August 2012 Fastrack

John,

I believe peter Keene and Chris Howard are the ones with the info. They also know of a trick head for the car but we where never able to get that info from them either. Those two are your ticket to the info your searching for...

I am not sure how good this forums search function is but lots of long threads on this. I promise that the itac of the past tried to make it right but it just isn't happening ever. Caused enough drama to last a decade!
 
Jeff,
If I could get a copy that would be fantastic......

....and I Stephen,....yeah I know this isn't going to happen. I looked at some of those old threads.. the Audi thing has been "around the Block" a few times. What disturbs me the most is that, in looking at the old threads , IMO, people on the board made decisions about cars within there own class. Not to say that it should sway a members input , but I find that to be a conflict of interest . I'm sure they are all good people trying to do the right thing...but looking into the glass bowl ..it just doesn't feel right to me .
 
Rabbit05 said:
Jeff,
If I could get a copy that would be fantastic......

....and I Stephen,....yeah I know this isn't going to happen. I looked at some of those old threads.. the Audi thing has been "around the Block" a few times. What disturbs me the most is that, in looking at the old threads , IMO, people on the board made decisions about cars within there own class. Not to say that it should sway a members input , but I find that to be a conflict of interest . I'm sure they are all good people trying to do the right thing...but looking into the glass bowl ..it just doesn't feel right to me .
Click to expand...

we sort of have to make decisions about cars in our own class, there are only 5 of us, 2 competing in and/or with serious ties to ITB. the ITAC is a fair and very reasonable group, so I wouldn't let this part bother you too much.

FWIW, the original 120hp decision and fact finding predates my time on the committee, but based on the summary I've been presented, which I believe was entierly fair to all sides, what I've read over the years and again when this came up from this forum, and the littlle data we do have about output from these audis, I voted to leave it as is and wait for more / better information. basically an atheist position, rather than a positive statement about absolute potential.

remember, the final classification of any fully developed car in the ITCS should be "known hp" or close to it. if you can supply us with enough information to take a firm stance on that, we don't need to worry about OEM published numbers.
 
Ok ...so if I had a fresh/new motor put in...and put the car on a dyno , do you think this would be sufficient to have a re-look at the Audi ? I do need a new motor anyways...and dyno work would be nice for tuning purposes...but it's the $$$ involved to do it.

I curious to what is considered a fully developed car ? On-track performance isnt a criteria for classing cars..is it ? ...just looking for clarification...
 
On track performance is not explicitly part of the process. It is used as a "gut check" to observe and see if there is something wrong with our numbers.

On the Audi, here's how I remember it going down.

1. I collected a ton of data on the motor all showing 110 stock hp.
2. Someone had a legitimate, valid 120 hp listed on an internal Audi microfiche.
3. With the conflicting data, we went to see if there was actual dyno data out there. I don't think the Blethens had dyno data. I do think there was a sheet from an Irish Mike car from a while back that supported more torwards to the 110 stock hp figure.
4. There was a LOT of discussion of on track performance that I think most of us dismissed, related to Raymond and Stephen having excellent runs in qualifying one year at the ARRC (I believe before were mechanical DNFs though).

I can't say that others did NOT use on track to justify the higher weight. For me, it seemed to me the cars were competitive as is and thus I supported 'splitting' the two reported stock hp figures and use that, which resulted in I think a 100ish pound weight reduction in the car.
 
Holy smoke, this ITB Audi thing isn't dead yet?

Seriously, how much of a difference in horsepower stock are we talking about, and, what weight does that translate into?
 
Ron Earp said:
Holy smoke, this ITB Audi thing isn't dead yet?

Seriously, how much of a difference in horsepower stock are we talking about, and, what weight does that translate into?
Click to expand...

10hp stock in ITB = 213lbs.

On edit - it IS a tough topic. Two different stock HP numbers in publication and very limited dyno numbers to validate.
 
Last edited:
Members of the CRB had made their decision about what the Audi should weigh based on on-track performance. Period. All actions that followed, including the ITAC shut-down, came out of that. Several members of the then-ITAC were, by their own admission, swayed by anecdotal - heck, legendary - on-track performance of the car.

If you had been there, knowing what I know about your approach, Chip, I wager you would have had reason to be bothered. It may be a new day on the ITAC but some of the key players are still playing.

K

EDIT - and this was never about one car. It was about ad hoc and CRB roles and responsibilities, transparency, objectivity, and repeatability.
 
To clarify, I agree with Kirk that is what happened the first time on the looksee at the Audi. It was not changed and not reprocessed due to perceived on track performance.

There was a second look later on after the shutdown and the weight was dropped. That is what I am referring to above. Still not "perfect" in that we didn't have really good dyno data for a actual power figure, and the stock hp number is in doubt. Tough call as Andy says.
 
Zero weight drop has happened on the Audi coupe. The gt received a 50lb break. Truth is that back when it was classed it was given extra weight for bigger breaks and better aero. Both not part of the process so the gt was just made equal.

Raymond and I have the coupe.

The story of the ARRC has already been posted on this site...
 
HP was not the reason given in the original request. Tourque was.
HP was the reason in the newest request (from John)

only person with access to this"internal document" has been listed on this site before. I think a copy was even posted. (it was not audi/vw) HP differences are the same type of situation as the maita...
 
On track performance was/is so old it was BEFORE the golf III was even classed and before all other cars we "realigned.". That performance was 1 second off the then track record and at least 2 - 3 seconds behind the current track record. Also we had Hoosier and Koni support at that race with new shocks and tires for just about every session. It was an all out effort.

Chris Howard is not the correct name... He is the cage builder from the northeast. It is Chris Albin who was 100% against the Audi's. For some reason he never liked us and made this personal.

And with that I can say we have had a lot of great people on the ITAC and CRB but we have also had a lot if terrible people on the boards as well... Unfortunatly some still are.

I would like a copy of that factory information as well... Including the engine specs.

Now the good news... John your a kick ass driver and we have already proven an I'll classed car can still win.

Now what is the issue with the RX8 manual??? That's what I am building now!

Raymond Blethen
 
Ralf-

Interesting... But you do know that he is a huge advocate for the Golf III correct???

Moving on-

I personally don't care much about the weight of the Audi. I do care about the behind closed doors/retaliation/rumorville/whatever you want to call it crap that has happened. Members of the CRB and ITAC including my own regions (not mentioning names) flat out lied throughout the process. Additionally people on the ITAC such as (not mentioning names) and (not mentioning names) said we were cheating but failed to help us understand how when we reached out to them. Then out of the blue probably 2 years after all the crap started someone (not mentioning names) comes up with a factory document that the members (myself and anyone reading this) don't have access to and contradicts everything anyone ever knew about the cars.

1) If someone presented this document and shared it in the beginning I personally would have never said a word and been happy that I got an explanation for the classification... Problem is we never received an explanation.

2) If members of the ITAC and CRB think something is fishy they should not be spreading rumors. They should be taking action and they certainly should not be using the individuals performance as a basis for anything. It ruins it for others.

3) This entire thing is a great example of why things should not be personal... Back when this first started it seemed to me like this was all about the "Blethens" and we never wanted it to be nor should it be from anyone’s point of view. Simply because of our performance others such as John have been screwed and pulled into issues they shouldn't have had to have been pulled into. In retrospect what would have happened if we didn't go to the ARRC?

Again I really don't care about the weight... why??? I personally don't think at our level of racing (club regional’s) 100 lbs makes a difference that can't be made up with driving and pure luck. Sure we can't win every race but we can still win some with the cars how they are.

I truly hope that the current ITAC & CRB that were given this hornets nest is able to just figure out a way to get out of this and move on. All around this situation was very poorly handled. It is a great example how not to handle car classifications and should be used to teach new folks on the boards how to handle things behind closed doors and in front of the members in the club.

Raymond "Lets forget about the Audi and talk about MR2's, Miata's, BMW's in ITS or some other hot topic!" Blethen
 
I think the Audi issue is dead. It was certainly a pivot point in ITAC history as some of us were too stubborn to accept the CRB reasoning/mandate at the time. The current committees have seen the conflicting data, made their assumptions and 'corrected' the weight. The only thing that is left is to scan a copy of the documents that helped make the decision, publish them and it will be a closed issue, like it or not.

Not sure what else we could want on a car that has this type of documentation. We have to understand that some of these issues came to a head during a funky time in ITAC/CRB history and put that to bed. I have. Allowing the ITAC to have a Ops manual and allowing them/making them follow it is all we ask for.
 
In retrospect what would have happened if we didn't go to the ARRC?
Click to expand...

From the weight perspective, it sure would be interesting to know. Imagine how much weight would have been added it you both finished 1 & 2? LOL

"Lets forget about the Audi and talk about MR2's, Miata's, BMW's in ITS or some other hot topic!"
Click to expand...

Oh gesh. :dead_horse:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top