Any news on ITB weights???

[RSTPerformance]

Ken- are you racing an Audi??? If so contact me, been through this and I can tell you it's not worth it... I would love to see it fixed but I have learned to just enjoy the car for what it is and have fun racing for a podium

Raymond

[lateapex911]

as said previously, the problem currently is the scope of the ordeal and the umpteen different specs and tech levels we're trying to wrap our heads around. that the bulk of the actively campaigned class ISN'T hondas and toyotas and other beaten to death horses means that this info is not readily available in many cases. until everything is balanced to an agreeably objective level, the changes will not be released to the CRB. THEN you can call your black helicopters and stuff but for right now, save the fuel for the racecar.

if the car you are looking at is a modern one, chances are good the weights are going to stay as published currently as those have available published numbers that work with the process.

If it's a non MR2 4AGE toyota, you can run the numbers based on the MR2 (less50# for AE86, that x0.98 for the FX16). The audi thing might get political, can't say as we haven't gotten to it. but it did before. there's a dark cloud over it and I personally don't like that.

BUT, the chief 'enemy' of the Audi has left the CRB, so the whole "I have decided I don't like the Process, I want displacement to be a factor' issue might have left the building. Or not., (As I don't know the mindset of the current CR

[Chip42]

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[AE86ITA]

as said previously, the problem currently is the scope of the ordeal and the umpteen different specs and tech levels we're trying to wrap our heads around. that the bulk of the actively campaigned class ISN'T hondas and toyotas and other beaten to death horses means that this info is not readily available in many cases. until everything is balanced to an agreeably objective level, the changes will not be released to the CRB. THEN you can call your black helicopters and stuff but for right now, save the fuel for the racecar.

if the car you are looking at is a modern one, chances are good the weights are going to stay as published currently as those have available published numbers that work with the process.

If it's a non MR2 4AGE toyota, you can run the numbers based on the MR2 (less50# for AE86, that x0.98 for the FX16). The audi thing might get political, can't say as we haven't gotten to it. but it did before. there's a dark cloud over it and I personally don't like that.

Chip;
When can we see exactly that put in black and white before the end of this year? (ie Fast Track)

[Chip42]

Chip;
When can we see exactly that put in black and white before the end of this year? (ie Fast Track)

efrain,

write another letter and I'll see if I can get the guys to agree to this. should be pretty simple.

[jjjanos]

I bet the real reason our President resigned was in protest of the CRB interfering with the process!

[lateapex911]

I bet the real reason our President resigned was in protest of the CRB interfering with the process!

"Resigned", hahahahhahahaha. Who "resigns" in the AM and is gone in the PM???

[Chip42]

hopefully ME when I get around to it. from the job, not the committee

[lateapex911]

hopefully ME when I get around to it. from the job, not the committee

You, like JD seem to be a stand up kind of guy, so you'll be fair and give notice.

[Rabbit05]

I hope the Audi Coupe loses some weight since its original weight was based on 120hp which the car never had here in the States. Stock form in the USA is 110hp.

Ken

Hi Ken !
I had taken this up in the past, after the Blethen's did . This is well known fact through out the world the HP of the KX is 110. (( owners manual , Factory Manual, and I managed to get my hands on some internal advertising bits from Audi all stating 110hp))...Except a privileged few have seen, heard of , or mentioned a "secret Audi microchife" saying otherwise.(que the "copters"!) And have processed the Audi using inaccurate information. Henceforth the extra weight.

I am optimistically pessimistic that the Audi will ever change.. considering that it was mentioned politics are also involved....

(sorry all I saw the word Audi and couldn't help myself.... )

<back to lurking mode>

[Ron Earp]

Holy shit this ITB debacle is legendary.

How much money would you Audi folks need to put push the cars off a cliff so this topic will disappear? It's clear the ITAC isn't going to doing anything about it, but if the price was right maybe I could help out.

I'm mostly kidding, at least about the cliff and the money.

[JeffYoung]

We reduced the weight on that car once, if I recall correctly. The documentation on stock hp is contradictory although most evidence is 110. That said, none of the owners/drivers (all of whom I like) would produce IT build dyno sheets which we could have used to help solve the problem. This was in marked contrast to the MR2 situation where I think we had 5 or 6 IT build dyno sheets to use to show the car couldn't hit a certain target percentage.

In other words, and with all due respect to the Audi drivers, we didn't get much help from them except to complain. While their cars were competitive on track, which didn't help the case.

The amount of time the ITAC spent on the ITB Audi v. the number of these cars actually running on track is insane.

[StephenB]

We reduced the weight on that car once, if I recall correctly. The documentation on stock hp is contradictory although most evidence is 110. That said, none of the owners/drivers (all of whom I like) would produce IT build dyno sheets which we could have used to help solve the problem. This was in marked contrast to the MR2 situation where I think we had 5 or 6 IT build dyno sheets to use to show the car couldn't hit a certain target percentage.

In other words, and with all due respect to the Audi drivers, we didn't get much help from them except to complain. While their cars were competitive on track, which didn't help the case.

The amount of time the ITAC spent on the ITB Audi v. the number of these cars actually running on track is insane.

I agree with all that.

Stephen,
the owner of the fastest ITB coupe in the country without a stand alone ECU. which now lives in the woods...

[Ron Earp]

The amount of time the ITAC spent on the ITB Audi v. the number of these cars actually running on track is insane.

That's got to be true. Seems I've been reading about ITB on this site for five years.

What's the SCCA scairt of with fixing these cars according to the process? What is the WORST that could happen? Some people race their Audi Coupes and win a regional race the SCCA doesn't care about anyhow?

Scary stuff.

[lateapex911]

I agree with all that.

Stephen,
the owner of the fastest ITB coupe in the country without a stand alone ECU. which now lives in the woods...

So, Stephen, what did your car make for power???

[lateapex911]

The amount of time the ITAC spent on the ITB Audi v. the number of these cars actually running on track is insane.

True.
However, the freakin MR2 debacle makes the Audi look like a mere footnote.
While the "against" guys in the Audi discussion had at least SOME data, the MR2 guys had zero, zilch nada. Except it was the same block bore and spacing as a Formula Atlantic racer....

[StephenB]

So, Stephen, what did your car make for power???

No clue and I have no plans to find out. Stock I still think it came with 110hp... doesn't really matter what I got for power out of it. No-one that drives an audi is or ever has asked for an "extra" reduction in the weight like the mr2. The process is the process, that's all we wanted, still not sure why no-one understands that. As said before though, I have to trust that the info the ITAC has showing the higher hp is correct and live with that answer. I will never agree but I will, and did, accept it.

Stephen

[lateapex911]

That's got to be true. Seems I've been reading about ITB on this site for five years.

What's the SCCA scairt of with fixing these cars according to the process? What is the WORST that could happen? Some people race their Audi Coupes and win a regional race the SCCA doesn't care about anyhow?

Scary stuff.

Ron, but as you can see above, Stephen feels they used the wrong power in classing the car, as does John. I don't know John, and don't know if he did a lot of dyno work in his short ownership of the car, but I am not surprised that Stephen says he doesn't know. I never saw any source from anyone while I was on the ITAC that stated 120 stock. But I know that the CRB didn't care about the 110 rating, they cared about 2 things: that the car sat on the front row of the ARRC (but neither finished and therefor, no tech teardown), and the displacement, which meant it MUST have more power or torque, so it's a mistake to 'just go with 110".

If i were an owner of the car, and I saw other cars get Processed at face value, but my car had 170 pounds plopped on it "just cuz'", I'd feel screwed. People don't like being screwed...in comparison with others of equal standing, so, you, you're going to hear about it for awhile.

The MR2 thing is even worse, and I was involved in that too, mistakenly doing bad math, (ANd having nobody on the con call catch me...or say anything) on it, then the utter refusal to fix it....at 30%! Even the reduction, which came years later, is still more than the 5-6 dyno sheets Jeff points to as the 'proof' needed to budge the classing.

So the MR2 guys, who have been fighting for a fair shake for yeeeeears, (Car was in ITA back in what, 02?) feel screwed too, both by the numbers and by the excessive amount of time to even get to those numbers. It's one thing to look at a classing like yours, Ron, see it's weight, and know either you can't hit the weight, (or it's set high by Process), but decide to run the car anyway, either because you think it can run despite the weight, or you just like it, (or whatever), but its another thing entirely to own and run a car*, THEN have to move classes, sell wheels, buy new wheels, and the weight be ridiculous. Well, that smarts.

Now, to be clear, neither of these are the ITACs fault, per se'. No, it's largely the fault of the CRB, who decided to draw lines in the sand, and support wacky non Process deals** .... If two members of the CRB, and the CRB/ITAC weren't involved, I am convinced things would be very different for those cars.

* and the car was once upon a time ok in ITA, but classings that post dated it were made far more aggressively, and, like the RX-7, it was rendered uncompetitive.

**Jeff, that multi valve ITB thing predated your time on the ITAC, and IIRC, you were traveling when the MR2 30% thing went down, as was Andy, and I was running the call from a hotel room in Watkins Glen and didn't have my usual 3 monitors worth of info up in front of me, and flat blew the classing based on looking at the wrong calc....

[Ron Earp]

Deleted. The situation that is the ITB debacle is an embarrassment to the club, but entirely expected.

[JeffYoung]

The perception is worse than teh reality. I'd say the MR2 is an example of the process ultimately working. The 30% adder for ITB multivavle was BS, but ultimately it got fixed and while 20% is higher than the best dyno sheets we've seen for the MR2 it's not out of the range of possibility. It's conservative, as it should be.

There is an internal Audi document showing 120 hp for the Audi. It exists. No one can explain it. The resulting weight is not based on teh 120 hp but rather on a very rough what we know on actual gain. Not perfect at all but it worked, as the car is not hopelessly outclassed and in fact is a front runner.