Getting started with a VW in IT

[JeffYoung]

What about the 16v Scirocco in ITA?

[Greg Amy]

What about the 16v Scirocco in ITA?

Same exact mechanical car as the Golf, with slightly better aero...they suffer the same handicap in ITA as the NX2000 does, that being strut-based suspensions in a field of nice-geometry cars (e.g., Honda Integrae and CRXen, Mazda Miatae). In order to consistently win in that field you'll need a strong power advantage... - GA

[rsportvolvo]

I'm surprised GA missed this one.

Build a MkI Rabbit for ITB using this car:

https://improvedtouring.com...ad.php?t=27594

don't buy the MacPherson strut propaganda. They work, just in the right hands. Here's a good example of an underpowered FWD strut car winning by using a better suspension setup:

http://www.exetc.co.uk/motorsport/casestudies/volvo.htm

**I'm sure most have never seen a fabricated mono-arm strut like this before, I certainly had not.

[JeffYoung]

And with 120ish stock hp, probably not a contender?

It's interesting to me that S cars primarily are strut based suspensions (RX7, Z car, BMWs, my car), and the fast As are double As. Maybe that explains why the gap between S and A seems to have closed quite a bit (unless your name is Huffmaster).

Same exact mechanical car as the Golf, with slightly better aero...they suffer the same handicap in ITA as the NX2000 does, that being strut-based suspensions in a field of nice-geometry cars (e.g., Honda Integrae and CRXen, Mazda Miatae). In order to consistently win in that field you'll need a strong power advantage... - GA

[Greg Amy]

I'm surprised GA missed this one.

Eh, I haven't fully resolved to turning my baby into a race car. But, if the right person (and right offer) came along, I'd do it.

Here's a good example of an underpowered FWD strut car winning by using a better suspension setup:

Hah, was that the one built in England by Prodrive, was it? I remember the article in Race Car Engineering on it a few years ago: they had COMPLETELY redesigned the rear suspension on that thing, it was suh-WEET! In fact, Kirk and I discussed how we could do something like this within the IT rules, and we think with some creative interpretation (what, actually, is a "swaybar"?) it can be done to a limited degree.

I think I scanned in that RCE article and posted it here a few years ago, might do a search for it.

And with 120ish stock hp, probably not a contender?

Who knows? Depends on what you can get in IT trim, and what its weight is. My NX was 140 crank stock, and we saw low/mid 150s wheel and a flat torque curve @ 2515#(?) min weight.

It's interesting to me that S cars primarily are strut based suspensions (RX7, Z car, BMWs, my car)

BMWs are the standard in overall design (a la Miata in A); RX-7 is light and has independent rear with good power; Z-car is the champion lightweight (and fully ind. rear too, yes?).

Of course, none of those are FWD; strut-based and FWD is a lethal combo...you're just asking too much out of the front suspension when you combine FWD and struts.

GA

[Greg Amy]

Nope, it wasn't the Volvo I was thinking of; it was the VX Racing Opel Astra. December 2004 Race Car Engineering, article name "Light Beam".

Quote: "When is a beam axle not a beam axle? VX Racing managed to stay the right side of this definition yet designed a suspension that brought four consecutive titles."

[rsportvolvo]

That Volvo S60 has a multi-link rear suspension. Pretty decent setup out of the box. Heck the S60 would make for a nice IT car for the FWD fans. The mono-arm strut is the cool part. I believe the Super Touring BMW's used a mono-arm setup to shift the bending loads to the upper mount. Unfortunately in IT we can't reinforce the strut towers so a less than tank like structure may not see the gains of this design.

The beam or live axle, whether FWD or RWD, is pretty much open in IT. It's just a matter of going the extra mile to design and fab it up. A good example of this for a FWD car is the World Challenge Nissan Sentra's from a few years back. They had a 3-link rear end. Everyone bitched until they actually read the rules. Then they appreciated it, although most begrudgingly.

Anyone have examples of IT folks exploiting the beam axle section?

[JLawton]

I'm not convinced the A1 can't be made competative at least on the shorter tracks. Horse power isn't everything. I'd love to give an A1 another try.

[JeffYoung]

I'd like to understand this thinking some more.

I know you can add a panhard bar (I have one), or a watts link, and any "traction bar." Sway bars are free. Bushings are too, essentially. But, you can't move suspension pickup points and you can't delete parts unless specifically allowed.

So, with my car -- live rear, RWD -- I can add a panhard, and basically any other bar I want attaching the rear to the chassis. but I can't move springs or shocks, or where the upper and lower links attach to the chassis. Yes, I know I can use air bushings on them and locate the axle using the free sway bar and traction bar rule, but other unbinding the upper linkes and adding a third link, not sure why you would want to do any of that.

I'm all ears though.

That Volvo S60 has a multi-link rear suspension. Pretty decent setup out of the box. Heck the S60 would make for a nice IT car for the FWD fans. The mono-arm strut is the cool part. I believe the Super Touring BMW's used a mono-arm setup to shift the bending loads to the upper mount. Unfortunately in IT we can't reinforce the strut towers so a less than tank like structure may not see the gains of this design.

The beam or live axle, whether FWD or RWD, is pretty much open in IT. It's just a matter of going the extra mile to design and fab it up. A good example of this for a FWD car is the World Challenge Nissan Sentra's from a few years back. They had a 3-link rear end. Everyone bitched until they actually read the rules. Then they appreciated it, although most begrudgingly.

Anyone have examples of IT folks exploiting the beam axle section?