What's with the no station wagon rule?

[Andy Bettencourt]

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...

[JeffYoung]

Andy, Lemans Tiger process class is, what, ITC?

[lateapex911]

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. )

[JeffYoung]

It was probably those big scary leaf springs, and maybe even the frightening efficient aero of the "wagon."

[Wreckerboy]

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.

[Gary L]

...and maybe even the frightening efficient aero of the "wagon." [/b]

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]

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.

[Gary L]

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]

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....

[JeffYoung]

What do P1800s go for these days Gary? I have always really liked those cars, might have to get one.

[Ron Earp]

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

[JamesB]

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.

[/b]

This I know well when people 4-5 carlengths behind me can pick up the draft of my flying brick.

[gsbaker]

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....
[/b]

Amen. My daily driver is a wagon which, IIRC, weighs 200-300 more than its sedan version. That's a bunch of pounds to carry that high on a road course.

[Gary L]

What do P1800s go for these days Gary? I have always really liked those cars, might have to get one. [/b]

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]

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....
[/b]

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]

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?

[/b]

Not sure either, but I bet that you could find out here: http://www.shooting-brake.com/

[Ron Earp]

Not sure either, but I bet that you could find out here: http://www.shooting-brake.com/
[/b]

Nice find, those are some cool cars! I'll report back.

R

[kermode]

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?

IR
[/b]

I've developed the Wiki theory - If I can't find in Wikpedia it really is inconsoquntial.

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

[ggnagy]

One frequent difference is that many wagons have a longer wheelbase compared to their sedan/coupe brothers.

Oh, and Adam Malley seemed to think that Civic wagon brakes were enough of an advantage that he had them on his H Prod car.

[JoshS]

One frequent difference is that many wagons have a longer wheelbase compared to their sedan/coupe brothers.
[/b]

Frequent? Many? I don't think that's true, at least not with more recent cars. Got some examples?