Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[Ron Earp]

Ron - your point may be relevant, but I think you need to check your math... a five hp shift results in a 105 lb (rounded) difference: 5 x 1.25 x 17 = 106.25 lbs.

No arithmetic done from my side. I was purely talking in general terms. While 105 lbs is considerable the point is still valid - as others have stated there is no guarantee the class will be perfectly balanced and no obligation to make every model just as competitive as the others. Those conditions would be ideal but this isn't utopia.

So... I would have to conclude there's a very strong possibility the 115 hp number is the result of someone using an incorrect conversion factor.

Anyhow... this all makes me wonder what the KW rating is in all the "other" documents (shop manuals, owner manuals, etc.) that show 110 hp?

Very good points.

[Bill Miller]

An inherent issue with the dyno-know-what-we-know scenario. That's why (I believe) the ITAC would like to have a 'pile' of sheets so that they can draw a reasonable conclusion. One sheet would be the start or the puzzle, but it does need to be validated. And that is also why the ITAC has a 'confidence vote' on how valid and confident they feel about such information. If it doesn't pass the sniff test, it doesn't trigger more action.

In the end, we know there is no silver bullet and a car like this, with sketchy documentation, compounds the problem. That is where you sometimes have to lean back (reluctantly) on the 'no guarantee' stipulation IMHO.

The ITAC is busting their balls on this car - and a lot in ITB - it's just much harder with over 40 years worth of info (or lack thereof).

But that's the rub Andy, it's an unusual car, not many out there, people are discouraged from building them because they are boned on weight, no one really knows what the potential of a full-tilt build is, so where is the incentive to spend the cubic $ to get there? This is only exacerbated by the climate of the SCCA PTB.

I thought one of the main reasons behind developing an objective classification process for IT, was to get more people out there racing IT cars. People are much more inclined to get involved w/ a category if they feel that things are done objectively, and out in the open. We've seen it all too often that if someone can't get to the preconceived notion of what the power output should be, they're obviously leaving something on the table. Things like conflicting information, unsubstantiated claims, and grossly high weights that have no supporting data behind them don't give many people a warm, fuzzy feeling that their car will be treated fairly and objectively.

And while thankfully it is now gone, the fact that people even considered using a different multiplier for a given engine configuration based solely on the class that it was in was absurd. The fact that it got to the point of being codified really makes one wonder what the hell people were thinking, and what kind of twisted logic did they use to justify it.

I say look at IT like it was new. Class all the cars using the process, and the standard 25% power multiplier. For cars where there is known data that supports a deviation (either + or -), adjust the weight, and list the PCA in the spec line for the car. For example:

The AW11 Toyota MR2 w/ the 4A-GE engine, runs at xxxx#, rather than the yyyy# that the process would dictate, because there is strong evidence that the car can not achieve a 25% gain w/ a legal IT build. The data indicate that this car makes xx% gain w/ a full-tilt, IT-legal build. Therefore, that is the power multiplier that is used to determine the weight.

Use them, that's why they were put in there.

[Rabbit05]

Gary,
I see your point ....but again you are comparing data form a spreadsheet with now known differences in data . So how can the information supplied there be considered true or factual ?? (BTW its a parts list this info is coming from)

[Bill Miller]

(BTW its a parts list this info is coming from)

John,

I believe it is from ETKA, the official VW/Audi dealer parts system. I think the one in the Dave Z. posted is v7. I have a copy of v6 (non-windows version) somewhere. It's supposed to be only available to dealers, but there have been bootleg/cracked copies of it floating around the internet for years now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But that's the rub Andy, it's an unusual car, not many out there, people are discouraged from building them because they are boned on weight, no one really knows what the potential of a full-tilt build is, so where is the incentive to spend the cubic $ to get there? This is only exacerbated by the climate of the SCCA PTB.

I am not sure they are boned on weight. If the 120hp is correct, they are spot on @ 25%.

There is no incentive. If you have a car that the process fails, build something else.

I say look at IT like it was new. Class all the cars using the process, and the standard 25% power multiplier. For cars where there is known data that supports a deviation (either + or -), adjust the weight, and list the PCA in the spec line for the car. For example: Use them, that's why they were put in there.

Where are we missing each other? Two stock hp ratings are in play. How do you class it 'as new'?

[Rabbit05]

Andy ,
This is where you go off track.... it s not that the process failed the car. Its using incorrect data to Process the car .

Also , I dug up a Car and Driver review of the car ....

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...oupe-gt-page-9


Stating 110 hp in the article....soooo a large , National, creditable magazine..published incorrect information as well ?

[Bill Miller]

I am not sure they are boned on weight. If the 120hp is correct, they are spot on @ 25%.

There is no incentive. If you have a car that the process fails, build something else.



Where are we missing each other? Two stock hp ratings are in play. How do you class it 'as new'?

For some reason, that just doesn't jive w/ what I think IT and the process is all about. I think one of the long-standing traits of IT, is that it gave a lot of folks to do something they always wanted to do, and that is race a car that they love. And another thing, w/ all the work that went into the IT process (including the PCA provisions), the process really shouldn't fail any car. What the problem is, is when someone won't let the process be applied correctly.

As far as the 2 different stock hp numbers, I'd be inclined to go w/ the lower one, and see what happens. If it's wrong, adjust w/ a PCA. In my view, it's easier to add than to take away. I would have treated the MR2 the same, from the outset. Class it at 25%, and adjust it w/ a PCA when it's demonstrated that it can't make 25%. But in that case, you didn't have conflicting published hp numbers, so you have to initially go w/ the number that's out there. Granted, the car has been around a long time, and there should be a decent amount of info on it. That means I don't think it's inconceivable to class and adjust w/ a PCA at the same time. Car is submitted for move to ITB, process says that it should weigh xxxx, data is submitted at the same time that supports a 20% gain, and a subsequent weight of yyyy. If anything, it's 2 entries in FasTrack.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Except where the process doesn't define what to do in this situation. You stated that you would go with the lower number, and added a reasonable description as to why. SOme would say that they would go with the higher number first so as to not screw with the larger group of people effected - the class.

Both arguments have merit but neither procedure is spelled out in the Ops Manual because this is an anomaly. So there is no path to be 'applied correctly'.

As to the documentation, the C&D article does muddy the waters. The conversions from Gary also cloud my mind.

[Rabbit05]

But Andy,
...... "not to mess with the class" contradicts the " not guarantee to be competitive".

So you are suggesting that some say not to mess with the weight because the whole class with be ruined ??

[Bill Miller]

Except where the process doesn't define what to do in this situation. You stated that you would go with the lower number, and added a reasonable description as to why. SOme would say that they would go with the higher number first so as to not screw with the larger group of people effected - the class.

Both arguments have merit but neither procedure is spelled out in the Ops Manual because this is an anomaly. So there is no path to be 'applied correctly'.

As to the documentation, the C&D article does muddy the waters. The conversions from Gary also cloud my mind.

I do understand that Andy, and maybe I should have fleshed out my response a bit more. If it were a case of exactly the same amount of info, w/ the same apparent level of confidence, reporting the the different numbers, then I'm not sure what the best course of action would be. Maybe taking the average (and documenting that). Baring that, I would go w/ the number that had the greater number of unique, valid (i.e. factory publications, major magazine articles, etc.) instances. In the case of the Audi, there seem to be more of these that point to 110hp.

And please don't think that I'm not sensitive to the existing balance of the class. But the reality of it is, that you don't get tons of a given car showing up right after they're classified, so there's a bit of 'lag' in terms of how they impact the current status quo. It would take a watchful eye, to see how the cars do early on. If you start seeing the early cars, do really well right out of the gate, I would look pretty hard at that. Who built them? Who were they running against? Are all the examples performing similarly? Etc.

Several years ago (pre-ITR), there was a guy in the PNW running an ITS E36 BMW. He bragged about he he was cleaning up in ITS w/ a J/Y motor and other mods that were far from a 10/10ths build. Granted, he wasn't running against the top ITS cars in the country, but it was another data point that was consistent w/ the E36 not being correctly classed / spec'd. So I guess what I'm saying is that you have to look at the build level (hard to develop a car to be a front runner right away, if it's classed appropriately to its competition), as well as how it performs.

[gran racing]

Remove all of that garbage, and I bet the Blethen's outlook would be different. The actions back then bother me too and I sure would have considered moving on. We are at a different place now with the Audi but it's going to be hard for them to wipe away that history.

John, THEY was referring to my appreciation that it would be hard for the Blethen's to not still have ill feelings towards that situation. It was not stating the ITAC or CRB is using any on-track performance as the rationale for the 120 HP rating.

Also , I dug up a Car and Driver review of the car ....

Stating 110 hp in the article....soooo a large , National, creditable magazine..published incorrect information as well ?

Really? Absolutely! There's a reason why they had their legal department write such a long disclosure about the information they publish, but here's a small snippet:

Car and Driver. ... HEARST ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERROR, OMISSION, INTERRUPTION, DELETION, DEFECT,....

There is no incentive. If you have a car that the process fails, build something else.

Exactly.

This car was classed this way before John built it and there is plenty of information out there about the horsepower ratings and related debate. You've been around racing for a while, you had the opportunity to build a lot of different cars. Why the Audi if you felt this way?

I'm honestly having a difficult time finding sympathy at this point for ya. I spent quite a bit of time making friends with two Honda dealerships, working with Honda Performance Development on various challenges. If it were me and it were that important, I would find a way to get access to that microfiche, send an e-mail to Audi in Germany (I'm sure Kia would be willing to translate an e-mail), make a bunch of phone calls, whatever needed to be done.

We can't expect the ITAC to do all of the leg work for us. The car has received a significant amount of discussion, now it's up the members such as you to do the work.

[Rabbit05]

Dave,
1.)My apologies for misunderstanding what you said. My bad...


2.)Ok legal jargon...yup the magazine had to write the legal disclaimer. Doesn't mean its not true.

3.) And you seem pretty interested on why I built an Audi ...I like AUDI'S !! Sooo why on earth would I go build something else...As YOU stated previously ..it s a ton of money and commitment to do this stuff. I going to build something I am into . I have always liked VW's and I owned an Audi Coupe street car. I am into German cars... Plus I already had the caged shell .

4.) I am not asking for sympathy. I am not asking the ITAC to dig up more info...I have already did that . I have submitted this info on here for everyone to see. Yet the info the CRB has remains a secret , other than they say 120 hp now go pound sand. I feel I have dug up a substantial amount of consistent info comfirming my findings.


Dave you campaigned to have the multi valve done away with ...why is wrong for me to campaign to have the car I race corrected ??

[gran racing]

You're right, I was interested in why you choose the Audi given how you feel about its weight. And there's nothing wrong with your pursuing a change to your vehicle. Never said that. But again, if it were something I felt passionately I'd gain access to that microfiche. How you proceed is obviously up to you.

I choose to pursue the multivalve deal as it was a ITB and ITC philosophy which I felt was not inline of the process. It would have an impact on all future multivalve classed cars, raised questions about existing cars (ie the Accord), and IMO could have created a mess especially for future ITAC generations which had that as the documented process.

As of now, I plan to run in SM for the next two years or possibly even ITA not that really matters. Although I do feel that I have some unfinished business in B.

[JoshS]

Yet the info the CRB has remains a secret , other than they say 120 hp now go pound sand. I feel I have dug up a substantial amount of consistent info comfirming my findings.

There is no secret. The ITAC accepted 120hp from the ETKA as the base weight. End of story.

[Rabbit05]

Thanks Josh for that info......Now it's not a secret anymore .

So in review....

1.) The CRB used info off the ETKA (a parts list) to class the Audi...In this thread alone there has been 2 conflicting HP ratings from the ETKA. ( 120hp & 115hp )

2.) Other factory information such as the Audi factory manual, and Owners Manual for the car, as sold in the US, showing HP info (110 hp) have been regarded as not good enough information . (2 pieces of factory information)

3.) Secondary sources such as Audi enthusest forums and National published articles on the car , also confirms 110 hp .

Anyone else see a problem with this picture ?

[JoshS]

It never was a secret. Go back and re-read the whole thread that I linked to yesterday.

I'll repeat what I said in that thread -- the fact that the ETKA changed is telling to me. Companies leave old documents unchanged unless there's a reason to change them. Someone went in and changed it. It likely wasn't an accident. I don't know WHY it changed, but I know that it DID change, and I'm willing to accept the changed value as somehow true. Since it appeared to me that there's no single "right" answer for the Audi published weight, therefore, there is also no wrong answer. So, as Andy surmised, I felt that we're better off going the low-risk route and negatively affecting fewer people with our decision.

As someone now uninvolved, I'd advise you -- let it go. It's done. Go drive. Drive harder. Drive some more. Race. Have fun. Have more fun. Show your competitors that it doesn't matter, go win despite those know-nothings on the ITAC.

[Rabbit05]

How can you be so certain that it was changed on purpose ? Do you have proof ? How do you know it's not a misprint/typing error, have you ever written or typed the wrong thing ?

And I pose this question ....

At the time of this decision , was the Audi manual on hand or any information other saying 110 HP ??

[JoshS]

How can you be so certain that it was changed on purpose ? Do you have proof ? How do you know it's not a misprint/typing error, have you ever written or typed the wrong thing ?

And I pose this question ....

At the time of this decision , was the Audi manual on hand or any information other saying 110 HP ??

I'm glad you revised your original imflammatory reply.

This will be my last post on the topic.

1) The document changed. It had one value in one version, and then a different value in a different version. Therefore, it changed. Since computers aren't smart enough yet to do these things on their own, therefore, someone changed it. It *could* be a typing error, of course. But unless someone intended to make a change, it wouldn't be different than the previous version.

2) Yes, of course, ALL OF THIS INFORMATION was available. ALL OF IT. There is nothing new.

[Bill Miller]

Ron - your point may be relevant, but I think you need to check your math... a five hp shift results in a 105 lb (rounded) difference: 5 x 1.25 x 17 = 106.25 lbs.

BTW, here's some more mud for this particular puddle of water. In the two "screen capture" documents linked earlier (one each at 115 and 120 hp for the KX engine), there is agreement, if you look hard enough. The KW rating for that engine in both documents, is 88. It happens that 88 KW converts to 120 metric (DIN) hp. So... I would have to conclude there's a very strong possibility the 115 hp number is the result of someone using an incorrect conversion factor.

(OTOH, while the 120 hp number appears to be converted correctly, that conversion is to DIN hp, not the SAE net hp we're supposed to be using as the basis for the process. So just for giggles, if 88 KW is correct, we're talking 118 SAE net.)

Anyhow... this all makes me wonder what the KW rating is in all the "other" documents (shop manuals, owner manuals, etc.) that show 110 hp?

Gary,

I didn't see this for the KX engine. I saw 3 listings in those screen captures, all of which listed 88KW and 120hp. What I found interesting, was that none of those motors was listed as a "USA" model. One is listed as a "CDN" model, one is listed as an "SA" model, and the third has no comment. I'm not sure you can concluded that this means all other or not, or that it is the "USA" model. Several other entries have "USA" in the comments. I did notice that there's a KZ engine, w/ the same displacement, but at 85KW and 115hp. But that engine isn't listed for the Coupe GT.

And honestly Josh, while what you say is possible, it's also entirely possibly that it was a transcription error. No way to divine the intent on that one.

I will try and find the older version of EKTA that I have.

[Rabbit05]

I'm glad you revised your original imflammatory reply.

This will be my last post on the topic.

1) The document changed. It had one value in one version, and then a different value in a different version. Therefore, it changed. Since computers aren't smart enough yet to do these things on their own, therefore, someone changed it. It *could* be a typing error, of course. But unless someone intended to make a change, it wouldn't be different than the previous version.

2) Yes, of course, ALL OF THIS INFORMATION was available. ALL OF IT. There is nothing new.

Cool thanks for your insite on the matter .