Bryce: My primary objective is to avoid making the class a check writing class since that IMO would end up destroying the class. So you know, when Rich and I first started discussing the possibilities, we were both interested in the SBC. However, we identified a number of problems; cost, transmission reliability in competition mode, and adding to the rear bias re: the weight/balance issue. Thus, even though the big V8 seemed to be a natural for a "CanAm" style car, we determined that it was not workable. My second choice was the 3.4TDC for all the reasons that I clearly do not need to explain to you. However, as we began looking around, I found these engines somewhat difficult to find in the local yards. In retrospect, I think it may be because they were often mated to a manual trans, and to my understanding, not many of those made it to California. Thus, we started looking at other options.

During the last 12 to 18 months, the 4.9 started to become a favored swap for a number of Fiero owners, including several of those that have participated in autocross, including the Team Python car. When I met Greg Duncan at the SoloII national tour event in San Diego in 2002, he told me that he would be going to the 4.9 after having campaigned a well prepared Quad 4 for some time, concluding that even in modified form, it lacked the torque they desired. We had also considered using a Quad 4 since it is probably the lightest combination that is readily available on the used market.

Upon further examination we determined that the 4.9 while offering about the same horsepower as a moderately built 3.4 V6 or a stock 3.4TDC, had a significant advantage in the torque department, all in a package that weighs virtually the same as the Fiero V6. In addition, the 4.9 mates to the Fiero trans and fits into the available space nicely. Oh yeah, since the 4.9 is a V8, it maintains the spirt of the CanAm cars.

We also concluded that we should run carburetors on the 4.9... at least in part since most of the early CanAm cars were carbureted. At the same time, we felt that not everyone would want to go for the 4.9, and thus, developed the 3.4 V6 alternative (little less power, but revs a little higher).

I had a brief meeting with GRM staffer Dave Wallins at the Las Vegas SEMA show in November 2002, and he was interested in the project (from a writer's standpoint). The article that appeared in GRM had been in the planning stages for at least a few months prior to our meeting. Anyhow, GRM indicated that they would give me advance notice prior to the article being printed and might (depending on space) be interested in showing what we were doing with a Fiero. In short summary, due in part to a change in my email carrier, the article went to print before my photos were submitted. So... here we are.

I certainly don't what to usurp George Ryan's efforts, or those of the CFOG-I group. It is my understanding that both of them (individually and maybe in conjunction with each other) have been interested in the idea of a Fiero spec racer. Thus, although I have not heard anything specific, George Ryan (who wrote the GRM article) may have been referring to another program.

In any event, here we are. Rich and I have been primarily interested in the CanAm style cars, but recognize that any Fiero based racing group will likely include some who prefer a closed top car (or just prefer that the Fiero be raced in its original form). Thus, we are open to the various alternatives, but nevertheless continue to believe that to be successful, we must be able to provide a competitive package at a price that is attractive (or at least affordable).

Back to the topic. So long as alternatives to the Fiero Getrag are available, I have no objection to including them. Remember, I am the guy who has two spares. Likewise, I am not opposed to allowing the 88 chassis or the 88 cradle swap (I also have two of each). However, because the 88 rear suspension is perceived to be a significant improvement, and so that everyone doesn't feel compelled to run out and buy an 88 cradle, we may need to create a handicap system.

Aside from the foregoing, your proposed budget is pretty realistic... a little light on the wheels and tires, but not too far off. Good job.

So where are we. As I understand, as far as the Fiero spec car; either a 2.8, 3.4 or 3.4TDC with any trans and with 88 chassis or rear cradle (or alternatively any bump steer kit) optional. That just may work. I would add that the 2.8 and 3.4 should have the option of using a carb instead of F.I. (so us older guys don't have to learn all that computer stuff). It would be interesting to see how the carbed pushrod matches up against the F.I. TDC.

I will still put together a CanAm with a 4.9. However, since the coupes will be using one of the available five speeds, I may want to reconsider.

Where do we sign up.

------------------
FierOmar

Thanks for the full background, it's always interesting to hear how the ball started rolling!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pushing the 3.4 TDC as a MUST BE swap...I would have detailed the 4.9, Northstar, 3800SC, SBC, etc. if I knew enough about those swaps. I just thought since you had asked others to post a breakdown, I would do what I could. Actually, I would *really* love to see all of that information. If anybody else is willing to post THEIR cost breakdown as I have for the 4.9, N*, 3800, 3800SC, SBC, Quad 4, Ecotec, etc. I will gladly put it all in one big spreadsheet so we can compare things easily. This would make it a lot easier to compare the pros and cons of each swap for a class like this.

I completely understand what you mean by a "check writing class"...seeing as I've built up some decent debt in school (graduating in march), I'm in NO hurry to get into a racing class that requires much cash. I think the 4.9 would probably be the best bang:buck engine for building costs, but I just can't warm up to that low redline. I don't know how well a multi-engine spec class would work out though...it does remind me of motorcycle racing though. At motorcycle road course racing the Ducatis (v-twins) have a lot more bottom end and can really grunt out of the corners, while the rest of the pack runs inline 4s and have tons of power at the top end. It makes for exciting racing because there are so many position changes due to the power differences. I think it would be similar with the 3.4 TDC and 4.9 caddy, but the handicaps would probably need some tweaking over the first season or two to figure out. The '88 vs. early cradle would probably result in the same tweaking. I just don't think that the stock early cradle should be allowed (bumpsteer kit or 88 should be required) as the earlier ones have just too much snap throttle oversteer. That's dangerous, especially since a spec class can have a lot of people new to race driving.

Oh, and while the 4.9 is a v8...the 3.4 DOHC sounds much more exotic. I, too, would be interested in how the carb vs. FI would go. In a theoretically perfect world it wouldn't make much of a difference, but in our non-perfect world it sure is fun to compete and argue over.

All the "dreaming" aside, I believe there would be enough support for a near-stock spec class. The pictures of the car you've already started fooling with were quite interesting, I didn't realize how seriously this was being pursued. My only issue is that you're in CA, while I doubt I'll be moving out there anytime soon, so if you start a class out there I'd be missing out. Fortunately if NASA was to adopt this class, it would be easy to start in other parts of the country under the same ruling, etc. I've already got a car just about ready to go for this class...I want to sign up too!

Bryce
88 GT

Nashco that is a beatiful little race car. Thanks for those pics.

I hope there are chassis reinforcements the pictures don't show.

FierOmar, have you read the Honda Challenge rules? If not, I would suggest you do so and loosely model your rules around them(except for the banning of DAQs).

I don't know how many people you will get to build "Can AM" style fieros, but I would imagine you would get more with a roll-cage reinforced spaceframe variety. The single roll bar would scare me as a driver.

[This message has been edited by Howard_Sacks (edited 01-25-2004).]

I like how Gerald Storvik (www.8shark.com) has done his door replacements with the chopped top. This probably does a pretty good job making up for the stiffness lost with the roof removal.

Multiple views of door bars
View of door skin attachment

FierOmar, how do you plan on increasing the chassis stiffness after removing the roof?

Bryce
88 GT

Maybe it's because after preliminary designs of a car that needs to meet NHRA safety rules, I think I need more protection, but I'm not sure I like the roll cage to sheet metal welds on 8shark's car either. I'll have to think more about it though and talk with people that are smarter then me.

quote Originally posted by Nashco: I like how Gerald Storvik (www.8shark.com) has done his door replacements with the chopped top. This probably does a pretty good job making up for the stiffness lost with the roof removal. Multiple views of door bars View of door skin attachment FierOmar, how do you plan on increasing the chassis stiffness after removing the roof? Bryce 88 GT

quote Originally posted by Howard_Sacks: Maybe it's because after preliminary designs of a car that needs to meet NHRA safety rules, I think I need more protection, but I'm not sure I like the roll cage to sheet metal welds on 8shark's car either. I'll have to think more about it though and talk with people that are smarter then me.

It's hard to see in those pictures, but it looks like he's got the tubes welded to thicker sheet metal end plates, then the end plates are welded to the chassis sheet metal. It's easiest to see in this picture before it gets painted. You can also see it well in this picture. If this is the case, these should be very strong joints. Some race cars use a thick plate on either side of the chassis and bolt them together, this should be just as strong because when it comes down to it, those are still only as strong as the supporting chassis material. If the tube was welded directly to the chassis it wouldn't be that strong, but since he's used larger plates to spread the loading over a greater area, it should be fine. I'd feel safe in it...but then again, you would have a heck of a time getting that car to roll in the first place....not that it isn't possible, just hard to do.

Bryce
88 GT

I did see that. I'm not sure how thich the plates are because he was able to shape them pretty closely to the original stamping. Maybe Gerald is that good?

You can also do plug welds in the middle of the plate to help attach larger plates to the chassis. You read Fournier's Metal Fabricator's Handbook?

I don't find the roll hoop itself all that offensive, but rather how the side impact beams attach to the "bulk heads" and how the side impact beams don't appear to tie into the roll hoop.

I know rolling one of these is remote, I just don't want to see anyone die racing a fiero. I also know what I'm used to seeing on professional cars and it "looks" under-caged for something that would compete in wheel to wheel competition.(I know 8shark competes in solo)

quote Originally posted by Nashco: It's hard to see in those pictures, but it looks like he's got the tubes welded to thicker sheet metal end plates, then the end plates are welded to the chassis sheet metal. It's easiest to see in this picture before it gets painted. You can also see it well in this picture. If this is the case, these should be very strong joints. Some race cars use a thick plate on either side of the chassis and bolt them together, this should be just as strong because when it comes down to it, those are still only as strong as the supporting chassis material. If the tube was welded directly to the chassis it wouldn't be that strong, but since he's used larger plates to spread the loading over a greater area, it should be fine. I'd feel safe in it...but then again, you would have a heck of a time getting that car to roll in the first place....not that it isn't possible, just hard to do. Bryce 88 GT

re: Chassis stiffening.

On each side, just inside the doors, we ran 1 X 3 square tubing from the rear to the front. It is welded to the wheel well and the side sheet metal on both the front and rear. It was placed about 8" about the door sill. As a result, we need to step over it when we get in. The car has been run real hard at the Streets of Willow and a couple weekends at Buttonwillow. No signs of flexing. Additional roll protection will be added. Since it is a roadster, a bar will be taken to the rear strrut tower from the back of the main hoop. A short front hoop will be fabricated and at least two bars will extent from the rear hoop to this front hoop. We believe that the car will be sufficiently stiffened by that point. We have also considered something like what 8Shark has done, but may take a little different approach so that we are tying into something a little more solid.

------------------
FierOmar

I'd like to see pics.

I would actually set up a stand and test torsional rigidity with different solutions and get some real numbers. I would like to see a petty bar also.

Something like that would make me happy.

quote Originally posted by FierOmar: re: Chassis stiffening. On each side, just inside the doors, we ran 1 X 3 square tubing from the rear to the front. It is welded to the wheel well and the side sheet metal on both the front and rear. It was placed about 8" about the door sill. As a result, we need to step over it when we get in. The car has been run real hard at the Streets of Willow and a couple weekends at Buttonwillow. No signs of flexing. Additional roll protection will be added. Since it is a roadster, a bar will be taken to the rear strrut tower from the back of the main hoop. A short front hoop will be fabricated and at least two bars will extent from the rear hoop to this front hoop. We believe that the car will be sufficiently stiffened by that point. We have also considered something like what 8Shark has done, but may take a little different approach so that we are tying into something a little more solid.

So long as it meets NASA's requirements, you can be every bit as happy as you want to be. I am not suggesting that we have designed the ultimate solution I am saying that stiffness does not seem to be a problem in its present form. However, the test mule clearly would not pass tech vis-a-vis roll protection.

------------------
FierOmar

quote Originally posted by Howard_Sacks: Something like that would make me happy.

How high up do you want the plane to go before it drops you? Sure, a good cage makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, but that thing seems like overkill. I do see a few things that I don't particularly like it either, as far as ultimate crash protection and torsional rigidity goes.

I think the roll bars should meet the minimum safety rules and no more. If a driver prefers to have more protection, feel free to add more bars to the cage! If the car builder wants more torsional rigidity, feel free to do built it as such. If you think adding another 40 pounds of tubing to your roll cage is going to stiffen up your chassis so much that you will have better lap times as a result, good luck with all that.

I would prefer a closed cockpit car, myself, with a cage similar to the Spec Miata one. I think with an open cockpit car like the one FierOmar is building, the roll hoops and supports he has suggested would be adequate for crash protection. In my opinion, however, if I'm going to have an open cockpit, why not just build a shifter kart? As former pit crew member for a rollover competition team(most ramp-assisted rollovers in 9 attempts over one weekend!), I've seen some pretty standard roll cages take some pretty extraordinary abuse multiple times without showing much damage. Of course these were mostly at less than 60 mph, but my point still stands.

Bryce
88 GT

"...if I'm going to have an open cockpit, why not just build a shifter kart?"

Interesting you would mention that. I happened to stop by California Speedway about a week ago. The Superkarts were running so I stuck around to watch the unlimited karts (generally 250cc) The two karts on the front row are powered by BRC engines (2 cylinder inline) which are claimed to produce 95 hp at the rear wheels. On the banked oval portion of the race course many of the karts approach 150mph. No cage or roll protection (except for one kart that was driven by a paraplegic). Cost? You don't want to know.

One of the (track day) cars we are building is for Faye "Ladybug" Pierson, a legendary kart racer (and the first woman driver to be elected to the WKA Hall of Fame). Her company has been building and selling karts for well over 40 years. Although a lot of bang for the buck, kart racing at the shifter kart level is not cheap.

------------------
FierOmar

Let me say this before I write anything else. I applaud your efforts towards getting Fieros on track FierOmar.

Having said that,

He's writing the rules. Why not make stout safety written into the rules so meatheads can't kill themselves? The rules should state you need this ODXthickness of a certain material tube installed in this location by this, this or this process. And every critical piece of safety equipment should be listed.

quote I think the roll bars should meet the minimum safety rules and no more.

No, I 'm not sure adding all that tubing is going to make the car any quicker, and as a nut, I might bring a car that meets the written word, but is by no means safe to the driver. That's what I'd like to avoid here.

quote If you think adding another 40 pounds of tubing to your roll cage is going to stiffen up your chassis so much that you will have better lap times as a result, good luck with all that.

That is a Pro Spec Miata cage. The organizers of that event felt it necessary to add that much roll protection to a car that was engineered from the factory to be a convertible. There's a reason why there were so many more racing fatalities back in Can Am days then there are now and it's not that drivers are better.

quote I would prefer a closed cockpit car, myself, with a cage similar to the Spec Miata one. I think with an open cockpit car like the one FierOmar is building, the roll hoops and supports he has suggested would be adequate for crash protection

My father's been trying to convince me for years now to forget about competing in street cars and just get one of those. 6spd sequential box, brembos all around, slicks . ... It is a valid point. For a young driver, I'd recommend the shifter cart over a spec fiero or spec anything for that matter.

quote . In my opinion, however, if I'm going to have an open cockpit, why not just build a shifter kart?

20FT@200mph in a roll. You can imagine how I pissed off the Mech Es .. .huh? the stories I could tell.. .

quote How high up do you want the plane to go before it drops you?

Hello, Now you guys are starting to make sense the tires and wheel size will determine cost and performance, for example its hard to cram huge brakes(costly) in a 16 in wheel (LeBaron rotors need a 16 in wheel) Thats why the Indy folks use a limit on there wheel size, Not sure now but it used to be 15in unlike Formula One who use carbon fiber discs at $4000.oo apiece thats $16000.oo a set and they go through a set every practice session, of course Ferrari spends around $300 million a season not to mention 30 million for the driver a year. Id like what they spend on brakes to have LOL . Thanks Norm.

I see it is a little heated in here....
As far as roll cages go, number one reason for a cage is driver protection, number 2 reason is chassis design. As to what the rules should be, whatever is required for NASA, SCCA, etc. If a person wants more for safety or chassis, let them do it, but I will say that there are few chassis bars that will make enough difference to offset the weight.

I agree that there should be a more open rules catagory, I have wilwood 4 pistons on 11.75 rotors that will it in 16 in wheels. I can make them for less than $400 for the front, cheaper than that used. But with open rules, you will drive the price up. A true spec series would be like the IROC series, the driver shows up and gets a car given to him.

In order to get the numbers we need, the rules need to be loose enough to get the quantity, but strict enough to manage a level field. Some of you may not like that, being that faster or better handling cars deserve to be in the lead because they did their homework...I agree, good for them, but at that rate, those running up front because the stumble across a good setup or a strong motor, etc, those front runners will be running by themselves because no-one will show up at the next race. Which will kill the series.

Maybe the best thing here is for everyone interested, send me a detailed parts list/description of your current Fiero or planned Fiero(if still building) or a Fiero you would like to see built. From that I might be able to construct a set of rules(mods) that I could present to Fieromar and then he could make some changes and go from there. If it doesnt go anywhere using that approach then someone else needs to pitch in on how to govern a series for competition yet keep it cheap(for racing), and get enough cars. If you have a good idea for this, I am ready to hear it. And not to be sarcastic but, if your idea works, you might want interview with on of the top tier racing series for a job.

Hello truk, very well put youre right on. thanks Norm

quote Originally posted by Howard_Sacks: Let me say this before I write anything else. I applaud your efforts towards getting Fieros on track FierOmar. Having said that, He's writing the rules. Why not make stout safety written into the rules so meatheads can't kill themselves? The rules should state you need this ODXthickness of a certain material tube installed in this location by this, this or this process. And every critical piece of safety equipment should be listed.

NASA has already done the rule-writing and sizing specs for many of their other classes. There's no need to for anybody to write new rules and reinvent the wheel; for an open cockpit class, copy the rules used by similar cars, and likewise for a closed cockpit car. These cars will be under 2000 pounds and max speed will be about 130 it looks like with a big enough track...there's no need to require a cage built for a 3000 pound car doing 180. I don't think being cautious is unnecessary, I think being overcautious (paranoid) is unnecessary. Using NASA's current ruling will be adequate, if it wasn't, NASA wouldn't use those rules.

That Spec Miata cage is actually beefier than required by the rules based on what I know about the class. Keep in mind these cars have a windshield frame, contrary to what FierOmar is building. If the windshield frame were removed, do you think they'd still use a full size front roll bar, or something that would be adequate to protect the driver's head in a roll? (Think FSAE Howard)

In reference to Howard's other comments, I agree that KYBs are not acceptable for a racing class. Standard adjustable Konis would be much better for handling improvement and the price increase is minor considering what you're getting.

It seems that for a entry level spec class, open diffs should be required as that's what came in all Fieros and it's not cheap to get a limited slip. The Phantom Grip is not intended for heavy abuse, their design is pretty piss poor in my opinion as it uses the diff as a consumable part.

I agree that a rim size and tire brand should be specified, but requiring an exact rim would introduce some issues. If brake swaps are being allowed, sometimes that incorporates that the bolt pattern will change. This also brings attention to the hubs...will they be required to remain stock? '88 hubs are notorious for failing in race conditions and are very expensive to replace. Street Dreams is working with Will to produce an alternative hub design that will use much stronger bearings, but it won't be cheap, so it may interfere with the idea of an entry-level class. This further supports that perhaps only early chassis should be allowed, while bumpsteer kits or '88 cradles may be installed.

Bryce
88 GT
*edit: typo

[This message has been edited by Nashco (edited 01-26-2004).]

I hope you're not referring to me. I just get excited easily. I am by no means heated.

I don't think the thing to do is to see current or planned mods. If I were to compete, I would take a fresh car, and build it to the specs demanded by the rules and I would recommend any other competitor would do this as well.

quote Originally posted by truk78: I see it is a little heated in here.... . Maybe the best thing here is for everyone interested, send me a detailed parts list/description of your current Fiero or planned Fiero(if still building) or a Fiero you would like to see built. From that I might be able to construct a set of rules(mods) that I could present to Fieromar and then he could make some changes and go from there. If it doesnt go anywhere using that approach then someone else needs to pitch in on how to govern a series for competition yet keep it cheap(for racing), and get enough cars. If you have a good idea for this, I am ready to hear it. And not to be sarcastic but, if your idea works, you might want interview with on of the top tier racing series for a job.

Howard: Breathe deep... one more time... and again. Please concentrate and repeat after me: “This is a no ranting zone.”

All kidding aside*, your point about adopting rules similar to the Honda Challenge rules has some merit. Perhaps we could handicap the cars like the PAX system used in autocross. Alternarively, we could use a dial in time with the winner to be determined by who runs closest to his dial in time without breaking out. (I think Pro Solo uses a similar system.) Acuallly, with the possibility of yellow flags interfering with any given event, the PAX type system may be better. It would allow someone driving an entry car to be the overall winner after indexing.

On the one hand I see a need to spec as many details as possible, and on the other the need to allow as much individuality as possible to attract the various cars.

I had proposed that KYB be the designated shock for the stock class only. A complete set can be purchased new for about $180. I am perfectly happy with the KONI for the upgrade and had planned to use them. Likewise I had proposed using stock 15" basket weave wheels on the base car only (I’ve bought sets of 4 for less than $80). Open diff also makes sense in this group. Again, my objective is to allow anyone who is interested in getting into racing (or even running the track day events) to put together a relatively safe car with an acceptable level of performance for a modest price.

As for carbs... Remember our program started as an effort to create a group in the spirit (if not the exact image) of the CanAm cars. You know big rumbling V8's; open cockpit, etc. (See my post at the top of page 2.) The carbed V6 was intended to be an alternative (little less power, but revs a little better).

In one or more prior threads on this forum, Oreif has made a very strong argument for the carbed pushrod V6. If you haven’t had the opportunity to read it, try to find it. If we were going to choose only one combination for a spec Fiero (other than the CanAm cars), the carbed 3.4 would be it for all the reasons I have heretofore mentioned, not the least of which is that it is readily available for a modest price. Hey Truk78, are they still running carbs on the Nascar cars?

However, unless Edelbrock were going to be a series sponsor (hey... interesting thought), I think the carb should be optional, particularly if cars like the 3.4 TDC which may not have a ready made intake manifold for carburetion, are going to run.

As for transmissions, Bryce (Nashco) has made a strong case for allowing any trans that came with the Fiero plus any FWD Getrag that can be readily adapted. Again, since my initial objection to the 5 speed trans was based on the cost of acquisition, and Nashco assures us that there is an abundance of Getrags from FWD cars that are easily adapted to our purposes, I am no longer promoting a prohibition against alternate transmissions. Heck a Q;uaife is only another $900 or so more than the Phantom Grip. O.K. Boys, ante up.

Bryce’s comment about the 88 front wheel bearings presents a valid point. Held does make a drop spindle with optional rear bearings (about $550??) And, I’m almost convinced that I should use the extra 88 (sans top) that I already have (with one of the extra Getrag’s I have) (and with the Quaife no less). We can attempt to compensate for any unfair advantage.

As for brakes... they are important too. Thus, given the relative low cost of the Beretta upgrade, I would suggest that it be available as an option in the entry group. Alternatively I would allow cross drilling of the stock rotors on the early chassis (but certainly not require it). As for the upgrade cars, I can live either way (any brake upgrade goes, or spec the upgrade).

Howard, I agree that tires are also important in braking (although I would not want to ignore brakes altogether). But from what I can recall, the Toyo T1 is a street tire; the RA-1 is their DOT race tire. I have been satisfied with the Kumho tires I have used in the past and other series have selected Kumho as the spec tire for the series (Factory Five Cobra challenge for one). In addition, we may be able to strike a better deal if we spec a tire. Kumho has been known to provide some incentives to spec groups. The tire rim combinations I have proposed are based primarily on availability of the various sizes. I can get 16X7 rims weighing 13.2 lbs for about $100 each. I’ll send a photo if I can’t post. I think the spec Miata group has only specified the minimum weight. The Team Dynamics Pro Race 1 in a 15X7 (also about 13.2 lbs each) has become a popular alternative to the Kosei wheels. As for the CanAm car, I’m sticking with the Team Dynamics PR1 in 17X7 front and 17X8 in the rear. TD is one of the few suppliers that has a 5X100 in a 17X8 at a price that does not break the bank (about $600 for a set).

Truk78: Have you worked up a budget yet? I didn’t request this as an academic exercise, but instead to inject a little dose of reality (it is easy to spend ten grandon an upgrade car and still have some issues that have been compromised).

*Actually I’m kind of glad your are excited. I wish we could excite a few more people.

Keep up the good work.

------------------
FierOmar

Yes, we still use carbs in NASCAR, why?, because of the cost that would develop with fuel injection. You might not think it would raise costs that much, but, it is at a level where a team can easily spend $40,000 dollars on UN-USED front windows, that end up in a trash can. Wind tunnels are $1500/HR and many teams spend 8 hours at a time. Some are as much as twice a week in the off season. Add that up. With the addidtion of fuel injection there would be much more cheating and a more difficult time in looking through all the wiring during inspection. This year nascar made the rule that all ignition boxes and coils and all wiring be located on top of the dash, completely visible from outside the car, WHY?, try to prevent any cheating such as traction control.

I know I had stated here somewhere about KYB being used...I am not saying it is the best thing. I would prefer coilovers, konis, or better. As for trying to build a budget entry level racer, there needs to be limits, other wise you would run off people thinking of racing before the start. An entry level racer needs to be very limited for price reasons(in the case we are looking at). Then the next level- mid level needs to be compromised of rules based from the entry level, with options, now allowed to have "_____" shocks, and "____' brake size, '____" engine mod. Therefor once an entry level racer begins, they can easily move to the next class for a reasonable price with minor mods. Then you can have the top level.

As for wanting to know what people currently have or want. What I had in mind was others might be in my position, which is, I have 2 cars sitting here waiting to be built. One will be built for use on streets, complete interior, top suspension, planned 350 sbc, and will also have a cage. The second car will be built very similar but will be lightweight and mostly be custom suspension parts, this car will be 100% racing, but will be capable of street use legally. I just figured many of you had a car or were in the middle of building a car that you would want to use. I have my plans for cars and dont really want to downgrade my plans for racing. I might or might not. Racing started as a way to prove products. It has transform to be a combination of that and fun. There needs to be different levels, maximum of 3(i think), that allows low cost, then more performance, then the proving grounds. Thats my take.

The budget deal, I have it on hold currently, kind of waiting on seeing what people want as 'mod' rules.

*breath in* *breath out* this is a rant free zone . . .. if someone can't afford a set of single adjustable konis, they can't afford to race. THe difference between konis and KYBs is a weekend's worth of rubber.

quote Originally posted by truk78: I know I had stated here somewhere about KYB being used...I am not saying it is the best thing. I would prefer coilovers, konis, or better. As for trying to build a budget entry level racer, there needs to be limits, other wise you would run off people thinking of racing before the start. An entry level racer needs to be very limited for price reasons(in the case we are looking at). Then the next level- mid level needs to be compromised of rules based from the entry level, with options, now allowed to have "_____" shocks, and "____' brake size, '____" engine mod. Therefor once an entry level racer begins, they can easily move to the next class for a reasonable price with minor mods. Then you can have the top level.

Hello, As long as I can use the 3.4dohc with a 5spd. and my tilt front end, I will build whatever suspension, brakes, roll cage wheel and tire size you deem needed to have fun racing ( that is what it is all about ) safely. thanks Norm.

quote Originally posted by Howard_Sacks: .... if someone can't afford a set of single adjustable konis, they can't afford to race. THe difference between konis and KYBs is a weekend's worth of rubber.

I feel the same. We're talking $300 difference; I know if we were talking about the tires costing $300/set more or the brake pads costing $300 that would seem like a lot...but the dampers are critical to proper handling and will remain on the car for it's entire life as a spec car. Some people will be spending $300 just to get to the track (gas money, time off work, hotel, etc.); if you are flying to DisneyWorld, you expect a good time even if it costs $300 more than you were hoping. It's not that I'm made of money, but I have always felt if you're going to do something, don't half ass it or you will regret it. Well, I've felt that way since I learned my lesson, anyway.

FierOmar; as far as how specific the rules should be, I say spec as much as possible. If there is a serious drive to make this happen, the only way to accomplish that is to get a sanctioned supporter (NASA, SCCA, etc.) and to do that you're going to need your rules hammered out already. Once you get the class accepted, if you have a fairly open rulebook, it will take *forever* to come to conclusions on what can and can't be done by those that want the most amazing car ever built out on the first day. If you have a fairly stringent rulebook, however, people that want to be involved will just start building that. I think it's a lot easier for a beginning chef to use a recipe out of a book than to just start mixing stuff up and seeing what happens....and since this class is aimed at beginners who want a "cheap and easy" class to get into, that seems to be a fair analogy.

In reference to wheels, it doesn't seem appropriate that the FACTORY wheel should be specified, only a wheel size and minimum weight. Of course we find deals here and there on Fiero parts, but in reality once there's 30 people looking for cheap Fiero lace wheels, supply will quickly diminish and prices will go up. If just a size and weight is specified, junkyard wheel supplies will be unlimited and those who desire can by race wheels (as long as they meet weight criteria).

I think a spec tire is the best way to go for sponsorship, as has been mentioned. Yes, there will always be differing opinions on tires, but if they're consumables (this is key) and everybody has the same thing, the sponsorship is always nice. I mention consumables because that is probably the hardest part of racing to swallow, the constant money dumping into consumables (brakes, tires, tune up parts). Having lower tire prices will help keep everybody on good tires instead of risking crash and performance to save a few bucks.

I would truly hope that rules would not specify an originally injected motor be converted to carburetion in the "spirit" of the class. I understand the effort is to re-create a CanAm type class, but instead of copying, why not modernize the class? If the rules said to put X carburetor and intake on there, I would do it (back to the recipe), but that seems to fly in the face of the cost/simplicity side of things. I said I wasn't going to argue injection vs. carburetion in this thread...so I'll leave it at saying I would hope any intake/fuel type would be allowed in the higher performance class, but if that were not the case it wouldn't stop me from participating. I will say that I can build a fully adjustable injection setup for the same (or at least damn close) price as a new carburetor and intake.

In response to the '88 hub dilemma, I think I would avoid the situation entirely by just starting with an early chassis and swapping an '88 rear cradle into it. That is the cheapest and best performing setup given the situation, I feel.

Bryce
88 GT

Bryce:

Unfortunately, if a spec class is to be created which as part of the objective has a budget in mind, there will always be compromises. Take wheels for example, if cost were of no concern to me, I would likely pick the SSR Competitions wheels which (in my preferred size) would cost $400-500 each. Compared to the 17X8 wheels (at $150 each) that I am planning on using, I would save five pounds per wheel. Some might look at the $150 wheels as “half-fast”, but in fact, it is nothing more than a compromise in recognition of a target budget.

The same thing applies to virtually every aspect of the vehicle. If Koni shocks, why not spec the full race Koni?). Why not use real race slicks instead of DOT race tires? What makes the process so agonizing is that the marginal cost of many of the individual parts is not so great that you would want to skip them (e.g. add $300 for Koni as opposed to KYB). However, when you add up all the little “extras”, to total cost becomes prohibitive to many. Making these “extras” optional as allowed but not required parts generally has the effect of raising the ante for everyone This same thought process explains why I had originally proposed using the pushrod V6 or the 4.9 (either one is readily available at a reasonable price, and readily adaptable to the Fiero). Again, allowing certain options even though they may not offer any particular advantage may create the perception of unfairness, particularly where the optional part is very expensive when compared to the norm. This is why I had suggested KYB shocks for the entry car. I suppose that one can justify the price of KONI’s (only $300 more), but alternatively others might view their cost as being three times the cost of the KYB. It depend in part on one’s perspective (sort of like the half-empty, half-full glass).

Nevertheless, you have made a good argument for the 5 speed trans (nominal increase in cost, if any, and readily available). Moreover, based upon my calculations, it doesn’t really offer a huge advantage (if any at all) behind the V6 engines. (The extra gear behind the 4.9 may be needed, particularly if the 4.9 starts running out of steam at 4500 rpm.)

As for the carbs, there seems to be a power advantage to the carb as compared to the F.I. on the pushrod engines. The necessary parts are readily available, and while there is a cost, it appears that the cost of conversion is comparable to the cost of pumping up the F.I. cars. There is another current thread that has some interesting comments on this topic at https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/045941.html

Hey, I’ve got to do some work. I’ll add more later.

Well, this seems to go both ways. Half want FI and half want carb, half want rules, half dont. There does have to be a compromise somewhere and I think fieromar has the final calls. This being said, I would go either way on the carb -- FI situation, I will use a carb myself, much easier, much more simple, and a whole lot less to go wrong and in the long run, cheaper. We also need to propose what would be ILLEGAL, or I will show up with a complete undertray, full adjustable caster camber heim joint suspension and aluminum cradle with a body built for downforce. How much do you want to spend, how fast you want to go.

I think there are 2 different views here, CHEAP Entry level, and serious performance. Those will not mix, period. We need to start thinking both ways, KYB would be fine for entry level, non adjustable shocks, let the drivers race at this level, dont throw in too many variables for them to worry about, you will have fun no matter what, especially if everyone has the same rules. It will be close racing which is fun, at any speed. If you think they have to have KONI, then why not spend the extra $300 dollars per wheel, They are better too. Why not use helds tubular front suspension with coilovers for about $1000. How about a 350, it will out perform a 4.9 on a roadcourse.

This is just a compromise between performance and budget. I agree that at least 2 levels have to appear so a budget fiero class wont kill the image of the car. Look at Go kart racing, they have the standard karts, and they also have the shifter karts that cost big money to be competitive, i have heard upwards of $30,000, compared to $2000 for the basic karts. eventually there has to be some rules set, like them or not. If KYB is the limit for a entry level class, and you want to run Konis, welcome to higher levels running against people spending $20,000 for a car. I could spend that easy, not that I can afford it though.

I am fine with using early chassis with 88 cradles, but I dont think it needs to be mandatory, simply because they are hard to get ahold of. If you want to run pre-88 stuff go ahead, your decision, I have heard some say they like the characteristics of the pre-88 suspension. All depends on driver in the end.

About budget, remember, when thinking about building a car, you need new ball joints, bearings, seals, bushings, (depending on brake combo) pads, rotors, probably clutch, steel brake lines, cage, etc. This mostly is needed to be safe on track, I dont want to be anywhere on a track near a fiero at 130mph that has 20year old bearings or ball joints.

What do you see as minimum ride height? If you just set a minimum height, you would open up the suspension a little, someone could chose drop spindles instead of lowering springs, or the dreadful cut springs. I agree with minimum wheel weight(great rule), and max size(diameter and width). What about rear spoiler rules, what about front airdam - valance rules. Perhaps there is much more to making rules than what shock to use and if carbing should be mandatory.

As for the engines, Internals cant be governed, that is why I see a hp to weight rule used. (example only)maybe at 160 HP have a weight set at 2000lbs for every 5 HP above, add 20 pounds, for every 5 HP below subtract 20 pounds. That is the way around the engine problem for any level. It will keep costs down too, knowing if you buy that new cam for 10 more HP for $180, you have to add 40 pounds, is it really worth the money now. Instead of spending countless money making a monsterous engine you will think twice about how much it would really gain. Once someone wants to decide on a system using the different motor combos, it is quite possible for any motor to be run. It could end up being a complex formula using weight, horsepower, torque, etc. But it could keep the costs down and level it all out while allowing drivers to build the engine of their dreams, but pay the price with weight.
an example to show what this would look like:
Rear wheel HP ------- weight
80-1680
120-1840
160-2000
200-2160
240-2320
280-2480
320-2640
Once again values are just examples.
Say someone shows up with a 350 sbc with 400hp 20%drivetrain loss, has 320HP weighing 2640, still light for that power.
Then someone has a 4.9L(I think they are around 200 rated HP, could be wrong) 20% drive loss, 160 Rear HP, it would weigh 2000 lbs.
So double the HP would gain you 640lbs. With the right HP - Weight range, this could be a great engine rule. You could also add HP and Torque together and come up with a formla for this. Because a 3.4 with 200HP against a 200HP 4.9 with 300ft-lbs of torque, my eyes, unfair.

For a higher level racing class, I think coilovers should be permitted. Tubular control arms, etc. An entry level car could run in this class by slowly modifying their car, upgrade to Konis and go.

Whatever it takes to get fieros on the race track is good as far as I am concerned. Expensive, cheap, somewhat expensive it makes no difference to me. And thanks for a great thread everyone.

Hello, I try to keep my posts small maybe with a little levity since my hands are somewhat sticky from resin and you guys seem to have technical insight to formulate a series right, all I want to do is put a Fiero on the track maybe I wont be competive or maybe I will. It would be nice to take a fiero with what ever drive train and suspension and fit into a class whatever you come up with. You would get more participation from members here, as I read on the Fiero Racing List only (5)five fieros actually race in the autocross out of 1200 members on their list. Lets see what happens at Wheat Stock where any Fiero can come out and play. Thanks Norm

Related topic: Tires

Assuming for the sake of discussion only (at this point) that Kumho was selected as the tire of choice for our spec class. What size or sizes would each of you think would be appropriate? You can check out Kumho's line of competition tires (which includes the Victoracer, V700 and new V710) at: http://www.kumhousa.com/Products/PtnDetails.asp?CatID=8&mainCatID=1

Just so you know, the V710 list contains only those tires that are currently available. By late spring, they should have the following in 15, 16, and 17 inch sizes:
15" 16" 17"
205-50 215-40 215-40
225-45 215-45 225-45
225-50 225-50 245-45
245-45 245-40
265-45 255-40
275-45 275-40*

*Since the 275-40 requires a minimum 9" wide rim, I have not listed any tires that are larger / wider that this tire.

When making your tire choices, please consider the rim diameter/width that may be required to run the tire, and give some consideration to the combined weight of the rim and tire (e.g. some of the larger tires with wide rims can exceed 50 lbs. each).

Again, this is not intended to be an academic exercise, but to gain some insight into what each of you think would be the best combination of tires and wheels. Thanks.

------------------
FierOmar

I think the 205-50, 225-50, and/or 225-45 would be most appropriate for this class. It would be nice to see two or three tire sizes allowed (such as I've listed) that are very close to the same, but allow minor changes to suit the driver preference and would have little to no difference in cost. For example, I might run a 205/50 up front and 225/45 in the rear to improve understeer, if it were allowed by the rules.

For the record...I have NO intention of arguing, and I hope it doesn't seem that way. I'm just extremely interested, and in typical bench racing fashion, I'm getting all sorts of discussion going when all reality brings me down to one thing...I really don't care what the rules are, if a Fiero spec class existed, I'd be in it.

Spec Miata uses non adjustable shocks....if it's working for them (the now largest spec class in the states, I've been told) then it must not be so bad. It is just my *personal* opinion that for another $75 a corner, I'd happily wait a couple more paychecks to "finish" the spec car so I could have adjustable damping. I do understand the goal is to keep costs as low as possible while still being competitive and fun. Heck, if I was willing to work hard enough, I'm willing to bet I (we?) could get an aftermarket supplier to give a package deal for Spec Fiero items if we used them solely. If every single person in the class was spending 600-1500 for a package from them and there was 20 people (initially, more to come), they'd find a way to make a deal.

In response to carbs offering more power than FI...maybe with one or two particular engine setups this occurs, but generally speaking that is hogwash. Cylinders don't care how the fuel gets in there, as long as it gets in there properly. If the intake manifold, injector position, ECM programming, etc. is not designed properly then it will perform poorly, just like if the jet, needle, accelerator pump, etc. is not designed properly. I promise I won't bring it up again as it is neither here nor there.

I actually read some on the Spec Miata class. Here's a link that has a pretty quick and easy set of rules to read, it's good reading for comparison:

http://www.specmiata.com/specifications.htm

FierOmar...if you're serious about this...would you object to create a "quick and dirty" set of rules for what YOU want the class to be, like the Spec Miata rules? Forget all the ins and outs, just a mission statement kind of deal. I think if something like this is really going to happen it's not going to take buy-in from Fiero nuts, it will take convincing a sanctioning body to take us on (SCCA or NASA). If we're going to get anything accomplished, I think that would be a good place to start.

Bryce
88 GT

Bryce:

Don't worry... opinions, viewpoints, discussion, argument, and even occasional ranting that is intendted to contribute to the foregoing is not only tolerated, but appreciated. I guess I would make a crappy dictator. The spec Miata rules provide an interesting comparison. For purpose of additional comparison look at the rules adopted by NASA for some of their various classes:
http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules.html

------------------
FierOmar

Hey youre right keep the 3.4 dohc engine in works. thanks Norm