Which I don't buy, because I've seen the front suspension design on those cars (especially how Dick Shine has designed those struts)...
ITB - what a bunch of crap
- Thread starter Andy Bettencourt
- Start date
dickita15
New member
You're asking for something that we don't have the data to answer, Dick. The ITAC only started keeping records in a single file this year. While there's evidence in the ITAC discussion board of how various decisions were made during the Great Realignment, one would have to sort through lots of text to find the specifics, then tabulate the data. And of course, there's no pretense that any of the "leftover" listings (pre-GR) we established using anything like a repeatable power multiplier...
K
K
dickita15
New member
Thanks Kirk, and maybe some of the longer time members will chime in. I am trying to get a feel for how often this is a discussion item as it is a pretty big part of any subjective factors in car classification.
Also anything that happened before the process was in full swing in pretty irrelevant.
I think I know the rotaries are special, do I remember 40% for the 12a and 13b?
The RX8, was the same 40% used.
The S2000 I think used a lower number, 20%?
What else?
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Ok, I shook my head at the original question because I just had no concrete answer. The RX-8, no, it got 15%, IIRC. And the S2000 got the same. They have very similar stories.
I'd have to check on the rotaries, but I know the 1st gen is too high!
I'd have to check on the rotaries, but I know the 1st gen is too high!
Ray,
tom here from the ITB race at mid-ohio. i was beside you or the other audi at the 2007 IT Fest. my crx was the one with the flame job in the pits...
those are some interesting numbers for the HP vs. TQ compared to other cars. one thing that bothers me about OEM hp numbers is that some de-rate to meet certain govt. restrictions and others seem to have smaller horses because they want to look more powerful. these number do get manipulated somewhat.
what i find interesting in your numbers is the HP per CC and TQ per cc. here is the comparison of yours to mine (i am 91 hp and 93 TQ, btw).
audi: 4.94 HP per 100 cc (110hp 2226 cc)
crx: 6.12 HP per 100 cc (91 hp 1488 cc)
audi: 5.48 TQ per 100 cc (122 TQ (okay, ft-#'s, etc.))
crx: 6.25 TQ per 100 cc (93 TQ)
on the face of it, i would think that your car could gain quite a bit since it is starting with such a large motor. now some of this no doubt due to mine having 3 valves per cylinder vs. the two you have.
however, when looking at weight per motor size, my car as classed is 1.43 #'s per cc vs. yours is 1.14 #'s per cc.
i have said that the TQ is a bit of a red herring because most of the numbers i had seen were not that much different in the TQ to HP ratios. but mine is 1.02 and yours is 1.11.
not trying to start an argument, just trying to understand how the classing was applied to the two cars.
hope to see you on the grid this next year at mid-ohio. but hopefully out the driver's window instead of ahead of me on the grid and out the passenger window!
good luck. i hope the general requests being to get to the process weights within a 5# window instead of a 100 # window are good to you.
tom
I have to agree with Jeff but I think maybe we come to different conclusions: He *might* say, "This is an argument for not addressing these issues." I would *certainly* say, "Sorry, guys - none of that is going to be considered for IT classification or specification purposes." **
Kirk (who's afraid that Tom missed the point about the inconsistencies being the result of the process NOT being applied top to bottom, front to back, on all IT cars. Your question about "how the classing was applied to the two cars" moves from an incorrect first assumption)
** EDIT - were it my decision, which it's not.
RSTPerformance
New member
Jeff-
It scares me a bit also... It seems like it might be hard to make everyone happy with this process, afterall people are already arguing that the Audi is "different" and should not be run through the process the same. I have to be honest and say that I never expected to run the process on the Audi and get those numbers, but I do think that if that is our process then we need to stick with it or change it. What is good for one, has to be good for the other, expecting a car to get a 39% gain in power because of an extra cylinder is rediculouse.
Andy/Greg... remember we can not use on track data to determine car classifications. Sure the Audi is good at Atlanta and Pocono, but go to NHMS... they are at least 1-2 seconds off the normal lap times. Would your thoughts on the classification change if NHMS was the high profile "ARRC" race??? Andy, you don't want to go down that "race-track" because I would have to side with Greg and beat you up on the Miatas ability at Lime Rock... and Greg don't get to excited, your old "egg" was dominant at a track or two if I remember correctly.
Raymond "Lastly... If anyone else sends me a PM to buy Dicks suspension... lol!!! We have spent thousands of dollars testing our own different front suspension designs on our cars, I think we have a better setup, but to each his/her own" Blethen
It scares me a bit also... It seems like it might be hard to make everyone happy with this process, afterall people are already arguing that the Audi is "different" and should not be run through the process the same. I have to be honest and say that I never expected to run the process on the Audi and get those numbers, but I do think that if that is our process then we need to stick with it or change it. What is good for one, has to be good for the other, expecting a car to get a 39% gain in power because of an extra cylinder is rediculouse.
Andy/Greg... remember we can not use on track data to determine car classifications. Sure the Audi is good at Atlanta and Pocono, but go to NHMS... they are at least 1-2 seconds off the normal lap times. Would your thoughts on the classification change if NHMS was the high profile "ARRC" race??? Andy, you don't want to go down that "race-track" because I would have to side with Greg and beat you up on the Miatas ability at Lime Rock... and Greg don't get to excited, your old "egg" was dominant at a track or two if I remember correctly.
Raymond "Lastly... If anyone else sends me a PM to buy Dicks suspension... lol!!! We have spent thousands of dollars testing our own different front suspension designs on our cars, I think we have a better setup, but to each his/her own" Blethen
RSTPerformance
New member
Is post #478 a good description of the classification process?
i guess i am unsure what a prod like discussion is.
i was trying to be civil and discuss what might have been part of the basis for the classing. that is one very large motor in an ITB car. i have no idea if the car went through "The Process" but i do know the car was "classed."
i have sent my letter to the CRB asking that the process be done for all cars to the nearest 5 or 10 #'s or 0.5% of what scales can read, etc. if the scales can't find 5#'s, it might be a bit much to have the process designate it. so to the nearest 10#'s would be fine with me.
i also disclosed in the letter that i think a review of the process would improve my situation with the 86 crx si. i thought it only proper to state what i was driving and where i thought it should be. i am also hoping that it will improve Ray's situation. over the course of a 20 lap race, that is a lot of mass to slow down, etc.
i want to beat Ray at the mid-ohio IT Fest because my car is better prepared and better driven. not because of inadvertent weighting that occurred when the cars were classed.
besides, it is kind of embarassing to get beat by a car that has the weight "penalties" his has.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
The point is not to hold up on-track results as the end-all. It's that one of your cars key strengths is power...and you are trying to tell us it's unbalanced and doesn't handle.
I will see if Dick has Dyno #'s in Lournecos car. But I am not sure if they had ever taken it to the Dyno before Allan "retired" from racing.
Just looking at what Shine did for our little 1.8 makes me think he could get some gains from that thing
Ok, so no PM, but I will talk to Eli and see if we have some in our pile that he would be willing to part with. I am not sure what the future plans are for Tims car, so he may not want to part with any spares just yet.
Matt bal
Am I the only one that finds that absolutely freakin' HILARIOUS, considering you're unhappy with the handling of the car...?
absolutely freakin' HILARIOUS
at least mildly amusing
Last edited:
EBSNASCAR
New member
Ok so to answer the first question. I think that ITB is great, just great. I am so glad I picked this class over any other class. This was my first year driving. First year driving a manual trans car and a rear wheel drive car for that matter.
I bought a 1979 Fox body Mustang, I raced...ok followed Vaughan this year at Waterford Hills. It is a reasonably affordable class and highly competitive.
At Waterford we had two 924s (one being Vaughan), 5-6 Mustangs, a very fast Capri, two wabbits, a GTI, a MG, a Fiero and a Volvo.
Diversity and still had a blast. Sure Vaughan smoked us but his car is highly tuned and extremely well prepared over the many years of hard work and labor.
To answer the second question and I think why this thread became 25 pages…
In any racing there are the haves and the have-nots. People who can spend money and have the car built by professionals or install the best of the best parts. And then you have people who just work with what they have. If you think by asking a club to give you a 50 weight break is going to make the difference, great. But then this club becomes NASCAR, change rules constantly. I would like a car classified once and move on. That way I can continue to fine-tune the racecar to the absolute limit of the given rules and regs. End of story. If you consistently run behind someone at the same racetrack, over and over again and you both know one car has an advantage over another then find a way to play fair. Maybe he will volunteer to add weight, run old tires, start behind you, or start at the back of the pack. That seems more reasonable then petitioning a national sanctioning body.
If you want to send letter that is fine but the ultimate results are started and finished on the race track not behind a letter or a computer desk.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
You had me at "I think ITB is great, just great"...
Welcome to the madness.
You make good points, and we should remember them, while we bitch and moan the winter away fine tuning the rules and regs.
For a new guy, you hit the nail right on the head. My only change to IT would be to have all the cars classed and weighted using the same criteria. Get that done and then leave it. My other comment is that I do not believe non independent rear suspensions should get a weight break. They are to common within the classes. IRS should get the +50. Thats only my opinion.
StephenB
New member
Am I the only one that finds that absolutely freakin' HILARIOUS, considering you're unhappy with the handling of the car...?
I don't think its hilarious at all. I wouldn't take another suspension set-up if it was FREE. My set-up on my car I feel is the best set-up for the car. The only thing I think that could use honest develepment is struts and shocks that I simply do not have the deep pockets for or the knowledge for.
I do feel that other cars with less front end weight should probably handle a bit better but I do not have this personal experience to claim this as true or not. (I have 830ish pounds on both front wheels and 420 pounds on each of the rears.) with a large wheelbase. I truelly do not know the balance of other cars as this is the only car in this class that I have worked on and have experience with.
Stephen Blethen
ITB Audi Coupe #50
The best handling 2wd Audi Coupe in SCCA! Yes mine is better than Raymonds.