Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[RSTPerformance]

I am on to the RX-8's now and will only bring the Audi's out once in a while to have fun so I really still don't care about this car but I do care about the secrets. My biggest issue is nobody will supply this microfiche information. My suspision is because it has other information that could get us to the 120hp (euro parts, different replacement parts etc.) or some other flaw could be found that would be detrimental to those on the committee. If it wasn't an issue we would have been provided with the documents by now.

Raymond "What are you hiding?" Blethen

[RSTPerformance]

Any information used in the classification of any car should be made available to all members. But let's not forget, this is the Secret Car Club of America!

Raymond

[JoshS]

I am on to the RX-8's now and will only bring the Audi's out once in a while to have fun so I really still don't care about this car but I do care about the secrets. My biggest issue is nobody will supply this microfiche information. My suspision is because it has other information that could get us to the 120hp (euro parts, different replacement parts etc.) or some other flaw could be found that would be detrimental to those on the committee. If it wasn't an issue we would have been provided with the documents by now.

Raymond "What are you hiding?" Blethen

Any information used in the classification of any car should be made available to all members. But let's not forget, this is the Secret Car Club of America!

Oh, for crying out loud. The information has been published on this website in threads that you and all of the other interested parties have been involved in. Here's just one of the posts.

https://improvedtouring.com...&postcount=107

[RSTPerformance]

Thanks Josh... I did't remember seeing that post... I have blocked the Audi BS issues from my memory as it really made me upset to the point if walking away, if only we had NASA up here! I looked back and I still have to admit, it was competitors that provided that info, not the ITAC or the CRB. Those people on the comittees then then just fed lines of BS, not sure who is on what now!

I wish I never looked at this thread and saw "Blethens" and Audi coupe because it sucked me in... When I looked back at the thread, I noticed another competitor posted the same page from His software and it listed 115hp in the "same"' parts book. https://improvedtouring.com...1&d=1298747709

Raymond "Keep me away from IT.Com" Blethen

[JeffYoung]

Actually, that's about 0% like it went down.

Geez man. No one is out to get you.

It made you upset to the point of walking away, but you still wouldn't spend the $100 it would have taken (and my offer to pay for it still stands) to put your car on a dyno?

[Bill Miller]

That has no importance to me. Most sources get their data from the same place. All of those internet sites with car stats? Same source. Aftermarket owner's manuals? Same source. What happened is that at some point, one part of Audi published 120hp and another part published 110hp. The 110hp got repeated in many places and the 120hp didn't. Doesn't make either one any more or less "true."

I would agree w/ that Josh, except that I consider things like owner's manuals, factory service manuals, and sales brochures, all of which are issued by the car maker, to be at the very least, equivalent in validity to a factory parts catalog. If anything, those documents may be slightly 'more valid', as they were all produced at the time the car was being introduced. The version of the VW/Audi parts catalog that Dave Z. posted those shots from, is at least a couple of generations down the road, from the time the car was produced. I'm not sure when the Windows-based version of that catalog was released, but I'm pretty sure it was w/in the last 10 years. I'll see if I still have the previous version, and see if I can find the listing for the Audi engine(s) in question.

[Ron Earp]

I don't think that test is enough Ron, as the 120hp doc is a factory doc as well.

You missed the point. This is why in this instance a benevolent dictator works better than a committee. The decision gets made and we move on.

From the posts below I understand that we have the following ratings:

*110 hp stock from factory brochures and shop manuals
*115 hp stock from a screen shot of some Audi CD
*120 hp stock from a microfiche that only a few have seen

Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to just call it 115hp and move to other topics? As I understood it there were three people that raced these cars and one of them has stated he doesn't care about the issue any longer, leaving two ITB Audi racers?

[Rabbit05]

I noticed in the pictures of the ETKA.....

And Jeff can verify my findings, as he owns the factory book . The JT and KX are the SAME EXACT motor. Head, valves, pistons , crank, ect.... The JT received a "header" type exhaust manifold, this is why it has a higher HP according to the factory Audi manual .

The ETKA says the JT is 2.20 L and the KX is a 2.23 L motor ???

The ETKA has the JT at a higher HP number but listed as less Liter cap than the KX ???

This discrepancy in the ETKA information proves that this parts list information is INACCURATE and should NOT be used in determining stock HP on the Audi.

[Chip42]

there were 3 who post here. the blethens and John. the blethens are the ones who have moved on to RX8s. there's at least 1 more coupe running in the SEDIV at times, made roebling in may and was leading until wheel bearing failure. nice car.

there have been others.

it's a hard situation from our perspective.

[JeffYoung]

You missed the point. This is why in this instance a benevolent dictator works better than a committee. The decision gets made and we move on.

From the posts below I understand that we have the following ratings:

*110 hp stock from factory brochures and shop manuals
*115 hp stock from a screen shot of some Audi CD
*120 hp stock from a microfiche that only a few have seen

Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to just call it 115hp and move to other topics? As I understood it there were three people that raced these cars and one of them has stated he doesn't care about the issue any longer, leaving two ITB Audi racers?

Roughly what we did, if I remember correctly.

[Knestis]

An interesting thought...

The sub-process (if you will) for what to do if the same car is released with different stock power figures matured somewhat post-Audi 4000 listing, with the Miata.

The question here should NOT be what multiplier to use. That's BS distraction from historical bias and perceptions (aka in the SCCA as "what we know"), primarily on the part of key CRB members (Albin, Keane, others?) and PRIMARILY based on one ARRC.

The question SHOULD be, "What makes the two listed cars different?" Is it something that is open under the IT rules (e.g., exhaust) or is it something inherent in the rest of the design that will make a difference (e.g., CR, head design)? If the latter, do we want the car listed on two spec lines or one, counting on update-backdate?

ALL of the distractions with dynos and other reverse engineering crap are COMPLETELY pissing off one of IT's longest supporters.

K

EDIT - and Jeff (et al.) who are suggesting dyno testing a particular example - there is zero win in that solution. It's one data point but it's a completely flawed data point. NO value in that game what so ever.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Roughly what we did, if I remember correctly.

Running the napkin math, the car sits at 120 * 1.25.

[Ron Earp]

it's a hard situation from our perspective.

I respect what the ITAC does, but it is as hard as you/ITAC wishes to make it. The GCR section on IT clearly states in not so many words that the class will not be balanced perfectly. Classing it at 115 hp splits the difference and the car will be 50lb to heavy to some and 50 lbs to light to others. That's damn close enough and well within the frame work of obligation set forth in the GCR and ITAC process/manual.

[JeffYoung]

An interesting thought...

The sub-process (if you will) for what to do if the same car is released with different stock power figures matured somewhat post-Audi 4000 listing, with the Miata.

The question here should NOT be what multiplier to use. That's BS distraction from historical bias and perceptions (aka in the SCCA as "what we know"), primarily on the part of key CRB members (Albin, Keane, others?) and PRIMARILY based on one ARRC.

The question SHOULD be, "What makes the two listed cars different?" Is it something that is open under the IT rules (e.g., exhaust) or is it something inherent in the rest of the design that will make a difference (e.g., CR, head design)? If the latter, do we want the car listed on two spec lines or one, counting on update-backdate?

ALL of the distractions with dynos and other reverse engineering crap are COMPLETELY pissing off one of IT's longest supporters.

K

EDIT - and Jeff (et al.) who are suggesting dyno testing a particular example - there is zero win in that solution. It's one data point but it's a completely flawed data point. NO value in that game what so ever.

I have to disagree, strongly. It's a data point. Using ONLY it to do something I agree is an error. Using it as a piece of a puzzle is not.

Again, despite Andy's protestations to the contrary, it's no different than using an SSA dyno sheet to set the weight on the 300ZX, or Grand Am dyno sheets for the RX8, or a Mopar add or "similar" Mopar builds on a Neon forum to set the weight for the Neon. And don't get me started on the FWD simulation software.....

[gran racing]

Geez man. No one is out to get you.

It made you upset to the point of walking away, but you still wouldn't spend the $100 it would have taken (and my offer to pay for it still stands) to put your car on a dyno?

There's a lot more to this than just another data point (microfiche) from Ray's perspective. The source of their original frustration was the other story of how two Audi's went down to the ARRC, people used that information against the car, people who had influence on the decisions used that and other BS information against the Audi's. Remove all of that garbage, and I bet the Blethen's outlook would be different. The actions back then bother me too and I sure would have considered moving on. We are at a different place now with the Audi but it's going to be hard for them to wipe away that history.

There have been a lot of questions about the true HP, the 5 cyl sure makes this car unique, and how it should be classed. I think it's a tough one.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have to disagree, strongly. It's a data point. Using ONLY it to do something I agree is an error. Using it as a piece of a puzzle is not.

So tell me what you learn if:

His car makes 113whp

and/or

His car makes 126whp

There are pieces to a puzzle that can be used to form a picture - and there are pieces that simple don't fit. Like I said in an earlier post, what would you have don't with a 'piece of the Miata puzzle' if you had a dyno sheet that said 120whp? You would investigate the mods and then disregard it completely based on lack of allowances taken advantage of.

Now if he had a programmable ECU and a day to do some tuning and he had a IT-spec head, then maybe the piece fits into the puzzle.

Again, despite Andy's protestations to the contrary, it's no different than using an SSA dyno sheet to set the weight on the 300ZX, or Grand Am dyno sheets for the RX8, or a Mopar add or "similar" Mopar builds on a Neon forum to set the weight for the Neon. And don't get me started on the FWD simulation software.....

We could debate these over and over. Not the same.

The Audi is exactly where it should be IMHO until other info comes in on stock HP or dyno sheets.

[Bill Miller]

Am I the only one that sees submitting dyno sheets as a massive way to sandbag a classification? Sure, we'd all like to believe that everyone is honest, and wouldn't knowingly do anything that wasn't above board. Unfortunately, that ranks right up there w/ the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

I'll take Andy's example. Here comes a new guy w/ a 5cyl, 2.2L, 10v, FWD, Borgward Coupe GT. There is conflicting published data on the hp, so it gets classed heavy. Everybody bitches, but nobody produces a dyno sheet. So, this guy takes his new Borgward to the shop, and gets a dyno pull on it. Shows 113whp. Now mind you, this is a bone stock Borgward Coupe GT. But Racer X sends in his letter w/ his dyno sheet and proceeds to list all of the things that were done to the motor (full-tilt build), and says "See, even w/ all these goodies, the thing doesn't make anywhere near the power to justify the weight. Please re-process."

Who's going to verify what was done to the motor? And before you say "Send in the receipts.", do you think that someone that would fabricate the story would have any problem w/ fabricating receipts?

[Rabbit05]

. We are at a different place now with the Audi but it's going to be hard for them to wipe away that history.

That is a problem....considering the History they basing it on is one race....almost a decade ago. And if we are adding weight as a PCA for the Audi due to this result...why hasn't this been done to various other makes/models that have won the ARRC ??


And looking at the what Ray had posted and a previous post ....there is now 2 different HP numbers given from the ETKA . (inconsistent data)

Where as there are 2 SAME HP numbers from Audi Factory documents . (consistent data) And other various sources back the 110 hp number.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Am I the only one that sees submitting dyno sheets as a massive way to sandbag a classification? Sure, we'd all like to believe that everyone is honest, and wouldn't knowingly do anything that wasn't above board. Unfortunately, that ranks right up there w/ the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

I'll take Andy's example. Here comes a new guy w/ a 5cyl, 2.2L, 10v, FWD, Borgward Coupe GT. There is conflicting published data on the hp, so it gets classed heavy. Everybody bitches, but nobody produces a dyno sheet. So, this guy takes his new Borgward to the shop, and gets a dyno pull on it. Shows 113whp. Now mind you, this is a bone stock Borgward Coupe GT. But Racer X sends in his letter w/ his dyno sheet and proceeds to list all of the things that were done to the motor (full-tilt build), and says "See, even w/ all these goodies, the thing doesn't make anywhere near the power to justify the weight. Please re-process."

Who's going to verify what was done to the motor? And before you say "Send in the receipts.", do you think that someone that would fabricate the story would have any problem w/ fabricating receipts?

An inherent issue with the dyno-know-what-we-know scenario. That's why (I believe) the ITAC would like to have a 'pile' of sheets so that they can draw a reasonable conclusion. One sheet would be the start or the puzzle, but it does need to be validated. And that is also why the ITAC has a 'confidence vote' on how valid and confident they feel about such information. If it doesn't pass the sniff test, it doesn't trigger more action.

In the end, we know there is no silver bullet and a car like this, with sketchy documentation, compounds the problem. That is where you sometimes have to lean back (reluctantly) on the 'no guarantee' stipulation IMHO.

The ITAC is busting their balls on this car - and a lot in ITB - it's just much harder with over 40 years worth of info (or lack thereof).

[Gary L]

Ron - your point may be relevant, but I think you need to check your math... a five hp shift results in a 105 lb (rounded) difference: 5 x 1.25 x 17 = 106.25 lbs.

BTW, here's some more mud for this particular puddle of water. In the two "screen capture" documents linked earlier (one each at 115 and 120 hp for the KX engine), there is agreement, if you look hard enough. The KW rating for that engine in both documents, is 88. It happens that 88 KW converts to 120 metric (DIN) hp. So... I would have to conclude there's a very strong possibility the 115 hp number is the result of someone using an incorrect conversion factor.

(OTOH, while the 120 hp number appears to be converted correctly, that conversion is to DIN hp, not the SAE net hp we're supposed to be using as the basis for the process. So just for giggles, if 88 KW is correct, we're talking 118 SAE net.)

Anyhow... this all makes me wonder what the KW rating is in all the "other" documents (shop manuals, owner manuals, etc.) that show 110 hp?