Emphasis mine.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM. The quoted stock HP, from a period of time when those numbers were all over the map, was optimistic. But that had zero to do with where the 142's race weight was set. A 1.3 multiplier may have been DERIVED considering a quoted stock value of 130hp, but that was based on the lie that 165hp could be achieved by a legal IT build.
That car - and those "couple of others" were competitive on the track, but they weren't legal. I knew these cars when I was in the NW. I have a pretty good idea what it would take to make one turn a 1:22 at VIR. While it might be true that 165hp is "WAY more power than it actually [can make now in legal form]", it's a pretty good bet that somewhere along the line some of them did have that many horsies. THAT influenced the decision, not some "perception" of what it could make.
(That honor is reserved for the Audi Coupe, I think.)
When I was on the ITAC, we had requests to "run the numbers" on several of the Volvi. We put out requests and had people that were supposed to be providing us with information to do that, but we never got the documentation we were looking for. (Again - my recollection. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jake et al.)
Use the Process and run it. This is a great example of an instance when the "known horsepower" approach really is the best solution...
K
Kirk, when you and I were on board, those numbers had been requested but not submitted, to the best of my recollection.
Now, I joined the ITAC kinda right in the middle of the GR. The Volvo was chosen as 'the bogey car' with a couple others, as has been pointed out.
GCR weight, to the best of my recollection, was left as is at the time.
I do not remember hearing anything about the car making it's power via illegal methods. Looking at it's basic specs: 2.0 liter, 10.5: 1 compression, and rather large valves compared to similar cars suggests that 130Hp is a realistic number, and that it could be capable. (Just a quick reality check, those specs like valve size and compression are very good numbers)
Now, maybe I'm confused so let me do some math.
GCR weight for the Volvo 142 is 2640.
2640/17 = 155 assumed SAE crank net (the standard the process uses)
Stock power, according to Les Chaney is 130
My research found 124DIN cited.
Basically, DIN is the German equivalent to SAE net in that all accessories found on the production vehicle are operational and installed during measurements. While the conversion isn't absolute and linear, the generally accepted conversion is: 95DIN = 100SAE net.
If I were classing the Volvo today, I'd take the 124DIn, and convert for a double check of that 130 number. (124 x 1.05 = 130.2)
So, 130 seems to represent a legit SAE net number.
130 x 1.25 = 162 crank
162 x 17 =
2762
Adders: ? Its got good brakes, discs all around, and IIRC, a pretty decent suspension. So Off the top of my head I can't think of any .....
yet GCR weight is over 100 lighter.
And you guys are saying it won't be able to make weight at it's new weight? I'm confused and clearly my math is wrong.
So, let's back it out. 2640/17 =155. So, according to it's GCR weight, it needs to make 155 flywheel. OK, that converts to a 20% factor. (130 x 1.2 =156) That's BELOW the normal 25%.
Now, Les is on record up the thread as saying it was classed assuming 165 crank. How does that back into it's GCR weight? If it were actually classed at 165 crank, it would be spec'ed at
2805 with no adders.
Phil suggests that his historical knowledge on a well respected brake dyno (flywheel numbers, Trav, not chassis) are approaching 150. As Phil's math states, that's a 15% increase. If the ITAC accepted that, the GCR weight would be 2550. A 90 lb loss.
I'm clearly missing something...or something
S...
Jeff, what does the ITAC have as "Known power"?
I'd suggest that if the ITAC wishes to pursue this, they better have GREAT documentation. They have a mile high PILE of data on the MR2, showing similar 15% gains (or less), and that car was processed at 25%, right?
(I can hear the rebuttal to that: "The 4 valve cars get 30%. We knocked that down to 25%, which is the equivalent of a normal cars 20% so it got a good deal", which completely ignores the fact that those submissions were REAL numbers. Either you're using real numbers ITAC, or you are not. The 25% on the MR2 sounds like a compromise to me...but I digress.)
As to the cars inability to reach the new weight (2550?), how close can it come? I'm inclined to set it at teh Process weight, should the ITAC choose to accept the 'known numbers' and let the drivers install the hollow swaybars, the carbon seats, the carbon airdams, the lightweight fasteners, the lightweight exhausts, etc. Change the P/W ratio for the ENTIRE class?!?!?
NO.
It hasn't been done for a myriad of other cars in other classes, and it shouldn't be done here.
