March 2011 Fastrack

JoshS said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, it appears in the same source as the same number over time as well. Ignoring "all over the place", because that's not relevant, right?

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.
Click to expand...
Agreed, something has changed. But, if the ETKA has, as reported, DIFFERENT power numbers but the SAME base number in the SAME revision...doesn't that strike you as an error? And if there's one error, then I think I'd want to KNOW and understand WHY the numbers changed. Again, if it changed because the downpipe changed, then using the higher number is unfair, as precedents and the op manual require the lower number be used.

tnord said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I think there IS something to prove...you're accepting one over the other. Why? One is consistent, the other seems to give multiple choices. Which are you choosing and WHY?
Hey, maybe it' is a trigger that results in some more research, and the research shows a different head. Or a throttle body or cam, or who knows what, but BAM, you now have the reason. Great. But without finding WHY the numbers vary, it's basically 'picking" one because you 'feel' a certain way.

And if that's the case, fine, but it needs to be codified so when this situation arises again, the course is clear and cars are classed consistently.
 
This thread is definitely drama llama approved.

Anyone that says the ITAC is playing games or hiding things needs to STFU. You may not agree with what they decide, but they are definitely trying to do what they think is right. Kudos to Jeff, Josh, and Travis for putting up with the crap in this thread.
 
So if my math is correct on my 84 Scirocco...

90*1.25*17*.98 = 1,874.25 rounded to 1875... ...down 255 from 2,130?

I would have to fill the tires with helium and install a remote control system to remove driver ballast in order to even come close to the minimum.
 
Greg Amy said:
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
Click to expand...

that's right, nobody has anything to prove beyond doubt one way or the other which number is correct. or they could ALL be correct at a point in time.

and please, go find whatever crap from russia you want on the miata. there's plenty of documentation laying out what happened, or if you don't believe that, you can call Tim Buck at Mazda yourself. or, unlike our "super-developed-Audi" friends who have never been on a dyno, there's plenty of data to support the current classification menthod. as much as you want them to be similar situations, they're not.
 
Hoof Hearted said:
So if my math is correct on my 84 Scirocco...

90*1.25*17*.98 = 1,874.25 rounded to 1875... ...down 255 from 2,130?

I would have to fill the tires with helium and install a remote control system to remove driver ballast in order to even come close to the minimum.
Click to expand...
90? Sounds like an ITC car...
 
lateapex911 said:
No, I think there IS something to prove...you're accepting one over the other. Why? One is consistent, the other seems to give multiple choices. Which are you choosing and WHY?
Hey, maybe it' is a trigger that results in some more research, and the research shows a different head. Or a throttle body or cam, or who knows what, but BAM, you now have the reason. Great. But without finding WHY the numbers vary, it's basically 'picking" one because you 'feel' a certain way.

And if that's the case, fine, but it needs to be codified so when this situation arises again, the course is clear and cars are classed consistently.
Click to expand...

i'm not accepting any of the numbers as absolute fact. if raymond "school on sunday" blethen or any other Audi GT driver cares enough to figure it out, i'm perfectly willing to listen. if it really is just a change in the downpipe....you're right...it should be in at 110. but given the fact that this issue has been out there for years and to my knowledge nobody has cared enough to send in any data on the part change or actual dyno data.....i doubt that'll happen.

people who are looking for stability should applaud the application of the 120, as that is the most risk averse path that is least likely to upset the balance of the class while still giving a weight reduction to the audi.
 
tnord said:
t........ as much as you want them to be similar situations, they're not.
Click to expand...

There ARE similarities:
Some early versions have a base number that is lower. Some later revisions of documentation indicate higher numbers.
That data applies to all car that are on one spec line.

IF there is a legit difference, then there is a WHY.
So far, based on the ITAC members personal posts, they feel the number started low, and ended high. That means there was a mechanical change. (or an error in publication) The ops manual lays out how some mech changes result in the use of the lower number, and some in the use of the higher number. Ergo, the onus is on the committee to determine the WHY. THEN the course will be clearly visible.

In the MIatas case it was attributable to changes allowed in IT.

In this case, we don't know.......yet.
 
Travis,
As a SCCA member, could you please send me your information on the 84-87 Audi CGT ?

I have provided visual evidence, pictures... and has been verified from and ITAC member (Jeff) of my 110 HP claim. It is shown in the factory manual I am required to have for SCCA Tech inspection. If Tech says I have to have this book, why is the information in the Factory Manual being ignored ?

And I will not applaud the use of wrong Data to classify a car...doesnt matter what car is at question...

Also is Dyno testing now a requirement for classifing cars ?

-John...the other Audi driver...VanDenburgh
 
tnord said:
unlike our "super-developed-Audi" friends who have never been on a dyno, there's plenty of data to support the current classification menthod. as much as you want them to be similar situations, they're not.
Click to expand...

Travis,

I assume you are talking about me? The one that said I agreed with Josh and Jeff and ACCEPTED the decision.

To clarify I dont think anyone argued the classificatioion method, just the 120HP data point. As Kirk pointed out the ITAC has ruled that te ETKA is a reliable resource (in the minds of the ITAC) that they accept and therfor we need to as well. I am 100% OK with is ruling and decision. It is what it is, and I am THRILLED that I had the opportunity to challenge an ITAC member here and he proved me wrong and stuck to his guns. I LIKE this competency in him and as a committee member I am glad he is representing me as an IT racer.

On another note I don't understand why or how dyno numbers would help you. Just so that you can have a number last time I checked I had 132HP (peek). I hope this helps in your calculations and reasoning.

Stephen


PS: I think if you dig a little you will find some differences in those ETKA files on some replacement part numbers after the 2.3 was introduced in 1987. I do not have access so I cannot do the research.
 
tnord said:
i'm not accepting any of the numbers as absolute fact. if raymond "school on sunday" blethen or any other Audi GT driver cares enough to figure it out, i'm perfectly willing to listen. if it really is just a change in the downpipe....you're right...it should be in at 110. but given the fact that this issue has been out there for years and to my knowledge nobody has cared enough to send in any data on the part change or actual dyno data.....i doubt that'll happen.

people who are looking for stability should applaud the application of the 120, as that is the most risk averse path that is least likely to upset the balance of the class while still giving a weight reduction to the audi.
Click to expand...

Travis,

I 100% agree with your second paragraph!

As far as the first paragraph you need to understand some history on this specific car...
1.) We were told from the CRB that it was specifically NOT being changed because of tourque. no formula numbers, no adders, just that it was correctly classed. NO RESEARCH TO BE DONE on our part. ACCEPT it as we did and move on.
2.) NOW move forward to last week we see a new formula with new data stating that 120HP is being used. This is the FIRST that any of us with coupes found out that this number was beind used in an actual forumla. So naturally we challenged it. (some being more mature than others!)

The fact is the ITAC and/or CRB comunicated to us DIFFERENTLY than in the past. As you see from my post a few minutes ago that I typed (as you typed) I DO THINK parts are different however that information is not available to the public so sadly I will have to rely on the ITAC to do the work to figure out the difference.

Again I don't get why dyno numbers matter. WE just asked for the cars to go through the process. We never argued for a lower multiplier like the MR2 for example.

I hope this makes sense
Stephen
 
Brooke - the A1 ITB cars are definitely getting a larger than 25% adder. They were very choked down on the exhaust side (all had the crappy single outlet manifold), and should see greater gains than the A2 (which had much better flowing dual outlet manifolds stock) - which is processed at 30%.

I would question why your car is heavier than the A1 GTI for sure though. No difference at all, other than outside shape, no 13" wheels and bumper weight.
 
Last edited:
So... how do you figure out or prove if/that the HP rating improvement is due to something open in IT? And, is that "1.8 Miata situation" documented/discussed somewhere here on the forum?
 
shwah said:
Brooke - the A1 ITB cars are definitely getting a larger than 25% adder. They were very choked down on the exhaust side (all had the crappy single outlet manifold), and should see greater gains than the A2 (which had much better flowing dual outlet manifolds stock) - which is processed at 30%.

I would question why your car is heavier than the A1 GTI for sure though. No difference at all, other than outside shape, no 13" wheels and bumper weight.
Click to expand...

Voo-doo math? :shrug: I understand that the 30% is/was only used for multi-valved ITB/ITC cars... ...even using 30% calculates to a "Hydroxycut" of 180 lbs. To come up with the GCR weight of 2130, one would have used a 42% adder...
 
Last edited:
CRallo said:
So... how do you figure out or prove if/that the HP rating improvement is due to something open in IT? And, is that "1.8 Miata situation" documented/discussed somewhere here on the forum?
Click to expand...

You take the time and do the research. And yes, it has been discussed plenty here.
 
Travis-

First sorry you didn't like my request but I don't think it was rude nor do I think it should be commented on here. In short I simply asked the CRB to apply guidlines to the ITAC requiring consistancy thoughtout the classification process. It was sent via a non-public forum so if you would like to discuss it further please send me an e-mail or give me a call (both were provided in my request). Stephen, they are not as dumb so I know that they realize we are two completely different people who look similar despite my extra ballast!

I don't know what an ETKA is or if every car has one... I expect most SCCA members don't. From what I can tell and maybe learned (?) it is private information provided to dealers (not the public) listing car specs and replacement parts. As parts change or get updated specific details such as hp ratings in the ETKA get updated (miata is an example and the Audi could (?) be)...

If this is the case then I do support the ETKA however it raises a HUGE issue. I am now competing with a 110hp baseline motor because I have no access to an ETKA and SCCA has not advised me on what has changed to get that extra 10hp*1.25 (12.5hp) to be competitive.

Also Tech does not always have the accurate information (Shop Manual) needed to advise Stewards in a protest or RFA.

Raymond
 
RSTPerformance said:
(miata is an example and the Audi could (?) be)...
Click to expand...

No it's not. Do you REALLY know what you are arguing about?

Let's keep one guys dream of a heavier Miata seperate from this factory/ETKA debate.

The bottom line is that ANY conflicting data for ANY car should be admitted into evidence for the ITAC to consider...on ANY topic. Then they can sort it out. It's why they make the big bucks.
 
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt said:
No it's not. Do you REALLY know what you are arguing about?
Click to expand...

Nope trying to understand this ETKA thing and how it relates to our class. I did not read up on the Miata thing so if it is not related disregard and if you can help us understand why please do!

No argument on your "bottom line." However I would argue considering something is far different than using something you don't understand (if that is the case).

Raymond
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top