March 2011 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

She's up.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...rack-march.pdf

[lateapex911]

Not much, but one interesting item:

ITB
1. #2643 (John VanDenburgh) run Audi Coupe GT thru the current IT classing method. In 9.1.3, ITB, Audi GT Coupe (84-86), change weight from 2540 to 2500. [The Audi Coupe (81-84) is classified appropriately.]

Still no action on my engine mount request. Maybe this month.

[Greg Amy]

M$%^$%RF#$%#$S. Sorry for the language, but it's well-deserved in this case:

2. #4176 (CR Clarify 9.3.41 Clarify 9.3.41 as follows: “Seats with a back not attached to the main roll hoop or its cross bracing may be mounted on runners only if they were part of the FIA homologated assembly specified in an FIA homologated race car.”

Fortunately, they f****d it up again: there's no GCR glossary definition of "runners" (unless they're referring to "a duct of an induction system leading to the cylinder head"...)

[Knestis]

M$%^$%RF#$%#. Sorry for the language, but it's well-deserved in this case:

2. #4176 (CR Clarify 9.3.41 Clarify 9.3.41 as follows: “Seats with a back not attached to the main roll hoop or its cross bracing may be mounted on runners only if they were part of the FIA homologated assembly specified in an FIA homologated race car.”

Fortunately, they f****d it up again: there's no GCR glossary definition of "runners" (unless they're referring to "a duct of an induction system leading to the cylinder head"...)

Which is FINE until Kirk shows up at a race by airplane, with the car getting hauled around on a $/mile basis, only to discover that some enthusiastic tech inspector has made that his cause celebre for the weekend, and makes him fix it before going out on the track. At night. In the rain. With materials from Home Depot.

Stupid, ignorant, spineless...

K

[Chip42]

Which is FINE until Kirk shows up at a race by airplane, with the car getting hauled around on a $/mile basis, only to discover that some enthusiastic tech inspector has made that his cause celebre for the weekend, and makes him fix it before going out on the track. At night. In the rain. With materials from Home Depot.

Stupid, ignorant, spineless...

K

KK,

IF your sliders were of the double-captured type we beat to death on this forum a few weeks back, then that was REALLY stupid.

If they were stock, I have to give it to tech.

that was most likely my father - Chief of Tech for the SC region. Don't hold it against me or vice versa . He's on a mission to get all seats required to have a back brace. we don't see eye to eye on it. he's a very well educated man, chemist, lawyer, but he's stubborn. if you follow the fastracks, you'll see his name and mine pop up on opposite sides of this issue. We don't get to see each other much. He's part of the anti-FIA cult. I think they never got over being snubbed by De Gaul and hold all of France and all thinks even remotely french to blame.

My take: fix the MOUNTING guidelines/rules so the bubblegum and poprivet BS is put out. correct the impressions of the old people that a seat must be rigid throughout its length (only its base must be, the rest should give a designed amount to damp out the shock of an impact). re-examine the slider rules to disallow stock components but allow quality racing gear and purpose built devices of adequate strength.

oh - and yay for a "what do you think" for non USDM motors in STU!! wait - what about L?

[JeffYoung]

No kidding! That's your dad?

He's a great guy in tech at CMP. We always chat a bit about lawyer stuff.

Anyway, merits of the issue aside, I really enjoy talking to him.

[Knestis]

KK,

IF your sliders were of the double-captured type we beat to death on this forum a few weeks back, then that was REALLY stupid.

If they were stock, I have to give it to tech.

that was most likely my father...?

My case was hypothetical but it's confidence inspiring to hear that it could actually happen.

My rails are indeed the actual Recaro double captured high-zoot sliders, purchased specifically because they are the right parts for the job.

K

[Tkczecheredflag]

M$%^$%RF#$%#. Sorry for the language, but it's well-deserved in this case:

2. #4176 (CR Clarify 9.3.41 Clarify 9.3.41 as follows: “Seats with a back not attached to the main roll hoop or its cross bracing may be mounted on runners only if they were part of the FIA homologated assembly specified in an FIA homologated race car.”

Fortunately, they f****d it up again: there's no GCR glossary definition of "runners" (unless they're referring to "a duct of an induction system leading to the cylinder head"...)

A couple of years a ago my "seat runners" were attached to the main hoop - Tech, during my Annual made me cut them out, totally compromising the safety of the seat set up, stating that these were two addtional cage monting points and stiffened the car - needless to say that there are many of these cage/runner set ups. The next year they changed the rules to allow for these mounting points - make up your minds please.

[Gary L]

Something occurred to me on the Audi stock HP issue (Bentley vs ETKA vs whatever)... and I realize it is not typically the ITAC's job to dig this deep (and then again!). In any case, this issue seems to be so contentious that I thought this would be worth mentioning.

What if - the primary source documents for the horsepower figures were not in any form of "horsepower" at all? What if, for instance, those source documents were in kW and in the process of conversion to SAE net HP for the various 3rd party documents, the wrong conversion factors were used for some or all? I bring this up because of what appears to be a disconnect in the one Bentley-derived kW vs HP figure that Stephen presented a page or two back. I noted it at the time in a responsive post, but just in case anyone missed it... 89.4 kW is not 110 SAE net HP, it's 120, give or take a few tenths.

Obviously, the seemingly errant ratio of that one pair of numbers could also have been the result of a bad conversion in the other direction. Or... Stephen, did you fat-finger the kW number, perchance?

Interestingly, John's photo of the spec page from his Bentley (I think?) manual doesn't mention kW at all.

[Rabbit05]

Gary,
Yes the picture above is from my Bentley manual.

-John

[Gary L]

I bring this up because of what appears to be a disconnect in the one Bentley-derived kW vs HP figure that Stephen presented a page or two back. I noted it at the time in a responsive post, but just in case anyone missed it... 89.4 kW is not 110 SAE net HP, it's 120, give or take a few tenths.

Aw, crap! Stephen's post says 84.9, not 89.4. Geez - dyslexia is obviously setting in.

However, comma... even 84.9 doesn't result in 110, it converts to 114. Good gawd.

[Greg Amy]

Still no action on my engine mount request. Maybe this month.

I'm noticing some ST items missing too. Coulda been the last CRB meeting was in Vegas and they missed some stuff.

Or it just could be you.

[StephenB]

ITB
1. #2643 (John VanDenburgh) run Audi Coupe GT thru the current IT classing method. In 9.1.3, ITB, Audi GT Coupe (84-86), change weight from 2540 to 2500. [The Audi Coupe (81-84) is classified appropriately.] .

This is a perfect example of why things need to be documented. This process is only going to destroy things more... 81-84 coupe is at 2490. the coupe GT WAS at 2540. And they actually had a reason for it back when they classified these cars. Looks like everyone with an 81-84 now needs to go out and purchase all new brakes, bumpers, headlights, grills and sets of wheels.

THANKS ITAC...Love you guys
Stephen

Maybe someone on the ITAC with some balls will chime in on the "process" that they used to come up with the 2500. doubt it though.

[JeffYoung]

I don't find the tone or the wording of your post appropriate.

We have all tried to do the right thing with these very problematic cars (difficult to determine stock hp, difficult to determine gain, unusual motor, etc.).

In my personal opinion, and correct me if I am wrong, you and your brother didn't do yourselves many favors by relying on stock horsepower numbers that I am pretty sure you knew were inaccurate.

I don't know much about these cars, but listened to what others had to say and voted according to what I thought was right.

I'll try later tonight to go back and figure out how the numbers ran and post them for you.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is a perfect example of why things need to be documented. This process is only going to destroy things more... 81-84 coupe is at 2490. the coupe GT WAS at 2540. And they actually had a reason for it back when they classified these cars. Looks like everyone with an 81-84 now needs to go out and purchase all new brakes, bumpers, headlights, grills and sets of wheels.

THANKS ITAC...Love you guys
Stephen

Maybe someone on the ITAC with some balls will chime in on the "process" that they used to come up with the 2500. doubt it though.

Stephen,

I have no idea why you would say that the 81-84 guys would have to buy anything if nothing has changed.

The GT math looks simple to me:

120*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2499 rounded to 2500.

And NO, back when they classified these cars there was NO rhyme or reason as to the weights. So, the GT is now in line with ITB given the 120hp starting point.

[Rabbit05]

Andy,
ummm..120 is not stock hp.

I think its 110 hp for the Audi CGT. At least everything I have read and seen says 110 hp..and I have owned CGT's , and reluctantly restored them, for the last few years. 120 hp sounds big to me.


I was also thinking there would be more weight to be lost there.
I have been trying to understand the formula for processing cars. I cant seem to get a grasp on the "process", can you explain your math ?

From what I have read....
It's stock hp and add 25%...then ITB is 17lb per hp...then they said add 50 lbs max for a torque-y-ish motor..so i just added 50lbs. I am coming up with 2387...using the 110 hp stock number.

What am I missing ?

-John

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,
ummm..120 is not stock hp.

I think its 110 hp for the Audi CGT. At least everything I have read and seen says 110 hp..and I have owned CGT's , and reluctantly restored them, for the last few years. 120 hp sounds big to me.


I was also thinking there would be more weight to be lost there.
I have been trying to understand the formula for processing cars. I cant seem to get a grasp on the "process", can you explain your math ?

From what I have read....
It's stock hp and add 25%...then ITB is 17lb per hp...then they said add 50 lbs max for a torque-y-ish motor..so i just added 50lbs. I am coming up with 2387...using the 110 hp stock number.

What am I missing ?

-John

John,

You are missing that they used 120hp for the stock number.

That is one of the gotcha's with this car.

[jjjanos]

Stephen,

I have no idea why you would say that the 81-84 guys would have to buy anything if nothing has changed.

The GT math looks simple to me:

120*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2499 rounded to 2500.

Exactly why additional documentation is needed. I know jack about these cars, but using google, the consistent HP is given as 110. Another.

110 * 1.25 * 17 * .98 = 2290

Not saying the 120 is wrong, but the source of that 120HP suddenly becomes a big "?".

[JeffYoung]

JJJ, I would think this is one of this issues you would applaud us for.

On track performance on these cars -- two underdeveloped examples doing extremely well at the ARRC -- caused us to dig deeper.

As I understand it, the actual stock hp number is given in Audi technical manuals and is 120. A few folks on the committee did a lot of work in digging that information up and, I believe it to be correct.

I think some of the Audi/VW crowd knows this but was quiest about it for a long time.

[RSTPerformance]

I have basically avoidEd the "Internet side" of our club for a long time for a reason... I am so disapointed again with SCCA... The club has a lot of great people in it but the ITAC, CRB and BOD are a friggen joke. They have always spewed more bullshit and lies than just about any other organized group of people I know. Don't get sucked into all the crap.

If you are new to the club here are the facts that I have learned over the past couple years that some want to say and others are going to be pissed I said it...

1) MOST members on the organizations above have thier own agenda and will tell you bullshit "in private" to make you feel like they are helping you. If you want something done kiss ass get on the committee and solve your agenda. Otherwise don't give a shit; Just race, and avoid the gossip (your opinion DOES NOT matter and you will only get angry)!

2) Stewards and Tech are only going to check safety items and weight on IT cars. CHEAT like a bastard, run in the front (but don't dominate) and have fun. Don't piss rich people off who like to gamble with money and you won't get protested by other drivers. As mentioned the stewards won't check unless it is in the supps for the race (ARRC) because if they don't find anything the club has to pay.

3) don't get sucked it to peoples comments on the Internet and avoid reading all this bullshit...

Raymond "just another guy typing how he feels" Blethen

PS: Jeff- Phils comments are very accurate, I have never asked for changes based on HP numbers I knew were inaccurate. Also how hard is it to get people to understand the facts on our ARRC performance. Stephen posted a good summary. We drive the wheels off the cars and the cars had and have a TON of development. I would argue most people don't take the risks we do to do as well as we have... As far as I can tell you fit right in on the ITAC or CRB (I have no idea where you are a member). You listen to biast comments to make your decisions and fail to do your own research (Imagine a committee member who calls or asks members driving the cars for an opinion). It's to bad you wasted $120 for a car that in reality very few people care about... It's a little late to do your own research. As Phil pointed out years ago the hp ratings I have quoted were acurate from the factory manual. The numbers he posts are from some top secret dealer manual that also lists alternate parts not originally offered on the car. The manual required in tech to be refered to is the one you ordered... Please post the hp numbers when you read it!