Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

JeffYoung said:
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.
Click to expand...


So why are they allowed to hold up unsubstantiated information, or not have to explain/justify why their number is valid, and one that shows up in a lot more official places isn't?

That's the real issue Jeff. And reading Kirk's last post is pretty disconcerting.
 
Bill Miller said:
So why are they allowed to hold up unsubstantiated information, or not have to explain/justify why their number is valid, and one that shows up in a lot more official places isn't?

That's the real issue Jeff. And reading Kirk's last post is pretty disconcerting.
Click to expand...

Alright, fine, lifting my embargo on this thread.

This was NOT a CRB vote that overrode an ITAC vote. It was the ITAC that recommended the weight based on 120hp, and the CRB accepted the recommendation.

And I personally voted for making that recommendation. I have explained my thought process several times, John (and Bill), in this thread and the previous one back when the weight was changed. I can't speak for the others that voted for it.
 
JoshS said:
Alright, fine, lifting my embargo on this thread.

This was NOT a CRB vote that overrode an ITAC vote. It was the ITAC that recommended the weight based on 120hp, and the CRB accepted the recommendation.

And I personally voted for making that recommendation. I have explained my thought process several times, John (and Bill), in this thread and the previous one back when the weight was changed. I can't speak for the others that voted for it.
Click to expand...

Huh!!
 
JoshS said:
Alright, fine, lifting my embargo on this thread.

This was NOT a CRB vote that overrode an ITAC vote. It was the ITAC that recommended the weight based on 120hp, and the CRB accepted the recommendation.

And I personally voted for making that recommendation. I have explained my thought process several times, John (and Bill), in this thread and the previous one back when the weight was changed. I can't speak for the others that voted for it.
Click to expand...

But that was the LAST recommendation to the CRB re: the Coupe. I'm pretty sure that we made an earlier recommendation, based on the lower stock power figure, that led to the gears of the Process getting busted prior to my quitting.

In fact, it was that very situation - the CRB not making an up-or-down vote on a recommendation because we were "blindly adhering to a formula" or some such - that pushed me to my "contact your board member" post here. That in turn resulted in the gag order, which tipped me completely over the edge.

I've still got email exchanges somewhere with Jim Drago about that exact topic...

My recollection - without digging into the archives - is that the 120hp solution was a later and more palatable answer, so it got approved. That's how the Board liked the system to work, so they didn't HAVE to vote to override the ad hoc.

K
 
JoshS said:
Alright, fine, lifting my embargo on this thread.

This was NOT a CRB vote that overrode an ITAC vote. It was the ITAC that recommended the weight based on 120hp, and the CRB accepted the recommendation.

And I personally voted for making that recommendation. I have explained my thought process several times, John (and Bill), in this thread and the previous one back when the weight was changed. I can't speak for the others that voted for it.
Click to expand...

Well Josh, that question was directed at Jeff, since he made the comment. Nice of you to not only speak for him, but throw him under the bus as well. Also, this issue isn't just about the Audi, it's also about the A1 and A2 VW's. After all this time, I sill haven't gotten a straight answer as to why the A1 GTI (and more recently the Scirocco II 1.8 8v) are saddled w/ a weight that corresponds to an ~38% power factor.

A while back, the response was that a former ITAC member "had seen ones that put down 100whp". Even if that were true, that math doesn't get you to the current weight. As I've said before, that car (A1 Rabbit GTI) was one of the first cars that was adjusted (I guess it's 5 or 6 years ago by now). The process hadn't been fully formalized at that time, but still, no one could come up w/ any math that got those cars to that weight. The one comment I got from someone on the ITAC at the time (I wish I could remember who said it), was that no car was going to loose more than 100#. Coincidentally, the Rabbit GTI weight went down by 100#.

And no disrespect to Raymond, Stephen, John, and anyone else that's raced an Audi GT, but there have been a lot more Rabbit GTI's on the track. I'm guessing the main reasons why the Audi has gotten more play here, is two-fold. A) Raymond and Stephen are active and vocal members of this community, and B) the Audi was the first case that came to light where a decision was made based on the performance at 1 race.
 
Bill Miller said:
Well Josh, that question was directed at Jeff, since he made the comment. Nice of you to not only speak for him, but throw him under the bus as well.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Jeff, if I did that. Not only did I not mean to, I don't even see where I did that.
 
Knestis said:
But that was the LAST recommendation to the CRB re: the Coupe. I'm pretty sure that we made an earlier recommendation, based on the lower stock power figure, that led to the gears of the Process getting busted prior to my quitting.
Click to expand...

My memory is fuzzy about that, but it's certainly possible that that's how it went down. I recall the last discussion pretty well, but not the earlier one.
 
Yes Kirk is right. That was a year our so later than the first THREE reasons. No reason to dig it all up, let's move on since all that is in the past and John wants a better future!

Bill I do agree with you and also an even bigger problem than that IMHO. I think a lot of the cars listed in the 2000 and earlier GCR are now out classed. HOWEVER, the new ITB is pretty well classed and has some awesome racing! I still think it is the coolest, closest, and best amateur class in the country!

Stephen
 
Bill Miller said:
So why are they allowed to hold up unsubstantiated information, or not have to explain/justify why their number is valid, and one that shows up in a lot more official places isn't?

That's the real issue Jeff. And reading Kirk's last post is pretty disconcerting.
Click to expand...

Because there is some value -- and I fully agree with this -- in not making changes willy nilly without a reason for them.

Look, it's a fact that some guys on the CRB would attribute more weight to on track performance than the ITAC, or the Process, would allow. That just "is." It isn't morally wrong or something, it's just a different view on classing. I don't agree with it, but I do so respectfully because that position doesn't come from some desire to fark up the class, or to protect a self interest. As far as I can tell, it comes from a desire to keep ITB as competitive as possible.

So with the Audi, you had a mathematical process that would have resulted in a huge weight drop on a car that already appeared to be competitive at its "old formula" weight.

I voted for and advocated the new weight.

However, it is the CRB's job to ask us why we are doing what we are doing, and to point out information about the car (the EKTA microfiche) that we didn't have. WE on the ITAC couldn't satisfy them that the 110 was right because we had no explanation for the 120 which didn't come from a Car & Driver article, or a printed shop manual but from an internal Audi document that looked pretty damn official.
 
I don't think this Audi Coupe was ever available to the US market. The only Audi Coupe Quattro available in the states came with a MC1 engine (turbo) .

The link you have there , looks to be , from the numbers, to be Euro motors only.

Jeff ,
Since you have an Audi Manual , and I considered non biased in this issue ,do you mind if I ask you to check or reaffirm some references to the Audi manual ?

If yes thank you in advance. :)

There is exhaust header difference. The illustration begins on page 26.4 of the Audi Manual. The first illustration being used on Quattro models. The second illustration is on page 26.6 ,this shows the Coupe GT exhaust manifold .
 
That is correct. The illustration for the Quattro shows a 4-2-1 with the "2" being a downpipe before the cat.

On page 26.6, the illustration shows a 4 into 1 for the Coupe GT with "1" being the downpipe.

Clearly different pieces. Cat appears very different too.
 
Mine book does not show a 40 mm intake valve.

The KX is as such : Intake 38 mm and Exhaust is 33 mm.


Iirc...the 40 mm intake valve is on the NG motor. But that is going by memory.
 
JeffYoung said:
That is correct. The illustration for the Quattro shows a 4-2-1 with the "2" being a downpipe before the cat.

On page 26.6, the illustration shows a 4 into 1 for the Coupe GT with "1" being the downpipe.

Clearly different pieces. Cat appears very different too.
Click to expand...


How do you get a 4-2-1 out of a 5-cyl motor?

Just busting your chops Jeff. :023:
 
No, that's a damn good point and I looked at it too quickly.

The Quattro downpipe is actually THREE tubes, not two. The Coupe GT is just one. So the Quattro exhaust manifold's five ports go 1/1/1/1/1 to 2/2/1 to 1.

The Coupe GT goes 1/1/1/1/1 to 1. Very different design.

I did not see valve sizes on a quick search.
 
Ha I missed that too in Jeff's post ! ...The good one to have in the Audi world is the 4000q exhaust manifold...it is 5-3-1....vs the crappy Coupe GT one.

In other news , here is the response from Audi USA about the Coupe GT hp . I had to use the VIN number off of my Audi so the customer rep could look up the cars specs as it left the factory.

Reference # 120672226

Dear Mr. VanDenburgh:

Thank you again for contacting Audi of America regarding the horsepower for your 1985 Audi Coupe GT. Please accept this written response.

Upon research I have found that your specific vehicle has a 2.2 Liter engine which has 110 hp. This specific engine was available for all model years you requested (1985, 1986, and 1987.) With that being said, the horsepower could vary from model year based on the size of the engine. I do hope this information has been helpful to you.

Thank you for the opportunity to assist you, Mr. VanDenburgh. If you require further assistance, feel free to contact me at the Audi Customer Experience Center at (877) 615-2834; my extension is 43192. We are available Monday- Sunday, 8am-11pm; Eastern Standard Time. If I am unavailable at the time of you call, simply provide the reference number at the top of this email and any of my associates will be more than happy to assist you.

Sincerely,



Shelby Meyers
Audi Customer Advocate


Straight from Audi USA ...using 2012 information.....:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top