lateapex911
Super Moderator
Isn't it ironic that two guys, who campaigned AGAINST their own cars, were asked /forced to leave the ITAC, yet guys who made deals to protect their own cars ended up getting promoted to the CRB???
Any news on ITB weights???
- Thread starter AE86ITA
- Start date
That conversation (on an ITAC call) happened before we codified the "evidentiary standards" that were in effect when I left the committee. He was running a MkIII Golf in ITB at that time. I share that only as fact, not any particular implication.
K
I agree that the A2 is likely a bit off process - 30% is ~116 whp, 25% is ~112. we have evidence of 113 whp and suggestions that it can hit 115. so theoretically the ADDER isn't that far off. yes, at 17 lbs/hp and a resolution of 5% you ARE talking about 90lbs.
either way, the effort right now is in identifying the stock numbers to plug into the process and the multipliers that we "know" before agreeing about the ones we "think we know" and the ones that get the default numbers. for the stuff that's really running - the A1, A2, A3platform VWs, 4AGE Toyotas, 84-95 civics and siblings, A-motor prelude and accord, protégé, Audi coupes, 2002 BMW and Volvos we have a pretty good read on the cars. it's the 200SX, Simca injected 2.0L twin cam Alfas, TR7, 914, opel GT, 20 years of mustang on one specline, T-motor corollas, and MANY others that we are trying to identify figures for.
we need to get the house in order and everyone on the same page as far as the process and base numbers, THEN we can debate the best way to "fix" the "problems" which I put in quotes because there's far from universally agreed upon definitions for either.
either way, the effort right now is in identifying the stock numbers to plug into the process and the multipliers that we "know" before agreeing about the ones we "think we know" and the ones that get the default numbers. for the stuff that's really running - the A1, A2, A3platform VWs, 4AGE Toyotas, 84-95 civics and siblings, A-motor prelude and accord, protégé, Audi coupes, 2002 BMW and Volvos we have a pretty good read on the cars. it's the 200SX, Simca injected 2.0L twin cam Alfas, TR7, 914, opel GT, 20 years of mustang on one specline, T-motor corollas, and MANY others that we are trying to identify figures for.
we need to get the house in order and everyone on the same page as far as the process and base numbers, THEN we can debate the best way to "fix" the "problems" which I put in quotes because there's far from universally agreed upon definitions for either.
JJanos,
Some of the cars Chip mentioned are currently run. Just in teh southeast, there are mustangs and I ran against a 200SX last race at Barber.
My opinion is that you should be able to look at the ITCS and pick a car and based on a process it might have a chance of being competitive. Obviously you might spend alot more money developing some off the wall car (Opel GT.. how cool would that be) v.s. a knows recipe like a VW or honda.
Some of the cars Chip mentioned are currently run. Just in teh southeast, there are mustangs and I ran against a 200SX last race at Barber.
My opinion is that you should be able to look at the ITCS and pick a car and based on a process it might have a chance of being competitive. Obviously you might spend alot more money developing some off the wall car (Opel GT.. how cool would that be) v.s. a knows recipe like a VW or honda.
StephenB
New member
Attachments
shwah
New member
Here's where you guys keep getting off the rails on dyno numbers. Without comparable stock motor data on the same dyno, you can't sit there and say that 116 is 30% and 112 is 25%.
I ran my car initially with a stock motor, and ran that on the same dyno that I did my development on, so I had actual gain data. If I only had numbers of the final result, they would just be numbers with no legitimate reference to the stock capability of the motor. In my case I was pretty consistently seeing 25-26%, and have a single outlier sheet that showed 27%, that could not even be duplicated that day with a lot of effort.
The point is, dynos are not very good a absolute, objective measurements, but they are really good at relative measurements. Be careful about acting on numbers from only one side of the development curve.
...
IMO there is a middle ground between the "spreadsheet or nothing" brigade and the "that doesn't seem right" crowd. I don't believe you can run a class on a spreadsheet with the quantity and quality of data that we have available, and at the point that those are not effective, we do need to rely on experience, observations and background knowledge of the cars in question. I thought this was the whole reason that we had advisory committees in the first place.
Last edited:
Chris is right, perceptions DON'T mimic reality a lot. I personally have no issue with our CRB liason. we don't always agree, but I've never seen him do anything that I thought to be self serving in any way. I see that from some others, though. and yeah, I lobbied for the 4AGE toyotas (MR2) and I drive and am involved with a number of the cars. but where the car sits now is further off from actual power than the A2 VWs and I'm THRILLED about it, because it was acknowledged and accepted that the car wasn't the rocket ship FA with fenders everyone was scared of and threw the car a bone. at least now it can run about mid pack and keep tires and hubs under it. the accomplishment was in shaking off the perception by acquisition of actual data on actual cars, not in getting my pet car to the front of the field. I'll let you know when an MR2 beats an A3 Golf or Accord.
and yeah, if you want to actively manage a class, then you don't rely on estimated gains and "knowledge" based on dyno info. everyone is aware of the significant (especially in low-output classes) noise present in doing so, from unit to unit, brand to brand, compensation method, weather, etc... we get that but the Process which we have all signed on to and which won so much praise from so many people relies upon just those inputs to correct itself. this is why we can't make rulings with singular data points, and why we get hamstrung when a car is "right" to what we know but kicking everyone's ass (or floundering miserably - pick one) on track.
no one is off the rails. it's just the way THIS system works. we can change that, but I'd rather have a bunch of "unreliable", but agreeing dyno plots to point to than "wellllll, so and so is an expert and says the car does this" or "that car has 2 cams, everyone knows that make sit a race engine!" when we work dyno numbers we use a FIXED loss value - 15% in the case of transverse drivetrains, so it doesn't matter what the ACTUAL crank hp is, the input of "known" wheel numbers tells us a CHP estimate and that is used throughout the category. if the "estimated" CHP is equivalent to 30% above stock published numbers, then the resulting weight is as correct as a car that is classed with a similarly verified 25% gain. The actual gain is immaterial, what's important is that the cars are all measured with the same yardstick, and in so far as we are able, they are. we step in 5% increments because we simply don't have the resolution to do better. 5% is 85 lbs/100hp in ITB, so yeah, it sucks when you don't get the "bigger half" of that step.
if you want to debate how well the process works, I'm all ears. seriously, ask anyone - I am. but don't get bent out of shape because we actively refer to the single feedback loop built into the system in order to maintain its objectivity and impartiality, and to isolate the feedback from driver talent and prep disparities. that was the whole point of the thing, IIRC.
and yeah, if you want to actively manage a class, then you don't rely on estimated gains and "knowledge" based on dyno info. everyone is aware of the significant (especially in low-output classes) noise present in doing so, from unit to unit, brand to brand, compensation method, weather, etc... we get that but the Process which we have all signed on to and which won so much praise from so many people relies upon just those inputs to correct itself. this is why we can't make rulings with singular data points, and why we get hamstrung when a car is "right" to what we know but kicking everyone's ass (or floundering miserably - pick one) on track.
no one is off the rails. it's just the way THIS system works. we can change that, but I'd rather have a bunch of "unreliable", but agreeing dyno plots to point to than "wellllll, so and so is an expert and says the car does this" or "that car has 2 cams, everyone knows that make sit a race engine!" when we work dyno numbers we use a FIXED loss value - 15% in the case of transverse drivetrains, so it doesn't matter what the ACTUAL crank hp is, the input of "known" wheel numbers tells us a CHP estimate and that is used throughout the category. if the "estimated" CHP is equivalent to 30% above stock published numbers, then the resulting weight is as correct as a car that is classed with a similarly verified 25% gain. The actual gain is immaterial, what's important is that the cars are all measured with the same yardstick, and in so far as we are able, they are. we step in 5% increments because we simply don't have the resolution to do better. 5% is 85 lbs/100hp in ITB, so yeah, it sucks when you don't get the "bigger half" of that step.
if you want to debate how well the process works, I'm all ears. seriously, ask anyone - I am. but don't get bent out of shape because we actively refer to the single feedback loop built into the system in order to maintain its objectivity and impartiality, and to isolate the feedback from driver talent and prep disparities. that was the whole point of the thing, IIRC.
Last edited:
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Chris Albin??? I wasn't thinking about Chris when i wrote that. No, Chris didn't suggest any 'deals' to protect his car or class.
Chris' position on the Audi issue left something to be desired, but I'd write that off as a difference of opinion.
He isn't who I was referring to. I used the term 'guys' generically, when I should have been more literal in my choice of words.
Last edited:
shwah
New member
Then I am very sorry for jumping to conclusions. You have always been just vague enough about the situation to make that possible though. That doesn't make it right for me to call you out publicly on it.
I'm editing my post.
The point is that not every oddball, poorly documented car listed under ITB has been raced in recent memory, if at all. It is negligent to withhold submission of cars known to be incorrect until all the cars are run through the process.
If there weren't cars already listed that used the process, I would agree that submitting them en masse makes sense. That, however, isn't the case, we've got cars that were classified using the process, we've got cars that were corrected using the process and we've got freaking ITA cars listed at ITB weights.
JeffYoung
New member
On dyno data:
1. It seems to "work" better at ITA/S/R power levels were real differences outside of dyno noise can be seen. The numbers posted above for ITB Golfs, 112 v. 115 v. 116? Could be dyno noise. As stated above, dynos are tools best used to measure improvement by comparisons using the same car and dyno in as close to the same conditions as possible.
2. that is not, of course, how we use them on the ITAC.
3. That said, as Chip points out, dynos aren't by any means perfect, but they are the best imperfect source of information we have, and far better than "damn that car pulls the others on the straight at Roebling" or "yeah, engine builder Y said X and he's GOOD!."
4. The fact of the matter is that dyno data is one of many factors used in evaluating whether a car makes 25% or 30% or 35% or whatever, and in reaching the confidence level each ITAC must individually reach in order to vote for a weight change. The confidence system works well and helps take out some of the inherent riskiness in dyno data.
1. It seems to "work" better at ITA/S/R power levels were real differences outside of dyno noise can be seen. The numbers posted above for ITB Golfs, 112 v. 115 v. 116? Could be dyno noise. As stated above, dynos are tools best used to measure improvement by comparisons using the same car and dyno in as close to the same conditions as possible.
2. that is not, of course, how we use them on the ITAC.
3. That said, as Chip points out, dynos aren't by any means perfect, but they are the best imperfect source of information we have, and far better than "damn that car pulls the others on the straight at Roebling" or "yeah, engine builder Y said X and he's GOOD!."
4. The fact of the matter is that dyno data is one of many factors used in evaluating whether a car makes 25% or 30% or 35% or whatever, and in reaching the confidence level each ITAC must individually reach in order to vote for a weight change. The confidence system works well and helps take out some of the inherent riskiness in dyno data.
ajmr2
New member
Chip. After all the exchanges that you and I had over the years about the MR2, I wouldn't hesiate for a second to testify in court concerning your integrity on these issues. You patiently listened to our collective concerns, answered my many questions, but promised nothing. You did your best along the way, and along with the other members of the ITAC, waited for acceptable real world info before getting it reviewed and presenting it to the CRB. It took 10+ years, but now we have a reliable, decent mid pack car which we love to race.
Give the ITAC a chance, guys.
Flyinglizard
New member
The older cars with crappy exhaust and econo priority engineering, will see much bigger gains than the newer multi- valve- nice exhaust- better engineered cars .
To run all of them at the same gain is not going to work.
Take the 4AG, the factory left very little on the table at stock cam lift and compression. Small gain indeed. The 16V VW is exactly the same as the 4AG. Very small gains . The stock exhaust manifold works very well with stock cams and compression. The biggest gains for both of these cars is controlling the fuel and timing map at race RPMs, after getting all of the legal compression and freeing up the rotating mass.
No way will either car make 25%. More like 8-9HP total .
I will go back to lack of cam timing rule for the IT cars. SM has gone to a much more hard value for the cam timing. For good reason. . We have guys moving the cams in the head to move the timing. Milling the head retards the timing and makes a little more upperpower. Maybe 3hp from 4800- 6400 on the VW.
The current rule states that the cam timing may be returned to stock, or may not.
If you allow milling the heads and decks. It only make sense to allow the adjustable cam wheel specifically to set the cam at stock spec..
Spec the valve opening @ stock plus or minus 2
ITAC needs to come up with good data for the cam timing, not leave open, as it is now.
Pull some valve covers, make shit happen.
I run the VW IT engines/cars that I have bought, in HProd. I usually have to reduce the cam size.
What happened to the Ford Mustang, with 88-96 HP how did it end up so heavy?
The SMAC has some vested interest issues maybe.. I put in for allowing replica (500$) tops that weigh the same, look the same ,etc .
"Not needed as tops are easy to buy" BS the SMAC guys own the legal tops and sell them for 1000$.
The HOHO tires are running off a lot of those guys now also.
To run all of them at the same gain is not going to work.
Take the 4AG, the factory left very little on the table at stock cam lift and compression. Small gain indeed. The 16V VW is exactly the same as the 4AG. Very small gains . The stock exhaust manifold works very well with stock cams and compression. The biggest gains for both of these cars is controlling the fuel and timing map at race RPMs, after getting all of the legal compression and freeing up the rotating mass.
No way will either car make 25%. More like 8-9HP total .
I will go back to lack of cam timing rule for the IT cars. SM has gone to a much more hard value for the cam timing. For good reason. . We have guys moving the cams in the head to move the timing. Milling the head retards the timing and makes a little more upperpower. Maybe 3hp from 4800- 6400 on the VW.
The current rule states that the cam timing may be returned to stock, or may not.
If you allow milling the heads and decks. It only make sense to allow the adjustable cam wheel specifically to set the cam at stock spec..
Spec the valve opening @ stock plus or minus 2
ITAC needs to come up with good data for the cam timing, not leave open, as it is now.
Pull some valve covers, make shit happen.
I run the VW IT engines/cars that I have bought, in HProd. I usually have to reduce the cam size.
What happened to the Ford Mustang, with 88-96 HP how did it end up so heavy?
The SMAC has some vested interest issues maybe.. I put in for allowing replica (500$) tops that weigh the same, look the same ,etc .
"Not needed as tops are easy to buy" BS the SMAC guys own the legal tops and sell them for 1000$.
The HOHO tires are running off a lot of those guys now also.
Chip mentioned wheel horse power when calculating the power gain for the ITB Golf, so how come there was such a big deal made for the AUDI in finding the proper factory HP rating? Why are we not using just published factory HP numbers? It seems that some of the confusion could be avoided if one were to use factory crank HP numbers.
As far as the ITB Golf, the spec line lists the GL, GT and GTI with power output of 90-105 depending on motors. So the 90hp GL can gain 15 hp just by updating. Does that mean the 105hp GTI with Digifant injection can get to 136.5hp with the legal mods we are allowed?
Heck, the factory 2.0l 16V only came with 134hp.
As far as the ITB Golf, the spec line lists the GL, GT and GTI with power output of 90-105 depending on motors. So the 90hp GL can gain 15 hp just by updating. Does that mean the 105hp GTI with Digifant injection can get to 136.5hp with the legal mods we are allowed?
Heck, the factory 2.0l 16V only came with 134hp.
shwah
New member
When cars share a spec line the highest hp version is used to set weight, because all cars on that line can use that engine. The low hp A2 cars have lower compression, and more restrictive exhaust manifold.
I don't beleive the counterflow 8v can get to 136hp legally, but I don't see how the stock hp of the 16v is related to the question.
I don't beleive the counterflow 8v can get to 136hp legally, but I don't see how the stock hp of the 16v is related to the question.
Last edited:
From past discussions, the Golf was shown to be able to gain 30% by some mystery source. If one were to take a 90hp Golf GL and apply legal mods, one could say it can gain 30%. But to be able to say that the 105hp digifant GTI could also gain 30% is a bit of a stretch. That would mean the ITB Golf/Jetta is able to produce 136.5hp.
This is also the reason I asked Kirk how much power his 2l 8V made. Does it make more than 136hp?
The only reason I mentioned the 2l 16V was as a comparison. I know it has nothing to do with the ITB cars.
This is also the reason I asked Kirk how much power his 2l 8V made. Does it make more than 136hp?
The only reason I mentioned the 2l 16V was as a comparison. I know it has nothing to do with the ITB cars.
yes, right now the A2 is classified with the assumption that it makes ~116whp. you can run any car on that specline with GTI equipment, including engine, digifant, etc...
I wasn't really around (here yes, not on the ITAC) for the Audi thing, lets leave it at "there was a disagreement" on the numbers. that much is certain. I can tell you that whp #'s are only used when classifying a car from "what we know" which is based on confidence in data, usually in the form of chassis dyno sheets, i.e. wheel hp. there has to be a method to work backwards to CHP, so we use a standard 15% loss. again - IT classing is a wide target, not a pin head.
standard classification math is stock HP (publish number) * gain (usually 25%, so "1.25") * class weight number (17 #/hp for ITB ) + adders
"what we know" has historically worked 2 ways:
1) we work backwards from WHP/0.85=CHP and forgo the stock hp * gain, going with Known CHP * weight + adders for the classification weight.
2) we do the same math, but run calculated CHP/stock HP for a gain number and round that UP to the nearest 5%. this is done when there is less conclusive data than above, but conclusive enough to shift the weight by a 5% gain (in other words, we can see the car will make notably more or less than 25% gains over stock but we don't have enough confidence to say for certain that THIS crank HP is correct - in essence, this is a revised initial classification as all cars are run with an estimated gain, usually of 25%). we then run the math as stock HP (published) * gain (as determined here) * class weight + adders
I personally like method 2 because it gives everything "room to grow" which racecars will tend to do, and is thus the conservative approach to classifying.
I wasn't really around (here yes, not on the ITAC) for the Audi thing, lets leave it at "there was a disagreement" on the numbers. that much is certain. I can tell you that whp #'s are only used when classifying a car from "what we know" which is based on confidence in data, usually in the form of chassis dyno sheets, i.e. wheel hp. there has to be a method to work backwards to CHP, so we use a standard 15% loss. again - IT classing is a wide target, not a pin head.
standard classification math is stock HP (publish number) * gain (usually 25%, so "1.25") * class weight number (17 #/hp for ITB ) + adders
"what we know" has historically worked 2 ways:
1) we work backwards from WHP/0.85=CHP and forgo the stock hp * gain, going with Known CHP * weight + adders for the classification weight.
2) we do the same math, but run calculated CHP/stock HP for a gain number and round that UP to the nearest 5%. this is done when there is less conclusive data than above, but conclusive enough to shift the weight by a 5% gain (in other words, we can see the car will make notably more or less than 25% gains over stock but we don't have enough confidence to say for certain that THIS crank HP is correct - in essence, this is a revised initial classification as all cars are run with an estimated gain, usually of 25%). we then run the math as stock HP (published) * gain (as determined here) * class weight + adders
I personally like method 2 because it gives everything "room to grow" which racecars will tend to do, and is thus the conservative approach to classifying.
Last edited: