August Fastrack out!

[iambhooper]

Fieros: I have to wonder about the intent here... this combines onto one spec line, two entirely different cars that happen to share the same plastic body parts.

Bad precedent, IMO.
[/b]

To be fare, they are not 2 entirely different cars... unless the suspension makes the car. One Fiero space frame is identical to every other Fiero space frame, with the exception of the '88 cars purpose built suspension.

If you tear down an '84 SE to the frame and compare it to an '88 Formula, the only difference will be in the suspension and rear cradle (which is part of the suspension).

[Banzai240]

To be fare, they are not 2 entirely different cars... unless the suspension makes the car. One Fiero space frame is identical to every other Fiero space frame, with the exception of the '88 cars purpose built suspension.

If you tear down an '84 SE to the frame and compare it to an '88 Formula, the only difference will be in the suspension and rear cradle (which is part of the suspension).
[/b]

This is road racing... I think the suspension has a little to do with it... Geometry is important, as is design...

Suspension has placed certain cars in ITB that otherwise might look like they should be in ITA, or ITC as opposed to ITB... It's kind of an important factor...

[Gary L]

To be fare, they are not 2 entirely different cars... unless the suspension makes the car. One Fiero space frame is identical to every other Fiero space frame, with the exception of the '88 cars purpose built suspension.

If you tear down an '84 SE to the frame and compare it to an '88 Formula, the only difference will be in the suspension and rear cradle (which is part of the suspension).

[/b]

Not true, IMO. If I remember correctly, the entire front subframe is different as well. You cannot simply unbolt pieces from the front suspension of an '88 and put them on an '84. I'm not sure you can even swap the rear cradle without running afoul of the IT ruleset... I believe you have to make some modifications to the rear portion of the tub to make it fit?

[benspeed]

I sent in the letter requesting that both cars be on the same spec line. Here was my rationale:

Let all the ITA Fieros run ventilated rotors

Let them all run at 2600 lbs

Updating and backdating of suspension permitted (although the point Gary brings up about the rear cradle needing the tub modified - don't know about that)

The 88 cars are often being preserved as street cars and are much less available - much fewer were built and the 88 year is the most desireable of all years. This spec line change makes running a non 88 Fiero more attractive - I'll take the 40 lbs. in exhange.

This is similar to putting the S4 and S5 ITS RX7 on the same line (so I've been told - I wasn't around when that happened).

No unfair advantage given to non-88 cars. They get the same brakes and suspension as the 88 car at the same weight.

[Knestis]

If the resulting spec weight considers the best factors of both "cars," the result is probably not a problem precedent. If the ITAC/BoD just smushed them together thinking they weren't any potential variables influencing performance, that would be a bad thing. They are always a little bit at the mercy of the folks who really KNOW the differences, particularly with something that's a bit of an oddball.

Of course, I'm on record as being a little "creepy" on the issue of "what makes a car" (e.g., the VIN number rule).

K

EDIT - my post presumes that we ARE talking about otherwise identical chassis, to which the parts in question may be attached. Modifying a chassis to accommodate a subframe from a different year car, even if it IS on the same spec line, crosses the "creating a model" line in my head. But we all have different tolerances for ambiguity...

[Gary L]

EDIT - my post presumes that we ARE talking about otherwise identical chassis, to which the parts in question may be attached. Modifying a chassis to accommodate a subframe from a different year car, even if it IS on the same spec line, crosses the "creating a model" line in my head. But we all have different tolerances for ambiguity... [/b]

They are most assuredly not identical chassis, which is why I spoke up. Putting an '88 front suspension (or any part of it) on an earlier Fiero involves a cutting torch and a welder, as a minimum. I know of no one that has even attempted this mod. Putting the much more desirable '88 rear cradle on the earlier car has been done many times, but it necessitates a major relocation of the upper end of the struts in the pre-88 rear tub.

Again... these are really not the same vehicle. Leave them on separate lines, and let the early models keep the weight break... they're going to need it.

[ScotMac]

It is obviously not true that the pre-88 and 88 fiero's are totally different cars. They share alot of parts: engine (including intake, sensors, ecm, ...) , transaxle, central chassis, ...

It is true that they changed the suspension for the 88 fiero. The rear was completely redesigned and the front was partially redesigned (spindles, front shocks are interchangeable). That said, i think that Kirk hit the nail on the head. If you take all the best parts off each of the two cars, in order to create one "best" of all years car, that car still is well w/in the class performance, for *both* the ITA (v6) and the ITB (i4) fieros.

Also note, whereas the 88 suspension is considered better by most, it is not obviously so, and has been the subject of much debate over the years. Especially so for the front suspension, where the unsprung weight is lower for the pre-88 cars.

And, there is no "weight break" for the 84-87 fieros in ITB.

[Gary L]

It is obviously not true that the pre-88 and 88 fiero's are totally different cars. They share alot of parts: engine (including intake, sensors, ecm, ...) , transaxle, central chassis, ...

It is true that they changed the suspension for the 88 fiero. The rear was completely redesigned and the front was partially redesigned (spindles, front shocks are interchangeable). That said, i think that Knestis hit the nail on the head. If you take all the best parts off each of the two cars, in order to create one "best" of all years car, that car still is well w/in the class performance, for *both* the ITA (v6) and the ITB (i4) fieros.

Also note, whereas the 88 suspension is considered better by most, it is not obviously so, and has been the subject of much debate over the years. Especially so for the front suspension, where the unsprung weight is lower for the pre-88 cars.

And, there is no "weight break" for the 84-87 fieros in ITB. [/b]

Last comment first - I have no idea why there is no weight difference in ITB, but IMO there definitely should be.

Now... if it were a simple matter of sharing some key parts, we could also put the Chevy Citation on the same spec line with the Fiero. The X11 had the same basic 2.8l engine, transaxle, and suspension as the early Fieros. Okay, so the front drive engine and suspension on the Citation ended up at the rear of the Fiero, but what possible difference could that make?

Seriously, my point being this is not about a few shared parts. It's about the front suspension of the '88 having a far better camber curve than the off-the-shelf Chevette (yes... CHEVETTE!) pieces on the early cars. (I'll gladly trade away the insignificantly lower unsprung weight for a camber curve that works, thank you very much.) And these pieces are all attached to subframes that are NOT interchangeable between the older and newer models. That makes the important parts (the a-arms and subsequent geometry) non-interchangeable as well.

At the rear, the early cars have a nasty bump steer problem that was fixed with the '88 redesign. But you cannot simply bolt an '88 rear cradle/suspension to the early chassis... in order for it to fit, you have to make modifications that are against the IT ruleset - i.e. you have to move the upper suspension attachment points.

Given the limitations of the IT ruleset, these are in fact, different cars. I repeat... combining them would be a bad precedent.

[benspeed]

Gary - I think you fail to make a point that the earlier cars are advantaged. They move up to a higher weight and can use some of the components that an 88 uses - under the rules some part exchanges cannot be done.

I see no issue.

PS - my objective was ventilated rotors so the car would still stop at the end of a race.

[ScotMac]

Gary, the cars are obviously very similar, even given the suspension changes for the 88. Set aside your philosophical argument about precedent for a moment, and lets discuss the issue at hand. The 2 fiero lines. We both agree the main difference between them is the suspension, including the subframe. Let's assume that the 88 has better suspension all round. Since the central tub is pretty much exactly the same, "same lining" them thus allows the pre-88 fiero to switch to the 88 fiero suspension. What does he get after doing that work? An 88 fiero, no more no less!!! All this does is allow more of the equivalent of the 88 fieros to race, since complete 88 fieros are much much harder to find (not only was it only produced that one year, 88 was also a limited run..about a third of the 84-87 runs).

Oh, and the ITB cars probably have the same weight because they are so similar!!! ;-) Or maybe because fieros are soo far off the pace of the VW's and Volvo's that it doesn't matter!!!

[Gary L]

Somewhere along the line, you guys lost me. Or maybe I lost you?

Ben - If you were only wanting to allow the '88 brakes on the early cars, wouldn't it be better to just add it as part of the 'Notes' column? Having said that, have you actually seen this done? I'm not at all sure you can make this work without doing other modifications, particularly on the front. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's a simple bolt-on procedure. I know damn well the suspension isn't, at either end. And BTW, where did I claim the early cars were (or would be) advantaged?

Scot - Go back and read my first (and 2nd, 3rd, etc) posts. This is all about the precedent. Putting both cars on the same spec line would create a conflict with the basic IT ruleset, by allowing you to make major (otherwise unallowed) modifications to the basic '84-'87 chassis to 'create' an '88 (or vice-versa, should you be so foolish).

[ScotMac]

Scot - Go back and read my first (and 2nd, 3rd, etc) posts. This is all about the precedent. Putting both cars on the same spec line would create a conflict with the basic IT ruleset, by allowing you to make major (otherwise unallowed) modifications to the basic '84-'87 chassis to 'create' an '88 (or vice-versa, should you be so foolish).
[/b]

Gary, right, i don't give a damn about the precedent, and instead am focusing on whether the change makes sense, from a performance and class perspective. It will not add an undo performance advantage, and could allow more people to want to race. All good.

BTW, i read the rule about not being able to move the suspension attachment points as associated w/ the control-arms attachment points, and other suspension extremities? I guess it could be extended to the entire subframe, i just didn't think that was the intent.

However, i don't know that it matters. Either it can be done, and it creates a 88 out of a pre-88, w/ normal 88 performance, or it isn't allowed by the rules. Either way, no harm.

[iambhooper]

Scott is correct about the tubs being the same, the difference is the suspension.

I do not have hands on knowledge of the '88 suspension, however as I understand it the main modification involves the pickup points on the rear struts. The pickup points need to be relocated to account for the geometry of the rear struts, thus creating a conflict with the stock rear springs binding against the strut tower.

I beleive the GCR states that springs are open, correct?
I also believe that the GCR states that slotting of the strut pickup points are allowed, correct?
Lastly, we all use camber plates to adjust our strut pickup points.

These items should accomidate the installation of the rear cradle into an earlier car.

As for the chevette and citation bit, yes the earlier car is made up of a homolgomation of these suspension parts. In addition, the 5spd mated to the v-6 cars was shared by the Corsica and Beretta... 2 excellent sources for spares (only need to switch brackets and speedo pickup's). If you really wanted to get into "rules creep" then you would have people swapping larger beretta brakes onto the earlier cars.

hoop

[ScotMac]

Gary, i guess what i am trying to get out is that this is not "law". Instead of worrying that we will create a precedent that will cause other damage down the road, we can evaluate each change to ensure that it is what we desire. If there is no harm here, and there is benefit, i say do it. If in some other case, it gives too great a performance advantage, then don't do it.

[JeffYoung]

I for one cast a vote in favor of Frankenfiero.


It lives!

[iambhooper]

I for one cast a vote in favor of Frankenfiero.
It lives!
[/b]

Please, no peer pressure... my wallet cant stand it.... but then again, now that we can have Paul Allen design the engine management system (or possibly the fine folks at NCSU ) imagine the possibilities... hmmmm.

hoop

[Team SSR]

"PS - there's a grass covered Fiero about a mile from Conover's new shop in Burlington. Call him and he'll point it out for you, I'll bet..."

There is a grass covered Fiero about a mile from everyones shop.

[Knestis]

Hmmm. No.

You CAN'T ignore potential precedents that might be set. Whatever gets done has to be in line with the rest of the category and first assumptions about up/back-dating, "making a model," etc. For example, simply allowing the later vented brakes on cars that otherwise didn't ever have them (pretend we are pre-new rule for a minute), would require one of those "notes" things that we are supposed to not do anymore - specifically because they open a ball of worms that we will eventually HATE.

The point at which the chassis have to be modified, the question becomes, "are they identical once modified, to the 'real' examples of those chassis parts?" If so, maybe but for example, if the front half of the tub ends up being "early" spec, while the back half is "late" spec, then the resulting piece (the tub) is not one that ever existed in nature. Not OK.

K

[ScotMac]

"PS - there's a grass covered Fiero about a mile from Conover's new shop in Burlington. Call him and he'll point it out for you, I'll bet..."

There is a grass covered Fiero about a mile from everyones shop.
[/b]

Right, but is it an 88??!!??

[Bill Miller]

Hmmm. No.

You CAN'T ignore potential precedents that might be set. Whatever gets done has to be in line with the rest of the category and first assumptions about up/back-dating, "making a model," etc. For example, simply allowing the later vented brakes on cars that otherwise didn't ever have them (pretend we are pre-new rule for a minute), would require one of those "notes" things that we are supposed to not do anymore - specifically because they open a ball of worms that we will eventually HATE.

The point at which the chassis have to be modified, the question becomes, "are they identical once modified, to the 'real' examples of those chassis parts?" If so, maybe but for example, if the front half of the tub ends up being "early" spec, while the back half is "late" spec, then the resulting piece (the tub) is not one that ever existed in nature. Not OK.

K
[/b]

I admit that the sum total knowledge about Fieros stems from riding/driving a friend's '85 4-banger MANY years ago. But, I can't believe something like this didn't get the "not consistent w/ IT philosophy" rubber stamp when the letter first hit Topeka. Especially in light of some of the VIN# stupidity that's gone on in the past (e.g. Rabbit/GTI).

Kirk's right, it's the little things that set precedents. Just look at how many people are justifying the new ECU rule based on what's already in the book.