Beetle in ITC

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Can't wait to hear your numbers.

Is that flywheel hp or wheel?? And which car are we talking about now? We've talked about GTI's, 1.6/7s, 2.0L 4th gen Beetles, etc... Which cars and which motors are you looking for information about?

Also, what exactly are you trying to prove here?? Once again, you bait me into these discussions, and then you just slam me left and right when I say something you don't agree with, or when I misread/miss something you've said/asked/stated... I have no problem "giving you the numbers", and you aren't going to make any headlines by suggesting that some of these cars need to be moved. We already know that. We can only do so much in one year and over this next year, one of the major goals of the ITAC is to strategically analyze ALL cars in IT and see what might need to be adjusted.

Oh, and one more thing... a 35% increase IS A HUGH increase... (or 32%, or 30%...) for IT prep... Which is why I think the stock hp numbers are low and the real numbers would equate to something more along the lines of a 20-25% increase... Unfortunately, I can't find the e-mails that detailed the power output of some VW motors out there, but I'll try to get them again to confirm what I'm saying... The numbers were more in the neighborhood of 109-115hp for a 1.6L ITC motor.

If your numbers are correct, then this car must run better than the sum of it's parts, because based on it's current classification, it's able to compete with and even out-compete the 510s out there with a 1.0pt deficit on wt/pwr ratio, which just doesn't make sense...


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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 28, 2004).]

 

[grjones1]

[/B]

OK guys this is going to be longwinded but I'm going to try to answer you.
We pretty much do not share horsepower figures among ourselves in MARRS. At least not competing marques. I assume everyone is as legal as I am, so whatever a Civic or VW, or Escort can make legally is what I race against.

If you recall, I began my argument with a comparison of what the ITB Volvo shows and why I thought the NB appeared to be pretty close to that: 2650 lbs, etc., supposedly 140 Hp I still think the NB is more than capable of: 2.0, 10.5 compression, crossflow, and a chipable new tech computer. I was trying to use the available figures to make my argument.

Then I again used the ITAC's own figures (e.g., 25% gain in IT trim to show how much more the NB potential is compared to my own car, which I know best. I don't race a Rabbit or a Civic or a Volvo, I really don't know what kind of figures they offer. All I know is I beat last year's MARRS champion (a very quick Scirocco driven by a very good driver this last race, together with Danny Anderson's 510 that has won every race in the MARRS series this year up to last weekend, including a MARRS 1st at VIR (2nd to the SARRC VIR ITC lap record holder at VIR).

Now none of this means by any means that I'm some kind of hot shoe, but it does prove to some degree that my Fiesta is still somewhat competitive and a viable representative of current ITC capabilities. That's all I intended to show. I didn't think my whole driving record had to be displayed to prove the NB is not an ITC car.

As far as other tracks and other well-known drivers, beleive me their cars and their tracks are no more (or less as far as I know) competitive than the people I run against. For example, David Flinchbaugh won ITC this last weekend at Watkins Glen in his Escort, and David has won numerous times at Summit. Evidently he's had some motor problems this year, and I've been able to score ahead of him also at Summit for what that's worth. I really don't like talking about who I beat publically and I sure as hell don't appreciate someone digging up parts of my record and throwing them in my face. (Especially someone who evidently races all over the East Coast but won't show up at Summit because the restrooms weren't clean enough. And who evidently doesn't realize that a final drive used for the 10 turns and .9-mile straight at Summit might not provide the right gearing for the 19-turns and 1.5-mile straight at VIR.) (And forgive me Jake for going on about this, but I might add I was on 1-year-old Toyos at VIR because my new Hoosiers had not yet come in, Might have had something to do with those lap times Scott saw fit to bring into the argument.

But I will see him at VIR, I plan to make a point of it. And he better be more than 6 seconds faster than my last lap times.

By the way another "unknown," Rich Allen,in a Rabbit with whom I race with at Summit and with whose lap times I usually compare took a 3rd at VIR last Spring in a 12-car C group. OK enough of this crap, again my record has nothing to do with whether or not the NB belongs in C. My car's performance I beleive has proven that it is representative of a competitive ITC car.

To the point I hope. If no other figures I have mentioned make any sense, the question I asked in so many words and never received an answer was that the ITAC offers the excuse that they believed an NB could not make the 2300 lb. weight they thought it had to be to be competitive in B.

I ask you, and please answer with all honesty, Do you seriously beleive that an NB cannot shed 350 lbs of Catalytic converter, AC, radio, seats, sound deadening, carpet, airbags, trim, stock headers, etc., to bring a 2650 lb. curb weight to 2300 lbs? This above all is why I find their explanations questionable.


And for the life of me I cannot see any car even weighing 2650 lbs beginning dead stock with 2.0 liters, at 115 Hp with overhead cam, crossflow head, state-of-the-art fuel injection and electronics, four wheeled disc brakes, and an almost close ratio five speed in any way comparable to 1500-1600 cc, 65-75 original HP econoboxes,with stretched out 4 spd ratios (most with 4th gear overdives), most with solid tiny rotors and rear drums, and totally outdated induction systems. Guys, it just doesn't add up. And I'm willing to bet my ride, it will prove to be the case that the NB will dominate ITC immediately.
G. Robert


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Catch22:
You tell us this, presumably and apparently, because you think it demonstrates that your car IS currently competitive and the Beetle will injure this competitiveness.
__________________________________________'
Correct for a change.
GRJ
___________________________________________
You simply can't use an argument on the one hand when it meets your needs, and throw it out (using a bunch of big words... congratulations on that.) when someone else uses it against you. Or maybe you think you can. Well... Obviously you think you can.
__________________________________________
You offer yourself up as the great judge of debate, Scott. I'm surprised you were impressed with pretty standard terms for argumentation.
GRJ
________________________________________
In short, to make it easy on you...
- You use your current finishing record in MARRS to argue that your Fiesta is currently competitive.
__________________________________________
It is.
GRJ
__________________________________________
Something that a car like the Beetle will harm.
_________________________________________
Not just my car. all current ITC cars,
GRJ
_________________________________________
- When I say that your finishing record isn't a useful data point because you only race in one place, against pretty much constant competition, you tell me that your record doesn't have much to do with these discussions.
____________________________________________
My record as you presented it. And I think that it is a "useful data point" because the ITC fields at Summit Point MARRS races have ranged from 12 to 32 cars in the last 5 years. How many in class do you race with consistently?
As far as I can see Scott, in my own little bit of research is the best you've done is a 3rd in class fields of six and seven cars. And most of your racing is done at Road Atlanta. Where else do you race that exposes you to the creme de la creme of ITC racing? That's real impressive. Does that qualify your car as a prime example of a competitive C car? You see two can play this stupid game!
GRJ
_____________________________________________
See how that just doesn't work?
I know you looked up a whole bunch of big words and stuff, but it still doesn't change the fact that you are constantly contradicting yourself to support your position. You really kind of need to work on that if you expect to win an argument of this sort.
___________________________________________
No I didn't have to look them up. They are part of my vocabulary. The only thing I need to work on is trying to communicate with an idiot.
GRJ
__________________________________________
And I've been to Summit Point once and thats all I needed. The track is a collection of frost heaves and mismatched patches, the paddock is horrible, and I was afraid to piss in the urinals for fear of some unknown brood of south american mosquito biting Scott Jr. But hey, at least its a 14 hour tow from my front door. I'll pass on the invite... Thanks anyway.
___________________________________________
I think we're probably fortunate you didn't corrupt our urinal.
GRJ
_____________________________________________
But if you want to make a date for VIR next year to see if you can make up those 6 seconds by changing that "Summit Point setup," I'll be there waiting for you.

Scott, who thinks thats one hell of a dialed in set-up for Summit that costs 6 seconds at VIR.
__________________________________________
I really don't think Scott "thinks" at all. And you better believe I'll be there. Best leave Scott Jr. at home. I don't want him to see his father embarassed.
GRJ
________________________________________


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

 

[Quickshoe]

Here I am, all wound up after just coming back from a night of arrive and drive karting. I find this entertaining for a momment or two and then realize these are real people out there racing

!

Originally posted by grjones1:
No I didn't have to look them up. They are part of my vocabulary. The only thing I need to work on is trying to communicate with an idiot.

grjones1, I'd suggest that you have other things you need to work on. Perhaps someone more educated than I can give you a tutorial on the quote function in Latin.

off on a tangent--challenging people to race for pink slips is crazy, sounds to me like adolescent bravado. Surely, you realize that things can happen, you could have an off day, your car could suffer a mechanical failure, any number of things could go wrong. Or perhaps you have underestimated your competition. If you really want that challenge you are crazier than you are stubborn.

For the benefit of us less educated folks, perhaps you could use words that most of us can comprehend. I see it (perhaps you couldn't care less how I see it) as if you can't sway us with facts, baffle us with B.S.

Way out on a limb--perhaps given the cars that you have chosen to build, you may not be aware, but you can spend a lot of time trying to remove part X from a newer model car, you finally rejoice triumphantly as you have successfully removed the part only to find it weighs about 30% of what you expected.

Removing some of these components in newer cars just doesn't equate to removing similar items in older cars. Don't know that 300# is doable...time will tell. If we see a grid full of NB's with 100# of ballast in them and all kinds of supplemental cage work we'll know otherwise.

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:


Quickshoe,
Actually I am embarassed to have had to stoop to the depths I have in this whole dialogue. But arrogance is something that drives me up the wall. Even my own. And arrogance is basically what I've been dealing with whenever I question the ITAC or the CRB. And maybe with the work these guys put in they have earned the right to be arrogant. But I'm not going to stand for it from some Atlanta-based punk who thinks he knows everything about everything and especially when he uses the language he has used with me. He's going to have to prove what he knows one way or another. I'll ask your indulgence and just say I was driven to distraction. And ask that your remarks might be directed at other's indiscretions as well as my own.

As far as the removal of weight in the NB. Again I called upon my VW tech acquaintance, who works with these cars every day and he agrees 300 lbs. is easily and legally removed from a 1998-99 NB. I can only go on the expertise I have at hand.
Thanks for listening.
GRJ

 

[Bill Miller]

Oh, and one more thing... a 35% increase IS A HUGH increase... (or 32%, or 30%...) for IT prep... Which is why I think the stock hp numbers are low and the real numbers would equate to something more along the lines of a 20-25% increase... Unfortunately, I can't find the e-mails that detailed the power output of some VW motors out there, but I'll try to get them again to confirm what I'm saying... The numbers were more in the neighborhood of 109-115hp for a 1.6L ITC motor.

If your numbers are correct, then this car must run better than the sum of it's parts, because based on it's current classification, it's able to compete with and even out-compete the 510s out there with a 1.0pt deficit on wt/pwr ratio, which just doesn't make sense...

First off Darin, there's one of the problems when you start talking percentage gains, and establishing an arbitrary benchmark. The lower the stock hp, the larger percentage gain 1 hp is. In the case of cars that start w/ less than 100hp, 1hp is more than a 1% gain. And while you may consider a 30% gain HUGE, you have to look at the real increase, not just the percentage. Based on Dick's numbers, the Rabbit is making 32% more hp over stock, that's a 24hp increase. Let's look at another car that makes 32% (or more) over stock, the E36 BMW. Stock is 190, and there have been reports of 250-260 in IT trim. That's a 32%-38% increase. It's also a 60 - 70 hp gain.

So, if a BMW can get 32-38 percent increase, with IT prep, why would you think that a VW can only get 20-25 percent?

I don't know where you're getting your 109-115 hp out of a 1.6 in IT trim numbers from, but if you're only getting a 20-25 percent increse, base hp is somewhere in the 90 range. Sorry, but that's just not the case.

What I quoted above came straight from Dick Shine, certainly one of the most experienced VW IT motor builders out there. I don't know about you, but I put a fair amount of stock in what he says, when it comes to VW's. And, since you've got VW numbers, I'm sure you've probably got Datsun/Nissan numbers as well. What's the output on a Rebello ITC L16?

You've fallen into the same trap that a lot of people have, and one you've argued the other side of. You state that just because car X can compete w/ car Y, it must be making more power. Can be true, but needs further analysis. I'm also concerned by your position on this, vis-a-vis PCA's down the road.

And Darin, I don't 'slam' you because I don't like what you say, I slam you because you say one thing and then come back and say that's not what you meant. Your use of language is pretty cavalier, yet you get mad when people call you on it. You also get mad when people call you on supposed evidence that you have, yet you can't/don't produce. You also get mad when it's pointed out that you're not internally consistent w/ your statements.

And, I still want to see those numbers that you have.

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

 

[Knestis]

Not taking sides here but this has degenerated to a real poo-flinging contest.

Hint - when it stops being about the topic at hand and starts being about what someone said about the topic at hand or how they said, it might be time for an new topic.

K


[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 28, 2004).]

 

[oanglade]

Originally posted by grjones1:
I ask you, and please answer with all honesty, Do you seriously beleive that an NB cannot shed 350 lbs of Catalytic converter, AC, radio, seats, sound deadening, carpet, airbags, trim, stock headers, etc., to bring a 2650 lb. curb weight to 2300 lbs? This above all is why I find their explanations questionable.
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

It's not only 350 pounds that it would need to lose, it's 350 pounds, plus the 180 pound driver weight. Can the NB lose 530 pounds? I doubt you can get a NB down to 2120 pounds legally with a cage.


------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

 

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grjones1:


I ask you, and please answer with all honesty, Do you seriously beleive that an NB cannot shed 350 lbs of Catalytic converter, AC, radio, seats, sound deadening, carpet, airbags, trim, stock headers, etc., to bring a 2650 lb. curb weight to 2300 lbs? This above all is why I find their explanations questionable.

G. Robert[/B]

The curb weight on the 1999 NB is 2785lbs. Your 350lbs just became 485.

Look, we understand you disagree but lashing out and telling us we didn't do the research is rediculous. We questioned the cars ability to get to minimum in ITB, then ran the numbers in ITC. We classed it at a weight we think with provide a cool option, but not a dominant one in ITC - all in good faith.

If we f*&^ed the pooch, we will fix it if and when PCA's come about. If they don't, it will get reclassed up to ITB.

Just don't attack us without getting the facts. We have done the research and think we did the right thing. OK? We GET IT that you think we made a mistake.

AB

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

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited July 28, 2004).]

 

[Greg Amy]

I'd need ot read through this mess again to find out, but has anybody asked the basic question:

"Does anybody except GRJones give a rat's ass if the Fiesta is competitive in ITC?"


(Oops, I apolgize for that. I'll go back to adjusting the Reynold's Wrap, thank you sorry....)

[This message has been edited by grega (edited July 28, 2004).]

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Just don't attack us without getting the facts. We have done the research and think we did the right thing. OK? We GET IT that you think we made a mistake.

Yep. The only facts in evidence here are that nobody actually has the facts. We are all making speculations. Nobody has built and raced an ITC NB yet.

The NB is classified into ITC. If it proves to be a class killer we can either add weight (in the first year w/o PCAs or later with PCAs) or we can reclassify it to ITB. At least it's not an E36 that cannot be reclassed upward.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Knestis:

Not taking sides here but this has degenerated to a real poo-flinging contest.

K

Four pages in six days? This rivals some head and neck restraint threads. Gotta be a record.

(Hey Kirk, is the banging head public domain?)

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
First off Darin, there's one of the problems when you start talking percentage gains, and establishing an arbitrary benchmark. The lower the stock hp, the larger percentage gain 1 hp is. In the case of cars that start w/ less than 100hp, 1hp is more than a 1% gain. And while you may consider a 30% gain HUGE, you have to look at the real increase, not just the percentage. Based on Dick's numbers, the Rabbit is making 32% more hp over stock, that's a 24hp increase. Let's look at another car that makes 32% (or more) over stock, the E36 BMW. Stock is 190, and there have been reports of 250-260 in IT trim. That's a 32%-38% increase. It's also a 60 - 70 hp gain.

You are right Bill, which is why you can't compare %gains of a 2.7L BMW to a 1.6L VW motor... We are talking about the gains of a 1.6L Nissan vs. a 1.6L VW... There is a fininite amount of power that a naturally aspirated 1.6L will be able to produce. Given that we have no real way to judge Volumetric Efficiency for all of these different motor designs, we have to make some assumptions... Apparently, based on your Data, the VW must have some real restrictions in it's emmisions equipment/stock configuration, because for a 1.6L to go from 71-75hp stock to 100hp is quite a good gain for a header, an extra .5 compression, and very little else...

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">You've fallen into the same trap that a lot of people have, and one you've argued the other side of.  You state that just because car X can compete w/ car Y, it must be making more power.  Can be true, but needs further analysis.  I'm also concerned by your position on this, vis-a-vis PCA's down the road.</font>

Your painting us with the same brush that Mr. Jones is... assuming that this is all we are looking at. It's not about how much power it "must be making", it's about the resulting wt/pwr ratio. According to your numbers, the VW has over a 1.0pt worse wt/pwr ratio than the Nissan, yet it's arguably equally competitive. I know the Nissan... It has competitive brakes and can be made to handle extremely well. I imagine the same is true for the VW. So, if they both handle well and have decent brakes, where is the advantage that the VW has that allows it to overcome this theoretical disadvantage in wt/pwr??? I'm really asking... do you know? If so, please enlighten me. Help me understand how this can be so...

As far as PCAs go... we work by committee, and I can assure you that ALL aspects of these topics get discussed. No one factor, and no one opinion, is going to drive any PCA decision. Don't forget, I've told you guys before that we "run the numbers", but then sit back and ask if they make sense. We do pretty in depth comparisons to other cars in the class in an effort to make sure they do.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And Darin, I don't 'slam' you because I don't like what you say, I slam you because you say one thing and then come back and say that's not what you meant. </font>

You are right... I wish I had time to write a novel every time I post, so every last detail could be reitterated and all my i's could be dotted and t's crossed, but I just don't... I say what I mean, but it's done with the presumption that you have been a part of the same conversation I have. We have ALL been guilty of not taking the time to fully read someones post, and we all make assumptions when responding from time to time. If I say something that doesn't seem to jive with what I'm responding too, perhaps you can keep that in mind (as will I) and give the person the benefit of the doubt once in awhile. Ask me to clarify if you think I'm off track in my information... I'll be happy to try to answer more clearly.

And, I still want to see those numbers that you have.

Which numbers were those again... I've lost track at this point...



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

 

[Catch22]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
The numbers were more in the neighborhood of 109-115hp for a 1.6L ITC motor.

I will agree with this wholeheartedly because I saw with my own eyes the dyno results from a 1.6 Scirocco with a fresh motor. This was from a dynojet that is recognized as one of the most accurate around (if you read Grassroots, you've read about this operation more than once).

On the other hand, while this specific Scirocco is out p/wing most every car around it, it also has really crappy aero and terrible brakes. So it seems to balance out and the car hasn't proven to be at all dominant. (actually, there's 2 of them with VERY similar performance on track, but I haven't seen the dyno plot on the other one.)

 

[HOOSER 99]

IS IT WINTER ALREADY!!

I am sure glad for the electronic age, because I would feel bad that lots of trees would be turned to paper in the old days for a car that won't see the light of day for 6 more months.*

jerry monaghan

* very sarcastic reply

 

[Catch22]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
The curb weight on the 1999 NB is 2785lbs. Your 350lbs just became 485.

Lets look at in in IT "roll across the scale" terms.

Stock NB Curb Weight - 2785
Driver - 180
Cage - 100 (conservative estimate I'm guessing)

That gives us 3065lbs for a race legal stock Beetle with driver. So if it loses the 350lbs Mr. Jones says it can lose we're at (OH MY GOD ITS UNBELIEVEABLE!!!)... 2715lbs!!!

I sooooo glad the current board contains who it contains, and as I've mentioned before finally now have an understanding of how IT got so incredibly goobered up in the first place... There really ARE people out there who think like Jones and apparently some of them used to make the rules.

Scott, who may be a know-it-all punk but at least he understands that IT cars are weighed with a cage and a driver and is capable of simple math.

 

[JohnRW]

Originally posted by grega:


"Does anybody except GRJones give a rat's ass if the Fiesta is competitive in ITC?"

[This message has been edited by grega (edited July 28, 2004).]

No, but I'm jaded - I'm still haven't gotten over the injustice of Gremlins getting dropped out of the ITCS.

 

[Knestis]

Originally posted by gsbaker:
(Hey Kirk, is the banging head public domain?)

I got him off of one of those free images sites more than three years ago but couldn't tell you now which one.

He's come in handy over the years...

K

EDIT - I do think that we have an obligation, to the greatest extent practical, to avoid obsoleting currently classified IT cars that are actually being entered. This would include the Fiesta. However, as cars/parts get scarcer and more expensive, I draw the line philosophically at going outside of the first principles of the category to keep them on life support. (See the great Fiat washer bottle debate of 2001.)



[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 28, 2004).]

 

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Knestis:

EDIT - I do think that we have an obligation, to the greatest extent practical, to avoid obsoleting currently classified IT cars that are actually being entered. This would include the Fiesta.

As does the ITAC.

AB

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

 

[mgyip]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I do think that we have an obligation, to the greatest extent practical, to avoid obsoleting currently classified IT cars that are actually being entered. This would include the Fiesta. However, as cars/parts get scarcer and more expensive, I draw the line philosophically at going outside of the first principles of the category to keep them on life support. </font>

Kirk - I must respectfully disagree. At some point, newer, faster cars will eclipse the older cars regardless of PCA and the like. At that point, if the older cars are to continue as racecars, they should be classified downwards where they can compete with cars of the same caliber. In other words, as ITS gets faster, the slow ITS cars would migrate to ITA and so forth. However the slow ITC cars would get bumped - most likely into Production.

I applaud SCCA for FINALLY classifying a fairly new car in a class other than ITS or ITA. Does the NB belong in ITC and at the disputed minimum weight? Dunno - that remains to be seen since no one has attempted this feat.