warrant a power factor other than 1.25. I don't understand why the CRB doesn't want to use them.

I have no problem w/ different cars getting different power factors, or different adders, my biggest thing has always been to treat all cars the same. If some show that they're better than the sum of the parts, add weight. It's a lot harder to know if they're lesser than the sum of their parts, due to what I said above, but if the arguement is compelling, you can correct those as well.

BTW, if a 99hp Daytona lands in ITC @ 2280#, a 90hp Rabbit GTI should land in ITC @ 2135# (and that's w/ a 1.30 power factor).

Bill,

You do realize that the ITB civic makes 90hp from the factory as well and gets a 35% multiplier. Your split to the civic in theory wouldn't change if you were moved to ITC, you'd just screw up a class. If you think you should be moved and the civic shouldn't, well now your just playing give me what I want, not what is best for everyone.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

You do realize that the ITB civic makes 90hp from the factory as well and gets a 35% multiplier. Your split to the civic in theory wouldn't change if you were moved to ITC, you'd just screw up a class. If you think you should be moved and the civic shouldn't, well now your just playing give me what I want, not what is best for everyone.

Well, if they're supposed to be evenly matched in ITB, you should be able to make them evenly matched in ITC. How does the Civic / CRX Si in ITB get to 2130#? Does it get additional adders for the front & rear suspension? My math puts it at between 2035# and 2040#, using the published 91hp, a 1.35 power factor, and the -50# FWD adder.

So yes, if you're going to move one, move the other. But this is where an open, documented process would answer a lot of questions. Like why a 99hp Dodge Daytona would be in ITC, but a 90hp Rabbit GTI and a 91hp Civic/CRX Si would be in ITB.

[frnkhous]

Bill

I guess my point is it doesn't. ITC is the place of 70 crank hp shitboxes. I own one, fortunately it's a 90 civic so if this madness took place i'd be an engine and transmission away from being back in a car that made sense for the class. 99chp cars have no business in ITC unless they can't get under 2500lbs(New Beetle) or they literally make almost zero gains in IT trim. My civic is TB injected and they make 35% gains. If they actually would move a car without evidence that it couldn't make power i'd be shocked. And I definetly don't defend the process, I think ITR is all jacked up personally. And it likely won't ever be straigtened out now. Hell a member of the ITAC won't build a newly listed car because he freely admits it is too heavy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hell a member of the ITAC won't build a newly listed car because he freely admits it is too heavy.

That probably needs to be clarified. 'Too heavy' is perception. Just because you have to ballast it up to meet the target power to weight ratio doesn't mean it's too heavy in comparision to other cars and power levels. It may mean it's too heavy 'in my mind'. I fully feel that way about the 330 BMW. I like less weight but damn that car could make some power.

The great thing about ITR (and what I think is holding it back as well) is that there is no obvious choice. The Bimmers are built and the recipe is known so they fill the grids. People are wary of an 'investment' without a known chance.

[seckerich]

That probably needs to be clarified. 'Too heavy' is perception. Just because you have to ballast it up to meet the target power to weight ratio doesn't mean it's too heavy in comparision to other cars and power levels. It may mean it's too heavy 'in my mind'. I fully feel that way about the 330 BMW. I like less weight but damn that car could make some power.

The great thing about ITR (and what I think is holding it back as well) is that there is no obvious choice. The Bimmers are built and the recipe is known so they fill the grids. People are wary of an 'investment' without a known chance.

To clarify that a little farther Andy, people are smart enough not to make the investment on a grossly misweighted car compared to what it races against. The weight is not an issue if it is relative to what it races. Everything about an ITR build is more expensive. Tires, motors, base car, etc. It is a huge investment in a class that has serious classing issues.

[Bill Miller]

People are wary of an 'investment' without a known chance.

Andy,

I think that holds true for all the IT classes. ITR is just newer, and they're aren't that many cars that have been built yet (BMW's notwithstanding). What actually makes that more relevant for the rest of IT, is that you've got cars out there that people KNOW don't have a chance. You get a few people building them because that's the car they want to run. But most of those folks are just happy to race, they aren't committed to running at the pointy end of the grid. That's why the CRB needs to get their heads out of their butts (didn't someone request this in FasTrack?) and put all of IT on a level playing field, and go from there.

[gran racing]

Post the great alignment, how many cars had weight adjusted in total?