European records, should we have some?

[MeXX]

Come on how long does this take..... what about the rules, seems like some people are sitting on the fence......

Right

Don't think it will take so much rules just the classes and a ranking........

BTW for class 3 (Race cars naturally aspirated)

9.8780 @ 222.47km/h at Kunmadaras 18.Aug.2013 11:20
and backup run
9.9265 @ 222.12km/h at Kunmadaras 18.Aug.2013 11:42

[ Attachment: You are not allowed to view attachments ]


So keep on settin' records

MeXX

[johandryselius]

Hi all!
Seems Mexx have the first official record - right!  Congrats on two super runs!
What about the 4 classes mentioned and then one "Outlaw" class for any car that is not possible to be defined within the 4!? I also think it is important that we within the 4 classes have some "leeway" on the suspension set-up and other not "detailed" regulations not to bee too picky if a car have a completely "original" suspension or not etc. It must be possible for ALL cars to fit within the 5 classes. We all have raced for a long time and we know what makes differences or not as far as being quick down the track. This should be serious but still because it's fun and we enjoy what we are doing. I feel the whole idea is important though since it will make everyone strive for getting quicker!

Johan

[richie]

Hi all!
Seems Mexx have the first official record - right!  Congrats on two super runs!
What about the 4 classes mentioned and then one "Outlaw" class for any car that is not possible to be defined within the 4!? I also think it is important that we within the 4 classes have some "leeway" on the suspension set-up and other not "detailed" regulations not to bee too picky if a car have a completely "original" suspension or not etc. It must be possible for ALL cars to fit within the 5 classes. We all have raced for a long time and we know what makes differences or not as far as being quick down the track. This should be serious but still because it's fun and we enjoy what we are doing. I feel the whole idea is important though since it will make everyone strive for getting quicker!

Johan

Johan,

can you offer what you think should and what should not be allowed on suspension mods/changes then please? more input the better.

As I have my own ideas of what it should be I am trying to keep out from forcing my opinions on this, so need to get as much input from others as possible so there is as little
 "its not fair, my car doesn't fit" bullshit afterwards

But the simpler the better

cheers Richie

[johandryselius]

Best Richie!
I couldn't agree with you more than that there will always be "its not fair, my car doesn't fit" bullshit afterwards - no matter what is decided. My thought, and that remains my thought, was to keep it really simple as far as suspension goes i.e. #1 would be a pan car with torsion bars and springplates of original length - no matter if it's raised or not. Any use of ladderbars, coilover springs would be #2 and that would include using sprinplates fitted w.o. torsion bars with a coilover spring for instance, pan car or not. #2 and #3 would be the same but with power adder.

Another thought is for the NA cars to maybe divide them by using original boltpattern for the cylinder heads and 4" boltpattern!? Just to complicate it even more, but I can feel that for NA cars there is a big difference in running a 2388 or 2442 compared to some of the 2,6-3,0 liter engines out there!

I guess my thoughts didn't make it simpler - sorry for that!  Most important is the first point though, more than the engine dividing point!

Any thoughts!?

Johan

[richie]

Good, my ideas are not far off yours

Pan car must use stock style torsion spring, stock style spring plates[adjustable allowed] and stock shock mounting points. What size torsion, shock, bushings etc is free. That is as near to stock style suspension as it needs to be, now getting into different bore sizes is another can of worms

cheers Richie

[Jesse Wens]

I like it the way you are saying.  As for the cilinderbore and stuff, if the enginesize is put next to the ETs in the list people can go trhough the list themselves and see where they stand compared to others with the same Ccs. I dont see a need for a seperate list. If your the fastest 1641 it will be obvious from the list.

so, that will be my input 

[johandryselius]

Good, my ideas are not far off yours

Pan car must use stock style torsion spring, stock style spring plates[adjustable allowed] and stock shock mounting points. What size torsion, shock, bushings etc is free. That is as near to stock style suspension as it needs to be, now getting into different bore sizes is another can of worms

cheers Richie

Great!
The bore size can of worms is probably best left unopened!! 
Johan

[johandryselius]

I like it the way you are saying.  As for the cilinderbore and stuff, if the enginesize is put next to the ETs in the list people can go trhough the list themselves and see where they stand compared to others with the same Ccs. I dont see a need for a seperate list. If your the fastest 1641 it will be obvious from the list.

so, that will be my input 

Jesse!
Yes for the "fast times" lists that will be ok, but if we are establishing an European Record it will only be one record in that "list"!

Johan!

[MeXX]

Hi to all

I think we basically agree to have 4 classes and maybe a 5th for all that
 don't fit into this 4 classes.
So this 4 classes are basically two: pan cars and race cars
and each naturally aspirated and power added.

So far so good......
I think we should make a list of does and don'ts for these classes.

The first list should be 4 all 4 classes like:

does:

air cooled flat four.
rear engine
RWD
doorslammer
.......


don'ts

floppers
.......


and then we should consider for pan cars:

does:

stock style front style suspension
(beam and stock style MC pherson) ??
stock style rear suspension
swing axle and stock style IRS
(torsion bar housing height altering allowed) ?? how much ??
stock style shox location and mounting
stock style pans ??

dont's

strut style front suspension
ladder bars and 4 links
coil over shox without stock style torsion bars
tube chassis without stock style pans


There are further things to be considered:

flip front allowed ??
stock style roof section ??
top chop allowed ??
are any steel (metal) body parts necessary ??

and for all classes:

what kind of fuels are allowed (prohibited)
what kind of tires are allowed (prohibited)
what kind of power adders and how much are allowed (prohibited)

to be continued ......

So to all how are intersted in this record list help to complet ......


MeXX

[richie]

Hi to all

I think we basically agree to have 4 classes and maybe a 5th for all that
 don't fit into this 4 classes.
So this 4 classes are basically two: pan cars and race cars
and each naturally aspirated and power added.

So far so good......
I think we should make a list of does and don'ts for these classes.

The first list should be 4 all 4 classes like:

does:

air cooled flat four.
rear engine
RWD
doorslammer
.......


don'ts

floppers
.......


and then we should consider for pan cars:

does:

stock style front style suspension
(beam and stock style MC pherson) ??
stock style rear suspension
swing axle and stock style IRS
(torsion bar housing height altering allowed) ?? how much ??
stock style shox location and mounting
stock style pans ??

dont's

strut style front suspension
ladder bars and 4 links
coil over shox without stock style torsion bars
tube chassis without stock style pans


There are further things to be considered:

flip front allowed ??
stock style roof section ??
top chop allowed ??
are any steel (metal) body parts necessary ??

and for all classes:

what kind of fuels are allowed (prohibited)
what kind of tires are allowed (prohibited)
what kind of power adders and how much are allowed (prohibited)

to be continued ......

So to all how are intersted in this record list help to complet ......


MeXX

Hi Mexx

good points/questions

my thoughts


4 classes, think we all agreed

 All must be rear engine, horizontally opposed four cylinder, and have 2 full working doors. All body mods[chopped, channelled etc] and materials allowed[steel, fiberglass, carbon etc all ok]


Number 1:  normally aspirated factory floorpan,

Must have stock style front and rear suspension to car[no struts if not factory strut car]

front: mods to beam allowed to narrow it[no limit on width], drop spindles, beam adjusters etc all allowed, must use front shocks
rear: must use factory width torsion bars as main spring [ swapping torsion bar lengths between different years allowed so in theory narrowed torsion housing allowed] rear shocks must use factory mounting points.
All vehicles must have full length welded in factory style floorpans, repo pans allowed

Number 2: power adder factory floorpan [any power adder/adders and as many as you want]
suspension & body mods as above in class Number 1

Number 3 : Normally aspirated modified[includes all raised, narrowed rear torsions, back halved ladder bar, full chassis etc, etc[ anything that doesn't fit into class Number 1, MAXIMUM WHEELBASE 99inches

Number 4 : Power adder modified, as in class 3, with any power adders allowed, MAXIMUM WHEELBASE 99inches

Any fuels allowed that can be ran at all tracks [eg no polypropelene ] Any tyre allowed

Everything else is free, except:                If it looks fcuking ugly then it wont be allowed

At this time I have ignored the WBX/aircooled question and ohc heads.

cheers Richie



Editied to add WHEELBASE LIMIT

[MeXX]

my thoughts

4 classes, think we all agreed

 All must be rear engine, horizontally opposed four cylinder, and have 2 full working doors. All body mods[chopped, channelled etc] and materials allowed[steel, fiberglass, carbon etc all ok]

cheers Richie

Dear Richie

Sounds great  
Looks like the "European ACVW record rulebook" will be finished soon  

What we have consider is that we have to make a more exact definition of the body:

IMO it should be:

       based on a traditional aircooled car
   or traditional full boddied kit car Buggys allowed ??
   or New Beetle
   or traditional factory rear engine equipped "Fiats". (although it's strange if a Fiat is in a VW record list   but it's a tradition )

IMO it should NOT be

       based on late style water cooled cars like Golf,K70 and similar.(except New Beetle).
       based on Dune Buggys or Rails
       based on late style water cooled "Fiats" like X1/9.
  

just my opinion  

MeXX

[richie]

Ok, to keep it simple, for the Pan based classes as they need to be full metal floor pans in the rules it would need to be a LWB buggy to fit, and realistically if someone wants to make a new beetle or fiat body fit an un-altered pan then good luck to them.

 Then for the chassis class I think any traditionally used body style is ok? I will add a maximum wheelbase to those classes[modified classes] of 96 inches to stop anything stupid, and the rule at the end that if its Fcuking ugly it wont be allowed should be enough to stop any mutants

cheers Richie

[MeXX]

Ok, to keep it simple, for the Pan based classes as they need to be full metal floor pans in the rules it would need to be a LWB buggy to fit, and realistically if someone wants to make a new beetle or fiat body fit an un-altered pan then good luck to them.

 Then for the chassis class I think any traditionally used body style is ok? I will add a maximum wheelbase to those classes[modified classes] of 96 inches to stop anything stupid, and the rule at the end that if its Fcuking ugly it wont be allowed should be enough to stop any mutants

cheers Richie

Dear Richie

U R right

For pan cars it has to have a stock pan:

        we should decide if LWB Buggys are allowed
        we should decide if stock pan "Fiats" are allowed

IMO the maximum should be 99 inch (New Beetle) because it doesn't make them faster but saver 
       and wheelbase stagger Maximum 1 inch (like NHRA)

more input from everyone (Racers) requested

MeXX

[richie]

I think yes to LWB buggies, and I don't think you can make a Fiat fit on a stock VW pan so that really isn't an issue, it can't be on a Fiat pan as all the suspension rules wouldn't allow that.

And 99 inches is ok, I didn't realise the NB was that long wheelbase, I will ask Rudy the wheelbase on his car as the +or - 1inch[ or 2inches as some governing bodies allow] might make a difference, I think the wheelbase rule shouldn't exclude any current built and running cars

Wheelbase edited in my last rules post

cheers Richie

[MeXX]

Hi

I think it makes sens that there will be no "Fiats" allowed in the pan car classes, as otherwise the
 rules are going to get very complex.

As mentioned before IMO enlarge the wheelbase makes the cars safer not faster so maybe something like +4 inch or -1inch
from the factory car should be OK, but I appreciate "funny cars" are OK too funny cars definitely NOT.

Another aspect should be if there have to be minimum safety features especially in the race classes (to keep racing save and avoid lightweight car at any cost of safety features).

So Long

MeXX

[Fasterbrit]

Very interesting debates going on here. I like the general idea, but It would seem the WBX is being pushed out  of favour. Shame really, as the Skinne Bros and others have worked damn hard to go faster than most with standard VW flat four parts. Low 8s on a standard Volkswagen crankcase and cylinder heads is, in my opinion, worthy of commendation and therefore consideration. How many other cars out there are using standard, factory components? Hmmmmnnn... At most perhaps the brass distributor drive gear.

Hell, there's even a WBX powered car that runs mid nines on factory cylinder heads, crankcase and cylinders. Big power using readily available and cheap parts. It's way more Volkswagen then most, but sadly doesn't fit in to any category. Even if driven sans water.

I have a proposal that would be interesting reading for people interested in racing. How about making it mandatory across the proposed classes that racers disclose their bore and stroke? It would be good to see what can be achieved with certain combinations. It will be aspirational to people building their cars.

Matt

[richie]

Hi Matt

good to have your input, you have been around long enough to have a good idea or 2

But, you need to read my last incarnation of the rules, it doesn't say anywhere it needs to be aircooled , I even mentioned at the end I have deliberately left out any reference to WBX and ohc heads. It goes against everything I am passionate about to include watercooled cars but I am trying to do this so it is as unbiased as possible.

Why wouldn't your old car fit into any category presuming that's what you are referring to?

What everyone has to remember is there are only going to be 4 names/cars on this list for records at any one time, looking at it currently you would have these cars/drivers as record holders

1 Thomas Kemp 10.12
2 Skinne[owner] Jens[driver] 8.0?
3 Mexx 9.87
4 Stian 8.57

these times may not all be backed up but you get the idea.

So to be on this list you would need to beat those times, I don't realistically see anyone ever beating the Skinne cars times, so if it is included we can pretty much close that class for ever, not very inspirational to others with similar cars is it?

This isn't designed to be "give everyone a gold star"  Its supposed to be the quickest VW cars Europe has, there is already a list/records for watercooled VWs, and Trond already has a Top racers list on here which should give people a pretty good idea on different combo's. I don't see the need for another list to do that as well do you? maybe the current top racer list could be expanded to include more info if people wanted that, racers would be ok with giving that & Trond agreed to the extra work

cheers Richie

[Fasterbrit]

At this time I have ignored the WBX/aircooled question and ohc heads.

Ah... Wasn't quite sure how to read the above statement as it kind of reads 'ignore them in general'.
So, what you are suggesting is that WBX can be included? If so, game on! 👍

Matt

[MeXX]

This isn't designed to be "give everyone a gold star" 
cheers Richie

Dear Richie

I agree. It's a record list.

But maybe we should mention at least a runner up in each class just to see who is near (or far #2) of the record.

And we have to write down if it's the car, the team or the driver who runs the record and who is listed.

Happy that it's pretty close to the finish line

MeXX

[richie]

'ignore them in general'.

Matt

I am trying too  

 but at this time I haven't . 

It is still real hard to find where to draw the line, the majority of us are into the aircooled VW platform so that is the basis for these records[as there currently are none for Europe], but then defining the drivetrain is proving more difficult, I see the argument for the WBX engine but there are only 2 cars I am aware of currently racing that are running it, so do we change what is allowed just for 2 cars? and then I am sure Berger would agree as he is the 2nd car using WBX power, no one is ever going to catch Skinne so now we are making rules just for one car. To me that is a bad precedent to set already, what do we say to the guy with the VW inline engine or Subaru engine that thinks the rules should allow them? well one is a horizontally opposed flat four and the other could use a majority of VW parts in his engine, it would make just as good an argument as the WBX to me.

more opinions please

cheers Richie

[richie]

This isn't designed to be "give everyone a gold star" 
cheers Richie

Dear Richie

I agree. It's a record list.

But maybe we should mention at least a runner up in each class just to see who is near (or far #2) of the record.

And we have to write down if it's the car, the team or the driver who runs the record and who is listed.

Happy that it's pretty close to the finish line

MeXX

The record should show: car, driver [and or owner/builder if that's different to driver] place, time, date, then time run for record and back up time as well. I am not sure if we need anything more than that?

cheers Richie

[MeXX]

[The record should show: car, driver [and or owner/builder if that's different to driver] place, time, date, then time run for record and back up time as well. I am not sure if we need anything more than that?

cheers Richie

Yep; scan of the timeslip would be great so that everyone can see it.

ET and time minimum 2 dig after the coma. All missing digits are 9.
So for examble a 9.00 is a 9.0099 and a 9.000 is a 9.0009 and so on.

MeXX

[Jon]

Going fast with a stock floor pan without a narrowed torsion housing should be recognized as harder to do than the alternative. To get all the power down you need to go wider with your track due to over sized tires. Making the car effectively shorter than a stock beetle.

In other words, I think the stock pan class should be split in two. Narrowed rear end and stock torsion tube.
Just meant as a comment, I think this is going to be great either way. 

[Neil Davies]

So should there be a "stock pan", "modified pan" and "tube frame" records? "Stock" being as it says, "Modified" being raised/narrowed/coil overs (in place of torsion bars), "Tube frame" including back-halved/ladder bar pan cars.

[richie]

Going fast with a stock floor pan without a narrowed torsion housing should be recognized as harder to do than the alternative. To get all the power down you need to go wider with your track due to over sized tires. Making the car effectively shorter than a stock beetle.

I agree

In other words, I think the stock pan class should be split in two. Narrowed rear end and stock torsion tube.
Just meant as a comment, I think this is going to be great either way. 

This is why I ask for all comments and opinions    Is 4 classes enough? , do we need to expand it more?
How many quick narrowed and raised torsion cars are there in Europe? anyone name them? there doesn't seem any point to make it more complicated if its just one or two cars?

I have a bunch of other class ideas in my head but most of them become difficult to monitor, a Sub 2000cc class for both categories would be the next choice for me 

[richie]

So should there be a "stock pan", "modified pan" and "tube frame" records? "Stock" being as it says, "Modified" being raised/narrowed/coil overs (in place of torsion bars), "Tube frame" including back-halved/ladder bar pan cars.

Maybe, but I think once it has coil overs in place of torsion bars it is a whole different car.

Also this is something that maybe would need to be considered, what is a "stock pan"  Example: does an oval have to have an correct oval swingaxle pan? does a Super beetle have to have strut front end? etc

cheers Richie

[johandryselius]

Hi all!
Narrowed should fit in the class for coilover i.e. not considered "stock" pan car in my opinion. And for all cars not fitting in the 4 classes - one outlaw class. And I agree with Mexx that it could be in place to have a runner-up position for everyone to see how close or not close "the chase" is!
Thoughts?

Johan

[MeXX]

Going fast with a stock floor pan without a narrowed torsion housing should be recognized as harder to do than the alternative. To get all the power down you need to go wider with your Is 4 classes enough? , do we need to expand it more?

I think 4 classes and maybe and Outlaw class is enough first
If this is done we can make further classes if there is a real need.

IMO a stock pan is if it's a stock or after market (stock style) pan and/or suspension doesn't matter what year:
      so if anyone really wants to run a link pin in a Super Beetle, feel free.
      so if anyone really wants to run a T3 or stock style strut front end in an Oval, feel free.
      because there are running allot IRS in cars that were factory swing axle cars.
      because there are running some swing axles  in cars that were IRS factory cars.

As I already mentioned IMO

MeXX

[Berger]

'ignore them in general'.

Matt

I am trying too  

 but at this time I haven't . 

It is still real hard to find where to draw the line, the majority of us are into the aircooled VW platform so that is the basis for these records[as there currently are none for Europe], but then defining the drivetrain is proving more difficult, I see the argument for the WBX engine but there are only 2 cars I am aware of currently racing that are running it, so do we change what is allowed just for 2 cars? and then I am sure Berger would agree as he is the 2nd car using WBX power, no one is ever going to catch Skinne so now we are making rules just for one car. To me that is a bad precedent to set already, what do we say to the guy with the VW inline engine or Subaru engine that thinks the rules should allow them? well one is a horizontally opposed flat four and the other could use a majority of VW parts in his engine, it would make just as good an argument as the WBX to me.

more opinions please

cheers Richie

I think it must be taken into consideration that there might come new participants to the scene. And there are more cars running wbx then just Skinne and me. Matt`s car is still around isn't it? And Sveinung Slinnings 1303 (ran 10.xx at SCC this year but broke engine) is a wbx. And others are in the making

[richie]

I think it must be taken into consideration that there might come new participants to the scene. And there are more cars running wbx then just Skinne and me. Matt`s car is still around isn't it? And Sveinung Slinnings 1303 (ran 10.xx at SCC this year but broke engine) is a wbx. And others are in the making

Good point, Matts car has pauter engine now I believe, which is why I only mention Skinne and yourself   I did forget about Sveinung's car.