Beetle in ITC

[grjones1]

Scott,
My Fiesta will outbreak your Civic first of all because it sounds like your front to rear bias is off, and yes my car is lighter than yours. Does it moot my point? No If you can't break with a Fiesta, You can't brake with a Rabbit, and if you can't brake with a Rabbit, guess what, you won't brake with the NB. Engineers have a way of building cars to perform (go and stop) with their planned curb weight, especially VW engineers.
And guess why you don't wear your rear brakes, beyond the bias problem? Because your front wheel drive car has a front weight bias and because the rear end is so light, the rear brakes don't get as hot. And because they don't get as hot, they don't wear as much. Not because they are not being used or shouldn't be used.
And because the NB has large front and rear discs and a great deal more swept area, it will stop that 2700 lbs. just fine. Wait and see.
[/B][/QUOTE]

 

[grjones1]

[Knestis:
I appreciate and respect your remarks. I'm surprised to hear my Fiesta is so aerodynamically efficient. I 'll remember that as you pass me on the back straight at VIR. I would argue against the frontal area of the Golf being the same as the NB (my eye tells me the NB is smaller, but that's left for further research.

I've spoken to the brake issue.

But "real time" is the operative term - with a chip the computer varies the timing and mixture "in real time" for maximum performance. Unless you carry a mechanic under the hood to vary those settings as you need them, a computerless car is at a disadvantage.

"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." I've heard that before and guess what: you make a fast car go faster than you make a slow car go faster.

And thanks K, you've been one of two who have supported any of my argument. At least I know you have some guts.

G



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 25, 2004).]

 

[16v]

Spec Beetle? very intersting

------------------
Doug
NER.org
the16v.com
briansgarage.com

 

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Knestis:

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

Is it not also unrealistic to ask the CRB to start proactively classing every car on the market BEFORE someone writes in and expresses even the slightest bit of interest in building one?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[grjones1]

It appears to me at times that what is unrealistc is to ask the CRB to do anything other than what they want to do - right, wrong, or indifferent.
GRJ

 

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grjones1:
And thanks K, you've been one of two who have supported any of my argument. At least I know you have some guts.

G

This got me thinking. Did I miss something Kirk wrote? Here are his replies:

VW couldn't give less of a rip about club racing. A LOT of people - myself included - have been trying to change this since the mid-'80s, to no avail.
K

Nope, not that one.

The G-grind cam is not the issue here but I think it was a technical error made by parties at least not atagonistic to the VW cause. Problem is, it can't get undone in the current world.
I buy the logic of the Bug not being able to meet the minimum that would be required for it to be in B.

Regarding the MkIII in B? It's going to suck. I'm positive. Pure crap...

Not that one either!

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.

Not frontal area, not brakes, not chips... So, let me get this straight, you thank Kirk for supporting your argument....the only thing I can find has NOTHING to do with the classification of the NB in ITC...

Ahhh forget it, I am just picking on you now.

Listen, we think it is a good idea. We have thought of everything you say we haven't. I can see how you, as an ITC competitor would be freaked about this - ON THE SURFACE. Further investigation we hoped would calm your concerns, it didn't. Let's agree to disagree on this one. I know we both hope we are right. Assuming PCA's go through, we will correct our error if it is one. It could be, but we don't think so.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[Bill Miller]

Robert,

I know I said I was out on this one, but your logic is backwards on the rear brakes. They get hot when they get used, that's how brakes work, they convert mechanical energy to heat. They're not getting hot because they're not getting used. My old ITB Rabbit GTI had 3 seasons on the Autozone organic rear shoes, and they were good for at least another season when I sold the car. Talk to the guys that run A2 VWs in ITB (w/ rear discs). Most (all?) of them dial out as much rear bias as they can because they get too much wheel lockup.

And, as far as mfg's designing their cars brake systems to work at the curb weight of the car, that's true, but they don't design them to work like that under racing conditions. If that were the case, we wouldn't need to use pads from Hawk/Carbotech/PF/etc. Nice try, but flawed logic.

And, don't take this as me supporting the NB in ITC, because I don't.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Bill Miller]

Hey Kirk, do you think you can get that 350#+ out of the car when you convert it from SSC to ITB?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Jake]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Jake,
I've never seen you, but I have a feeling your wit is only exceeded by your good looks.
GRJ

Wow, nasty. Not even a smiley?

 

[Jake]

Eh - I forgive ya, and even throw you a bone. Just for another few data points, here are a few ITA and ITB cars that have a worse (stock) power to (spec) weight ratio than the new ITC Bug.

ITB Nissan Sentra / B12 -1989 2165 90
ITB Fiat Spider 1.8 (74-78) 2230 92.5
ITB Dodge Charger / 24 (81-85) 2320 96
ITB Plymouth Horizon 2.2 (80-90) 2320 96
ITB Dodge Omni 2.2 (80-90) 2320 96
ITA Honda Civic DX (sedan & H(88-91) 2225 92
ITB Porsche 914-4 1.7 (70-73) 2080 80
ITB Opel 1900 Sedan (71-75) 2180 90
ITB Volkswagen Rabbit GTI (83-84) 2180 90
ITB Nissan / Datsun 200-SX / S10 (L20) (77-79) 2350 97
ITB Toyota Celica I 2.0L (71-73) 2350 97
ITA Mercury Capri II V-6(76-77) 2670 110
ITB Volvo 240 2.3 (83-85) 2780 114
ITB Ford Pinto 2.3 (74-80) 2490 102
ITA Buick Skyhawk V-6 (75-80) 2810 115
ITA Chevrolet Monza V-6 (78-80) 2810 115
ITA Porsche 914-4 2.0L (73-76) 2230 95
ITB Audi 4000 & 4000S -1986 2500 102
ITB Suzuki Swift GA (89-94) 1735 70
ITB Fiat Brava 2 (79-81) 2530 102
ITB Nissan / Datsun 200-SX / S12 (CA20) (84-86) 2530 102
ITB Audi Coupe (81-84) 2490 100
ITB Toyota Celica III GTS (83-85) 2630 105
ITB Mazda 323 1.6 (86-88) 2060 82
ITA Ford Mustang V-6(1979) 3000 119
ITB Volkswagen Scirocco II 8V (83-88) 2270 90
ITB Nissan / Datsun 610 -1973 2450 97
ITB Nissan / Datsun 610 (74-76) 2450 97
ITA Toyota Celica Supra (79-81) 2930 116
ITA Mazda Cosmo (76-78) 2780 110
ITB Nissan / Datsun 200-SX / S10 (Z20) (80-81) 2530 100
ITB Toyota Celica ST -1986 2480 97
ITB Toyota Celica II 2.2 (78-80) 2430 (CP)2490 (H 95
ITB Mercury Bobcat 2.3 (74-80) 2520 98
ITB Mazda MX-6 (88-91) 2830 110
ITB Plymouth TC3 / Turismo 2.2 (81-85) 2320 90
ITB Pontiac Fiero 2.5 -1988 2550 98
ITA Dodge Daytona -1986 2620 100
ITB Volvo 242 / 244 2.1 (76-81) 2780 105
ITB Nissan / Datsun 200-SX / S11 (Z22) (82-83) 2705 102
ITB Mazda 323 1.6 -1989 2190 82
ITB Dodge Shadow (89-91) 2680 100
ITB Triumph TR-7 2 (76-81) 2440 (CP)2420 (Conv.) 90
ITB Volkswagen Rabbit 1.7 (81-84) 2050 71
ITB Volkswagen Jetta 1.7 (82-84) 2080 71
ITB Dodge Daytona 2.2 (84-89) 2630 96
ITB Pontiac Fiero 2.5 (84-87) 2550 92
ITB Ford Mustang II 2.3 (74-78) 2830 102
ITB Volkswagen Scirocco I 1.7 -1981 2110 71
ITB Volkswagen Scirocco II 1.7 (82-84) 2110 71
ITB Volvo 242 / 244 2 -1975 2780 98
ITB Porsche 914-4 1.8 (74-75) 2080 76
ITA Porsche 912-E -1976 2480 86
ITB Toyota Celica I 2.2 (74-77) 2510 86
ITB Ford Mustang 2.3 (79-93) 2640 89
ITB Opel Manta 1.9 (71-75) 2230 75
ITB Honda Accord 1.7L (79-83) 2270 75
ITB Plymouth Horizon 1.7 (78-79) 2280 75
ITB Toyota Corolla 1.8 (80-82) 2310 75
ITB Plymouth Horizon TC3 1.7 (79-80) 2320 70
ITA Isuzu Impulse (83-87) 2855 90
ITB Honda CRX HF 1.5L (88-91) 2030 62
ITB Toyota Corolla SR-5 -1987 2330 70


[This message has been edited by Jake (edited July 25, 2004).]

 

[ITSRX7]

...and I count 7 that have a better than or equal to, stock HP to spec weight...

And one ITC car with better numbers than the all-mighty ITA CRX...

Numbers don't tell the whole story.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Hey Kirk, do you think you can get that 350#+ out of the car when you convert it from SSC to ITB?

If the question is, "Can it be done?" the answer is, "I think so." If the question is whether I will do it, not likely in the next couple years.

In its current multi-purpose iteration, I won't get too hog-wild about weight, using OE wheels, leaving in the passenger glass and door cards, etc. I am building a lighter seat mount and replacing the steel side brackets with aluminum ones - I think. The sunroof probably WILL come out before the enduro - a new decision - but the car will still be fat.

It would take serious attention to detail - a really light exhaust and header, light wheels, mirrors, optional wiring harness elements (and there's a bunch of them), and 30 pounds less driver - to make it. Even at that, it's going to be tough.

On the classification issue, I'd like to see the ITAC maybe do some brainstorming and come up with a proactive list of appropriate cars that would expand the useful options available to racers. I think that C is where the greatest need is.

Also, is it still standard practice to weed out cars that haven't been entered recently? When was the last time the data were reviewed to see how many of those ITB Fiat Bravas or Mazda 323s are still being entered?

K

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
And if I have ignored your user manual, it's because I find it as confusing as ....

Sigh..........I was sure you'd be abe to get your keyboard around it.....

And Jake (the unkindest cut of all):

Huh? OK, if you say so...

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"?

Because I wanted to use numbers that were mentioned right here in this thread, lest I open myself up to a discussion on the proper "stock" number. Besides, the bottom line is the actual known power at the wheels...

It's because you want to ignore the potential of the VW 2.0:

Uh, no, I wasn't as devious as that... sorry.

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!

Lets look at both sides of this statement. First, you place a ton of faith in a magic chip. Maybe it adds a little, maybe a little more. But it's just one part of a package. Think about the world when the Volvo was made. Volvo wasn't exactly thought of as a maker of high strung sports cars...I bet the engine was far from optimized when it left the factory. It probably had an exhaust manifold that looked like it came off a John Deere lawn mower!! It is no surprise that it puts some good power down. On the other hand, I bet that the NB is WAY more optimized, just because the world demands great fuel economy, proper emissions, and so on. Across the board, performance (such as specific output) has improved in lock step over the years.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> 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.  ....... ([it's] a great deal more than 2%.) </font>

Ok, fine.... what say you figure it out. Show the math for the percentage YOU think is appropriate.

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.

"An again"??? AND again I didn't mention it because its such a minor factor....at many tracks the time spent in the range where aerodynamics become a factor isn't a majority, and I bet the overall drag numbers aren't that far apart.

And the real flaw in your whole premise is that you are failing to compare the Beetle to what is in C.

Hey, I didn't bring the Volvo up in the first place! I was just trying to add some real live numbers to take the discussion out of hyperbole, and ground it a bit. If you like I can go back and quote the statements that caused me to make my comments, but this post is out of control as it is!

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.

Your're spot on here, but I guess nobody cares about those cars or they would be classified.

Why is this not important to you?

Now THIS is Hilarious!!!!!!!!
Where have you been????? I drive an 1st Gen RX-7 !!!! It's the freaken POSTER CHILD for marginilized cars that have been totally outclassed by newer entries in it's class! Anyone on this board can tell you that I, of all people, fight every day to protect the existing cars and that the word "parity" is the most typed word on my keyboard!!!

.... 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....

Fair 'nuff...

Phew.....


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited July 25, 2004).]

 

[Catch22]

Originally posted by grjones1:
And thanks K, you've been one of two who have supported any of my argument. At least I know you have some guts.

G

So anyone who doesn't agree with you is gutless???

<ahem>
Fuck You

Apologies to everyone other than Mr. Jones. Feel free to delete this post but please wait until after Mr. Jones has seen it. Thanks in advance.

Scott, who was having fun, but is now done with this silly shit.

 

[Quickshoe]

Kirk,

I also found the same numbers for the Fiesta (Cd and Frontal area) but couldn't find any info on the frontal area of the NB...

Does anyone have a frontal area figure for the NB? I feel that overall they are probably pretty equal...who knows how lowering, front air dam and the windows down and window nets will affect both cars. The front windows on that NB are pretty big...

Jones,

I am not trying to pick an argument with you, I don't wish to go down that hand signals road again...perhaps leaving the aerodynamic clause out can only help your argument.

As for the brakes, can you lock up the wheels on your fiesta? If so, your brakes are capable of generating enough force to exceed the grip of the tires. So no worries, all ITC cars are being held to the same amount of rubber, therefore same levels of traction available for slowing. Given the same driver skill they can't stop in a shorter distance.

One argument that hasn't been made (that I remember reading) is the heavy cars are really going to be working those 6" wide rubber patches in the corners too.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the NB...if it is that obvious to you that it is the new class killer, buy one and do it. I am sure you could fetch a fair price for the fiesta, which still appears to be competitive in many eyes. It would really suck to sell the Fiesta, dump some money in a NB and then get trounced by your old car, then later your NB gets moved to B or carries even more weight because too many people are afraid of all that displacement.

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Catch22:
So anyone who doesn't agree with you is gutless???

I'm surprised you let that one through Bill. But no Scott, what I said doesn't suggest "that anyone who doesn't agree with me is gutless", all it says is K has enough guts to tell a mob when they might be making a mistake. And by the way Scott, You'll have to find someone else I'm not that way. In the meantime, Up Yours.

 

[grjones1]

"but your logic is backwards on the rear brakes."
Bill,
I'm beginning to think that I stay in the top 5 of MARRS by pure luck, because I apparently don't know anything about how cars work. I know damn good and well heat is a factor in braking and what I said was the rears don't heat as muuch as the fronts so they don't wear. But as far as not using them at all, that's BS and you know it. Ideally you want the rears working right up to the lock-up point if you can find it. But as far as rears not even in the equation- again that's BS. And we use racing pads to work in the factory systems at temperatures not usually met on the street, not because the factory systems are not up to stopping the cars.
Damn guys I'm beginning to see the problem : you can't read.
K did support the idea that the G-grind was an administrative error and he did suggest that the NB in C might be wrong and that does support "some of my argument."
I'm dense on occasion but you guys are beginning to be downright impenetrable.
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 26, 2004).]

 

[grjones1]

Jake,
What bothers me about all your answers is that you ask me to come up with figures that I would have expected you to know before you made a recommendation to classify the NB. If the ITAC or CRB is not considering CD, actual vs potential horsepower, braking capability, etc.,etc., before they place a car, they really aren't doing their jobs.
GRJ

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Jake,
What bothers me about all your answers is that you ask me to come up with figures that I would have expected you to know before you made a recommendation to classify the NB. If the ITAC or CRB is not considering CD, actual vs potential horsepower, braking capability, etc.,etc., before they place a car, they really aren't doing their jobs.
GRJ

Mr. Jones...you are speaking as though I am a member of the ITAC. Last I knew, I wasn't.

The only number I suggessted you supply in my responses was a figure for driveline loss in a modern Volkswagen.

I haven't entered into any braking discussion, and I stated why I didn't think aero should play a strong role in classing.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

 

[Banzai240]

Bill,

I did run the numbers and posted them above (concerning the GTI...) You might have just missed the post in all this "interesting" discussion...

As I posted above, if the GTI indeed makes the same stock HP, then in ITB I'd expect it to weight in around 2450lbs... Actually, I'll revise that now because we typically take out about 50lbs for FWD configurations, so let's say 2400lbs... That's again making the assumption of a 25% increase over stock HP with IT prep... or around 143.75 hp... Looks like a good fit in ITB to me...

OH, and to reference something I glazed over several posts back from Mr. Jones... You accuse me of ONLY considering weight??? GIVE ME A BREAK! This car, more so than many others, was given a complete once-over... That's the only way it didn't end up in ITB...

Were only talking about a 1-2 second time gap between a fast ITB car and a fast ITC car at most tracks... I'm pretty confident that the car could be made to "fit" in either class... That's a lot different that saying it's realistic for it to be able to "meet" the specifications required to make it "fit" in the higher class... The car is in ITC at 2700-something pounds, and it has the same wt/pwr ratio as the 510, Hondas, and early VWs... It's going to fit fine.

One more thing about making them heavy and moving them down... It's a little cheaper to build-em, because you don't have to go to all the work of trying to get EVERY last component down to a minimum weight, you don't have to buy the most expensive (lightest) racing wheels, and you don't have to worry about sacrificing safety for performance...

Look for more of the same type of classifications in the future, as needed to make those classifications justifiable and sensible...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX