March 2011 Fastrack

[StephenB]

ITB
1. #2643 (John VanDenburgh) run Audi Coupe GT thru the current IT classing method. In 9.1.3, ITB, Audi GT Coupe (84-86), change weight from 2540 to 2500. [The Audi Coupe (81-84) is classified appropriately.] .

This is a perfect example of why things need to be documented. This process is only going to destroy things more... 81-84 coupe is at 2490. the coupe GT WAS at 2540. And they actually had a reason for it back when they classified these cars. Looks like everyone with an 81-84 now needs to go out and purchase all new brakes, bumpers, headlights, grills and sets of wheels.

THANKS ITAC...Love you guys
Stephen

Maybe someone on the ITAC with some balls will chime in on the "process" that they used to come up with the 2500. doubt it though.

[JeffYoung]

I don't find the tone or the wording of your post appropriate.

We have all tried to do the right thing with these very problematic cars (difficult to determine stock hp, difficult to determine gain, unusual motor, etc.).

In my personal opinion, and correct me if I am wrong, you and your brother didn't do yourselves many favors by relying on stock horsepower numbers that I am pretty sure you knew were inaccurate.

I don't know much about these cars, but listened to what others had to say and voted according to what I thought was right.

I'll try later tonight to go back and figure out how the numbers ran and post them for you.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is a perfect example of why things need to be documented. This process is only going to destroy things more... 81-84 coupe is at 2490. the coupe GT WAS at 2540. And they actually had a reason for it back when they classified these cars. Looks like everyone with an 81-84 now needs to go out and purchase all new brakes, bumpers, headlights, grills and sets of wheels.

THANKS ITAC...Love you guys
Stephen

Maybe someone on the ITAC with some balls will chime in on the "process" that they used to come up with the 2500. doubt it though.

Stephen,

I have no idea why you would say that the 81-84 guys would have to buy anything if nothing has changed.

The GT math looks simple to me:

120*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2499 rounded to 2500.

And NO, back when they classified these cars there was NO rhyme or reason as to the weights. So, the GT is now in line with ITB given the 120hp starting point.

[Rabbit05]

Andy,
ummm..120 is not stock hp.

I think its 110 hp for the Audi CGT. At least everything I have read and seen says 110 hp..and I have owned CGT's , and reluctantly restored them, for the last few years. 120 hp sounds big to me.


I was also thinking there would be more weight to be lost there.
I have been trying to understand the formula for processing cars. I cant seem to get a grasp on the "process", can you explain your math ?

From what I have read....
It's stock hp and add 25%...then ITB is 17lb per hp...then they said add 50 lbs max for a torque-y-ish motor..so i just added 50lbs. I am coming up with 2387...using the 110 hp stock number.

What am I missing ?

-John

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,
ummm..120 is not stock hp.

I think its 110 hp for the Audi CGT. At least everything I have read and seen says 110 hp..and I have owned CGT's , and reluctantly restored them, for the last few years. 120 hp sounds big to me.


I was also thinking there would be more weight to be lost there.
I have been trying to understand the formula for processing cars. I cant seem to get a grasp on the "process", can you explain your math ?

From what I have read....
It's stock hp and add 25%...then ITB is 17lb per hp...then they said add 50 lbs max for a torque-y-ish motor..so i just added 50lbs. I am coming up with 2387...using the 110 hp stock number.

What am I missing ?

-John

John,

You are missing that they used 120hp for the stock number.

That is one of the gotcha's with this car.

[jjjanos]

Stephen,

I have no idea why you would say that the 81-84 guys would have to buy anything if nothing has changed.

The GT math looks simple to me:

120*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2499 rounded to 2500.

Exactly why additional documentation is needed. I know jack about these cars, but using google, the consistent HP is given as 110. Another.

110 * 1.25 * 17 * .98 = 2290

Not saying the 120 is wrong, but the source of that 120HP suddenly becomes a big "?".

[JeffYoung]

JJJ, I would think this is one of this issues you would applaud us for.

On track performance on these cars -- two underdeveloped examples doing extremely well at the ARRC -- caused us to dig deeper.

As I understand it, the actual stock hp number is given in Audi technical manuals and is 120. A few folks on the committee did a lot of work in digging that information up and, I believe it to be correct.

I think some of the Audi/VW crowd knows this but was quiest about it for a long time.

[Bill Miller]

JJJ, I would think this is one of this issues you would applaud us for.

On track performance on these cars -- two underdeveloped examples doing extremely well at the ARRC -- caused us to dig deeper.

As I understand it, the actual stock hp number is given in Audi technical manuals and is 120. A few folks on the committee did a lot of work in digging that information up and, I believe it to be correct.

I think some of the Audi/VW crowd knows this but was quiest about it for a long time.

Not trying to pick on you Jeff, but what about the clause in the new ITAC Ops manual that talks about "a minimum of 5 unique cars, somewhere in the country" being needed to warrant a PCA? Does that go out the window if the car has a major deviation during the classification process? If so, I think you would need some pretty compelling evidence. From what I can tell, you've got conflicting evidence at best. When I googled 85 Audi GT Specs, I got this as the first link. Shows 110hp @ 5500 rpm and 122 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm. That's for the 2.2L (2144cc) motor. Same specs for the 2226cc motor. The 2.3L motor (2309cc) shows 130hp @ 5600 and 140 lb-ft @ 4000. But the compression on the 2.3 is 10:1 vs 8.5:1 for the 2 different 2.2L versions.

Unless there's some pretty solid documentation to the contrary, I think you've got to go w/ factory published hp numbers, and adjust the car w/ a PCA if it's warranted. To me, that is the way the process should work, and is what PCA's are designed to address.

And since we're talking about VW/Audi products getting the short end of the stick, I guess I'll trot out the Rabbit GTI once more. Factory specs, 90hp, 100lb-ft.

90*1.25*17*.98 = 1874.25 (1875 rounded).

Current spec weight is 2080#

2080/.98/17/90 = 1.387 power factor or that it makes just shy of 125hp at the crank (124.8xx).

I have been playing w/ these cars for over 25 years, and I can tell you, with 110% certainty, that it is unpossible to get 125hp out of that motor w/ a legal IT build. Call Shine, Bertils, Techtonics, and BSI and they'll back that up. I know everybody talks about what a performance choke the stock intake manifold is, and it really is. All the tuning books from back in the day would say don't bother changing the cam or the throttle body if you didn't change the stock manifold. Heck, even going w/ a stock Rabbit (non-GTI) manifold was a significant improvement. But the point is, w/o changing the cam and the throttle body, you're not going to get close to 125hp. Half a point of compression, the best header in the world, and all the balancing and blueprinting isn't going to do it. It just doesn't move enough air. If you want another reference, talk to Walt Puckett, he's down your way. The Pucketts built some of the best race headers for VW motors going.

Oddly enough, given the current process, it would land right in ITC at it's current ITB weight (actually a tick heavy).

90*1.25*18.84=2040.75

This car got boned because one guy, who should have kept his mouth shut, made an unsubstantiated claim, that got further exaggerated.

[JeffYoung]

No worries.

This isn't a PCA. The request was to run the Audi through the process. We're trying to figure out that the stock hp really is.

If we had processed the car, and a few years down the road had a E36 situation at process weight, then the PCA clause kicks in if we have enough data points to do something.

Not trying to pick on you Jeff, but what about the clause in the new ITAC Ops manual that talks about "a minimum of 5 unique cars, somewhere in the country" being needed to warrant a PCA? Does that go out the window if the car has a major deviation during the classification process? If so, I think you would need some pretty compelling evidence. From what I can tell, you've got conflicting evidence at best. When I googled 85 Audi GT Specs, I got this as the first link. Shows 110hp @ 5500 rpm and 122 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm. That's for the 2.2L (2144cc) motor. Same specs for the 2226cc motor. The 2.3L motor (2309cc) shows 130hp @ 5600 and 140 lb-ft @ 4000. But the compression on the 2.3 is 10:1 vs 8.5:1 for the 2 different 2.2L versions.

Unless there's some pretty solid documentation to the contrary, I think you've got to go w/ factory published hp numbers, and adjust the car w/ a PCA if it's warranted. To me, that is the way the process should work, and is what PCA's are designed to address.

And since we're talking about VW/Audi products getting the short end of the stick, I guess I'll trot out the Rabbit GTI once more. Factory specs, 90hp, 100lb-ft.

90*1.25*17*.98 = 1874.25 (1875 rounded).

Current spec weight is 2080#

2080/.98/17/90 = 1.387 power factor or that it makes just shy of 125hp at the crank (124.8xx).

I have been playing w/ these cars for over 25 years, and I can tell you, with 110% certainty, that it is unpossible to get 125hp out of that motor w/ a legal IT build. Call Shine, Bertils, Techtonics, and BSI and they'll back that up. I know everybody talks about what a performance choke the stock intake manifold is, and it really is. All the tuning books from back in the day would say don't bother changing the cam or the throttle body if you didn't change the stock manifold. Heck, even going w/ a stock Rabbit (non-GTI) manifold was a significant improvement. But the point is, w/o changing the cam and the throttle body, you're not going to get close to 125hp. Half a point of compression, the best header in the world, and all the balancing and blueprinting isn't going to do it. It just doesn't move enough air. If you want another reference, talk to Walt Puckett, he's down your way. The Pucketts built some of the best race headers for VW motors going.

Oddly enough, given the current process, it would land right in ITC at it's current ITB weight (actually a tick heavy).

90*1.25*18.84=2040.75

This car got boned because one guy, who should have kept his mouth shut, made an unsubstantiated claim, that got further exaggerated.

[Bill Miller]

Jeff,

I guess what I'm saying is that I think the same level of rigor that's applied to the application of PCA's should be applied to deviation from factory spec during the initial classification. You just don't have the benefit of on-track performance during the initial classification. However, in the case of cars that get 're-processed', I think a deviation from factory spec is a de-facto PCA, and therefore should be required to meet the same standards. Just because it got hosed in the initial specification process doesn't mean that it shouldn't get a fair shake. Especially in this situation, where there's really no evidence to point to it being an overdog. You've got 1 or 2 data points, at best, from 6 years ago.

No worries.

This isn't a PCA. The request was to run the Audi through the process. We're trying to figure out that the stock hp really is.

If we had processed the car, and a few years down the road had a E36 situation at process weight, then the PCA clause kicks in if we have enough data points to do something.

/edit

Jeff, regarding the DIN to SAE Net conversion, I thought I saw something in the other thread that indicated that 100hp DIN ~= 98hp SAE Net. So your 118 DIN number is closer to 115-116 SAE Net, not 120.

[RSTPerformance]

I have basically avoidEd the "Internet side" of our club for a long time for a reason... I am so disapointed again with SCCA... The club has a lot of great people in it but the ITAC, CRB and BOD are a friggen joke. They have always spewed more bullshit and lies than just about any other organized group of people I know. Don't get sucked into all the crap.

If you are new to the club here are the facts that I have learned over the past couple years that some want to say and others are going to be pissed I said it...

1) MOST members on the organizations above have thier own agenda and will tell you bullshit "in private" to make you feel like they are helping you. If you want something done kiss ass get on the committee and solve your agenda. Otherwise don't give a shit; Just race, and avoid the gossip (your opinion DOES NOT matter and you will only get angry)!

2) Stewards and Tech are only going to check safety items and weight on IT cars. CHEAT like a bastard, run in the front (but don't dominate) and have fun. Don't piss rich people off who like to gamble with money and you won't get protested by other drivers. As mentioned the stewards won't check unless it is in the supps for the race (ARRC) because if they don't find anything the club has to pay.

3) don't get sucked it to peoples comments on the Internet and avoid reading all this bullshit...

Raymond "just another guy typing how he feels" Blethen

PS: Jeff- Phils comments are very accurate, I have never asked for changes based on HP numbers I knew were inaccurate. Also how hard is it to get people to understand the facts on our ARRC performance. Stephen posted a good summary. We drive the wheels off the cars and the cars had and have a TON of development. I would argue most people don't take the risks we do to do as well as we have... As far as I can tell you fit right in on the ITAC or CRB (I have no idea where you are a member). You listen to biast comments to make your decisions and fail to do your own research (Imagine a committee member who calls or asks members driving the cars for an opinion). It's to bad you wasted $120 for a car that in reality very few people care about... It's a little late to do your own research. As Phil pointed out years ago the hp ratings I have quoted were acurate from the factory manual. The numbers he posts are from some top secret dealer manual that also lists alternate parts not originally offered on the car. The manual required in tech to be refered to is the one you ordered... Please post the hp numbers when you read it!

[JeffYoung]

A ton of development on your cars? Has it ever been tuned on a dyno?

I obviously don't appreciate or agree with 99% of what you wrote.

But I am interested in this dealer manual that lists a different hp rating. That you are apparently aware of.

Until you volunteer and spend time working on a committee, you really should spend more time thinking about what you say and how you say it. As best I can tell, you only care about THIS issue and YOUR car. ME. ME.

We've got far more to deal with than THIS issue and THIS car. But we all try to do the right thing on each decision we make.

I have basically avoidEd the "Internet side" of our club for a long time for a reason... I am so disapointed again with SCCA... The club has a lot of great people in it but the ITAC, CRB and BOD are a friggen joke. They have always spewed more bullshit and lies than just about any other organized group of people I know. Don't get sucked into all the crap.

If you are new to the club here are the facts that I have learned over the past couple years that some want to say and others are going to be pissed I said it...

1) MOST members on the organizations above have thier own agenda and will tell you bullshit "in private" to make you feel like they are helping you. If you want something done kiss ass get on the committee and solve your agenda. Otherwise don't give a shit; Just race, and avoid the gossip (your opinion DOES NOT matter and you will only get angry)!

2) Stewards and Tech are only going to check safety items and weight on IT cars. CHEAT like a bastard, run in the front (but don't dominate) and have fun. Don't piss rich people off who like to gamble with money and you won't get protested by other drivers. As mentioned the stewards won't check unless it is in the supps for the race (ARRC) because if they don't find anything the club has to pay.

3) don't get sucked it to peoples comments on the Internet and avoid reading all this bullshit...

Raymond "just another guy typing how he feels" Blethen

PS: Jeff- Phils comments are very accurate, I have never asked for changes based on HP numbers I knew were inaccurate. Also how hard is it to get people to understand the facts on our ARRC performance. Stephen posted a good summary. We drive the wheels off the cars and the cars had and have a TON of development. I would argue most people don't take the risks we do to do as well as we have... As far as I can tell you fit right in on the ITAC or CRB (I have no idea where you are a member). You listen to biast comments to make your decisions and fail to do your own research (Imagine a committee member who calls or asks members driving the cars for an opinion). It's to bad you wasted $120 for a car that in reality very few people care about... It's a little late to do your own research. As Phil pointed out years ago the hp ratings I have quoted were acurate from the factory manual. The numbers he posts are from some top secret dealer manual that also lists alternate parts not originally offered on the car. The manual required in tech to be refered to is the one you ordered... Please post the hp numbers when you read it!

[StephenB]

Raymond, really?
You haven't been paying attention if you ask me. I would suggest you go back to avoiding the internet again.

Sorry bud... wrong way to react,
Stephen

[RSTPerformance]

Jeff- I don't agree with 99% of the way the ITAC/CRB/BOD goes about things or what they think so we are even!

As for the Audi, I have not commented on it in probably more than a year. My fustratuon is not with the cars classification as I always seem to have someone to race with and that is what matters most to me... I could care less about most of the rules as long as if someone is cheating They are not dominating the class.

I DO CARE about The process and what I am told especially when it is blaintant bullshit. I would be glad to send you the bullshit e-mails from Bob (CRB member) that mention everything but 120hp as being the reason the Audi was set where they are. I have said it for years... I don't care what the Audi weighs just treat the cars equal to all other cars.

As for this other manual read what other members are telling you, Phil mentioned it at the end of the last 15 page argument about the Audis and brought it up again in this post. I have never seen this mystirical document but have to say I am somewhat pleased that the possability exists that the CRB has something to back itself up.

Raymond

Did the car get all the subrtactors other cars get such as solid rear axle?

[RSTPerformance]

Sorry Stephen... This stuff is all a friggen joke though. I shouldn't have posted because the stuff does matter to some people but it doesn't matter to me anymore. I have zero respect for those committee and I doubt my mind will change anytime soon. Thus my thoughts are not needed.

Raymond

[JeffYoung]

I guess you didn't read the Ops Manual published in the other thread, that sets out the process you contend we aren't following/don't have/is bullshit.

No live rear axle deduct for any cars in S/A/B. Only R. Plus, your car is FWD so the beam axle in the rear is not a peformance issue.

Is this really all about you and your car? You sure make it sound that way.

Jeff- I don't agree with 99% of the way the ITAC/CRB/BOD goes about things or what they think so we are even!

As for the Audi, I have not commented on it in probably more than a year. My fustratuon is not with the cars classification as I always seem to have someone to race with and that is what matters most to me... I could care less about most of the rules as long as if someone is cheating They are not dominating the class.

I DO CARE about The process and what I am told especially when it is blaintant bullshit. I would be glad to send you the bullshit e-mails from Bob (CRB member) that mention everything but 120hp as being the reason the Audi was set where they are. I have said it for years... I don't care what the Audi weighs just treat the cars equal to all other cars.

As for this other manual read what other members are telling you, Phil mentioned it at the end of the last 15 page argument about the Audis and brought it up again in this post. I have never seen this mystirical document but have to say I am somewhat pleased that the possability exists that the CRB has something to back itself up.

Raymond

Did the car get all the subrtactors other cars get such as solid rear axle?

[RSTPerformance]

Jeff- I didn't read anything anyone has posted over the last year. I appologise for my comments, it's not about the Audi, I can promise you that. I am amaized at the 120hp number and disapointed that I was lied to by private e-mails from the CRB and others when this car was originally an issue. If someone said we made our decision based on 120hp go away I would have.

Again I should not jump right in, I just see the same old bullshit over and over whenever I do come take a look... Be it the Audi, MR2, Older VW's or some Honda... I think the club has done and continues to do a terrible job with classifications in several areas (not just IT) and I wish that we had seen change by now.

Raymond "Sometimes I wish I had a SRF" Blethen

[lateapex911]

Raymond Raymond Raymond....
Step away for the edge....

I think you need to apologize....you have served as a steward, and that's great. But you haven't served on the ITAC. You really need to walk a mile or two in mans shoes before you rip him a new one.

Here's how it works. You've got maybe 5 to 8 guys on the committee at any given time. They've got jobs, wives, kids. They try to race themselves. Honestly, I've been disappointed in some of them in the past and their approach and level of involvement....but hey, I don't have a wife and three kids in college and it's easy for me to criticize. Be that as it may, it's not a paying position, and the number of guys in the country who have the knowledge base, the big picture view, who will put up with the political BS and have the time to do the job can maybe be counted on both hands.

Bottom line is that there is too much research, too many cars, OVER 300!) and too many rules for each guy to handle. NO WAY IN HELL can Jeff do all the research on every car. I'm sure you've heard of delegation. So Jeff is told by another member they have researched it and cites his findings. Jeff feels the guy has done good work and accepts it. Sure, it's easy for you....a guy who has lived and breathed 5 cylinder Audis for nearly a DECADE, to find flaws in that research. Jeff assumes the research will be documented and is legit...HE CAN'T DO EVERYTHING!

So, he comes on here, trying to communicate (Which we, as rank and file racers, should be DAMN happy he's doing) accepts the criticism, finds a way to get his OWN documentation TOMORROW, for $120 of HIS OWN money, and frankly you act like a spoiled brat and rip him a new one?

You should know better.

And you've ripped me a new one too! I've spend hundreds of my own money doing research and flying places to do work to make the category better. I'm not alone. I'd wager MOST guys who serve on committees are spending their own money. Trust me, I didn't do it for the thanks and attaboys, LOL. Remember the abuse Andy got over the E36 issue? Sheesh.

Regarding the cars, you guys have done a great job with an odd package. You've worked very hard. But "a TON of development"? Please. How many dyno sessions have you spent trying different exhaust headers and pipe diameters? And modifying fuel ratios and pressures? How may balance and blueprint jobs have you done to the engine using parts bin methods? How many flow bench hours spent fine tuning intake tracts? Valve jobs? How many days testing with data aq to determine ideal ratios and shift points and setups? Can you honestly say that if oh, Turner Motorsport was charged with developing the car that they'd be running the same times?

Think big picture. Think about it from the other guys view.

Listen, maybe you have a point, maybe you don't. But don't crap all over Jeff, he's going to bat for you!

[tnord]

I have basically avoidEd the "Internet side" of our club for a long time for a reason... I am so disapointed again with SCCA... The club has a lot of great people in it but the ITAC, CRB and BOD are a friggen joke. They have always spewed more bullshit and lies than just about any other organized group of people I know. Don't get sucked into all the crap.

If you are new to the club here are the facts that I have learned over the past couple years that some want to say and others are going to be pissed I said it...

1) MOST members on the organizations above have thier own agenda and will tell you bullshit "in private" to make you feel like they are helping you. If you want something done kiss ass get on the committee and solve your agenda. Otherwise don't give a shit; Just race, and avoid the gossip (your opinion DOES NOT matter and you will only get angry)!

2) Stewards and Tech are only going to check safety items and weight on IT cars. CHEAT like a bastard, run in the front (but don't dominate) and have fun. Don't piss rich people off who like to gamble with money and you won't get protested by other drivers. As mentioned the stewards won't check unless it is in the supps for the race (ARRC) because if they don't find anything the club has to pay.

3) don't get sucked it to peoples comments on the Internet and avoid reading all this bullshit...

Raymond "just another guy typing how he feels" Blethen

PS: Jeff- Phils comments are very accurate, I have never asked for changes based on HP numbers I knew were inaccurate. Also how hard is it to get people to understand the facts on our ARRC performance. Stephen posted a good summary. We drive the wheels off the cars and the cars had and have a TON of development. I would argue most people don't take the risks we do to do as well as we have... As far as I can tell you fit right in on the ITAC or CRB (I have no idea where you are a member). You listen to biast comments to make your decisions and fail to do your own research (Imagine a committee member who calls or asks members driving the cars for an opinion). It's to bad you wasted $120 for a car that in reality very few people care about... It's a little late to do your own research. As Phil pointed out years ago the hp ratings I have quoted were acurate from the factory manual. The numbers he posts are from some top secret dealer manual that also lists alternate parts not originally offered on the car. The manual required in tech to be refered to is the one you ordered... Please post the hp numbers when you read it!

nice. i think this is the new winner for most classless post on the internet.

you've got some serious gall coming on here and popping off about how the AC members have their own agenda and "are a friggen joke" when one of them is opening up his own wallet to help out pieces of work like yourself.

and by the way....my fucking golf game has more development than your car does. if you had bothered to put together a modest effort you would've been on the dyno a number of times by now. dyno data you could've submitted to help support your position....a baseline run costs LESS than the amount jeff pulled out of his own pocket to help YOU. or maybe you do have dyno data but you don't want to submit it because it's cheated up so badly....as indicated by your nonchelant view of breaking the rules.

unbelievable.

Travis
-biting his tongue in so many ways.

[StephenB]

I actually have internet so I can put in a request finally!! I always use my phone to lurk here and you cannot put in a CRB request with cell phone internet...

Anyway I have asked to reclassify the early coupe with the WE engine... It should shed about 400+ lbs and I will start looking for a new engine for my car!

CRB Letter Tracking Number #4317

100*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2082 rounded to 2100

Stephen,

I have no idea why you would say that the 81-84 guys would have to buy anything if nothing has changed.

The GT math looks simple to me:

120*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2499 rounded to 2500.

And NO, back when they classified these cars there was NO rhyme or reason as to the weights. So, the GT is now in line with ITB given the 120hp starting point.