Please help me understand the Audi issue...
- Thread starter RSTPerformance
- Start date
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Sorry Bill. The ITAC has no ability under the current rules to review anything that has been classed for 5 years or more. We looked at new classification requests and rule requests. It's the new world unless the CRB allows us to change the rules as written in the ITCS.
I thought the CRB has told the ITAC to not look into/review any car that already has been classed?
<-Don't know what direction to take to correct (in my opinion and maybe others) the Mk1 MR2 weight.
Bill Miller
New member
Is that the new mandate from the CRB? Even though they (CR
'broke the rules' when they changed the weight from 2180# to 2080# (not to mention all the other cars that were changed)? Looks like I was right w/ my prediction about the Golf III not getting that 50# back from the rear beam negative adder that shouldn't have been applied.Looks like all the hard work that Darin, you, and many others have put in over the last few years is pretty much down the drain. As I said before, they'll trot out the GCR when it suits their agenda, and will throw it out the window when it doesn't. Sorry to see it go this way Andy, I know you always wanted what was best for ALL of IT.
/edit
So how will requests for reviews of cars that have been on the books for 5 years or more be handled? Are they not even going to publish those requests in FasTrack? Will the response be something along the lines of "The Puddlebee GXR was classified prior to 2004, therefore you can go pound sand."
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Is that the new mandate from the CRB? Even though they (CR
Looks like all the hard work that Darin, you, and many others have put in over the last few years is pretty much down the drain. As I said before, they'll trot out the GCR when it suits their agenda, and will throw it out the window when it doesn't. Sorry to see it go this way Andy, I know you always wanted what was best for ALL of IT.
/edit
So how will requests for reviews of cars that have been on the books for 5 years or more be handled? Are they not even going to publish those requests in FasTrack? Will the response be something along the lines of "The Puddlebee GXR was classified prior to 2004, therefore you can go pound sand."
Those are to be dealt with only if something is 'running off the front end' - or in plain terms - is an overdog. Misclassed and needs a correction.
Given the way the last couple calls went, and some changes on the CRB, I think the ITAC is going to work within the current constraints for a while while the dust settles and then propose new wording that allows us to do what we think the membership would like. Not saying it would happen - obviously the CRB has the final say - but we need to remove the ITCS constrains that don't allow us to do what we think is the right thing.
Andy or other ITAC members?
Bill Miller
New member
Andy,
What exactly are these 'constraints' that the CRB claims are in the ITCS? Why can't these things be handled under E&O?
gran racing
Super Moderator
Nothing will happen. Next.
If you haven't already written the BOD and CRB, do so.
And THAT is the $64,000 question. It all has to do with how something is defined as an "error."
Any measure of whether - or the degree to which - something is "wrong" requires a point of comparison. If the question is "Who is buried in Grant's tomb?" then the correct is Ulysses S. Grant. If someone answered "General Lee," that is wrong. So is "Cary Grant," even though it's closer. Regardless, there's some benchmark against which comparisons can be made to determine whether the answer is correct.
The ITAC spent the past couple years defining "error" as "not the theoretical weight specified by the process." We'd do the math, make the comparison, and determine if the current ITCS spec was "right" or "wrong."
The first challenge with respect to the CRB was defining our tolerances - how "not right" a weight had to be (again relative to the theoretical "correct" weight based on physical attributes of the car) - in order to be worth changing. For a long time there was an unwritten and inconsistently applied tolerance of +/- 50 or 100 pounds, depending on who you asked and when. That was a source of fudging. The ITAC, based on conversations with a lot of members, decided to commit to defining "right" as relative to the process and recommend car weights to the CRB at exactly what the process defined.
That was the Golf II experiment, where the CRB demonstrated a vote of no confidence in the first principles of what we were doing by voting against an admittedly tiny change for that car. Not coincidentally, this was the beginning of the end.
The current CRB - in line with the rules-making culture of the entire club, frankly - that "error" is simply a screw-up. If a plain ol' dumbass mistake was made somewhere - like when the ITAC used the wrong power multiplier as "standard" on several cars back in April 2008, or when the wrong information for the ITR muscle cars was posted in Fastrack - that's still probably fixable under E&O.
By the way, those corrections were recommended to the CRB in June of 2009 and ARE BEING HELD HOSTAGE BY THE CURRENT POLITICAL SITUATION.
ITB 91-95 Toyota MR2
ITB 99-00 Protege
ITA 00-03 Neon SE, ES, SXT
ITA 01-03 Neon R/T, ACR
...were all processed at 1.3 rather than the then-standard 1.25. I participated in the mistake. Andy wasn't on the call and we simply dorked it up because we were operating on memory of what "standard" was. I speak only for myself but that embarrassing experience was a catalyst to get the process locked the hell down and documented. It also took way the hell too long to undo that genuine error.
The other way that "wrong" is defined by most of the Club is the degree to which on-track performance is "off." That is, if a make/model appears to be exceedingly fast, it's "wrong." In most other categories, it's also the case that if a person can rustle up enough support, a case can be made that a car is too slow "wrong." People keep telling me I'm "wrong" about where IT is going but I'm fearful that this is our future.
K
I assume or hope you mean the ITB 85-89 Toyota MR2
Bill Miller
New member
And that's pretty much what I banged my head about towards the CRB for years over. How many times were requests met with 'Correct as specified'? My contention was, (and still is) correct based on what? If you're going to tell me that a weight is correct, that implies that you have some method of determining what the correct value is, and what an incorrect value would be.
This goes waaaay back to when I first inquired as to how ITB weights were determined. I spoke to Sven Pruett at the time, and was given that 'formula' that they supposedly used, which was based on curb weight, and had nothing to do w/ engine output at all.
IIRC, it was something like:
(curb weight * .95) + 120# for cage - 120# for what could be taken out. So it boiled down to essentially the spec. weight w/ driver, was 95% of the published curb weight.
That got me doing some math, and things didn't add up. Wrote letters, made phone calls, asked questions. Got a bunch of run-around, and no answers. If you recall several years ago, there were requests in FasTrack to publish how weights were determined for ITB cars (I think Dave Zaslow also wrote a letter). There was a bunch of lip service about how they were going back to the AdHoc to determine what it was, and they would eventually publish it. That never happened.
Nothing ever changes w/ these ass-clowns. The rules are only useful to them when they benefit their agenda.
This goes waaaay back to when I first inquired as to how ITB weights were determined. I spoke to Sven Pruett at the time, and was given that 'formula' that they supposedly used, which was based on curb weight, and had nothing to do w/ engine output at all.
IIRC, it was something like:
(curb weight * .95) + 120# for cage - 120# for what could be taken out. So it boiled down to essentially the spec. weight w/ driver, was 95% of the published curb weight.
That got me doing some math, and things didn't add up. Wrote letters, made phone calls, asked questions. Got a bunch of run-around, and no answers. If you recall several years ago, there were requests in FasTrack to publish how weights were determined for ITB cars (I think Dave Zaslow also wrote a letter). There was a bunch of lip service about how they were going back to the AdHoc to determine what it was, and they would eventually publish it. That never happened.
Nothing ever changes w/ these ass-clowns. The rules are only useful to them when they benefit their agenda.
JeffYoung
New member
Bill, I understand (some) of your frustration but I don't see the CRB has hell bent on destroying IT. I see the opposite, they want to maintain what they believe is presently a very competitive class.
That said, they approach it totally different than us. The process, for them, is just a tool we (the ITAC) use to class new cars and reevaluate old ones.
On when to reevaluate, you and Kirk are right. We've hit something of a roadblock between the two types of thinking on this.
The CRB would prefer that we not adjust cars simply because they are not at process weight; we would prefer to fix all of them and set the weight using the process. The CRB, as I understand it, would reserve reevaluation until we "see" an overdog on track.
I don't think the CRB's position is the end of the world. I prefer our approach and will continue to advocate for it, but the status quo is still fairly balanced classes with a few cars that are dorked up.
That said, they approach it totally different than us. The process, for them, is just a tool we (the ITAC) use to class new cars and reevaluate old ones.
On when to reevaluate, you and Kirk are right. We've hit something of a roadblock between the two types of thinking on this.
The CRB would prefer that we not adjust cars simply because they are not at process weight; we would prefer to fix all of them and set the weight using the process. The CRB, as I understand it, would reserve reevaluation until we "see" an overdog on track.
I don't think the CRB's position is the end of the world. I prefer our approach and will continue to advocate for it, but the status quo is still fairly balanced classes with a few cars that are dorked up.
Bill Miller
New member
Jeff,
I never said they were 'hell bent on destroying IT'. But for a group that should be concerned with making sure that everyone gets treated the same way, to thumb their noses at something that would go a long way towards achieving that goal, just doesn't seem to make much sense. It's not about them being against IT, it's about them wanting to maintain control over everything, and to not want to be held accountable for anything.
I never said they were 'hell bent on destroying IT'. But for a group that should be concerned with making sure that everyone gets treated the same way, to thumb their noses at something that would go a long way towards achieving that goal, just doesn't seem to make much sense. It's not about them being against IT, it's about them wanting to maintain control over everything, and to not want to be held accountable for anything.
JeffYoung
New member
I honestly think what drove their opposition to using the process on all cars was threefold:
1. They didn't completely understand the process (that's our fault, the ITAC's).
2. They saw the process, if "blindly" (in their view, in our view we would use the words transparently and repeatability) applied could create overdogs. The Audi is an example of this.
3. They want some element of on track performance as part of car evaluation.
1 and 2 are reasonable and explainable, and I think things we can get past. 3, depending on how key a role they want on track to play, could be a roadblock.
But, as Andy notes, folks are talking about this stuff and looking for an agreeable way forward.
1. They didn't completely understand the process (that's our fault, the ITAC's).
2. They saw the process, if "blindly" (in their view, in our view we would use the words transparently and repeatability) applied could create overdogs. The Audi is an example of this.
3. They want some element of on track performance as part of car evaluation.
1 and 2 are reasonable and explainable, and I think things we can get past. 3, depending on how key a role they want on track to play, could be a roadblock.
But, as Andy notes, folks are talking about this stuff and looking for an agreeable way forward.
StephenB
New member
Jeff EXPLAIN IT I want you to explain #2 and "The Audi is an example of this" Your quote is above for your reference to see that you said you could explain this entire thread for all of us.
Stephen
seckerich
New member
You are on the right track Jeff and they will always reserve the right to use on track performance in classing. That said the "on track" should just be a trigger to see what information used in the initial classing was incorrect. That should be limited to process power only. All else should be the same for all cars. If the car is an overdog it is because it makes too much power for its weight. If it is handling let the best tuner/driver kick our tail. They worked for it.
JeffYoung
New member
Stephen, please, take a deep breath.
The CRB believed that dropping 200 lbs from the Audi (something I voted for) could create problems since they viewed the car as already competitive. They saw this as an example of why they thought "blind" use of the process could create overdogs -- hence my statement.
I trust the process and voted for the weight reduction. However, their position is not entirely unreasonable nor is it some plan to destroy IT. It is a difference of opinion on the use of the process, and the role of on track results in it.
By the way, Steve summed up my thinking on that question pretty much to the T.
The CRB believed that dropping 200 lbs from the Audi (something I voted for) could create problems since they viewed the car as already competitive. They saw this as an example of why they thought "blind" use of the process could create overdogs -- hence my statement.
I trust the process and voted for the weight reduction. However, their position is not entirely unreasonable nor is it some plan to destroy IT. It is a difference of opinion on the use of the process, and the role of on track results in it.
By the way, Steve summed up my thinking on that question pretty much to the T.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Stephen, calm down buddy!
This situation could be seen as being caused by the Audi situation, but it's really a confluence of events. Just like a tornado takes a bunch of things to happen at the same time and place, so did this. The Audi was merely the most visible aspect of it. But, in reality, it existed before the Audi.
For my part I'm most disappointed in the lack of communication between all the organizations at play here. The ITAC, the CRB, and the BoD. I thought things were going along nicely (albeit slowly) and I was proud of the work the ITAC did to really raise the game and be able to measure up to the standards the racers expected of us. Things take time, I understand that.
I was very surprised when I heard things about the CRB's position and their feelings that the refined version of the Process was deemed highly unworkable and very much a dead fish before it swam. What confuses me is that the CRB was on the months of calls where the principals, and the details were hashed out...why was the objection not exposed earlier?
I'm also rather troubled with the distance between me and the BoD. I'm told that things have to get by the BoD, and the CRB is representing the wishes of the BoD, but on the other hand, I wonder what the BoD really knows, and thinks.
Do all the BoD members get the members letters regarding this? Are they knowledgeable on the history and the situation? Do they know the 'pulse' of the membership?
They should, but I just don't think they do.
This situation could be seen as being caused by the Audi situation, but it's really a confluence of events. Just like a tornado takes a bunch of things to happen at the same time and place, so did this. The Audi was merely the most visible aspect of it. But, in reality, it existed before the Audi.
For my part I'm most disappointed in the lack of communication between all the organizations at play here. The ITAC, the CRB, and the BoD. I thought things were going along nicely (albeit slowly) and I was proud of the work the ITAC did to really raise the game and be able to measure up to the standards the racers expected of us. Things take time, I understand that.
I was very surprised when I heard things about the CRB's position and their feelings that the refined version of the Process was deemed highly unworkable and very much a dead fish before it swam. What confuses me is that the CRB was on the months of calls where the principals, and the details were hashed out...why was the objection not exposed earlier?
I'm also rather troubled with the distance between me and the BoD. I'm told that things have to get by the BoD, and the CRB is representing the wishes of the BoD, but on the other hand, I wonder what the BoD really knows, and thinks.
Do all the BoD members get the members letters regarding this? Are they knowledgeable on the history and the situation? Do they know the 'pulse' of the membership?
They should, but I just don't think they do.
StephenB
New member
The Facts about the engines offered for the ITB Audi Coupe
Corrected Data From The Original Factory Audi Manual. (not the internet)
WE engine code was available in 1981 through 1984 and was a 2.2L CIS available in 49 states, california, and Canada. had 100BHP SAE at 5100RPM
KX engine code was available in January 1984 through 1987 and was a 2.22L (136 cu.in) CISE available in 50 states. Had 84.9KW or 110BHP SAE at 5500RPM
The WE was only available on the Coupe never the CoupeGT and the biggest difference was the Electronic CIS and I think the hydrolic Vs Mechanical lifters. The KX was availale in the later 1984 Coupes AND offered in the Coupe GT 85-87 (Coupe GT has different bumpers, headlights, grill, sideskirts, brakes, and is in the GCR for 50lbs more than the Coupe. ALL 3 combinations of cars are legal in ITB. I happen to have an 84 Coupe with a KX engine. Smaller brakes, older bumpers and such and I am classified 50lbs lighter than the Coupe GT.
AND YOU FORGOT the JT variation which was available from January of 1983 through 1987 on the 400S Quattro. This was a 2.22L CIS-E(136cu.in.) with 115BHP SAE at 5500RPM. This is the EXACT SAME ENGINE as the KX except for a better flow downpipe that also dropped down differently next to the driveshaft. This IS the engine that raymond had in his car that caused Chris Albin to say we were cheating. (which obviosly he is not knowledgeable about) Lets be honest look it up... EVERYTHING inside is exactly the same but the 4000S Quattro was produced in a much higher QTY and engines are plentyfull. HOWEVER to make people beleive we skipped 2 races and spent over $1,000 on a new one just to change it so the code would be correct on the outside of the block. Feel free to check it anytime it was corrected a long time ago! My Car has always had the KX engine in it since the day I picked it up in Boston MA in 1999.
NF didn't exist before 1988 and it should be the NG you referenced which had 130HP at 5600RPM this was offered in the 1987 Coupe GT and was the engine that was offered in the Audi 90 that replaced the coupe in 1988 through 1991ish. This is a 2.3L engine with pistons that are 82.5MM in size vs the 81mm that is in the 2.2L and 2.22L. It also had the KE-III Jetronic injection. By the way the 1987 2.3L is an ITA car classified in the GCR!
I do not have any info on the 5000 or the quantum since these are totaly different cars.
You also never mention the 4cyl 1.8L engines! The JN was offered October of 1983 with 88BHP at 5500RPM and MG offered October of 1984 with 102BHP at 5500RPM. Both these engines have the same bore stroke ect so don't think there is any swapping of parts here.
Hope this clarifies everything for everyone. swap around parts and you get nothing. my car (the KX with the JT downpipe and header) is the best combo and basically a JT with a KX tranny hooked up to it. This yeilds a factory 115BHP SAE at 5500RPM
Stephen
Corrected Data From The Original Factory Audi Manual. (not the internet)
WE engine code was available in 1981 through 1984 and was a 2.2L CIS available in 49 states, california, and Canada. had 100BHP SAE at 5100RPM
KX engine code was available in January 1984 through 1987 and was a 2.22L (136 cu.in) CISE available in 50 states. Had 84.9KW or 110BHP SAE at 5500RPM
The WE was only available on the Coupe never the CoupeGT and the biggest difference was the Electronic CIS and I think the hydrolic Vs Mechanical lifters. The KX was availale in the later 1984 Coupes AND offered in the Coupe GT 85-87 (Coupe GT has different bumpers, headlights, grill, sideskirts, brakes, and is in the GCR for 50lbs more than the Coupe. ALL 3 combinations of cars are legal in ITB. I happen to have an 84 Coupe with a KX engine. Smaller brakes, older bumpers and such and I am classified 50lbs lighter than the Coupe GT.
AND YOU FORGOT the JT variation which was available from January of 1983 through 1987 on the 400S Quattro. This was a 2.22L CIS-E(136cu.in.) with 115BHP SAE at 5500RPM. This is the EXACT SAME ENGINE as the KX except for a better flow downpipe that also dropped down differently next to the driveshaft. This IS the engine that raymond had in his car that caused Chris Albin to say we were cheating. (which obviosly he is not knowledgeable about) Lets be honest look it up... EVERYTHING inside is exactly the same but the 4000S Quattro was produced in a much higher QTY and engines are plentyfull. HOWEVER to make people beleive we skipped 2 races and spent over $1,000 on a new one just to change it so the code would be correct on the outside of the block. Feel free to check it anytime it was corrected a long time ago! My Car has always had the KX engine in it since the day I picked it up in Boston MA in 1999.
NF didn't exist before 1988 and it should be the NG you referenced which had 130HP at 5600RPM this was offered in the 1987 Coupe GT and was the engine that was offered in the Audi 90 that replaced the coupe in 1988 through 1991ish. This is a 2.3L engine with pistons that are 82.5MM in size vs the 81mm that is in the 2.2L and 2.22L. It also had the KE-III Jetronic injection. By the way the 1987 2.3L is an ITA car classified in the GCR!
I do not have any info on the 5000 or the quantum since these are totaly different cars.
You also never mention the 4cyl 1.8L engines! The JN was offered October of 1983 with 88BHP at 5500RPM and MG offered October of 1984 with 102BHP at 5500RPM. Both these engines have the same bore stroke ect so don't think there is any swapping of parts here.
Hope this clarifies everything for everyone. swap around parts and you get nothing. my car (the KX with the JT downpipe and header) is the best combo and basically a JT with a KX tranny hooked up to it. This yeilds a factory 115BHP SAE at 5500RPM
Stephen
StephenB
New member
Phil, Not feeling picked on but I wanted to make sure everyone knows that the actual data from Audi was different. I have the original manual which has BHP SAE numbers much different than what you posted. 5% different!
Also after re-reading your post above you pointed out the 4000 and quantum had the JT engine. Just to clarify this is the KX engine that they stuck in the 4000 QUATTRO not the 4000 and it had a different header/downpipe only requiring a different engine code... the JT. All internals are the same. The Audi Manual shows this as a 2.22 with 115BHP SAE as in my previous post.
Stephen