Beetle in ITC
- Thread starter grjones1
- Start date
It can be pretty simple if you know the stock profile. All FFords running with VARA had their cams checked...took all of about 30 seconds per lobe. I don't know what the device was called...so in layman's terms here is what we did...
1) You roll up to tech with valve cover loose, all plugs removed and dist cap off.
2) Tech guys mount a fixture on the head and puts a "dial indicator" on the rocker arm tip.
3) Tech guy mounts a special "rotor" on the distributor shaft.
4) You put it in gear, and raise the right wheel off the ground.
5) Tech rotates your airborne wheel (also verifies that you are utilizing an open diff as required by the rules) turning the motor.
6) The "dial indicator" actually has a cable coming out the back side and is a linear potentiometer. The special "rotor" is a rotary potentiometer with a cable coming out the top of it. These two cables are hooked up to a laptop with the cam profile software. As the motor is rotated the 'rotor' tells the computer the degrees of crank rotation at the same time the 'dial indicator' is telling the computer the lift at that exact degree of rotation. The results are plotted on a X-Y graph with each point defining a line that is overlayed over a known good sample of the cam. If you can't stay in the line, you are illegal. Pretty simple.
Seems like it would be simple for the MIATA, I assume you could write the program to interpret the signal from the CAS.
[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited July 26, 2004).]
1) You roll up to tech with valve cover loose, all plugs removed and dist cap off.
2) Tech guys mount a fixture on the head and puts a "dial indicator" on the rocker arm tip.
3) Tech guy mounts a special "rotor" on the distributor shaft.
4) You put it in gear, and raise the right wheel off the ground.
5) Tech rotates your airborne wheel (also verifies that you are utilizing an open diff as required by the rules) turning the motor.
6) The "dial indicator" actually has a cable coming out the back side and is a linear potentiometer. The special "rotor" is a rotary potentiometer with a cable coming out the top of it. These two cables are hooked up to a laptop with the cam profile software. As the motor is rotated the 'rotor' tells the computer the degrees of crank rotation at the same time the 'dial indicator' is telling the computer the lift at that exact degree of rotation. The results are plotted on a X-Y graph with each point defining a line that is overlayed over a known good sample of the cam. If you can't stay in the line, you are illegal. Pretty simple.
Seems like it would be simple for the MIATA, I assume you could write the program to interpret the signal from the CAS.
[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited July 26, 2004).]
Bill Miller
New member
Simple way to address the cam question. Call a VW dealer and ask for the part # for a cam for a '79 1.6 Rabbit. Get me the p/n, and I can get you the specs on it.
BTW Robert, I'm surprised you weren't all over the ITS Olds/Pontiac getting the Saturn hubs, when the OEM stuff was still available. I never did get an answer as to why, when, and how that one was allowed.
Kirk,
My apologies for speaking for you.
Darin,
You're telling me that a Rabbit GTI, making 25 less hp, stock, than a NB, having rear drum brakes, smaller front brakes, and mechanical FI, is going to come in at only 60# less?? Using the 25% hp increase, in IT trim, the Rabbit GTI doesn't even get the NB's stock hp number. Please, don't insult my, or anyone else's, intelligence like that.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
BTW Robert, I'm surprised you weren't all over the ITS Olds/Pontiac getting the Saturn hubs, when the OEM stuff was still available. I never did get an answer as to why, when, and how that one was allowed.
Kirk,
My apologies for speaking for you.
Darin,
You're telling me that a Rabbit GTI, making 25 less hp, stock, than a NB, having rear drum brakes, smaller front brakes, and mechanical FI, is going to come in at only 60# less?? Using the 25% hp increase, in IT trim, the Rabbit GTI doesn't even get the NB's stock hp number. Please, don't insult my, or anyone else's, intelligence like that.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
I don't race against ITS Olds/Pontiacs, Bill. And another point FYI. I just conferred with another ITC racer (Rabbit) who opened a catalog advertising computer chips guaranteeing 15-20 Hp gains for a street stock NB. And that's with a catalytic converter and stock header in place. Another factor he mentioned was that by the time you gut the NB (AC, airbags, radio, etc) you'll be putting 300-400 lbs of ballast in the car to meet the weight. And guess where all that ballast gets to go - in the right center of gravity place. Oh yea, these guys really have it together when they think about "parity."
GRJ
and you could be made to provide a factory example to be tested along with the camshaft under your hood...
[/B][/QUOTE]
Darin, no disrespect, but if you advised me to provide a "factory example", I'd point to the camshaft in my car and suggest you deal with it, mainly because I could not provide a new factory example. They don't exist at least from a dealer. And if I can't get one from a dealer I can't be sure it's factory spec'd. This madness can go on and on.
GRJ
GRJ
[/B][/QUOTE]
Darin, no disrespect, but if you advised me to provide a "factory example", I'd point to the camshaft in my car and suggest you deal with it, mainly because I could not provide a new factory example. They don't exist at least from a dealer. And if I can't get one from a dealer I can't be sure it's factory spec'd. This madness can go on and on.
GRJ
GRJ
Without the proposed rule, aftermarket replacement rotors, balljoint, tie rods, etc. are no legal.
[/B][/QUOTE]
And gee Geo, who pointed that out to you about six months ago, when I suggested that nowhere in the ITCS does it say that a part must have a number on it, only that it must meet factory specs unless otherwise indicated?
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 26, 2004).]
[/B][/QUOTE]
And gee Geo, who pointed that out to you about six months ago, when I suggested that nowhere in the ITCS does it say that a part must have a number on it, only that it must meet factory specs unless otherwise indicated?
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 26, 2004).]
Banzai240
New member
Bill,
Calm the F*&^ Down! Give me a break guy... I told you I was sick for several days and that I must have missed your request. I thought you had said that the VW you were referring to made 115hp stock... which explains the ITC numbers I came up with...
Tell me again how much stock hp your GTI makes and I'll be happy to "run the numbers" for you... It would help if you had some REAL HP numbers as well, as VW doesn't seem to be very honest with their advertised HP on these early cars...
Oh, and while you are at it... LIGHTEN UP! PLEASE...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
therooster
New member
"grjones1...I don't race against ITS Olds/Pontiacs, Bill...GRJ"
So you only care if the rules/exceptions that effect you? If you are going to bitch about special exceptions, please be consistant. The Olds/Pontiac exception is on the Spec line. The VW G grind is not. ( as said before if it is not in the GCR ITCS it is not totally legal)
A ton of ITC cars have "Notes" in the ITCS. Do any of these notes make the cars overdogs? No. Personnaly I think the 92-95 Civic CX HB would make a killer ITC car. Same every thing as the ITA car of the same generation but a little less HP (also less weight required). Why isn't this dominating if the Honda is the ITA car to have? (sarcasism off)
you seem to have a special attachment to the Ford otherwise you would not have picked it. Please understand that your best guess at a winning car will not last for ever. The SCCA ITCS made a decision. Grow up and deal with it. Now take the time and develop your car instead of responding to these posts. If you are attached to your car just race and have fun. If you want to win, understand that you will probably go thru this more than once in your racing career and find a new winning car.
So you only care if the rules/exceptions that effect you? If you are going to bitch about special exceptions, please be consistant. The Olds/Pontiac exception is on the Spec line. The VW G grind is not. ( as said before if it is not in the GCR ITCS it is not totally legal)
A ton of ITC cars have "Notes" in the ITCS. Do any of these notes make the cars overdogs? No. Personnaly I think the 92-95 Civic CX HB would make a killer ITC car. Same every thing as the ITA car of the same generation but a little less HP (also less weight required). Why isn't this dominating if the Honda is the ITA car to have? (sarcasism off)
you seem to have a special attachment to the Ford otherwise you would not have picked it. Please understand that your best guess at a winning car will not last for ever. The SCCA ITCS made a decision. Grow up and deal with it. Now take the time and develop your car instead of responding to these posts. If you are attached to your car just race and have fun. If you want to win, understand that you will probably go thru this more than once in your racing career and find a new winning car.
Bill Miller
New member
Darin,
I understand that you've been sick, and as I said, I hope you're feeling better. But I think you're the one that needs to "lighten the &#$(#$)!^##)*##$@^&*(% up". If you look at the first post on this page, I stated it was the Rabbit GTI I was interested in. I had stated the stock hp/torque numbers earlier, not to mention that they're in Jake's spreadsheet.
Now, please provide some evidence to support your claim that VW has been less than honest w/ their published hp on the early cars. You've obviously swallowed some old line of bunk that's gotten twised around over the years. Back when the Rabbit GTI was in SS, its weight was 1850#. It's been speculated that the original curb weight was understated, but I've yet to see any info to support this claim either. I have no idea how the SS weight was established back then, and it doesn't seem that anyone else has either. Talk about your black helicopters!
BTW, stock numbers are 90hp / 100 lb-ft. Let me know if you need more info/numbers.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
I understand that you've been sick, and as I said, I hope you're feeling better. But I think you're the one that needs to "lighten the &#$(#$)!^##)*##$@^&*(% up". If you look at the first post on this page, I stated it was the Rabbit GTI I was interested in. I had stated the stock hp/torque numbers earlier, not to mention that they're in Jake's spreadsheet.
Now, please provide some evidence to support your claim that VW has been less than honest w/ their published hp on the early cars. You've obviously swallowed some old line of bunk that's gotten twised around over the years. Back when the Rabbit GTI was in SS, its weight was 1850#. It's been speculated that the original curb weight was understated, but I've yet to see any info to support this claim either. I have no idea how the SS weight was established back then, and it doesn't seem that anyone else has either. Talk about your black helicopters!
BTW, stock numbers are 90hp / 100 lb-ft. Let me know if you need more info/numbers.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Banzai240
New member
Bill... you should have the answer to this question already... There is NO WAY that the 1.6VW only makes 75hp stock... either that, or IT prep REALLY wakes these things up, because the hp numbers for an IT prepped motor show that it's gaining a LOT more than 25% in the prep process... But let's not waste a bunch of time off topic and get to the point...
If 90hp is the right number for the GTI you are referring too, then I'd say it should be in ITC at roughly 2290lbs... give or take 50lbs. This would only hold true if guys like Chris Albin, or Mark Coffin, or any number of other VW experts didn't provide us with evidence of the true HP for this car in IT prep...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
Rooster,
I didn't realize one had to exhibit total altruism to be allowed to post. Of course I want to see the rules applied evenly But I'm having enough trouble trying to keep things equitable for my 25-year old pushrod 1600 without worrying about ITS.
And gee, Rooster after 30 some years of racing in SCCA and 12 years of working on my Fiesta, I probably know a little about car development and outdating of equipment. And I already win on occasion with my Fiesta, i think I'm "dealing with it" pretty well.
But I can recognize when the rulesmakers have not put enough thought into changes that errantly impact a whole class, whether they want to admit it or not. Putting new cars in C is fine, but not one that has a horsepower potential that so far exceeds anything else in class that the others won't have a chance. That's blatant disregard for people who have maintained the class for years.
GRJ
Banzai240
New member
That's a BIG CROCK of BS, Mr. Jones! There is NO ONE on the ITAC that HASN'T taken the whole picture and all our members in to consideration. And since WHEN are YOU the only authority on HP potential for the NB??? Enlighten us please, and tell us what YOU believe the HP potential of this car is... WEll???
The HP potential for this car was estimated just like it has been for any number of other cars and the resulting values were sanity checked to see if what is being done makes sense. It does. This isn't some mysterious black box that has some kind of hidden elements keeping us from having the insight into it's potential... It's a freaking VW motor, which has been explained to be just like all the other VW motors out there...
The car fits in two places... ITC at it's current weight, or ITB at about 2450lbs... It was determined that it would be difficult at best to reach 2450lbs in IT prep, so the classification was made as it is.
The bottom line is that we'd rather have a competitive C car than a garbage B car, because that is going to help put cars on the track. No one has disregarded those who are already here. If you Fiesta is currently competitive with the 510 or Rabbit or Honda, it's going to be competitive with the NB... and, with PCAs in place, we will have the option of adjusting the classfication of the NB should it's performance show that we got it wrong.
You're making a lot of generalization without a lot of substance behind them and frankly, it's unbecoming. There is no one in the SCCA more dedicated to doing the right thing that the current ITAC. However, if your idea of the "right" thing is for us to be classifying cars with no shot at being competitive, then we're just going to have to disagree.
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
Banzai240
New member
Oh, I realized that you may have asked me for the ITB numbers as well...
Given the numbers you gave me, the ITB weight for this car would be about 2065lbs, give or take 50lbs...
That could change if someone came forward with some real dyno numbers for an all-out IT prepped engine (which is why I don't believe the stock hp numbers on the 1.6... I KNOW what they really make in IT prep...)
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
Personally, it is my opinion (and only an opinion) that newer cars in general do not get as large a benefit from IT rules as older cars. Before you haul out a cross and some nails here me out.
Yes, they are computer controlled. But generally the computers seem to do 'all the right stuff' for performace when you are WOT (because they don't do emissions or economy tests at WOT).
Also, newer engines are built lighter, to closer tolerances and with better machine work than engines of old.
Saying that some computer chip advertises a blah blah blah increase in power is not useful. Generally, computer chips add very little (Not that I was for open computers), especially on non-turbo cars. An engine is an air pump. A chip does not change the size of the intake or exhaust. It can tweak the mixture, it can advance the timing. If a car has computer controlled variable valve timing, then it could provide a little more (the VW in question doesnt).
Now why a 2L car with 115hp stock goes to C and some B cars don't get moved down. That is a question for another day.
Yes, they are computer controlled. But generally the computers seem to do 'all the right stuff' for performace when you are WOT (because they don't do emissions or economy tests at WOT).
Also, newer engines are built lighter, to closer tolerances and with better machine work than engines of old.
Saying that some computer chip advertises a blah blah blah increase in power is not useful. Generally, computer chips add very little (Not that I was for open computers), especially on non-turbo cars. An engine is an air pump. A chip does not change the size of the intake or exhaust. It can tweak the mixture, it can advance the timing. If a car has computer controlled variable valve timing, then it could provide a little more (the VW in question doesnt).
Now why a 2L car with 115hp stock goes to C and some B cars don't get moved down. That is a question for another day.
Darin,
It's a "freakin" 2.0 VW motor, not 1600 ccs! And I have discussed its advantages. You have simply ignored or summarily dismissed my comments with lame claims yourselves with such nonsense like rear wheel disc brakes won't make a difference on a race car.
And I just pointed out (from information gleaned from a 20-year VW technician) that the car will gain 20 Hp from just a chip, not to mention new tech fuel injection, headers, .5 compression bump, and .40 over pistons, balancing, and blueprinting. I'm beginning to wonder if you realize what a chip does: it varies ignition timing and mixture as conditions require them for maximum performance "in real time", something that can't happen for an old tech motor.
You suggest a 25% HP gain for IT prepped motors, and I'm suggesting 25% + 20 electonic horsepower just to start. That's 144 Hp, just to start. My Fiesta gets about 1 Hp per 24 lbs.(using your 25% increase figures). The NB will very conservatively be getting about 1 Hp per 18 lbs., about 600 more rpm with the overhead cam, and God only knows what the torgue figures and curves are ging to be, and the gear ratios give the NB such an advantage I don't know how to start talking about it.
Another point here, I thought was pretty obvious: You claim you could not get the NB down to the 2300 or so weight it needs to be in B, And that's a Crock! By the time you remove AC, cat converter, radio, airbags, interior panels, seats, instruments, etc. You will have removed 300-400 lbs of street garbage (again according to the VW tech.)You are the ones who have not done your homework! You haven't pu the car where it can be competitive, you've put it where it will blow evrything else away.
GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 27, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 27, 2004).]
downingracing
New member
This thread has been fun to read! The NB classification looks good to me. Should be a good fit in ITC. IMHO
As for the 20HP gain from the chip, please provide some dyno sheets to prove that. Everyone claims that their chip will give you 'X'HP gain, but in reality, it's way less.
And as far as the rear disc/drum claim, some cars do not benefit from running discs over drums. (My Civic is an example - 1994 Civic EX) My rear shoes do almost nothing. (and my brakes are great! I'd take you up on the offer to try and out brake me...
------------------
Matt Downing
www.downingracing.com
[This message has been edited by downingracing (edited July 27, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by downingracing (edited July 27, 2004).]
Matt,Originally posted by downingracing:
This thread has been fun to read! The NB classification looks good to me. Should be a good fit in ITC. IMHO
As for the 20HP gain from the chip, please provide some dyno sheets to prove that. Everyone claims that their chip will give you 'X'HP gain, but in reality, it's way less.
And as far as the rear disc/drum claim, some cars do not benefit from running discs over drums. (My Civic is an example - 1994 Civic EX) My rear shoes do almost nothing. (and my brakes are great! I'd take you up on the offer to try and out brake me...)
When the barometric pressure and humidity changes and the guy with the computer and superchip is all of a sudden out running you, because his computer responds to sensors which adjust to those changes in conditions, don't be surprised.
And I'll be at Summit Point, Labor Day. Close off your rear brakes and meet me at T1, Ive always wanted to own a Civic ES.
GRJ