Weight

R

Ralf

New member
With the additions of the "A" cars into ITB, and also the weight loss of some other cars, I took a look at the "process" to try and figure out how my car got to weigh 2280 pounds.
By my math, it should lose 95 pounds.

105hp + 25% = 131.25
131.25 x 17 = 2231.25
2231.25 - 2% = 2186.625

Am I wrong?
 
The A2 is classed with a 30% power adder, rather than a 25% which is standard, or the 20% that the MR2 is classed at.

The ITAC can recommend a non standard adder if they have 'evidence' to support it (though that is something that is not defined well enough IMO).

I have never seen a 30% counter flow ITB motor, nor known of one.

A letter should be written to have the A2 reprocessed - again.
 
Last edited:
A member on the CRB has told me that we need to write letters.
So how do we go about doing that without getting the "Thanks for your letter. Car is classified correctly." response?
 
I would keep it simple and to the point. Ask for the car to be reprocessed at the standard adder.
 
shwah said:
The A2 is classed with a 30% power adder, rather than a 25% which is standard, or the 20% that the MR2 is classed at.

The ITAC can recommend a non standard adder if they have 'evidence' to support it (though that is something that is not defined well enough IMO).

I have never seen a 30% counter flow ITB motor, nor known of one.

A letter should be written to have the A2 reprocessed - again.
Click to expand...

Chris - I enjoyed your original post, made for interesting reading. Please de-edit. :)
 
I wrote that after an 18 hour day, and when I read it this morning, I thought is was way too much about me, and not about the question at hand. The point is simple. These cars don't make 30%. They should be re-processed.
 
The cars make 30% with the Brazil cams and lots of compression.

The legal HT engine wont make the numbers, yes you are overweight, while the Mk 3 is a little under.
The ITAC guys have said that 50# make no difference anyway.. So what's 50# among friends. ( I really lose confidence in any racer that can say that!!)
I think that the Mk 2 is 80over. I moved all of my Vdubs into Prod due to the weight of the Mk 3/Mk 2 and the Mk 1 was adjusted too late for us.
 
Last edited:
#9599
Of course at this rate, we won't hear about a ruling until 2014. :shrug:
I just checked the status of two letters I submitted last Dec, and they are still awaiting review. #6988 and #6989
 
Ralf said:
A member on the CRB has told me that we need to write letters.
So how do we go about doing that without getting the "Thanks for your letter. Car is classified correctly." response?
Click to expand...

Ralf said:
#9599
Of course at this rate, we won't hear about a ruling until 2014. :shrug:
I just checked the status of two letters I submitted last Dec, and they are still awaiting review. #6988 and #6989
Click to expand...

The "You should write letters" thing is nothing more than a deflect and delay tactic. Why should anyone have to write a letter to correct something that is so obviously wrong, and has been discussed ad nausea on this and other forums?

And how about the guy that wrote the letter for the ITB Scirocco? It took ~ a year and a half to get through, and they still boned him w/ a non-process weight.

If you're going to write a letter, I think the better letter would be "Please provide supporting evidence that justifies classing these cars with a non-standard process factor." If nothing else, it eliminates the "Car is correct as classed" response.
 
Last edited:
I hate it that these popular, affordable cars are slowly being pushed to the back of the pack. Particularly since I own one! So, I got in contact with a few members of the ITAC about this very thing a couple weeks ago. I told them that I had "heard" that there was some mysterious dyno data from years back that lead to the classification of the 1.8L Golf/Jetta in a manner that folks had not been able to duplicate in the real world. I want to say that the ITAC members did respond, they were helpful, and that they are willing to take a look at this. However, they said that there are some very smart folks on the comp board that think the 1.8L can make the 30%. So, they suggested that any letter would need to provide evidence that the 1.8L CANNOT make the 30%. So, they seem to come at if from the opposite direction of this:

'"If you're going to write a letter, I think the better letter would be "Please provide supporting evidence that justifies classing these cars with a non-standard process factor."'

The burden was clearly placed on us to prove that whatever they think can be done to make 30% actually can't be done. Frankly, I think this is going to take an organized effort with the involvement of some smart VW folks to get the car properly re-processed. I'm certainly willing to help, but I don't understand the engineering/physics enough to match wits with the aforementioned comp board member(s) that we need to convince.
 
S2_ITBVW said:
I hate it that these popular, affordable cars are slowly being pushed to the back of the pack. Particularly since I own one! So, I got in contact with a few members of the ITAC about this very thing a couple weeks ago. I told them that I had "heard" that there was some mysterious dyno data from years back that lead to the classification of the 1.8L Golf/Jetta in a manner that folks had not been able to duplicate in the real world. I want to say that the ITAC members did respond, they were helpful, and that they are willing to take a look at this. However, they said that there are some very smart folks on the comp board that think the 1.8L can make the 30%. So, they suggested that any letter would need to provide evidence that the 1.8L CANNOT make the 30%. So, they seem to come at if from the opposite direction of this:

'"If you're going to write a letter, I think the better letter would be "Please provide supporting evidence that justifies classing these cars with a non-standard process factor."'

The burden was clearly placed on us to prove that whatever they think can be done to make 30% actually can't be done. Frankly, I think this is going to take an organized effort with the involvement of some smart VW folks to get the car properly re-processed. I'm certainly willing to help, but I don't understand the engineering/physics enough to match wits with the aforementioned comp board member(s) that we need to convince.
Click to expand...

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. The ITAC holds themselves to a pretty high standard (75% confidence IIRC) if they're going to recommend a deviation from the standard process multiplier, but the CRB holds themselves to no such standard. They can arbitrarily set a weight because 1 or 2 guys think that a given car can make more power. Yeah, that doesn't smack of back room BS at all. :rolleyes:

And the way that works, is that you can never win that argument. If you can't build a 1.8VW motor, that is IT legal, that makes 30% more power than stock, you're just not trying hard enough. Not to mention that most of the top VW engine builders in the country gave up that fight a long time ago, because they were tired of the BS. Dick Shine closed his shop, BSI switched to SM years ago, and Techtonics has moved on to the newer engines. Are there guys out there that know those motors can't make that kind of power w/ an IT-legal build? Sure, but see the beginning of this paragraph.
 
I have three known good values for VW IT prepped cars.
All are HT engines. I can take them to the same place that dynoes our SM. I have very good confidence in the Dynojet numbers from this shop.
All are pretty high end builds, gapless rings, 003-5 PTW , decked @016,nice free cranks, 3-4* late cam, anti reversion exhaust,low control pressure,slow water pump.

I can CC these engines, check the cam to verify the numbers, etc .
I am sure that they all will pull within 3hp of each other and around 117 whp@ 6200. (Based on the 1.6 SM @ 114@ 6800.)

Many of the old builds were way over on compression
Many have/had a Brazilian cam
Most of the heads are undersize at this point in their life...
These 2/3 points are good for maybe 8hp, above the 116-120 .
This would move the values well over the 25%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top