Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Awwww hell, here I come!!!! How many people here know they made those raise your hand?
[/b]
I will see your jenson and raise you 1 of 3 LeMans Tigers...
What's with the no station wagon rule?
- Thread starter JoshS
- Start date
I will see your jenson and raise you 1 of 3 LeMans Tigers...
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Awwww hell, here I come!!!! How many people here know they made those raise your hand?
[/b]
That's no station wagon!! That's a Shooting brake! Pulleeeeze, lets get it right people...
I for one agreee, bring 'em on!
(And I imagine that if we were to peel away the onion that is the IT ruleset, we'd see that at some point in time, the equipment that came with wagons may have been feared, but was later allowed acrosss the board, rendering the "no wagons" rule pointless. )
Wreckerboy
Member
What about the guy about 10 years back who showed up at a regional at LRP with a mid '80's Malibu wagon that was modded beyond the pale, basically to GT-1 specs? He ran the thing (and a few NASCAR spec mid-60's Malibu's before that) with EMRA for a while. When he got to LRP, apparently the first thing he was told was "no wagons" before he was finally found a home in something like A Sports Racer.
I think he and his brother were named the Murray's or something like that, but they built some way impressive stuff.
I think he and his brother were named the Murray's or something like that, but they built some way impressive stuff.
Gary L
New member
Poke fun if you will, but the aero advantage can be significant. When Volvo brought out the 1800ES wagon in '72, engine changes that same model year (drastically lower compression, slightly different porting) resulted in about 8% less SAE net HP. The ES wagon was as a result, measurably slower in acceleration than the previous year 1800E coupe, despite being only about 1 or 2% heavier. But road tests of the day also showed the wagon at least as fast as the '71 coupe at top end (some tests actually showed the wagon faster), despite the lower output engine. These two cars were absolutely identical from the front bumper to the B pillar... the only difference was in the shape of the rear of the cars. And yes, they were otherwise mechanically identical, to include gearing.
JeffYoung
New member
Gary, I love those 1800ES wagons. They are a bit of a fastback though right?
I am not knocking aero on any car. I am learning the hard way with my car the importance of aero even on IT cars.
I think the 1800ES is just a good design aero wise. Some of the other wagons-- the Vista Cruiser! -- not so much I think.
But, I do agree and bet on this -- when tha rule was created, a wagon probably had WAY better aero than some of the open top cars running around that the SCCA apparently likes to protect.
I am not knocking aero on any car. I am learning the hard way with my car the importance of aero even on IT cars.
I think the 1800ES is just a good design aero wise. Some of the other wagons-- the Vista Cruiser! -- not so much I think.
But, I do agree and bet on this -- when tha rule was created, a wagon probably had WAY better aero than some of the open top cars running around that the SCCA apparently likes to protect.
Gary L
New member
Actually, the ES is not really a fastback... the roof sheet metal is dead straight in side view, until it gets to the rear lift gate, which is all glass. I tried to post the full size photo of my ES, but it wouldn't work due to something about a dynamic address on my photo hosting site??? Here's a thumbnail of the same shot that does appear to display, you can at least get an idea of the shape.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I am sure that some wagons have aero advantages over their identical brothers, but, on a road course, I would think that any advantage would be a wash at best when the higher center of gravity of all that matal and glass get figured into the equation.
In other words, if you took two versions of a Volvo XYZ, and prepped the wagon and sedan version the same, the same driver would NOT show better lap times in the "aero" sedan....
In other words, if you took two versions of a Volvo XYZ, and prepped the wagon and sedan version the same, the same driver would NOT show better lap times in the "aero" sedan....
Ron Earp
Administrator
That is correct Jake, a shooting brake! I must admit, while I know the term and use it, I don't know where it comes from. Anyone know?
I don't think wagons would fare that well, at least not on my JH version and a few of the others listed. The JH SB is heavier with the same power, so that isn't a good thing.
I like that Leman Tiger and the P1800s. P1800s were always cool little cars I thought.
R
I don't think wagons would fare that well, at least not on my JH version and a few of the others listed. The JH SB is heavier with the same power, so that isn't a good thing.
I like that Leman Tiger and the P1800s. P1800s were always cool little cars I thought.
R
Gary L
New member
Despite the fact they were built in fairly small numbers (about 8000 over 2 years), they've never really caught the collectors' eyes... Four or five grand for a daily driver in decent shape, to fifteeen or twenty for a well restored example. Like most 30+ year old cars though, ya gotta be careful about rust in the unibody.
Gary L
New member
Didn't say it would.
I was simply pointing out that there is a significant aero difference in some cases. And yes, it will make a lot more difference at Atlanta than it does at Hallett. But incidentally, all that weight you're concerned about being too high? Also remember... it's 100% over the rear wheels. This is good, don't care whether that Volvo you're running is an antique rear drive 145 or a "modern" 850 front driver. Hmmmm.... if both are classified at the same overall weight, I might be betting on the wagon after all!
x-ring
New member
I've developed the Wiki theory - If I can't find in Wikpedia it really is inconsoquntial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_brake
