Please help me understand the Audi issue...

So where does that put the ITAC Ben?

I don't think it's a bad thing to have IT people involved with where the future of the category goes. Like ITAC members do, they take themselves out of conversations dealing with cars they personally race.
 
Charlie Broring said:
The old saying is "Horsepower sells engines. Torque wins motor races." Peak horsepower is not directly related to how well a car accelerates.
Click to expand...

And that saying seems to be something of a misnomer. There was a good discussion on here about the affect of gearing on acceleration. High hp/low torque cars that rev high can still generate good torque/acceleration at the wheels via appropriate gearing. High torque cars typically don't rev that high and thus gearing has less of an effect. At least that's how I interpreted the discussion.

benspeed said:
The men or women racing in IT who are in positions of authority or power over IT rules should recuse themselves from any rules changes effecting the classes in which they race.

That's just common sense in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I definitely think this is what should happen, but since we don't have access to records of CRB votes we don't know. Unfortunately, I don't think this was done.

David
 
DavidM said:
And that saying seems to be something of a misnomer. There was a good discussion on here about the affect of gearing on acceleration. High hp/low torque cars that rev high can still generate good torque/acceleration at the wheels via appropriate gearing. High torque cars typically don't rev that high and thus gearing has less of an effect. At least that's how I interpreted the discussion.

David
Click to expand...

Yup, there are a lot of factors. I linked an article that showed how it all works. But, in the end, if tq was the be all end all, the Cummings diesel would be faster than an F1 car.
 
I still think an issue like this, where the process does not match the perception (define as you will) could be addressed with the 'two step' adjustment that I proposed in the other thread. If that sort of thing were allowed...

Don't anyone worry about the blocks, they are the same. No possible benefit I can think of. Just make sure the right head is on top.
 
Dave-

I have not had much time to post today.... probably a good thing :)

Anyway, we did OK at the 2 ARRC events we went to, but we didn't kill the competition as people suggest. We were well off the pace of a track record, and we spent a lot of money on that one event... things were set up perfect for us. We had new tires just about every session, the cars were weighed specifically to end every session with 2 maybe 3 pounds extra weight, we had a huge crew that flew in, we ran the test day with both cars and gather TONS of data and tweaked the set-up on the car between every session (sometimes during the sessions. Anyone whom would have brought that "game" would have done equally as well or better. The only tracks where are cars have historically done really well are at Pocono and at the Road Atlanta. We do not have the fastest straight line cars. Every BMW 2002 we have raced against out pulls us on the straights, so does the new Golf III and the Volvo's pull us even if we have a draft on them. The only thing that helped us that year and years prior at Pocono is the top end gearing/speed. On the street an older Audi will run up to 125 - 130mph before it runs out of gearing, A VW will reach 115 -120. I have tested it. I have noticed several times the only thing the Audi has is a higher top speed (FROM FACTORY), and with the newer cars classed I don't think that is an advantage anymore.

Now as for legality... I am glad people question it! We all should question anyone whom has done well be it Peter Keene and his Accord, Sam Moore in the Volvo, Chris Albin in any of his VW's or My brother in the Audi (obviously it would be him and not me!). The MAJOR ISSUE I HAVE is that CRB/ITAC/BOD members all say, we do not classify cars based on "on track performance." WHY US??? It is not right. It is not faire to me and it should not be affecting ALL IT classes. At this point I wish my car was illegal so that the process was perfect and knowone questioned it. I regret ever putting in a request, and no member should ever have to feel this regret.

I am also extremely disappointed in the lack of responses I have received over the past year to my requests. I have received plenty of great feedback from ITAC members however the CRB is completely useless at this point. I wrote e-mails last night to the CRB and received zero replies. I Cc’d a steward that I respect a lot and I included my BOD representative, I did not expect a reply, tonight the e-mails will go further and include all BOD members asking for their help. I hope someone is able to help me.

Raymond

PS: Not sure if we could ever find 200 lbs...

PSS Chris: The bottom end could be switched out (or the original bored out to be a 2.3L). That would be very easy to do and would gain lots of HP. It is basicaly a 60 over piston. The heads, not many options on that, they are all basically the same on all Audi's except the 5000's from 1984 - 1987. The header is the difference which is an allowable modification.

If you know of something else PLEASE let us know (a PM or e-mail to rst at rstperformance dot com is fine) so we can check our cars. Many people have said the head can be switched and we have asked everyone even Chris Albin after he told everyone we were cheating to tell us/educate us on what to look for. Know one has been able to help in this area.
 
For the record Ray, I agree with what you said. Don't rush into an e-mail if you're not ready for it yet. I know that I'm holding off till next week after I absorb some of this more.
 
You hold off until the BOD has their October meeting and you might as well not bother. It will be all done for next year--period.
 
lateapex911 said:
Just rereading this. I think you are insinuating that they blocked the weight change based on personal gains. (As in you won't beat them if you are overweight)
Click to expand...

Not saying that this happened this time, but it wouldn't be the first time that self-interest entered into what was decided by the various SCCA boards.

That was the nice thing about "the process." It was all laid out and you would know why a car got a specific weight.
 
jjjanos said:
That was the nice thing about "the process." It was all laid out and you would know why a car got a specific weight.
Click to expand...

And even if you thought it was heavy or not 'the' car for the class, you (the collective you) are ok with that right? Better to be transperant and consistant than try and 'wiggle' the right number with no backup...because at the end of the day, neither are gonna be right.
 
>> The MAJOR ISSUE I HAVE is that CRB/ITAC/BOD members all say, we do not classify cars based on "on track performance."

The ITAC has said that. The fundamental issue is that the CRB has said exactly the opposite.

K
 
RSTPerformance said:
PSS Chris: The bottom end could be switched out (or the original bored out to be a 2.3L). That would be very easy to do and would gain lots of HP. It is basicaly a 60 over piston. The heads, not many options on that, they are all basically the same on all Audi's except the 5000's from 1984 - 1987. The header is the difference which is an allowable modification.

If you know of something else PLEASE let us know (a PM or e-mail to rst at rstperformance dot com is fine) so we can check our cars. Many people have said the head can be switched and we have asked everyone even Chris Albin after he told everyone we were cheating to tell us/educate us on what to look for. Know one has been able to help in this area.
Click to expand...

Raymond - I figured the block is no more likely than any other block in IT to gain an advantage. We can all put bigger pistons and cranks in without anyone seeing it when the hood is up (well not Jake...). I don't 'know' anything about any specific cars, and didn't mean to sound like I did - sorry about that. I was talking to the audi in general, and I could swear there were some 5cyl heads with bigger valves, so if I were trying to find by sight something wrong with that motor I would try to figure out how to differentiate the heads.
 
lateapex911 said:
Just rereading this. I think you are insinuating that they blocked the weight change based on personal gains. (As in you won't beat them if you are overweight)

I don't think I buy that. I think the CRB honestly looked at your car and thought, "Isn't that car pretty darn fast as it is? 200 pounds? Seems like a lot. Doesn't pass the sniff test. No"
Click to expand...
Jake,

YES and No... I don't think they think I personally will be faster in the future and that they want or need to protect themselves but I think they do wonder what if that car was classified with 200lbs less all those years ago... I wouldn't have had a chance against them. Basically I think the 1 weekend, 1 session, 5 years ago at 1 race they made an observation and are sticking with it. I think that if I did not go to those 2 events things would be different. So YES they have formulated the opinion of the potential of the car because they raced with me and now they are reluctant to change things and no I dont think it is to protect themselves on track, afterall I never plan on going down that way with my current career expectations.


Matt... Very difficult to get 200lbs out. we do have lead inside and we do have power windows and a spare in it but with all that I am guessing only a 100lbs or so. I do think you are on to something and will most likely try it next season. I have run 50lbs light and up to 75lbs heavy and it didn't seem to make a difference.

Dave and to all others... Sorry about mistaking the prelude and Accord. they look like the exact same car to me. What is the differences? what are the wieghts of each? Was the prelude classed after the flip flop of the Accord?

Raymond you are forgetting about your 20V head you stuck on yours aren't you? :p Actually you really are forgetting about the early coupe mechanical head vs our heads Ours is much better which was used from I believe 82.5 through 87.5 on various models of cars.


Stephen


PS: I still am fine with the decision not to process ANY of the cars currently classified, at least it is a decision which the CRB hasn't had the balls to do all year. If other cars do get reclassified then all hell will brake loose and I will be pissed.
 
Last edited:
lateapex911 said:
Just rereading this. I think you are insinuating that they blocked the weight change based on personal gains. (As in you won't beat them if you are overweight)
Click to expand...

Well Jake, you were on the ITAC when Albin claimed that a Rabbit GTI could make 100 whp w/ no other documentation.

As far as him driving the wheels off his Golf, yeah, looks like he can do that, right into the side of another car.
 
From an old memory-there were 3 5cyl blocks, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3L, several piston configurations, and there were several heads.
The classified ITB cpe engine is the low compression (8/1 2.1/2.2L version with small intakes (38mm) and, I believe, a pretty mild cam.
I expect that except for the 5th cylinder, it resembles the 85-87 non GTI/GLI 1.8 Golf/jetta CIS Lambda cars which were 90?hp (38mm in/lo compr/mild cam) while the ITB classed Golf GTI and 88-92 Golfs were 105/107hp (40mm in/10/1, more cam).
Certainly theres a lot of combinations of ingredients that could produce much more than expected/illegal output.
 
pfcs said:
From an old memory-there were 3 5cyl blocks, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3L, several piston configurations, and there were several heads.
The classified ITB cpe engine is the low compression (8/1 2.1/2.2L version with small intakes (38mm) and, I believe, a pretty mild cam.
I expect that except for the 5th cylinder, it resembles the 85-87 non GTI/GLI 1.8 Golf/jetta CIS Lambda cars which were 90?hp (38mm in/lo compr/mild cam) while the ITB classed Golf GTI and 88-92 Golfs were 105/107hp (40mm in/10/1, more cam).
Certainly theres a lot of combinations of ingredients that could produce much more than expected/illegal output.
Click to expand...

Phil-

You are a smart man, but honestly I have no f'ing clue how to even begin digesting all the info you can spit out here... I wish I could. You have seen our cars up close and personal... what are your thoughts on the CRB's actions?

I do have a set of the "big Valves" that will work, they are off a 1995 long Block VW Eurovan... They are not even close to what we have, I am sure those would give us some power!!! I also have the crank (stroker kit) wonder what that would do??? Probably break valves when I put the timing together backwards :rolleyes:

Raymond "at least I am smiling right now, thanks Phil!" Blethen
 
i guess my basic take on all of this is that if the CRB is going to "trump" the ITAC and its recommendations, they should have a detailed rationale that amounts to something more definitive than "because......."

and when it comes to "passing the sniff test" portion of this, it does not look good if a CRB member has a car that appears to be very close to or less than the "process" weight and the CRB then tells others that they cannot have the process weight or needs 200#'s more (or 196#'s more in my case). and yes i am taking literary license is stating what they said inasmuch as it is actions or lack of actions that seem to be speaking and being interpreted.

ray, fwiw, i thought you were pulling away from me very much like the 2002's at mid-ohio a couple of years ago and you were not quite as good in the corners as i recall. i don't think some were as good in the turns (e.g., T1) as i was but honestly i chalked most of that up to it being many folks first time at mid-ohio for the IT Fest.

it was the classic power vs. handling trade-off in my opinion.
 
Tom-

I would say that in that race I did pull you a slight bit if I got the turn right... but the 2002's, and Golf III kill both of us. And from what I remember the 924 did also. I agree that in that race it was the classic power vs. handling trade-off between us, but if we were both 200lbs lighter maybe that trade off would have been battling closer to the frontend of the pack instead.

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