March 2011 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

The factory quoted hp is wrong (happens, trust me). We don't have any IT builds and dyno data to use your version of "what we know."

So, Jeff, lacking confirming dyno info, who are you ("royal you") to say what is accurate and what is not? Which source is "more correct" than others...? It's pretty damn arrogant to think that, lacking further information, you have the ability to correctly "choose" which one you THINK is right, especially if it flies in the faces of official publications...

If you came out and said, "well, we've seen that the car is competitive in ITB as-is, and we believe it would upset our version of competition balance by classifying based on the published factory manual specifications, and thus we are proclaiming a 'what we know' based on observed on-track performance" then you'd have me at "well...". But you're not; you're proclaiming that you - Jeff "you", though I'm assuming the ITAC is on board - have simply decided that you think the FSM is wrong and the parts manuals and Wikipedia are right, with no reasonable supporting information other than "because I'm the mom, that's why".

Respectfully, Jeff: bullshit.

Now, here's what I think may be happening. Yes, the car is competitive on track as-is. And no disrespect to the Blethens, but their success is more based on driving those cars like a raped ape than any kind of really good prep (I wish I had a nickel for each part that's fallen off one of those cars -- VERY BIG WINK!!!). And I'm on record as saying that's one of the cars to have in the class. Given that, I'm guessing the engine was measured in Der Faderland in kW, possible even DIN, and something was lost in the translation to SAE BHP. But I have no evidence to support that theory! I do not place any credence on the parts manual; after all, if it was a kw/DIN measurement, was the error in the original measurement? Or was it in conversion to SAE BHP? If it was a conversion error, why not the same error for both sources, given same source? So absent any supporting evidence (such as a manual from Germany in German that lists the engine's output for the USA car in kw/DIN/SAE) I have no logical support for that thesis! It becomes nothing more than a weakly-supported POOMA.

You've mentioned a couple times that it "has never set in stone how we determine factory hp." Jeff, you are not determining factory horsepower, the factory is! Since your process is based off of manufacturer-stated horsepower number, you have no logical choice in my mind but to accept manufacturer-stated horsepower numbers. You can, in hindsight, adjust the weights based off of subsequent "what you know" to change them, but to pull the responsibility out of thin air to decide what manufacturer-stated horsepower numbers are accurate is just wrong. And, in my mind, doing so degrades your legitimacy.

Your Bentley, when it arrives tomorrow, will likely show 110hp SAE (unless we get lucky and subsequent versions have corrected that info, assuming it needs to be). What you guys do with that info will say a lot about this process... - GA

 

[JeffYoung]

I - and I speaking about me here not the ITAC -- am not going to use a published number that may have changed or be incorrect.

That's all this is. I'm not determining factory hp. I'm looking at conflicting factory information and trying to decide what the hell it means.

Maybe that's arrogant. But it's just flat out stupid to use a number that even the factory later said was wrong but didn't bother to correct in a manual (maybe because 10 years after the car is sold the "correct" stock hp doesn't matter one iota to them?). I'm not saying Audi did that here, but as you said, this isn't just about the Audi. Your rule would require us to use data that is wrong even if later factory information not from the manual exposed the error.

And you are completely wrong on the last part, as to me. It's very simple, for me. I want to know why the factory number changed.

So, Jeff, lacking confirming dyno info, who are you ("royal you") to say what is accurate and what is not? Which source is "more correct" than others...? It's pretty damn arrogant to think that, lacking further information, you have the ability to correctly "choose" which one you THINK is right, especially if it flies in the faces of official publications...

If you came out and said, "well, we've seen that the car is competitive in ITB as-is, and we believe it would upset our version of competition balance by classifying based on the published factory manual specifications, and thus we are proclaiming a 'what we know' based on observed on-track performance" then you'd have me at "well...". But you're not; you're proclaiming that you - Jeff "you", though I'm assuming the ITAC is on board - have simply decided that you think the FSM is wrong and the parts manuals and Wikipedia are right, with no reasonable supporting information other than "because I'm the mom, that's why".

Respectfully, Jeff: bullshit.

Now, here's what I think may be happening. Yes, the car is competitive on track as-is. And no disrespect to the Blethens, but their success is more based on driving those cars like a raped ape than any kind of really good prep (I wish I had a nickel for each part that's fallen off one of those cars -- VERY BIG WINK!!!). And I'm on record as saying that's one of the cars to have in the class. Given that, I'm guessing the engine was measured in Der Faderland in kW, possible even DIN, and something was lost in the translation to SAE BHP. But I have no evidence to support that theory! I do not place any credence on the parts manual; after all, if it was a kw/DIN measurement, was the error in the original measurement? Or was it in conversion to SAE BHP? If it was a conversion error, why not the same error for both sources, given same source? So absent any supporting evidence (such as a manual from Germany in German that lists the engine's output for the USA car in kw/DIN/SAE) I have no logical support for that thesis! It becomes nothing more than a weakly-supported POOMA.

You've mentioned a couple times that it "has never set in stone how we determine factory hp." Jeff, you are not determining factory horsepower, the factory is! Since your process is based off of manufacturer-stated horsepower number, you have no logical choice in my mind but to accept manufacturer-stated horsepower numbers. You can, in hindsight, adjust the weights based off of subsequent "what you know" to change them, but to pull the responsibility out of thin air to decide what manufacturer-stated horsepower numbers are accurate is just wrong. And, in my mind, doing so degrades your legitimacy.

Your Bentley, when it arrives tomorrow, will likely show 110hp SAE (unless we get lucky and subsequent versions have corrected that info, assuming it needs to be). What you guys do with that info will say a lot about this process... - GA

 

[dickita15]

So, Jeff, lacking confirming dyno info, who are you ("royal you") to say what is accurate and what is not? Which source is "more correct" than others...? It's pretty damn arrogant to think that, lacking further information, you have the ability to correctly "choose" which one you THINK is right, especially if it flies in the faces of official publications...

If you came out and said, "well, we've seen that the car is competitive in ITB as-is, and we believe it would upset our version of competition balance by classifying based on the published factory manual specifications, and thus we are proclaiming a 'what we know' based on observed on-track performance" then you'd have me at "well...". But you're not; you're proclaiming that you - Jeff "you", though I'm assuming the ITAC is on board - have simply decided that you think the FSM is wrong and the parts manuals and Wikipedia are right, with no reasonable supporting information other than "because I'm the mom, that's why".

Respectfully, Jeff: bullshit.

Now, here's what I think may be happening. Yes, the car is competitive on track as-is. And no disrespect to the Blethens, but their success is more based on driving those cars like a raped ape than any kind of really good prep (I wish I had a nickel for each part that's fallen off one of those cars -- VERY BIG WINK!!!). And I'm on record as saying that's one of the cars to have in the class. Given that, I'm guessing the engine was measured in Der Faderland in kW, possible even DIN, and something was lost in the translation to SAE BHP. But I have no evidence to support that theory! I do not place any credence on the parts manual; after all, if it was a kw/DIN measurement, was the error in the original measurement? Or was it in conversion to SAE BHP? If it was a conversion error, why not the same error for both sources, given same source? So absent any supporting evidence (such as a manual from Germany in German that lists the engine's output for the USA car in kw/DIN/SAE) I have no logical support for that thesis! It becomes nothing more than a weakly-supported POOMA.

You've mentioned a couple times that it "has never set in stone how we determine factory hp." Jeff, you are not determining factory horsepower, the factory is! Since your process is based off of manufacturer-stated horsepower number, you have no logical choice in my mind but to accept manufacturer-stated horsepower numbers. You can, in hindsight, adjust the weights based off of subsequent "what you know" to change them, but to pull the responsibility out of thin air to decide what manufacturer-stated horsepower numbers are accurate is just wrong. And, in my mind, doing so degrades your legitimacy.

Your Bentley, when it arrives tomorrow, will likely show 110hp SAE (unless we get lucky and subsequent versions have corrected that info, assuming it needs to be). What you guys do with that info will say a lot about this process... - GA

Greg, I have to call bullshit.
There is a reason we have boards and committees instead of spreadsheets. Every one of these people I have met on our various committees is re trying to do what they think is best. There is always going to have to be value judgments made about if data given us is right or wrong and in classes with older cars it is going to be worse. With the development of The Process we have a rule set that is more objective than anything SCCA has ever seen however the first responsibility of the committees in implementing changes is to do no harm. To say that one needs to blindly obey a piece of data because it is printed in the right official document is a bit over the top.

 

[Bill Miller]

I wouldn't get all caught up the ETKA data. I have the older version that Nate references. There's some internal inconsistency in what they list for power. If you go to an '87 Audi GT and look at the engine, it lists p/n 034 100 104 AX as a KX short block making 85 Kw. If you look at the list of engine codes (what Nate posted), it lists it at 88Kw and 115hp. Even that documentation has no internal consistency.

Here's the way I see what happened. You've got some people that believe the motor can make more power because it's a bit of an anomaly (I5). They find 1 or 2 references that list a higher stock hp # than is published in several other places (factory service manual, owners manual, sales brochure, etc.) and latch onto that as justification as to why the weight should be higher.

The bottom line is that no one knows what a brand new KX engine makes. I doubt anyone knows what any engine makes, exactly, w/o a dyno run. And just because one example makes xxx hp doesn't mean that another example will make exactly the same hp.

Take a page out of SRF history. Enterprises dynos those motors to get w/in 2-3 hp. Even spec motors, that are supposed to be the same, don't make exactly the same power. That's why you had stories of folks w/ lots of money buying multiple engines and testing for which ones made the most power. These are sealed engines, that are supposed to be the same. That's just the kind of variation you're dealing with. And those aren't big-power motors either, they're essentially in that same 100hp +/- range that most of the ITB motors are in. And again, they're supposed to be spec motors.

To think that just because the factory says that the 2.0 SOHC FI motor in the Borgwart GTR makes 115hp, that every single one of those motors is going to make exactly 115hp is not a very informed position.

The problem lies, in that in lower output cars (like B and C cars), small changes in hp lead to a significant change in weight. For example, an ITB car (no adders) that makes 100hp, weighs 2125#. If that same car makes 105hp, it weighs 2230#. So, in ITB, every 5hp is worth ~105# (in ITC, it's ~120#). That gets to be a real issue when you've got conflict information.

I think as long as you're going to use published hp as the basis of setting the weight, you've got to take the value that seems to be the most consistent (in other words, appears in the most places). Hopefully that variation should normalize out w/ a proper IT build. However, you will have cases where it's flat out understated across the board (or you make more than 25% gain w/ an IT build). That's the point where "what do we know" takes over and you use PCA's. This is the position I advocated from 10 years ago when we first started talking about this. Develop a model, apply it, and if you can justify and document why you have a variance, make an adjustment for that specific entry. In 10 years, nothing that's transpired or been discussed, has changed my feeling on that.

So, to sum it up, if you're going to use published hp as the basis for classification, use the most frequently occurring value. If there's no clear value, do a weighted average on the values you have, and use that (but document what you did). If it turns out an adjustment should be made, document it, and make it. The tools are there.

 

[Eagle7]

Marty, it's not that cut and dried.

And most ITAC members are prepared for calls.

But it's impossible to be fully educated on every car and issue that comes up for a vote, and to have read every scrap of information on it. Sometimes we have to rely on others to do the homework for us. That part of the system I think works well.

I'm not suggesting that you read every scrap of information, nor that each of you dig up your information independently. What I AM suggesting is that if evidence is worth voting on, then it should be officially recorded in "the file", and you should read that info in "the file" before you vote. This "Joe told me he read someplace that stock is 120 hp" is BS. If you can't get to that level of repeatability and transparency then I don't want you using subjectivity at all. Just run every car using a rigid formula.

 

[JeffYoung]

That's just not possible with the volume of requests we have, the number of different cars involved and and the variety of documentation in question.

I'm telling you this as someone who spends a fair amount of time on ITAC matters in a month. Not as much as Jake or Andy did before, or Josh now.

For this system to work we have to be able to rely on -- question and debate sure, but rely on -- the research done by others.

I'm not suggesting that you read every scrap of information, nor that each of you dig up your information independently. What I AM suggesting is that if evidence is worth voting on, then it should be officially recorded in "the file", and you should read that info in "the file" before you vote. This "Joe told me he read someplace that stock is 120 hp" is BS. If you can't get to that level of repeatability and transparency then I don't want you using subjectivity at all. Just run every car using a rigid formula.

 

[Greg Amy]

Dick's "I call bullshit" noted; I admit am starting to feel a bit melodramatic (and Don Quixote) about this...

I want to know why the factory number changed.

It hasn't. The FSM has always said it was 110hp SAE.

Allow my poor allusion: Counselor, when you're questioning the opposing witness, you do your best to call to character that person. If that person's character/believability is questionable, it calls to question their testimony.

That's all I'm saying the ETKA/Internet is: testimony of questionable character.

The sole source of unquestionable testimony of that highest character is the factory service manual. That's our "expert witness", what we use as the arbiter of official resource, in scrutineering and in competition. Unless proven wrong by opposing testimony of comparable character, that's the one that a jury will believe.

You are certainly correct in calling that character into question, but you need something of comparable character in which to do it.

A pirated parts manual and Wikipedia is not of comparable character.

I'm going to grab a beer, head to the garage, and build an engine. A B18C1, not a KX.

GA

 

[Eagle7]

That's just not possible with the volume of requests we have, the number of different cars involved and and the variety of documentation in question.

I'm telling you this as someone who spends a fair amount of time on ITAC matters in a month. Not as much as Jake or Andy did before, or Josh now.

For this system to work we have to be able to rely on -- question and debate sure, but rely on -- the research done by others.

When "Joe" does the research that you rely on, why does he not record it in "the file"? Doesn't seem like too much of a burden to me. He either has an electronic document, or can grab a screen shot, or scan an image. Do I remember correctly that you are a lawyer, Jeff? These practices should be raising all kinds of red flags in your mind (hearsay evidence?). [Edit - I see Greg beat me to the punch on the legal analogy.]

I think you are saying that this research done by others causes the weight of a car to be set at a value that deviates from the "formula", but is never officially recorded. Then when questions come up about how the weight was set, you're in a "I think" or "I remember" or "I don't remember" situation. There's no institutional memory of how you arrived at your conclusion. If that is true it is total BS, and does not meet my expectations.

 

[JeffYoung]

I've told you before our documentation efforts need to be improved. Some things we have documentation for, others we could do much better.

You guys really need to stop with the "total BS" stuff. You have a group of volunteers spending collectively 50-60 or more hours a month of their own time trying to get this right. We don't do this for money or glory, mostly we do it so we don't get bitched at too much on the internet.

As Dick said, I've not met a single person on the ITAC who hasn't tried to get this right.

On your side, you could work on your manner and method of criticism. I get -- and did from my first response to you -- that we can improve our documentation efforts. To be told that my volunteer work on your behalf is total BS is a but much, no?

 

[JeffYoung]

Certainly different sources of information will be given greater weight and certainly the factory shop manual is one of the best such sources. I'm not sure where I said anything different.

We agree on that.

Where we don't agree is that is not the end of it. If someone can show the factory manual is not right -- and that is a distinct possibility for this era of car -- we look at other stuff, weight its "credibility" and make a decision. Or at least I do.

Oh yes. One thing for the internet attorneys. Actually, no, evidence of character is not admissible in most cases (Fed. R. Evidence 608)

Dick's "I call bullshit" noted; I admit am starting to feel a bit melodramatic (and Don Quixote) about this...


It hasn't. The FSM has always said it was 110hp SAE.

Allow my poor allusion: Counselor, when you're questioning the opposing witness, you do your best to call to character that person. If that person's character/believability is questionable, it calls to question their testimony.

That's all I'm saying the ETKA/Internet is: testimony of questionable character.

The sole source of unquestionable testimony of that highest character is the factory service manual. That's our "expert witness", what we use as the arbiter of official resource, in scrutineering and in competition. Unless proven wrong by opposing testimony of comparable character, that's the one that a jury will believe.

You are certainly correct in calling that character into question, but you need something of comparable character in which to do it.

A pirated parts manual and Wikipedia is not of comparable character.

I'm going to grab a beer, head to the garage, and build an engine. A B18C1, not a KX.

GA

 

[Gary L]

Nat,

I went back to an older E*K* and found your numbers. Both versions agree on 88KW. The conversion to HP is what is confusing. See the attached. It appears that 118 US HP and 120 Metric HP are close.

DZ

Actually, the conversion factors are pretty straightforward:

kW x 1.341 = SAE HP
kW x 1.360 = DIN net HP
DIN HP x .986 = SAE net HP
SAE HP x 1.014 = DIN HP

Those numbers are rounded to 3 decimal points to save typing, but the important thing is that you consistently see these same relationships, regardless of where you source the conversion... there should be no gray area here.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually, the conversion factors are pretty straightforward:

kW x 1.341 = SAE HP
kW x 1.360 = DIN net HP
DIN HP x .986 = SAE net HP
SAE HP x 1.014 = DIN HP

Those numbers are rounded to 3 decimal points to save typing, but the important thing is that you consistently see these same relationships, regardless of where you source the conversion... there should be no gray area here.

So we now have 110, 115, 118 and 120hp.

Nice.

 

[lateapex911]

Jeff, if I were on the ITAC, this is how I'd handle it..if I were king.
1-Factory documentation (Which is the Bentley, in this case) determines power. That is 110 in all cases/copies we've seen, IIRC.
2- To change that, somebody needs to make a case that that number isn't representative of:
A- What a stock version makes,* or
B- An IT prepped car makes more, or less than 25% more than that factory number. (What we know)

Once the person presents the case and submits evidence, the committee votes their confidence. This should be recorded per person, and the math done.

In this case, if what Mr Miller says is true, that there are internal inconsistencies in the ETKA, then the confidence votes should be low, and the case should not achieve the required minimum confidence level.

If you find, in your research, that there is consistency in the parts related to the serial number and engine codes that the ETKA higher HP numbers are due to changed actual hard parts in the car (a cam?) then that could explain the ETKAs inconsistencies. Then you will need to decide on whether to split the listing, or you use the higher number for all years.

Now if you determine the hard parts used that result in an increased power listing are something like the downpipe, then you use the lower number as exhaust is free in IT. (See Miata case for precedence and the ops manual which explains the standard procedure)

I would not let any preconceived thoughts enter my mind.
If somebody says, "Yea, but, that car goes like stink, it must have more power, we should just use the larger number, it's pretty legit". stop them.
IF they are saying the car is too fast for that power level, then it is up to them to provide, and prove a case to the proper level of confidence.
The key here is to stick with the proper procedure.

As a case in point, the RX8 was listed at, over the years, various ratings. The committee couldn't ignore the numbers, even though we 'knew' they were wrong, and sought to disprove them. In the end, we got several dyno sheets within 1% of each other from independent sources of engines built to the IT type ruleset.

 

[Eagle7]

I've told you before our documentation efforts need to be improved. Some things we have documentation for, others we could do much better.

You guys really need to stop with the "total BS" stuff. You have a group of volunteers spending collectively 50-60 or more hours a month of their own time trying to get this right. We don't do this for money or glory, mostly we do it so we don't get bitched at too much on the internet.

As Dick said, I've not met a single person on the ITAC who hasn't tried to get this right.

On your side, you could work on your manner and method of criticism. I get -- and did from my first response to you -- that we can improve our documentation efforts. To be told that my volunteer work on your behalf is total BS is a but much, no?

Point taken. I'm sorry that I expressed that in a way that you took personally. I have a great deal of appreciation for those that serve on these committees (especially you, Jeff, who have been so open with us on the board), and the last thing I want to do is to discourage one of y'all.

What got me going was a sudden realization that one of my "first principles" (hope I'm not murdering the appropriate use of that term) is in jeopardy. When "the process" was explained a couple years ago, one of the foundational principles was the objective and careful documentation of evidence. Without that I don't thing "the process" can ever succeed. I suggest that if you don't have time to record your evidence prior to voting then you should reduce the scope of your work so that you can get that done. It's more important to do it right than to do it quickly.

 

[JeffYoung]

Thanks, I appreciate it, and I agree with all of the below.

I think the weak link right now is precisely what you indicate. We still need to document better. We record votes and "confidence levels," but we really need to put the evidence we collect in storage somewhere.

Point taken on that.

Also, you are right. Better to slow down and get it right.

Point taken on that as well.

I do appreciate your input.

Thanks Marty.

Jeff

Point taken. I'm sorry that I expressed that in a way that you took personally. I have a great deal of appreciation for those that serve on these committees (especially you, Jeff, who have been so open with us on the board), and the last thing I want to do is to discourage one of y'all.

What got me going was a sudden realization that one of my "first principles" (hope I'm not murdering the appropriate use of that term) is in jeopardy. When "the process" was explained a couple years ago, one of the foundational principles was the objective and careful documentation of evidence. Without that I don't thing "the process" can ever succeed. I suggest that if you don't have time to record your evidence prior to voting then you should reduce the scope of your work so that you can get that done. It's more important to do it right than to do it quickly.

 

[JLawton]

I think you guys are being a "little" tough on Jeff (and the ITAC in general). He is trying to do the right thing and putting money and time into it to try and make the best informed decision. Not only did he buy his own Audi manual but he also signed up on one of the Audi boards to try and get the right information.

If you guys think we're (they) going to come up with the perfect process, you need to put your crack down and come back to reality.

Who here thinks the process now is better than the one ten years ago? If you didn't raise your hand it's because you weren't around ten years ago in IT. It's amazing how we were all happy and ignorant back then.........

And I know no one wants to believe this but driver skill and prep level have a LOT more to do with competativeness than 100 extra pounds. (I know, EVERYONE thinks they are THE one where 100lbs will make a difference over their skill or prep level........... Now I'M the one calling bullshit!!)

Chill out!


.

 

[Knestis]

...Who here thinks the process now is better than the one ten years ago? ...

I couldn't agree more with everything you've said, Jeff (L). However, with publication of the ITAC operations, it's super-important that the membership be confident that they are followed. That's the nature of raising the bar - it gets increasingly harder to clear it.

One common argument for NOT putting the Process out to the membership was that every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the Club would question each decision, and the ITAC would be deluged with Monday morning quarterbacking and arguing about minutiae of specifications.

The solution to that is to scrupulously follow the defined practices. It's really unfortunate, how the Audi spec and the Ops manual hit the air at the same time but the Coupe weight can't help but smell a little like decision-driven data making. I deal all the time with people who will look past 20 pieces of evidence that say "X," but latch onto the one that says "Not X" because it's consistent with their desired outcome. The "120" stock figure looks like a case of this.

Someone will ALWAYS argue about any given outcome but we're not really doing a better job if the processes that produce it are impeachable. As the first one out of the box under the new regime, and an example from the recent past of how NOT to do it, the Coupe really must be done by the book and documented in a way that can be clearly explicated to the naysayers.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

I can't remember which thread this needs to go in, but the manual has arrived.

85-87 KX motor is listed as 110 BHP (SAE Net).

Who wants a brand spanking new Audi 4000/Coupe 84-87 manual?

 

[Greg Amy]

John, you need to keep an extra laying around...lowball him, I bet he takes it.

And if you only want one, buy his nice one and I'll buy yours from you, throw it on my shelf.

 

[JeffYoung]

Seriousy guys, no charge -- I'll donate it to whoever needs it most.