September 2012 Fastrack

[pfrichardson]

...are posted: http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472

[Greg Amy]

Full Fastrack:
http://www.scca.com/assets/12-fastrack-sept.pdf

Master Tech Bulletin:
http://www.scca.com/assets/2012Maste...erFastrack.pdf

Current GCR:
http://www.scca.com/assets/2012GCR-updatedSeptember.pdf

[CRallo]

Which 85 Stang exceeds the performance levels of ITR?

[Flyinglizard]

The Mustang fits fine .
What about the ITB Rocco 2 with 180#s out?? Can that be right??
All I have to do is remove the cam and that car is back in class.

[shwah]

The Mustang fits fine .
What about the ITB Rocco 2 with 180#s out?? Can that be right??
All I have to do is remove the cam and that car is back in class.

Why should it weigh any more than the A1 GTI? Same motor, trans, brakes, suspension, but much higher polar moment of inertia with the park bench bumpers.

That said, I think it is a great car for B, as is the A1 GTI, but no one has seriously run one after the weight was corrected.

[tom91ita]

...What about the ITB Rocco 2 with 180#s out?? Can that be right??

looks like he asked for 181 #'s to be removed and it dropped 50 #'s

ITB
1. #4729 (Brooke Fairbanks) Reduce the weight of the 83-88 VW Scirocco II 8V by 181 lbs. In ITB, Volkswagen Scirocco II 8V (83-88), change weight as follows: from 2130 to 2080

[Chip42]

Which 85 Stang exceeds the performance levels of ITR?

the one with the 210hp V8 with 4bbl carb sold only in 1985.

[CRallo]

that doesn't sound like too much for R to me... what am I missing?

[ShelbyRacer]

Interesting that the CRB is "keeping my resume on file", yet I believe I've been added to the ITAC...

[erlrich]

Interesting that the CRB is "keeping my resume on file", yet I believe I've been added to the ITAC...

They have plans for you

[Chip42]

Interesting that the CRB is "keeping my resume on file", yet I believe I've been added to the ITAC...

we accept you one of us, one of us...

Seriously though, I look forward to working with you.

[Chip42]

that doesn't sound like too much for R to me... what am I missing?

I'm not a ford guy, nor american muscle guy in general, but those on the committee who are presented arguments that the specific mix of components on the 85GT, combined with IT rules, shakes out beyond the intended ITR performance envelope. we therefore voted to not allow it on those grounds. given the EFI cars ARE classified, I think it works out as a wash.

[Hoof Hearted]

looks like he asked for 181 #'s to be removed and it dropped 50 #'s

My letter was submitted in April, 2011 and was as follows:
Letter #4729
Title: Reduce the weight of the 83-88 VW Scirocco II 8V by 181 lbs.
Request: The 1983-88 US version VW Scirocco II 8 valve 1.8L "JH" motor produced 90hp from the factory.
Scources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Scirocco
http://www.scirocco.org/53b/history.html

Based on the ITAC Operations Manual, version 0.9, July 2010, this model vehicle should have a minimum racing weight with driver of 1949 pounds (using an assumed 30% gain above stock in IT trim). The calculation is as follows: 90*1.30*17*.98 = 1,949.22 rounded to 1949 lbs., down 181 lbs. from the current 2,130 lbs. Please consider this change. Thank you, Brooke Fairbanks SCCA member # 418214

I used a 30% gain versus the 25% hp gain due to the "drink straw" size exhaust manifold... ...the new weight now matches the 83-84 Rabbit GTI, but that's not what I requested.

[Flyinglizard]

After running the Rabbit and the Rocco with the same powerplant,, the Rabbit should get 50#, as it always has.
The Rocc is 6in shorter, much better glass angle. The vertical CG must be 5-6 in lower also. But Ihave never measured it.
The bumpers are the chunk, but the car still can turn in pretty well ,What the Rabbit makes up at turn in, the Rocc makes from middle to the end of the straight. IMHO/.
FWIW when I started running the Rocc in HP, the first thing I did was drop the front bumper off. MM

[shwah]

No way the vertical cg is that much lower, though the center of aerodynamic pressure is.

I don't think the SII is any shorter than a Rabbit with the required US bumpers installed.

There are mild aero differences, which are not allegedly considered in IT classing. There are also mild weight distribution differences, also not considered in IT classing, that I think effectively offset that change.

[Flyinglizard]

I dont have any numbers for the vertical CG. You're right, maybe 2 inlower.
By shorter, I meant lower in altitude. The overall length is a trifle longer for the Rock, maybe.. Idont have any complete Rabbits here.
The cars run real close with a 50# spread,IMHO.
But , Iwill take the Rock evreytime @ 50#.
The Rabbit really needs to be welded, the Rock can get by with a quaife. That leads me to think that the front roll center ,and overall CG is a good bit lower. Just cuz it keeps the inside tire down better. YMMV .

[Chip42]

The. Sciroco II and rabbit should be classes the same per it rules. Barring suspension design or drivetrain configuration differences, etc.. any 2 cars with the same engine should be the same weight when in the same class in IT.

What the letter asked for was a reprocess, and what the crb gave was a match to the golf. That was the crb's decision, and its resonably fair if not "the process". At least the roc isn't handicapped to the gti any more.

[Flyinglizard]

I now race the Rock . I am happy with 50# over the Rabbit.
The car is simply 50# faster over 3rd gear. Do anything you want. As I am out of IT and into Prod.
The rules and weights have never made much sense in the past. Now that the A 1 car are down to a fair weight, they could be pretty good. Too bad it took so long, we would still be in IT.

The Mk 3 needs another 100# if you do the simple math of # per CC, But that wont happen if heavy hitters are running the cars.IMHO.

[Bill Miller]

looks like he asked for 181 #'s to be removed and it dropped 50 #'s

My letter was submitted in April, 2011 and was as follows:
Letter #4729
Title: Reduce the weight of the 83-88 VW Scirocco II 8V by 181 lbs.
Request: The 1983-88 US version VW Scirocco II 8 valve 1.8L "JH" motor produced 90hp from the factory.
Scources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Scirocco
http://www.scirocco.org/53b/history.html

Based on the ITAC Operations Manual, version 0.9, July 2010, this model vehicle should have a minimum racing weight with driver of 1949 pounds (using an assumed 30% gain above stock in IT trim). The calculation is as follows: 90*1.30*17*.98 = 1,949.22 rounded to 1949 lbs., down 181 lbs. from the current 2,130 lbs. Please consider this change. Thank you, Brooke Fairbanks SCCA member # 418214

I used a 30% gain versus the 25% hp gain due to the "drink straw" size exhaust manifold... ...the new weight now matches the 83-84 Rabbit GTI, but that's not what I requested.

These cars will continue to get screwed by the CRB. The 2080# weight has no basis in anything. Even if you use the claimed output that a former ITAC member said he saw, the car is still heavy at 2080#. The Rabbit GTI was one of the early cars to be adjusted under TGR. There was no formal process in place at the time. What they did, was simply shave 100# off of the old, pre-TGR, weight. There's no math anywhere that supports the 2080# weight. If you run the process in reverse, using the 2080# spec weight, you come up w/ an ~39% (38.72% to be exact) power factor, based on the stock hp published value of 90hp. I don't think there's any car in IT that has a power factor that high. And as someone that's spent a lot of time w/ this motor, and spent a lot of time on the phone w/ some of the top VW engine builders in the country, there is no way that an IT-legal JH motor will make anywhere near the hp (124.85 per the process) to require a weight of 2080#

And when I read your post, I thought that April, 2011 must be a typo. No way that a simple re-process request should take upwards of 16 months. But when I went back and started looking at the letter numbers, it looks like they're over 8000 now. Really? Almost 16 months to deal w/ a re-process request? And then do nothing more than set it at the same weight at the Rabbit GTI? Does anybody think that's acceptable?

The. Sciroco II and rabbit should be classes the same per it rules. Barring suspension design or drivetrain configuration differences, etc.. any 2 cars with the same engine should be the same weight when in the same class in IT.

What the letter asked for was a reprocess, and what the crb gave was a match to the golf. That was the crb's decision, and its resonably fair if not "the process". At least the roc isn't getting screwed any worse than the gti any more.

FTFY


Open question to the current ITAC, Doesn't the ITAC Ops Manual require supporting documentation in cases where the spec weight differs from the process weight? I know it talks about a 75% confidence vote for deviation from the published process, w/ supporting data like dyno sheets, etc.

[JeffYoung]

These cars will continue to get screwed by the CRB. The 2080# weight has no basis in anything. Even if you use the claimed output that a former ITAC member said he saw, the car is still heavy at 2080#. The Rabbit GTI was one of the early cars to be adjusted under TGR. There was no formal process in place at the time. What they did, was simply shave 100# off of the old, pre-TGR, weight. There's no math anywhere that supports the 2080# weight. If you run the process in reverse, using the 2080# spec weight, you come up w/ an ~39% (38.72% to be exact) power factor, based on the stock hp published value of 90hp. I don't think there's any car in IT that has a power factor that high. And as someone that's spent a lot of time w/ this motor, and spent a lot of time on the phone w/ some of the top VW engine builders in the country, there is no way that an IT-legal JH motor will make anywhere near the hp (124.85 per the process) to require a weight of 2080#

And when I read your post, I thought that April, 2011 must be a typo. No way that a simple re-process request should take upwards of 16 months. But when I went back and started looking at the letter numbers, it looks like they're over 8000 now. Really? Almost 16 months to deal w/ a re-process request? And then do nothing more than set it at the same weight at the Rabbit GTI? Does anybody think that's acceptable?



FTFY


Open question to the current ITAC, Doesn't the ITAC Ops Manual require supporting documentation in cases where the spec weight differs from the process weight? I know it talks about a 75% confidence vote for deviation from the published process, w/ supporting data like dyno sheets, etc.

Yes, but the CRB can still proceed as it wants.

We recommended a process weight for this car. The CRB went a different direction.