April 08 FastTrack is up

Hmm. The Golf IV does seem odd to me. Sort of looks like there are two processes for ITB. One for cars classed PP (pre-process), and one for new classifications. I was prepared to wait an see how everything fell out, considering that the Golf III was moved at ITA weight into B - but did happen to fall apparently spot onto process weight. Something seems off, but I was ready to take it as a challenge to prepare/perform better.

But then hearing that the Protege would have been 2140 in B, and seeing that the Golf IV is 2350 in B - I don't know if I have all the confidence that the field is level.

I would love to say I have an altruistic motivation, but of course I race in ITB, and think a lot about how my car stacks up to others, so that is the only reason I start asking questions like:
Why is the Golf III with 12% more displacement, 9.5% more stock power, a modern 'full flow' MAF and 7.4% larger front brakes only 3.5% heavier than my car (with CIS flapper, or vane style MAF)?

Why was the Protege with 12% more displacement, 3% less stock power, vane style MAF and 8.5% larger front brakes 6.5% lighter than my car *(according to ITAC comments about why it was put in C, and what the B weight would have been).

Why is the Golf IV with 12% more displacement, 9.5% more stock power, modern 'full flow' MAF and 17% larger front brakes only 3.5% heavier than my car?

When I ran under the Road America lap record, and had a Golf III that does not have a fully built motor 1.5s faster, I wondered what I can do to get more straight speed out of my car/setup/self, and took it as a challenge. But the numbers just don't add up.

All of these cars are hampered with the same mac strut, fwd layout. When I look at the specs, I struggle to find a reason that my car would be more than 20-30# over the Mazda.

Car------HP stock------CR------displacement-----AFR type------front brake------spec weight
Protege-----102-------9.1-------1991cc---------vane type------10.2"vented---------2140
Golf II-------105-------10-------1780cc----------CIS flapper-----9.4"vented---------2280
---------------------------------------------(or digifant vane flapper)
Golf III------115-------10-------1984cc-------modern full flow---10.1"vented-------2350
Golf IV-------115-------10-------1984cc------modern full flow----11" vented--------2350

Common sentiment is that the process is accurate to within 100#. At this point, I expect my car is very close to that number off (not to mention that if the process is considered accurate to 100#, anything over 50# off process in the ITCS should be corrected - otherwise two cars deemed equal weight by the process that were 'off' in different directions could have up to a 198# gap between them).

I guess I will put this into a letter and send it off to the CRB, and see if I can persuade them to take more than a cursory look at the Golf II, and run it through the same process these other cars are going through.

I hate how that makes me look, and I know competitiveness is not guaranteed, but if we say we believe in the process, we have to use it consistently or it can't do what it was designed to do.
 
shwah said:
I guess I will put this into a letter and send it off to the CRB, and see if I can persuade them to take more than a cursory look at the Golf II, and run it through the same process these other cars are going through.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The Golf 3 was just validated, by Gran's letter in I think the previous Fastrack, as a performance benchmark that's appropriate for the class.
 
Chris,

What you forget is that when they did the massive look at all of the cars leading into the 2006 season any car within X weight of the process was left unchanged. With how many ITB golfs out there and with no weight change I assume it was close to the process weight.
 
I didn't forget that.

This is what makes it appear that there is not an equal application of the process.

I have been told that the Golf 2 is maybe 50# over spec weight. Looking at the newer VWs and the Mazda - I don't buy it. If that Mazda would have been 2140, you can't explain away how 3 (or is it 2?) stock hp accounts for 90# (assuming Golf 2 processed to 2230), let alone 140# as I sit today.
 
shwah said:
I didn't forget that.

This is what makes it appear that there is not an equal application of the process.

I have been told that the Golf 2 is maybe 50# over spec weight. Looking at the newer VWs and the Mazda - I don't buy it. If that Mazda would have been 2140, you can't explain away how 3 (or is it 2?) stock hp accounts for 90# (assuming Golf 2 processed to 2230), let alone 140# as I sit today.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's possible that the Golf 2 was classed using known HP instead of the 25% estimate. Write in to the ITAC for 'another look'!
 
Chris,
You left one out:

Car------HP stock------CR------displacement-----AFR type------front brake------spec weight
Protege-----102-------9.1-------1991cc---------vane type------10.2"vented---------2140
Golf I-------90-------8.5-------1780cc----------CIS-----9.4"vented---------2080
Golf II-------105-------10-------1780cc----------CIS flapper-----9.4"vented---------2280
---------------------------------------------(or digifant vane flapper)
Golf III------115-------10-------1984cc-------modern full flow---10.1"vented-------2350
Golf IV-------115-------10-------1984cc------modern full flow----11" vented--------2350


Warning - (WHINE MODE ON)
The Golf III and the IV are: 20.4 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf II is: 21.7 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf I is: 23.1 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight

Which of the above cases does NOT benefit from the new ECU rule :shrug:

So, not withstanding the big screwing I took in the new ECU rule, I'm stuck running 13% down on "power to weight" to the Golf III. Factor in improvements the later cars get from the new ECU rule, and I wind up down ~ 20% on "power to weight" .

As effective as "the process" is, it would seem that it could still use some tweaking...

Quote from the ITCS: "Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car," - ain't that the truth:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Eddie,

You are using stock number only when making your comparision. Try using wheel hp or actual crank hp in IT trim (if you know it) and see where you come out. Some cars benefit more from IT prep than others. Not saying it changes anything, just an excersize.

Secondly, programmable ECU's have been legal for years now, so the top cars aren't going to gain anything more than they had if they took advantage of the allowance.
 
Last edited:
I will write in. Regardless of outcome, it will just make me fee better.:)

My experience is certainly only one data point, but 25% is pretty accurate for this motor. More importantly - there is good reason to expect that the newer systems have more potential gain. full flow maf, .017" more cam lift (MkIV), cross flow head.

None of that impacts brake advantages.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Eddie,

Try using wheel hp or actual crank hp in IT trim (if you know it) and see where you come out. Some cars benefit more from IT prep than others. Not saying it changes anything, just an excersize.
Click to expand...

I agree that we should use known data when we have it. BUT, then we must go back and review every car at some interval (3yrs?, 5yrs?) for new 'known' data and adjust appropriately. Otherwise the process is not being applied consistently enough to work IMO.
 
shwah said:
I agree that we should use known data when we have it. BUT, then we must go back and review every car at some interval (3yrs?, 5yrs?) for new 'known' data and adjust appropriately. Otherwise the process is not being applied consistently enough to work IMO.
Click to expand...

This thought process was brought up in the last FT thread. There are some questions in there that need to be addressed before this can happen effectively IMHO.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Eddie,

You are using stock number only when making your comparision.
Click to expand...

Andy - I used stock numbers deliberately to sarcastically illustrate how out of whack I perceive things to be. Those with experience with these VWs know that that with the rules as they are now, (was MKII, removed per Chris' suggestion), MKIII, and MKIV will all make a greater power improvement in IT trim than the MKI cars, yet the MKI cars are worse off BEFORE the step up to IT trim comes into play, thus putting them even more behind after everyone steps up to IT trim.
 
Last edited:
Eddie - I disagree. I don't think the MkII makes any more power with digifant than with CIS type injection.
 
I'm purposefully silent on this issue out of my "tread lightly" policy where ITB - and particularly Golf III - questions are concerned, to maintain enough distance to satisfy questions of self interest.

While I will share input during ITAC conversations, rather than formally recusing myself from discussions, I soft-pedal my opinions and I'm SURE never going to lobby hard for any particular course of action.

K
 
Can I say maybe?

The greater point (and it is greater than my own selfish little dilema) is that we have a mixture of cars classed using stock + 25%, because we just don't know any better about them yet either way, and cars classed using something different based on some amount of data that the ITAC members at the time of action felt provided justification to assume greater or lesser power levels from that car. That is fine, but then you have to have a mechanism to go back and fine tune cars that were classed based on a blind 25% assumption as supporting data becomes available to confirm or dispute that.

I think your engine compared to my engine is a good example of why we cannot apply a blanket assumed adder. The differences are: compression ratio (8.5 vs. 10), injection type (CIS lambda for you; CIS lambda, CIS-E, Digifant 2 for me), lifter type (solid for you, hydraulic for me), throttle body (mine is bigger than yours:p) otherwise they share a lot of dimensions and parts, and are very similar motors in most aspects. HOWEVER your motor was saddled with a horrible exhaust manifold from the factory (mine was too, but they changed it before the end of the model run - that alone was worth a 5hp bump in VWs specs). In this case we know, and have empircal data to support, that the Rabbit 1.8 motor will make more gains from a header because of the uber crappy stock manifold.
 
Kirk - I think that most of us have a lot of trust that you would act as such, even if you didn't say so.

FWIW it is not really about the Golf3 to me. It is also not necessarily about assumed power gains, although that may be the root cause for any one particular percieved inconsistency. It may also be about whether, and to what degree, and how accurately aero is considered, or brakes (I am in your situation - I don't think I have a brake performance problem - but what might happen if I had drastically larger brakes and as a result could try very different pad compound strategies due to different operating temperatures).

The sum of this stuff just does not seem to add up. I am willing to accept that there is a reason for it, but when I send my letter in, if there is a reason for it, I do hope to get a complete accounting of those reasons...
 
shwah said:
I agree that we should use known data when we have it. BUT, then we must go back and review every car at some interval (3yrs?, 5yrs?) for new 'known' data and adjust appropriately. Otherwise the process is not being applied consistently enough to work IMO.
Click to expand...

From the other thread:

1. What cars get re-evaluated and when?
2. What sources do you look to for 'evidence'?
3. How much evidence do you need in order to make a change?
4. How small of a change qualifies for an adjustment?
5. If only select cars get re-evaluated, what triggers that evaluation?
6. How do you prove/validate a negative when guys write in and ask for reductions based on their output?
 
1. Cars that are classed at an assumed 25%
2. What sources were used for evidence on the ones that used empirical data for non 25% justification? Start with those.
3. The ITAC has already decided that by doing this on cars classed today. Enough to convince you I guess.
4. Already addressed by current practice as well.
5. Don't worry any action or non action will cause people to write and complain. It is an unfortunate reality.

The bottom line is that some amount of data has already been determined to be enough to justify variation from the norm in the classing process. The ITAC should keep records of when cars are classed, or re-classed. Look at the cars you classed 5 years ago (or 3 years, or whatever the members of the comittee agree is reasonable). Check to see if any of them are being raced. If they are then go look for data to support expected, or unexpected power gains - I know you can't just look it up in Wikipedia, but you can talk to competitors, engine builders, ITAC members with experience of that engine. Convince yourselves that there is no reason to make a change and tick a check box in the record for that car to indicate that you reviewed it. If there are no cars racing, leave it as is, but check in on it each year when you do this review to see if it needs to be cosidered.

That is an off the cuff shot at a process to do this. It reads like a lot of work, and there is probably a few alternatives at every step that would be better.

You can't pick and choose where you apply a different standard. If it is accepted that some cars don't respond the same, and it has been decided that those cars will be treated differently, we must develop a mechanism to identify those cars on an ongoing basis.
 
Andy-I'm not after the "process" here. I know how to "fix" that once and for all, and it would incur such a cost that would have to be spread amongst all competitors that it would likely destroy club racing. I'm certainly not after that. So we live with what we have, which, for the costs incurred, is amazingly accurate.

All I'm trying to figure out is how we have arrived at a point where the MKIII and MKIV have a better HP/weight ratio than the MKI car when looking at stock hp/spec weight, when the MKI car has no hope of achieving the ECU power gains possible for the MKIII and MKIV.

So I ask again:

Why are the following cars which will gain power from the ECU allowance classed at a lower weight per HP than similar cars that will NOT gain power from the ECU allowance?

The Golf IV is: 20.4 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf III is: 20.4 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf II is: 21.7 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf I is: 23.1 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight

My suggestion here is that, given the ECU allowance, the list above should be inverted, and I've yet to hear an answer from anyone...




Thanks to everyone who is participating in this discussion- the more I hang around here and ask questions, the more I learn!
 
shwah said:
1. Cars that are classed at an assumed 25%
2. What sources were used for evidence on the ones that used empirical data for non 25% justification? Start with those.
3. The ITAC has already decided that by doing this on cars classed today. Enough to convince you I guess.
4. Already addressed by current practice as well.
5. Don't worry any action or non action will cause people to write and complain. It is an unfortunate reality.

The bottom line is that some amount of data has already been determined to be enough to justify variation from the norm in the classing process. The ITAC should keep records of when cars are classed, or re-classed. Look at the cars you classed 5 years ago (or 3 years, or whatever the members of the comittee agree is reasonable). Check to see if any of them are being raced. If they are then go look for data to support expected, or unexpected power gains - I know you can't just look it up in Wikipedia, but you can talk to competitors, engine builders, ITAC members with experience of that engine. Convince yourselves that there is no reason to make a change and tick a check box in the record for that car to indicate that you reviewed it. If there are no cars racing, leave it as is, but check in on it each year when you do this review to see if it needs to be cosidered.

That is an off the cuff shot at a process to do this. It reads like a lot of work, and there is probably a few alternatives at every step that would be better.

You can't pick and choose where you apply a different standard. If it is accepted that some cars don't respond the same, and it has been decided that those cars will be treated differently, we must develop a mechanism to identify those cars on an ongoing basis.
Click to expand...

1. When do you proactively re-evaluate a car? Do we develop a schedule?
2. What if you can't find the data? How much digging is enough digging?
3. I am asking YOU this. How much evidence is enough to CHANGE a car that has been classed?
4. Again, I am asking you to answer these questions. How small a data is worthy of a weight change?
5. Addressed above
6. You missed this one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top