March 2011 Fastrack
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
StephenB
New member
I will make this final post... I think torque matters and should be considered. I am afraid that another car like mine will pop up and mess things up. It probably already has and we just don't know it yet.
Stephen
Bill Miller
New member
Hey Stephen,
What ever happened to Phil Phillips' old car? I know it was pretty fast back in the day. My friend's dad bought it several years ago, but sold it. Not sure where it ever ended up.
What ever happened to Phil Phillips' old car? I know it was pretty fast back in the day. My friend's dad bought it several years ago, but sold it. Not sure where it ever ended up.
Z3_GoCar
New member
RSTPerformance
New member
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!
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
New member
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 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.
RSTPerformance
New member
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?
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
New member
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
Raymond
JeffYoung
New member
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.
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.
RSTPerformance
New member
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
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
JeffYoung
New member
That is a far more reasonble post.
I agree with have some issues in IT, but I think for the vast majority of cars we got it right. We don't have these issues in S or R...AT ALL. We have the "Miata Problem" in A, but beyond that (and I think the issue is overblown) the class is close and competitive.
C no one complains about.
B, although the racing is good, is a nightmare. We have spent, over the last year, I'd gues 80% of our time on B cars. And we have some issues. But we are trying to correct them.
Bob Dowie did not lie to you by the way. While I disagree with Bob on some things, and not on others, he's as honest as they come. He told you what he believed to be the case when it was told you. Remember, as Andy said, the ITAC/CRB relationshp was in turmoil at that time, and the means used to class cars in a bit of a unstable zone.
In any event, I'd like to know as much abou tthis dealer manual as possible especially since it seems to be the genesis of the 120 hp number we were told was the facctory number.
What can you tell me?
I agree with have some issues in IT, but I think for the vast majority of cars we got it right. We don't have these issues in S or R...AT ALL. We have the "Miata Problem" in A, but beyond that (and I think the issue is overblown) the class is close and competitive.
C no one complains about.
B, although the racing is good, is a nightmare. We have spent, over the last year, I'd gues 80% of our time on B cars. And we have some issues. But we are trying to correct them.
Bob Dowie did not lie to you by the way. While I disagree with Bob on some things, and not on others, he's as honest as they come. He told you what he believed to be the case when it was told you. Remember, as Andy said, the ITAC/CRB relationshp was in turmoil at that time, and the means used to class cars in a bit of a unstable zone.
In any event, I'd like to know as much abou tthis dealer manual as possible especially since it seems to be the genesis of the 120 hp number we were told was the facctory number.
What can you tell me?
RSTPerformance
New member
If you really want to continue a conversation a out Bob Dowie and the rest of the CRB memberswe can but I would rather not.
As for the Manual... Phil Hunt (pfsc on here) has all your answers, I don't. If I knew anything about this manual I would share but I havn't a clue.
Raymond
As for the Manual... Phil Hunt (pfsc on here) has all your answers, I don't. If I knew anything about this manual I would share but I havn't a clue.
Raymond
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.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
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!
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!
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Your private emails were from CB chair Bob Dowie. I can assure you he did not lie to you. He told you what he felt, and what he knew at the time.*
Now, he might have changed what he felt a week or a month or a year later, but I know he communicated you the situation as he saw it at the time.
I also know that he wasn't pushing his own agenda.
*At the time, Bob felt that the ITAC wasn't giving displacement enough weight in the Process. He went so far to say, "You'll never convince me that using stock horsepower is a good way to class a race car". I remember well, because I was shocked he said that as we had been operating in such a manner for years. And I believed in our system and had campaigned hard for it. I felt that stock hp and tq told us what we needed to know in most cases. He felt the Audi had big displacement for the class and should be treated uniquely. He really did feel that way. Remember, he comes from a much different background: GT and Prod racing, where stock parts that restrict HP, like cams and such are free game. Big engines make big power. It would appear that, since I left the committee, he has altered his view, perhaps because of discussions with the ITAC.
RSTPerformance
New member
Jake- I appologise again... And I will again...
I don't think Jeff should have dished out $120 for a manual... Its not his obligation and it's not going to give him the information he wants to back up the classification. I also do think he should be able to trust other committee members recomendations. Unfortunatly I don't really care for some of the members so my opinion sucks...
and I admit that also.
I also just saw that the classification process was posted. I had not read that... So I appologise again. This is another great step in the right direction.
I however did not like Jeffs comments that I somehow cheated the system by arguing for lower published hp ratings than what I "knew" or know. I also get overly fustrated with any reference to my performance at the ARRC as it is completely not relevant to todays ITB class.
Travis- non of us are always classy are we?
I don't think Jeff should have dished out $120 for a manual... Its not his obligation and it's not going to give him the information he wants to back up the classification. I also do think he should be able to trust other committee members recomendations. Unfortunatly I don't really care for some of the members so my opinion sucks...
and I admit that also.I also just saw that the classification process was posted. I had not read that... So I appologise again. This is another great step in the right direction.
I however did not like Jeffs comments that I somehow cheated the system by arguing for lower published hp ratings than what I "knew" or know. I also get overly fustrated with any reference to my performance at the ARRC as it is completely not relevant to todays ITB class.
Travis- non of us are always classy are we?
Rabbit05
New member
Jeff,
I would of mailed you my Bently ! You didnt need to drop $120 on a book. I commend you for trying to find an answer on this. And if there is anything I can do to help....
Let me know [email protected] is my email.
And the picture that i had posted from before(I believe it is on page two). This was from the Owners Manual issued from the factory. The one you would find in the glove box , not the Bently.
I am wrong in thinking this could be used as a reliable factory document....?
Also the two engine codes you are looking for are the WE and KX motor. The WE being used in the early cars and the KX used in the later ones. From asking the Audi crowd I was told that on Page Two of the Bently should have the motor info. A friend of mine has my book and I will go get it afterwork today to confirm this.
Thanks for looking into this Jeff, and like I said you need anything give me a shout.
-John
I would of mailed you my Bently ! You didnt need to drop $120 on a book. I commend you for trying to find an answer on this. And if there is anything I can do to help....
Let me know [email protected] is my email.
And the picture that i had posted from before(I believe it is on page two). This was from the Owners Manual issued from the factory. The one you would find in the glove box , not the Bently.
I am wrong in thinking this could be used as a reliable factory document....?
Also the two engine codes you are looking for are the WE and KX motor. The WE being used in the early cars and the KX used in the later ones. From asking the Audi crowd I was told that on Page Two of the Bently should have the motor info. A friend of mine has my book and I will go get it afterwork today to confirm this.
Thanks for looking into this Jeff, and like I said you need anything give me a shout.
-John
No. Bentley is king.
GA, who's a bit dismayed, having inferred you posted info from the Bentley... <_<