Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Bill Miller]

Ok, a couple of things here. I re-ran my math, and I was a bit off. Turns out that the Rabbit GTI is almost 220# over its 'process' weight (217.5# by my calculations), and that's w/o a strut/beam subtractor.

Kirk,

While I understand that fudging the numbers may have been ok w/ the ITAC at the time of tGR, I don't think any of the rest of us figured that that's what they were going to do.

Andy,

Do you really expect me not to throw the BS flag on that one? You used mfg. published hp for every other car, yet you took someone's claim that they got 100 whp on a dyno? No other data to determine how accurate the data were? An example of a bone-stock version, to get an idea on drive line loss? It's pretty well accepted that there is a significant variation in the various brands of dynos. Did you have actual dyno plots, as well as tear-down infor on the motor to guarantee that it was legal? Did Chris Albin's opinion carry more weight, just becasue he was 'the VW guy on the ITAC'?

You guys sold people a bill of goods when you did tGR. Cars were supposed to get treated the same, and treated objectively. You guys did neither.

Oh, and to get the process weight, even using your 100 whp #, you have to assume a 20% drive line loss. And regardless if you're looking a mfg. stated hp or measured whp, if you're getting 100 whp, you're still at almost a 1.40 power factor. That's just not happening w/ a legal IT tune on that motor. What other car in the ITCS gets saddled w/ a 1.40 power factor?

People are talking about the Audi being 200# heavy, the Rabbit GTI is more than that, and show me the anecdotal evidence that's even close to that of the Audi's.

You guys blew it when you didn't run all the cars in the ITCS through the process, and let the chips fall where they may. Have the faith in the PCA process to be able to correct things that were wrong. Instead, you tried to pull the wool over people's eyes. Now that stuff is all coming home to roost.

I'm really starting to regret ever coming back to this board. Nothing's changed, and nothing is going to change. As I said before, it sure will be interesting to see what IT is in 3-5 years.

One final thought on this, why the hell does the CRB and the BoD even give this stuff a second look? There's the 'no guarantee' clause in IT, and if you guys had just treated all the cars the same, they (CRB and BoD) would have been off the hook. They could have pointed to the 'no guarantee' clause and pointed to the fact that all the cars were treated the same, and been done with it. End of story. I still don't understand why IT is getting so much play w/ the PtB, unless they've got something else cooking in the back room.

/edit

To me, the whole SIR (bleh!) concept is really counter to what IT is all about. IIRC, the SIR allowance in the PCA language was something that was thrown in at the last min. by the CRB. They then screwed the pooch by throwing it at the E36 BMW. They really mucked it up when they got the size wrong. They (CR haven't even tried to throw them at Prod (they still keep dicking w/ weight), and I don't think the GT crowd are happy w/ them yet. They really have no place in IT.