PDA

View Full Version : Modern Cars in IT



Ron Earp
11-02-2004, 01:41 PM
As a newbie here, I think I am allowed at least a few "stupid" questions. I hope I have not used them up already.

I've been following with interest the "ECU Rule" thread and it got me thinking about some other things that will be coming down the pipe.

Soon, there are going to be a lot of nifty cars available for IT racing - either due to the age of the car or price (I know price isn't a "rule" concern but it does affect what people can build). For instance:

BMW 328i, ci
BMW 330i, ci
E36 M3s
Subaru WRX
Mitishubshi Evo
Audi S4 (99 styles)
Acura RSX
Honda S2000
BMW Z3s
Nissan 300z (last gen)
Mazda RX7, 3rd gen

Etc., there are a lot of other cars but I think you get the idea. Basically, there are a lots of cars with all-wheel drive, turbos, and good power (>200 stock) that are going to be, in theory, IT elligable in a short amount of time.

How will the SCCA deal with this? Will allowances be made for these cars, or will we have to go on racing "low-performance" cars? Arguably, we're at that point now since we've excluded a lot of cars that are very cheap and have good performance - Mustang 5.0s and Camaro LT1s just to name two.

I know that some of these cars fit into other classes (American Sedan for a couple come to mind) but why wouldn't they fit in IT? They are cheap and common, have tons of cheap aftermarket parts, and are fun to drive.

Just some random thoughts.

Ron


------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Knestis
11-02-2004, 03:26 PM
There is no obligation to classify every car that becomes eligible - particularly those that are likely to be faster than something like the e36 325.

M3? No way. Now, if someone got it in their head to create "ITR" above the current index of S, maybe.

Other options find homes in the current structure.

K

Ron Earp
11-02-2004, 03:57 PM
So, does this mean that IT is "stuck in time" and we'll never have a car faster than a E36 325?

I know some of the other cars have homes elsewhere, which is why I mentioned it upfront. But, that does not mean that they could not race in IT.

A 82 5.0L Mustang with the 2bbl had 157hp, a good bit less than the 325 with only a little more torque at around 225 ft/lbs. But it weighs a little more and has a much cruder suspension. Top speed about the same as the 325, I think it is actually less.

No matter - the point is the car is cheap and while it has a home in American Sedan that is a very wide open class where this car would become expensive to prep. In IT this car would be cheap to prep - shocks, springs, headers, exhaust - would cost next to nothing be reliable, fast, and fun. I'm not wanting one, just using it as an example. And it is old!

Soon the old cars will be WRXs, 3 gen RX7s and 300s, etc. - are these never to be allowed in IT due to turbochargers and all-wheel drive? Or is IT to become a class that is for "certain older cars" that are preferred by the boards?

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 02, 2004).]

x-ring
11-02-2004, 04:28 PM
I've seen, at least twice in the last couple of years, the comp board turn down a request for classification for the Z32 300ZX as too fast/too powerful/too much whatever for ITS. No debate here, a Z32 (TT Rx7, M3, fill in your favorite) would walk all over the current field in ITS, and I'm dead set against class creep.

But as Kirk said, what's wrong with ITR (or whatever)?

------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

Racerlinn
11-02-2004, 04:32 PM
I thought ITE was the Regional catch-all for cars like this?
Why not make it more consistent on a "national" basis?

------------------
Steve
'92 ITA Sentra SE-R
www.indyscca.org
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v366/Racerlinn/ITA6a.jpg

Hotshoe
11-02-2004, 05:29 PM
Ron:
...I'll jump on your band wagon. I am getting a little tired of the controversy surrounding the 1st gen RX7. I have been racing one for years and have thoroughly enjoyed it. Now they talk of wanting to DOWNGRADE it to ITB.
...So, I have purchased a 98 BMW Z3 2.8 to build and run in T2. With hopes that it will end up in Improved Touring. But with all these "Stick in the Mud" types it will probably be eligible for vintage first (if you know what I mean)
...Regardless, the car should be fun. I hope to have it on track by mid 05. There isn't a lot of them being raced so information is limited.

...Rick Thompson
___98 BMW Z3 2.8 (ITR?)

Matt Rowe
11-02-2004, 05:46 PM
I think safety is another issue to consider on cars that raise the level of performance in a class. Faster cars increase the potential for damage and injury given the same rules for roll cages and safety equipment. At some point you either have to set an upper limit on speeds or increase the safety requirements for everyone. I certainly know which I would vote for.

This actually is a issue that hits home for me as the cars I started racing in Solo I and II haven't been allowed in club racing for over a decade. The public reason given was always that turbocharges are too expensive. I have since been told that behind closed doors the concern was also for the performance potential exceeding safety equipment.

In either case IT racing is supposed to be a reasonably low cost area to compete. The original list doesn't have anything to do with low cost. There are newer cars allowed in IT that are competive at a reasonable cost so it's not a matter of keeping new cars out. Maybe a new class for faster cars is the way to go but I would still worry about how safe a fully prepped 300Z car is when it has an incident at top speed?

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

JeffYoung
11-02-2004, 05:53 PM
Anyone remember why IT got started? Showroom Stock A and B cars were getting aged out and had now where to go...and Production didn't want them.

Sounds kind of like Touring and IT today. Instead of killing IT like the Production guys killed Production in the 70s and 80s, why don't we open it up to more, and more popular cars, and just create new classes?

No reason that S and A cars can't run with ITE and AS caliber cars, and in fact do in many places. So why not add a class, or maybe two, on top of existing S, and let's have at it?

I mean, Ron is right. Why do 5.0 Mustangs have to race only against other V8s? That's silly. Open up IT to them and we would have much larger fields, and no, they would not dominate.

ITX
ITS
ITA
ITB
ITC

Let's fix it before its Prodded to death.

Geo
11-02-2004, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Anyone remember why IT got started? Showroom Stock A and B cars were getting aged out and had now where to go...and Production didn't want them.

Are you absolutely certain of that or are you just repeating some things said around here?

I was not a member of the SCCA at the time IT was started, but I followed club racing as best I could then (pre-Internet) and attended nearly every club race I could find. I remember reading about IT in either 81 or 82 (81 I think) and IIRC it was started in NorCal as just a fun cheap place to race with common (at the time) relatively inexpensive mods. Just a step above SS. I don't remember the reason being to give old SS cars a place to go, although ultimately that worked out great. I remember the reason being to take older cars (relatively speaking) and going racing cheaply relative to Production.

At the time IT was created, CP and DP were still in existence. CP was generally dominated by the 240Z (only 10 years old at that time) and DP was ruled by the Porsche 924, at that time still being sold by Porsche (just barely). The first gen RX-7 was also still being produced and was also quite a popular car in Production. I could go on. There was a lot of money being spent in Production even back then. Heck, no less than Al Holbert competed in Production at that time. So, beyond SS there was a HUGE gulf between the cost of SS and Production.

That is what I remember of that time. I don't know if anyone here was racing in IT at that time. I think Greg Amy may have been racing in IT in it's infancy and probably Kirk as well. They may know better, but that's how I remember it. I think the deal with old SS cars was just a bonus. The purpose for requiring IT cars to be 5 years old or older was not so much to give old SS cars a place to go so much as to make it cheaper to get into IT than Production (or even SS for that matter).


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Bill Miller
11-02-2004, 07:42 PM
Ron,

I agree that there needs to be an expansion of IT to accomodate newer cars. It's the whole "raise the bar" concept I've mentioned for the last couple of years. There's no reason there couldn't (or shouldn't) be 6 or 7 IT classes.

And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the V8 Mustangs and Camaros compete in ITGT before AS came along? I know there used to be an SSGT as well. But, don't kid yourself about AS cars being that expensive. You can buy 2 or 3 (4?) for what you'll pay for a good, used E36 (I thought James Clay had one for sale for ~$40k). IIRC, the '01 AS Runoffs winner was going for $20k-$25k, right after the Runoffs that year.

George,

I wasn't racing in IT when it started, but I knew people who were. I started Time Trialing my Rabbit GTI back in '87, when they were still SS cars (and the 1st gen RX7 was in ITS!). I do recall a conversation I had w/ someone from the SCCA (NNJ Region) back then, that tole me about the different racing categories w/in Club Racing. His words were that IT was designed for the old SS cars. Keep in mind that IT was not that far removed from SS back then (dual purpose nature and all). The reasoning behind the 5 year waiting period was so as not to 'steal' cars from SS. Hell, someone even used that in the Dec. FasTrack, as a reason to not shorten the waiting period.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

JeffYoung
11-02-2004, 07:43 PM
George, let me make the same point in a different way, because you are right, I am just repeating things I've heard.

It seems to me that IT was created as a low cost class that would allow amateurs to tinker with them (more so than SS) without having to spend Production $$$$ (absolutely agree with you on the "big timedness" of Production in the late 70s and 80s).

In my view, and maybe this is inevitable, we are losing that and getting more and more like Production. PCAs.....Motecs...$50,000 turnkey race cars.

I really think that a few minor tweaks could keep IT alive and healthy for many years (not that it is really broken, and I also think this new Board and their philosophy is fantastic):

a. A new class above ITS for the "newer" sports/sporty cars and sedans.

b. Broaden the existing classes. Allow in popular unclassed cars like the 5.0 Mustangs and Camaros at IT levels of prep.

c. Make sure the tuner 2.0 crowd has a place to race competitively. This has been partially achieved by moving the Neon, the SE-R, etc. to ITA. It would also help if the turbo cars could come in somewhere -- ITT? Diamond Stars and MR2s and others. If you can't police turbos, then put them all in the same class and let them run.

All that said, I presently find IT racing extremely rewarding, tons of fun and relatively expensive. I've clawed my way to mid-pack in an "old" car and have loved every minute of it.

So maybe all this griping is just the natural human propensity to complain....

In any event, the thing I find most refreshign is having Board members, actual rule makers, on this board posting what they think about the issues. Really, really cool.

Ron Earp
11-02-2004, 08:17 PM
One of the reasons I bought this up was a 22 year old kid I met. I had my subframe in the suspension shop (read tire/brake/strut shop) to get bushings pressed out that I could not (see Ricky, there IS something a C-clamp won't do! ;-)).

This kid was intriqued with what I was attempting to do and he knew I had some other neat cars I had bought in for tires before. He wanted to know how he might be involved, see, he had always been a motorhead and was getting tired of the 1/4 drags. Handy with tools, could do his own work, and wanted to road race.

I brought him Jeff's rules book and let him look through it for a few days explaining IT (what I knew of it) to him as being a good place to start (sorry, he was dead set against driving through cones in a parking lot) that would not cost him a fortune.

I came back later and talked to him some more when I picked up my subframe. He has two Camaros, 1985s, and wanted to use them as a foundation for IT. Both are 305 5 speeds. Whoa right there.

He could use the car is AS, as far as I know, but the level of prep goes through the roof for what a young guy can afford. Can't use it in IT, for some reason, even though it was rated at 180hp, weighs a ton, and has a simplistic rear suspenion. So, he was rather disappointed and knew enough to take a look as NASA (which I know nothing about). His other buddy in the shop, who was also interested, had a WRX but of course lost interest when I told him that was a no-go either.

The point is, by excluding cars or not having places to race them cheaply is keeping people out of the sport. I had always wanted to race something, but, with the SCCA being the SCCA it is not exactly "user friendly" for a new person unless you find some helpful people. I've found a lot of helpful folks here and of course locally with Jeff, Robert, Mark, and Rick who give me advice and hook me up with contacts.

There are a lot of "sports car nuts" out there with aging cars that would like to use them somewhere - the SCCA could offer them that place to use them and I think IT would be even larger than it is. Of course, it could be that the SCCA doesn't want IT to get larger than it is seeing as how I just recently learned I can't even read race results in their magazine.

Open some more classes for more cars - it can only make the sport appeal to more people and allow it to grow for a whole new audience. I almost laughed when I read how the SCCA was trying to appeal to the "import crowd" with the recent article in Sportscar indicating they'd always been their for import fans. Maybe so, maybe it is true since I was only 5 in the early 70s, but they are missing them now for sure and could use them to keep the sport from being a place of old men in white racing suits. Of which I saw an alarming amount of at recent races and not so many young men at all....

RANT OFF.

Ron

PS-Rick, that Z3 should be plently cool in race trim and ought to be dang fast. Ought to be in IT as well, somewhere.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 02, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 02, 2004).]

Knestis
11-02-2004, 09:18 PM
The answer re: the roots of IT is "yes" on both counts described above. The Sedan classes were recently dead, rolled into GT. Common practice from TransAm was migrating into GT1 and downward so the writing was on the wall there: It was gonna get expensive. Production cars were less and less production, too but more importantly, costs were being driven up by increasingly professional preparation and competitive pressures.

Showroom Stock was relatively healthy but - think about it - regional programs were relatively weak, compared to nationals. There weren't really any regional-only classes at the time so the distinction was (perhaps overly broadly stated) those who could afford to prepare a car well ran nationals, and there was a lot of crap running in regional events.

IT was seen as a way to give SS cars a place to go play, to bolster regional entry lists, and to give entry-level racers a place to start - at levels of techology, cost, and engineering demand below other classes. The dual-use nature of the rules and regional-only status were supposed to support those goals.

I totally agree that the state of the art in street products - new cars and aftermarket bits - is MILES beyond what we could ever have envisioned 20+ years ago so it is fair to re-norm the category, against the new standards. The coilover shock rule change is a great example and revisiting the engine management restrictions makes sense in the same light.

However, there are some pitfalls that should be treaded around with the greatest care. Turbo cars are a nightmare to police and if you think engine management tweaks are worth cheating on with an NA car, you ain't seen nothing until someone starts diddling with values and maps on their Mitsubarushi.

It might indeed be possible to align ITE across the nation. In some ways, that's what the club did when it published its IT rules. We actually wrote our OWN in NW Region the year before that happened. (Station wagons were OK in our book, by the way.) That would give a lot of otherwise orphaned cars a place to race but again, there are going to be all kinds of wrangling trying to get disparate types of cars on the same page of the rulebook.

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited November 02, 2004).]

Ron Earp
11-02-2004, 09:38 PM
Out of all the cars the turbo cars will be the most difficult. I've owned plenty (everything we own as a daily driver is turbo or supercharged) and cranking the boost is very simple and can be impossible to police. Lots of power on tap. You could rig circuits based on simple 555 timers to make the boost 1.5 bar between 110pm and 135pm in the afternoon, while having only 1 bar all the rest of the time allowing it to pass any tech you want.

Might be possible to allow turbocharged cars in a turbo only class and say you can run only a Garrett T3 40 trim compressor and that is all (just an example, I have not looked at this compressor map). Boost is unlimited, as much as you dare. By using an undersized turbo for the entire class affecting all cars, the amount of boost will not matter. Once the little turbo is operating outside the efficiency peaks on the compressor map it is just heating the air, regardless of boost level, and will not make more power for the motor. Might could be one way to police it.

Or, eliminate electronic control of the wastegate and only use a sealed mechanical/pressue wastegate capsule that is set at some limit for the class allowing any turbocharger to run. Still ways to cheat though such as opening a concealed bleed on the line to the capsule.

But, I think the SCCA has to meet to challenge of accomidating these cars - they are everywhere as is all-wheel drive.

Good move on the wagons too - I was wanting to build a Jensen Healey Shooting Brake (that is wagon in English terms best I can tell, about 400 made, looks like a Jensen with a glass back) but found out they were illegal for some strange reason. Dang.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 02, 2004).]

JohnRW
11-02-2004, 09:44 PM
There is a place in the GCR for more modern (and more powerful) cars in Regional class SCCA racing - Super Production. It's a nationally recognized 'catch-all class'.

Are the safety equipment prep levels higher than IT ? Yup. Don't tell me that someone who wants to race a 5.0 Stang or a Camaro or Evo won't tweak and twiddle until it's at AS or GT power levels and speed, because they will. Is it really smart to be running cars of that potential with bolt-in cages and stock gas tanks ? No. Just protecting future racers from themselves.

If you counter with something like "...but I won't be competitive in a class like that", that's a whole different issue from "I want a place to race my Mustang or Camaro or WRX or Gen III RX-7". If you want a level playing field, go someplace with a firm rules-set, like ASedan or T1/2.

Ron Earp
11-03-2004, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by JohnRW:
Yup. Don't tell me that someone who wants to race a 5.0 Stang or a Camaro or Evo won't tweak and twiddle until it's at AS or GT power levels and speed, because they will.

Well, yes, any old 5.0L or Camaro or Evo maybe. There were lots of years and lots of variations and some are clearly different than others.

I see no reason the 82 Mustang 5.0 could not be allowed to race now. As a long time Ford freak, I know this motor well. But, I also know that on this 82 if we're stuck using the stock Autolite 2bbl carb, stock manifold, heads, valves, cam, and compression +0.5 hike, and 4 speed tranny, then this car will still be NO match for a 325 BMW. With open exhaust rules you'll get around 175-190 out of it, but it is heavy and has a poor suspension and brakes - nothing to be worried about. That is IF you follow the rules. Yes, you could take the same SB Ford motor and make over 500+hp from it, but it wouldn't be an IT motor. And, it wouldn't have any of the original bits left except, maybe in some circumastances, the block.

If you're worried with respect to class integrity, sure, it'll still have torque and move out of a corner but that is about it. Displacement sort of does that, regardless of other factors. As mentioned before by someone else, all cars have strengths and weaknesses, pick your weapon.

I'm not making a case for this car and I don't intend to race one. Just trying to point out that the SCCA isn't as accomidating to all types of cars as it could be and some if the reasons to prohibit certain cars are completely unclear to me - the new user. We need more new users, and hence, we need to be more open to cars and classifications that might not fit the "SCCA norm".

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 03, 2004).]

cherokee
11-04-2004, 10:53 AM
I think you might have a good idea. But to take a half step back IIRC I do not think that the 6 cyl pony cars are classed. I think it would be cool to see a 6cyl pony cars...and talk about cheap cars that are in pretty good shape. And another thing that you are correct about is the new car process. When I started this I wanted to do a 2wd Subaru XT(remember those). But the process was too crazy for me so I looked for something else...."unique"

Ron Earp
11-04-2004, 11:48 AM
Good ideas you've got there. I do remember those XTs and that would be a great car to use - unique and it has a reliable/strong motor.

I should not forget the 6s in the fox bodies. I owned a 80 I6 Mustang and after we'd done some simple things to it the car was faster than our 83. Later they changed to a V6 and I felt it was weaker than the inline motor that was shortlived.

I also owned a 85 5.0 coupe but it would be a ringer in IT. 210 stock and it made a buttload of power with not much work. Still handled and braked poorly.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Banzai240
11-04-2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
When I started this I wanted to do a 2wd Subaru XT(remember those). But the process was too crazy for me so I looked for something else...."unique"

We had a request for one of these previously, and it wasn't the process that was "crazy"... These cars were never offered in 2wd form with a manual transmission... We aren't allowed to "create" a model for IT... Believe me, we looked into this to see if something like this would work and it just doesn't fit...

As for "V6 Pony cars..."... better go back and look at the ITCS... there are several V6 Ford examples classified... Don't know why the Camaros aren't as well, but in all seriousness, who would want to race a tank like that on the minimal output of their V6s?? Just can't make them light enough to do the job, especially with IT prep allowances...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 04, 2004).]

11-04-2004, 02:28 PM
I don't know about the V-6 Mustang's potential in ITS (for instance), but a SS Camaro is able to run consistant 1:30's at Summit while the largest portion of the ITS field is running 1:27's-1:29's. Seems to me that with IT prep, the V-6 Camaro's and Firebirds would make a fairly competitive car with at least the non E36 ITS cars.

I still think the Z32 300ZX would make an excellent ITS car although the SCCA deems them to have a "competition potential" yet they don't think the E-36 had one over the majority of the ITS class. Yea, it's got the potential for a lot more HP than the E-36, but the extra weight the car has will negate most of that.

ITANorm
11-04-2004, 03:25 PM
In case you guys forgot - there is precedent for V-8 cars in ITS. Remember the Sunbeam Tiger??

11-04-2004, 03:53 PM
But, isn't the TR8 still classified in ITS?
IIRC the TR8 has been classified in the ITS class since the mid to late 80's.

DavidM
11-05-2004, 06:59 PM
Being relatively new to the club racing scene I find this an interesting topic. I think there's a big disconnect between the SCCA and the younger crowd. I think the cars are part of the reason. I'm in the process of trying to figure out which IT class I'd like to race in and what car I'd like to drive. I haven't seen the entire list of classified cars, but it seems like a time warp to 10 or 20 years ago.

I've been in the import car scene for a long time and personally own one of the dreaded (at least by the SCCA) 300ZX twin turbos. I haven't done much to the engine other than exhaust, but I have a fully adjustable suspension on all four corners with 18" forged aluminum wheels. I'm guessing this "street car" (in the right hands) would run circles around all the cars in IT. I also have a friend whose 18 year old son recently bought an Integra Type R that he's already done several mods on. He wants to race it. I think he's mainly talking autocross at this point, but what if he wanted to do IT? Would this car fit it any class? Or would it be "too fast"?

My point is that how does the SCCA expect to lure in the younger crowd when these guy's street cars are faster and more modern than the cars they'd have to race? You think these guys have ever worked on a carburetor? I've been reading the ECU thread and find it interesting that there's this big debate about something that people have been doing to street cars for 10 years (probably longer in some form). There are 20 year old guys out there with laptops in their cars twiddling with ECU parameters that probably know a heck of lot more about engine tuning than guys club racing.

I think one of the big attractions of street racing is the fact that you can do anything you want to the car. These guys like working on their cars and spend tons of money on them.
Older cars aren't going to attract these people to club racing. The car is only part of the equation, of course, but the young guys won't get into club racing if they don't like the cars.

Technology advances, cars get faster. I think the SCCA better figure out a way to embrace the newer cars and allow them to race (not just in the pro Speed Touring car class). I think this will begin to draw in some of the younger people. Otherwise, as has been mentioned, the SCCA is going to become a race league of old guys driving around in old cars.

I don't want to divert this thread, but I think it would be good for the organization if a way could be found to include many of the later model cars. I don't know if that means creating new classes, changing rules around, or what. I got my start in autocrossing and here in Atlanta there are regularly 200+ cars showing up. A good number of these cars are young guys running their street cars. The next step up for them would be club racing, but is there a place for them to go within SCCA? Something to think about.

David

PS: I too read the article on import cars in the SCCA. I found it historically interesting, but kind of laughed at the underlying implication that SCCA is drawing in the import crowd. I think that's true for autocrossing, but not for club racing.

JeffYoung
11-05-2004, 07:21 PM
David, good points all. We can keep the older cars already in IT AND have new ones via appropriate classifications. One additional class above ITS, plus another class for "all turbo" cars and frankly I think we are there.

Norm, yes, the TR8 is classed in ITS and there are more of us out there racing them than you would think. There's Todd Kischbach in the NEDiv, although I understand he is turning his into a GT car, Morey and Andy Doyle in the Midwest (who are still competitive as hell at Gateway and Mid-Ohio), myself in the SEDiv and I believe a Charles Murdoch in Arkansas. John Roper also used to run one out of Louisiana I believe.

But, when you say V8, remember this is a smogged out, low compression, small displacement V8s from 1980. Stock horsepower? 133. Yep. Less than an ITA Neon. Or an ITA SE-R.

I havent' dyoned the car but I think I am maybe getting 170 hp at the crank, with headers, etc. Maybe another 20 there with port matching and better breathing (I have ram air ducts, stock, that I am not using), and going .020 over.

Bottom line is that those early 80s V8s aren't going to make a lot of power using IT rules. You are stuck with stock carbs, cam and heads, and that's where the major chokepoints are.

Mark LaBarre
11-07-2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by rlearp:

... all cars have strengths and weaknesses, pick your weapon....



Isn't this the whole point?. If some one wants to race, race what's allowed.
Period.

Ron Earp
11-07-2004, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by DavidM:
Being relatively new to the club racing scene I find this an interesting topic. I think there's a big disconnect between the SCCA and the younger crowd.

Otherwise, as has been mentioned, the SCCA is going to become a race league of old guys driving around in old cars.



You hit the nail on the head and one of the reasons I started the post and mentioned the true story of my friend at the suspenion shop.

I've only been around a short time here, two months, so, a lot of you might discount my viewpoint and ideas. However, I feel being new allows me to sort of look at things objectively and ask "why".

I'm just asking about some relatively simple (and cheap) cars that should be allowed to race. But the SCCA is losing a whole bunch of potential members since there are many young people that would like to race their cars but have no AFFORDABLE place to race - that is Improved Touring. Yes, you can point to other classes and say "race it there, it is allowed" but those are not affordable for the young man.

Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Ron Earp
11-07-2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Mark LaBarre:
Isn't this the whole point?. If some one wants to race, race what's allowed.
Period.

As mentioned at the beginning of the thread - what is allowed doens't seem to follow much rhyme or reason in many cases. Allowed seems to be at the whim of a board and if someone on the board doesn't like a car etc. it is not allowed.

A 300z should certainly be allowed to race. Sure, it has 220hp stock but it is quite heavy. Is it not allowed because someone who already has class leading cars fears losing that lofty position? They are cheap and plentiful and in my opinion perfect IT fodder. Hell, for that matter early Porsche 928s have even less hp, weigh a bunch, and are even cheaper! Lets class one!

But, in a few years there are going to be a bunch of fantastic performance cars that are perfect IT fodder as well. I'm assuming they will not be allowed, why not? Create new classes, allow IT to grow within the SCCA. Or, is one of the reasons why that isn't done is so that people are forced to race in the higher level, national, and more expensive categories?

Come to think of it, isn't IT the biggest section of the SCCA? If so, how come it isn't given coverage in that SCCA magazine that comes in my mailbox from time to time? Seems that if a lot of people race IT, which it does since I see more IT races put on at local tracks than any other SCCA type, then why can't one find results from the races easily?

Just trying to learn and understand.

RANT OFF.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 07, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 07, 2004).]

Prince Makaha
11-07-2004, 09:54 PM
There were so many different 928 engine trims over the years that it would be nearly impossible to keep track of them.

The last ones (GTS?) made had 345hp in the early 90s.

Still........I don't even think a speedsource or bimmerworld customer would enjoy the crankshaft nightmare they would run into while racing the 928.

JeffYoung
11-07-2004, 10:58 PM
Actually Prince, the 79-82 928 and 928s all had reasonable hp (low 200s) and would, I think, make a decent IT car (and not an overdog) at around 3100 lbs or so. Probably not a whole lot of power to be found in the 928 in IT trim.

Ron is right, class more cars.

Ron Earp
11-08-2004, 09:06 AM
This actually is a issue that hits home for me as the cars I started racing in Solo I and II haven't been allowed in club racing for over a decade. The public reason given was always that turbocharges are too expensive. [/B]

Was this truely presented as the reason for not allowing turbo cars? If so, someone has no clue about costs and their ignorance is showing. Turbochargers are relatively cheap compared to the other things that go on in IT. Call Turbonetics and one can get a completely new T3 (various trims) for $500. Want yours rebuilt instead? $250-$300. Much cheaper than a set of wheels, Motec engine management, tires, etc.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Knestis
11-08-2004, 09:19 AM
SCCA has been VERY reluctant to classify turbo cars since the '80s, when a lot of them hit Showroom Stock category.

Until we are VERY sure that we are collectively willing to do what it takes to actually police engine management systems, this is going to be shaky ground, given that turbos respond REALLY well to tweaking.

I MIGHT get a few HP with a chip in my 2.0 VW but if I had a 1.8T? Whee!

K

ITANorm
11-08-2004, 11:23 AM
As alluded to . . .

it's just too easy to up the boost in a turbo car - and relatively difficult to prove it. (Find, and install, a recording boost gauge - and then either put the car on a dyno or have somebody drive it at WOT through the entire rev range.) That's EXACTLY why they were dropped in the early '90's.


------------------
Norm - #55 ITA, '86 MR2. [email protected]
http://home.alltel.net/jberry/img107.jpg
Website: home.alltel.net/jberry (http://home.alltel.net/jberry)

Ron Earp
11-08-2004, 11:54 AM
Agreed. We covered the turbo stuff up above and I don't think there is a good solution, really. But, still doesn't answer the basic question of what will be done with all the great cars that could be classed that are coming, or a lot of find cars that have never been classed for some, at least to me, strange reason. Non-turbo 300zs are perfect.

DavidM
11-08-2004, 02:48 PM
Anybody know how the turbo cars are/will be policed in the Speed series? I believe they will be letting in some of the more popular turbo cars (WRX, 1.8T, etc.) into the series next year and they used to have the twin turbo S4 Audis in GT.

David

JeffYoung
11-08-2004, 04:45 PM
Why not put them all in their own class (turbo cars) and let them do what they want? No policing, other than the fact that there IS a turbo on the car...ITT I call it.

jhooten
11-08-2004, 06:01 PM
ITT is used in some regions for "Improved Touring Truck". How about ITF for Improved Touring Forced induction and let superchargers in also?

ITANorm
11-08-2004, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by DavidM:
Anybody know how the turbo cars are/will be policed in the Speed series? I believe they will be letting in some of the more popular turbo cars (WRX, 1.8T, etc.) into the series next year and they used to have the twin turbo S4 Audis in GT.

David

Looked at the T2 list, lately??

ShelbyRacer
11-08-2004, 10:48 PM
I have a few points, but wanted to start out by addressing a clearly incorrect statement-


Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
I don't know about the V-6 Mustang's potential in ITS (for instance), but a SS Camaro is able to run consistant 1:30's at Summit while the largest portion of the ITS field is running 1:27's-1:29's.

OK, what exact races are you watching? Non-SS Camaros in T2 are running 1:25's at Summit in the National races.

That being said, I have a question-
Going on this theory of grouping cars simply by speed potential, I would place the V6 gen3 Camarobird in ITA. Now, keep in mind, this car has 10.5" front brakes, rear drums, and a 5-speed with piss-poor ratios, along with the incredibly anemic 135-140hp V6 which sounds like a small block under water. Also, it weighs over 3000 lbs in IT trim (BTW- if anyone wants to argue these facts, I'll be happy to post my sources, or show you old data from my 87 'bird).

Imagine I'm cruising along in, say perhaps, a Honda CRX (I heard there's a few of those in ITA) and I'm coming around to lap this poor bastard in the lead sled. I get around him on the straight and duck in front before the corner. This driver, now demonstrating the amount of intelligence it takes to race a V6 F-body, decides that he can brake where I do, since we're both in ITA, right?

Do YOU want that kind of weight disparity on track with you?

On the other end of things, let's say we make a turbo car legal and we magically control the boost to keep it correct. How pissed off are you gonna be when this guy goes BLOWING past you on the straights, but can't corner to save his life? I could build an 87 Shelby Charger that would make 200hp and 200ftlb of torque legally in IT trim, but unless we got brake upgrades and wide tires we wouldn't be much faster than the carbed ITA I bet (I'm pretty sure Greg A. has some input on that...)

My point is simple-
The cars that are in each class right now work well because they are somewhat similar in many factors, not just lap time. Sure I'd support a few more IT classes, but some people on here are talking about cars that simply don't belong on track in that configuration. You're asking SCCA to meet people's every whim, when those people aren't at all interested in being flexible or working with what's already there. Quite honestly, I think the attitude shows a bit of immaturity in principle. Why classify a car for 5 people when it's going to make it more dangerous or unsafe for 105 others?

Just because a few people think a car is fast, that doesn't mean it belongs on a track where it can ruin the day for a bunch of others.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

cherokee
11-09-2004, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:
Imagine I'm cruising along in, say perhaps, a Honda CRX (I heard there's a few of those in ITA) and I'm coming around to lap this poor bastard in the lead sled. I get around him on the straight and duck in front before the corner. This driver, now demonstrating the amount of intelligence it takes to race a V6 F-body, decides that he can brake where I do, since we're both in ITA, right?

Do YOU want that kind of weight disparity on track with you?



This does not matter too much here we race with ITE cars and I have had Vipers, SVT Mustangs, and 350 Firebirds and Cameros blaze by me...at one race there was an ITE Ferrari. These cars are far faster then 99% of the "real" IT cars out there and fatter in some cases. (I also think that these cars should be run with AS, I think that they run on DOT tires don't they? but that is a national class and we cant have that) I do agree with you it is un-nerving to see that turbo 911 running up on you on the brake zone, wondering if he is going to try it or not. You just have to be very aware of your place and what is going on around you on the track. I have seen a few of these people with the car in 5th or 6th gear and their brain in neutral.

11-09-2004, 12:23 PM
Matt, I don't know what part of my statement is hard to understand, but I'm talking about Guy Pavageau in his SSB V-6 Camaro, I never said a word about a T2 Camaro. Why are you comparing a V-6 Camaro to a V-8 Camaro?
If Guy can run a 1:30 in SSB trim, I'd say that car is capable of running a couple seconds faster if it were to run in IT trim, which would put it in the 1:27 to 1:28 range, which is where the majority of the ITS cars are at this time. Except for a couple of the high budget 325's like Ed and Sam who usually run in the 1:24's and 1:25's, I'd say the V-6 Camaro might have a chance to run near the front of the pack.

http://www.wdcr-scca.org/results/results.c...ndex.htm?040103 (http://www.wdcr-scca.org/results/results.cgi/results/index.htm?040103)

[This message has been edited by 2Many Z's (edited November 09, 2004).]

Banzai240
11-09-2004, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
Matt, I don't know what part of my statement is hard to understand, but I'm talking about Guy Pavageau in his SSB V-6 Camaro, I never said a word about a T2 Camaro. Why are you comparing a V-6 Camaro to a V-8 Camaro?

You might want to check, but I'm almost certain that the Camaro in T2 is also a V-6...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Greg Amy
11-09-2004, 12:48 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Why are you comparing a V-6 Camaro to a V-8 Camaro?</font>

Because in Regional events, these classes are commonly placed together as a run group.

Because of this, weight disparity as a standard for classifications is a moot point.

jhooten
11-09-2004, 01:43 PM
2Many Z's

You asked Matt


Matt, I don't know what part of my statement is hard to understand, but I'm talking about Guy Pavageau in his SSB V-6 Camaro,
I never said a word about a T2 Camaro. Why are you comparing a V-6 Camaro to a V-8 Camaro?


And I was confused about what you were saying in this



I don't know about the V-6 Mustang's potential in ITS (for instance), but a SS Camaro is able to run consistant 1:30's at Summit while the
largest portion of the ITS field is running 1:27's-1:29's. Seems to me that with IT prep, the V-6 Camaro's and Firebirds would make a
fairly competitive car with at least the non E36 ITS cars.

because the b was missing from the ss in front of the camaro. An SS Camaro is an upgrade of the Z-28 v-8 Camaro.

Banzai240

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You might want to check, but I'm almost certain that the Camaro in T2 is also a V-6...</font>

The T-2 Camaro is a a Z-28 with an intake restrictor.

[This message has been edited by jhooten (edited November 09, 2004).]

x-ring
11-09-2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
You might want to check, but I'm almost certain that the Camaro in T2 is also a V-6...


Not unless that Chebby V-6 is a 5.7L http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif



------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

Banzai240
11-09-2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by x-ring:
Not unless that Chebby V-6 is a 5.7L http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif



Damn things are kind of like Hondas... Hard to keep track of exactly WHAT is under the hood... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

x-ring
11-09-2004, 08:29 PM
Ain't that the truth. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

ShelbyRacer
11-10-2004, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
Matt, I don't know what part of my statement is hard to understand,

I guess it was the part I managed to misread http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/redface.gif

I saw SS Camaro and thought SS package, not Showroom Stock. It that case, you're exactly right (sorry). At least there were a few others who saw the same thing I did, even if I was mistaken... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

ShelbyRacer
11-10-2004, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
A 82 5.0L Mustang with the 2bbl had 157hp, a good bit less than the 325 with only a little more torque at around 225 ft/lbs. But it weighs a little more and has a much cruder suspension. Top speed about the same as the 325, I think it is actually less.

No matter - the point is the car is cheap and while it has a home in American Sedan that is a very wide open class where this car would become expensive to prep. In IT this car would be cheap to prep - shocks, springs, headers, exhaust - would cost next to nothing be reliable, fast, and fun. I'm not wanting one, just using it as an example.


I've heard this discussion about Pony Cars before. I certainly would love to see some other cars classified before we give the same car more than one place to run at the same prep level.

I would also argue that AS would be cheaper than an IT class, simply from the standpoint that the rules give you a grocery list. Do these things to your car. No experimentation needed to waste money. Let's face it, AS is just an IT class for Pony Cars already, so why duplicate?

Oh, and to the question of why do they only race other V8's? Because they all have the same handicaps basically. Why purposly place a big heavy power car against a small light handling car? I like the IT concept because currently, the cars run in a decent pack (but for a few exceptions) where you can dice it up a little. What's the point of having a class where half the group blows by down the straights and then holds up the rest in the turns? It's almost like what happens when PCAs get out of hand... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

Santo Fontana
11-11-2004, 12:32 AM
Hi, I feel like this post has alot to do with me, so I thought I might add my $.02.

I have an 02 WRX and am sick of drag racing. I researched a little and found out about scca club racing, and then this sight. If WRXs and other cars like it are allowed into a competitive class in a few years it would be my dream come true. I would even be willing to throw a 2.5rs engine in my car if I had to.

Even the Ford 500 is AWD. I just read about the new Mazdaspeed 6 - awd turbo. Most of the new cars geared towards the type of people who would do IT are awd, turbo or both.

There is a pretty healthy competition among wrx owners for the fastest stock turbo car. Anything goes except NOS as long as you have the stock turbo, unmolested. Like I said it is a good competition and the title has changed hands a few times. I dont agree that turbos are too hard to regulate when everyone is running the same turbo, especially if it is undersized, like the wrx's or the 1.8t's.

BTW I am 27, so I guess I could be considered the future of IT. I wouldnt know a carb if someone threw one at my face, but I do datalog everyday and adjust timing, boost and fuel on my wrx via a piggyback computer.

I know that this is your club and I respect that, but it would be cool if you guys could open the doors up to people like me, because there are alot of us, and our loans are almost paid off.


[This message has been edited by Santo Fontana (edited November 10, 2004).]

Knestis
11-11-2004, 01:43 AM
I'm going to sound like an old fart but, as much as I think that we need to be attracting new blood, there are some major issues at hand on the AWD/turbo front:

** There are NOT a lot of options out there, even if the Subaru is a good performance value, for cars that would run in its class. With the exception of spec classes, it's arguably hard to make anything viable happen without choices.

** While it might be easy to make power for short spurts, it would be pretty damned expensive to keep a turbocharged car with three diffs alive and well over even the medium haul. We made this mistake in rallying when it became essential to have a blower and four wheel drive to run up front. A lot of people have blown up a lot of money on parts that, while they make cars FASTER, they are not necessary to make them go. I am of the strong opinion that if SCCA had never allowed AWD turbo cars in rallying, the program would not have been abandoned this year...

** Which brings me to the fact that it is NOT necessary for us to create classes for the fastest models out there, just because they are fast. Every body and their dog makes a 2-liter coupe/HB/sedan thing right now and they have massive market penetration. They are half the initial price of a WRX and 10 guys could pick 10 different cars. They are cheaper to run and it doesn't matter if they are slower than other cars, since they would be racing against other cars that perform similarly.

That's racing.

K

lateapex911
11-11-2004, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by Santo Fontana:
Hi, I feel like this post has alot to do with me, so I thought I might add my $.02.

I have an 02 WRX and am sick of drag racing. I researched a little and found out about scca club racing, and then this sight. If WRXs and other cars like it are allowed into a competitive class in a few years it would be my dream come true.....
I know that this is your club and I respect that, but it would be cool if you guys could open the doors up to people like me, because there are alot of us, and our loans are almost paid off.


[This message has been edited by Santo Fontana (edited November 10, 2004).]

Now THIS is a post worth re-reading.

Santo, I'm not the old guard, but I'm not a guy just out of college either...so while I DO agree that the 'old way' needs some rethinking, I also understand what got us here.

I'm sure you understand the racing bug...and what people will do to win a $5 trophy! It gets kinda crazy, and the club has had some bad (turbo) experiences in the past.

Part of it is that there is little understanding of the people who want to race the cool new turbos, and part of it is the fear that they won't be able to control it and make it fair for everyone.

So, let me ask you some questions...you seem to be the perfect candidate for the future... If the SCCA had a class that your car fit into, what kind of mods would you want allowed, and what would you want banned? Would you want it for your car only? What other models might you like in the class?

Remember, roadracing is as much about suspension setup and corner weighting as it is about intercoolers and turbos. Most guys who race end up spending more money on tow rigs and trailers, hotel and gas bills than they care to, and they want to keep the money that has to be spent on the car to a minimum. Why allow something that will make the car a second or so faster a lap, but cause the engine to blow or wear out in half the time? So think about that point of view when you design your "dream class"! Also, no car can turn a wheel on the track to race without a complete safety package..which costs bucks as well. IT has become as popular as it is because people can get an old cheap car, then build and invest slowly, all the while racing and learning. For some, the low investment is key.

Second...if you were in charge, how would you police your class to ensue all cars were legal?? Can you design the class so it's easy to keep everyone in line? Remember, the SCCA is all volunteers, so staffing isn't too deep! And expensive test equipment isn't available at every race across the country every weekend. (Actually, it's not really available at ANY race except one or two!)

Finally, would you want to get serious and race for a National Champoinship, or are you looking to just have fun at tracks where you live? Where are you located, BTW?

You brought up some excellent points in your post....I guess what i'm trying to figure out is, 'If we build it, will you come?', (and how many of you)...to paraphrase the famous movie line.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

ITANorm
11-11-2004, 11:47 AM
I find it interesting that in 13 years we have come full circle - most specifically in SS / Touring. In 1991, they decreed AWD illegal in SS, and in '93 they banned turbo's. I had an '88 Celica AllTrac (aka: GT4) that I had bought new and planned to race in SSA after it was paid for (in '92).

The philosophy was that AWD had an advantage in the wet - DUH -(they left out the fact that the AllTrac was less than competitive in the dry)! And they decided they couldn't police turbos. I understood, but I never supported either decision.

Now they're both coming back. Since AWD turbo pocket rockets are becoming popular, again, they need a place to race. The inclusion of the Neon SRT-4 in T2 last year was just the start.

Ron Earp
11-19-2004, 10:57 AM
I thought of another great car for IT, the Ford Taurus SHO. Abundant now, not that expensive, and even though it has 220hp stock as long as we stick with a race weight similar to curb weight or a few % less (unlike the BMW 325s) then it should be just fine and not an overacheiver. Getting more power from the Yamaha 5 valve V6 is NOT easy, that is for sure.



------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

JeffYoung
11-19-2004, 01:30 PM
Is the 1st Gen SHO RWD?

Ron Earp
11-19-2004, 02:39 PM
Nope, they are all front wheel drive. Ron

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Knestis
11-19-2004, 04:33 PM
There is a philosophical question underlying this conversation - why should cars get classified?

Should anything that is requested find a home, irrespective of its value to the program in general? Not to pick on this specifid example but i fail to understand how allowing the SHO to run in IT is going to contribute to the long-term health of the category in any meaningful way.

That's just my bias, however: That diversity is a good thing to a point but allowing relatively rare stuff into the mix creates potential problems if in fact equity (read: PCA implementation) is seen as important.

On the other hand - the addition of common, affordable cars with good aftermarket support (see earlier conversations about ITC candidates) DOES seem to hold potential for growing grids and the sport as a whole.

We don't have consensus at this level so what would lead us to think that we can agree on detail implementation of the rules?

K

Ron Earp
11-19-2004, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
There is a philosophical question underlying this conversation - why should cars get classified?
Not to pick on this specifid example but i fail to understand how allowing the SHO to run in IT is going to contribute to the long-term health of the category in any meaningful way.


I see your point, but, I think there is a reason to class a car if someone asks. If classing a SHO gets us another SCCA member into racing then I think it is a positive thing. Classing it won't upset the balance of IT but if it picked up a few members it'd be fantastic.

Will it pick up members? I doubt the SHO would, at least not right off the bat. But when I started this thread one of the things I mentioned was that the SCCA leaves out a lot of people who want to race (remember my story of the mechanic and his Camaro, and that of another new user that posted on this thread) so classing as many cars as possible certainly won't hurt. Does it cost us anything to class them? I don't think so, make a new line in the ITS grid in the GCR for a Ford Taurus, give an estimated weight, year range, and wait for someone to build one.

My Jensen that I am building is like that - there are no others running in IT, yet it remained on the books and atracted me. I didn't want to build an RX7, Honda, BMW, etc. because those cars didn't interest me. But, the Jensen with a Lotus powerplant that it shares with my Lotus street car does interest me. Don't believe this lead me to IT? Ask Jeff, he watched it happen. I had no interest in racing IT due to the cars I saw in IT, until I got ahold of the GCR in the back of his truck and found something I liked. Not everyone is out there to win or be competitive (obviously, I'd pick a 2nd gen RX7 or BMW for ITS) and some might do it for the fun of building, people they meet, and a car they like.

I think we should identify as many cars as possible to class so as to expand the breadth of IT since it might allow some to race who otherwise would not. Besides, having a diverse field, at least to me, is much cooler than a bunch of the same cars, which you said. Having "strange cars" is not going to cause problems, you've got a lot of more common cars classed already and they are staying, so people can choose the path less followed if they like, or they can choose to walk the line with everyone else.

Now, is that 80s Chysler K car with the manual transmission classed? Might be a good one....

Ron


------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 19, 2004).]

Speed Raycer
11-19-2004, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
I thought of another great car for IT, the Ford Taurus SHO. Abundant now, not that expensive, and even though it has 220hp stock as long as we stick with a race weight similar to curb weight or a few % less (unlike the BMW 325s) then it should be just fine and not an overacheiver. Getting more power from the Yamaha 5 valve V6 is NOT easy, that is for sure.

There was an SHO from the Chicago region running in ITE last month at Gateway. I was working a corner and you could tell that the thing had great straight line power, but didn't deal that well with turning. It may have just been the driver as the car looked to be fairly fresh and every once in a while he actually did my turn fairly quickly. He was the only one in his class, so maybe he wasn't pushing it.



------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)
Izzy's Custom Cages (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)

JeffYoung
11-19-2004, 06:58 PM
Kirk, I too see your point, but think of it this way.

Take a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of race cars of a certain make and the denominator is the number of street cars of the same make.

Oddly enough, I would suspect that the ones with the highest value fraction would be "oddball" IT cars. Alfa Milanos, TR8s, Opel GTs, Jensen-Healeys.

In other words, because these cars have a cult following, it is MORE likely that someone is going to be crazy enough to turn it into a race car.

From what I've seen, racers are of two broad categories. 80-90% have some "brand" loyalty but are more interested in building a car that is sure to be competitive. The other 10-20% is a significant chunk of the SCCA, and consists of idiots like me who engage in Quixotic quests to make an unusual car a sem-competitive race car.

I guess what I am saying is that racing is not "normal" behavior and it attracting for the most part gearhead oddballs. Some of those gearhead oddballs make a quirky car choice because, well, they are gearhead oddballs. They, as 10-20% of an IT field, are as important, and perhaps more important, to the long term health of IT than the guy who ran a 240z in the 80s, a 2nd Gen RX7 in the 90s and now wheels a 325. Not to knock him, but he's also probably the guy who bailed on IT to go SM racing because it is close and exciting. He's looking for the next best thing.

The oddball -- and there are more than you think even in the SE Div (Alfa Milanos, AMC Spirits, TR8s, even 240-260-280s and 924/944s have to be considered unusual cars when compared to the norm of 240sx/RX7/BMW) -- is the guy who is going to stick with his car and the class.

So, finding and classing unusual performance cars is actually probably just as likely, in my opinion, of attracting new guys who stay as making sure the latest hot 4-door sedan has a place to race. I guarantee you that if you make a place in ITS for the SHO, the 928, or something like a Subaru SVX, someone, somewhere will think like I did, or Ron did and go "Cool! what a neat race car that would make!".

Off soapbox now.

Kurt, you done racing for the season?

Geo
11-19-2004, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
So, finding and classing unusual performance cars is actually probably just as likely, in my opinion, of attracting new guys who stay as making sure the latest hot 4-door sedan has a place to race. I guarantee you that if you make a place in ITS for the SHO, the 928, or something like a Subaru SVX, someone, somewhere will think like I did, or Ron did and go "Cool! what a neat race car that would make!".

Since nobody has requested classification with the intent of building a car, why bother? If someone would seriously like to build a car, all they have to do is write the CRB and request classification.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Knestis
11-19-2004, 10:15 PM
Don't get me wrong, guys. I do understand how brand loyalty and the oddball factor can put people in race cars. I wasn't suggesting that everyone should see it my way - only that the question needs to be considered. We tend to argue detail points about rules and stuff without explaining the fundamental principles behind our thinking.

I am done, Jeff. Pablo is under his cover in the driveway, with most of the enduro crud scraped off. I buffed out the tire mark and pulled the fender lip back out, where the Mustang nosed Giles on the first lap, and I've peeled off all of the tape.

The clutch is feeling a little funky so the gearbox is the first order of business for the off season. I also need an exhaust system, since my "crew" took the old one off with a Sawzall after the test day.

K

PS - take a look at http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1060770&page=2

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited November 19, 2004).]

Greg Amy
11-19-2004, 11:00 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">PS - take a look at...</font>

Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah...!!! (Sounds of Pinot Grigio ex-post-nasal...)

Joe Craven
11-19-2004, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by Santo Fontana:

I have an 02 WRX and am sick of drag racing. I researched a little and found out about scca club racing, and then this sight. If WRXs and other cars like it are allowed into a competitive class in a few years it would be my dream come true.

Well, there is a WRX that has been very competitive with BMWs, Hondas, etc. in US Touring car which runs all over the country. Take a look at

www.ustcc.com (http://www.ustcc.com)

Interesting program

Of course, they do not run with SCCA at this point.

turboICE
11-20-2004, 12:50 AM
I wouldn't hold our breaths on AWD in any affordable club racing classes.

I mean the 88-91 325iX isn't even classed in IT.

2005 will see the WRX in the new T3 and the STi finally more appropriately classed in T2. But once they are 6 years old I don't see any trends that are going to put either in a club level class. Of course there is the point that my WRX with stock turbo made 280hp at the wheels and my current STi on the stock turbo makes 320hp at the wheels. I like driving the STi at track days and time trials but can't see racing it in the club level.

Of course for those that would want to race a WRX or STi they are already classed by EMRA. So SCCA is just asking for more grassroots sanctioning bodies to pick up where they refuse to acknowledge the popular cars of the 21st century.

IT is being decimated by series like spec miata and honda challenge classes anyway, now NASA has spec E30 also. Soon the historically popular cars will each have their own series and no use for IT. Heck H5 Honda Challenge cars that cost much less than $5k have better contingencies available than Regional IT.

Knestis
11-20-2004, 12:56 AM
Sorry, Joe but I have to question how informative data might be, from a "series" that averaged fewer than 9 starters per event and had a mean fast-lap spread of almost 7 seconds per lap over the fastest five runners. That's ignoring the race where there were only 2 starters. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

Joe Craven
11-20-2004, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Sorry, Joe but I have to question how informative data might be, from a "series" that averaged fewer than 9 starters per event and had a mean fast-lap spread of almost 7 seconds per lap over the fastest five runners. That's ignoring the race where there were only 2 starters. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

What is there to be sorry about? I answered the question about road racing a WRX since I know of a class for the WRX. Heck, they average over double the cars in their class than I find in my IT class in my SCCA region.

As I stated, I find it an interesting class. If you don't find it of any value, no need to criticize me.

Joe Craven
ITB/PS3 Capri
ITB/PS3 VW GTI
ITA/PS2 Capri

Geo
11-20-2004, 01:59 AM
On the subject of the WRX, just where can anybody imagine it being classed in IT? For the moment, forget the turbo. Forget the AWD. With 280 bhp stock, it's WAY beyond anything else in IT. Heck, that's about 50% more hp than the E36 Panzers.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Knestis
11-20-2004, 09:38 AM
I wasn't criticizing you, Joe - I was being critical of the data. I try very hard to keep personalities distict from issues but it may not translate in text very well. Sorry!

K

JeffYoung
11-20-2004, 10:45 AM
DAMN! HE PUT BAR LEAK IN MY RACECAR? I had already put two eggs in the thing -- I like the natural solution.

Kirk, you crack me up man. Thanks for that, that's the best race car picture I've seen.

Tell Pablo that Barbieata says hello, and that she hopes that awful Giles guy didn't ride him too hard.

Bill Miller
11-20-2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah...!!! (Sounds of Pinot Grigio ex-post-nasal...)



Pinot Grigio, yummy!!!!!

Greg,

Have you tried the Luna de Luna Pinot/Chardonay? That stuff rocks!!!!

[on-topic content]

Unfortunately, none of today's Touring cars fit into IT, performance level is already too high.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608