honda fit on track
03-28-2007, 08:09 AM
#11
I don't understand the negative vibes here. As cars get smaller the desire to get max performance does not go away. Granted there were some high dollar mods to that one but it just looks like fun running laps and it certainly is better behaved on the track than so many over weight so-called performance cars.
03-28-2007, 09:46 AM
#12
Registered User
Yeah, and what's wrong with running in the wet? That is where you learn the most. I don't mind anyone on the track with anything as long as it doesn't leak fluid and the guy lets me pass!! 
Speaking of leaking fluid...60mph off track because of oil all over the track isn't fun.....ask me how i know....
Speaking of leaking fluid...60mph off track because of oil all over the track isn't fun.....ask me how i know....
03-28-2007, 09:48 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Elistan' date='Mar 28 2007, 06:00 AM
Probably spends his time making a buttload of money as the president of Spoon.
http://www.hondatuningmagazine.com/feature...onda_fit_spoon/
We've all put money into cars that weren't worth it at one time or another, but sooner or later come to our senses. As the saying goes, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. And a Fit race car is as much a sow's ear as a Jetta race car (which I've seen). Not all "race cars" are created equal, and a Fit is just a silly thing to be racing in my, and many other people's, point of view. That doesn't mean it can't be done or it wouldn't be fun, just that there are so many better cars out there. I'm not going to be impressed by a FWD economy car, no matter how many Spoon parts and stickers you put on it. The fact that the people at Spoon make lots of money off people is not validation. If you've got to spend that much money just to make a car perform to such a modest level, you might want to look at starting with a different kind of car, IMHO.
03-28-2007, 11:01 AM
#14
[quote name='GT_2003' date='Mar 28 2007, 11:48 AM']who cares?
03-28-2007, 11:08 AM
#15
Registered User
^i agree..and we all know mustangs just plain suck!
i'm guessing GT_2003 has a mustang. There are a lot of fun race series that involve slow cars, spec miata being one of the most well known. But, a lot of those series run slow fwd cars, but it can still be fun and you can learn a lot.
i'm guessing GT_2003 has a mustang. There are a lot of fun race series that involve slow cars, spec miata being one of the most well known. But, a lot of those series run slow fwd cars, but it can still be fun and you can learn a lot.
03-28-2007, 12:21 PM
#16
Registered User
Originally Posted by JonBoy' date='Mar 28 2007, 11:01 AM
If you read the article, they say that the Spoon Fit is as fast on that particular track as a stock NSX. Considering that the Spoon Fit puts out 125 hp, that's quite an accomplishment and not exactly "modest". How many other 125 hp cars do you know that are as quick as a stock NSX on a large track?
How do you define what is and is not worth the money? That Fit is significantly faster around a racetrack than a stock Fit. How is that not "worth" the money?
Spend $16K on a Fit, put $10K in parts on it, and it's faster around a racetrack than an S2000 that's still $8K more (stock, not modified). How is that not "worth" it if you're a racer on a budget? As they mention, the Fit is an ideal racecar in that the consumables (tires, brakes, and even wheels) are quite cheap to buy.
Not everyone can afford to buy a $35K sports car, drop $6K in racing mods, and then spend $1200 each race weekend on tires and brakes (which is what you'd spend on an S2000). The Fit can probably do that same race weekend on half the money or less, but still be fairly quick. So, you can talk about how much it cost to get the Fit to that level of performance, but if you're going to race it regularly for a few years, chances are you'll more than make up for the cost by saving money on consumables.
Chances are, you wouldn't be impressed, you'd be embarrassed as it blew by you.
Sorry, but I have a pretty low level of tolerance for people that dismiss a car because of price, pedigree, or original intent. It seems to me that the ultimate race car is one that is both quick, cheap, and simple to work on. The Fit fits (pun intended) that bill...
Cost and pedigree are all relative anyways. It's when your car is higher on the chain than another that you start looking down your nose at them, when in reality, it's the final result that matters. Compared to a Carrera GT, the S2000 is an economy RWD car that's slow as molasses and numbingly boring to drive....
How do you define what is and is not worth the money? That Fit is significantly faster around a racetrack than a stock Fit. How is that not "worth" the money?
Spend $16K on a Fit, put $10K in parts on it, and it's faster around a racetrack than an S2000 that's still $8K more (stock, not modified). How is that not "worth" it if you're a racer on a budget? As they mention, the Fit is an ideal racecar in that the consumables (tires, brakes, and even wheels) are quite cheap to buy.
Not everyone can afford to buy a $35K sports car, drop $6K in racing mods, and then spend $1200 each race weekend on tires and brakes (which is what you'd spend on an S2000). The Fit can probably do that same race weekend on half the money or less, but still be fairly quick. So, you can talk about how much it cost to get the Fit to that level of performance, but if you're going to race it regularly for a few years, chances are you'll more than make up for the cost by saving money on consumables.
Chances are, you wouldn't be impressed, you'd be embarrassed as it blew by you.
Sorry, but I have a pretty low level of tolerance for people that dismiss a car because of price, pedigree, or original intent. It seems to me that the ultimate race car is one that is both quick, cheap, and simple to work on. The Fit fits (pun intended) that bill...
Cost and pedigree are all relative anyways. It's when your car is higher on the chain than another that you start looking down your nose at them, when in reality, it's the final result that matters. Compared to a Carrera GT, the S2000 is an economy RWD car that's slow as molasses and numbingly boring to drive....
I'd like to add that the Fit has a race ready chassis as well, meaning that the center of gravity on the chassis is low and centered... pretty much ideal.
I remember seeing this Fit in it's pre-stages on a BMI vid where Mr. Spoon explained the racing characteristics of the Fit, the potential and so on.
03-28-2007, 12:40 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Nj/Nyc
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JonBoy' date='Mar 28 2007, 02:01 PM
If you read the article, they say that the Spoon Fit is as fast on that particular track as a stock NSX. Considering that the Spoon Fit puts out 125 hp, that's quite an accomplishment and not exactly "modest". How many other 125 hp cars do you know that are as quick as a stock NSX on a large track?
How do you define what is and is not worth the money? That Fit is significantly faster around a racetrack than a stock Fit. How is that not "worth" the money?
Spend $16K on a Fit, put $10K in parts on it, and it's faster around a racetrack than an S2000 that's still $8K more (stock, not modified). How is that not "worth" it if you're a racer on a budget? As they mention, the Fit is an ideal racecar in that the consumables (tires, brakes, and even wheels) are quite cheap to buy.
Not everyone can afford to buy a $35K sports car, drop $6K in racing mods, and then spend $1200 each race weekend on tires and brakes (which is what you'd spend on an S2000). The Fit can probably do that same race weekend on half the money or less, but still be fairly quick. So, you can talk about how much it cost to get the Fit to that level of performance, but if you're going to race it regularly for a few years, chances are you'll more than make up for the cost by saving money on consumables.
Chances are, you wouldn't be impressed, you'd be embarrassed as it blew by you.
Sorry, but I have a pretty low level of tolerance for people that dismiss a car because of price, pedigree, or original intent. It seems to me that the ultimate race car is one that is both quick, cheap, and simple to work on. The Fit fits (pun intended) that bill...
Cost and pedigree are all relative anyways. It's when your car is higher on the chain than another that you start looking down your nose at them, when in reality, it's the final result that matters. Compared to a Carrera GT, the S2000 is an economy RWD car that's slow as molasses and numbingly boring to drive....
How do you define what is and is not worth the money? That Fit is significantly faster around a racetrack than a stock Fit. How is that not "worth" the money?
Spend $16K on a Fit, put $10K in parts on it, and it's faster around a racetrack than an S2000 that's still $8K more (stock, not modified). How is that not "worth" it if you're a racer on a budget? As they mention, the Fit is an ideal racecar in that the consumables (tires, brakes, and even wheels) are quite cheap to buy.
Not everyone can afford to buy a $35K sports car, drop $6K in racing mods, and then spend $1200 each race weekend on tires and brakes (which is what you'd spend on an S2000). The Fit can probably do that same race weekend on half the money or less, but still be fairly quick. So, you can talk about how much it cost to get the Fit to that level of performance, but if you're going to race it regularly for a few years, chances are you'll more than make up for the cost by saving money on consumables.
Chances are, you wouldn't be impressed, you'd be embarrassed as it blew by you.
Sorry, but I have a pretty low level of tolerance for people that dismiss a car because of price, pedigree, or original intent. It seems to me that the ultimate race car is one that is both quick, cheap, and simple to work on. The Fit fits (pun intended) that bill...
Cost and pedigree are all relative anyways. It's when your car is higher on the chain than another that you start looking down your nose at them, when in reality, it's the final result that matters. Compared to a Carrera GT, the S2000 is an economy RWD car that's slow as molasses and numbingly boring to drive....
Some ppl are just narrowed minded.
03-28-2007, 01:34 PM
#19
[quote name='GT_2003' date='Mar 28 2007, 03:11 PM']no, it's called "frame of reference."
03-28-2007, 02:09 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I draw the line where I choose. You draw the line where you choose. I have no problem with that. Give it a rest. I think what I think, and it needn't affect you in the least. You can read anything you want into my posts, you can call me ignorant to hide your own prejudices and ignorance, and you can attack me personally to wax your own ego. I could care less. I just don't see why you would waste your time on such a childish endeavor. Do you drive a Fit?