ITB - what a bunch of crap

[Knestis]

...the one thing the golf has is power. very hard to out drive or out handle horsepower. ...

If I were inclined to make comparisons, I'd say that the Accord has more based on where I watched Deuce K. drive off into the distance at the SIC. But I know that my perceptions are potentially biased, that the sample size is ridiculously small, and that even if it was "evident" that he was beating me in a straight line, that's not anything like enough information on which to base specification decisions.

Again - do you all REALLY want a system where someone like me comes back to a committee discussion, allowed to inject my perceptions (by calling them "data"), potentially influencing the weight of your cars? REALLY...? Because that's what you're doing.

K

[924Guy]

If I were inclined to make comparisons, I'd say that the Accord has more based on where I watched Deuce K. drive off into the distance at the SIC. But I know that my perceptions are potentially biased, that the sample size is ridiculously small, and that even if it was "evident" that he was beating me in a straight line, that's not anything like enough information on which to base specification decisions.

Again - do you all REALLY want a system where someone like me comes back to a committee discussion, allowed to inject my perceptions (by calling them "data"), potentially influencing the weight of your cars? REALLY...? Because that's what you're doing.

K

I can only watch the net result of power/weight, on track, but having chased Beran, Peter, and Deuce... if anything, I'd DEFINITELY say Beran has better power/weight. This despite the crappy aero/top end vs. the Hondas (which are slightly better above 90-100mph IMO).

Despite the fact that none of them can get off the corners.

Anyone else out there have any more data than me?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey boys, this is Improved Touring. All the cars are different. Some cars HAVE TO out-handle and out-brake that 'horsepower'. It's what makes the class diverse, interesting and popular.

I contend that the Golf III is SPOT ON per the process. Maybe the latest developmental dollars are just headed to newer machines as Rick eluded too.

AND - the fact that ITB does run with ITS here in the NE, DOES influence decisions of what class to pick.

[RSTPerformance]

Hey boys, this is Improved Touring. All the cars are different. Some cars HAVE TO out-handle and out-brake that 'horsepower'. It's what makes the class diverse, interesting and popular.

I think when you look at ITB you see that SCCA has done the best (when compaired to any class in any road racing series) at making a diverse and competitive class... ITA is a close second IMO.

I contend that the Golf III is SPOT ON per the process. Maybe the latest developmental dollars are just headed to newer machines as Rick eluded too.

Rick has stated a good point... I think that we can respectfully disagree with the car being classed spot on however run all the cars in the front through the same process (my understanding is that this has not been done) and prove it. Andy and K, without looking into the GCR could you run rough numbers on the cars we have discussed here as being at the front of the pack and report back what weights you come up with? My understanding is that if it is +/- 50 lbs not much will be done, however in reality that is a 100lb difference.

AND - the fact that ITB does run with ITS here in the NE, DOES influence decisions of what class to pick.

I think that is why Dad built the Porche... because he couldn't beat us in another ITB car!!! (Dad I know your reading this, next year the Blethen race is on!!!)

Raymond

[Dave Zaslow]

Since we should not really look at single race results I decided to look at series championships to see if there is an ITB overdog. Take a look below and feel free to correct what you see here if you know differently. No names are reported as thy are irrelevant (except for one person I cannot match to a car).

NARRC 2008 Final ITB

Volvo 142 / VW Golf 3 ;-)
BMW 2002
Honda Civic
Honda Civic
VW Golf 3
Volvo 142
VW Golf 3 / Audi Coupe
VW Golf 2
VW Golf 2
VW Golf 3

MARRS 2008 Final ITB

BMW 2002
Alfa GTV
BMW 2002
BMW 2002
Volvo 142E
BMW 2002
Volvo 242
VW Rabbit GTI
Honda CRX Si
Plymouth Arrow

SARRC 2008 Final ITB

Toyota Celica
VW Golf 3
Volvo 142
Honda CRX Si
VW Rabbit GTI
Honda Accord
NORMAN FULLER ????
VW GTI
VW GTI
VW Golf

If anyone has other series or regional championships to report, please do.

Here is a helpful place to go to review results of all SCCA regional races (required to be submitted for 2008)

[RSTPerformance]

Dave certainly interesting.... The BMW 2002's are also one of those top dogs that I think can beat anything that shows up.

Do we have a database with the track records? Although this also probably would not support our thoughts that the GOLF III is the car to have!!! lol

NHMS: Opal GT?
Lime Rock: Alfa Spyder
Pocono: Audi Coupe
Watkins Glenn: Golf III
NJMP Lightning: Golf III
Road Atlanta: Golf III
Mid Ohio: Porche 924
Nelson Ledges: ?
Summit Point: ?
Beaver Run: ?

[JeffYoung]

Do you guys think that 50 to 75 lbs makes a difference -- more so than driver -- between winning and 2nd place?

Do you think that in the IT milieu that we should have "management" concerned about 50/75/100 lb weight "inaccuracies?"

My answers: No and no.

[Knestis]

Dave certainly interesting.... The BMW 2002's are also one of those top dogs that I think can beat anything that shows up.

Do we have a database with the track records? Although this also probably would not support our thoughts that the GOLF III is the car to have!!! lol ...

Track records are particularly suspect, in my opinion. They are just one TINY little datum and there's absolutely NO guarantee that those numbers were generated by a legal car.

K

[lateapex911]

Since we should not really look at single race results I decided to look at series championships to see ...........

What Dave, "I wrote the book" Gran said...

I see the angle here, Dave, looking at large groups of data to toss out the outlier bad bits of data, but....

Series championships are often won by cars that never win a race, they just show up more, finishing 2nd or 3rd every time, or play the points game, going to the unpopular tracks for the extra bonus points. OR, the series results can demonstrate the same issues that individual race results can, comparing dissimilar programs. A series can be won by guys with the budgets to be on fresh rubber, or recover more quickly when things go wrong, when their superior competition misses a race due to budgetary issues in replacing the blown equipment.

They also reflect our typical habit of being copy cats, where we see the other guy winning in a Borgward, so WE get a Borgward, not knowing that there might be better choices around. Who knows, maybe some guy from the Ice Region could take his '97 Ascari Dingbot down to the Lava Region and slap those 10 guys around who all think the '78 Borgward is the pinnacle of ITB.

(Of course, they'd either assume he was a cheatin' bastard, or they'd all run out and get themselves Ascari's the next year...)

Point being that even large samples don't always tell the truth in things such as this.

[JeffYoung]

Jake, I of course agree, significant weight makes a difference.

My point -- and it has of course been debated before -- is (a) how much weight makes a difference and (b) given that, at what point should the ITAC be worried that a car is, for whatever reason, off.

[gran racing]

Dave, you just make Kirk get an ulser. We simply can't use results to determine if a make / model is an overdog or not. My beliefs about the Golf III are not because of that.

The challenge with the Golf is not only does it have the power, it also handles extremely well. Maybe part of the issue is the process doesn't take into consideration torque enough? Compared to its counterparts in ITB, the Golf has bigger brakes, more baseline HP, and more torque. Yeah, the rear suspension is "worse" but the fwd cars are just dragging that end along for the ride. I'm sorry Andy, but you're just not going to convince me that it's not 75 lbs light. It makes it even tougher for me to swallow when other Golf III owners such as Kirk agree that the weight relative to other ITB cars is off, not to mention many other knowledgeable individuals. For the record, I did not bring up the Golf's weight in this thread. LOL

But you know what, you now think it's spot on so it probably won't get corrected. Again, maybe there's a flaw in the process being used and it does truly fit the results of other ITB cars. Just like how cars have been classed in the past, I'm sure this process will be tweeked along the way.

Like Ray mentioned, I am concerned about the Golf III becoming the new ITB benchmark and worry about what happened in ITA ala CRX / Integra happening in ITB. I know, I know. The "process" won't allow that. We'll see.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm sorry Andy, but you're just not going to convince me that it's not 75 lbs light.

Show me your math and reasoning that gets you to 75lbs.

[Knestis]

Dave, you just make Kirk get an ulser. We simply can't use results to determine if a make / model is an overdog or not. My beliefs about the Golf III are not because of that.

The lap record at Summit is held by a Suzuki Swift. THAT'S the hot ticket.

The challenge with the Golf is not only does it have the power, it also handles extremely well. Maybe part of the issue is the process doesn't take into consideration torque enough? Compared to its counterparts in ITB, the Golf has bigger brakes, more baseline HP, and more torque. Yeah, the rear suspension is "worse" but the fwd cars are just dragging that end along for the ride. I'm sorry Andy, but you're just not going to convince me that it's not 75 lbs light. It makes it even tougher for me to swallow when other Golf III owners such as Kirk agree that the weight relative to other ITB cars is off, not to mention many other knowledgeable individuals. For the record, I did not bring up the Golf's weight in this thread. LOL

LOL - Yeah, that strut front end is pretty much regarded as state-of-the art. You've never actually DRIVEN one, have you? My car is GREAT in big fast corners but sucks in anything that changes direction more than 90*. I'll grant you the brakes but I don't think there's an ITB car out there that's brake-limited in sprint races. I WILL agree - and it's been a topic of ITAC conversations - that we don't consider torque to the degree that maybe we should. I've been asking for someone more clever than I am - anyone - to help me understand how we might do that.

But you know what, you now think it's spot on so it probably won't get corrected. Again, maybe there's a flaw in the process being used and it does truly fit the results of other ITB cars. Just like how cars have been classed in the past, I'm sure this process will be tweeked along the way.

Read what Jake wrote carefully: There's a world of difference between "spot on" and what's within the operating tolerances applied. ...

K

[shwah]

I contend that the Golf III is SPOT ON per the process. Maybe the latest developmental dollars are just headed to newer machines as Rick eluded too.

I fell for this one before Andy. You actually stated earlier in this thread that it is closer to 50# under, as have others.

To be clear, this is not an issue that I have with the Golf III, it is an issue with not classing cars at their spec weight. That car is 50 light, my car is 80 heavy (or 100 if you look at where the Mazda Protege would have landed in IT, so you get a bigger differential than the arbitrarily selected 100# window of the process. It happens in every IT class, this particular case is just getting more attention right now.

To Vaughan's comment on which is faster - The Honda pulled me better, but on a different straght. The Golf III is saddled with less ideal gearing. Your car definitely has the most pull on the 2nd half of the straight.

Whether anything changes or not, we will develop our car and driver more and find a way to the front. After all it is IT and we chose what we race with open eyes.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I fell for this one before Andy. You actually stated earlier in this thread that it is closer to 50# under, as have others.

Not sure I said that I think it is 50#'s under, probably Kirk. I think it's spot on because there is -50 for a beam.

[Knestis]

Not sure I said that I think it is 50#'s under, probably Kirk. I think it's spot on because there is -50 for a beam.

The MkIII got spec'd pre-Kirk but when the requests to revisit it came in, I don't recall any subtractor for the rear beam. Jake? Josh? Anyone? If there was, it didn't make it into the record.

Besides - the other Golfs would get the same adjustment and I *think* it's pretty safe to bet that Chris's math is relative to the MkII.

<--- Confused

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

The MkIII got spec'd pre-Kirk but when the requests to revisit it came in, I don't recall any subtractor for the rear beam. Jake? Josh? Anyone? If there was, it didn't make it into the record.

Besides - the other Golfs would get the same adjustment and I *think* it's pretty safe to bet that Chris's math is relative to the MkII.

<--- Confused

K

Kirk,

See IT-07-051 on our site.

[shwah]

Not sure I said that I think it is 50#'s under, probably Kirk. I think it's spot on because there is -50 for a beam.

Your right Andy. I mis-read your post mentioning the -50 for the rear beam. Sorry about that.

At the end of the day, the Golf III and Golf II are the same car in terms of chassis. If the Golf III is spot on then the Golf II should be speced at 2145 (20.4lb/stock hp). That's not going to happen, whether because the Golf III is light, or folks don't want to reduce the weight of one of the more highly developed ITB cars out there (speaking on aggregate here, not about one specific car). Of course the Golf III having that exact same chassis, more torque and less lb/hp is why it has not taken long at all for them to gravitate to the front of the grid in every division that they are competing within a year or two. I welcome the compeition, but the Rabbits, Sciroccos, Golfs and Civics certainly deserve an equal opportunity within the system to get off the corner and down the straight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We can debate VW's all day. The bottom line here for this group is that half the ITAC would like to run every car through the process and reset it's weigh +/- ZERO, the other half thinks what we have is 'good enough' given the inherent guesses in the developed process.

I think we can always do better, but I empathise with the folks that would like to see some stability for a while. I think IT has never been healthier in terms of what can win.

[tom91ita]

Your right Andy. I mis-read your post mentioning the -50 for the rear beam. Sorry about that.

At the end of the day, the Golf III and Golf II are the same car in terms of chassis. If the Golf III is spot on then the Golf II should be speced at 2145 (20.4lb/stock hp). That's not going to happen, whether because the Golf III is light, or folks don't want to reduce the weight of one of the more highly developed ITB cars out there (speaking on aggregate here, not about one specific car). Of course the Golf III having that exact same chassis, more torque and less lb/hp is why it has not taken long at all for them to gravitate to the front of the grid in every division that they are competing within a year or two. I welcome the compeition, but the Rabbits, Sciroccos, Golfs and Civics certainly deserve an equal opportunity within the system to get off the corner and down the straight.

three quick questions:

what is IT-07-051? i looked at scca's website and did not get any hits on the search.

what is the -50 for the rear beam? does the golf have a rear beam axle like my crx?

and the 20.4 # / stock hp is interesting. my crx is 2130 #'s and 91 hp stock which works out to 23.4 #/hp.

just trying to understand. tia, tom