off topic discussion about current IT issues and more specifically ITB.

rsportvolvo said:
So my request last spring to review the Volvo 240 line items was just for corrections? What was the point of digging up all the data and filling out the VTS forms? That's really disappointing if my request was not taken seriously. I know Les Chaney helped me out a bunch getting all of the info situated.
Click to expand...


Again, we loop back to definitions. The ITAC at the time defined "correction" in terms of the degree to which any given car's weight didn't square with what the Process said it should be. What "correction" means now - not to be too much of a bitch about it - seems to be, "How different it is from what some key members of the CRB think it should be."

To be fair though, the CRB never actually GOT a recommendation from the ITAC on the Volvi. They got sucked into the "do we call a do-over on ITB?" vortex, then the "nothing is getting approved turmoil," then the "I just can't be part of this anymore" hoedown.

K
 
gran racing said:
Charlie, I can't possibly disagree with you any more (with all due respect of course lol). I only know of one other person in the country that races a 2nd gen ITB Prelude. Using your theory, I never should have built my car much, not bothered to work hard on becoming a better driver and could have simply waited for my car to be adjusted due to on track performance. Nice! Then once I got that adjustment, built the car to its full potential. Wheeee!

Since you don't car who makes the decisions and I now won't have to bother making my decision transparent, I'm slapping on 400 lbs to any VW and Volvo because.
Click to expand...

Dave I'm OK with the weight on the VW but wish you would reconsider the poor old Volvo.

There is a pretty common opinion down at Summit that the MK-3 VW and both the big and little Honda's have outdated the older ITB cars. Both you and your car made a very impressive showing down at SP Labor day. I hope you can make it back this season. Possibly the Volvo and Prelude can share that 400 pounds? 200 each? or maybe 100 and 300... oh never mind.

Charlie
 
Charlie Broring said:
Dave I'm OK with the weight on the VW but wish you would reconsider the poor old Volvo.

There is a pretty common opinion down at Summit that the MK-3 VW and both the big and little Honda's have outdated the older ITB cars. Both you and your car made a very impressive showing down at SP Labor day. I hope you can make it back this season. Possibly the Volvo and Prelude can share that 400 pounds? 200 each? or maybe 100 and 300... oh never mind.

Charlie
Click to expand...

Charlie,

How old were the the tires you were using? How many seasons are on your motor? I know that the little Hondas were running fresh rubber and 2 of 3 had brand-new motors this season (and the third motor isn't that old). The shocks on the CRXs were rebuilt recently... how old are the suspensions on the European Tanks?

The little Hondas have 1.5 liter motors, 91 HP and 93bhp@4500RPM
The 142Es have 2 liter motors, 118 HP and 123bhp@3500RPM.
The Golf III, has got a 2liter, 115HP and decent torque.

Running all through the process giving by Dowie at the SCCA forums, and depending on what one adds for having enough torque to pull a semi out of the mud, the 142Es are probably 175-230 lbs too heavy. The CRX is carrying an extra 250 pounds. The Golf is close to 200 pounds too light!

I'll give you the 230, but only if the CRX gets to lose it's extra driver too.

Jeff
 
Charlie Broring said:
Dave I'm OK with the weight on the VW but wish you would reconsider the poor old Volvo.

There is a pretty common opinion down at Summit that the MK-3 VW and both the big and little Honda's have outdated the older ITB cars. Both you and your car made a very impressive showing down at SP Labor day. I hope you can make it back this season. Possibly the Volvo and Prelude can share that 400 pounds? 200 each? or maybe 100 and 300... oh never mind.

Charlie
Click to expand...
Charlie, I'm not agreeing OR disagreeing with what's heavy, and what's not.
But...keep in mind that's one track, one event. I know you feel the 'modern era' ITB cars are outpacing the 'old skool' era ITB cars, but, one of the villians at Summit, Dave Gran, saw his car gets spanked at the Glen....by a BMW 2002. Old skool reigns! And sets a track record. (Albeit in qualifying)

Also, consider that a certain RX-7 set a track record that same weekend. Should the RX-7 get weight? ;) (As you know, that record was set in the IT-7 class).

So, it's partly good prep, bringing resources, and a bit of luck.

BUT, being allowed to use V2 would certainly give us a good point of reference.
 
I already share some weight with ya Charlie. ); Using he same process that says your car is too heavy, mine has an extra 110 lbs (or there abouts, can't remember exactly anymore). I won't bring up the Golf III or IV because pretty much everyone knows my thoughts on those cars.

Going back to using performance - there are simply too many factors that impact things. I took the Labor Day weekend pretty seriously knowing that would be one of the three race weekends I could participate in '09. For the event, I had 2 sets of brandy new Hoosiers. I know plenty of other ITB drivers choose not to be so silly with their tire allocation.

I had an engine overheating issue in my subsequent race but have the Labor Day event at Summit as one of the ones I really want to attend this year. Awesome event overall and you guys were more than welcoming.
 
jjjanos said:
Charlie,

How old were the the tires you were using? How many seasons are on your motor? I know that the little Hondas were running fresh rubber and 2 of 3 had brand-new motors this season (and the third motor isn't that old). The shocks on the CRXs were rebuilt recently... how old are the suspensions on the European Tanks?

The little Hondas have 1.5 liter motors, 91 HP and 93bhp@4500RPM
The 142Es have 2 liter motors, 118 HP and 123bhp@3500RPM.
The Golf III, has got a 2liter, 115HP and decent torque.

Running all through the process giving by Dowie at the SCCA forums, and depending on what one adds for having enough torque to pull a semi out of the mud, the 142Es are probably 175-230 lbs too heavy. The CRX is carrying an extra 250 pounds. The Golf is close to 200 pounds too light!

I'll give you the 230, but only if the CRX gets to lose it's extra driver too.

Jeff
Click to expand...

Here is the deal on the GolfIII guys. It is spot on the process except we subtracted 50lbs for the beam rear axle. In V.2 clarified the 'crappy rear suspension' subtracter to just a solid axle for rwd cars. That car wouldn't get a torque adder with my vote and it was processed at 25%. So it's 50lbs too light according to V.2.

The other cars could get redone should the CRB allow the ITAC to help them.
 
Here we go again. If the G3 is 50 light, the G2 is at least 50 heavy - not the 10 requested. The math does not add up, because some unknown point of data convinced the ITAC that the G2 gains 30% (or was that 27%?), yet the G3 is processed at 25%. It has the same compression ratio, longer stroke, larger bore, cross flow head with thinner valve stems that flows better than the counter flow head/valves on the G2, and uses a better flowing MAF. Now the process does not take those items into account, only a documented higher power output. The G3 is capable of the same or higher gains than the G2, but I predict that data will never be made available to the ITAC.

The cars have literally identical chassis designs, albeit the G3 has a wider track and larger brakes. If you consider the cars equivalent and assume that the power gain is the only differentiator you see that the current G3 specification must assume a 22% power gain. So something does not jive in how these cars were 'processed' at approximately the same point in time.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Here is the deal on the GolfIII guys. It is spot on the process except we subtracted 50lbs for the beam rear axle. In V.2 clarified the 'crappy rear suspension' subtracter to just a solid axle for rwd cars. That car wouldn't get a torque adder with my vote and it was processed at 25%. So it's 50lbs too light according to V.2.

The other cars could get redone should the CRB allow the ITAC to help them.
Click to expand...
You miss my point. The Volvo is just fine in weight. Most old cars except for the poor early VW's are fine. Even the Audi is fine. A few recently classed cars, most notibally the VW MK 3 are significantly too light or just too fast. The process formula is off in ITB and you will never see it unless you look at on track performance.

I've said too much. Back into the woodwork.
 
shwah said:
Here we go again. If the G3 is 50 light, the G2 is at least 50 heavy - not the 10 requested. The math does not add up, because some unknown point of data convinced the ITAC that the G2 gains 30% (or was that 27%?), yet the G3 is processed at 25%. It has the same compression ratio, longer stroke, larger bore, cross flow head with thinner valve stems that flows better than the counter flow head/valves on the G2, and uses a better flowing MAF. Now the process does not take those items into account, only a documented higher power output. The G3 is capable of the same or higher gains than the G2, but I predict that data will never be made available to the ITAC.

The cars have literally identical chassis designs, albeit the G3 has a wider track and larger brakes. If you consider the cars equivalent and assume that the power gain is the only differentiator you see that the current G3 specification must assume a 22% power gain. So something does not jive in how these cars were 'processed' at approximately the same point in time.
Click to expand...

The G3 is processed @ 25%, the G2 is processed @ 30%, and the G1 is processed at 39%.

Chris,

I agree with you that if the G2 is processed @ 30%, it's at least 50# heavy. If they processed the G3 @ 30%, it would need ~140#. And if you processes the G1 @ 30%, it should lose ~140#.

If you process the G1 and G2 @ 25%, you get 1865# for the G1 and and 2140# for the G2. I don't think it's possible to get an IT-legal G1 that light. If you process the G1 for ITC, you get 2070# @ 25% and 2155# @ 30%
 
Charlie Broring said:
You miss my point. The Volvo is just fine in weight. Most old cars except for the poor early VW's are fine. Even the Audi is fine. A few recently classed cars, most notibally the VW MK 3 are significantly too light or just too fast. The process formula is off in ITB and you will never see it unless you look at on track performance.

I've said too much. Back into the woodwork.
Click to expand...

Then you miss my point. The ITAC uses a Process to class cars. Some of the Volvo's, the Audi's and numerous other ITB cars reside in the ITCS at weights that are undocumented and unexplainable. In order to bring THEM in line, they have to be re-examined under the current way of doing things, so it is those cars that are 'wrong'...for no other reason than nobody has any idea why the weights were set and if those methods where comparable then.
 
quadzjr said:
I assume the VW 2.0L is a 8 valve? didn't they make a 16 valve one, or did that not come over to teh states?
Click to expand...

As noted. Golf 3 2.0 is an 8v crossflow head. It was also available with a 1.9 TDi and a 2.8 VR6. Golf 2 was available in 1.8 8v, 1.8 16v and 2.0 16v flavors. The 16vs are ITA cars.

Allegedly some of the 8vs 'sound' like ITA cars though :shrug:
 
It's the "stock" cam that seemed to be pretty popular in Rabbits and Golfs (including at least one SSC '86 GTI I knew of) back in the day.

I drove a 1.6 Rabbit that a guy was trying to sell me, that had the amazing ability to keep up with BMW 2002s on the straight. And I didn't think at the time that the Bimmers were legal.

It does make them make purty noises.

K

EDIT - Make no mistake. It's NOT stock.
 
Last edited:
What is all this mewling about?

Not that on-track results mean anything but:

The 2009 NARRC championship was contested over a 14 race season;

There were 48 different ITB entrants over the course of the year; and

Seven entrants ran 5 or more races.

Of those seven:

A Volvo 142 dominated the competition;

A Volvo 142 was second in the championship;

VW Golf A3's were third and fifth;

VW Golf A2's were fourth and sixth; and

A BMW 2002 was seventh.

A certain yellow Prelude destroyed the Watkins Glen ITB track record for the long course, taking that distinction from an A3 Golf who in turn took it over from a Volvo 142.

Certainly there are corrections needed to individual listings. Perhaps the Volvo 242 should be at a different weight.

I certainly would not object to 50 lbs on my A3, nor reducing the A2's by 50 lbs. It is far too granular for what we are doing to male much difference. But the standards and processes for setting weights should be tight and transparent.

Personally, I predict the Prelude will dominate next year if it can get out to more races.

Just spouting off,

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