Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

Bill Miller said:
Gary,

I didn't see this for the KX engine. I saw 3 listings in those screen captures, all of which listed 88KW and 120hp. What I found interesting, was that none of those motors was listed as a "USA" model. One is listed as a "CDN" model, one is listed as an "SA" model, and the third has no comment. I'm not sure you can concluded that this means all other or not, or that it is the "USA" model. Several other entries have "USA" in the comments.
Click to expand...

What I meant when I said "one each" was that there were two different screens linked, and those two contained conflicting information... one says 88 KW and 115 hp, the other says 88 KW and 120 hp, both for the KX engine installed in an Audi Coupe.

Meanwhile, I think the lack of an entry in the remarks column (e.g. "USA", "SA", CDN, etc) would mean... "all markets". In other words, "USA" in that column means... "USA only". Just an opinion, of course.
 
JoshS said:
It never was a secret. Go back and re-read the whole thread that I linked to yesterday.
Click to expand...

Sorry Josh... That is complete BS... It took months if not longer for a competitor to provide this information. The ITAC members (to many to list) fed lines of BS excuses for months and our CRB liason Bob Dowie flat out lied about the entire situation.


JoshS said:
As someone now uninvolved, I'd advise you -- let it go. It's done. Go drive. Drive harder. Drive some more. Race. Have fun. Have more fun. Show your competitors that it doesn't matter, go win despite those know-nothings on the ITAC.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this but I also support John or anyone else with any car not classed right.

This particular shit storm has dragged on because in the beginning the 120hp was NEVER mentioned. I still feel this is just the strongest argument that has been discovered AFTER the original lies and it has dragged on Sooooo long that current members of the ITAC have nothing else to believe and the CRB is so old they have CRS.

Current and past members... PLEASE don't deny this was handled poorly by the ITAC and the CRB and stop making excuses or defending yourselves. Simply state real facts now and in the future. You are comfortable classifying the car as is despite the high probability that accurate documentation is not available (for any hp rating discussed) and accurate information was probably not used. If you really feel a 2 - 4% (50 or 100lbs) makes a huge difference on your performance run light in practice and see how much faster you really are. If you were faster, drive the same. It doesn't make a second a lap difference.

I have tried to make my arguments about maintaining a fare process for all cars. I hope the Audi has improved the process for others. I really don't want to make posts but when I notice flat out BS or lies I am going to call you on it.

Raymond
 
Last edited:
* No one lied about this situation.
* Folks have always tried to do what they thought right.
* You need to settle down.
 
Jeff, Chip and other ITAC members and fellow SCCA members,

My plan is to compile my collection of Audi documents, all stating 110 HP. I would like to digital copies..(as long as my wife helps me with the scanner) and submit to the ITAC and CRB for another review of the car.

I also will compile a list of the earlier Audi Coupes and their motor HP's. Hopefully I can get this onto a spreadsheet . And submit those as well.

I feel I have enough documentation to prove that the original info used to classify the Audi is inaccurate , hence my intention to push forward on this issue and my hope is to have the Audi "line(s)" corrected .
 
I'll reiterate that the issue might be more complex than documenting instances where evidence shows 110. Since at least SOME documentation shows more power, you've got to illustrate what's explains that difference.

K
 
John, I appreciate your efforts on this and by all means submit that information.

The thing is though that we have seen it all. I believe Stephen B. offered the only plausible explanation for the 120 hp figure (it involved the use of an exhaust downpipe that did not come on the car) on the EKTA microfiche. That's really what you need.

You don't need to convince me. I think the car's stock hp number is 110 hp. Others on the CRB beleive it was higher. It's the explanation that matters; this is not a simple 4 sources v. 1 source type deal.

Thanks again for the effort.
 
Thanks Jeff,

So my question is this.. how should I proceed with this ? ( I will still document the Audi motors and the such with the information I have.)

My (simplistic) view on this is to come up with enough Factory sources to overcome the ETKA's validity...which is poor at best now.

If I need to explain why there is a difference in ETKA numbers, how would that be possible ? Who would I contact in this matter ?
 
Last edited:
Rabbit05 said:
If I need to explain why there is a difference in ETKA numbers, how would that be possible ?
Click to expand...

Call or write the Audi museum. You might get lucky and get in contact with a closet Coupe enthusiast who will bend over backwards to assist you. See if the Audi Coupe Enthusiasts have documentation as to the difference.
 
John, multiple suggestions have already been made. Find out what the 120 number means and how it is derived. If that means reaching out to Audi in Germany, people have provided you a resource who I'm sure would be willing to help with any translations. Make friends with Audi an dealership(s), find a way to see this microfiche yourself. You need to figure out what that number truly represents, and prove it to be incorrect.
 
John,

My bud that worked for Audi is just VW now and no longer has access to Audi, just VW. I will talk to raymond calmly and we can send out a mass e-mail to some of our old friends that may be able to help. Since this wasn't the original reason for the weight of the car we didn't pursue all avenues as you are now. This 120hp starting point reason came out several YEARS after our original request. We did look at this briefly and I think you will find it is the manifold/header design. We basically chalked it up that we couldn't do anything about that and took the loss and moved on. Afterall this is for fun! I hope that at least gives you a good starting point on what you may be looking for in those files, now we just need to figure out how to get copies of it! I would set up an account on Audiclub and see if you can find someone on that site, I can't imagine you couldn't find at least one person on that site that work for audi.

Stephen

PS: I will try and keep Raymond calm. I think the thing that bothers him is that this 120hp reason came out years after the other reasons. Remember the chain of events that happened. First reason was for our performance at the ARRC. Second reason given was for the increased tourque a 5cyl makes. Third reason was because of the rules in the GCR not allowing any weight adjustments after a car is listed for 5 years, then a year or so later it was made known that they were using a non public starting HP rating.
 
Hey Stephen,
Yeah I haven't put the word out yet on any of the Audi forums I frequent as of yet. I think this will definitely need to be someone within Audi to try and figure this out.

I do, however , have an appointment to talk to someone from Audi USA this afternoon . I just need the VIN off the car and some of my paperwork at the house.( i'm at work now)

I have not been able to find a contact to the curator to the Audi museum in Germany ,although I do think that will be a dead end . As I already have documents, artilces, ect. from that time period.

I totally agree with you that the header makes the difference in HP.(4000 exhaust in comparison to the CGT exhaust) And I know of all the excuses that came out , and the premise of "just leave it alone" , bothers me.


And I agree this is totally for fun...it's a great hobby and fun to do. At the end of the day we are all racing for a $300 - $400 mug/trophy/bragging rights :D .


Ill keep plugging away ....:024:

....any help from you and Ray would be awesome !
 
StephenB said:
... PS: I will try and keep Raymond calm. I think the thing that bothers him is that this 120hp reason came out years after the other reasons. Remember the chain of events that happened. First reason was for our performance at the ARRC. Second reason was for our performance at the ARRC. Third reason was was our performance at the ARRC, then a year or so later it was our performance at the ARRC.
Click to expand...

As the cool kids say, "FTFY." And remember that your argument is pretty much completely with the CRB - or key members thereof - and not the ITAC, past or present.

K
 
Knestis said:
As the cool kids say, "FTFY." And remember that your argument is pretty much completely with the CRB - or key members thereof - and not the ITAC, past or present.

K
Click to expand...

Why is the CRB so concerned about a single team's performance in ITB at a single race? Doesn't the CRB have a few folks in some obscure Production class to dicker with? Flattered and a bit scairt that IT means so much to the CRB, I mean, IT doesn't matter in the SCCA except for participation numbers and paying bills for a race weekend.
 
One of my ah-ha moments during the early days of the ITAC blow-up a couple years back - based completely on my inferences, mind you - was that the CRB didn't really act as a body on recommendations for categories. They appear to lean heavily on key members who "know the category." The net result is that a single member can steer a decision a particular way.

We also (at the time, it's SUPPOSED to be better now) had some "gatekeeper" stuff going on in communication between the ITAC and the CRB. The Board didn't always get everything we sent up, and/or not always in precisely the form we intended. That influences how recommendations are received.

My big gripe, and a key reason I left the position, was that the CRB wouldn't even act on some recommendations. They'd send things back and tell us to "sharpen our pencils" or "give it another look," sometimes with specific explanation of what they might do and sometimes without.

K
 
Rabbit05 said:
Thanks Jeff,

So my question is this.. how should I proceed with this ? ( I will still document the Audi motors and the such with the information I have.)

My (simplistic) view on this is to come up with enough Factory sources to overcome the ETKA's validity...which is poor at best now.

If I need to explain why there is a difference in ETKA numbers, how would that be possible ? Who would I contact in this matter ?
Click to expand...


I don't know on the last point.

But I'll give you an example. One of the things we heard a lot of during the MR2 discussions was that this was a "Formula Atlantic" motor that would respond well to gains. To rebut that, the MR2 crowd submitted pretty detailed technical documentation showing the flow issues with the head. Coupled with dyno sheets, that was pretty convincing.

You need something similar. Best case would be someone at Audi could actually explain why EKTA went from 110 to 120. If it is the Quattro downpipe as Stephen thinks, then this is easy: that's "free" under the IT rules and we use the 110 as the stock hp number.

Good luck with it and let us know what you find out.
 
FWIW the first gen of the 5cyl engine was based upon the 1.7 4cyl. 38mm intake valves, small cam, low compression.
My Fact shop manual has all the intake valves @ 38mm. No w ay it made 120hp.
My math shows 125% of 88.

Idont have any specs post 86, or HP 4x4 Quatro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top