Please help me understand the Audi issue...

[Charlie Broring]

There is another good example of Audi performance potential from some years back in the MARRS series. At one time Dick Shine built an A2 Golf for Don Barrack and at the same time did an extensive rebuild on Jim Gilly's Audi. Both were pretty much state of the art full on builds and ran together at Summit. The drivers raced head to head, tried each others cars, and a consensus of relative performance was reached. The Golf handled a bit better, but the Audi had more power with an over all edge given to the Audi. I remember that Mr Shine held the Audi in pretty high regard at that time. Unfortunately, Jim's Audi met an untimely end at Mid Ohio, but I remember it as being a very competitive car.

So, if the Audi is already at least a decent ITB car, why should it get a whopping 2-300 pound weight reduction? Is it posible that the "Process" doesn't always serve ITB well?

Charlie

[lateapex911]

So, if the Audi is already at least a decent ITB car, why should it get a whopping 2-300 pound weight reduction? Is it posible that the "Process" doesn't always serve ITB well?

Charlie

It is possible.
I suggested that instead of a flat refusal that the CRB send it back to us for a scrub down. Make us do our homework. Make us go out and get the proof that it needs the weight break. Maybe we find it. Maybe we don't. Currently, the Process puts it at over a 40% hp gain. That seems pretty high. But maybe it does. Maybe it hits 35%? Or 30%?

I'd be happy to scrub it down and either stand on the recommendation, revise the recommendation or withdraw the recommendation in line with what our evidence showed.

But, to my understanding, it's been refused, with no further action.

[Charlie Broring]

The old saying is "Horsepower sells engines. Torque wins motor races." Peak horsepower is not directly related to how well a car accelerates.