Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions
- Thread starter Knestis
- Start date
I have read much of this thread and it seams a major point of contention is actual power. There have been lots of good points made on all sides in this discussion. It would seem to me the best way to level the field on power and at the same time squash cheating would be to use an SIR on all cars. The SIR works well on low cam overlap engines(stock). It would make the formula used in IT classification simple. Plug in your target HP and use X size SIR. Done. No squabbling over Joey getting an unfair advantage because he has brand X car. Only reason not to do it this way would be the difficulty building an air box for the entry level guy. Then the discussion turns full circle on what is IT. Entry level racing? Yes or no? Just saying.
benspeed
New member
I like what NASA does - bring a dyno to the track and test. Over a certain power threshold and you are bounced from the class until you reduce power. That will make folks zero in on chassis which is what we all ought to be doing and is easier on the wallet. Chassis is more about race craft than cubic dollars.....
Using a dyno also will validate the "process" which is pretty darn good already - excepting a few examples. Like the incredibly unfair weight on the Porsche 968.......not that I would be caring only about myself......right?
Using a dyno also will validate the "process" which is pretty darn good already - excepting a few examples. Like the incredibly unfair weight on the Porsche 968.......not that I would be caring only about myself......right?
Not really true... if you wanna spend cubic dollars you can still do it, with the downturn in the economy you can get on a 7post rig for closer to 5,000 dollars for a day, and yes even on a lowly IT car where you can't move the suspension pickupoints you can make gains. Not saying it would ever be a need to do thing, but it can certainly be the easybutton approach to having a close to sorted car handling wise much faster. Ultimately you may be able to eliminate a nasty trait that you can't find the cause of any other way as well. Be careful what you wish for.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Here's the rub on the dyno idea. ECUs are free. If I were to have to go on a dyno, you know I'd have two power settings. Race, and 'other'. ANd it's not like you can 'sneak' a dyno up on a car in impound.
The solution to that of course, is on board boxes, but even that is fraught with issues.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Kirk resigned knowing, I think, that most of us on the ITAC would be very disappointed. If you can talk him into coming back, well, that's more than fine with me...
As for the rest of the stuff, well, we're working on it. Not sue how much we'll be able to accomplish, but that's all under discussion.
I like the dyno idea for non-ecu cars but Jake speaks the truth. My Benz has six different ignition maps with resultant loss of HP while the mixture remains optimal.
Still, I'd be willing to pay an extra $10 per entry to have the mobile dyno come to the track and run the top three in impound. Data points for the process....
Chuck
Still, I'd be willing to pay an extra $10 per entry to have the mobile dyno come to the track and run the top three in impound. Data points for the process....
Chuck
JeffYoung
New member
I appreciate the thoughts on the SIR and dynos at the track, but to this ITAC member (my opinion only) they are based on an assumption that I don't think we want in "IT Land" -- and that is that there is some magic way to get all cars 100% equal.
Going down that path in IT was a total nightmare on the SIR, as it was not as easy as slap it on and presto, the E36 is now equal to RX7s and 240zs. It required a ton of work to even get the car to run with an SIR, and then a ton of time and money to tune it to make power.
That's a single example, but I think it is a critical one to remember. Due the many, many different attribute and varieties of cars in IT, there just is no simple easy way to balance them all equally.
Get'em close and let'em race.
Going down that path in IT was a total nightmare on the SIR, as it was not as easy as slap it on and presto, the E36 is now equal to RX7s and 240zs. It required a ton of work to even get the car to run with an SIR, and then a ton of time and money to tune it to make power.
That's a single example, but I think it is a critical one to remember. Due the many, many different attribute and varieties of cars in IT, there just is no simple easy way to balance them all equally.
Get'em close and let'em race.
Great point Jeff! Even if there was a way to equalize engine horsepower, that would not make all IT cars equal. Differences in suspension design, gearing and brakes (just the things accounted for presently when setting wieght) would make different cars faster or slower. Guess what folks... we'd still need some type of formula!
ericblois
New member
just another thing on trying to get all cars having the same hp to wt ratio with SIR's. if the characteristics of the motors are completely different but the hp numbers are close or the same with the SIR which motor did the SIR hurt more? the high revving motor which needs lots or air to move in and out or the slow revving motor which depends more on its tq numbers. just food for thought
While I totally agree that you could/can fudge dyno numbers, I'd be ok with the idea that maybe at IT fest where I know a portable dyno is nearby(or the arrc) it could be worked out for 10-15 dollar add on to the entry getting them to come down and dyno the top x number of finnishers. Pull them immediately to the side in pit lane, follow them straight to the dyno before they go to tech. I don't think this should be common practice, and it would be better at the arrc where the winners would also be torn down, but I think It would fill in some anwers as to what power multipliers should be on cars believed to be legal. Don't tell people how many cars your gonna pull ahead of time. Yeah you could have somebody who had everything rigged to be able to switch, but depending on ecu's etc. it isn't necessarily that easy to do if you are immediately impounded. You'd have to have it rigged up ahead of time inside the car. However, I don't know that I think it is feasible to dyno every car, and I certainly wouldn't wanna make assumptions on power without some Idea of the cars legality. You definetly can still get around it if you want. This approach would give you evidence to present to the CRB should something like the audi come up again. you could say, heres the dyno information and it only made 1.25 for a power adder. The qualifying must have been good driving/bumpdrafting. If the standard multiplier was too low you'd have all the information you needed to justify adjusting the power multiplier.
All that said I really don't know that it is necessary. My personal opinion is that for the most part if overdogs exist and they show up too big races eventually somebody will build it and submit dyno sheets and then you'll have both the performances to trigger looking into it and the information to back up changing the power multiplier. IT isn't broken right now, although the idea of honest to goodness comp adjustments makes me think the chess match may begin soon. How much do you build, and how much do you show becomes the question?
Last edited:
gran racing
Super Moderator
Can you imagine all the new people run away with just the mention of a SIR? I'd shake my head and consider my options.
Bill Miller
New member
Ok, a couple of things here. I re-ran my math, and I was a bit off. Turns out that the Rabbit GTI is almost 220# over its 'process' weight (217.5# by my calculations), and that's w/o a strut/beam subtractor.
Kirk,
While I understand that fudging the numbers may have been ok w/ the ITAC at the time of tGR, I don't think any of the rest of us figured that that's what they were going to do.
Andy,
Do you really expect me not to throw the BS flag on that one? You used mfg. published hp for every other car, yet you took someone's claim that they got 100 whp on a dyno? No other data to determine how accurate the data were? An example of a bone-stock version, to get an idea on drive line loss? It's pretty well accepted that there is a significant variation in the various brands of dynos. Did you have actual dyno plots, as well as tear-down infor on the motor to guarantee that it was legal? Did Chris Albin's opinion carry more weight, just becasue he was 'the VW guy on the ITAC'?
You guys sold people a bill of goods when you did tGR. Cars were supposed to get treated the same, and treated objectively. You guys did neither.
Oh, and to get the process weight, even using your 100 whp #, you have to assume a 20% drive line loss. And regardless if you're looking a mfg. stated hp or measured whp, if you're getting 100 whp, you're still at almost a 1.40 power factor. That's just not happening w/ a legal IT tune on that motor. What other car in the ITCS gets saddled w/ a 1.40 power factor?
People are talking about the Audi being 200# heavy, the Rabbit GTI is more than that, and show me the anecdotal evidence that's even close to that of the Audi's.
You guys blew it when you didn't run all the cars in the ITCS through the process, and let the chips fall where they may. Have the faith in the PCA process to be able to correct things that were wrong. Instead, you tried to pull the wool over people's eyes. Now that stuff is all coming home to roost.
I'm really starting to regret ever coming back to this board. Nothing's changed, and nothing is going to change. As I said before, it sure will be interesting to see what IT is in 3-5 years.
One final thought on this, why the hell does the CRB and the BoD even give this stuff a second look? There's the 'no guarantee' clause in IT, and if you guys had just treated all the cars the same, they (CRB and BoD) would have been off the hook. They could have pointed to the 'no guarantee' clause and pointed to the fact that all the cars were treated the same, and been done with it. End of story. I still don't understand why IT is getting so much play w/ the PtB, unless they've got something else cooking in the back room.
/edit
To me, the whole SIR (bleh!) concept is really counter to what IT is all about. IIRC, the SIR allowance in the PCA language was something that was thrown in at the last min. by the CRB. They then screwed the pooch by throwing it at the E36 BMW. They really mucked it up when they got the size wrong. They (CR
haven't even tried to throw them at Prod (they still keep dicking w/ weight), and I don't think the GT crowd are happy w/ them yet. They really have no place in IT.
Kirk,
While I understand that fudging the numbers may have been ok w/ the ITAC at the time of tGR, I don't think any of the rest of us figured that that's what they were going to do.
Andy,
Do you really expect me not to throw the BS flag on that one? You used mfg. published hp for every other car, yet you took someone's claim that they got 100 whp on a dyno? No other data to determine how accurate the data were? An example of a bone-stock version, to get an idea on drive line loss? It's pretty well accepted that there is a significant variation in the various brands of dynos. Did you have actual dyno plots, as well as tear-down infor on the motor to guarantee that it was legal? Did Chris Albin's opinion carry more weight, just becasue he was 'the VW guy on the ITAC'?
You guys sold people a bill of goods when you did tGR. Cars were supposed to get treated the same, and treated objectively. You guys did neither.
Oh, and to get the process weight, even using your 100 whp #, you have to assume a 20% drive line loss. And regardless if you're looking a mfg. stated hp or measured whp, if you're getting 100 whp, you're still at almost a 1.40 power factor. That's just not happening w/ a legal IT tune on that motor. What other car in the ITCS gets saddled w/ a 1.40 power factor?
People are talking about the Audi being 200# heavy, the Rabbit GTI is more than that, and show me the anecdotal evidence that's even close to that of the Audi's.
You guys blew it when you didn't run all the cars in the ITCS through the process, and let the chips fall where they may. Have the faith in the PCA process to be able to correct things that were wrong. Instead, you tried to pull the wool over people's eyes. Now that stuff is all coming home to roost.
I'm really starting to regret ever coming back to this board. Nothing's changed, and nothing is going to change. As I said before, it sure will be interesting to see what IT is in 3-5 years.
One final thought on this, why the hell does the CRB and the BoD even give this stuff a second look? There's the 'no guarantee' clause in IT, and if you guys had just treated all the cars the same, they (CRB and BoD) would have been off the hook. They could have pointed to the 'no guarantee' clause and pointed to the fact that all the cars were treated the same, and been done with it. End of story. I still don't understand why IT is getting so much play w/ the PtB, unless they've got something else cooking in the back room.
/edit
To me, the whole SIR (bleh!) concept is really counter to what IT is all about. IIRC, the SIR allowance in the PCA language was something that was thrown in at the last min. by the CRB. They then screwed the pooch by throwing it at the E36 BMW. They really mucked it up when they got the size wrong. They (CR
haven't even tried to throw them at Prod (they still keep dicking w/ weight), and I don't think the GT crowd are happy w/ them yet. They really have no place in IT.
Last edited:
shwah
New member
I don't know any specific answers, but the Rabbit GTI should make more gains than either Golf in ITB. It has the WORST exhaust manifold ever installed on a VW - swapping from the toilet bowl single outlet to the later dual outlet gives a 5hp bump on the A2. It has a lower stock compression and thus gains a bit more % wise with the .5 bump. I don't think the solid lifter head has any measureable differences from the later hydro. I would be surprised if it all added up to a 1.4 factor, but could see it being .05 more than the A2.
Bill Miller
New member
Chris,
I agree that the 'toilet bowl' exhaust manifold is soooo crappy, that it doesn't even make a good boat anchor. However, some differences between the A2 8v hyd. lifter motor and the A1 8v solid lifter motor (both 1.8). The A2 gets two things that help it, over the A1, see more gains when you put a better exhaust system on it. First, the A2 has a larger throttle body, so you can actually get more air into the engine, and second, it's got a higher lift cam (.400" vs. .369" for the A1). The A2 also gets a slightly longer duration (214 deg. vs 212 deg for the A1, both measured @ 0.050".
I know everybody trots out the crappy exhaust manifold, and I agree, it's a POS. But to start seeing real gains on the A1 motors, you've got to start swapping the cam and the throttle body as well.
As far as the gain from the .5 pt bump in compression, I'm not sure exactly how much you're seeing. Look at a stock JH (A1, 8.5:1) vs a stock RD (A2, 10:1). The JH makes 90 hp, and the RD makes 103 hp. The essential differences are compression, cam, and throttle body. Hard to say what makes the most contribution. Back in the day, one of the quick, cheap fixes to get some power out of a JH motor was to swap the exhaust manifold and cam from a 1.6 motor, and the t-body from either an A2 or an Audi 5k. That was said to give somewhere between 7 and 10 more hp. But keep in mind, you went from a .369" lift cam to a .405" lift cam. And again, you're back to a larger t-body, and a higher lift cam, neither of which are legal in IT. How much do you think you'll get out of that .5 pt bump in compression? 3hp? 5hp? 7hp? 10hp?
I'm sorry, but getting 30-35 hp out of a .5 pt bump in compression, a tweaked exhaust system, and a good balance & blueprint just doesn't happen w/ a JH motor. And those are the kinds of gains that are needed to justify the current spec weight.
I'm curious, have you guys ever dyno'd the motors out of the car, and in the car, just to get an idea of drive line loss? I know it's apples and oranges, and the differences are probably lost in the margin of error for the dyno, especially at these low numbers. Just curious as to what you guys think the drive line loss is.
Andy Bettencourt should know exactly what a Rabbit GTi can make in IT trim; he's got the dyno files from a prior place we used, one where we dyno'd Jeff Lawton's "Kessler-massaged" (Tom Kelly-built) JH some years back... - GA