Re: 88, 89 imsa cars

[STEADIRIC@aol.com]

>yes, they did race in IMSA GTO in 1989, but the car was not really a
>200TQ or even something made to resemble it.  it was a purpose built
>pure tube frame race car with kevlar panels formed to *resemble* a
>90Q.  it was officially called a 90Q, but the only things it had in
>common with a production 90Q was the 4wd and having 5 cylinders.
>
>for example, it had double wishbone suspension and carbon fiber brakes
>while the trans am car had steel brakes and struts.

Itcy Trigger finger hit's the BUZZER....   BBBBZZZZZZTTTTTTTT......  GTO 
cars did not have carbon fiber brakes, nope was'nt allowed, did'nt 
happen, that statement is wrong.

Stuff deleted

>[all the capitalization is mine]
>
>"in trans am racing you're allowed to push the engine way back, but because
>of the fact that we used the STOCK ENGINE AND GEARBOX, and you need the
>axles to come out along the front wheel centerline, we couldn't do that."
>
>1) eric, where did your information about using an aluminum block come from?
>"stock engine" to me would mean iron block.

Trans-Am rules state that you have to use a "Stock configuration" Engine 
of a certain max displacement. It's right here in my SCCA Trans-Am Rule 
Book (Which BTW Expressly Forbids AWD!) You can use any block and head 
material.  As for where I got the info... Audi's Lit, Conversations with 
Hans, Hurley, Walter, and the Team guys at group 44 and most importantly 
my wandering's around the Audi paddock at the Trans-Am races.

Stuff Deleted

>"as is standard practice, the roll cage was designed not only with driver
>safety in mind but also to stiffen up the UNIBODY and achieve some of the
>rigidity inherent in a tube frame.  not only were tubes added to completely
>protect the driver, but they were also run forward through the FIREWALL
>to brace the shock towers holding the PRODUCTION style macpherson struts."
"Style" is a important word here.  The suspension that was in the 
Trans-Am car was far from the stock design.  And yes Tubes ran trough the 
"Firewall" Which was a sheet of unstressed .040" Alluminum sheet as per 
the T/A Rules.  There was nothing that even looks like the Subframe under 
what was left of the "UNIBODY"

>"audi's tight production schedule demanded that a tremendous number of
>production pieces be used inside the stock UNIBODY, though the rules
>did not.  the gearbox casing, rear differentials, front and rear glass,
>much of the rear suspension and many other parts were straight off the
>production line.  ``the original prototype for the trans am car still
>had opening doors and windows'', berthold recalls.  ``naturally we did
>away with those for the actual race car, but [the race cars] were that
>close [to stock]''."
The "Prototype" was the car that Bobby Unser drove at Talladega for a 
closed course record.

>"..while the macpherson front suspension was unusual in a series that
>allows formula car suspensions, the struts were used because they were
>proven pieces that could easily be adapted to the production UNIBODY.
>wishbone suspensions would have meant building new pickup points to 
>carry them on."
You really need to go look at a racecar......

>- it is clear (assuming what jay lamm wrote is accurate) that the
>trans am car did not lose its hood section monocoque as was suggested
>in earlier posts.  the roll cage was extended to the front section to
>reinforce it, not REPLACE it.
Trust me it was GONE.  I've been all over that car, my Mechnics have 
worked on the Group 44 team, My team raced against the Audi's.  BTDT.

>- further evidence comes from the fact that they had to use struts
>up front.  if the front was replaced with tube frame there would
>have been no reason to use struts.
No but Audi made a choice to use the struts so they could LEGALY 
advertise that it's "Just like the car that you drive on the street"

>any more itchy fingers on the buzzer????  :)
Only if you want to continue!!  ;>)


Later!

Eric Fletcher
'87 5KCSTQIA2RSR2B

STEADI RIC@aol.com