Results 1 to 20 of 145

Thread: Problem Cars

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Flagtown, NJ USA
    Posts
    6,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joeg View Post
    Brakes and gearing also come into play for a lot of cars.

    The problem with dropping weights is that a lot of these cars are kind of Porky anyways. I am not sure how you legally pull a couple hundred pounds out of a Saab 900, for example.

    It is a "big" car to begin with.
    Joe,

    If that's truly the case, I would think that car would be a good candidate for a move down to ITC. Look at the case of the VW New Beetle, it's believed that the car can't legally make the process weight that the identical (other than the bodywork) Golf and Jetta can. Therefore, the New Beetle landed in ITC at a portly 28xx lbs (IIRC).

    Chris (shwah),

    It's my understanding that the difference in the Rabbit and Scirocco weights is based on the perceived aero advantage of the Scirocco bodywork. I am not convinced that there's any aero advantage, but what I've heard, is that is the reason for the difference in weights.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    1,893

    Default

    But I have been told that aero is not an input to the 'codefied' process.

    Even if it were 50# is a LOT to hang on cars with 90hp stock.
    Chris Schaafsma
    Golf 2 HProd

    AMT Racing Engines - DIYAutoTune.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Aero is most definitely not part of the process.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    588

    Default

    Not trying to stir anything up, but why is aero NOT a part? I am not saying it should be, just asking. Guessing that the determination of bad or good aero would take lots of either "track hours" or "tunnel time" (equals $$$$$)?
    So from the above posts I am gathering that "B" has some, maybe more, cars that are on either side of the curve, am I right? (I am not trying to push this subject in any direction, I just think it is good to know where the problems are that push the buttons.)
    Maybe somebody could make a list.
    Mac Spikes
    Cresson, TX (Home of "The Original" MotorSport Ranch)
    "To hell with you Gen. Sheridan...I 'll take Texas!"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Marc, that's correct. Speaking for myself (although I think most of the ITAC agrees) there is just no way to quantify aero. Even the "book" numbers for a car are pretty much useless given what we can do with spoilers/splitters.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Aero drag - negative HP - is a very complicated business and there's no way to accurately determine it with the resources we have. We also dork with the factory body shape a LOT with airdams. Finally, the actual physics is often contradictory to what we *think* we see when we eyeball something asking how "aerodynamic" it is.

    K

  7. #7

    Default

    All depends on where the standard of the class is set. For ITB the standard was the Golf right? Since there aren’t many ways to lose weight on an IT car, it seems like the best the process can really do is micro manage around the standard. Unless of course we are willing to ADD weight to cars, even ‘popular’ cars, and I seriously doubt that will happen.
    For example, last race I went to there were two Mustangs(fox body). They look a bit heavy to me at 2550lbs and 90hp(I think). I don’t think they have been reprocessed but I’ll bet they couldn’t lose the weight anyway. The point is, it’s easy to say “add weight and move to ITC” but not so easy to hear “lose 200 lbs we’re moving your ITB Golf to ITA” The question of achievable weight goes hand in hand with where the standard is set, and who decides that? It seems like the standard for the class should be running around with at least 100 lbs of ballast just to make weight. This would help center the class and include more cars in the curve.
    Are the ‘class standards’ for each class running ballast?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Flagtown, NJ USA
    Posts
    6,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shwah View Post
    But I have been told that aero is not an input to the 'codefied' process.

    Even if it were 50# is a LOT to hang on cars with 90hp stock.
    Chris,

    I am only going on what I was told (a long time ago) when I asked why there was a weight difference between the Rabbit and Scirocco, given the same engine. Initially, I was told that it had to do w/ the ITB Mk II Scirocco being classified w/ the RD (103 hp, 10:1) engine. But that was tossed several years ago, so I don't know. Given that both the Rabbit GTI in ITB, and the Mk II Scirocco w/ the 1.8 8v engine saw weight changes as part of tGR, coupled w/ Jeff's and Kirk's comments about aero not being a factor, I have no idea why those cars have different weights. Maybe someone on the ITAC that was involved w/ tGR can shed some light on it.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •