April Fastrack

JoshS said:
Even if we had data from the Audi Coupe, I'd still be asking for a VTS sheet for the 4000Q. It's NOT the same car, it wouldn't go on the same line, it's got plenty of differences, even if the engine itself is shared. We are just simply not going to classify any new cars without VTS sheets. I explained that to you on the phone. I don't think that should be a tough policy decision to swallow. We don't to make sure that someone has done due diligence on any new listing, and that we have a record of it.
Click to expand...

Which is 100% true. Brake sizes, wheelbase, whatever needs to be documented. Good policy. If you don't want to fill out the sheets, then you don't want a car classed that bad.
 
Like anyone cares but yeah - what they said. Someone "told" the ITAC that the MkIV Golf was the "same" as a MkIII Golf under the skin, but then after it was listed we found out that the front brakes are substantially larger. Lesson learned.

K
 
JoshS said:
Even if we had data from the Audi Coupe, I'd still be asking for a VTS sheet for the 4000Q. It's NOT the same car, it wouldn't go on the same line, it's got plenty of differences, even if the engine itself is shared. We are just simply not going to classify any new cars without VTS sheets. I explained that to you on the phone. I don't think that should be a tough policy decision to swallow. We don't to make sure that someone has done due diligence on any new listing, and that we have a record of it.
Click to expand...


Josh-

I agree with you and the others that it is not unreasonable to have a VTS sheet done on every car. I was suprised though that some of the basic information needed was not available from the FWD version of the car, especially after the CRB looked things over so well - or so thay said. When you told me that no VTS sheet existed on the Coupe it was the icing on the cake for me that the CRB is an unresponsable group of individuals that should not be in the position they are.

Also Josh, I would like to point out that you have been excellent at communicating and you have sent me SEVERAL e-mail reminders to complete the VTS sheets for the quattro. I keep forgetting to ask my brother to get me the shop manual and/or fill out the sheet for me. Last night I posted it because I came on here for the first time in several weeks to put up an update for the Impact Racing issues and read this thread which reminded me about it. I know my brother lurks and posts so he would see it. We don't live that close to each other so we don't get to see each other everyday like we used to.

Thansk again for your commitment Josh, if I get the VTS sheet in on time we will see how this all plays out;

Raymond
 
This has to be a 2 way street. If we are going to hammer the CRB and ITAC to some extent on car classing, we have to hold ourselves to the same standard. That standard requires a VTS and any related material needed to class a car regardless of what was done in the past. Lets do our part to do it the right way and EXPECT them to do the same.
 
RSTPerformance said:
Josh-

. I keep forgetting to ask my brother to get me the shop manual and/or fill out the sheet for me. Last night I posted it because I came on here for the first time in several weeks to put up an update for the Impact Racing issues and read this thread which reminded me about it. I know my brother lurks and posts so he would see it.

Raymond
Click to expand...

Psst..Raymond. This Dude...named Bell, says he invented this device called a telephone. Yea, somebody elses disputes him, but whatever. And now, it's actually wireless! So you could like, ummmm CALL your brother?? Or, and this is another "phone" thing, you can type a little message to him and send it from your phone to his!! Wild, I know! It's called 'texting"...all the kids are doing it.

Then there's this other invention, which I know you have, cuz you typed on it to post here, called a computer. You can even use it to send a message to him! Sooo many options...it's just mind boggling!
 
lateapex911 said:
Psst..Raymond. This Dude...named Bell, says he invented this device called a telephone. Yea, somebody elses disputes him, but whatever. And now, it's actually wireless! So you could like, ummmm CALL your brother?? Or, and this is another "phone" thing, you can type a little message to him and send it from your phone to his!! Wild, I know! It's called 'texting"...all the kids are doing it.

Then there's this other invention, which I know you have, cuz you typed on it to post here, called a computer. You can even use it to send a message to him! Sooo many options...it's just mind boggling!
Click to expand...

Jake come on know... Don't you know that in NH they don't have such amentities?
 
Ha ha....yea, they ARE in the sticks, LOl. (Although...Have you seen Raymonds house? He's not exactly slumming it!)

We'll see who contacts Stephen first...I sent him a message over facebook.
 
Raymond, trying to get back up to speed on this.

Which engine went in the 4000? The 2.2 or the 2.3?

Which is in your Coupe?

Is it the 2.3?

Stock hp rating?

Thanks --again, just trying to get my numbers right.

RSTPerformance said:
I am not trying to get more ITAC member to leave...

No disrespect to Josh, he is a nice guy and has been very good at communicating with me but I wish that the ITAC members that left never did. They had a backbone and the bold moves they made were ignored by SCCA. I am suprised you are all still members to be honest.

Raymond
Click to expand...
 
I agree with all it is MY responsability to do a VTS sheet and Josh has gone above and beyond IMO with friendly reminders that I appreciated... He has been excellent.

Jeff they both have the 2.22

Raymond "Living the dream world with a nice house, hot fiancé, and $7 bank account at the end of the month!" Blethen
 
lateapex911 said:
We'll see who contacts Stephen first...I sent him a message over facebook.
Click to expand...

He actually called me! But I'd rather respond to you: ) so next Wednesday he is riding to NY with me so I am grabbing the Bentley and he WILL fill it out and send in the VTS before he heads home. But my concern is that IF he is going to build a new car he should build the 90 coupe quattro I gave him. And I thought that VTS already went in. My x-type request can be set aside, I have made the move in another direction.

Stephen
 
StephenB said:
But my concern is that IF he is going to build a new car he should build the 90 coupe quattro I gave him. And I thought that VTS already went in. My x-type request can be set aside, I have made the move in another direction.
Click to expand...

The VTS sheet for the 90-based Coupe Quattro was received with letter #640 (not from you though, it was from someone else) and we discussed it last month. It's on the CRB's agenda now.

We never got a letter about the Jaguar X-Type.
 
"Jeff they both have the 2.22"

Correct. And here we go again! The 4000Quattro has a JT engine, isted in ETKA @121hp (factory/current spec) whereas Bently (old/non-factory) spec is 115 @5500.

The Coupe GT has a different engine code-KX @120hp (ETKA/mfgr) vs 110 in Bently.

[The Bentley manuals are NOT factory. They are not "factory" shop manuals. (there is a problem in the rules regarding workshop manuals/what is real/true-for most cars factory no longer exist in print and what is, isn't official mfgr info or the final word) When I got my factory 142 Volvo manual from Volvo NA in 1984, it was one of two they had; they kept the last one for archiving. Audi went to repair/tech information on microfilm over 30 years ago, and now on DVD or online. The requirement to carry a factory manual is nearly impossible to comply with. The issue of Audi HP, however, illustrates the problem of relying on unofficial info]

Other considerations?: better weight distribution, MUCH better brakes, real (upper/lower dbl "wishbone" type) rear suspension, better aereo?
And, of course, the best 4wd system around.

And the 80/90Q-they have the 2.3L NG hi comp/133hp engine like the 87 "SuperCoupe"
 
Last edited:
OK, the moderators may want to start a new thread with this post, but Rules and Regs is a good place to start.

CRB Sound language​
Merideth/Sheridan, motion to approve the following GCR change:
Approved: Butler, Creighton, Gordy, Kephart, Langlotz, Lewis, Lybarger, Merideth, Noble, Sheridan, Wannarka. Abstain: Patullo.
Effective immediately 3/9/10.​
5.7.3. Standards​
A sound level instrument (meter) that meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S1.4-1983 Class 2 or better shall
be used. The primary maximum for SCCA Sound Control shall be a sound pressure level of 103dB “A” frequency weighted​
(dBA) measured on the fast response setting at 50 feet (+/- 2 feet) from the edge of the track pavement, and/ or artificial​
markers indicating track edge. Lower​
​
​
​
(Other) maximum levels may be imposed at specific venues or events. These lower​

(alternate)​
​
​
​
​
​
levels shall be noted in the Supplemental Regulations. All sound readings shall be truncated to the lower whole
EFFECTIVE FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED April 2010​

​
number. (Anything after the decimal point is ignored.)​
Change the sentence “Lower maximum levels may be imposed at specific venues or events.” to read, “Other maximum
levels may be imposed at specific venues or events.” The next sentence would also drop the word “lower” and replace with
“alternate”.​
BoD discussion on enforcement of sound rules, intended for exceptions and on a track by track basis. Some Divisions may
determine not to enforce sound based on local tracks. Exec Stewards with Regions will make determination. Sound will still​
be monitored.
What's the opinion of the group on this change? Good? Bad? I was Chief of Sound Control for two regions for 18 years, so I have my opinions.
 
In So-Pac, our neighbor is King-Cotton. I guess he went deaf somtime during the war of Northern Aggression, because he's never complained about the sound. Oh, and our last chief of sound moved out of the area and no one's replaced him yet.
 
RacerBill said:
What's the opinion of the group on this change? Good? Bad? I was Chief of Sound Control for two regions for 18 years, so I have my opinions.
Click to expand...

I'd love to hear what the impetus was for this change. I think it's a bad idea for amateur motorsports to ever reduce the requirements to be quiet (even if in this case it's just a potential, not an actual change.)

Racing would not change much if we all had to be at 96 dBA vs. 103dbA.
 
Don't be too sure Andy, I make more power and torque at 97db max than I ever did with louder systems. Most of my readings are in the high 80's.
 
seckerich said:
Don't be too sure Andy, I make more power and torque at 97db max than I ever did with louder systems. Most of my readings are in the high 80's.
Click to expand...

Does that transfer to the 12A, and, can the system be made light...without resorting to titanium?
 
I bet so.

Steve E's cars have always been fast and NOT loud. Very much different from other RX7s and a welcome change from the usual "weedeater madness" sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top