Nope. Not a thing. I spose you could skool me.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Beetle in ITC
- Thread starter grjones1
- Start date
Nope. Not a thing. I spose you could skool me.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Banzai240
New member
That's pretty simple actually... It's because the 25-year old Volvo still KICKS BUTT in ITB... What is so hard to understand about that?
If all you are looking at are ccs/CID, then I know of a few MR-2s (1.6L, etc., etc. ) that would LOVE to come run with the rest of the 1.4-1.7L cars in ITC...
Also, as someone mentioned before, though you've obviously chosen to ignore it, if you open a quote tag, you have to CLOSE the quote tag to make it effective...
In other words, your
won't work without a [/ QUOTE] (space added between the "/" and the "Q" to get it to print here rather than actually functioning as a Quote tag...)
All I am reading here is a bunch of non-sensical anger that suddenly ITC might have become a little more hotly contested... I seem to recall somewhere along the line WANTING to race against other cars...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 25, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 25, 2004).]
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Bill Miller
New member
Jake,
Don't confuse him w/ facts.
Darin,
Have you had a chance to run those numbers for the Rabbit GTI?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Don't confuse him w/ facts.
Darin,
Have you had a chance to run those numbers for the Rabbit GTI?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Catch22
New member
OK. Since you so graciously provided those numbers I'll do some math for you. It'll give me a headache, but I do it anyway because I'm such a great guy.
Lets call the Civic weight 2170 as thats typically where I roll across the scales. We'll call the Beetle a nice round 2750.
A 240mm disc on a 2170lb car is stopping about 9lbs of car per mm of brake disc. A 280mm disc on a 2750lb car is stopping (whoopsy daisy) about 10lbs per mm of brake disc.
Uh oh... Gee. Thats a surprise.
I know that this is completely unscientific as it doesn't take into account the actual friction contact surface area of the rotor or the size of the pads. I was just trying to point out to our friend here that he keeps throwing out half-assed arguments without working them all the way through. Sure, the Beetle has 280mm brake rotors... At 2700+lbs I should hope so.
But I got $20 right now that I'll be able to outbrake the crap out of any NB that shows up.
Scott, who several years ago used to wonder what kind of goobered up thought processes could have the IT classes so screwed up.
Now I know.
Now matter how old you get, you just keep learning every day.
JeffYoung
New member
Until someone shows up with a fully prepped, fully developed ITC Beetle and whoops ass, this is all academic ... and I think the chances of that happening anytime soon are slim to none.
People said the 944s being classed in ITS this year meant the end of the BMW dominance...uh...no....
People said the 944s being classed in ITS this year meant the end of the BMW dominance...uh...no....
Alright Gentlemen I'll attempt to refute your arguments as "objectively" as you have presented them. And if I have ignored your user manual, it's because I find it as confusing as your justification of the 2.0 NB in ITC.
Catch22:
You describe my arguments as "half-assed", at the same time as your front brake figures [in which you fail to report whether or not your Civic has vented (as does the N
or solid rotors] conveniently disregard the rear brake comparison between the Civic and the NB: the Civic has 180 mm rear drums as opposed to the 232 mm rear discs of the NB (which I beleive will skew the advantage to the NB.)Your Civic won't brake with my Fiesta let alone a fourwheeled disc NB. You are dreaming.
As far as "goobered up thought processes" screwing up the classes - you have to blame that on the same people who are making the rules now. I've had no part in it.
Darin:
Because "the 25-year old Volvo kicks but in B" is exactly why I am concerned about the NB in C - they (the Volvo and the N are more comparable cars than any car in C is comparable to the NB. And I don't believe a twin-cam, mid engined 1600 (MR-2) can be compared to any 1600 in ITC (what a stretch that was!) You accuse me of considering only displacement when all you are looking at is weight. Look at the whole package. And yes as I said I welcome new cars but not cars so obviously potentially superior they could dominate the class.
And Jake (the unkindest cut of all):
If you are going to compare "apples to apples" start with the stock HP of the Volvo. Why begin with it in "IT trim at the wheels"? It's because you want to ignore the potential of the VW 2.0:
If you can get 160 HP out of a 25-year old 2.0 Volvo, imagine what just a computer chip will do for the NB! And you guess 144 HP as maximum for the VW as generous. Then you award 2% difference in driveline loss from front drive to rear drive -that's conservative. All you have to do is remember what the original 898-1275 Minis did to rear wheel drive 1600s to realize how much more efficient front drive drive lines are (a great deal more than 2%.) An again you fail to consider aerodynamics. At .38, the NB is not exactly sleek, but it's a great deal more slippery than the Volvo.
And the real flaw in your whole premise is that you are failing to compare the Beetle to what is in C. Even if your deducions are close (and I don't believe they are) the real rub here is the potential superiority of the NB to what presently runs in C. Even if the NB is not competitive in B, you are treatening the close competition in C, with disregard for the "racing potential" of a car that does not even need to be classed. As I said before there are numerous new cars out there that are much closer to the older cars in C. That way you bring in fresh cars and don't threaten the existing competiveness of guys who have been developing their cars for years. Why is this not important to you?
My knee-jerk reaction to the reclassification of the NB, because for the life of me I cannot see the logic of the change, I jumped to the perhaps overreactive conclusion that people were bowing to VW influence, member driven or otherwise. For that I will guardedly retract my charges.
And Bill,
Because you are so close to home, I'm sorry you find my complaints so confusing- sometimes the hurried nature of answering this stuff gets in the way of clear communication. I hope my driving never becomes as muddled at times.
G. Robert Jones
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 25, 2004).]
Catch22:
You describe my arguments as "half-assed", at the same time as your front brake figures [in which you fail to report whether or not your Civic has vented (as does the N
or solid rotors] conveniently disregard the rear brake comparison between the Civic and the NB: the Civic has 180 mm rear drums as opposed to the 232 mm rear discs of the NB (which I beleive will skew the advantage to the NB.)Your Civic won't brake with my Fiesta let alone a fourwheeled disc NB. You are dreaming.As far as "goobered up thought processes" screwing up the classes - you have to blame that on the same people who are making the rules now. I've had no part in it.
Darin:
Because "the 25-year old Volvo kicks but in B" is exactly why I am concerned about the NB in C - they (the Volvo and the N
are more comparable cars than any car in C is comparable to the NB. And I don't believe a twin-cam, mid engined 1600 (MR-2) can be compared to any 1600 in ITC (what a stretch that was!) You accuse me of considering only displacement when all you are looking at is weight. Look at the whole package. And yes as I said I welcome new cars but not cars so obviously potentially superior they could dominate the class.And Jake (the unkindest cut of all):
If you are going to compare "apples to apples" start with the stock HP of the Volvo. Why begin with it in "IT trim at the wheels"? It's because you want to ignore the potential of the VW 2.0:
If you can get 160 HP out of a 25-year old 2.0 Volvo, imagine what just a computer chip will do for the NB! And you guess 144 HP as maximum for the VW as generous. Then you award 2% difference in driveline loss from front drive to rear drive -that's conservative. All you have to do is remember what the original 898-1275 Minis did to rear wheel drive 1600s to realize how much more efficient front drive drive lines are (a great deal more than 2%.) An again you fail to consider aerodynamics. At .38, the NB is not exactly sleek, but it's a great deal more slippery than the Volvo.
And the real flaw in your whole premise is that you are failing to compare the Beetle to what is in C. Even if your deducions are close (and I don't believe they are) the real rub here is the potential superiority of the NB to what presently runs in C. Even if the NB is not competitive in B, you are treatening the close competition in C, with disregard for the "racing potential" of a car that does not even need to be classed. As I said before there are numerous new cars out there that are much closer to the older cars in C. That way you bring in fresh cars and don't threaten the existing competiveness of guys who have been developing their cars for years. Why is this not important to you?
My knee-jerk reaction to the reclassification of the NB, because for the life of me I cannot see the logic of the change, I jumped to the perhaps overreactive conclusion that people were bowing to VW influence, member driven or otherwise. For that I will guardedly retract my charges.
And Bill,
Because you are so close to home, I'm sorry you find my complaints so confusing- sometimes the hurried nature of answering this stuff gets in the way of clear communication. I hope my driving never becomes as muddled at times.
G. Robert Jones
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 25, 2004).]
gran racing
Super Moderator
You've mentioned the computer chip issue before. Just curious, just how much do you really think this magical computer chip will effect performance? And for cars that don't have the magic computers, there are no ways of modifing the various areas that this computer does? Just curious, what areas can be modified via the computer that can't by other means? Timing, fuel flow, rev. limiter...
I've spoken with a bunch of people about the ECU and potential gains. Not really so sure that it will produce nearly the amount of performance increase that you're alluding to. Honestly, I'd love to hear (with proven results) otherwise. Then again maybe it really doesn't matter much since my ECU isn't chipable.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
I've spoken with a bunch of people about the ECU and potential gains. Not really so sure that it will produce nearly the amount of performance increase that you're alluding to. Honestly, I'd love to hear (with proven results) otherwise. Then again maybe it really doesn't matter much since my ECU isn't chipable.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
gran racing:
I refer to the potential of what a chip can do for the newer cars together with other allowed modifications. In this case of course the NB. You really make my point for me - the fact that the older cars do not have a computer to play with and cars such as the NB have not only standard IT tweaks but also the chips in addition. Again if they can get 160 crank horsepower out of a 2.0 Volvo without a chip, what do you imagine they can do with a VW 2.0 with a chip? I know that some of the new Hondas and Minis aftermarket people are advertising 15-25% horsepower gains with some chips. I haven't seen any figures for the VWs.
My guess is and (I pretend little familiarity with the new electonics) the chips control properties of the electronic fuel injection and of course if you have VVT, the chips affect that setting. Something you can't always do mechanically (or legally mechanically). I would guess if you can vary ignition timing together with mixture control, you can produce numbers on the power curve you can't contol with old technology. But this is of course strictly intuitive.
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 25, 2004).]
I refer to the potential of what a chip can do for the newer cars together with other allowed modifications. In this case of course the NB. You really make my point for me - the fact that the older cars do not have a computer to play with and cars such as the NB have not only standard IT tweaks but also the chips in addition. Again if they can get 160 crank horsepower out of a 2.0 Volvo without a chip, what do you imagine they can do with a VW 2.0 with a chip? I know that some of the new Hondas and Minis aftermarket people are advertising 15-25% horsepower gains with some chips. I haven't seen any figures for the VWs.
My guess is and (I pretend little familiarity with the new electonics) the chips control properties of the electronic fuel injection and of course if you have VVT, the chips affect that setting. Something you can't always do mechanically (or legally mechanically). I would guess if you can vary ignition timing together with mixture control, you can produce numbers on the power curve you can't contol with old technology. But this is of course strictly intuitive.
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 25, 2004).]
Dave,
I think it varies for each engine. Both by overall design and then by individual case. The NB's weight figure takes into account the fact that it has a new technology ECU and most others in the clas do not.
2760. Let that sink in - it's a lot of weight - Right at curb for this car.
On another note, your ECU may not be 'chippable' but you might be able to gut the factory ECU case and install a MOTEC or the like under the current rules.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
I think it varies for each engine. Both by overall design and then by individual case. The NB's weight figure takes into account the fact that it has a new technology ECU and most others in the clas do not.
2760. Let that sink in - it's a lot of weight - Right at curb for this car.
On another note, your ECU may not be 'chippable' but you might be able to gut the factory ECU case and install a MOTEC or the like under the current rules.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Catch22
New member
Originally posted by grjones1:
Catch22:
You describe my arguments as "half-assed", at the same time as your front brake figures [in which you fail to report whether or not your Civic has vented (as does the N
I didn't mention the ventedness of my front rotors because they are in fact vented, just like the VW. As for the rear brakes... Who cares. The rear brakes on a FWD car are borderline afterthought. Why do you think so many ITA CRX guys stick with the rear drums when its totally legal to update to the rear discs from the '91 Si??? I'll tell you why, its because the discs are heavier and have proven long ago to give absolutely no advantage at all. Also, guess how often I changed the rear pads on my old (rear disc) Integra race car... About once every year and a half. Guess how often I changed the front pads... About every other weekend (every weekend at heavy braking tracks). Guess how often I change the rear shoes on my Civic??? Well, I don't know because I've been driving the car for almost 2 years and haven't changed them yet.
Need more info??? How about this...
I used to drive a '94 Integra GSR in NASA's Honda Challenge series. That car weighed 2600lbs and had 262mm front rotors and rear discs. The brakes were wayyyyyy undersized for that car. I used to run 2 sets of ducts to the fronts and STILL had issues. The same issues I suspect the fat assed VW will have (do the rotor size vs weight comparison I did above for the GSR vs. the VW. The results aren't really surprising).
As for your Fiesta outbraking me... Well OK then... Which side of your own argument are you on?
Now you're saying that your solid 221mm rotored and rear drummed Fiesta will brake as well (if not better) than my vented 240mm rotored and slightly larger rear drummed Civic??? This IS what you just said... Right?
Well... Why do you think that? Is it maybe because your Fiesta is... uhhhh... 400lbs LIGHTER than my car???
Maybe???
Scott, who loves a good argument but for now will settle for this one.
Food for thought...
Total aero drag "horsepower" (it's a negative number, relative to that made by the engine) is a function of Cd and frontal area - at least where the factors of the car are concerned.
A little poking around indicates that the Fiesta has a Cd of .40-.41 but a small frontal area - 1.74m^2 (meters squared). The net effect on the total drag of these factors is therefore right around 0.70.
(The other factors - air density and velocity - will be assumed to be constants for comparison.)
The VW Golf has a frontal area in excess of 1.91m^2 and I'd expect the Beetle to be similar. At a Cd of .38, the net effect is .72 so, if the Beetle has a little less frontal area, it's pretty damned close - perhaps in the Fiesta's favor.
The rear brake issue is probably a non-issue. I've been running the SSC Golf this year in excess of 2700 pounds and the rear pads - the STOCK rear pads - aren't even showing notable wear. How much are they contributing to stopping the car? I'll grant that the ABS and lack of true controlled brake balance are probably contributing factors that would fall out if fully prepared cars were compared.
I've been around and around re: the chip issue. They aren't magic. They simply control the same variables that a carb'd car can control with jet and proper ignition timing changes - albeit in real time. The VW should gain LESS hp in the stock-to-IT change than does the Volvo, simply because it is closer to its potential from the factory.
Mr. Jones makes a point with which I wholeheartedly agree: There are a LOT of potentially appropriate ITC cars that are not classified. Unfortunately, there is no process to take the long view on listings. The CRB only gets to say "yes" or "no" to member requests. I would tend to think that new racers might be inclined to build a Hyundai or some other cheap option if they were listed but it's unrealistic to ask that same person to apply for approval before they start racing.
K
Total aero drag "horsepower" (it's a negative number, relative to that made by the engine) is a function of Cd and frontal area - at least where the factors of the car are concerned.
A little poking around indicates that the Fiesta has a Cd of .40-.41 but a small frontal area - 1.74m^2 (meters squared). The net effect on the total drag of these factors is therefore right around 0.70.
(The other factors - air density and velocity - will be assumed to be constants for comparison.)
The VW Golf has a frontal area in excess of 1.91m^2 and I'd expect the Beetle to be similar. At a Cd of .38, the net effect is .72 so, if the Beetle has a little less frontal area, it's pretty damned close - perhaps in the Fiesta's favor.
The rear brake issue is probably a non-issue. I've been running the SSC Golf this year in excess of 2700 pounds and the rear pads - the STOCK rear pads - aren't even showing notable wear. How much are they contributing to stopping the car? I'll grant that the ABS and lack of true controlled brake balance are probably contributing factors that would fall out if fully prepared cars were compared.
I've been around and around re: the chip issue. They aren't magic. They simply control the same variables that a carb'd car can control with jet and proper ignition timing changes - albeit in real time. The VW should gain LESS hp in the stock-to-IT change than does the Volvo, simply because it is closer to its potential from the factory.
Mr. Jones makes a point with which I wholeheartedly agree: There are a LOT of potentially appropriate ITC cars that are not classified. Unfortunately, there is no process to take the long view on listings. The CRB only gets to say "yes" or "no" to member requests. I would tend to think that new racers might be inclined to build a Hyundai or some other cheap option if they were listed but it's unrealistic to ask that same person to apply for approval before they start racing.
K