Any news on ITB weights???

I have only raced against one ITB audi, and it was a clean car and a faster car than the field until he lost the wheel bearing.

That said.. it has been mentioned.. why not submit dyno data and your engine build especially if you have one? There are enough out there to gather that data to make a case if there is one.

Hell there is only one top flight accord that I know of (though I am here in the SE so I only see down here) and it's dyno sheets were submitted according to it's tuner.

As it has been said.. I was dumb enough to spend the stupid money and do the best I could to build the 10/10ths motor. I submitted many dyno plots.. and yes we are below 15%. most guys are around 6-8% gains.. My last grenade made around 12% I think. Driving around at 20% in ITB is a around 150lbs over weight. I would have continued to persue to correct the MR2 as it is still not right. The reason why I have not is because classing the car any lighter is pointless as you cannot get the car any ligher anyways. Actually, sadly, it should be an ITC car but I for damn sure do not want it to be there. If ITB is messed up I think ITC is far worse.. only a few cars that are competitive.

Thinking about it.. If you look ad ITC->ITB->ITA->ITS as you go up the classes the faster the class the more cars are competitive in that class. ITS is a great class right now with a good group of cars to choose from. Hence the point of the other ITS topic on this board.
 
Last edited:
... Thinking about it.. If you look ad ITC->ITB->ITA->ITS as you go up the classes the faster the class the more cars are competitive in that class. ITS is a great class right now with a good group of cars to choose from. Hence the point of the other ITS topic on this board.
Click to expand...

That makes complete sense because drivers who want to spend the coin necessary to be competitive, all other things being equal, are going to skew toward the faster class full of "cooler" cars. Conversely, someone inclined toward a BMW will likely be able to throw more discretionary money at his toy than someone leaning toward an old shitbox.

K
 
Bill, I know almost ZERO about Rabbit GTIs. Zero. As I told you privately, if you want it corrected, you or someone else who has the data needs to submit it. I cannot do it on my own and this post after post of "I told Jeff about the Rabbit" is really getting old.

Kirk/Chip, I think the reason why it seems that there are more S chassises that can compete than B is because the PRocess appears to work better in R/S/A as you go up the speed chain. A 5 hp error in the Process in S means only 60 lbs or so, and way less than B - and as a percentage error is even less as cars in R/S/A tend to weigh more than B.

Having said that, Raymond is correct. I think it is the NOISE level about issues with B that is the issue, not the PRocess, the ITAC, the CRB or the aliens from Zeta Reticuli manipulating everything. There are a lot of chassis that can and have won in B, although its now going through what all IT classes are going through as older cars give way to newer ones.
 
quadzjr said:
most guys are around 6-8% gains.. My last grenade made around 12% I think. Driving around at 20% in ITB is a around 150lbs over weight. I would have continued to persue to correct the MR2 as it is still not right. The reason why I have not is because classing the car any lighter is pointless as you cannot get the car any ligher anyways. Actually, sadly, it should be an ITC car but I for damn sure do not want it to be there. If ITB is messed up I think ITC is far worse.. only a few cars that are competitive.
Click to expand...

Very little additional weight to lose on my MR2 without me driving it remotely...

Please not ITC! :024:
 
Jeff or Chip or to any ITAC or CRB member that has seen the Audi microchife. Does this mention the WE motor code ? If so , does anyone recollect the HP for that motor ? Or was it just KX specific ? The WE came in the very early Coupes and according to the factory manual it was rated at 100 hp.

-John
 
JeffYoung said:
Bill, I know almost ZERO about Rabbit GTIs. Zero. As I told you privately, if you want it corrected, you or someone else who has the data needs to submit it. I cannot do it on my own and this post after post of "I told Jeff about the Rabbit" is really getting old.
Click to expand...

That data is readily available to pretty much anyone. Saying you can't do anything is a cop out. You don't need to know anything about the car to want to know why it's processed at a greater power gain than probably any other car in the ITCS. And "post after post"? That's a bit melodramatic don't you think?
 
Not sure what thr mk1 is classed at but I know the 92-95 honda is classed at something like 38%. Which makes me wonder. We know what a decent effort build hit. It hit process power so in this case thr process works. However, why was it processed not conservative like others and how did it get a percent not ending in a 0 or a 5? Since someone hit process power and it is assumed more development will continue will thr ITAC add weight?

I think the biggest problem with ITB is that there a few cars with moderate builds and dwcent driving will beat a field od well prepped and driven cars. I think the only reason they are not viewedas overdogs lile the E36 did is becasuse there are less of us. That is not an excuse to not fix it. Heck you can ask any driver that drives them.. they know they have the better car.

Though it comes out more often after they moved on.
 
Bill Miller said:
That data is readily available to pretty much anyone. Saying you can't do anything is a cop out. You don't need to know anything about the car to want to know why it's processed at a greater power gain than probably any other car in the ITCS. And "post after post"? That's a bit melodramatic don't you think?
Click to expand...

Huh? Cop out? No, it's just asking the Rabbit GTI drivers or people interested in the car to do the same work that anyone else who wants a change in the weight on the car. Get your paperwork and submit it. Otherwise, it's just useless talk. The car was processed previously. You disagree with their conclusions. I'm not going to disturb those conclusions without evidence submitted by those who have it.

It's pretty simple really, and yes, it does seem to me that nearly every post of yours lately has included "and look at the Rabbit GTI in it." If it bothers you that much, send us the data and we'll take a look, just like I've told you several times in the past. If you aren't willing to do that, then I just don't see the basis for the complaining.
 
quadzjr said:
Not sure what thr mk1 is classed at but I know the 92-95 honda is classed at something like 38%. Which makes me wonder. We know what a decent effort build hit. It hit process power so in this case thr process works. However, why was it processed not conservative like others and how did it get a percent not ending in a 0 or a 5? Since someone hit process power and it is assumed more development will continue will thr ITAC add weight?

I think the biggest problem with ITB is that there a few cars with moderate builds and dwcent driving will beat a field od well prepped and driven cars. I think the only reason they are not viewedas overdogs lile the E36 did is becasuse there are less of us. That is not an excuse to not fix it. Heck you can ask any driver that drives them.. they know they have the better car.

Though it comes out more often after they moved on.
Click to expand...

The above - particularly the bit in bold - is evidence that we have come too far to the "what we know" side of things.

I'd propose that the "biggest problem with ITB" is that we spend too much time - literally years, now - trying to make angels dance on the heads of pins. WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PARSE OUT THE INFLUENCES OF "BUILD" AND "DRIVING." We spin around and around trying to make the mathematically derived numbers align with our biased, anecdotal observational non-data from on-track competition - the sure-fire way to CONTINUED paralysis, dysfunction, arguments, and mistrust.

Just run the damned cars and take the specification process out of the list of moving target variables. This has become a joke a decade in the making. That spreadsheet I left with the ITAC was started before I finished my studies at UVa, and that was three jobs ago for me...

:blink:

K
 
More and more I agree. We just can't be worried about 3-4 hp or 5 ft lbs of torque in ITB. Process as best we can and let folks race.

The goal of the Process was never perfection. It was to use an objective standard with minimal adjustability to get cars close and let them race.

ITAC call tonight and I will advocate that we do this now, in the next 6 months, we split the cars up, we put blank weight lines for the total oddballs, we do everything else at 25% unless we have solid, solid evidence of more or less and we move on.

This is ridiculous, I agree.
 
JeffYoung said:
More and more I agree. We just can't be worried about 3-4 hp or 5 ft lbs of torque in ITB. Process as best we can and let folks race.

The goal of the Process was never perfection. It was to use an objective standard with minimal adjustability to get cars close and let them race.

ITAC call tonight and I will advocate that we do this now, in the next 6 months, we split the cars up, we put blank weight lines for the total oddballs, we do everything else at 25% unless we have solid, solid evidence of more or less and we move on.

This is ridiculous, I agree.
Click to expand...

Since when has the ITAC worried about torque in ITB? Not a single car in the class has been addressed in ITB that I am aware of. I am not talking 3-4 hp.. I am talking 30+% difference in torque yet it has never been addressed.

so a hypothetical case you have two cars.. with the same hp at 100 but one of the cars has 95 ft lbs.. and the other is at 125. Do you think these cars have the same potential? The process used currently would class them the same weight.
 
quadzjr said:
so a hypothetical case you have two cars.. with the same hp at 100 but one of the cars has 95 ft lbs.. and the other is at 125. Do you think these cars have the same potential? The process used currently would class them the same weight.
Click to expand...

I don't know if that situation exists or not, but if it does at some point the ITAC just has to say "tough".

It'd be a huge step to get the cars all classed using the same process. Huge. And after that the chips fall where they may. There will be cars to have, cars to not have, and cars to take a gamble on, just like any race series.
 
quadzjr said:
Since when has the ITAC worried about torque in ITB? Not a single car in the class has been addressed in ITB that I am aware of. I am not talking 3-4 hp.. I am talking 30+% difference in torque yet it has never been addressed.

so a hypothetical case you have two cars.. with the same hp at 100 but one of the cars has 95 ft lbs.. and the other is at 125. Do you think these cars have the same potential? The process used currently would class them the same weight.
Click to expand...

Just develop a Suzuki swift Gti .....100 hp and 1895 lbs....
 
On torque - and particularly for ITB - I think Andy's quote was, "The juice ain't worth the squeeze."

I couldn't agree more. It's not a single measurement that matters, it's the shape of the curve. The reality that engine architectures tend to trade torque for RPMs (not surprising given the math involved in determining HP) decreases the importance of the issue, particularly given the IT category allowance to change final drive ratios. Prior to today's measuring/reporting standards, HP numbers varied a lot; adding torque figures only puts more potentially inconsistent numbers into the mix. The current POOMA for torque adjusters in other IT classes are just that - POOMA numbers. They do little more than mollify people who think there SHOULD be some difference; that this variable should be accommodated in the process. They potentially add another point of subjectivity, which is not generally good. Etc. Etc.

K

EDIT - Re: the "comes out more often after they moved on" nudge, nudge, wink, wink above, I absolutely DID love the fat torque curve of the MkIII Golf, particularly in traffic and in enduros. However, it translated into a benefit in a COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE area that I think of as "driveability." A low-polar-moment car is subjectively different to drive than a high PMI car. A tall car is different than a low car. And on it goes. I used an operative redline of 6000rpm with Pablo. If the process should account for "no poop at the lower end," should it give a weight break for "no poop at high revs" as well...? It just gets absurd.
 
Last edited:
I just typed and lost a long response. This says it better in a shorter fashion. I may retype my additional points later tonight, but Kirk said it well.

Knestis said:
On torque - and particularly for ITB - I think Andy's quote was, "The juice ain't worth the squeeze."

I couldn't agree more. It's not a single measurement that matters, it's the shape of the curve. The reality that engine architectures tend to trade torque for RPMs (not surprising given the math involved in determining HP) decreases the importance of the issue, particularly given the IT category allowance to change final drive ratios. Prior to today's measuring/reporting standards, HP numbers varied a lot; adding torque figures only puts more potentially inconsistent numbers into the mix. The current POOMA for torque adjusters in other IT classes are just that - POOMA numbers. They do little more than mollify people who think there SHOULD be some difference; that this variable should be accommodated in the process. They potentially add another point of subjectivity, which is not generally good. Etc. Etc.

K

EDIT - Re: the "comes out more often after they moved on" nudge, nudge, wink, wink above, I absolutely DID love the fat torque curve of the MkIII Golf, particularly in traffic and in enduros. However, it translated into a benefit in a COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE area that I think of as "driveability." A low-polar-moment car is subjectively different to drive than a high PMI car. A tall car is different than a low car. And on it goes. I used an operative redline of 6000rpm with Pablo. If the process should account for "no poop at the lower end," should it give a weight break for "no poop at high revs" as well...? It just gets absurd.
Click to expand...
 
Agreeing with Kirk above, there IS a mechanism within the 'Process' to account for torque. The issue is that the number needs to be anomalous to the rest of the class. The V8's in ITR take a hit based on the fact that their numbers are outside the curve for the class.

The issue with that is there is usually something else there as a limiting factor if the HP fits inside the box. The 325 eta in ITA is an example. Well outside the box for torque but it's a low rever so no stink is made. One could argue the same for the C4 crossfire Vette.

If you had a 100hp/150ft-lb stock ITB car, I bet they would whack it with some weight for the torx. And I would probably support that. Currently there are lows and highs for torque in every class, and as long as those are within reason, there is no accounting for it.

Heck, this issue was one of the issues that dragged the 'documenting' of the Process down for a month or 2 IIRC. We debated the merits of accounting for it at all...then had to develop the framework by which it was to be applied if it was determined to be so.

I actually believe that debate led to a lack of confidence of the ITAC by the CRB during my tenue. Why? Because they thought we were trying to slice and dice the Process too thin, when in reality all we were doing was hashing out how you would document this sort of thing when/if you needed to apply it.
 
objectivity is good. the process, in that light, is good.

BUT that process relies on a published number, which in the case of ITB, is not the best data point due to the myriad factors that have been covered before. KK is right that adding a second point witch is even more difficult to find, spans 3+ decades of standards, is hard to identify objectively in dyno plots that we don't get many of anyway, and can be masked with some allowed mods is not the answer. If anything changes - and to date no one is advocating any changes - it has to be to a similarly simple formula based on concrete, available data.

regardless of that, I think ITB needs some attention. actual attention - not just people typing into an internet forum. dismissing the offended of ITB in an effort to ignore the problems is not how this is supposed to work, IMHO. ITB IS, largely, a class full of people and cars who have been at it a LONG time. ITB IS NOT, currently, a growth class - there's a lot of reasons for this but things like B-Spec point out that this class is well positioned for some resurgence. Further upsetting the established ranks will only drive ITB deeper into contraction while getting it right has benefits across the board.

you can't please everyone with any solution - to me the more important thing than putting this behind us is making sure we maximize the % of people pleased within reasonable efforts.

if that means we have to stare down some sacred cows, then so be it.

EDIT - I just read some of the later posts above. I don't believe that anyone still reading / posting in this thread or the many before it are naive enough to think that differences in basic architecture don't affect how a car drives, and that this might create advantages or disadvantages in certain situations. hell I'd day that aspect of multi marquee racing is what most of us LIKE MOST about racing in IT. but we have to be sure to not dismiss grumblings just because we believe them to be born of ignorance or lack of efforts to overcome or exploit the inherent characteristics of some cars. yeah, some cars are gonna be duds. that's fine. but that doesn't mean that there arent' some real issues here, too.
 
Last edited:
As "attention" goes, you're talking to a guy who has literally hundreds of hours of effort into that spreadsheet. I know about attention...

...but at this point, Chip, I don't know what you are actually proposing. If you're suggesting NOT "relying on a published number," and defaulting right past the basic math to "what we know," you have completely lost my confidence. If you are suggesting substantive changes to the Process - the one that hasn't EVEN BEEN USED YET ON ITB - then you've REALLY killed my enthusiasm.

The Blethens can't PROVE that the Audi does NOT make 1.5x stock quoted HP. Rabbit GTI owners can't PROVE that they make less power than the specs current think. Asking them to do so in order to get a reduction is ludicrous. Similarly, an owner of car that underperforms in the real world, relative to the standard power multiplier, can't PROVE that it can't make process power. Asking them to do that is equally pointless.

The general intent of the Process - from one of the guys who beat it into existence - is to use the standard math UNTIL AND UNLESS compelling evidence surfaces that a different multiplier should be used. Following that approach is not "dismissing" anyone.

And as far as "contraction" goes, every single month that goes by without using the tools already codified and in place is another reason for the class to crap out.

K
 
I was not calling you out kirk.. in fact I am not sure we discussed it before. But I have talked to both new mk3 vw cars that were first run this year not developed ams waxed the field. The other was a mk2 vw driver after the sic as he is moving to its next year. He says that there is no reason my car should ever beat him.

If you watch the video of the SIC you see what I mean.
 
HP as raced can be measured pretty well right now with the phone apps. They are pretty close and give a very good reference if not actual power/torque.
This may be far better than factory HP ratings as it measures actual accel rates. Covers the questions of Torque vs HP VS CC etc.
All we really care about is acceleration anyway.
Maybe IT could move from power/weight to accel rates, of 40-75mph. Much easier to measure and predict relative performance.
Some cars could be base lined with a whistler and a phone app as long as you had scales and a legal build.
Check compression, cam, cam timing, throttle body, alternator function.
Just the non working alt is 2-3HP.
Make sure that all of the tires are at 40psi, run the Toy and the VWs . The VW MK 3 is still about 50-60 light with the mega squirt .
:) MM
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top