JeffYoung
New member
I'm beginning to realize that is probably correct. This fixing piecemeal is like death by a thousand cuts.
Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin
- Thread starter erlrich
- Start date
I'm beginning to realize that is probably correct. This fixing piecemeal is like death by a thousand cuts.
shwah
New member
I sent a letter to review the A2 4 or 5 years ago. 18 months later it was given no change. I later learned that an 11 pound reduction was recommended....really.
I have been engineering and crewing with Runoffs podium HP, GP and FP cars over the same time that I have been racing my ITB car. The Prod classes were upset with the elimination of GP, but have been similarly or more stable on the rules side over the past 5 years as IT. At least there when something is gotten wrong, they are allowed/willing to fix it.
I have been engineering and crewing with Runoffs podium HP, GP and FP cars over the same time that I have been racing my ITB car. The Prod classes were upset with the elimination of GP, but have been similarly or more stable on the rules side over the past 5 years as IT. At least there when something is gotten wrong, they are allowed/willing to fix it.
JoshS
New member
Andy summarized it well, but let me put my meaning another way.
When you say it has a 38% multiplier, you are basically saying that someone (on the CRB in this case) believes that the car makes 38% more than stock HP in IT trim. But I doubt that's the truth. I suspect it has the weight it has because someone thinks competition will be more even because of that weight, without doing any analysis to determine if the high weight is required because of horsepower or some other factor. If the additional weight above process weight isn't due to expected horsepower, then it's a PCA.
In either case, I'd say the bar has not been met to assess the higher-than-25%-process weight. The process requires a confidence vote on horsepower multiplier, or it requires the explicit assessment of a PCA. And as I said in my first post on this topic, at the time that we got this document approved, I thought that the both the ITAC and the CRB would follow this process.
I really, really appreciate everything that the ITAC does. You guys have been responsive to me, and I have no axe to grind with the current members. I have been laboring over this decision for months. I personally have little interest in just motoring around. I want the opportunity to win. I want the opportunity to go to a championship caliber event and be competitive. To achieve this, I am willing to invest time and money to develop both the car and myself. But, I can’t afford to make this investment in a program that will ultimately still not be competitive. Frankly, I do think I can be a decent driver. I have been on track with some of the faster guys in ITB and have held my own. I have a long way to go as a driver, but I think I have the potential to run up front. The folks I race with keep telling me to sell the VW and buy an “easy button” solution like the Honda Civic or A3 VW. But, after investing way too much money in my current car, the fact is I can’t afford to switch. Moreover, I have grown fond of my good ‘ol Jetta. So, I am trying to judge where I can be MOST competitive using the car I own (i.e., the equipment that I have both already invested in, and that I already have experience prepping and driving). All things considered, I simply believe that the A2 VW has a better chance of being truly competitive in HP. At this point I feel like staying in ITB would be throwing good money after bad. It’s a judgment call, but I think I’m right.
Not stomping off in a snit, just thoughtfully walking away . . .
Not stomping off in a snit, just thoughtfully walking away . . .
Last edited:
Bill Miller
New member
So tell us exactly how it was done Chip. Matching a BS existing weight is still BS. As Josh has pointed out, unless there's an explicit PCA, then it's a 38% multiplier.
First off Jeff, it's not an 'odd ball' car. A2 VW's have been run in ITB for years. Yes, the GTI is the more popular version, but I think that's probably due more to the 'cool' factor than anything else. I've talked to several people, and they think that at equivalent weight, the Jetta is the better option, due to better balance. Problem was, the Jetta carried more weight for years, w/o any justification, which is probably why you didn't see more of them.
And really? Send in dyno sheets, etc. just so they can be shit on by the CRB, AGAIN?
Chip,
Not for nothing, but I've been making essentially those same arguments for years now. And your comment about 'pro' teams, etc. are disingenuous at best. So only the VW 'pro' teams can make more than 25%? Really? Please don't insult Dave's (or anyone else's for that matter) intelligence.
Josh, the problem w/ that is that if it was really a PCA, that would require someone to provide data, and actually put their name on why it was getting a PCA. Nobody wants that kind of notoriety or accountability.
Dave,
Nobody thinks you're stomping off in a snit. Your just one more, in a long line, of VW IT drivers that has gotten the short end of the stick, and has finally had enough.
So there you have it Chip, three ITB VW guys, in one thread, have decided to pack it in w/ IT, and go Prod racing, because they feel the IT system has failed them. Give it a long, objective look, can you blame them?
There's no reason that the CRB shouldn't have to sign their name to a deviation from the process. Don't think for a moment that they wouldn't take you to task if you tried to slide a deviation through on them w/ no supporting evidence or justification.
JeffYoung
New member
Not trying to convince you one way or another...well, slightly....but I'm in a car no one thought could win in ITS, and I've got a bucket of race wins and a regional championship after a ten year development curve for driver and car.
You are in something of an oddball. You may think the move to prod is the easy button because you can change more stuff, but I do think it is a mistake to think that it will fix the perceived competitiveness issues with your car.
EDIT: And yes Bill, dyno sheets always help. They help us make our case. They helped tremendously overcome some perceptions with the MR2 that ultimately did not appear to be based in reality. Right now, there are no real VW experts on the ITAC. If you guys want changes made, take a look at the effort put forth by the MR2 guys. Engineering diagrams, papers, dyno sheets....
Last edited:
Bill Miller
New member
Well there you go Jeff, you've got a VW guy on the CRB. Ask Chris Albin if he's got dyno sheets that show that his ITB A2 Golf got a 30% gain.
And once again, Dave's car is far from an 'oddball'. It's a sedan version instead of a hatchback, but other than that, everything under the bodywork is the same.
shwah
New member
The A2 Golf and Jetta are identical in IT terms. They were one of the cars that the class was targeted to match when the process was created.
Regardless of where any hp information may have come from in the pre Process IT world you cannot expect it to be comparable to any data shared today. All embellishment will be in the opposite direction.
I have two issues. The A2 was not treated fairly by the process, and there are recent additions to the class (which I lobbied for myself) that had significant weight taken off them after they had appeared competitive, even with not fully developed cars.
I am not willing to wait the years it will take to get this sorted out, and don't expect it will, beyond the performance envelope of the class changing away from what it was in recent years. In the long run maybe it is fair somehow. VWs had a good run in B, now the Hondas and Toyotas will. I would not say I am upset at this, just done.
I rolled the extra shell into the shop and started making forms for fenders. I should have molds for Golf and Jetta coupe by summer, and look forward to cleaning up the ratty wiring on my car over the winter.
Regardless of where any hp information may have come from in the pre Process IT world you cannot expect it to be comparable to any data shared today. All embellishment will be in the opposite direction.
I have two issues. The A2 was not treated fairly by the process, and there are recent additions to the class (which I lobbied for myself) that had significant weight taken off them after they had appeared competitive, even with not fully developed cars.
I am not willing to wait the years it will take to get this sorted out, and don't expect it will, beyond the performance envelope of the class changing away from what it was in recent years. In the long run maybe it is fair somehow. VWs had a good run in B, now the Hondas and Toyotas will. I would not say I am upset at this, just done.
I rolled the extra shell into the shop and started making forms for fenders. I should have molds for Golf and Jetta coupe by summer, and look forward to cleaning up the ratty wiring on my car over the winter.
and again, Bill, We're all trying to get things run through the process correctly and honestly, but it would be very helpful to get input from the VW crowd to make the case. You will find nothing but honest brokers on the ITAC. we all get it. we know a weight that is not process derived or derived but without substantiating data we can point to to back it up is not acceptable to the membership. we are working on it. why don't you encourage people to help instead of chastising me and the other people spending their free time trying to help make IT better for everyone?
The CRB is not against us making changes, either, but they do have a few more criteria at times than the process alone. Like it or not, that's their prerogative and hollering at the ITAC cannot and will not fix it. Just being open on this and other fora is something that at times puts us at odds with some members of the SCCA Boards. but we do it because we think this dialog is useful and believe that membership deserves the respect of having it.
further, if breaking a car out of a rut requires data in the minds of a committee or board member, EVEN TO REACH 25%, then, unfortunately, that's the deal. There has not been a change to the A2 recommended, so I can't say that this is one, but having data ALWAYS helps. FWIW, the data I have collected in my research points to a number above 25%, so I'd personally like some more input on it.
Chris, can you state a whp number you think is a fair, real, expectation for the A2? 108, 110, 113, 118? more? less? like I said above, I have JUST STARTED to collect data but I'm seeing numbers over the 111 or so we would expect at 25% gain so despite NOT having the data we should to be able to say "this car should be 30%," I have enough to tell me 25% MIGHT be low. I'm personally trying to find out, but I'd love some help. so far all I've seen and found in the forum is complaints, not even one mention of a peak figure. I'm sympathetic to the complaints - I hate to see people feel their cars were obsoleted overnight by poor rulesmaking. but I think the pictur eis largely a bit different than most of those letters propose.
FWIW, I agree that an A2 as well driven and prepped as yours is reported to be should be a fair match for the hondas and toyotas even as recently reclassified, and to the 2002, A3, and anything else in the ITB listings because they should all be close based on the process. help us get your car right - even if you do decide to leave, it would be appreciated.
gran racing
Super Moderator
I can appreciate this, yet at the same time I much prefer it to be in the open. Several years ago pretty much all ITAC discussion was behind closed doors and a total mystery. At least now we can actually have public conversations and get responses. Even if we don't agree, it's great that this communication happens.
That's something many of us tell ourselves. I know that I said it years ago. Then I kept dumping more and more money, time developing, then more money. Crank scrapers, different headers, exhausts, suspension changes, engine builds, tuning, an so on. It's an emotional decision in the end if you truly plan on building the car to be front running capable in a strong field. There are multiple cars available for sale which would save someone suchs as yourself a TON of money and headaches. Assuming you continue building your car and truly develop it well, in a few years you'll look back shocked with how much money you spent.
As far as recent ongoings, what I find confusing and frustrating is how some of the decisions have waivered. Awesome, the silly ITB multivalve default is gone. It's great we got there yet I don't really get it. The response that I received with my request to have it eliminated was no; it was to remain as a policy. A few months later that somehow is changed? Why wasn't it changed when the previous request was made not long before? To an outsider, some of these changes to and from then back are confusing.
dave, without dredging up conversations from the committee and CRB, this is the result of having the conversaations about some key cars that prove the rule wrong. "get rid of the rule" wasn't sufficient to aleviate the fears of the PTB. but data eventually was.
the real conversation went more like this (very much a charicature) "fix this car" "it's correct to the rule." "it doesn't fit though, why not?" "because the rule is based on fear not facts, look at these cars, they're all wrong too. here's data" "oh. I see. OK, fix the rule"
the real conversation went more like this (very much a charicature) "fix this car" "it's correct to the rule." "it doesn't fit though, why not?" "because the rule is based on fear not facts, look at these cars, they're all wrong too. here's data" "oh. I see. OK, fix the rule"
Flyinglizard
New member
The " FL." built A 2 cars( mid 90s build) will make 118. (With too much compression and too much cam).
A legal spec -compression/cam/deck, VW HT engine is about 6-10 less.
Many of these cars are going around again, in new owners hands. Much more legal than the first time, resulting in lap time 3-4 sec slower @ Sebring. 2:46 - 2:48, where before they went 2:43 - 2:45.
The track is also 1-2 sec slower today than in 2002. FWIW.
A legal spec -compression/cam/deck, VW HT engine is about 6-10 less.
Many of these cars are going around again, in new owners hands. Much more legal than the first time, resulting in lap time 3-4 sec slower @ Sebring. 2:46 - 2:48, where before they went 2:43 - 2:45.
The track is also 1-2 sec slower today than in 2002. FWIW.
I think maybe you guys missed what I meant. When I say public, I mean having the threads show up to non-registered members. If you register for the site you can see the section and obviously have the desire to find out more about IT rules, and that's a good thing.
I'm getting old so my memory is increasingly suspect, but as I recall Chris was on the call when we did the "confidence" call on the question of whether to apply the standard multiplier or something different. He argued that 30% gain was achievable as I recall, which factored into others' sufficiently high levels of confidence.
Others were there - Josh, Jeff, Jake, Andy - am I confused?
A huge part of ongoing problems is the lack of documentation. During my time on the ITAC we tried to improve that and made some progress. In this day and age, with the systems we have in place, there's really no good argument for what Dave describes other than "we didn't WANT to change it." That's OK but whoever is taking that position (coughcrbcough) needs to own it.
But the last word is that, if we'd run all of the really viable ITB cars through the process back when we proposed that to the CRB, without screwing around too much with "what we know," we wouldn't still be in this mess. The proposal to do that is what catalyzed the ITAC schism 3ish years ago, remember, because the CRB was afraid of the Audi. I suspect that similar fears - or perhaps preconceptions established by the aforementioned cheater cars - influenced the multiplier applied to the MkII Golf and Jetta, too.
Finally...
Quoted for posterity in case you get disappeared.
K
JeffYoung
New member
A2s were before my time, but as a non-VW guy I certainly deferred to Chris and others on what we should do with them. Chris is an open, honest guy. He does think the mechanical injection can see significant gains.
If someone has dyno sheets we can discuss with Chris, please, do send them in. I know the MR2 experience was frustrating for the MR2 drivers, but they kept at it and kept sending data and we got that situation resolved via the Process.
shwah
New member
I shared numbers last time too.
I gained 22% between a stock long block with header and correct fueling and a full tilt IT build.
But the problem is bigger than this one car. You don't have an effective process to determine what a car is capable of. You rely on competitors to send you dyno sheets, and they have a vested interest in what those sheets show. There was a huge ruckus about "getting away from arbitrarily changing weights" in the classification process, but now we are IMO arbitrarily setting HP in the classification process, and getting it wrong by 5 = 85lbs. Getting it wrong by 10 is 170lbs. The reason it was named a process, rather than a formula, is that it was always intended to include subjective evaluation by educated stakeholders to set final weights. We are where we are because we tried to turn this into a spreadsheet, with only one dependent variable that is very difficult to nail down, and has a multiplicative impact on the final weight. Thus we have a lot more volatility in the outcome.
If someone wants to influence the classification of a given car or group of cars, they could write letters and create dyno sheets, or even join the ITAC and lobby for changes that suit their agenda - because the dependent variable is nearly impossible to objectively confirm. Whenever someone floats the idea of power to weight classing, a chorus of replies points out how easy it is to manipulate dyno results if tested at the track. Well how much easier is it to do that when you are doing the testing in private?
There needs to be some level of control added to the system. Maybe - if a recommendation is to change a cars weight by 100 or more within a 2 year period, that the cars need to be independently verified (not sure what that looks like - independent dynos, data boxes in the cars, something), because we are rarely going to go back and put weight back on them from what I have seen. Something to slow the pace of change, and make sure we catch mistakes while we make them or before we make them worse.
Look at what just happened:
MR2 -
2011 GCR = ITB at 2525#
Many MR2 drivers complain that they cannot be competitive at this weight
Feb 2011 FastTrack = ITB at 2430#, a 95# reduction
More MR2 cars start racing
Summer 2012, we see a competitive example that is making a run at the 2012 ITNT. By all accounts it is a car that is built right, and legal, and it is competitive with the class.
Nov 2012 FastTrack = ITB at 2335, a 95# reduction
This car lost 190# in less than 2 years, with very little feedback on how effective the first 95# move was. Seeing the 2nd move made after a front running car showed up indicates little consideration for the existing balance of the class, or possibility that there was some amount of missing or inaccurate information from the ITAC perspective. Yet it was more important to get this done now than to get it right.
Sorry guys. I was patient. I was patient for a few years waiting for the A2 to be reviewed last time. I was patient for a few years while the A3 was finally moved about halfway from where it was to where it should be. I was worried when the Hondas were moved in, were competitive out of the box, yet were not running 'cleanly' coming off many corners. Now when I see more weight coming off competitive cars that were not raced in the previous configuration very long, I get it. The class will cater to a different group of cars. Just try to put in some processes that keep things more stable for this group - IT was attractive for stability, and it is not stable any more.
It is easy for me to move for a lot of reasons - HP and FP are much better subscribed in my area. I will no longer have to drive across the country to find more than one strong competitor.
My car is competitive in HP, and I think will be in FP. I also have a network of knowledge around this car and those classes from helping others run there for a long time.
The landscape of club racing may well be changing, but I still don't see IT being allowed at the grown up table any time soon, and I do want to go and race for a national championship.
I was always going to make this move, but I had planned on making another run at the ARRC and the ITNT first. No reason to spend that money if the car won't be competitive right now, so I am just pulling the trigger sooner. I don't have the bandwidth to keep a foot in each community, so I probably won't be around this board as often going forward.
All of that said, I still think that IT in concept is the best rule set in club racing, and I hope that it regains the reputation for stability that attracted so many of us to it in the first place.
I gained 22% between a stock long block with header and correct fueling and a full tilt IT build.
But the problem is bigger than this one car. You don't have an effective process to determine what a car is capable of. You rely on competitors to send you dyno sheets, and they have a vested interest in what those sheets show. There was a huge ruckus about "getting away from arbitrarily changing weights" in the classification process, but now we are IMO arbitrarily setting HP in the classification process, and getting it wrong by 5 = 85lbs. Getting it wrong by 10 is 170lbs. The reason it was named a process, rather than a formula, is that it was always intended to include subjective evaluation by educated stakeholders to set final weights. We are where we are because we tried to turn this into a spreadsheet, with only one dependent variable that is very difficult to nail down, and has a multiplicative impact on the final weight. Thus we have a lot more volatility in the outcome.
If someone wants to influence the classification of a given car or group of cars, they could write letters and create dyno sheets, or even join the ITAC and lobby for changes that suit their agenda - because the dependent variable is nearly impossible to objectively confirm. Whenever someone floats the idea of power to weight classing, a chorus of replies points out how easy it is to manipulate dyno results if tested at the track. Well how much easier is it to do that when you are doing the testing in private?
There needs to be some level of control added to the system. Maybe - if a recommendation is to change a cars weight by 100 or more within a 2 year period, that the cars need to be independently verified (not sure what that looks like - independent dynos, data boxes in the cars, something), because we are rarely going to go back and put weight back on them from what I have seen. Something to slow the pace of change, and make sure we catch mistakes while we make them or before we make them worse.
Look at what just happened:
MR2 -
2011 GCR = ITB at 2525#
Many MR2 drivers complain that they cannot be competitive at this weight
Feb 2011 FastTrack = ITB at 2430#, a 95# reduction
More MR2 cars start racing
Summer 2012, we see a competitive example that is making a run at the 2012 ITNT. By all accounts it is a car that is built right, and legal, and it is competitive with the class.
Nov 2012 FastTrack = ITB at 2335, a 95# reduction
This car lost 190# in less than 2 years, with very little feedback on how effective the first 95# move was. Seeing the 2nd move made after a front running car showed up indicates little consideration for the existing balance of the class, or possibility that there was some amount of missing or inaccurate information from the ITAC perspective. Yet it was more important to get this done now than to get it right.
Sorry guys. I was patient. I was patient for a few years waiting for the A2 to be reviewed last time. I was patient for a few years while the A3 was finally moved about halfway from where it was to where it should be. I was worried when the Hondas were moved in, were competitive out of the box, yet were not running 'cleanly' coming off many corners. Now when I see more weight coming off competitive cars that were not raced in the previous configuration very long, I get it. The class will cater to a different group of cars. Just try to put in some processes that keep things more stable for this group - IT was attractive for stability, and it is not stable any more.
It is easy for me to move for a lot of reasons - HP and FP are much better subscribed in my area. I will no longer have to drive across the country to find more than one strong competitor.
My car is competitive in HP, and I think will be in FP. I also have a network of knowledge around this car and those classes from helping others run there for a long time.
The landscape of club racing may well be changing, but I still don't see IT being allowed at the grown up table any time soon, and I do want to go and race for a national championship.
I was always going to make this move, but I had planned on making another run at the ARRC and the ITNT first. No reason to spend that money if the car won't be competitive right now, so I am just pulling the trigger sooner. I don't have the bandwidth to keep a foot in each community, so I probably won't be around this board as often going forward.
All of that said, I still think that IT in concept is the best rule set in club racing, and I hope that it regains the reputation for stability that attracted so many of us to it in the first place.
gran racing
Super Moderator
Chip, I’m not naïve enough to think that politics in racing are ever-present, sadly even on our level. This is the exact reason why I followed up my original request to eliminate the default multi-valve with the request to have the Accord reviewed. I know you were against the adder and truly do appreciate the work that members on the ITAC do. Sometimes it's out of your hands.
Request to eliminate multi-valve request gets shot down.
Accord gains weight based on multi-valve default.
Multi-valve default magically gets eliminated.
Accord weight is reduced. For those not in the know, an influential person (not on the ITAC) has strong ties to the Accord.
While the end result is good and I’m pleased, what it took to get there is very disappointing. A big part of me wonders if the multi-valve default would still exist without the Accord request. I am not asking you or any other ITAC member to answer that. I also know the ITAC was against the adder and tried to eliminate it.
I will say that an old thread about “|the back room or” and the discussion about the multi-valve default / Accord review makes for an interesting read (especially pages 10 – 12).
Request to eliminate multi-valve request gets shot down.
Accord gains weight based on multi-valve default.
Multi-valve default magically gets eliminated.
Accord weight is reduced. For those not in the know, an influential person (not on the ITAC) has strong ties to the Accord.
While the end result is good and I’m pleased, what it took to get there is very disappointing. A big part of me wonders if the multi-valve default would still exist without the Accord request. I am not asking you or any other ITAC member to answer that. I also know the ITAC was against the adder and tried to eliminate it.
I will say that an old thread about “|the back room or” and the discussion about the multi-valve default / Accord review makes for an interesting read (especially pages 10 – 12).
JeffYoung
New member
I too am concerned about the appearance of instability.
But I do think it is overstated. It's related primarily to ITB, which is our problem child class for a lot of reasons. It takes up something like 75% of our time on our calls. And the changes you see are simply efforts to review and revise old weights using the Process since the whole class was never run through it.
I disagree with you on not having an effective means of determining the horsepower function of the process. I think we do. We have seven individuals reviewing data to determine what appears to be possible with a required level of confidence before a chance is made.
The MR2 example you raise is a red herring frankly. The car should have been in ITB where it is now from the start. And the on track evidence we have seen is that the car is just barely competitive against top flight A3s and Hondas.
I do agree with you that 5 hp errors in ITB are a big deal. But the only way to correct that is to send us information. Send your dyno sheets in and give us the information we need to correct this. If the A2 Rabbit/Jetta/Golf shouldn't be at 30%, do what the MR2 guys did.
But I do think it is overstated. It's related primarily to ITB, which is our problem child class for a lot of reasons. It takes up something like 75% of our time on our calls. And the changes you see are simply efforts to review and revise old weights using the Process since the whole class was never run through it.
I disagree with you on not having an effective means of determining the horsepower function of the process. I think we do. We have seven individuals reviewing data to determine what appears to be possible with a required level of confidence before a chance is made.
The MR2 example you raise is a red herring frankly. The car should have been in ITB where it is now from the start. And the on track evidence we have seen is that the car is just barely competitive against top flight A3s and Hondas.
I do agree with you that 5 hp errors in ITB are a big deal. But the only way to correct that is to send us information. Send your dyno sheets in and give us the information we need to correct this. If the A2 Rabbit/Jetta/Golf shouldn't be at 30%, do what the MR2 guys did.