Tweeners - Multiple Class Listings [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Bill Miller

11-03-2005, 12:43 PM

I like the idea Andy. See my comments in another thread, about cars being classified in more than one IT class. I say, if those are what the process numbers predict, go with it. I'm not sure how to address the cage issue. I see three options:

1) the cars will need a cage that conforms to the specs for the weight of the car

2) the cages get grand-fathered in (I don't really support this option, and think it becomes a liability issue)

3) require some as-yet-to-be-determined modifications to the existing cage, that would be determined to be compliant w/ the rules. This would be only for currently log-booked cars that were moving. Any new car would have to be built to the specs for that weight.

Banzai240

11-03-2005, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 04:01 PM
To build on Greg's suggestion, let's list the cars we think are 'tweeners'. My definition is simple, cars that:

- Not currently competitive in it's current class
- Can't get light enough to be competitive in its current class
- Would be an interesting option in the class 'lower' at a higher weight

Some suggestions:

ITA RX-7 to ITB at 2650?
ITA MR2 MK1 to ITB at 2500?

64485

First, I'd like to suggest that we understand that this would be something to work on for NEXT season... this isn't something that could possibly happen by 2006... I've already presented the 2006 Plan to the CRB, and that's about all that we could hope to get pushed through...

Also, I'd like to qualify the definition above to say that BY THE PROCESS, their CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATIONs show that they are "not competitive in it's current class"... On track performance can support this, but in the end, it's the specs that really tell the story... at least the part of it we have any kind of control over. For example... Some would say that the Capri in ITA can't be competitive, but if you look at it through the process and compare it's specifications and potential to the "target" for ITA, it's classified fairly competitive. You can't really use on-track data, because there isn't enough of it to support a stance and, as with most on-track data, there isn't a good way to qualify it...

Otherwise, I think it's a viable idea, so gathering data about it is great. Let's see what we come up with...

Chris Taylor

11-03-2005, 01:58 PM

The first gen RX7 can be made lighter, but aside from allowing removal of door windows and mechanisms it's all in the realm of Production. So, the answer is "No, it can't be significantly lightened and still remain an IT-prep car".

But 2600 pounds?! Jeesh, I'd rather keep it in ITA... that would define the term "pig".

Jake

11-03-2005, 02:19 PM

I’ll answer it this way -

I often get contacted thru my website from people who want to race their MR2s. And why not? They're cheap, fun to drive, and reliable. My advice is not to do it because they're hopeless in ITA. If you want to race, buy a CRX or Miata. If the ITB classing is added, I would encourage them to build.

As for weight-

With a new minimum thickness cage, SSR wheels, and gutted doors I might be able to get close to the current 2370 spec weight - but no lower at any cost.

Hotshoe

11-03-2005, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Chris Taylor@Nov 3 2005, 05:58 PM
But 2600 pounds?! Jeesh, I'd rather keep it in ITA... that would define the term "pig".

64516

Ditto on that one Chris,

..Not to mention the amount of cracked brake rotors are going to escalate.

Andy,

.... I know this is an attempt to make things better. But please remember that not all RX7s are "tweeners" IMHO . The option to stay or switch sounds good to me.
.... What about the 94-95 GSLSE ? Will it be dropped from ITS and put in ITA? Seems only fair. I have one that just sits and collects dust because it is not competitive in ITS

...Far from being a "T-weener"
...Rick Thompson...1st place ITA @ VIR .SARRC 2006

Knestis

11-03-2005, 02:39 PM

I think that the idea of listing a Hyundishi Exage or whatever in two classes, at different weights, is a really bad idea. It's just one step closer to different specs for different cars, no matter what the argument. It's already bad enough, having multiple class groups, but having multiple examples of the same car running in different classes - and conceivably different GROUPS - is going to be awful.

The reason we want more makes/models eligible is arguably to make racing more accessible, to more people, with more and different goals, priorities, and tastes. Creating an inherently more confusing category makes the entire exercise less accessible, to my mind, viewed in the macro sense. Sure - it might get someone to build a new Exage, who might otherwise not, but it creates a more convoluted show for everyone, adds another layer of complexity to the rules, and opens a whole new can of worms.

K

Andy Bettencourt

11-03-2005, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Chris Taylor@Nov 3 2005, 01:58 PM
The first gen RX7 can be made lighter, but aside from allowing removal of door windows and mechanisms it's all in the realm of Production. So, the answer is "No, it can't be significantly lightened and still remain an IT-prep car".

But 2600 pounds?! Jeesh, I'd rather keep it in ITA... that would define the term "pig".

64516

So here is the issue...a car with the horsepower potential of the RX-7 (Jake G. can interject with actual crank numbers) needs to be pretty heavy in order to fit the mix.

So what do we do?

AB

RSTPerformance

11-03-2005, 02:57 PM

Darin-

I was shocked you mentioned the Capri in ITA, because that was one car I was going to suggest... We used to run one granted it was 12 years ago and technology has chnaged... but I really don't think it is feasable to make it competitive IMO. It would also be nice to see the good old Corvair back into it!!!

Raymond "Anyone remember when Micheal Reece drove an ITA Capri?" Blethen

Hotshoe

11-03-2005, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 06:43 PM
So what do we do?

AB

64528

....How about putting the 84-85 GSLSE on the same spec line (with a little more weight?) and let us build some 13Bs

Andy Bettencourt

11-03-2005, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 3 2005, 02:39 PM
I think that the idea of listing a Hyundishi Exage or whatever in two classes, at different weights, is a really bad idea. It's just one step closer to different specs for different cars, no matter what the argument. It's already bad enough, having multiple class groups, but having multiple examples of the same car running in different classes - and conceivably different GROUPS - is going to be awful.

The reason we want more makes/models eligible is arguably to make racing more accessible, to more people, with more and different goals, priorities, and tastes. Creating an inherently more confusing category makes the entire exercise less accessible, to my mind, viewed in the macro sense. Sure - it might get someone to build a new Exage, who might otherwise not, but it creates a more convoluted show for everyone, adds another layer of complexity to the rules, and opens a whole new can of worms.

K

64527

I agree to a point. However, some think that SM is being populated by IT-jumpers. What kinds of cars do you think these guys are driving? Ones that don't have a chance I bet. We can't (and won't) try and balance every class on the head of a pin, but we can try and make what is wrong, right.

I think there may be 3-5 cars out there that are true tweeners - that people have built - or will build if they think they can compete...but as already been demonstrated above, some of these weights can shock you. When looked at them in the context of the class, however, they make sense (Some Volvos have to weigh almost 2800 in ITB - although they have big brakes).

So do tweeners just live a life in Purgatory? Maybe.

AB

Andy Bettencourt

11-03-2005, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 3 2005, 02:58 PM
....How about putting the 84-85 GSLSE on the same spec line (with a little more weight?) and let us build some 13Bs

64532

That thought has crossed my mind!

One issue is that we have never seen a well-prepped 84-85 13B. I would ASSUME they could make around 175 crank HP (135 stock - right?) going by what the S4 and S5 cars make over stock...but that car would have to weigh 2550 in ITA...would anyone build that?

AB

Bill Miller

11-03-2005, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 3 2005, 02:39 PM
I think that the idea of listing a Hyundishi Exage or whatever in two classes, at different weights, is a really bad idea. It's just one step closer to different specs for different cars, no matter what the argument. It's already bad enough, having multiple class groups, but having multiple examples of the same car running in different classes - and conceivably different GROUPS - is going to be awful.

The reason we want more makes/models eligible is arguably to make racing more accessible, to more people, with more and different goals, priorities, and tastes. Creating an inherently more confusing category makes the entire exercise less accessible, to my mind, viewed in the macro sense. Sure - it might get someone to build a new Exage, who might otherwise not, but it creates a more convoluted show for everyone, adds another layer of complexity to the rules, and opens a whole new can of worms.

K

64527

The thing is Kirk, we've already got that situation today, to varying degrees, depending on the region you're in. And a large portion of that, was done by the drivers of the tweener poster child, the 1st gen RX7. They didn't like the way things were, so they took things into their own hands. That's why you end up w/ things like IT7. Same prep as an ITA car, just different stickers on the side. You see folks running SM cars in both SM and ITA (and maybe even SSM).

The other thing is, we're not talking about tons of cars here. The more I thought about Greg's 'narrow the bell curve' idea, the more I thought that maybe it's not the right approach. Deal w/ the tweeners now, but future classifications should be spec'd much more around the center of the class performance distribution.

Andy,

I think the idea of putting the 13B 1st gen. on the same line as the 12A cars is a good idea. As long as the differences, and associated weight difference, are clearly spelled out, why not? And I'll say this right up front, I've got another reason for supporting this. It should help get rid of the pesky VIN# rule. There, I said it, I've got alterior motives!! :o :happy204:

Banzai240

11-03-2005, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Nov 3 2005, 06:57 PM
Darin-

I was shocked you mentioned the Capri in ITA, because that was one car I was going to suggest... We used to run one granted it was 12 years ago and technology has chnaged... but I really don't think it is feasable to make it competitive IMO.

64531

First off... "competitive" against whom?? The current ITA leaders? OR, the target we've set for the class... This is an important point...

I don't want to try to justify this here, because my data is at home, but we did talk about this one and I believe we found it was within the envolope... I'll research at home and get you a better answer later...

Also, there really aren't that many out there, so it's really tough to justify making much of a change, because there simply isn't a lot of data to go by. Most of the other cars have at least some performance data to go by...

But again, we did talk about this one and it appears to be within the envolope...

Please understand that the while a utopia would have us able to make EVERY car work, that's simply not possible to achieve. We are trying to get everyone close, but we have to be realistic. We are, after-all, still estimating IT-Prep output levels on most of these cars. There is a lot of info to bounce those estimates off of, but they are still estimates.

The biggest improvement is that EVERY car considered goes through the same hoops, so the chances for error appear to be smaller. So far, it seems to be working...

Banzai240

11-03-2005, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 3 2005, 08:20 PM
I think the idea of putting the 13B 1st gen. on the same line as the 12A cars is a good idea.

64544

Guys,

Why, if we KNOW that this car is capable of achieving and acceptable ITS weight, would we move it to ITA???

If it's output is what you guys are suggesting (175hp), it's ITS weight should be similiar to what the 12A is in ITA... That's totally achievable, and you'd have a car that's truely on-par with the targets in the class. Would be much more fun to drive in ITS at 2350lbs or so than it would be in ITA at 2600lbs... And, I think more would be built...

As for the vin# thing... isn't it legal to do "factory approved" or factory style firewall repairs??? "Oh Darn... My Vin tag got damaged... I need a factory replacement... What, they aren't available from the dealer any longer... guess I'll have to go out and use an identical aftermarket replacement..."

:o :blink: B)

dickita15

11-03-2005, 07:05 PM

Darin I for one absolutley understand this is something to talk about for next year. I understand you (the ITAC) have made your recomendations for the 06 season and it must be hard to just sit back now and wait for the powers that be to rule.

I think we should strongly consider the dual classing posibility under the following conditions.
1. after running the car thru the formula with adjustments a car is found to be impossible to be made competitive within the performance envelope for the class.
2. the car is not so rare (old) that it will create a ringer that most people will not be able to build.

Banzai240

11-03-2005, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Nov 3 2005, 06:57 PM
Darin-

I was shocked you mentioned the Capri in ITA, because that was one car I was going to suggest...
64531

OK, It's all coming back to me... We DID discuss the Capri, but it was last season... If you look in the 2005 ITCS, you'll see it's already been reclassified to ITB @2300lbs... Should be a VERY nice fit in that class!

Hey... YOU try to keep all this stuff straight! :blink:

B)

Hotshoe

11-03-2005, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 07:10 PM
That thought has crossed my mind!

One issue is that we have never seen a well-prepped 84-85 13B. I would ASSUME they could make around 175 crank HP (135 stock - right?) going by what the S4 and S5 cars make over stock...but that car would have to weigh 2550 in ITA...would anyone build that?

AB

64534

Andy,

......I certainly would :023: Another benefit would be the bigger brakes ( which we so desperately need ) and the ability to get away from the stupid 4 X 110 bolt pattern that makes it so hard to get wheels for a good price without special ordering them.:angry: .

Banzai 240

.......Why move the first gen RX7 GSLSE from ITS to ITA you ask. Have you seen anyone driving one lately? Last one I saw was three years ago. And it was a back marker at best. And the driver was a good one. So I would say it was the car.

.......So why not give the RX7 a shot in the arm ( 13B with bigger brakes & 4 X 100 wheel bolt pattern ) instead of a Boat Anchor ( more weight on overworked brakes and narrower wheels)

Banzai240

11-03-2005, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 4 2005, 12:56 AM
.......So why not give the RX7 a shot in the arm ( 13B with bigger brakes & 4 X 100 wheel bolt pattern ) instead of a Boat Anchor ( more weight on overworked brakes and narrower wheels)

64576

Well... That's NOT what Improved Touring is, that's why... If you want to start that kind of "creating a model", then there are other classes that have openings for that kind of thing...

Look, the 13B version of the car isn't built for two reasons... 1) They are somewhat rare... and 2) it's classified in ITS at 2530lbs...

I would think the car in ITS with 180lbs weight break would be a much more attractive package than the same car in ITA at 2600lbs... Further, it would actually FIT the process at 2350lbs for ITS... i.e.: it SHOULD be competitive with the 240Z, 2nd Gen, etc...

Isn't THAT the goal???

Sorry guys, but we can't start making rule exceptions and mix/match components as you are suggesting... At least it's not part of the plan. I'm not sure you REALLY want us to go down THAT road, do you?? I doubt we'd get CRB or BoD support for that, because they've seen it all before... It's now called Production...

Ron

11-03-2005, 10:32 PM

Please stop it with the car is too heavy for the brakes. It won't have any pickup comming out of slow corners. Pick a car and start developing it. We worked on ours for three years to get where we are. I run a competitive ITB Mustang that will never make the minimum weight of 2640. We are at 2700 right now and I don't see how we will find the last 60 pounds. Have you seen the size of our brakes! It will stop just fine you just have to really work on proper brake ducts and pads for the front. Yes there are some tracks that have some very slow turns right before a long strait that hurt us (Road Atlanta), but there are others that the car just flows through the corners and brakes over heating are not a problem (Roebling Road). We are still playing with different rear end/ gear box/ tire size combos to find a little more pickup out of the corners. And on the capri, the 2 liter has always been in ITB, its the 2.6 and 2.8 V-6's that are in ITA. And I know, we ran all of those before we went to the Mustang three years ago.

Ron Sattele

Banzai240

11-04-2005, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Ron@Nov 4 2005, 02:32 AM
And on the capri, the 2 liter has always been in ITB, its the 2.6 and 2.8 V-6's that are in ITA. And I know, we ran all of those before we went to the Mustang three years ago.

64585

Ahhh.. yup, you are exactly right... Sorry about that... I was looking under "Ford" instead of "Mercury"...

Looking at the specs, these cars appear to be stuck in "Tweener" status as well... Too damn heavy a chassis to make minimum weight in ITA (well, the later ones anyhow), and would be too darn heavy to run in ITB (maybe...) And, the V6 versions would likely not be too welcome in ITB either... Kind of a tough call...

These are kind of "unknown" quantities from the ITAC perspective... Just not enough information to really make a qualified call on them.

As for the ITB Mustang... Yah, we've heard about that car... If it can't make the current minimum, then I suppose proposing a new, lower one would be a waste... AND, the car wouldn't be a very good fit in ITC...

In the end, there are GOING to be cars that simply don't fit that well... I'll have to sleep on that and see what I can come up with...

Hotshoe

11-04-2005, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Ron@Nov 4 2005, 02:32 AM
Please stop it with the car is too heavy for the brakes. It won't have any pickup comming out of slow corners. Pick a car and start developing it. We worked on ours for three years to get where we are.

Ron Sattele

64585

...I'm not quite sure what was said to warrant this comment. But I've been running the same car for over eight years. And it is very well developed.

...Stating that I have a problem with brakes is only showing that the design is sub standard. I'm not trying to be a whiner.

...Rick Thompson
...2000,01,02,04,05 SEDIV IT7 Champion

Spinnetti

11-28-2005, 09:47 PM

I think you kinda forgot the ITA Toyota Corolla GT-S.

Its #2210 first year, more after that as last I remember.. Not sure what weight it should be, but that weight was set with my car in 89' and there is no way I could imagine to go lighter than that (Panasports, hoosier bias ply, built clean from body in white etc.)

Only thing I'm torn about is running down a class and a bunch of extra weight.. run as is and at least enjoy the car, or have some chance to compete in a heavy pig?

Would be interesting... Essentially, the Corolla is less competetive than the MR2 (solid axle, narrower track, longer wb, higher roll centers and center of mass etc.) but I do think the Corolla is easier to drive. (have had 2 Corollas and 2 MR2s, just the Corolla left)

I think there's only a few left racing as they crashed out (3 that I know of), got tired of losing (most of the rest) and me, who wasn't having much fun falling back in the 'crash zone' (overly aggressive mid-packers) the last few years (and so gave it up the last 5 years)

Fuel to the fire....

RacerBill

11-29-2005, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Nov 3 2005, 02:57 PM
Darin-

I was shocked you mentioned the Capri in ITA, because that was one car I was going to suggest... We used to run one granted it was 12 years ago and technology has chnaged... but I really don't think it is feasable to make it competitive IMO. It would also be nice to see the good old Corvair back into it!!!

Raymond "Anyone remember when Micheal Reece drove an ITA Capri?" Blethen

64531

I knew there was somthing about you I liked, Ray. My first car was a 1965 Corvair Corsa (140HP, 4 speed, 4 single barrel carbs...). Look out, Mr. Nader!!!
Actually, if you read his book, Ralph liked the 65-69 Vairs (the ones with independent rear suspension). I would love to run one! Can't decide on color - BRG or Yenko Blue & White!!

Anyone know why only 68 & 69's are listed?

Back to the thread - For my two cents, I don't see anything wrong with two models of the same car classed in two classes (Dodge Charger - ITB, Dodge Shelby Charger - ITA for example) but would not like to see the same model in two different classes.

As far as changing weights resulting in a heavier cage, that's a tough one. ERW tubing is not permitted except on cars registered before 1/1/2003, so grandfathering has been permitted in the past. Like others on this forum, I would not like to see rules that are specific to certain cars. Maybe grandfathering an older cage if the change in the minimum weight was less than 500lbs (just an example!).

cherokee

11-29-2005, 05:38 PM

I see you have a couple of choices:

Toss a bunch of weight at the cars to make them fit in ITB, they will not be any fun then. Everyone will cry about being too heavy and bad on a thousand different reasons, All from a safety standpoint.

Put less weight in the cars and make them class killers in ITB. Only down side to this is you tick off the ITB guys, they all run old dinosaurs, they should have gotten new cars long ago. You can't run at the front forever.....unless you run a 7, oh and we will toss in the MR2 so it looks good.

If I happen to be the only guy running a Capri, Corvair, Fiero whatever or even thinking about building one then it should get the same treatment as the all popular 7.

On the other hand you say that cars need to be allowed to slowly fade away then why are we going to great lengths to save these cars. (oh there are so many 7's out there) We knew what we where doing when we built the things. You are not going to take away their abaility to race they just cant race at the front anymore. BTW I think that they can still win races, I did it in my MR2 so anybody can, you just have to be lucky and smooth...that's racing right.

What are you going to do when a part for that 20yr old car is getting too hard to find change the rules just for the 7.

Would this even be a topic if we where talking about Fiero's and not 7's or MR2's?
Nope.

Leave everything alone.

Duck and Cover :)

spnkzss

11-29-2005, 07:09 PM

1989-91 Honda Civic DX

All three are on the same chasis:
The 89-91 Standard is 70 HP in ITC at 2140lbs.
The 89-91 DX is 92 HP in ITA at 2225lbs.
The 89-91 Si is 110HP?? in ITA at 2175lbs.

Both the DX and Standard are Dual Point and the Si is Multipoint. The standard is 4 speed, the DX is 5-speed, and the Si is the exact same 5-Speed that is in the DX.

So how does the identical car (DX compared to Si) with 20+ HP less and 50lbs heavier try and compete in ITA? I think the 1989-91 Honda Civic DX belongs in ITB. I don't know how fast you could make the DX in ITB. It may not be a top runner. The HP, brakes, handling would be more fitted to ITB then ITA tho at probably ITC weight: 2140. I mean even the 89-91 CRX Si which has the same motor as the Si only weighs in at 2140 and that is definitly a front running ITA car.

In a nut shell:

1989-91 Honda Civic DX move to ITB at 2140 lbs.

Thanks

lateapex911

11-29-2005, 07:37 PM

If I happen to be the only guy running a Capri, Corvair, Fiero whatever or even thinking about building one then it should get the same treatment as the all popular 7.

............Regarding the RX-7 "treatment"...what treatment?!?! Right now, it's mired in ITA, putting down nearly 30 ft lbs less torque than the CRX, and about 75 less than the biggest torquer in the class.....while it's power is well down from the class leaders, and not quite on par with the CRX...and the CRX weighs 240 pounds less. 240!!! Thats a lot of cinder blocks they don't need to carry around! Better suspension, brakes and on and on... not sure what this "treament" you are referring to is, but as far as the 7 is concerned, it isn't favorable, thats for sure.

But you know what? It could fit the class better, AND so would the MR-2, the Capri, and a host of others, IF the performance parameters of the class are revised...

I reject the "You knew that when you built the car" philosophy, (AKA, the "tough nuts" philosophy) in this case, as the RX-7 and all of it's kind were classed long before the bar was raised with the unfortunate mistake...the CRX. Sorry to put it that way, but the CRX was a blunder, and the many of the ensuing cars have been added to keep ITA from being a one car class. But, in so doing, the class has been broken into two parts...the "haves" (CRX, et al) and the "have nots"..the rest of the cars.

If you are saying that even discussing it (the RX-7) is unfair because we aren't discussing other cars, like the Fiero, well, thats not quite fair either. The RX-7 has long been the "poster child" for the issues of class equity in IT. A car so mistreated, racers have left the fold to race amongst themselves by starting theri own class.

From the ITAC view though, the RX-7 gets no more attention than any other cer. I have phone records to show that I've spent over 9 hours ( over the course of only 2 calls) discussing nearly every car in the ITCS with the ITAC. Fieros were talked about, as were MR-2s, and Proteges and Jettas and Z-cars and Mustangs.

No car is getting better "treatment" than another...the results might not be perfect, with a dead heat of every car at the finish line at track, or even ideal from an empirical point, but given the constraints, each car will get the best shake at the front possible.

We can't control parts availability, reliability or other items, we may miss the exact target due to the inability to get the complete and total picture on every car, and we have hard issues such as existing cages, and conflicting information to deal with, but we are trying to look at the big picture, and each car gets the same attention..

lateapex911

11-29-2005, 07:47 PM

On the topic of multiple class listing for what are now one spec line cars, I have to say I do not favor it.

It's just too .....splintered. And of course, confusing, LOL. If we were a marque club, I could see it, but it's bad enough as it is. We have Golfs and Miatas and Hondas all over the place, and while there are substantial differences in their specs, many of them look identical to the even not so casual observer.

Ialso worry about adding yet another layer of complexity for the newcomer to wade through.

I submit that, if the performance parameters of each class were adjusted, that most cars would fall into a more favorable position, and multi classing a car wouldn't be needed.

Jake

11-29-2005, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 29 2005, 11:37 PM

Sorry to put it that way, but the CRX was a blunder, and the many of the ensuing cars have been added to keep ITA from being a one car class. But, in so doing, the class has been broken into two parts...the "haves" (CRX, et al) and the "have nots"..the rest of the cars.

66993

Now why again did we not create IT2? :bash_1_:
(I supose we still could)

Andy Bettencourt

11-29-2005, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Jake@Nov 29 2005, 06:13 PM
Now why again did we not create IT2? :bash_1_:
(I supose we still could)

66999

It's now called ITA. Besides, your RWD, mid-engined car wasn't part of the classification...

The classification of post-1990, four-cylinder, compact cars in the Sports Car Club of America® Improved Touring category (SCCA® IT) has left them generally uncompetitive. These cars range in manufacturer's quoted power from 120-150hp and are delivered with a stock curb weight between 2200 and 2800 pounds. They are all fitted with five-speed transmissions, front disc brakes, front wheel drive, and computer-controlled fuel injection systems.

Here is a list of the ITS cars that fit the IT2 initiative:

Acura Integra RS 94-97
Chrysler Neon SOHC 95-96
Chrysler Neon DOHC 95-96
Honda Civic Si 92-94
Nissan NX2000 90-92
Nissan Sentra SER 2.0 90-92
VW GTI 2.0 16v 90-92
VW Jetta GLI 2.0 16v 91
Honda Prelude 88-91

There all in ITA now...

AB

Knestis

11-29-2005, 09:13 PM

why again did we not create IT2?

"No need for an additional IT class at this time," or words to that effect.

K

spnkzss

11-29-2005, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by spnkzss@Nov 29 2005, 06:09 PM
1989-91 Honda Civic DX

All three are on the same chasis:
The 89-91 Standard is 70 HP in ITC at 2140lbs.
The 89-91 DX is 92 HP in ITA at 2225lbs.
The 89-91 Si is 110HP?? in ITA at 2175lbs.

Both the DX and Standard are Dual Point and the Si is Multipoint. The standard is 4 speed, the DX is 5-speed, and the Si is the exact same 5-Speed that is in the DX.

So how does the identical car (DX compared to Si) with 20+ HP less and 50lbs heavier try and compete in ITA? I think the 1989-91 Honda Civic DX belongs in ITB. I don't know how fast you could make the DX in ITB. It may not be a top runner. The HP, brakes, handling would be more fitted to ITB then ITA tho at probably ITC weight: 2140. I mean even the 89-91 CRX Si which has the same motor as the Si only weighs in at 2140 and that is definitly a front running ITA car.

In a nut shell:

1989-91 Honda Civic DX move to ITB at 2140 lbs.

Thanks

66990

I appologize. I went back and read the "tweeners" definition again. This car fits all of those stipulations minus that you can't take enough weight off to make it competitve where it is and can't add enough to make it competitive in the lower class.

Sorry for the space.

cherokee

11-29-2005, 10:21 PM

Let me lay my cards on the table here: I have an 85 ITA MR2 and a 72 ITB Opel GT.

From what has been said here it is ITA got it's self screwed over when newer Hondas where thrown into the mix....it all went down hill from there.

Just what do you think is going to happen when you toss an RX7 in ITB. A class where the cars running there have been there just as long as the 7 has been in ITA. I will answer it for you, you will upset the apple cart. Unless you put so much weight on it that it will be ok, then the 7 drivers will gripe about their car being too heavy...it has already started in this thread. But it seems from your statements that you don't care about the ITB you only care about the 7 and its drivers.

If what you said is true then every car under the performance of the Hondas should be moved to ITB. Does that sound like a good idea to anyone?

I tell you what, give the Hondas some weight or an air restrictor and slow them down, don't mess up ITB like ITA is messed up.

Either way I will come out ok. I will run the Opel in Prod starting in 07 and the MR2 in ITB, if that is the way it goes.

I just hate to see you mess up ITB just to keep one group of drivers happy, the RX7 drivers. I don't hear anything from anyone else execpt perhaps a squeek from the MR2 drivers. Last time I checked there where other old cars out in ITA other then these two makes.

Even if the only car that I drove was the MR2 I would not be infavor of putting it in ITB at a ton more weight. It would take all the fun out of running the car....turn it into a pig.

Just my two pennys worth. Take it for what you will.

Andy Bettencourt

11-29-2005, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by cherokee@Nov 29 2005, 08:21 PM
Let me lay my cards on the table here: I have an 85 ITA MR2 and a 72 ITB Opel GT.

From what has been said here it is ITA got it's self screwed over when newer Hondas where thrown into the mix....it all went down hill from there.

Just what do you think is going to happen when you toss an RX7 in ITB. A class where the cars running there have been there just as long as the 7 has been in ITA. I will answer it for you, you will upset the apple cart. Unless you put so much weight on it that it will be ok, then the 7 drivers will gripe about their car being too heavy...it has already started in this thread. But it seems from your statements that you don't care about the ITB you only care about the 7 and its drivers.

If what you said is true then every car under the performance of the Hondas should be moved to ITB. Does that sound like a good idea to anyone?

I tell you what, give the Hondas some weight or an air restrictor and slow them down, don't mess up ITB like ITA is messed up.

Either way I will come out ok. I will run the Opel in Prod starting in 07 and the MR2 in ITB, if that is the way it goes.

I just hate to see you mess up ITB just to keep one group of drivers happy, the RX7 drivers. I don't hear anything from anyone else execpt perhaps a squeek from the MR2 drivers. Last time I checked there where other old cars out in ITA other then these two makes.

Even if the only car that I drove was the MR2 I would not be infavor of putting it in ITB at a ton more weight. It would take all the fun out of running the car....turn it into a pig.

Just my two pennys worth. Take it for what you will.

67008

You are reading way to much into this. Might it be possible that there are more 'squeeks' from the 7 guys because there are HUNDREDS more of them?

The MR2 and RX-7 could be made to fit in ITB. As you have stated, they may have to weigh more than is acceptable for the drivers and the equipment. I think it can work but the possible ramifications to ITB may just outweigh the upside.

As you may have read here, there is also a strategic classification plan before the CRB that sends a huge amount of already classed cars through the process we use for new classifications. As you would expect, the class overdogs show they need some weight and the underdogs show they need a break. Hopefully, you will see a nice balancing of the classes that may eliminate the request for reclassifications.

AB

cherokee

11-29-2005, 11:29 PM

I will not start crying till I see the final results of your work....IF at all. I like to think I am open minded to see the bennifits to all.

I think that you guys will make the right decision. I do have faith in the ITAC. I have talked to one member (very briefly) and walked away very impressed. You guys take lots of heat and I know you are trying fix past wrongs.

I just want to say some things that you might not have thought of.

Jake

11-29-2005, 11:56 PM

Andy - you missed my point. I realize that IT2 is now ITA. But if Kirk got his way, every car that was not in the IT2 envelope would still be in ITA. (the tweeners etc.). Thus splitting ITA into 2 as Jake spoke of. The only tweak was to put the CRX and 240SX into IT2 - which are in the performance envelope as was noted on Kirk's site.

At the time, I didn’t support “IT2” because to me it was semantics – I like the idea of what has happened. Call (IT2+CRX+Miata+240 ) ITA. But the next step is to move just about everything else to ITB. The slugs in ITB then go to ITC.

I don't think that the CRX messed up ITA at all. It just propagated the performance of the class. In fact, I think ITA is VERY healthy right now with large fields and lots of choices. (thanks ITAC/CB!!) ITB is the one that needs help. Ancient Volvo’s and Opels are NOT what IT is about. Those are not easily available cars that are cheap to run. The can go to Historic.

For those who don’t want to upset the precious balance of ITB, that bus already left the station! Take a look at the 2005 ARRC results. The new ITA-ITB moves absolutely dominated. Volvo who?! Don’t get me wrong, this is a GOOD thing!!! The new cars are cheaper to get, run, build, and maintain. But there is no question that most of the “other” (non-IT2 envelope) ITA cars fit into the performance envelope of the newest ITA-ITB moves as well.

lateapex911

11-30-2005, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by cherokee@Nov 29 2005, 10:21 PM
Let me lay my cards on the table here: I have an 85 ITA MR2 and a 72 ITB Opel GT.

From what has been said here it is ITA got it's self screwed over when newer Hondas where thrown into the mix....it all went down hill from there.

Just what do you think is going to happen when you toss an RX7 in ITB. A class where the cars running there have been there just as long as the 7 has been in ITA. I will answer it for you, you will upset the apple cart. Unless you put so much weight on it that it will be ok, then the 7 drivers will gripe about their car being too heavy...it has already started in this thread. But it seems from your statements that you don't care about the ITB you only care about the 7 and its drivers.

I will remain calm......

Where does it say that the 7 goes to B??? Where did you infer that I don't care about ITB??
I used the 7, and noted my reasons, (it is a poster child for the "problem") as an example. I went on to say that I, and the other ITAC members have spent countless hours, working on a large scale strategic plan that runs buckets of cars through the process..I think I stated, -ad nasuem- that we want every car to have a chance, whenever that can be made to happen.

If what you said is true then every car under the performance of the Hondas should be moved to ITB. Does that sound like a good idea to anyone?

Again...you are leaping to conclusions....

I just hate to see you mess up ITB just to keep one group of drivers happy, the RX7 drivers. I don't hear anything from anyone else execpt perhaps a squeek from the MR2 drivers. Last time I checked there where other old cars out in ITA other then these two makes.

Should I go baqck and quote myself??? I said we look at buckets and buckets of cars, and I even named a few..like the Fiero...relax, you are preaching to the chior when it comes to old cars...nobody likes diversity more than me. I would give my eye teeth to see Jeff and his Triumph run head to head for the win with Chet and his E36. How cool would that be??? I love cars! All cars! I want the Corvair to come out and play...but pragmatically, I know thats not going to happen as those guys are all racing or tracking their cars in less dangerous manners. I wish it weren't so, and I lament that it might be because things like the Honda classification happened in the first place.

Even if the only car that I drove was the MR2 I would not be in favor of putting it in ITB at a ton more weight. It would take all the fun out of running the car....turn it into a pig.

Just my two pennys worth. Take it for what you will.

67008

Again....it's all about a process, and a big picture...if the CRB likes the idea, a lot of tweaking will happen to try to bring things into balance. That includes cars from ALL spectrums. Not everyone will be happy of course......

Repeat after me...

Jake likes ALL the classes
Jake wants everyone to have a fair chance if it is at all possible.
Jake doesn't want to upset any apple carts and make dogs out of previously good cars.
Jake wants the process to spit out cars of equal potential that, when prepped and driven well, can run for a win.

I think that you can say the same for all the guys on the ITAC.

Hotshoe

11-30-2005, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 30 2005, 03:06 AM

As you may have read here, there is also a strategic classification plan before the CRB that sends a huge amount of already classed cars through the process we use for new classifications. As you would expect, the class overdogs show they need some weight and the underdogs show they need a break. Hopefully, you will see a nice balancing of the classes that may eliminate the request for reclassifications.

AB

67010

Andy,

... I have one question about "adjustments". Where in the world did they come up with the driver weight being 180 lbs? Must have been in the Ethiopian Region :D

... Considering the average in this region I would think 200 lbs would be the standard. Can anything be done about this?

lateapex911

11-30-2005, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Jake@Nov 29 2005, 11:56 PM
I don't think that the CRX messed up ITA at all. It just propagated the performance of the class. In fact, I think ITA is VERY healthy right now with large fields and lots of choices. (thanks ITAC/CB!!) ITB is the one that needs help. Ancient Volvo’s and Opels are NOT what IT is about. Those are not easily available cars that are cheap to run. The can go to Historic.

I disagree....and rathre strongly. Sending them to historic is telling them to take their cars, their dollars, their personalities, the whole shebang and leave the club. I just don't think we NEED to do that. The problems just aren't that huge.

ITAs performance envelope increased dramtically with the inclusion of the CRX, and then was fortified with the addition of the 240SX and the Integra ....at that point in time, the rest of the class became also rans in the big picture. I also don't think that wsa required. The class could have kept it's balance if the cars were classed more appropriatley. Just think what ITA would be like if the cars you mentioned were running head to head with some of the "old guard"! Now THAT would be a HEALTHY class!

For those who don’t want to upset the precious balance of ITB, that bus already left the station! Take a look at the 2005 ARRC results. The new ITA-ITB moves absolutely dominated. Volvo who?! Don’t get me wrong, this is a GOOD thing!!! The new cars are cheaper to get, run, build, and maintain. But there is no question that most of the “other” (non-IT2 envelope) ITA cars fit into the performance envelope of the newest ITA-ITB moves as well.

67014

Be carefull! Don't let the results of ONE race fool you! Was ITB dramatically faster than it was when the Volvos were up front?? The other classes ran at or under track records, but ITB didn't.

As for the Volvos, don't leap to conclusions....you can't always trust what you see. One car doesn't tell the whole story. Sam Moore qualified slower than he has in the past. Why is that??? Well , thats a good question...we just don't know. And in the race, he (as I am SURE you know, LOL) ran afoul in an ambitious move and flattened his right front tire on a certain pal of ours fender and bumper, and was out of the race.

ITB showed an Accord in 1st and 3rd, Golfs well placed, and I bet there is an Audi or two that would have been mixing it up if it had shown, and a Prelude was in the mix as well...but nobody was seconds under the lap record.

cherokee

11-30-2005, 01:36 AM

If the old cars have set the standard of the class and no new cars will fit into that class, what do you do. You made a mistake in ITA and ITS. Fix it with restrictors or weight or put them in classes and expect overdogs. Just don't move the old top dog down just to keep the HUNDREDS of them happy THIS IS WHAT I OBJECT TO, not to NEW cars coming into IT.

Good night....I am tired.

I am glad that I have time to come back and particapate in these discussions.

tom_sprecher

11-30-2005, 02:22 AM

Rick,

... I have one question about "adjustments". Where in the world did they come up with the driver weight being 180 lbs? Must have been in the Ethiopian Region

... Considering the average in this region I would think 200 lbs would be the standard. Can anything be done about this?

Eat more salads! :lol: Seriously, back at CMP Memorial Day weekend after we ate those steaks and potatoes I was pushing maybe 210. Somehow, I'm down to 185 w/o really trying. One meal a day must be a salad w/vinegarette type dressing (no creamy bleu cheese), no sodas and when I would normally burp to make room for more food I quit eating. It took about 2 months but it worked.

I'll still be cooking steak at the track though :023:

Geo

11-30-2005, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 29 2005, 09:12 PM
Andy,

... I have one question about "adjustments". Where in the world did they come up with the driver weight being 180 lbs? Must have been in the Ethiopian Region :D

... Considering the average in this region I would think 200 lbs would be the standard. Can anything be done about this?

67017

Absolutely!!

Effective IMMEDIATELY, all cars classified at 2500 lbs total with a spec 180 lb driver will now be 2500 lbs total with a spec 200 lb driver (soaking wet). :D

All other weights will adjust in the same manner.

tnord

11-30-2005, 04:28 AM

the ITS 240sx comes to mind as another tweener in my opinion.

155 flywheel factory hp is not enough to keep up with the germans, but too much for the 110 flywheel factory hp stuff of ITA. maybe given a weight break it could be respectable. don't one of you ITAC guys run one??? what's your opinion?

i'd LOVE to try one of these things out, and would consider buying an already built one just for the hell of it. i had a 98 for 2 years, and wouldn't mind putting another one on the track if it had a chance in hell of winning.

of course, i don't really have a chance in hell of winning in SM either, but that's neither here nor there. :(

Jake

11-30-2005, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by lateapex911+Nov 30 2005, 04:19 AM-->
ITAs performance envelope increased dramtically with the inclusion of the CRX, and then was fortified with the addition of the 240SX and the Integra

67018
[/b]

And SER, and NX2000, and Maita, Civic Si, Prelude, etc. I still think ITA is doing great. Look at car counts. Why mess those cars up?

<!--QuoteBegin-lateapex911
Sam Moore qualified slower ....ITB showed an Accord in 1st and 3rd, Golfs well placed...

67018

Hmm... Accord, Golf, Prelude, - these are ALL recent additions to ITB. Sam Moore? Am I mistaken or was he the ONLY Volvo that even ran the race? You have to ask yourself - why weren't they even entering the championship race?

Knestis

11-30-2005, 10:51 AM

I seem to remember Chris Albin telling me that he still thinks the MkII Golf is faster than his new car. There's subtley different ways to interpret what that means - potential, before the new one is completely developed, etc. - but for what it's worth.

I STILL have a hard time believing that the MR2 and its cousins would be a problem in B.

K

gran racing

11-30-2005, 11:00 AM

You have to ask yourself - why weren't they even entering the championship race?

Good question but it is not because the car still is not competitive. Scott Carlson in the NER area – crazy fast driver and car. When I take a look at the entries before a race and see Volvos included, I think that’s one car to watch for. That was an ironic statement… :(
And in the race, he (as I am SURE you know, LOL) ran afoul in an ambitious move and flattened his right front tire on a certain pal of ours fender and bumper, and was out of the race.

There are many reasons why people don’t attend the “championship race”. Financial reasons (ouch!), distance, kids and wife (wink, wink Jake F.), time (it required me taking a week off of work and many hours to prepare for the event) or are simply content with staying local. Just because various cars do not show at the ARRC does not mean they are not doing well through out the nation. (This is not just directed towards Volvos.)

Hotshoe

11-30-2005, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by tom_sprecher@Nov 30 2005, 06:22 AM
I'll still be cooking steak at the track though :023:

67024

... Don't forget to invite me....

... I'll be the 6'4" bean pole :wacko:

Fastfred92

11-30-2005, 02:21 PM

914 2.0 to B
914 1.7 / 1.8 to C
99+ Miata to A w/ Current SM weight and plate
VW VR6 Golf / Jetta / Corrado to A with 100 lbs ( can't loose down to 2450 to be good in S )
A1 GTI to C with a few pounds
944 to A for Gods sake already

Just what comes to mind right now........

Bill Miller

11-30-2005, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Nov 30 2005, 02:21 PM
914 2.0 to B
914 1.7 / 1.8 to C
99+ Miata to A w/ Current SM weight and plate
VW VR6 Golf / Jetta / Corrado to A with 100 lbs ( can't loose down to 2450 to be good in S )
A1 GTI to C with a few pounds
944 to A for Gods sake already
Just what comes to mind right now........

67052

Sorry Fred, but I can't see a 172hp VR6 torque monster in ITA, especially @ 2550#. I'm guessing that the process would put it well North of 3000# in ITA.

But I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks the Rabbit GTI would fit in ITC w/ an extra 70# or so).

Fastfred92

11-30-2005, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 30 2005, 06:34 PM
Sorry Fred, but I can't see a 172hp VR6 torque monster in ITA, especially @ 2550#. I'm guessing that the process would put it well North of 3000# in ITA.

But I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks the Rabbit GTI would fit in ITC w/ an extra 70# or so).

67053

Bill, I was thinking of adding slightly to the current ITS weight of 2680 maybe between the SS weight of 2930. I make weight no problem in SS but the parts you can gut in IT may not get you much less than the 2680 or so for IT. This car needs to be around 2450 / 2500 in ITS ( IMHO ) so I dont see enough of a POSITIVE adjustment in S working.

Joe Harlan

11-30-2005, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Nov 30 2005, 02:21 PM
Bill, I was thinking of adding slightly to the current ITS weight of 2680 maybe between the SS weight of 2930. I make weight no problem in SS but the parts you can gut in IT may not get you much less than the 2680 or so for IT. This car needs to be around 2450 / 2500 in ITS ( IMHO ) so I dont see enough of a POSITIVE adjustment in S working.

67064

Your kidding right? 172 stock HP V/6? I think the Ad-hoc underestimates the ability of this engine to make power.

Bill Miller

11-30-2005, 08:23 PM

Joe,

While you'll certainly gain some w/ a good header/exhaust, and tweaking the computer, the big restriction on these motors is the ability to move air through the heads (i.e. cams). Regardless, they make boat loads of torque!!! Maybe our esteemed webmaster will chime in on this one.

Seriously though Fred, if the E46 323, which makes 170 hp, stock, comes in at 3000#, why would you think that a car that makes about the same power, albeit a FWD car, would be 500+# lighter? At 2680#, these cars are probably already light.

Joe Harlan

11-30-2005, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 30 2005, 05:23 PM
Joe,

While you'll certainly gain some w/ a good header/exhaust, and tweaking the computer, the big restriction on these motors is the ability to move air through the heads (i.e. cams). Regardless, they make boat loads of torque!!! Maybe our esteemed webmaster will chime in on this one.

Seriously though Fred, if the E46 323, which makes 170 hp, stock, comes in at 3000#, why would you think that a car that makes about the same power, albeit a FWD car, would be 500+# lighter? At 2680#, these cars are probably already light.

67075

ANy idea on the factory valve lift on this thing? Maybe duration if you know. I bet I could get 15 to 18 out of and exhaust without trying.

Andy Bettencourt

12-01-2005, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 30 2005, 06:23 PM

Seriously though Fred, if the E46 323, which makes 170 hp, stock, comes in at 3000#, why would you think that a car that makes about the same power, albeit a FWD car, would be 500+# lighter? At 2680#, these cars are probably already light.

67075

:happy204:

The problem is that most people compare their car in ITS against the E36. The VR6 cars are very well classified in ITS, if not light like Bill said. I will be very interested to see the Bilden Corrado at Pocono in 2006...

AB

jamsilvia

12-01-2005, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by tnord@Nov 30 2005, 03:28 AM
the ITS 240sx comes to mind as another tweener in my opinion.

155 flywheel factory hp is not enough to keep up with the germans, but too much for the 110 flywheel factory hp stuff of ITA. maybe given a weight break it could be respectable. don't one of you ITAC guys run one??? what's your opinion?

I pretty much agree. The 240's in ITA (SOHC motor) start off with 15 less crank HP (rated at 140 HP stock in ITA), but in many of the dyno charts I've seen of stock-ish SOHC, they make more torque than a similarily modified DOHC motor (the ITS cars).

However, the weights - even as they sit in the classes today, are off by a bit:
ITA weight: 2530
ITS weight: 2650

So the ITS cars start out with 15HP more, but get 120lbs more weight. That sounds almost like an equalizer itself....

joe

Tak

12-01-2005, 04:22 PM

The tweener issue is very big for me--I run an Rx-7 in ITA. I would like to respectfully remind the ITAC, comp board, and members that there are still many options consistent with old IT class rules to improve the competitive situation of cars.
First, limited preparation rules exist for the rotary engine, and have existed since it entered IT competition (example, no port matching--for good reason). If there is truly a consideration to move the Rx-7 to ITB, put a further limit on engine preparation. For example, I would MUCH rather run with a STOCK EXHAUST MANIFOLD than an additional 200 pounds. The cost of this change is minimal, and very effective at limiting power output. Bolting a stock exhaust manifold back onto ANY car is easy, and the exhaust setups have already been figured out in Showroom stock (remember, where IT cars used to come from!).
Another consideration should be an alternative carburator for ITA and ITS. The alternate carburator already allowed (webber 32/36 DGV) worked as a great equilizer in ITC and ITB for many years. Think about that. A weber DCOE or equivelent (or fuel injected equivelent) would be a boon to rotaries and any pre OBD-II fuel injected car (1996 model year?). The power producing ability of engines with this carburation and various venturies is well understood from production. This induction change would help the MR2, Rx-7, Capri, older GTI's, miata's etc. In my particular case, buying a carb, manifold, and a bunch of jets is still cheaper than buying 3 sets of 6" wheels...I don't think it would put me on par with the Honda's, but it's help!

Both of these paths are already consistent with IT rules. They are inexpensive. They are not required for anyone who is happy running their car as is...

Think about it!

Tak
#29 ITA, SFR

Matt Rowe

12-01-2005, 05:38 PM

Tak, :happy204:

While I'm sure there are some that would be very wary of any kind of spec line "allowances" there is something to be said for some broader class specifics. For example the idea of increasing the allowed alternate carb size for those unlucky bastards with uncompetitive cars in ITS/ITA sounds like it has some potential. A couple mm bigger might put some ITA cars back on the same level as the newer front running generation (CRX, Integra, 240, etc) without having to make major weight, suspension modifications. I hate to say it but dyno tuning is easier and cheaper to accomplish than suspension tuning, unless someone has some free time to offer on a shaker rig? Of course how many cars will this fix in ITA and ITS, not all certainly but it does sound better than adding weight to a car to make it slower and spending money on wheels. And yes I realize this is somewhat self serving, but notice I did say a change to carb size across the board for the class, not just model by model changes.

Andy Bettencourt

12-01-2005, 06:17 PM

Tak and Matt...

While there is validity to your ideas, you are swimming in Prod-style adjustments here. I for one am against this detailed of an allowance. The letters would start pouring in...

We have put forth a proposal that will change the landscape of ITA slightly. Imagine a car like yours that gets a weight break and a few cars at the 'top' of ITA that get added weight. The net could be as much as a couple hundred pounds in your favor...all of this using the classification formula that was used in moving the Neon, SE-R, 16V 2.0l Golf, etc.

AB

Matt Rowe

12-01-2005, 06:35 PM

Andy,

I'm certainly sensitive to anything that brings on adjustments like the prod community has. I also follow that discussion group and . . . well let's just say adjustments are not their most attractive selling point. The interesting thing about allowing larger carb sizes for all ITA and ITS cars is the performance levels of those two classes have already grown thanks to the inclusion of cars like the CRX, Integra, etc in ITA and the E36 in ITS. This growth in performance was not paced by an increase in allowed carb size or a decrease in weight for previously classed cars, hence the imbalance in the classes. Sure weight is one way to go and I'm trying to patiently wait for the CRB and BOD to come to some decision about the proposal in front of them. Until then I'm holding off on any letter writing but the carb change might still be reasonable method, particularly for cars that would have difficulty meeting a target weight.

Joe Harlan

12-01-2005, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 1 2005, 03:17 PM
Tak and Matt...

While there is validity to your ideas, you are swimming in Prod-style adjustments here. I for one am against this detailed of an allowance. The letters would start pouring in...

AB

67141

And that is why I am glad to have you on that group.

lateapex911

12-01-2005, 11:18 PM

years ago, we were typing back and forth about the issues with IT, and the idea of a little weight adding and subtracting came up, in the form of performance potential adjustments.

It met with a LOT of flak, and the number 1 reaction from those against the idea was "Arrrgggg...sounds like Prod to me! Yeccch!"

Well, I submitted a very detailed plan that had limitations of how much, and how often weight could be added, under what conditions, and based it on the use of a formula of sorts. Again, mixed reaction, but there were some converts, who liked the idea of stability and an across the board fairness that would be applied.

IT has, as one of it's four cornerstones, stability.

I think what we have now, the PCA sytem, is similar, but with less restrictions actually, and support for it is at an all time high. But it is a very structured process, and is applied evenly across the board.

I see how the concept of alternate carbs has merit, but....

I really don't think we should get into that type of tinkering. Some cars will benefit, others will not, and some could benefit massively.

It opens a Pandoras box of sorts, and once opened, it would be impossible to close.

Lets hope the CRB sees the merit of "the proposal", LOL.

Matt Rowe

12-01-2005, 11:45 PM

I didn't know you had the market on "devil's advocate" cornered. :D

Honestly I wouldn't even have considered the carb issue if it wasn't for the fact that the performance envelopes of ITS and ITA have definitely increased while the the approved list of carbs was never modified to allow those vehicles to increase potential power output. It would be like throwing the brand new miata in SM and leaving the current restrictors in place on the 1.8 motors. Now if you think that rebalancing can be with only weight adjustments than that would be fine and certainly more predictable than monkeying with induction/fuel.

Again, it's just a curiousity thing while we wait for the proposal to be reviewed.

Banzai240

12-02-2005, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Nov 30 2005, 09:21 PM
This car needs to be around 2450 / 2500 in ITS ( IMHO ) so I dont see enough of a POSITIVE adjustment in S working.

67064

With all due respect... 172 STOCK HP... :blink: When I run the numbers, this car is about 100lbs too light...

I think you'd better be happy with what you have...

Banzai240

12-02-2005, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by jamsilvia@Dec 1 2005, 02:38 PM
I pretty much agree. The 240's in ITA (SOHC motor) start off with 15 less crank HP (rated at 140 HP stock in ITA), but in many of the dyno charts I've seen of stock-ish SOHC, they make more torque than a similarily modified DOHC motor (the ITS cars).

However, the weights - even as they sit in the classes today, are off by a bit:
ITA weight: 2530
ITS weight: 2650

So the ITS cars start out with 15HP more, but get 120lbs more weight. That sounds almost like an equalizer itself....

joe

67102

The issue with the '95-'98 240SX, however, is that it's going to be a FULL development program just to get to the currently classified weight... I think it could be done, but you'd be sacrificing the 5-lug rotors and ABS brake calipers, 16" wheels, etc., in order to do it... (you'd use the 4-lug stuff... available in 95-95 on the standard model...)

Mine crosses the scales at 2750lbs with about 2 gallons in the stock tank... There is still some weight to remove, via installing a fuel cell, and I may be able to get a few more pounds off in other places (I still have the 5-lug rotors, 16" wheels, etc...). I think if I ripped and replaced the cage I could save another 20lbs or so, and the driver could CERTAINLY lose 20lbs...

I don't disagree, however... I think the 240SX could be made to fit in ITA without much trouble... Running the numbers, it would need to weigh about 2800lbs in that class...

May sound like a lot, but I've raced mine at that weight for years, and it's just fine... In fact... I usually run what amounts to a fast ITA time... <_<

BUT... with the ITAC's proposal for IT, I think these 155+ hp cars will start looking a little better in ITS, and it will be less of a fit in ITA... if they are approved and acted upon... because they essentially narrow the performance envelopes for each of these classes...

Stay tuned... the CRB is meeting this weekend...

Joe Harlan

12-02-2005, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 2 2005, 08:55 AM
The issue with the '95-'98 240SX, however, is that it's going to be a FULL development program just to get to the currently classified weight... I think it could be done, but you'd be sacrificing the 5-lug rotors and ABS brake calipers, 16" wheels, etc., in order to do it... (you'd use the 4-lug stuff... available in 95-95 on the standard model...)

Mine crosses the scales at 2750lbs with about 2 gallons in the stock tank... There is still some weight to remove, via installing a fuel cell, and I may be able to get a few more pounds off in other places (I still have the 5-lug rotors, 16" wheels, etc...). I think if I ripped and replaced the cage I could save another 20lbs or so, and the driver could CERTAINLY lose 20lbs...

I don't disagree, however... I think the 240SX could be made to fit in ITA without much trouble... Running the numbers, it would need to weigh about 2800lbs in that class...

May sound like a lot, but I've raced mine at that weight for years, and it's just fine... In fact... I usually run what amounts to a fast ITA time... <_<

BUT... with the ITAC's proposal for IT, I think these 155+ hp cars will start looking a little better in ITS, and it will be less of a fit in ITA... if they are approved and acted upon... because they essentially narrow the performance envelopes for each of these classes...

Stay tuned... the CRB is meeting this weekend...

67199

Well I am planning on driving your ( my turn to break your stuff for a change) car enough next year to prove the car can be a decent ITS car if the adhoc plan makes it thru the CRB. I really think folks need to cool their jets until this plan gets approved or not. I don't know the full scope of you all's plan but what I have seen here looks good. If it doesn't I would like to see others push to get it back on the table.

Tak

12-02-2005, 04:39 PM

Thanks all for the comments on alternate carbs.
My understanding of the current alternate carb rule (Webber 32/36 DGV) is that it was implemented for vehicles that had unruly carburators or fuel injection systems. Note that in it's current trim, there is only one alternate carburator configuration. To the best of my limited knowledge, the 32/36 DGV does not flow enough air to get much over 110 - 130 HP--not enough for ITA or ITS applications. I have seen it used successfully on everything from a 1.4 liter ITD corola to a 2.4 liter ITB fire arrow... All I am proposing is an alternate carburator specification (just 1 or 2) that supports an air flow more appropriate for an ITA or ITS car (150-200 HP--I'm not really sure what the proper range should be). Since there is a pretty sizeable power and displacement overlap between A and S, I don't know if 1 spec will fit all, or if it should be 1 spec for A, a second spec for S...
I truly believe that a modestly tunable FI system will always outperform a hightly tunable carburator system. Cars where the FI system can be successfully modified "inside stock computer housing" will be. All the others MAY benefit from an alternative carb. The cars that would benefit from this type of rule is anything that runs BOSCH K, KE, or L jetronic style fuel injection or an electronically controlled carb. I believe that is any pre 96 car.
And yes, I fully agree that trying to tune for each car is too much like production.

I also didn't see any comments about requiring stock exhaust manifolds on class downgrades / overdogs...Thoughts?

Tak

Knestis

12-03-2005, 10:06 AM

The alternate carb rule was initiated as a break for one car (the Pinto, I think?), but someone squawked and it was made available to all cars with one carb. I used to know the whole story but that was a long time ago in a region far, far away. What's being discussed here is something a huge step beyond what is currently on the books - allowing FI cars to install a carb. Again, my memory is failing but I seem to remember that this was allowed, then discontinued, or perhaps there was conversation about making the swap acceptable?? I remember all kinds of niggling about adapter plates, how thick they could be, what they could be made of, what to do with vacuum lines and air ports, "all air must enter through the carb," whether it was OK to use a European manifold, and a bunch of other related issues...

I get very nervous when we start talking about alternate ANYTHING. In fact, I'd be all for going back through the ITCS and closing out some of those loopholes. It's a very slippery slope, once the genie is out of the bottle, and hard to close the barn door. You get my drift.

We are SO close to the edge of Competition Adjustments (blech) with just the weight variable in play. Picture what could happen if alternate carbs were on the table too, and a few key ITAC people got tired of the extra workload and were replaced. All of a sudden, if you are running the same kind of car as whatever SPEED Touring poacher shows up at the ARRC, you get lead for the holidays.

No thanks.

The problems that we have right now are so minor compared to that silliness, that it's best to use the tools available to get things as close as they allow, and be glad that we're neither stuck with the old status quo, nor getting adjusted left and right.

K

Matt Rowe

12-03-2005, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 3 2005, 09:06 AM
What's being discussed here is something a huge step beyond what is currently on the books - allowing FI cars to install a carb.
67254

That's definitely not what I was talking about. I was only suggesting making a higher flowing alternate carb for ITA and ITS for cars that already can make use of the alternate carb allowance. I definitely don't see the point to allowing carbs to be fitted to FI. Basically the only rule change I was considering simply adding a suitable additional carb listing to 17.1.4.D.1.a.5.

Think of this along the same lines as the wheel rule ITB&C are limited to 6" ITS and ITA are limited to 7". But for some reason we are all stuck with the same alternate carb listings?