Results, rumours and inuendo...

<kirk is extra sad he couldn't be at the ARRC>

:(

K
[/b]
Click to expand...

Quote of the weekend from CJ: "Just give me that bottle of polish and some red rags and get out of the way."

He worked on the Pumpkin a little too, but pronounced the paint toast and wandered off.
 
I want to weigh in here on something, especially about the Golf. I'm not an ITB driver, but I have known and been around Kirk since his return to IT racing. As a new guy to the sport, his perspective from being in on the ground floor of IT back in teh 80s, along with his experience in a spec series (Renault Cup I think) and trying to get sponsorhip for an RX7 SS car is extremely illuminating. When Kirk speaks, if you are new to racing, listen up.

In any event, I have seen with my own eyes the evolution of Pablo I and II and the Knestis racing team development. It is amazing. Pablo I, while well done, was basically a street car with a cage.

As Kirk and his team learned what had to be done to run up front in the new world of 21st century IT racing, they did it. I saw that car get progressively faster. As with all programs there were some setbacks, but if you go to his web page, or just e-mail him, you can learn a lot about making the right, and legal, choices with IT race car development.

That is a very impressive effort and it is come a LONG way in a SHORT time. But the result -- the ARRC win -- isn't due to a too light weight classification, or anything else untoward. It sure looks to me like it was hard work, good development and great driving that got the win.
 
The Mark III Golfs that were at the front are no-stone-unturned builds. The one I was driving has 5 years of development. Derek Luger has raced VWs seemingly since the earth cooled; his car was beautiful too. So was Rob's Mark II Golf that was RIGHT FREAKING THERE until he lost the draft due to traffic. Are you telling me that shouldn't be an ITB car? It has been for at least the better part of a decade. What about Trever's Accord that was also RIGHT THERE until it wrecked? Then there was the 924, in its first trip to Road Atlanta that stayed pretty close the whole race. I bet Vaughn can't wait to tweak that car a bit next year and come back to race for the win. The fast Volvos weren't there this year, that could have changed things too. Would anyone have bet against Sam Moore had he dragged that car out?

Where was all this outrage last year when Accords went 1-2-3?

Frankly, I'm getting a bit insulted by this stuff. I bet the ITAC is too. The car fits the class. It has strengths and weaknesses. You don't know that of which you speak.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I don't think ANYONE is saying that the car doesn't belong in ITB...i know i was not, just that it is a bit light.

In fact, now that i see that HP chart, and get a better idea what the "process" entails, it makes me more and more sure that the ITB fiero is overweight (2550 vs. 2350 for the golf, and the fiero has LESS hp, and similar torque). I gotta write two more letters! :D

And yes, the Fiero *can* get to a lighter weight. Mine is very close to the 2550, and i haven't even taken out the window glass yet.
 
I don't think ANYONE is saying that the car doesn't belong in ITB...i know i was not, just that it is a bit light.

In fact, now that i see that HP chart, and get a better idea what the "process" entails, it makes me more and more sure that the ITB fiero is overweight (2550 vs. 2350 for the golf, and the fiero has LESS hp, and similar torque). I gotta write two more letters! :D

And yes, the Fiero *can* get to a lighter weight. Mine is very close to the 2550, and i haven't even taken out the window glass yet.
[/b]
Click to expand...

What sort of power do you make? What is your engine development like? What sort of suspension do you have? What about cage, what sort of design there?
 
What sort of power do you make? What is your engine development like? What sort of suspension do you have? What about cage, what sort of design there?
[/b]
Click to expand...

I am not talking about my car, just in general. As Andy showed, the process figures 25% of stock HP. So, we have:

Golf: 25% added to 115 stock HP = 143.75 HP
2350/143.75 = 16.3lbs/hp

Fiero: 25% added to 98 stock HP (using high number here) = 122.5 HP
2550/122.5 = 20.8lbs/hp

Yes, this is a gross simplication, and the fiero obviously has other advantages (aero and mid-engine), but i can't see them adding up to 4lbs/hp.

Edit: Just looked it up, and the stock torque on the two cars is similar (~122ft-lb)
 
I'll share my Prelude's numbers. 110 HP stock. 113 HP max at the wheels with a pro built engine from Kessler Engineering, Anthony Serra custom exhaust, Justin Poole ('05 ARRC Accord winner and previous track record holder prior to RA repave) custom header. The weight of my car is at 2,450. Rear struts on the car which Koni NA wasn't so keen on.
 
I'll share my Prelude's numbers. 113 HP max at the wheels with a pro built engine from Kessler Engineering, Anthony Serra custom exhaust, Justin Poole ('05 ARRC Accord winner and previous track record holder prior to RA repave) custom header. The weight of my car is at 2,450. Rear struts on the car which Koni NA wasn't so keen on. [/b]
Click to expand...

Betting that is on a Pak. If it is, you are in the 122-124whp range in DynoJet land. Similar power as Kirk but a much more desirable suspension.

Boo-hee asked it a while ago to the masses - why no outcry when the Accords dominated last year? The way I see IT going from here on out is a simple ebb and flow of what people THINK is the hot car....it will vary from Region to Region. People lean toward what they see is fast.

(Now on the 924 - If *I* were running one, *I* would think it would fit better in ITB at, say 2450... :D )



I am not talking about my car, just in general. As Andy showed, the process figures 25% of stock HP. So, we have:

Golf: 25% added to 115 stock HP = 140 HP
2350/140 = 16.8lbs/hp

Fiero: 25% added to 98 stock HP (using high number here) = 122.5 HP
2550/122.5 = 20.8lbs/hp

Yes, this is a gross simplication, and the fiero obviously has other advantages (aero and mid-engine), but i can't see them adding up to 4lbs/hp.

Just looked it up, and the stock torque on the two cars is similar. [/b]
Click to expand...

Don't forget you have 20% more displacement to work with....
 
What makes the Prelude's suspension much more desireable than the Golf IIIs? Or we can talk privately since it doesn't matter too much for this discussion.
 
Don't forget you have 20% more displacement to work with....
[/b]
Click to expand...

I realize that, but on such an inefficient engine, that does nothing. That is why the stock HP is soo low, and that is why the duke based cars never produce much horsepower, even when tuned. ie, that is all already taken into account in the "25% added to stock HP", the assumption being that the stock HP would be higher if this engine was really able to take advantage of the displacement. GM tried for quite some time, and picked up about 8 hp!!! Duke info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Iron_Duke_engine

In fact, Andy, that statement about displacement implies to me that the committee was just afraid of what MIGHT be done w/ that displacement. 2.5l in a mid-engine form, w/ that 2.5l being massively oversquare. They were afraid someone would figure out how to take advantage of that 2.5l and oversquare'ness by getting this car to rev past 6500 rpm's (stock redline is 4800!!!), and produce a bucket-full of extra HP. That would be nice :026: , but is just not possible, as has been proven over many years of trying.
 
I guess I just don't understand how cars are classified. I also think the Golf should be an ITB car. I am not taking anything away from the people who built the top 4 golfs in ITB at Road Atlanta. They spent many hours and money with lots of knowledge to make those cars work as well as they do. Also the Drivers did a great job, they still had to race each other. When Vaughan and I race it makes sense to me. His Car is 2600 lbs but has a 2.0 engine. He has bigger brakes but also carries more weight. It works out. And we raced each other from start to finish at road atlanta. The Volvos the same. Great breaks, great suspension, good power, 2600lbs. I drove a fast volvo for 2 years in ITB. They are great cars that you love to hate.

I said before I had a great time at the ARRC. I even managed to be one of the 8 cars to beat the old track record. The BMW held its own on the corners, but I knew in qualifing that I had no chance when every lap a Golf passed me on the straight easily. Can someone tell me how the cars specs are qualified? Even the BMW E30 chassie is 60lbs lighter than my car and has a better F.I. system. Just looking for some help.

Thanks,
Douglas

ITB 320i #66
 
Andy, I forgot to include the torque numbers. Kirk's golf = 126. My Prelude TorqFly = 110.

I just have a hard time believing that a Golf III should be at the weight it is compared to other ITB cars out there. As you know, my belief in this goes quite a long ways back and isn't due to on track results.
 
Yes I was at MID O but I never passed you. I got close and then you lost a rear wheel. There was a 2002 BMW that was very fast on the straight. Durring the race I actually got next to him exiting the keyhole and after the straight I would be 4 or 5 car lengths behind maybe more. That car has the 2.0 and is 180lbs lighter. I dont think it handles as well, but not bad. I know I have a great handling car and that almost makes up for the lack of power. I do pretty good at all the tracks I go to. Its just frustrating to get passed so easily on a straight that takes no effort.

Douglas
 
TTIWWODP = This thread is worthless without dyno plots.

Post 'em up there, guys! I showed you mine, so you should show me yours. :)

What makes the Prelude's suspension much more desireable than the Golf IIIs? Or we can talk privately since it doesn't matter too much for this discussion.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I don't know my Hondas all that well but is it the same basic beast as is on the front of the Integras? Oh, Captain Panties - your opinion?

K
 
If it's like the integra, it doesn't rely as heavily on static camber as a strut type car. they actually gain some neg camber under compression, which is nice. And why I can't ever understand why some people will risk metallurgical integrity just to add static camber to a Honduh. . .
 
My quick 2cents - I have nothing but respect for the B guys in front of me, I think the cars were expertly driven and prepped, I'm just happy in my first outing there to have been so close... heck, first car with a home-built motor! :P I couldn't get enough to compare, but would have to rely on the guys up there to assess how legal or not they were. When there's a general feeling that they're all legit, I'm OK with that... fer now... ;)

I don't think the class is dominated by Golfs, any more than it's dominated by Porsches and Bimmers (as anyone who visits our home track of Waterford would think). I'm not even as down as everyone else as far as our performance on the straights; I think we might be able to add a little with a proper pro-built motor, but in my book the major areas for improvement are experience (got some already!) and chassis tuning, not motor.

Oh, yeah - dyno plots... no plots handy (I'm away already on a business trip, back south again) but peak was just 100rwhp/ft-lbs...).
 
What makes the Prelude's suspension much more desireable than the Golf IIIs? Or we can talk privately since it doesn't matter too much for this discussion. [/b]
Click to expand...

What is the front suspension design on your Prelude? That will be your answer. All suspensions are not created equal but I don't know many who would say that a strut-based car was the equal of a double A-arm front suspension.
 
Oh, Captain Panties - your opinion?[/b]
Click to expand...
Oh, no you don't... ;)

Actually, I'm fairly ignorant on the Prelude engine...but I can offer that Dave's info is from the same DynaPack I use. - GA
 
If it's like the integra, it doesn't rely as heavily on static camber as a strut type car. they actually gain some neg camber under compression, which is nice. And why I can't ever understand why some people will risk metallurgical integrity just to add static camber to a Honduh. . .
[/b]
Click to expand...

sorry, but i don't understand what you mean about risking metallurgical integrity to add camber to a honda.

do you consider the 1st gen 84-87 crx's not to be a strut car? or are you referring to 88-91 crx's?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top