What cars as time goes on?

[JimLill]

Surely as time goes on, the 20 year+ cars will fade and newer models will replace them as the weapon of choice. Guys like me give the oldies a new life when we buy a turnkey racer and refurb it, but at some point the 142, 2002 and A2 in ITB will fade. Bildon has moved forward with the Corrado in ITS, does anybody have any thoughts as to what else will become the next big thing?

[gran racing]

The Golf III in ITB. It is classed very nicely weight-wise, and a good overall car. :angry:

ITA will be interesting. I'm not aware of any fully built Neons, but that would be an interesting car. The Miata has already shown what it can do in ITA. I also think the newer gen. MR2 would be an excellent car.

[joeg]

Jim--Look at the new Beetle. It is classified in C.

[JimLill]

any thoughts on the ZX3 in ITA?

[flaboy]

I was thinking the same thing about the new Beatle.

I think it will be a great car.Have actually given thought on builing one.
Problem is the car is very pricey right now.

[dropkick317]

I think the ZX3 would be a good car, but I think the ZX2 would be a better choice. Imo I think the ZX3 has alot of high weight, the ZX2 is a little sleeker and shares the same engine. The other issue is the suspension, if someone can get them to corner I think it would be a front runner.

[JimLill]

there is the SVT Focus that might be a source of suspension bits... also perhaps the euro versions

[Z3_GoCar]

Surely as time goes on, the 20 year+ cars will fade and newer models will replace them as the weapon of choice. Guys like me give the oldies a new life when we buy a turnkey racer and refurb it, but at some point the 142, 2002 and A2 in ITB will fade. Bildon has moved forward with the Corrado in ITS, does anybody have any thoughts as to what else will become the next big thing?
[/b]

Although it exceeds the performance limits of 'R and interesting car in the next few years would be the Eliese. Maybe what we should do is reform ITD and put the 'C cars there, then move all the classes down one notch to make room for cars like the Eliese at the top.

James

[JoshS]

Although it exceeds the performance limits of 'R and interesting car in the next few years would be the Eliese. Maybe what we should do is reform ITD and put the 'C cars there, then move all the classes down one notch to make room for cars like the Eliese at the top.
[/b]
The problem with that (moving cars down a slot) is that you screw up track records. The year you move faster cars down a slot, you will eradicate all of the old track records, which isn't really fair to those record holders.

The T1-T3 classes are going through this realization right now as they face being moved down next year to slot faster cars into T1.

There should be a better way. What SHOULD have happened was that back when IT was formed, ITA should have consisted of the slowest cars, and ITD should have been the fastest ones. Then as time goes on and cars get faster, new classes could have been added (ITE, ITF, etc) that worked in the same progression.

[lateapex911]

Although it exceeds the performance limits of 'R and interesting car in the next few years would be the Eliese. Maybe what we should do is reform ITD and put the 'C cars there, then move all the classes down one notch to make room for cars like the Eliese at the top.

James
[/b]

na, we can just come up with a class called ITZ or whatever if the need arises for a class faster than ITR.

Lets get ITR rolling first, and see how it does.

[JimLill]

Can't the class system be "rescued"....

ITA thru ITC as we know it

ITD reserved for Diesel


ITR through ITS as we know it, faster cars if added to be upwards, ITP etc.

Reserve ITT-ITZ for "local" classes, making ITE as we know it ITU with expansion in each direction as-required

Lock it or something similar in now

[Z3_GoCar]

Sorry to stir up such a storm, just thought the Eliese would make a class killer car as in any class it'd be in it'd kill it. Maybe we need a Spec-Eliese class :D

Some more cars for the future that I'd love to drive would be the Z4 coupe and the Solstice. The Coupe would be a heavy 'R car, while the Solstice would either be a light 'S or a heavy 'A depending on how much weigh would come out and how much more hp get out of the motor. I'd love it as a light 'S car.

On a sad note, BMW won&#39;t have a factory supported race team on this side of the Atlantic next season :( It seems the minimum requirement is a compact car with a 5.0 liter V8. A 3.2 liter straight six just doesn&#39;t cut it any longer <_<

James

[Dave Zaslow]

I think it will be hard to find new C cars. B cars may have some options:

Chevy Aveo and brethren;

Toyota Yaris;

even a Honda might Fit.

Another observation, is the 5 year rule still relevant? Is IT still the pasture for all of those old SS cars?

Dave Z

[JimLill]

Regardless of class or marque, I&#39;d think the only cars that would catch on would be ones that there are aftermarket suspension bits and other within-the-rules parts for.

[Knestis]

THIS could be a long conversation, since it bears on "what we think IT should be," and ideas are going to reflect a variety of priorities, I think...

There are a lot of cars between 5 and 10 years old that slot into existing classes and with the PCA not-quite-a-formula in place, there&#39;s a better chance than in the past 20 years to get them close to right when they are first listed. Problem is that interest seems to get focused on newer/zoomier if the market is left to function of its own devices.

Greg A. and I were talking about the "olden days" when a MkI GTI was a competitive ITA car and the first-generation RX7 was in ITS. A lot has changed but again, we have an opportunity to keep the lid on creep while allowing new cars into the game.

I strongly believe that we should proactively class some cars that look like they meet the profile of a successful IT candidate, rather than waiting until a member requests listing. Focus on building ITC and ITB options, since they are naturally more affordable and good entry points into the game.

ITR is going to be a useful addition but it&#39;s also going to contribute to the gentrification of Improved Touring. I was marveling at the number of toterhomes and semi rigs at the VIR 13, laughing out loud about the amount of dough getting spent to go club racing. We have GOT to do some things to make room for real people to play our game and the two slowest IT classes would be perfect for that, but a "they will come, then we&#39;ll build it" approach to classing is NOT eliminating a barrier to entry.

K

EDIT - Dave Z&#39;s question about the 5-year rule is a good one. It deserves a rethink, particularly if there&#39;s a move to allow IT to qualify for the Rub-Offs based on participation numbers...

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, that is a good point about being proactive with ITC and B to "save" the classes and attract low cost entries. ITR addressed the issue that was keeping faster cars otu of IT, now how about we do the same with the "slower" ones?

I would be willing to work with you to come up with a list of Kias, Hyundais, Nissans, Toyotas, VWs, etc. of more recent vintage that would fit in B and C. You want to take a stab at that with me?

[gran racing]

I totally agree that we should be more proactive and get some new cars classed into ITC & B, and would also be willing to help with this.

Dave

[Knestis]

We actually brainstormed lists in a couple of discussions in the past year or so here. What needs to happen is for people to actually submit the requests through channels, I think since it&#39;s not likely that the system is going to take to a strategic kind of approach.

How about we start a clearinghouse of sorts in another thread, where individuals can "sponsor" a new B or C car, adopt it as a case, gather/share specs, and submit the paper?

K

EDIT - or maybe I&#39;m wrong. ITAC peeps - is there room for submission of a table of ITCS data for currently unlisted B and C cars, for addition to the book?

[tnord]

once again, kirk is right. i think that&#39;s a great idea.

[lateapex911]

Sure, Kirk, I don&#39;t see why not. Lately we&#39;ve had some big fish to fry on the ITAC calls, I know it sounds silly, but some calls have been over 5 hours. And we&#39;re going over the ECU thing now, not a simple matter that! So, things like adding cars hasn&#39;t been on the front burner. I think it IS a good idea though, but I&#39;m not sure if we&#39;ll see a big turnout just because they are listed.

But that doesn&#39;t really matter, as long as we build a framework, the opportunity will exist for people to race the cars. If they don&#39;t, at least we know it&#39;s not because they didn&#39;t know that they could, LOL.

The issue with classing the cars is really one of accurate information. If the cars can be presented with a good set of specs, and those specs can be backed up easily, it&#39;s no big deal. The slowdown occurs when it gets tabled for more research because of missing info, or controversial info.

[JimLill]

Did you know that per the 2006 GCR listing, there are 312 different spec lines amongst the IT classes?

I put together a simple data base, it&#39;d be great if we could do a census of which of those are active. IMO, that&#39;d be a start at understanding where we might need to be proactive.

get a copy at http://www.vectorbd.com/users/jpl/it-spec.xls

One potential source of census date-> http://www.scca.com/garage/forum/forum_top...asp?FID=82&PN=1 (http://www.scca.com/garage/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=82&PN=1)

[JimLill]

relative to the 5 year or just newer cars.... one thing that will surely be an issue is the integration of non-engine related controls into the ECU or other module. After awhile, my fear would be any removal of the whiz-bang stuff, means no more proper running. Limp-home and failsafes taking over.

[pfcs49]

Kirk, Jeff, Daves:
I can&#39;t BELIEVE I&#39;m saying this:!! How about restricted prep/new B&C cars. How about making these cars so much more economical and sensible by eliminating most engine prep: stock exhaust manifolds, no internal mods?? Why make competitors go to so much trouble to find 10-15% more power-give it to them at the start.
One problem finding new B&C elgible vehicles is that newer cars all seem to be more powerful-this would tend to counter this disadvantage in finding cars to class, and would serve to keep B&C an economical, grass roots class like (I believe) it&#39;s supposed to be. And yes, with these preparation constraints, there would be no need for any change to engine management rules for restricted cars, another free bonus. (and if you crammed a Motec into your box, it would be a profound waste of money) Back to Basics! Phil Hunt I SURE MISS THE OLD DAYS TOO

[Racy-Stacey]

I hope to have a replacing option with the 90 Probe GL. But from what I&#39;ve experienced so far is the little rabbits are still faster. Now I thought given a drag race in 1990 my car vs the little rabbit, my car would blow the doors off the little rabbit. Not so on course today 2006. Maybe its the .5 increase that is allowed to the bottom end compression thats allowing them to walk away from me. Or maybe its something else. Maybe i&#39;ll still too heavy of a car in the power to weight ratio war. But the object of racing is options, not we all drive the same car because its the only one that has the best PtoW ratio. Like they do in solo. All the front runners of a given class run the same car. Why? because they figured out that car is the best for that class.

Someone mentioned the track records. Now I have to chim in on track records. If they were set by cars that ran 100% legal then I could see how important they are. But lets face it. If you ever get a chance to look at the results at races. You&#39;ll see ITB cars smoking the ITC cars and in most cases beating the times of ITA cars. ITA cars smoking the times of some ITS cars. Track records are ofter 5 sec a lap faster than anyone else could ever hope to get without doing something... shall I say illegal. In true legal form there should be a real tangable time difference between classes of cars. ITB cars if they are in the correct class should not be running for ITA win, etc.

Back in the day or maybe even not then either, a track record might have really ment something. But now its just a joke to me. Its a person with a crazy car creating a very unattainable bench mark for everyone else to try and meet. A true track record would have cars within one sec to 1.5 of all the other seasoned drivers driving the same type of car.

I&#39;ll step down now.. :lol:

[shwah]

Assuming equally driven and prepped cars in all classes your point would be valid. However that is simply not the case. As much as we all want to beleive that we are excellent race drivers, very few of our colleagues are. Those are the guys that will take a legal, well prepped car and run seconds faster than everyone else on that one race weekend with great conditions.

Sure there are illegal cars out there, but I beleive there are just as many slow ones as fast ones, just like the legal cars.

[Gary L]

Stacey - While there may the the odd record or two that was set way back when, by someone driving a car that was illegal, IMO you&#39;re just plain dead wrong in most cases. I believe that at most tracks, the IT lap records are fairly representative of a legal, state-of-the-art car, driven by an above-average driver.

[JoshS]

relative to the 5 year or just newer cars.... one thing that will surely be an issue is the integration of non-engine related controls into the ECU or other module. After awhile, my fear would be any removal of the whiz-bang stuff, means no more proper running. Limp-home and failsafes taking over.
[/b]
Yes. The rules should strive to avoid forcing owners to disable stock equipment, for exactly this reason.

Case in point: disabling ABS or traction control by disabling wheel speed sensors can cause cars to go into limp mode. There may be other ways to disable these systems that don&#39;t cause issues.

Also, removing catalytic converters can cause cars to go into limp mode too, if they have both pre-cat and post-cat O2 sensors, as mine does.

The difference here is that the rules require disabling ABS/TC, but don&#39;t require removing cats. I therefore don&#39;t have a problem with the cat rules, but I do have a problem with the ABS/TC rules. If the rules must require disabling these systems, it should allow for more than one disabling method.

I&#39;ve actually drafted a letter already on this point, but before I sent it I need to confirm that removing wheel speed sensors actually causes a problem on my car. The internet world tells me it does, but I don&#39;t want to bitch and moan about it too loudly until I prove it to myself.

[RSTPerformance]

Kirk, Jeff, Daves:
I can&#39;t BELIEVE I&#39;m saying this:!! How about restricted prep/new B&C cars. How about making these cars so much more economical and sensible by eliminating most engine prep: stock exhaust manifolds, no internal mods?? Why make competitors go to so much trouble to find 10-15% more power-give it to them at the start.
One problem finding new B&C elgible vehicles is that newer cars all seem to be more powerful-this would tend to counter this disadvantage in finding cars to class, and would serve to keep B&C an economical, grass roots class like (I believe) it&#39;s supposed to be. And yes, with these preparation constraints, there would be no need for any change to engine management rules for restricted cars, another free bonus. (and if you crammed a Motec into your box, it would be a profound waste of money) Back to Basics! Phil Hunt I SURE MISS THE OLD DAYS TOO
[/b]


Interesting idea... I like it and support it :)

Stacy-

I have to agree with others on this one... In our neck of the woods every track record is atainable by a legal car. That isn&#39;t to say that I think a legal car has every track record, it just means that every track record is atainable with the current classed cars at current rules. The right driver in the right car just needs to be at the track on the right day. I have run every track in the Northeast as well as at the ARRC within .5 seconds of the ITB track record, and my car certainly could have more if I had more $$$ and more time. I have also run all the same tracks with the same car in the same condition and been 1.5 seconds off the track record, and wondered how the heck did I ever go that fast??? With all that I do think that track records are as much as an achievement if not more as victories (class wins) as they are a longer term goal worth fighting for.

Raymond "Pocono track record holder in ITB for 4 hours till my brother whipped my..." Blethen

[pfcs49]

Re: limp mode
I don&#39;t know of any European management system that goes into limp mode when rear oxygen or vehicle speed sensors are disabled Phil

[JoshS]

Re: limp mode
I don&#39;t know of any European management system that goes into limp mode when rear oxygen or vehicle speed sensors are disabled Phil
[/b]
I will endeavor to prove or disprove this weekend. I hope you&#39;re right, but the experts tell me otherwise.

If it does cause a problem, my letter will ask for an exception on the spec line allowing alternate ways to disable these systems as opposed to a wholesale change to the IT rules, because I think that&#39;s a more realistic request. My goal is to get this car on the track without a custom ECU.

[shwah]

Since the O2 sensors are looking for readings within a certain range, otherwise the system throws codes, goes into limp or whatever, it would seem possible to simulate a &#39;normal&#39; response with resistors or other simple methods.

[Z3_GoCar]

I will endeavor to prove or disprove this weekend. I hope you&#39;re right, but the experts tell me otherwise.

If it does cause a problem, my letter will ask for an exception on the spec line allowing alternate ways to disable these systems as opposed to a wholesale change to the IT rules, because I think that&#39;s a more realistic request. My goal is to get this car on the track without a custom ECU.
[/b]

Josh,

Search the BMW section for Noem&#39;s experience on the subject. I think you&#39;ll find it interesting that he had the issues he did. The best way to disable the ABS system is to remove the ABS relay and the power to the ABS pump. This is allowed as the all parts of the ABS system may be removed. The issue with traction control is that the intake track is open so the auxillery throttle butterfly that cuts air down is also legally removable. The real problem comes when you start dealing with the differential braking system, ASC+T... Now that I&#39;m not yet certain how to deal with.

James

[Z3_GoCar]

......

If you ever get a chance to look at the results at races. You&#39;ll see ITB cars smoking the ITC cars and in most cases beating the times of ITA cars. ITA cars smoking the times of some ITS cars. Track records are ofter 5 sec a lap faster than anyone else could ever hope to get without doing something... shall I say illegal. In true legal form there should be a real tangable time difference between classes of cars. ITB cars if they are in the correct class should not be running for ITA win, etc.

Back in the day or maybe even not then either, a track record might have really ment something. But now its just a joke to me. Its a person with a crazy car creating a very unattainable bench mark for everyone else to try and meet. A true track record would have cars within one sec to 1.5 of all the other seasoned drivers driving the same type of car.

I&#39;ll step down now.. :lol:
[/b]

Hey Stacey,

I agree with your frustration. I ran what I "thought" were good lap times at Wilow Springs. Maybe it&#39;s the complete lack of aero on my open top roadster, but I was still out side the ITB track record set there. BTW, the ITB record holder at Willow Springs is my friend Kevin Macdonald in his 2002, the same car I drove in my drivers school. I was able to run well with an E-prod 240ZX, but the Radial Sedan guy&#39;s ran off and left me behind, what when my car should have been leaving &#39;S cars behind. In the end seat time and driving skills are very important to making good times. Good luck with getting ready for next season.

James

[JoshS]

Search the BMW section for Noem&#39;s experience on the subject. I think you&#39;ll find it interesting that he had the issues he did. The best way to disable the ABS system is to remove the ABS relay and the power to the ABS pump. This is allowed as the all parts of the ABS system may be removed. The issue with traction control is that the intake track is open so the auxillery throttle butterfly that cuts air down is also legally removable. The real problem comes when you start dealing with the differential braking system, ASC+T... Now that I&#39;m not yet certain how to deal with.
[/b]
My car has newer programming than the other BMWs racing in IT right now (MS42.1). That also means that it has a different throttle, the motor-driven one. Instead of having a separate throttle butterfly like the earlier cars, all of that function is contained within the main throttle body on mine. But disconnecting some cables on the throttle body would probably take care of that, unless some diagnostic cycle also sends things into limp mode on that. Frankly I think the best approach is to pull a fuse.

I know that the argument against this concept of a special allowance would be that the GCR-prescribed method is a visual guarantee that there are no such systems enabled. But how is one to know that if the wheel speed sensors are still connected, that I don&#39;t really have some sort of software-based traction control that operates on the still-connected ignition system in there? I don&#39;t know how to address that concern, to be honest, except that I have heard cars with those systems and I think the exhaust note is a huge telltale -- they sound like they are missing, badly, when the system is "engaged."

But anyway, about the differential braking system: disabling the ABS in any fashion will also disable the differential braking system, because that system requires the ABS system to activate the rear brakes.

[Racy-Stacey]

I hope you all understand that these are just my ramblings of someone new to the sport and just an overview of what I&#39;ve seen. I&#39;m just blowing off some fustration i guess. sorry all.

-Stacey

[pfcs49]

Since the O2 sensors are looking for readings within a certain range, otherwise the system throws codes, goes into limp or whatever, it would seem possible to simulate a &#39;normal&#39; response with resistors or other simple methods.
[/b]
With no frt oxs signal, the system just reverts to it&#39;s programmed (mapped) fuel curves; And at full throttle, it would ignore the front sensor anyway, following it&#39;s full load map.
The only function of the rear sensor is to monitor catalytic convertor efficiency and post a code for that.
Simulating a signal serves no practical purpose excepting to keep the check engine light out, and creates nothing but liabilities (feed the wrong signal to the ECM for frt oxs and melt your pistons/run like bag of hooey)

[shwah]

I was referring to the comments stating that they don&#39;t think newer cars will run right without cats and 2 O2 sensors. Since the second one is just there to monitor cat efficiency you should be able to work around that IF just unplugging it does in fact trigger a limp mode of sorts. Yeah, don&#39;t mess with the one helping you get the right AFR

[Bill Miller]

Kirk, Jeff, Daves:
I can&#39;t BELIEVE I&#39;m saying this:!! How about restricted prep/new B&C cars. How about making these cars so much more economical and sensible by eliminating most engine prep: stock exhaust manifolds, no internal mods?? Why make competitors go to so much trouble to find 10-15% more power-give it to them at the start.
One problem finding new B&C elgible vehicles is that newer cars all seem to be more powerful-this would tend to counter this disadvantage in finding cars to class, and would serve to keep B&C an economical, grass roots class like (I believe) it&#39;s supposed to be. And yes, with these preparation constraints, there would be no need for any change to engine management rules for restricted cars, another free bonus. (and if you crammed a Motec into your box, it would be a profound waste of money) Back to Basics! Phil Hunt I SURE MISS THE OLD DAYS TOO
[/b]


Phil,

I understand the idea, and I think it has merit. It&#39;s worked in Prod (please don&#39;t think I&#39;m comparing IT to Prod). Here&#39;s the way I read your post, run cars in essentially SS trim in IT so that they can run in the &#39;lower&#39; classes. A couple of problems I see with the idea are a) even in SS trim, there aren&#39;t a whole lot of newer cars that would fit in ITC and B) if you&#39;re going to do something, you have to do it for all the classes in a category.

[pfcs49]

Bill-I&#39;m only suggesting leaving engines alone; the beauty of IT lies in the quantum improvement in handling and chassis dynamics allowed with minimal/sensible mods.
Swah-you can connect or disconnect the front sensor-it only conrols mixture at part load when you don&#39;t much care about tuning, and the part load maps are fine without it as well. I&#39;d recommend removing it and putting a wide range sensor and display in it&#39;s place for tuning/peace of mind reasons Phil

[gran racing]

Phil,
I do like the idea, but am pretty sure that would require a new category created for it to ever happen. If SM could be created, so could this.

[shwah]

I do not think that the SCCA needs new classes. I do think that we need to allow the current classes to evolve with products that the auto industry makes available to us. That may mean that my 20 year old ITB car will not be competitive in 5-10 years (of course I will do my damndest to keep it competitive), and I am OK with that if it maintains the health of the club racing program. If the time comes that I need a different car and/or class to be competitve, I will take that step.

[JoshS]

Swah-you can connect or disconnect the front sensor-it only conrols mixture at part load when you don&#39;t much care about tuning, and the part load maps are fine without it as well. I&#39;d recommend removing it and putting a wide range sensor and display in it&#39;s place for tuning/peace of mind reasons Phil
[/b]
And that would be legal why?

EDIT: Oh, I see what you&#39;re saying, just for a display, not to hook up to the ECU.
But this brings up another question: why is it legal to remove an O2 sensor at all? Is it?

[shwah]

The O2 sensor is part of the emission control system.

[pfcs49]

I/m not advocating any new classes-just a limited prep aproach to ne B&C cars in the area of engine prep.
Shouldn&#39;t be hard to move backwards in that area, make newly classed cars equal to existing ones, and gain in economy (cost) and reliability. No more need or grey right to deck and overbore blocks. Phil

[JoshS]

The O2 sensor is part of the emission control system.
[/b]
And where does it say you can remove parts of the emissions control system?

[shwah]

You are right, upon re-reading ITCS 1-d, it is very specific about the EGR portion of the emission control system, and does not address the overall emission control system.

[JoshS]

Re: limp mode
I don&#39;t know of any European management system that goes into limp mode when rear oxygen or vehicle speed sensors are disabled Phil

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JoshS @ Nov 7 2006, 03:42 PM) 95448

I will endeavor to prove or disprove this weekend. I hope you&#39;re right, but the experts tell me otherwise.

If it does cause a problem, my letter will ask for an exception on the spec line allowing alternate ways to disable these systems as opposed to a wholesale change to the IT rules, because I think that&#39;s a more realistic request. My goal is to get this car on the track without a custom ECU.
[/b]
[/b][/quote]
Well, I didn&#39;t feel like waiting until the weekend. Sure enough, disabling all four wheel speed sensors throws a code, lights the check-engine light, and causes the car to set a 5300rpm rev limit.

I did a bit of research, and found out that the right-rear wheel speed sensor is also used for freeze-frame data for the OBDII system. Even though the speedometer works off of the differential, the OBDII system reads the vehicle speed from that right rear sensor.

Leaving that single sensor connected disables ABS and TC as required, (as it cannot compare the right rear wheel speed to anything), but keeps the ECU happy.

Letter already sent.