Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Weight

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    316

    Default Weight

    With the additions of the "A" cars into ITB, and also the weight loss of some other cars, I took a look at the "process" to try and figure out how my car got to weigh 2280 pounds.
    By my math, it should lose 95 pounds.

    105hp + 25% = 131.25
    131.25 x 17 = 2231.25
    2231.25 - 2% = 2186.625

    Am I wrong?
    Ralf
    ITB Golf GT

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    1,893

    Default

    The A2 is classed with a 30% power adder, rather than a 25% which is standard, or the 20% that the MR2 is classed at.

    The ITAC can recommend a non standard adder if they have 'evidence' to support it (though that is something that is not defined well enough IMO).

    I have never seen a 30% counter flow ITB motor, nor known of one.

    A letter should be written to have the A2 reprocessed - again.
    Last edited by shwah; 10-19-2012 at 07:00 AM.
    Chris Schaafsma
    Golf 2 HProd

    AMT Racing Engines - DIYAutoTune.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    316

    Default

    A member on the CRB has told me that we need to write letters.
    So how do we go about doing that without getting the "Thanks for your letter. Car is classified correctly." response?
    Ralf
    ITB Golf GT

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    1,893

    Default

    I would keep it simple and to the point. Ask for the car to be reprocessed at the standard adder.
    Chris Schaafsma
    Golf 2 HProd

    AMT Racing Engines - DIYAutoTune.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shwah View Post
    The A2 is classed with a 30% power adder, rather than a 25% which is standard, or the 20% that the MR2 is classed at.

    The ITAC can recommend a non standard adder if they have 'evidence' to support it (though that is something that is not defined well enough IMO).

    I have never seen a 30% counter flow ITB motor, nor known of one.

    A letter should be written to have the A2 reprocessed - again.
    Chris - I enjoyed your original post, made for interesting reading. Please de-edit.
    Gary Learned
    MiDiv
    Volvo 142E
    http://www.youtube.com/user/denrael

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    1,893

    Default

    I wrote that after an 18 hour day, and when I read it this morning, I thought is was way too much about me, and not about the question at hand. The point is simple. These cars don't make 30%. They should be re-processed.
    Chris Schaafsma
    Golf 2 HProd

    AMT Racing Engines - DIYAutoTune.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    FL.
    Posts
    1,384

    Default

    The cars make 30% with the Brazil cams and lots of compression.

    The legal HT engine wont make the numbers, yes you are overweight, while the Mk 3 is a little under.
    The ITAC guys have said that 50# make no difference anyway.. So what's 50# among friends. ( I really lose confidence in any racer that can say that!!)
    I think that the Mk 2 is 80over. I moved all of my Vdubs into Prod due to the weight of the Mk 3/Mk 2 and the Mk 1 was adjusted too late for us.
    Last edited by Flyinglizard; 10-19-2012 at 09:33 AM.
    Mike Ogren , FWDracingguide.com, 352.4288.983 ,http://www.ogren-engineering.com/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shwah View Post
    I would keep it simple and to the point. Ask for the car to be reprocessed at the standard adder.
    This. A lot.

    K

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    316

    Default

    #9599
    Of course at this rate, we won't hear about a ruling until 2014.
    I just checked the status of two letters I submitted last Dec, and they are still awaiting review. #6988 and #6989
    Ralf
    ITB Golf GT

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Flagtown, NJ USA
    Posts
    6,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralf View Post
    A member on the CRB has told me that we need to write letters.
    So how do we go about doing that without getting the "Thanks for your letter. Car is classified correctly." response?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ralf View Post
    #9599
    Of course at this rate, we won't hear about a ruling until 2014.
    I just checked the status of two letters I submitted last Dec, and they are still awaiting review. #6988 and #6989
    The "You should write letters" thing is nothing more than a deflect and delay tactic. Why should anyone have to write a letter to correct something that is so obviously wrong, and has been discussed ad nausea on this and other forums?

    And how about the guy that wrote the letter for the ITB Scirocco? It took ~ a year and a half to get through, and they still boned him w/ a non-process weight.

    If you're going to write a letter, I think the better letter would be "Please provide supporting evidence that justifies classing these cars with a non-standard process factor." If nothing else, it eliminates the "Car is correct as classed" response.
    Last edited by Bill Miller; 10-20-2012 at 08:36 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    134

    Default

    I hate it that these popular, affordable cars are slowly being pushed to the back of the pack. Particularly since I own one! So, I got in contact with a few members of the ITAC about this very thing a couple weeks ago. I told them that I had "heard" that there was some mysterious dyno data from years back that lead to the classification of the 1.8L Golf/Jetta in a manner that folks had not been able to duplicate in the real world. I want to say that the ITAC members did respond, they were helpful, and that they are willing to take a look at this. However, they said that there are some very smart folks on the comp board that think the 1.8L can make the 30%. So, they suggested that any letter would need to provide evidence that the 1.8L CANNOT make the 30%. So, they seem to come at if from the opposite direction of this:

    '"If you're going to write a letter, I think the better letter would be "Please provide supporting evidence that justifies classing these cars with a non-standard process factor."'

    The burden was clearly placed on us to prove that whatever they think can be done to make 30% actually can't be done. Frankly, I think this is going to take an organized effort with the involvement of some smart VW folks to get the car properly re-processed. I'm certainly willing to help, but I don't understand the engineering/physics enough to match wits with the aforementioned comp board member(s) that we need to convince.
    Dave Ellenwood
    ITB Jetta
    SCCA Ohio Valley Region
    [email protected]

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Flagtown, NJ USA
    Posts
    6,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S2_ITBVW View Post
    I hate it that these popular, affordable cars are slowly being pushed to the back of the pack. Particularly since I own one! So, I got in contact with a few members of the ITAC about this very thing a couple weeks ago. I told them that I had "heard" that there was some mysterious dyno data from years back that lead to the classification of the 1.8L Golf/Jetta in a manner that folks had not been able to duplicate in the real world. I want to say that the ITAC members did respond, they were helpful, and that they are willing to take a look at this. However, they said that there are some very smart folks on the comp board that think the 1.8L can make the 30%. So, they suggested that any letter would need to provide evidence that the 1.8L CANNOT make the 30%. So, they seem to come at if from the opposite direction of this:

    '"If you're going to write a letter, I think the better letter would be "Please provide supporting evidence that justifies classing these cars with a non-standard process factor."'

    The burden was clearly placed on us to prove that whatever they think can be done to make 30% actually can't be done. Frankly, I think this is going to take an organized effort with the involvement of some smart VW folks to get the car properly re-processed. I'm certainly willing to help, but I don't understand the engineering/physics enough to match wits with the aforementioned comp board member(s) that we need to convince.
    I've said this before, but I'll say it again. The ITAC holds themselves to a pretty high standard (75% confidence IIRC) if they're going to recommend a deviation from the standard process multiplier, but the CRB holds themselves to no such standard. They can arbitrarily set a weight because 1 or 2 guys think that a given car can make more power. Yeah, that doesn't smack of back room BS at all.

    And the way that works, is that you can never win that argument. If you can't build a 1.8VW motor, that is IT legal, that makes 30% more power than stock, you're just not trying hard enough. Not to mention that most of the top VW engine builders in the country gave up that fight a long time ago, because they were tired of the BS. Dick Shine closed his shop, BSI switched to SM years ago, and Techtonics has moved on to the newer engines. Are there guys out there that know those motors can't make that kind of power w/ an IT-legal build? Sure, but see the beginning of this paragraph.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    FL.
    Posts
    1,384

    Default

    I have three known good values for VW IT prepped cars.
    All are HT engines. I can take them to the same place that dynoes our SM. I have very good confidence in the Dynojet numbers from this shop.
    All are pretty high end builds, gapless rings, 003-5 PTW , decked @016,nice free cranks, 3-4* late cam, anti reversion exhaust,low control pressure,slow water pump.

    I can CC these engines, check the cam to verify the numbers, etc .
    I am sure that they all will pull within 3hp of each other and around 117 whp@ 6200. (Based on the 1.6 SM @ 114@ 6800.)

    Many of the old builds were way over on compression
    Many have/had a Brazilian cam
    Most of the heads are undersize at this point in their life...
    These 2/3 points are good for maybe 8hp, above the 116-120 .
    This would move the values well over the 25%.
    Mike Ogren , FWDracingguide.com, 352.4288.983 ,http://www.ogren-engineering.com/

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •