March 2011 Fastrack

[Knestis]

Josh answered your question pretty well but I wanted to point out that while it says when the CRB has to wait, it does not say they have to rush.
We see that with competition adjustments (yea I know, Bleah) in other categories all the time where they will give a month or two for the change.

I'm not feeling like I've soaked up the subtleties and implications but thanks to both of you for the additional info. I missed that information that Josh posted.

...Anyone that says the ITAC is playing games or hiding things needs to STFU. ...

Let's be clear about what is - and is not - being said here. The Audi is something of an acid test for the new operating manual. There are some concerns. I don't think I've seen ANYONE suggest that the ITAC is "playing games," but that doesn't mean folks can't be worried.

John (et al.) - Pragmatically, I suspect that the ITAC would love to go with the "What we know" approach on the Coupe, if for no other reason than it's been a point of contention in the past. (I might of course be WAY wrong.) While dyno data isn't a prerequisite for specification, it's one route to resolution. One route. I daresay that if we'd had substantial dyno data from multiple sources the FIRST time we addressed the Coupe, it would have been resolved long ago. We might not all have LIKED the resolution, but it would have been done.

The Scirocco II is a "legacy" listing. It hasn't had any attention that I know of since the Great Realignment. Any effort to make it makes sense in the context of other cars more recently spec'd will result in head banging. Don't do it.

Rock on.

Kirk

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thats funny right there, LOL

True! Got caught up in the context of the thread - of which Raymond was using as some sort of fact - like he has with other stuff in the thread. More reading Raymond!!!

[rcc85]

Let me see...110 hp * 1.25 = 137.50 less 15% driveline loss = 116.87 at the wheels.
Am I right on this?

120 hp * 1.25 = 150 less 15% driveline loss = 127.50 at the wheels.

125 hp * 1.25 = 156.25 less 15% = 132.8.

Of course, the problem with dyno numbers, just like on track performance, is that you don't know if it is an 8/10ths build or a 12/10ths build.

Bob Clifton
ITB Dodge Daytona

[Bill Miller]

I actually look at it differently (and this is just me as an individual talking, not the ITAC as a whole.) The original spec of 110hp was generated when the car was built, and yes, appears all over the place because everyone shares the same source.

However, the fact that the ETKA has changed, especially after production has ended, is very interesting to me. These things don't "just change" ... somebody changes them. And believe me, with big companies and big volumes of data, they change with purpose, not accidentally. So in my mind there's something significant about the updated numbers. I suspect that if you buy a KX crate motor now, it has 120hp. What's different, I have no idea. But that the number has changed is a big clue that SOMETHING has changed.

[ Again -- that's not from the ITAC, that's just from me. ]

I'm inclined to go the other way on that one Josh. I'll call the local Audi dealer to confirm, but I would imagine that a crate KX motor is NLA, and probably has been for a while. The earlier version of ETKA that I looked at (Ver. 6) covers cars up to 2003. It shows two different power ratings for a KX motor, 85Kw and 88Kw. That's the lack of internal consistency w/in the same document that I mentioned before. I'm not convinced that VW would go back and change specs on older stuff like that. Unfortunately, w/o any kind of additional documentation, you can't know why the numbers are different. Is it due to a real change in hard parts or is it just a clerical error? And if it's a change in hard parts, are those parts that you could change in an IT build? If so, that would probably impact your ability to reach a 25% gain w/ an IT build.

I don't know much about the Audi motors, other than they were essentially 1.8 4-cyl motors w/ an extra cylinder stuck on the end. I don't know what changed over the years w.r.t. hard parts. I can look at the ETKA version I have and see if there are different part #'s for things like cam, crank, manifold, etc. over the years.

Nope.

The only thing that happened here is that the ITAC knew of conflicting stock HP information, did extensive research and ran the car through at the number they thought was the most accurate.

Whether you or I agree with that number is a whole 'nother thread.

Andy,

Not sure if you missed this when I asked it before, but what criteria did you guys use to determine 'most accurate'?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Not sure if you missed this when I asked it before, but what criteria did you guys use to determine 'most accurate'?

Sorry Bill, I didn't miss it. I haven't been on the committee for over a year. Current ITAC members will have to volunteer their personal opinions.

[lateapex911]

I'm trying to remember a case like this, actually, Andy. The RX8 we had several publications from Mazda revising the power, and even then we knew that one wasn't right but were able to solve that with great real data.
The Miata was a case that decided current op manual policy, but that one was different as well: a known revision, as opposed to a "Which of the FOUR ratings is right" question.

IF I were on the ITAC now, I'd need convincing to use one of the ETKA options....but hey, I'm not, LOL, so, they'll have to fill us in when...or it...they decide to look deeper and make any changes.

[tnord]

this isn't a courtroom, the laws around "methods of discovery" do not apply. i'm using all information i have availalbe to me to make the best decision i can.

[Knestis]

I'm trying to remember a case like this, actually, Andy. The RX8 we had several publications from Mazda revising the power, and even then we knew that one wasn't right but were able to solve that with great real data.
The Miata was a case that decided current op manual policy, but that one was different as well: a known revision, as opposed to a "Which of the FOUR ratings is right" question.

IF I were on the ITAC now, I'd need convincing to use one of the ETKA options....but hey, I'm not, LOL, so, they'll have to fill us in when...or it...they decide to look deeper and make any changes.

The RX8 was a "what we know" situation because it's a horse of a completely different color. It's substantively different than the Coupe question.

I'd propose that Coupe racers think hard about what they'd like to see in terms of reconciling the older, lower-power version into the bigger picture. Do you want them all rolled into one spec line - older and newer, all with the same stock power starting point for weight - or do you want the older one on a separate line?

This is one reason that ITB is a bigger challenge than the other classes. It captures some very popular cars like the 4-cyl Mustang, that had long lives and went through lots of evolutionary changes. When looking into that particular car for the "ITB Spreadsheet" (boy, do I want THOSE hours back!) it was a hot mess. Based on what I could find for specs, an argument could be made that it should be on SIX spec lines, with stock power ratings from 88 to 112hp.

K

[Bill Miller]

Sorry Bill, I didn't miss it. I haven't been on the committee for over a year. Current ITAC members will have to volunteer their personal opinions.

I'm not trying to pick a fight w/ you Andy, but either you were on the ITAC at the time, were involved in the discussion, and know how the decision was arrived at, or you weren't, and have no basis to make a statement like that.

If it was just a general comment as to how you felt the ITAC acted, that's cool. I read it as something you were involved in.

And why would it be someone's personal opinion? Or was this another one of those things that fell through the documentation cracks?

[rcc85]

Travis,


On another note I don't understand why or how dyno numbers would help you. Just so that you can have a number last time I checked I had 132HP (peek). I hope this helps in your calculations and reasoning.

Stephen


.

132HP peak? At the wheels? From your car? On a reliable dyno? That looks like a pretty healthy number to me. I'd need a turbo to get that kind of power!!

Bob Clifton
ITB Dodge Daytona

[tnord]

132whp ties to 120 a lot better than it ties to 110.

[Russ Myers]

K.
Throw the Pinto in with the Mustang please. Same problem with various years.

Russ

[GTIspirit]

Let me see...110 hp * 1.25 = 137.50 less 15% driveline loss = 116.87 at the wheels.
Am I right on this?

120 hp * 1.25 = 150 less 15% driveline loss = 127.50 at the wheels.

125 hp * 1.25 = 156.25 less 15% = 132.8.

Of course, the problem with dyno numbers, just like on track performance, is that you don't know if it is an 8/10ths build or a 12/10ths build.

Bob Clifton
ITB Dodge Daytona

There is also the problem of what kind of dyno was used for the measurement. Mustang Dyno or Dynojet? Then you have to decide, does the Dynojet read correctly and the Mustang reads low? Or does the Dynojet exaggerate numbers and the Mustang is more accurate? It's hard to define what's correct when at the end of the day hp can't be directly measured, it's just a number calculated from torque and engine/rolls speed. How the load is applied greatly affects the numbers, hence the very different readings between a Mustang Dyno and Dynojet.

My view is that because hp numbers are easily gamed, let the process determine a good baseline starting point then let competition adjustments come into play.

[CRallo]

132HP peak? At the wheels? From your car? On a reliable dyno? That looks like a pretty healthy number to me. I'd need a turbo to get that kind of power!!

Bob Clifton
ITB Dodge Daytona

132whp ties to 120 a lot better than it ties to 110.

all depends on the dyno... AND it's got funky gear ratios that may or may not have been accounted for while dynoing.

[Knestis]

K.
Throw the Pinto in with the Mustang please. Same problem with various years.

Russ

Indeed. Also the Volvi (142/242), and the Fiat 124 that we dealt with at some length last year.

K

[Knestis]

...let competition adjustments come into play.

Sorry but, NO.

If you're talking about "competition adjustments" (bleah!) as are traditionally applied in the Club, defined as adding weight simply based on observed on-track performance, you are going to have a hell of a fight on your hands. The reason release of the ITAC operations manual is so historical, is that it is fundamentally against exactly that approach.

No. NO. NO.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm not trying to pick a fight w/ you Andy, but either you were on the ITAC at the time, were involved in the discussion, and know how the decision was arrived at, or you weren't, and have no basis to make a statement like that.

If it was just a general comment as to how you felt the ITAC acted, that's cool. I read it as something you were involved in.

And why would it be someone's personal opinion? Or was this another one of those things that fell through the documentation cracks?

I'm not taking as fight-picking. I'm just making a a general statement. See the facts, weigh the facts, make a vote. Easy. Each individual would have to weigh in with why they voted how on what number.

[shwah]

The Scirocco lost 100# along with the 83-84 GTI a few years ago. The weight difference between the two is a legacy.

I will say that my experience is that the low compression motors gain more than the high compression motors in the VW counterflow 8v world. I think the cars are a bit heavy still, but not triple digits heavy. Actually IMO right now I think an S-roc has the best potential at tight tracks like BHF.

[Hoof Hearted]

Actually IMO right now I think an S-roc has the best potential at tight tracks like BHF.

You and Mike kicked my ass at BHF... ...but that's more of a "dead weight" in the seat and less of a car issue.

[Bill Miller]

I'm not taking as fight-picking. I'm just making a a general statement. See the facts, weigh the facts, make a vote. Easy. Each individual would have to weigh in with why they voted how on what number.

Fair enough Andy. I misinterpreted your earlier comment to mean that you guys discussed the different ratings, did the research, and then determined which # to use, and then processed the car. I guess where I got crossed up is that I thought there would have been some kind of record as to why a specific # was selected, especially when it deviated from what was in the service manual.

Chris,

While the lower compression motors, and specifically the JH motors w/ the 'toilet bowl' manifold, may gain more than an HT or RD motor, they're not making the gains that would be required to justify the current weight. 125 chp or 106 whp is just not possible out of that motor, w/ a legal IT build. Ask any of the top shops that built those motors all through the 90's. I've got a file that's probably 2 or 3 inches thick, that was put together back in the 90's by folks like the Pucketts, Stu Brummer of BSI, etc., documenting what kind of power an IT-legal JH motor would make.