March 2011 Fastrack

[Jeremy Billiel]

How about trying to dig up any old articles that had dyno sheets of what brand new stock cars were putting down?

[Gary L]

My understanding is that DIN is the German equivalent to US SAE Net, in that the accessories are mounted and operational as the engine will be used in the car.

Is the Etka known to use DIN figures?

As pointed out in an earlier post, the kw numbers in the ETKA tables convert correctly to DIN hp. So yes... ETKA apparently uses DIN, not SAE.

As far as I've been able to ascertain, the testing regimens (SAE vs DIN) are the same. But there is a conversion (about 1.5 % difference, DIN numbers are bigger) due to the fact that DIN uses a "metric" horsepower unit, while SAE uses the "international" horsepower unit - 75 meter-kg/sec and 550 foot-lbs/sec respectively.

[benspeed]

Been busy Ben? We've been missing you

Cool to see it classified! I like those cars, but its far out of my budget...

What's with the notes?

Whazzzzzup!

Been real busy. Major motor develoment work - about 40 dyno pulls to get the software dialed in perfect and adjust for max power below the curve. I make some solid ITR power now. Pimped up the car a little but couldn't paint it - blew half a seasons budget on development but results will hopefully prove worth it.

Boxster S! Hey, those guys on the STAC and the CRB did right by putting a competitive Porsche in the mix. I have a sweet Boxster that might need an S motor in a couple years....:026:

[lateapex911]

How about trying to dig up any old articles that had dyno sheets of what brand new stock cars were putting down?

Well, that would add MORE doubt.
1- "Putting down" =chassis dyno. Operated by whom, and to what standards?
2- How does a stock chassis dyno have any reflection on IT prep?

[JeffYoung]

My personal notes show that the decision to use the 120 hp came from an "internal Audi document." I suspect that was EKTA.

Everything else I've seen says exactly what Stephen posted. Early cars at 100 hp with the WE engine, later with the KX at 110, then that very last bunch with the NG at 130. No mentioned of 120 except that Wiki listing I posted.

No manual on theporch today. Order must have gone in too late to get out yesterday. As soon as it arrives I'll post what it says (I got the one for 84-87).

My guess though is that we are going to be dealing with a situation where the manual says 110 and EKTA says 120.

No idea how to resolve that although I tend to agree with Greg the authorized factory shop manual is the one to go with.

[pfcs]

between "authorized" and "factory".
By the mid 80s VAG factory repair information went to microfiche. Ten ? years later it went digital (think ETKA, which despite Gregs best wishes, is official/factory document in electronic format) I mentioned 2 years ago that the "factory" workshop manual requirement was not any longer a reasonable requirement for many competitors in IT.
These ad nauseum postulations only serve to illustrate the practical difficulties (I changed that from impossibilities) of getting a reasonable/workable program going in a democratic system. I sometimes think a benevolent dictatorship might work better. I agree-it would be nice if we could get the car classifications a little less granular, but not if the deal with the devil spells the death of a great class. It's a little like the inmates have taken over the asylum and I'm getting tired of all the noise!
Let the rulers get on with it-balance out the Bs & Cs, be pragmatic, but if car looks funny, handle it by being practical. People flocked to this class in great diversity when it clearly stated that there would be no comp adjustments. Hmmm?? Again, I respect everybody's great effort to make the class perfect, but fear the operation might kill the patient.

[Rabbit05]

Here is the info in question from the Official Audi Factory Manual as I am required to have, per the SCCA GCR.

-John

[gran racing]

I really have no idea what the stock HP rating for the Audi is. I do understand why Ray is as upset as he is, regardless of how anyone here likes his reactions.

It's not the current or even the last ITAC per se, it's an accumulation of crap that has been dealt over the years. There are only a couple of guys from the ITAC, well, actually just Jeff and Travis who post here now. Who are these other guys? Hell, do they even race IT cars? Maybe they're the best candidates but they're not in the public eye. This matters and is something SCCA needs to improve upon.

Seriously, I get the impression that many would prefer people on these boarda to just be quite, or more appropriately shut the F up. I can't help but wonder if Jeff and Travis' days are already numbered. Hell, we all saw what happened when that SCCA thread was started calling out the CRB. Then what happened when the previous ITAC communicated to membership? Why would people trust what's going on? In reality, there could be great stuff but it's a matter of membership believing this. Who knows, not me, not Stephen, not Ray, not former ITAC members.... I had a lot more trust in the ITAC before but again maybe that's just about exposure and comfort level.

I do believe that certain members are doing the right things and not giving up to pressure. Honestly, having Dick as a BOD has been a major confidence booster overall.

Hell, as much crap as Andy probably gave me for the submissions that I sent, it's all about trust. (For the record yet again, I do trust Peter believes he's doing the right thing and I do respect that.) I am not so sure that I trust others who will have significant impact on IT though. Hell, maybe I would if I / we got to know them, but we don't.

Now that I've become such a skeptic.... John, you're a smart guy, and not to put you on the spot too much but why did you build this Audi given it's classification?

Damn it, this is what pisses me off about racing. Even on the Club level there most definitely is an appearance of politics. Guess it's just inevitable no matter what is done.

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey Dave,

Don't forget Josh posts here often as well. If you want to know about the others, you should google their names, I'm sure several will show up.

[shwah]

We should be careful not to assume that the small number of IT racers that participate in online forums do in fact represent "the public eye" of IT racers in general.

[Knestis]

between "authorized" and "factory".
By the mid 80s VAG factory repair information went to microfiche. Ten ? years later it went digital (think ETKA, which despite Gregs best wishes, is official/factory document in electronic format) I mentioned 2 years ago that the "factory" workshop manual requirement was not any longer a reasonable requirement for many competitors in IT.
These ad nauseum postulations only serve to illustrate the practical difficulties (I changed that from impossibilities) of getting a reasonable/workable program going in a democratic system. I sometimes think a benevolent dictatorship might work better. I agree-it would be nice if we could get the car classifications a little less granular, but not if the deal with the devil spells the death of a great class. It's a little like the inmates have taken over the asylum and I'm getting tired of all the noise!
Let the rulers get on with it-balance out the Bs & Cs, be pragmatic, but if car looks funny, handle it by being practical. People flocked to this class in great diversity when it clearly stated that there would be no comp adjustments. Hmmm?? Again, I respect everybody's great effort to make the class perfect, but fear the operation might kill the patient.

It's been my experience that an individual's happiness with a process is often tied to the outcome. If the result suits their interests, then the system is working great. If it doesn't, it's flawed. That's the equivalent of the little kid who cries "NO FAIR!" when they don't win.

People flocked to the wild west in the 1800s too, but eventually folks got tired of living in a outlaw society and started enforcing rules. The only ones who lamented that change were the ones who were benefiting from the lack of order, and lost their advantage when everyone had to start playing fair.

I'll say it again - a Volvo holds the ITB lap record with a 22 at VIR. I'll be he was a happy camper, and probably thought Improved Touring was perfect! Of course, it wasn't REALLY ITB now, was it...? He had his own little game going so it was easy to be a winner. Or do you believe, Phil, that it was a legal car? If so, why aren't they out there repeating that performance today?

Fast forward to today, and the ITAC and CRB have to try to balance the interest of a LOT of drivers, of a LOT of different cars, in a LOT of different places in the Nation. That's a hell of a lot harder than keeping one 142 owner happy on one weekend in Virginia.

We are a HELL of a long way from the "death of a great class" - quite the opposite in fact, particularly with the release of the operating manual. There are a few glaring issues that remain to be resolved but we're in a far better position to actually change them now, than we were just months ago - let alone YEARS ago.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

We should be careful not to assume that the small number of IT racers that participate in online forums do in fact represent "the public eye" of IT racers in general.

So lets address this Chris. I would have agreed with this as recent as even 4-5 years ago but when you start something in this day and age, how do you do your research? Am I foolish to think that joining the online community where all the discussion about clases, cars and rules resides is such a rare thing? Geez, I am a lurker on an H/O slot car forum, a Vette forum, etc. It's where you find the experts.

Maybe the % of actual racers is small, but I bet the % of PEOPLE WHO GIVE A CRAP is large.

[Rabbit05]

Dave,
I bought it because I like Audi Coupes. I had one as a street car..which was turning to a race car. I was thinking of doing track days and all that. So i cut out the build the car thing and bought one , race ready-ish. I used the proceeds from my street car sale. I went out to Cincy to get it. Ironically ,i believe he is now running an ITC Rabbit. But alas, I did the VW thing and I always had a thing for German cars and the Audi is newish to me.

-John

[shwah]

So lets address this Chris. I would have agreed with this as recent as even 4-5 years ago but when you start something in this day and age, how do you do your research? Am I foolish to think that joining the online community where all the discussion about clases, cars and rules resides is such a rare thing? Geez, I am a lurker on an H/O slot car forum, a Vette forum, etc. It's where you find the experts.

Maybe the % of actual racers is small, but I bet the % of PEOPLE WHO GIVE A CRAP is large.

Maybe this is a bit of a regional issue then. I know plenty of active and involved (in going to races) IT racers, and have only seen two of the semi-local ones on line with any regularity, and often find myself surprised when I tell some of a compelling topic of conversation that we get ourselves into here, which they knew nothing about.

Yes this seems really odd to us, but some folks just don't use the web like we do. I don't think that has any bearing on whether their interests are of valid consideration. I don't think it necessarily means they don't give a crap. I don't think that the interests of IT racers who don't give a crap about the online group's arguments are invalid.

That's not directed at you Andy, but at us. It is an easy assumption for all of us to make.

Just because we dont see a racer online it does not mean they don't race, or should not be permitted to volunteer their time on the AC. Of course I also think that in these times, saying that someone needs to be an active IT racer can have a pretty wide definition. Heck - I have participated in 2 race weekends as a driver since 2008, but it is not because I left, or am leaving.

[lateapex911]

Just because we dont see a racer online it does not mean they don't race, or should not be permitted to volunteer their time on the AC. Of course I also think that in these times, saying that someone needs to be an active IT racer can have a pretty wide definition. Heck - I have participated in 2 race weekends as a driver since 2008, but it is not because I left, or am leaving.

Chris, I agree that AC people can come from many walks and not being online isn't a deal breaker. But...I think the ACs are charged with knowing their constituents. Otherwise, teh CRB could do the job, with little actual real world involvement.
The ideal AC guy would be a traveler so he had a feel for the action and character of IT racing across the country, would be a big picture thinker and be able to see the larger view, would have infinite automotive knowledge, or be able to find the answers quickly, would be able to express themselves to the members and his fellow committee members, would understand policy management and implementation, and had mechanical and driving abilites so he understood what makes out micro world tick.

Of course, such a guy doesn't exist. But, some of the current and certainly ex ITAC guys I know do have many of those attributes. If you don't have maybe three of those boxes checked though, I do think that the committee work isn't for you.

As for understanding the issues and dilemmas of the IT category, where WOULD somebody go if they weren't online? I have to think they probably wouldn't be as well versed. But maybe I'm wrong. I just wouldn't know where else you could glean such a broadbase of information...

[Knestis]

This won't be popular but I'd argue that the least helpful perspective - from a national, category-level point of view - is from the racer who's really committed and involved but only locally. He or she is going to come to any conversation with strongly held convictions formed from a soda-straw perspective.

He'll be POSITIVE that the Bruce's Renault Encore is too fast or ITC based on comparisons among four cars, and that it's really not a big deal of Wayne's Datsun 1200 runs a race cam because it's the only way he can keep up with Bruce.

This guy is fictional. A lot of others are not.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Maybe this is a bit of a regional issue then. I know plenty of active and involved (in going to races) IT racers, and have only seen two of the semi-local ones on line with any regularity, and often find myself surprised when I tell some of a compelling topic of conversation that we get ourselves into here, which they knew nothing about.

Yes this seems really odd to us, but some folks just don't use the web like we do. I don't think that has any bearing on whether their interests are of valid consideration. I don't think it necessarily means they don't give a crap. I don't think that the interests of IT racers who don't give a crap about the online group's arguments are invalid.

That's not directed at you Andy, but at us. It is an easy assumption for all of us to make.

Just because we dont see a racer online it does not mean they don't race, or should not be permitted to volunteer their time on the AC. Of course I also think that in these times, saying that someone needs to be an active IT racer can have a pretty wide definition. Heck - I have participated in 2 race weekends as a driver since 2008, but it is not because I left, or am leaving.

I guess I disagree...in this way. In todays day and age, this stuff is right at our fingertips. My suggestion is that while these people most certainly ARE active racers, they belong in the silent minority that really doesn't care to put in the time to know the issues, both local and national. Like Kirk said, they KNOW what they KNOW, in a very narrow view. All they see is what they see.

I can also tell you that any ad-hoc member who isn't on-line and 'up to speed' with issues, discussions and viewpoints can waste HOURS of con-call time hashing, rehashing and generally stalling topics because they were simply not informed.

Simply put, the people who really care take the time and effort to at least lurk. They will comment as they see fit, but at least they are watching. Those that don't, are fine with the world, however oblivious they are to it.

[Tkczecheredflag]

M$%^$%RF#$%#. Sorry for the language, but it's well-deserved in this case:

2. #4176 (CR Clarify 9.3.41 Clarify 9.3.41 as follows: “Seats with a back not attached to the main roll hoop or its cross bracing may be mounted on runners only if they were part of the FIA homologated assembly specified in an FIA homologated race car.”

Fortunately, they f****d it up again: there's no GCR glossary definition of "runners" (unless they're referring to "a duct of an induction system leading to the cylinder head"...)

A couple of years a ago my "seat runners" were attached to the main hoop - Tech, during my Annual made me cut them out, totally compromising the safety of the seat set up, stating that these were two addtional cage monting points and stiffened the car - needless to say that there are many of these cage/runner set ups. The next year they changed the rules to allow for these mounting points - make up your minds please.

[Gary L]

Something occurred to me on the Audi stock HP issue (Bentley vs ETKA vs whatever)... and I realize it is not typically the ITAC's job to dig this deep (and then again!). In any case, this issue seems to be so contentious that I thought this would be worth mentioning.

What if - the primary source documents for the horsepower figures were not in any form of "horsepower" at all? What if, for instance, those source documents were in kW and in the process of conversion to SAE net HP for the various 3rd party documents, the wrong conversion factors were used for some or all? I bring this up because of what appears to be a disconnect in the one Bentley-derived kW vs HP figure that Stephen presented a page or two back. I noted it at the time in a responsive post, but just in case anyone missed it... 89.4 kW is not 110 SAE net HP, it's 120, give or take a few tenths.

Obviously, the seemingly errant ratio of that one pair of numbers could also have been the result of a bad conversion in the other direction. Or... Stephen, did you fat-finger the kW number, perchance?

Interestingly, John's photo of the spec page from his Bentley (I think?) manual doesn't mention kW at all.

[Rabbit05]

Gary,
Yes the picture above is from my Bentley manual.

-John