Golf IV in B and Beetle in C?

[StephenB]

Talking with Albin, he isn't even at spec weight, so how did someone figure the IV would get there?

Someone has already made a IV and it makes minimum...

[Ralf]

Someone has already made a IV and it makes minimum...

How much does the driver weigh?
And so if the IV can make weight, does the Beetle have to have a full interior in it plus ballast to make weight? 410 pounds is a lot of weight.

[StephenB]

Ralf,

I am 100% positive about barens car being under weight since I saw that with my own eyes... that car is a near perfect build and even utilizes a carbon fiber splitter...

As far as the A4... that is hearsay from some people that I trust and that build awesome cars BUT I have not scene it nor do I know the actual weight firsthand.

Stephen

[Ralf]

Stephen,
I guess its a good thing then that it can make weight since that may make it a viable car to get if one needed to build another VW. My search for A2 cars here in the middle of the country for parts hasn't turned up anything good. A4 Jetta's are plentyful and a quick search on Craigslist have turned up 2 for $2500.

[Bill Miller]

does the Beetle have to have a full interior in it plus ballast to make weight? 410 pounds is a lot of weight.

I don't think we'll ever know, as I don't think one has been built. We went round and round about this when the car was classified. Unfortunately, there were people in positions of influence that worked off assumptions and wags.

[Knestis]

It looked like a tweener when we did it and the rule of thumb at the time - informed by folks here - was that if it looked like a car couldn't make weight, or couldn't do so without a truly heroic effort, it went heavy in the lower class. There are arguments that some would prefer to race a car above its spec minimum at a lower race weight in a faster class, but would be knowingly handicapping a car right out of the gate.

Of course, all of those assumptions lived on top of the first principle that we would eventually get all cars aligned to the then-process. That may or may not stand at this point.

K

[shwah]

The A3 can certainly get to weight. I know that Aaron was carrying ballast in his, and likely still would have with the PS reinstalled.

[Bill Miller]

Someone has already made a IV and it makes minimum...

Would like to know more about that car Stephen, as that's 550#+ that has to come out, w/ a 190# driver, to get to 2350#. Good luck w/ an A4 Jetta, because there's an extra 120# or so. An A3 Golf 2dr started off roughly 200# lighter than the A4 version, yet they're both at 2350# race weight.

Curb weights for 'equivalent' models (base GL)

Golf 2dr 2720# +/- 10#
NB 2765# +/- 10#
Jetta 4d 2840# +/- 10#

Those numbers are pretty consistent from '99 to '03, varying by a couple of lbs either way.

[rx7chris]

If someone wants to come by, you can scale the bug i'm selling. It's in the classifieds if anyone is intrested.

[D. Ellis-Brown]

I for one would like to see the MK IV Jetta added to the ITCS, and at the 2350 weight. Having built a MK III Jetta, the number one issue we worked was to get the weight out of the car. Consequently we had to put it on a "rotissorie" . We removed all of the undercoating, drilled out the welds on un-necessory brackets, removed the seam sealant, etc....2 solid weeks of hard, nasty work, but we were able to get the weight down to 2350 with less than 2 gallons and a 190 lb driver. I would like to see the MK IV Jetta at the same weight. Might be a fun project.......
David Ellis-Brown

[gran racing]

Kirk, the only issue with the car going into ITC is how few cars race in that class (overall, not one or two off races or regions). No fault of how it was classed. If ITC were like ITA is now, you'd see more Bettles built.

[Knestis]

>> ...drilled out the welds on un-necessory brackets...

You and I have had this discussion, I think, but I anticipate someone will chime in on this - so why not me?



K

EDIT for Dave - The ITAC talked about that issue, in terms of whether it would be "more attractive" as a too-light-to-achieve B car or a fat car in C. We eventually came back to the first principle that it wasn't our job to engineer - or even consider - the popularity of a class or make/model option. Cameron proposed moving (or cross-listing?) it to B and the response was based on the same logic: If ITC is a class, cars that fit there should be put there.

[shwah]

David, that all sounds IT kosher except the removing of un-necessary brackets. Those are necessary to remain IT legal.

[RSTPerformance]

Yet another reason we should have dual classing...

#1 reason let people (like the MR2 drivers and possible beatle drivers) choose the class they want, not some guy/gal who thinks they know what people want.

#2 reason, double dippers = more income for the regions = lower or at least stable entry fees

#3 reason, we dual class the Miata's, and thats just one reason those cars are so popular...

Raymond "I know... Being classed heavy (acording to the process) wont prevent you from winning races" Blethen

[D. Ellis-Brown]

When I say un-necessary brackets, it was those that held the old rear seat back, the ones on the floor that held the carpeting, the ones that held the interior trim panels, and the like, ditto for the ones that held the stock exhaust system and the exhaust shield and the like. Can the frame for the sunroof be removed?, YES, but the rear compartment shelf... NO, The driver side stock seat runners that are welded to the tunnel. YES, to faciltate replacement mountings, Audio systems may be removed in their entirety, Air bag systems maybe removed, AC System and associated brackets, Parking Brakes, mechanisms and actuating components may be removed....etc. hood and trunk latches maybe removed, etc....Again, this is how we intepreted the rules, and consequently we included brackets. Instead of cutting out the "un-necessary" brackets, we drilled out the welds, and removed the bracket.
Now I'm sure that someone can debate some the brackets that I refer. But when we built the car, in 2006, the rules stated in the section 9.1.3 B "Intent" ..... No compenent or part normally found in a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, alterd or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage. As I stated in a previous discussion back prior to the 2008 edit of this statement, I / we did not gain any competitive advantage by getting the car down to the "Legal" race weight of 2350 lbs.. When the wording was changed, which I considered an error and I forwarded my concerns to the ITAC, we did not review or even considered going back and re-install any brackets that may be in question. Getting the car down to the minimum weight does not give us any competitive advantage. The primary statement of the Intent of IT rules is to restrict modifications to be useful and necessary to construct a safe race car and that is what we did.

As a side note...... What rule within the ITCS, or GCR, Permits the removal of the factory / stock seat belts?. We have always removed them, but in numerous times I have read the ITCS and GCR, I have never seen the words that state 'It is permitted to remove the factory installed seat belts" Please advise..... Thanks David Ellis-Brown