off topic discussion about current IT issues and more specifically ITB.

[jjjanos]

Dave I'm OK with the weight on the VW but wish you would reconsider the poor old Volvo.

There is a pretty common opinion down at Summit that the MK-3 VW and both the big and little Honda's have outdated the older ITB cars. Both you and your car made a very impressive showing down at SP Labor day. I hope you can make it back this season. Possibly the Volvo and Prelude can share that 400 pounds? 200 each? or maybe 100 and 300... oh never mind.

Charlie

Charlie,

How old were the the tires you were using? How many seasons are on your motor? I know that the little Hondas were running fresh rubber and 2 of 3 had brand-new motors this season (and the third motor isn't that old). The shocks on the CRXs were rebuilt recently... how old are the suspensions on the European Tanks?

The little Hondas have 1.5 liter motors, 91 HP and 93bhp@4500RPM
The 142Es have 2 liter motors, 118 HP and 123bhp@3500RPM.
The Golf III, has got a 2liter, 115HP and decent torque.

Running all through the process giving by Dowie at the SCCA forums, and depending on what one adds for having enough torque to pull a semi out of the mud, the 142Es are probably 175-230 lbs too heavy. The CRX is carrying an extra 250 pounds. The Golf is close to 200 pounds too light!

I'll give you the 230, but only if the CRX gets to lose it's extra driver too.

Jeff

[Andy Bettencourt]

Charlie,

How old were the the tires you were using? How many seasons are on your motor? I know that the little Hondas were running fresh rubber and 2 of 3 had brand-new motors this season (and the third motor isn't that old). The shocks on the CRXs were rebuilt recently... how old are the suspensions on the European Tanks?

The little Hondas have 1.5 liter motors, 91 HP and 93bhp@4500RPM
The 142Es have 2 liter motors, 118 HP and 123bhp@3500RPM.
The Golf III, has got a 2liter, 115HP and decent torque.

Running all through the process giving by Dowie at the SCCA forums, and depending on what one adds for having enough torque to pull a semi out of the mud, the 142Es are probably 175-230 lbs too heavy. The CRX is carrying an extra 250 pounds. The Golf is close to 200 pounds too light!

I'll give you the 230, but only if the CRX gets to lose it's extra driver too.

Jeff

Here is the deal on the GolfIII guys. It is spot on the process except we subtracted 50lbs for the beam rear axle. In V.2 clarified the 'crappy rear suspension' subtracter to just a solid axle for rwd cars. That car wouldn't get a torque adder with my vote and it was processed at 25%. So it's 50lbs too light according to V.2.

The other cars could get redone should the CRB allow the ITAC to help them.

[shwah]

Here we go again. If the G3 is 50 light, the G2 is at least 50 heavy - not the 10 requested. The math does not add up, because some unknown point of data convinced the ITAC that the G2 gains 30% (or was that 27%?), yet the G3 is processed at 25%. It has the same compression ratio, longer stroke, larger bore, cross flow head with thinner valve stems that flows better than the counter flow head/valves on the G2, and uses a better flowing MAF. Now the process does not take those items into account, only a documented higher power output. The G3 is capable of the same or higher gains than the G2, but I predict that data will never be made available to the ITAC.

The cars have literally identical chassis designs, albeit the G3 has a wider track and larger brakes. If you consider the cars equivalent and assume that the power gain is the only differentiator you see that the current G3 specification must assume a 22% power gain. So something does not jive in how these cars were 'processed' at approximately the same point in time.

[Bill Miller]

Here we go again. If the G3 is 50 light, the G2 is at least 50 heavy - not the 10 requested. The math does not add up, because some unknown point of data convinced the ITAC that the G2 gains 30% (or was that 27%?), yet the G3 is processed at 25%. It has the same compression ratio, longer stroke, larger bore, cross flow head with thinner valve stems that flows better than the counter flow head/valves on the G2, and uses a better flowing MAF. Now the process does not take those items into account, only a documented higher power output. The G3 is capable of the same or higher gains than the G2, but I predict that data will never be made available to the ITAC.

The cars have literally identical chassis designs, albeit the G3 has a wider track and larger brakes. If you consider the cars equivalent and assume that the power gain is the only differentiator you see that the current G3 specification must assume a 22% power gain. So something does not jive in how these cars were 'processed' at approximately the same point in time.

The G3 is processed @ 25%, the G2 is processed @ 30%, and the G1 is processed at 39%.

Chris,

I agree with you that if the G2 is processed @ 30%, it's at least 50# heavy. If they processed the G3 @ 30%, it would need ~140#. And if you processes the G1 @ 30%, it should lose ~140#.

If you process the G1 and G2 @ 25%, you get 1865# for the G1 and and 2140# for the G2. I don't think it's possible to get an IT-legal G1 that light. If you process the G1 for ITC, you get 2070# @ 25% and 2155# @ 30%

[Charlie Broring]

Here is the deal on the GolfIII guys. It is spot on the process except we subtracted 50lbs for the beam rear axle. In V.2 clarified the 'crappy rear suspension' subtracter to just a solid axle for rwd cars. That car wouldn't get a torque adder with my vote and it was processed at 25%. So it's 50lbs too light according to V.2.

The other cars could get redone should the CRB allow the ITAC to help them.

You miss my point. The Volvo is just fine in weight. Most old cars except for the poor early VW's are fine. Even the Audi is fine. A few recently classed cars, most notibally the VW MK 3 are significantly too light or just too fast. The process formula is off in ITB and you will never see it unless you look at on track performance.

I've said too much. Back into the woodwork.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You miss my point. The Volvo is just fine in weight. Most old cars except for the poor early VW's are fine. Even the Audi is fine. A few recently classed cars, most notibally the VW MK 3 are significantly too light or just too fast. The process formula is off in ITB and you will never see it unless you look at on track performance.

I've said too much. Back into the woodwork.

Then you miss my point. The ITAC uses a Process to class cars. Some of the Volvo's, the Audi's and numerous other ITB cars reside in the ITCS at weights that are undocumented and unexplainable. In order to bring THEM in line, they have to be re-examined under the current way of doing things, so it is those cars that are 'wrong'...for no other reason than nobody has any idea why the weights were set and if those methods where comparable then.

[quadzjr]

I assume the VW 2.0L is a 8 valve? didn't they make a 16 valve one, or did that not come over to teh states?

[lateapex911]

I think they did, and they are in ITA. Also the 16V 1.8

[Knestis]

I assume the VW 2.0L is a 8 valve? didn't they make a 16 valve one, or did that not come over to teh states?

Correct on the on we race. The 2.0 16v did come in the last MkII GTIs (the ITA car) and Passats.

K

[shwah]

I assume the VW 2.0L is a 8 valve? didn't they make a 16 valve one, or did that not come over to teh states?

As noted. Golf 3 2.0 is an 8v crossflow head. It was also available with a 1.9 TDi and a 2.8 VR6. Golf 2 was available in 1.8 8v, 1.8 16v and 2.0 16v flavors. The 16vs are ITA cars.

Allegedly some of the 8vs 'sound' like ITA cars though

[Knestis]

cough286cough



K