Preliminary December CRB Minutes and the January Tech Bullet

Well Sam, since you brought it up ( BMW 1600,2002 anyone? ) Ihave been racing the 02 chassis since 1989.
It does OK on tracks with short srtaights. But tracks like RA are a joke. When I raced there last year, everyone used me for a boost with the draft on the straights. I still had a great time. G
 
Keith Church":28w1f9bx said:
Hate to stop the humor here but somebody will eventually point it out so I might as well.
Read the spec's. They approved the Volvo 142 with the P1800 engine. The 142's always had the same engine as the P1800 sports cars. Initially they were powered by the Volvo B18 engine. Later models got the B20 engine. The B18's were carbed, while the B20's were both carbed OR FI. Note that the specs give only 1 weight but have 2 different displacements, the B18 and the B20. The FI B20 head is OK but has some serious limitations in the exhaust valve pocket. The B18 head doesn't have this restriction. A smart engine builder (like SoMe I know) would use the B18 head drilled for the FI that came on the B20. Gotta go, I hear my helicopter coming.
Merry Christmas Les,
Keith Church

Now if someone could document that US market 142's never came with B18 motors the spec line would have to be changed to prohibit a non-spridget hybrid from being legal!
Happy New Year too!
KC
Click to expand...

I am very glad that I don't have too many enemies.
 
kruck":3f0l2zg9 said:
Page 1: OMG, a 2.0L Volvo in HP?! That's insane! What kind of a moron would allow that?! It's going to kill the class! That's so stupid!
Page 2: Oh wait, that's with a 1.8L? What kind of a moron would think that would be competitive?! No one would ever build that! That's so stupid!
Click to expand...

So obviously the correct engine size is 1900cc.

This just shows the efficiency of the new social network based classification optimization system. Wonders of modern Interwebz technology! So much simpler than using LapSim etc.

8)
 
Just remember "It's not what the rulebook says, it's what the CRB meant for it to say." So states the copy of the appeal that I lost two years ago.
 
"Modifying transmission tunnels, suspension, frame, fenders, etc. to allow alternate transmissions in Production. Come'on now where is the spirit and intent of the rules for the class. This is not GT. Can't even get a alternate bolt on rotor approved that was optional for that model, but you can modify a whole drivetrain for a transmission, that did not even come with the car. I give up this is ludicrous."


This did not change the spirit of the class, front engine rear drive cars were perviously allowed to modify the trans tunnel to fit a alternate gearbox, and many prod cars do run a alternate gearbox.
Some cars can fit a alternate gearbox without modifying anything. Some cars the OEM box barely fits, so to fit any alternate gearbox, some level of triming is required.

Prod cars have always had brake limitations, some of the brake rules don't seem to make much sense. I bet my brakes are smaller than yours...
 
"the body, unibody, frame, suspension crossmembers/subframes and their components may be altered." to make room for a alternate transmission. This makes me laugh, almost as funny as taking 150lbs. off the one and only car at the Runoffs that mysteriously had no speedtrap speeds. I can guarantee you there is going to be a lot of creativity on suspension changes, subframes, body alterations with the excuse "Oh I had to make the changes to fit the transmission".
Brakes: Prod. cars can change from drum rear brakes to discs. Why? The car never came that way, but one can't change to a 1/2" larger rotor that was available on the same model.
For the record Ted, my car weighs 600lbs. more than the Fiesta and has probably 70% more horsepower,that's why my brakes are bigger.
#48 E/P
Mike
 
Well we are not suppossed to change suspension pick up points, at least not in limited prep. Also if anyone is wondering, I submitted the request, but they expanded it a little, I just wanted to modify the trans tunnel on the left side of the unibody. But some front drive cars might have some sort of subframe. SO there are some limitations to triming things to fit the alternate gearbox.

I have never understood why we allow converting to rear disc, I think prod cars should keep the rear drums, but that is just my opinion. As a club we should decide what should seperate Prod and GT. Most GT cars are tube frame, but what should really seperate a tube GT from a Prod car?? I still have rear drums.

I would hope your car has at least twice as much horsepower as my little pig. But that is partly my own fault.....

If slightly different OEM brakes were/are available, seems like a reasonable question, why you can't use those parts.
 
kruck":3pympgxm said:
Just trying to keep this straight...

Page 1: OMG, a 2.0L Volvo in HP?! That's insane! What kind of a moron would allow that?! It's going to kill the class! That's so stupid!
Page 2: Oh wait, that's with a 1.8L? What kind of a moron would think that would be competitive?! No one would ever build that! That's so stupid!
Click to expand...

i have to say, i was reading faster than my ability. But, that's exactly what I got out of page 1 and 2 :D
 
Well cool, Sam--and here I thought you and Kevin were out sick the day your teacher went over reading !!!!




Sam Moore
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top