March 2011 Fastrack

[Bill Miller]

Nope.

The only thing that happened here is that the ITAC knew of conflicting stock HP information, did extensive research and ran the car through at the number they thought was the most accurate.

Whether you or I agree with that number is a whole 'nother thread.

Since you threw this out there, what criteria were used to determine 'most accurate'?

The 120hp number is in ETKA v7, a version that was released long after these cars were out of production. The prior version states both 85Kw and 88Kw (and 115hp) for that motor. All of the other documentation (published factory spect, factory (Bentley) service manual, etc.) states 110hp.

I'm genuinely curious as to the standard that was applied to determine 'most accurate'.

You can certainly write another letter but my guess is that original decision on this car will stand.

If that's the case Jeff, I would hope that someone will provide some detail behind the decision (per the Ops Manual), and not just another "Car is correct as classified". If you're (royal, not you as an individual) are going to make a classification based on a deviation from the accepted norm, please have the sack to back it up. That's been my beef all along. If you're going to tell me 'correct as classed', you damned well better be able to tell me what that is based on.

 

[StephenB]

And I'll send my address via PM. That of course, if Stephen or Raymond does not want the new book.

-John

John,

I am building an new car in a different class and to be honest karma is a bitch... Raymond and I don't deserve it based on our posts here alone.

ITAC,

Thank-you for getting us the info on how you made your decision with the 120HP number. I think that anything documented that is used by an official dealer should be used as evidence. (Basically if jo shmo posted it on wiki or made a website then it shouldn't count, but something like ETKA that a company made for use by actual dealerships should have some ground to stand on.) The ITAC could have easily said that it has 20% more pistons and we think it can make 20% more HP than a normal IT build so we are assigning it a 30% multiplier. At least this decision like it or not has written documentation to back it up. Other car owners are not as fortunate.

One last question.. are you going to add to the notes what engine codes are eligible for each car on each spec line? Based on these findings the early coupe will easily get a 200lb reduction in weight when/if requested.

Stephen

 

[Knestis]

That's a good point, Stephen. Part of the "documentation" imperative is getting clear(er) about spec line definitions. Those narrow distinctions matter.

For example, the MkIII Golf gets the "alternate" gear ratio set because we were able to document that it did come in some US models. (Not many but that's not the test.) However, we denied the request to allow them for the same generation Jetta, because the same source indicated that they were *not* ever available in that chassis. It might seem like a silly suggestion if one gets loose about applying update/backdate thinking but it's explicitly correct.

It would clearly not be OK to extend the 120hp stock figure to the older version, based on what (I think) this documentation shows.

K

 

[JoshS]

I'm puzzled by that, Dick. It's either a "rule change" or a "correction." There should be definitions of each so that it's not discretionary, and the guidelines of what has to wait until next season seem pretty clear. Unless I'm missing something...?

Kirk, it's in the December Fastrack, BOD notes:

Motion Merideth/Sheridan - Move to approve the following Operations Manual Changes to
support the clarification of CRB authority. Changes also to be incorporated into the CRB Manual.

I. Structure of SCCA
B. Organization
5.2 The Club Racing board is authorized to:
i. Clarify a rule – characterized as adding/subtracting/changing language to reinforce the intent of the rule without changing the
core definition
ii. Make specification changes (competition adjustments) – this includes weight and air/fuel management.
iii. Classify cars.
iv. Correct errors and omissions.
v. Implement rule changes for all classes in cases where parts are no longer available and such a shortage would negatively
affect the ability to compete.
vi. Recommend rule changes and car reclassifications to the Board of Directors for
approval.
Rule Change
- can sometimes affect an entire class
- can also apply to significant changes to one car in a class
- should have member input
- Traditionally presented for BoD approval at or before its October meeting effective January 1st of the following year.
- safety related items may be dealt with at any time
Competition Adjustments
- Purpose is to modify by increasing or decreasing the performance of a specific make/model of a car in order to better balance
the class.
- Every effort should be made to limiting competition adjustments during the competition year to small changes as early as
possible.
- First year cars have the following exception. The one year starts at the effective date of the classification. More adjustments
to the newly classed car may be needed during this time for the good of the car or class. These adjustments include rim size,
springs, shocks, and bars.
- Changes can be made at the end of the competition year effective January 1st of the following year, or any time up to the July
FastTrack of the current year with an effective date of no later than July 1st.
- Changes limited to weight, tire size (not rim), and/or the diameter of air intake restrictors of any type.
- These may be found on the appropriate vehicle specification line. Other than competition
adjustments, spec line items are subject to the rules change process.
- Weight and induction changes may be considered a rules change if applied to a mature
established class or one with restricted specifications (SM, FC are examples of this)
Errors and Omissions
‐ No change to CRB Opns manual

 

[StephenB]

I actually have internet so I can put in a request finally!! I always use my phone to lurk here and you cannot put in a CRB request with cell phone internet...

Anyway I have asked to reclassify the early coupe with the WE engine... It should shed about 400+ lbs and I will start looking for a new engine for my car!

CRB Letter Tracking Number #4317

100*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2082 rounded to 2100

Stephen,

I have no idea why you would say that the 81-84 guys would have to buy anything if nothing has changed.

The GT math looks simple to me:

120*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2499 rounded to 2500.

And NO, back when they classified these cars there was NO rhyme or reason as to the weights. So, the GT is now in line with ITB given the 120hp starting point.

 

[Rabbit05]

It would clearly not be OK to extend the 120hp stock figure to the older version, based on what (I think) this documentation shows.

K

I would clearly not be OK to use the 120 hp stock figure at all. As it has been shown that the Audi Coupe never came with a 120 hp motor. So again , why is it acceptable to use the 120 hp stock number to determine a car classification, for any Coupe. Just as it was example you provided, the Jetta did not receive the tranny option because it never had it. So whats the difference here ??




-John

 

[JeffYoung]

Are they on the same spec line (the early and late Coupes)?

Can a Coupe get to that weight? Curb weight?

I actually have internet so I can put in a request finally!! I always use my phone to lurk here and you cannot put in a CRB request with cell phone internet...

Anyway I have asked to reclassify the early coupe with the WE engine... It should shed about 400+ lbs and I will start looking for a new engine for my car!

CRB Letter Tracking Number #4317

100*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2082 rounded to 2100

 

[StephenB]

Just came up with a better idea... why get the smaller engine when I can update the entire chasis to the 2.3 engine and run in ITA. I am putting in a new request for that car now... I still get to loose 200lbs in that trim!

130*1.25*14.5*.98 (for FWD) = 2309 rounded to 2300

Or maybe they can stick the 2.3 in ITB at this weight? I think it is a PIG and will destroy tires though!
130*1.25*17*.98 (for FWD) = 2707 rounded to 2700

 

[StephenB]

Are they on the same spec line (the early and late Coupes)?

Can a Coupe get to that weight? Curb weight?

It would be tough but I am willing to try. We are below 2400 without even trying...

Stephen

 

[CRallo]

Thought you were building another car

 

[tnord]

John,

I am building an new car in a different class and to be honest karma is a bitch... Raymond and I don't deserve it based on our posts here alone.

especially after the letter your brother just sent.

 

[StephenB]

Well I have no idea what letter he just sent, please make sure it is not a reflection on me. He is a completly different person than me. I was just saying that I didn't deserve it based on my posts and that I am building a different car, and that he as a seperate person IMHO certainly didn't deserve it.

Stephen

PS: I just sent in 2 letters requesting the early coupe and the later coupe to be reclassed... didn't think that those were negative at all though, just a simple reprocessing request.

 

[StephenB]

Thought you were building another car

I am but it is still sitting inside the trailer! I will race it from time to time. The racing and people in b is something I will miss!

 

[lateapex911]

Since you threw this out there, what criteria were used to determine 'most accurate'?

The 120hp number is in ETKA v7, a version that was released long after these cars were out of production. The prior version states both 85Kw and 88Kw (and 115hp) for that motor. All of the other documentation (published factory spect, factory (Bentley) service manual, etc.) states 110hp.

I'm genuinely curious as to the standard that was applied to determine 'most accurate'.
.

Yes, that aspect IS troubling. It appears, from this threads references, that the ETKA has multiple versions, and within those versions multiple power specifications. AND am I right in saying that in one case, they list two power origins, (Kw), yet those result in the SAME power number?

Math is math, and that aspect suggests a math error, or a mid ETKA version conversion factor change...that results in two base numbers becoming the same HP number. Rather unlikely.

Ergo, the ETKAs appear inconsistent...and inconsistent regarding a long ago engine...and that strikes me as 'flawed testimony'.
I just don't have confidence in that.

Now, you might say, "Yea, but, that stock number in the manual seems low". Maybe so, but it's at least consistent. The ETKA number seems to be all over the place 120, 115, ...etc. Add to that the fact that the tech dept uses factory service manuals as it's evidence body in a protest to deem legality, and it's hard to conclude that the same manual should NOT be used to determine the stock factory rating.

Now, if somebody want's to introduce evidence that the thing makes 160 in IT form, well have at it.

 

[JoshS]

Yes, that aspect IS troubling. It appears, from this threads references, that the ETKA has multiple versions, and within those versions multiple power specifications. AND am I right in saying that in one case, they list two power origins, (Kw), yet those result in the SAME power number?

Math is math, and that aspect suggests a math error, or a mid ETKA version conversion factor change...that results in two base numbers becoming the same HP number. Rather unlikely.

Ergo, the ETKAs appear inconsistent...and inconsistent regarding a long ago engine...and that strikes me as 'flawed testimony'.
I just don't have confidence in that.

I actually look at it differently (and this is just me as an individual talking, not the ITAC as a whole.) The original spec of 110hp was generated when the car was built, and yes, appears all over the place because everyone shares the same source.

However, the fact that the ETKA has changed, especially after production has ended, is very interesting to me. These things don't "just change" ... somebody changes them. And believe me, with big companies and big volumes of data, they change with purpose, not accidentally. So in my mind there's something significant about the updated numbers. I suspect that if you buy a KX crate motor now, it has 120hp. What's different, I have no idea. But that the number has changed is a big clue that SOMETHING has changed.

[ Again -- that's not from the ITAC, that's just from me. ]

 

[tnord]

service manuals are printed and issued at the time of initial production.
parts catalogues have to constantly be updated throghout the life of the vehicle and beyond as suppliers change (ie...SM cam specs).

there's really nothing to prove, or disprove any of the numbers. my default approach tends to be risk averse in uncertain situations.

EDIT; believe it or not Josh hadn't posted yet when i started mine. i actually had a longer version of the same thing typed up a week ago or so, but then my internet crashed at home and i never retyped it.

 

[Knestis]

I would clearly not be OK to use the 120 hp stock figure at all. As it has been shown that the Audi Coupe never came with a 120 hp motor. So again , why is it acceptable to use the 120 hp stock number to determine a car classification, for any Coupe. Just as it was example you provided, the Jetta did not receive the tranny option because it never had it. So whats the difference here ??

-John

It sounds like the ITAC accepted that the KX - the engine in the later ones - is listed in an authoritative document as having 120hp. Again, like it or not, there IS some latitude necessary to allow for judgment in the ad hocs. I fear that there might be some self-fulfilling prophecy stuff going on but at the end of the day we have to trust them to make these calls.

Now, if that 120 number were to get generalized to the earlier (non-KX) cars, THEN my undies would bunch up. That's clearly not supported by the evidence in consideration.

I'm more concerned with the ability of the system to document and communicate what the ad hocs do...

K

 

[tnord]

I fear that there might be some self-fulfilling prophecy stuff going on but at the end of the day we have to trust them to make these calls.

K

not for me. i've only ever been on track with an Audi GT once, have no vested interest in ITB, and wasn't a part of the previous ITAC/CRB discussions and I seem to have a pretty similar viewpoint to Josh.

 

[Greg Amy]

Jeff, what's the revision date of your Bentley?

Josh, absent supporting evidence for that change, you have no clue whether there's a basis for it -- or it's just a mistake.

Sounds like the decisions have already been made. Jeff wasted $120...for what? For show?

GA, who's BEGGING to find a Russian-pirated Mazda parts microfiche someday "proving" that the actual horsepower of the ITA 1.8L Miata is 133, and that everything else prior to that was just "stale data"... - GA

 

[dickita15]

I'm puzzled by that, Dick. It's either a "rule change" or a "correction." There should be definitions of each so that it's not discretionary, and the guidelines of what has to wait until next season seem pretty clear. Unless I'm missing something...?

K

Josh answered your question pretty well but I wanted to point out that while it says when the CRB has to wait, it does not say they have to rush.
We see that with competition adjustments (yea I know, Bleah) in other categories all the time where they will give a month or two for the change.