ITR New Cars and Class Cleanup

[JeffYoung]

Guys, a couple of things need to be done with ITR. They include:

1. A clean up of the existing ITCS listing of ITR models. A miscommunication within the ITR committe regarding when we had to have the spreadsheet finalized, with the fault on my side, led to us having to submit an only "almost complete" spreadsheet. There is, if you look, some information missing for some models. We need someone to take a pass at filling that data in -- or more appropriate someone(s) because I will volunteer for that thankless task. Anyone else? If there are 3 or 4 of us, we should be able to divide it up and get it done fairly quickly.

2. Doing the "second wave" of cars. These would include the RX-8, the V8 ponys, and the 928. These were all cars that were proposed for ITR and initially rejected by the committee. There is no guarantee they will come in, but if you have an interest in one of those cars, let me know and let's get some proposals written.

I do have a rough RX8 proposal written with some dyno data from a pro shop to support it that I will share with anyone who asks (Steve Eckerich and Jim Cohen have seen it already). I'm not a Mazda guy. Hell, I hate Miatas and I hate those damn rotaries that drown out the sweet sound of British V8 thunder, but the RX8 seems like a no brainer for the class.

V8 ponys there will be opposition so what I would envision is that a group of us who are in favor would write the proposal and then put it out for comment with the hopes of convincing some of the "antis" that the car will work in R. We would then take those comments and submit to the ITAC.

The 928 is a bit of an orphan. I have some interest in classing it but am looking for a Porschephile who may put some emotion into the effort. I have some information from Milledge about the car that I collected last year that can serve as a basis for the proposal.

Let me know.

Thanks guys.

[Cobrar05]

Jeff,

Street stock V8's need a place in the SCCA to race. That needs to be recognized. These cars have not come factory with 302/305 carburated engines in going on 15 years. Yet the only place in SCCA to race these cars in AS with that required rules package.

This is a strong and fertile field of potential race cars that the SCCA is excluding to their detriment.

I know I am an advocate for my race car. But, I see that I am running laps times in the same ballpark at the ITR cars that weight just about the same weight.

Jeff, anything I can do. Let me know.

[JeffYoung]

Honestly, a Cobra is probably too much potential for ITR. We are looking at the lower hp 302/305 motored cars, Fox Body and F-body in the low 200s stock hp. That would be within the ITR performance envelope. Getting much past that and you have a potential for a class killer, which has to be avoided at all costs.

We (the people who supported this) want to give the V8 ponys a place to race in IT other than AS or the old ITGT. There will be opposition though, especially if we start looking at the 350 and 351 powered cars or any of the later cars that made 250+ hp.

With all due respect to you, your car, and your racing program, you are new to this and I think that Cobra R of yours, once you start to get experience and development in it, will be quite a bit faster than the cars classed in R.

But I'm all ears, let me know what you think.

[JoshS]

I do have some reservations about the pony cars. ITR times are very similar to T2 times, and despite what you sometimes read, the more recent pony cars are not all that far off the pace in T2, even carrying excessive weight. I'm afraid that they might have to weigh too much in IT trim to be reasonable. Does it seem appropriate to class a 200hp V6 Camaro and a 300hp V8 Camaro in the same class?

I have also run some numbers on the RX-8 and have the same concern. I think cars carrying 300+ lbs of ballast, or running full interiors to make weight, are probably not properly classed.

Still, Jeff, I'll work with you on this and I'll be your ITAC liaison if you like.

EDIT: just saw your response about the high-hp pony cars, so it looks like we're on the same page there.

[JeffYoung]

I think you would be surprised by the actual dyno hp shown for the RX8, even with race mods. In many ways, the thing is not far off a good S car. Mazda had a huge debacle on their hands when they advertised 250 hp (crank) -- the car made quite a bit less than that and you may know that Mazda offered to buy back cars that were sold with that advertisement.

It looks to me that a stock RX8 dynos out in the 165 to 175 whp range, with 190-200 being about the best you see with Grand Am legal mods. At that hp range, you are looking roughly at a 2700/2800 lb car, or about the same as an unrestricted 325is which makes equivalent power and far more torque.

Let the games begin..............

[Ron Earp]

With respect to Mustangs the initial proposal was the 94-95 5L cars, not the 351 powered Cobra R that Cobrar05 races. The 94-95 cars wearing E7 head castings are limited in the sort of hp they can make when running through the factory intake and MAF. I've written quite a bit about that in the "R" forum and can pull some of that info out if needed. Remember, these cars produced 215hp - 23hp less than the highest hp R.

I don't think there will be a way to get the 4th Gen F Bodies in as the lowest hp V8 they had was 285hp on a 5.7L block. I might be wrong on that since I'm not a GM guy, but I think that is how it shakes out. Now we might be able to get some of the third generation F bodies but in those days GM didn't seem to be putting many manual trannies in cars. I think there were some 305 5 speeds made though in some narrow year bands.

Also, early Fox body 5Ls should be considered, despite the drum brakes they all wore up until 1994 (except for the 1993 Cobra R, SVOs, and 1995 Cobra R if memory serves).

There are a lot of guys that will build a Ford Mustang V8 to race even if it isn't a front contender. I know I will, this Porsche 944 S2 will be sold in a flash and I'll be building a Stang.

Ron

[Cobrar05]

I am an advocate for an idea. That is that cars like NASA American Iron class cars should have a place to race in the SCCA.

It could just be that cars like mine and of that era are just not going to be SCCA cars and I should quit fighting it and just race NASA.

There were 7 ITR cars that started any SARRC race in SEDiv last season. Only one of those ran more than two weekends. You have someone asking to race here.

[JeffYoung]

Rob, I understand, I really do. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the marque, for racing and for the SCCA, and especially your participation in this forum.

It's just that having fought the war on the ITR committee over the V8 ponys once, I can tell you with 100% assurance that any Mustang/Camaro with over 230-40 hp stock has no chance of being classed in ITR. It will be deemed outside the performance envelope for the class, and frankly I have to agree.

American Iron is a good series. I would hate to lose you to that though, but for the Cobra R, other than ITO/E, or a new class entirely, not sure what to do with it.

Do you have any interest in racing a Fox body or SN94(?) Mustang in ITR if we get them in?

We all knew when we started ITR that it would start slowly. It takes a while to build cars. I don't expect next year to be much better, but by 2009/2010, we hope R participation will rival S and A.

[Cobrar05]

The main problem that I have with ITO/ITE is that I am VASTLY underpowered to play in that class as its constituted.

At the ARRC I had the only ITO car that was under 500hp and I am WAY under 500hp. My car is stock.

I have a second car for this season, a '99 Cobra 4.6L. I doubt that there is a 3rd race car in my future and if there was I would guess that it would have to be a S197 car for magazine purposes.

I support your idea. I am just not sure that I can create another ride for it. I think I would be more likely to give in and buy a small bore to race or just give in to concentrating on NASA.

NASA by the way will let us run our V8 cars in their enduros. Please don't take that as threat or something. I will still keep trying.

Seems we have a shot at racing CCPS next season. That would be a step in my direction that I would appreciate.

[JoshS]

Rob,

Someday, we'll have the authority to create another IT class, faster than ITR. These newer faster pony cars, M3s, etc, will be good candidates.

For now, not sure what to tell you.

[Ron Earp]

The main problem that I have with ITO/ITE is that I am VASTLY underpowered to play in that class as its constituted.
[/b]

You might be now, but in ITO the sky is the limit for your motor. You've got a 351 block so you could go out fairly serious on a stroker. Or toss it and build a big block, or power adder, etc.

ITO is going to be a good class for a lot of non-tube frame cars that don't fit in "normal" IT classes.

Ron

[Cobrar05]

Correct. Its about an unlimited thing. I am not in that tax bracket. I also have a car with a lot of race history and cutting 300 lbs out of it and ripping the interior up for the kind of master cylinder brake pedal proportioning valve set ups that those guys are running is just not an option for me.

My car is a street stock IMSA GS/Former T1 champion car and it just has to stay that way. The fast lap in ITO at VIR in Oct was a 2:04. It was a 1:33 at Road Atlanta at the ARRC. We ran 1:39 in the enduro.

We are just not in that game. It may be a great class for guys that can really build up a car, but I just can't do that.

[JeffYoung]

I would humbly suggest that six seconds off the pace your first year out is not bad. Believe me, I was worse off.

[Bill Miller]

Guys, a couple of things need to be done with ITR. They include:

1. A clean up of the existing ITCS listing of ITR models. A miscommunication within the ITR committe regarding when we had to have the spreadsheet finalized, with the fault on my side, led to us having to submit an only "almost complete" spreadsheet. There is, if you look, some information missing for some models. We need someone to take a pass at filling that data in -- or more appropriate someone(s) because I will volunteer for that thankless task. Anyone else? If there are 3 or 4 of us, we should be able to divide it up and get it done fairly quickly.


[/b]


That's very gracious of you Jeff, but it certainly wasn't your fault (and not quite the way it went down).

[dj10]

I think you would be surprised by the actual dyno hp shown for the RX8, even with race mods. In many ways, the thing is not far off a good S car. Mazda had a huge debacle on their hands when they advertised 250 hp (crank) -- the car made quite a bit less than that and you may know that Mazda offered to buy back cars that were sold with that advertisement.

It looks to me that a stock RX8 dynos out in the 165 to 175 whp range, with 190-200 being about the best you see with Grand Am legal mods. At that hp range, you are looking roughly at a 2700/2800 lb car, or about the same as an unrestricted 325is which makes equivalent power and far more torque.

Let the games begin.............. [/b]



Other things to consider Jeff: Brakes, Aero's and with the Motec units in Grand Am are they making 200 hp all the up to 8300 rpm?

[JeffYoung]

Dan, I'll send you the dyno plot if you wish.

The torque advantage on the BMW is huge. I think that the RX8 and the 325 at nearly equivalent weights, with the 325 having slightly more whp and way more torque balances the RX8's slightly better aero and weights.

But I am wide open to any discussion on this. Obviously, we want to get it right.

Thanks on statement Bill, much appreciated, but it is true. Andy gave Ron and I the spreadsheet to complete by a certain date, and I misunderstood that he was saying it needed to be finalized and ready for publication by that date. My bad.

Thanks for the banana at the Enduro by the way. Sounds crazy, but a lifesaver. I was illin'. And good to meet you too, finally!

[seckerich]

Other things to consider Jeff: Brakes, Aero's and with the Motec units in Grand Am are they making 200 hp all the up to 8300 rpm?
[/b]
Get Jeff to send you the dyno sheets Dan. We actually lost HP with a header. With the side exhaust ports on the RX8 it is like a street port already. The sheets Jeff has were what we made on the Dynojet as well as sheets from the engine dyno. Check with any of the rotary experts and they will back it up. The rotary has always been treated "different" in the process because of known gains. Not true for the RX8 For comparison the E46 328/330 cars were at 2875# and the RX8 at 2650# in Grand Am. Close racing everywhere. You have enough data with these cars in their same prep to make a good decision.

[dj10]

Dan, I'll send you the dyno plot if you wish.

The torque advantage on the BMW is huge. I think that the RX8 and the 325 at nearly equivalent weights, with the 325 having slightly more whp and way more torque balances the RX8's slightly better aero and weights.

But I am wide open to any discussion on this. Obviously, we want to get it right.

[/b]

Sure Jeff, send me the data, I'd like to see it. Did you mean better aero & weights or aero & brakes? What weight would the rx8 be running at?

Thanks

[JeffYoung]

Sorry, meant aero and brakes. Not 100% sure on brakes though. Have to check that.

E-mail me at [email protected] and I'll send you the RX8 proposal and the dyno sheet.

[seckerich]

Sorry, meant aero and brakes. Not 100% sure on brakes though. Have to check that.

E-mail me at [email protected] and I'll send you the RX8 proposal and the dyno sheet.
[/b]
Brakes are single piston front and rear.

[JeffYoung]

Swept area and rotor size v. 325?

[pballance]

Brakes are single piston front and rear.
[/b]
And DAMN good I might add. Looks like I may already have a car in the stable to move up to after some serious seat time......... just add the cage.

BTW, Steve is right on the power and header. Even some catback exhausts have been documented to lose power on the dyno.

12.6 diameter but i don't know the swept area

Thanks guys for working on this!!!

[seckerich]

Swept area and rotor size v. 325?
[/b]
320MM front diameter and 300MM rear. That is with a scale on the rotors on the shelf. :D Pads are the same size as the second gen RX7. Don't know about the 325. Also note that the BMW's in Grand Am were only allowed the 3.46 or 3.38 gear to help balance the lack of torque for the RX8. It makes the power but is a very steep curve and peaks late. For comparison they run about 1-2 seconds a lap faster than ITS at most tracks. Right in the sweet spot for ITR.

[ed325its]

Damn!!!

The class is only 1 year old. Leave it alone and let cars be built. The class will grow and mature.

[JeffYoung]

Uh.....no?

I don't see a down side to adding cars to the class, so long as they are balanced.

The ITR committee stripped down the car list to what we believed would be a non-controversial list; one that would be easier for the CRB to swallow as a concept, rather than a debate about particular makes.

The idea always was, for some of us anyway, to have a follow on "second wave" of ITR cars evaluated for inclusion. That's what we are doing.

BMWs are very well represented in R. Mazdas are not. Nor are Ford and GM. We are trying, if the cars fit, to fill some of those gaps.

[ed325its]

Uh.....Yes!

[JeffYoung]

Ed -- having too much fun running in ITR by yourself?

Please, give me a reason why it is not a good idea to class other cars in ITR that fit the performance parameters? Other than "Damn".

Thanks.

[seckerich]

Ed -- having too much fun running in ITR by yourself?

Please, give me a reason why it is not a good idea to class other cars in ITR that fit the performance parameters? Other than "Damn".

Thanks.
[/b]
PSSSSS Jeff, you said the M word. Ed still wants spec BMW. :rolleyes:

[its66]

Jeff,
I'll be happy to help, especially with the pony cars. I'd like to see the 302/305 cars have a place to play. We have some guys down here that used to race ITGT, which was dropped. They are WWAAYY underprepped for A Sedan, or SPO. It would be great to give them something back. I wouldn't mind having my 5 spd 1LE Iroc back if we can make it work. :)

FWIW,
My ITS car puts more power to the wheels than my RX8 does. The factory now rates the engine at 232 hp, and it is identical to the original 04 engines which had a higher rating. If you strap a car to the dyno you will probably see around 167-170. Rarely, but occassionally I've seen 172.XX That means that either the car is losing 60 hp through driveline loss, or it is still over rated. I have never seen a renesis engine on an engine dyno, but it would be interesting to see the numbers.

You really can not make a 100% accurate comparison between the RX8's in GA cup, and ITR. Although the rules are similar, there are some different allowances that will seriously affect the cars. All rotaries have to stay cool to live.(as do most race cars) If you look at EVERY GA cup RX8, they all have the mazdaspeed front fascia. It has a huge grill opening. This allows more air, and thus the ability to tune it to make more power. Stock nose will neccessitate less hp. Additionally, sound isn't as big a restriction in GA cup. I believe it is 115 db, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now. If you choke it down to 104db, you're going to pull more hp.

Anyone seriously interested should request the dyno plots, and work the math that would make the car comparable to others in the class, like the unrestricted e36. See what weight you come up with. The RX8 probably has a slight aero advantage--it isn't real clean, but has a smaller frontal area. It has good brakes, as does the e36. It will have about 20 hp less than the e36 and around 60 lb/ft less torque. The e36 weight is 2800 lbs. What should the RX8 weigh?

[Z3_GoCar]

Ed -- having too much fun running in ITR by yourself?

Please, give me a reason why it is not a good idea to class other cars in ITR that fit the performance parameters? Other than "Damn".

Thanks.
[/b]
Hey Jeff,

I want an ugly BMW roadster. What about the Z4? The 2.5 should probably be about the same weight as the 2.8-Z3 as it's got the much better rear suspension, and it's either 191 or 180 hp.

M-54 motors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M54#M54B25)

Also the 03's are five years old.

James

[dj10]

Hey Jeff,

I want an ugly BMW roadster. What about the Z4? The 2.5 should probably be about the same weight as the 2.8-Z3 as it's got the much better rear suspension, and it's either 191 or 180 hp.
M-54 motors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M54#M54B25)
Also the 03's are five years old.
James
[/b]



James, 2 questions, 1. Why aren't you running your Z3 in ITR? 2. What weight would you run the 03 Z4 at? BTW I'm all for getting new car into ITR, just want things to be as equal as possible.

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey Dan,

I've been using the carbon hood that came on the car since I bought it, and also it's running a stand-alone TEC-3 ecu. I know someone who'll sell me a steel hood, but I need to straighten the car out, and next year the ecu won't be a problem. So we'll see if I can make it out next year in ITR.

As for your second question. I suspose that it should have the same wieght gain as the sedan has over the Z3, as both the sedan and the Z4 have the same rear suspension.

James

[dj10]

Hey Dan,

I've been using the carbon hood that came on the car since I bought it, and also it's running a stand-alone TEC-3 ecu. I know someone who'll sell me a steel hood, but I need to straighten the car out, and next year the ecu won't be a problem. So we'll see if I can make it out next year in ITR.

As for your second question. I suspose that it should have the same wieght gain as the sedan has over the Z3, as both the sedan and the Z4 have the same rear suspension.

James [/b]



I understand, that's good news James, I'm sure you'll be glad to get out of IT Everything. There's a Z3 in the southeast in ITR, I guess doing pretty good in ITR.

Best of luck to you out there in the west.

[JeffYoung]

James, good point. Z4 should be in. I'll help you with the proposal; maybe we double that one up with teh RX8 to have one Mazda model and one BMW model in my proposal. Shoot me an e-mail at [email protected] and I'll send you what I've done for the RX8.

Jim, let's get all the dyno information we can on the RX8 and get that information to the ITAC. It is in NO one's best interest for the RX8 to be classed either too heavy, or too light. With the right information -- and I'm not sure I fully understand the dyno plots I do have -- we can get this right, but we've got a year, so let's do so. Dan, others, let us know (constructively! Ed!) what you think.

Appreciate it guys.

[JoshS]

In addition to adding in some older cars to ITR, a few cars were introduced for the 2003 model year that we should consider listing in IT for 2008.

ITR:
BMW Z4 2.5
Mazda6 6-cyl

ITA:
Saturn Ion
Mazda6 4-cyl

For 2009, we can look at cars introduced in 2004. Here are some good candidates:

ITR:
Acura TSX
Mazda RX-8

ITS:
Mazda3

ITB:
Scion xA/xB

[ed325its]

Jeff,

The class, and any new class, needs a stable rule set and classifications to grow. I am concerned that making changes so quickly will cause uncertainy in those considering to join the class. What car should he build? Should he wait to see what cars are classed next year or the year after? Examples of this class instability include; You state the second phase or grouping of cars were not included last year because they were too controversial. Nothing has changed to make them less so now. Why introduce controversy into a 1 year old class?
You state this is the second phase of the agenda. What is phase 3 or phase 4?
These forums have stated that the later model year 3.5l Maxima's and 3.0l/3.2l M3's are outside the envelope of the class. Yet now it is suggested that 5.0 liter V8's should be in the class. How does this provide class stability and equality against a 1.8l Acura. Ford and GM are already classed in V6 form.

As one who actually races ITR I would like the class to grow and breed strong competition. I believe that will not happen without at least 2-3 years of stable car classifications.

seckerich's sarcastic elitest comment deserves no reply.

[JeffYoung]

Ed, thanks for this response. This I can answer and respond to.

I don't see adding cars to ITR as being instability or a change to the ruleset. We have a ruleset, and we simply add cars within the performance envelope to that ruleset. This should not affect "the which car should I build" because a particular car is an overdog. Although, I do agree, as new cars are classed, folks with different interests might build different cars.

However, I want to state this as firmly as I can. I see NO down side to classing cars within the ITR performance envelope.

Phase 3 or Phase 4 are up to us, as a group. Whatever cars people have an interest in, and fit the envelope, they can ask to class.

The V8 issue is just that -- do the pony V8s (which make about the same hp as the V6s for the ones we are loooking at proposing classing) fit the envelope? Some believe yes; some no. If you think no, weigh in and let us know why. I suspect it will be an uphill battle getting them classed, which is fine.

Let me know what you think.

[seckerich]

seckerich's sarcastic elitest comment deserves no reply.
[/b]
I'm not the one who doesn't want anyone else to get classed and I'm elitest. :rolleyes: I was however being sarcastic. :D Every IT class gets new cars classed as they meet the age and performance limits. Why should ITR be different? People are just beating the door down to build the cars on the list now right? If people want to build cars and they fit the class get on with it. Otherwise it will die a slow death in the next few years. Do it fair but get it done.

[ed325its]

We're talking about stability in the class and not adding a new bunch of controversial cars in the classification. How do you translate and personalize that to say "doesn't want anyone else to be classed"? I am advocating not adding "controversial" cars that arguably may exceed the performance and weight envelopes of the class.

This is about cars and providing a stable performance envelope in ITR so that people will build cars and join the class.

I would like to build an '02 Nissan Maxima, but know it would be too powerful for the class in IT trim.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ed,

I have a feeling that ITR will be the class with the most influx of new cars over the years. It's where the performance envelope of cars people want to drive is currently. Understand that each car coming into the class will be measured by the same stick as your E36.

I also submit that in order for ITR to flourish, we have to keep the doors open to cars people will want to race.
On the Maxima (or any car really): Any car over 230-240 stock hp is VERY close to being outside the envelope...and most certainly will be heavy.

I am one of the guys who was against the V8 cars for the first wave. I needed to learn more. V8's are VERY rare in IT - and where they exist, they make BIG gains. I just don't have a handle on what the 215hp V8 Ford can make in IT trim. One other issue is the history of A-Sedan. It evoloved from pretty much IT-rules to what they have now because they wanted to 'fix' the shortcomings of the cars - like brakes, reliabilty, etc. I do think they fit, but people on the committee know more than I on the topic.

"Phasing" is just a loose term. Figure each year, as cars become eligible by age, they will be classed in ITR - just as they are in ITS, ITA, ITB and ITC as appropriate.

[Knestis]

... I am advocating not adding "controversial" cars that arguably may exceed the performance and weight envelopes of the class.

This is about cars and providing a stable performance envelope in ITR so that people will build cars and join the class.

I would like to build an '02 Nissan Maxima, but know it would be too powerful for the class in IT trim.
[/b]

While I wasn't anything like instrumental in the ITR planning, I did participate in the review process of the proposal and cars listed, and was absolutely involved in conversations around this issue.

To clarify - I don't think it anything close to consensus among the "ITR Ad Hoc Committee" that the V8s were "controversial." There were members who had their concerns and those who were big fans (and more than a few in between), for the reasons already stated here. But the decision was made to effectively table the question of the 8s for "Phase II" (aka after the class was on the books) because we were afraid that including them might jeopardize the chance that the class would gain approval, due to some vocal minority latching onto that one issue.

It's common practice in any policy-making process to go with the safe solution first, then work out the harder details later - even if "harder" is only a perception, public relations, or minority stakeholder concern.

In addition, it's not quite accurate to talk about the "performance" envelope of the class, since that's an outcome on the race track rather than an output of the system - like class eligibility and race weight. As long as the framework established for the class is adhered to when setting those variables, things are good.

K

[JeffYoung]

Key-rect. If the cars fit in ITR using the process, then they should be in. If they don't, they don't.

But they were at least a bit controversial- Kirk is a better diplomat and committee consensus builder than I am -- at least to me. The issue is this. ITR accounts for torque in a subjective fashion. We have to be VERY careful how we account for torque on the pony V8s.

All part of the process, all thoughts on this welcome. I think everyone's goal is to avoid a class killer.

[ed325its]

To clarify - I don't think it anything close to consensus among the "ITR Ad Hoc Committee" that the V8s were "controversial." There were members who had their concerns and those who were big fans (and more than a few in between), for the reasons already stated here. [/b]

Controversial was not my term as I repeated it from others. However, is not the lack of consensous and the existance of varying viewpoints the definition of controversy?

[Z3_GoCar]

I understand, that's good news James, I'm sure you'll be glad to get out of IT Everything. There's a Z3 in the southeast in ITR, I guess doing pretty good in ITR.

Best of luck to you out there in the west.
[/b]

Hey Dan,

Yes and no. I don't know how I'm going to become competitve with John Norris, he's already 4-5 seconds a lap faster than I am now, and I'll have to add 150 lbs of balast to make minimum weight. But then I'm in the same boat in ITE.



James, good point. Z4 should be in. I'll help you with the proposal; maybe we double that one up with teh RX8 to have one Mazda model and one BMW model in my proposal. Shoot me an e-mail at [email protected] and I'll send you what I've done for the RX8.

Jim, let's get all the dyno information we can on the RX8 and get that information to the ITAC. It is in NO one's best interest for the RX8 to be classed either too heavy, or too light. With the right information -- and I'm not sure I fully understand the dyno plots I do have -- we can get this right, but we've got a year, so let's do so. Dan, others, let us know (constructively! Ed!) what you think.

Appreciate it guys.
[/b]

Jeff,

pm sent.

James

[dj10]

Hey Dan,

Yes and no. I don't know how I'm going to become competitve with John Norris, he's already 4-5 seconds a lap faster than I am now, and I'll have to add 150 lbs of balast to make minimum weight. But then I'm in the same boat in ITE.
James
[/b]



Wow!, No way John's car should be 4 or 5 secs faster than yours! I know if I'm running behind, my crew chief would tell me to pull up my skirt and drive the damn car! :D

[seckerich]

We're talking about stability in the class and not adding a new bunch of controversial cars in the classification. How do you translate and personalize that to say "doesn't want anyone else to be classed"? I am advocating not adding "controversial" cars that arguably may exceed the performance and weight envelopes of the class.

This is about cars and providing a stable performance envelope in ITR so that people will build cars and join the class.

I would like to build an '02 Nissan Maxima, but know it would be too powerful for the class in IT trim.
[/b]
Now that statement I agree with. :023:

[GKR_17]

I agree that the Rx8 should be included in ITR, and it should go through the same process used on every other car. The dyno data is interesting, but shouldn't be used for classification purposes, especially since it is from a shop that has incentive for the car to be classed as light as possible. However, it is worth noting that there was a 13% increase over stock power. Dynos are really only good for relative changes anyway.

I would prefer to leave it up to the ITAC to determine the power increase multiplier. I will concede that 25% is probably unrealistic for this car, but it should be at least 15% (same as the S2000).

Using 15% gain, and net zero adders (great chassis, weaker low end power, but one of the best transmissions to make up for it) I get almost exactly 3000 lbs.

As for the V8 pony cars, let them in as well, just be careful to get the process parameters right.

Grafton

[JeffYoung]

We agree. ITAC process sets the weight.

Agree that the dyno data is subject to interpretation. i don't fully understand it either.

The most pertinent one is probably the stock on. 172 whp is probably around 200-210 crank, so the Mazda factory number is still way low. That number comes from a lot of shops, just not SS.

So, I'll submit the proposal and let the ITAC hash out the weight. I think anything between 2800 and 3000 is fair, depending on what yu believe is the "true" stock crank hp for the car.

210 crank hp gives a weight of 2700 lbs

220 crank hp gives a weight of 2783

230 crank hp gives a weight of 2909

237 is 2998.

Somewhere in there is fair.

[seckerich]

So a totally uncorked E36 makes 200hp min rear wheel and is 2765 and a RX8 with 199hp and low torque would go at 3000. No wonder there is a herd of BMW's, a Porsche, and nothing else. Get real. The Porsche at 2810? Don't expect any new cars with Graftons math. :blink:

[dj10]

So a totally uncorked E36 makes 200hp min rear wheel and is 2765 and a RX8 with 199hp and low torque would go at 3000. No wonder there is a herd of BMW's, a Porsche, and nothing else. Get real. The Porsche at 2810? Don't expect any new cars with Graftons math. :blink: [/b]



Steve, I'm with you on this one. 3000# RX8 is to heavy and the Porsche is to light making 208 rwhp and what, 225 ft lbs of torque? with 4 piston brake calipers on all 4, and M030 suspension. Put the S2 up to 3000 and put the rx8 down to 2850. :D



Jeff has there been any interest from anyone wanting to build a V8 928 Porsche? I would think not because of the expense. Maybe we shouldn't waste our time on this car?

[seckerich]

My mistake Dan was sharing actual data from the Speedsource Grand Am cars. Identical prep with full Motec tune. The data I provided can be verified from many reputable sources. I tried to give enough facts to get the car classed fairly so we can grow the class. These are cars that are ready to be built now. For whatever reason this was not limited to the ITAC as I was told. I now know better and am done with it. Not worth the time and effort if it is now used incorrectly. I should feed the usual Bulls*** and get a sweet classification instead. I gave them full tune 10/10ths numbers to see what the car does at full IT build and it was abused. Lesson learned. Good luck with ITR.

[JeffYoung]

Only interest in the 928 is from me. I have a right of first refusal on one for about $3k sitting at a friend's father's house in Asheville.

I talked to Milledge about the car. He said unraceable. I'm not so sure; I've seen the cars tracked and the do ok. But it would be a stupid build, stupider than the TR8. Trying to get smarter with my racing choices. I may do it (the proposal) if no one else does.

On RX8 v. Porsche v. BMW. Now this is the debate I like to see! Means people are interested.

I think on the RX8 I will submit the proposal and then you guys need to submit dyno data to support whatever weight you think is appropriate. I have no interest in this other than the car needs to be in R, and we need to avoid it being entirely uncompetitive or an overdog. We obviously have an upper and lower parameter for weight now -- 2700 on the low end, 3000 on the high. Somewhere in there is "fair."

[lateapex911]

My computer was stolen, so forgive my silence in this matter guys. new computer, back online.

First:
Jeff Young is correct. When we bounced the idea of ITR around, the words "NO new classes" from the CRB was the mantra that was ringing in our ears. In the begining, we thought we might have to introduce it "on the ground" at the regional level, but wanted to make sure every regions ITR was the same. Then we got wind that perhaps...just perhaps, the CRB and the BoD would consider it as a National Class. Remember, IT meant little to the BoD a year or two ago... So, when we came up with our final "package" to propose, we made sure there were no "Are they serious??" stumbling blocks in there. We wanted NO objections and NO questions. Once the class was in the books, we knew we could add cars. Anyone on the ITR commitee will back that up as the plan from the word go. So, yes, cars will absolutely be added. More variety will spur growth.



Get Jeff to send you the dyno sheets Dan. We actually lost HP with a header. With the side exhaust ports on the RX8 it is like a street port already. The sheets Jeff has were what we made on the Dynojet as well as sheets from the engine dyno. Check with any of the rotary experts and they will back it up. The rotary has always been treated "different" in the process because of known gains. Not true for the RX8 For comparison the E46 328/330 cars were at 2875# and the RX8 at 2650# in Grand Am. Close racing everywhere. You have enough data with these cars in their same prep to make a good decision. [/b]

I've followed the RX8 story and this is true. In the past, the rotary has exceeded other engine types for horsepower gains with racing modifications. And of course, that makes perfect sense, as compared to the piston engine, it was much younger developmet-wise. Now, it is twenty years later, and Mazda has incorporated many things that racing does for gains into the stock package. Simply put, this engine is a different genre. It will not respond to racing mods in the way the original 12A and 13B have done, nor will it respond with the same gains as the standard piston engine.

I think the general opinion on this car is wrong, and it's actually a tweener between ITR and ITS. Think about it: From a power perspective, it will make, in racing trim, roughly the same or a little less than an ITR E36. (2850 lbs) And torque? The BMW will make nearly 50% more. All other factors...trans ratios, aero, brakes, etc are similar enough to pale in comparision to that ... We need to be careful to respect the process as well as the car on this one.

[dj10]

Only interest in the 928 is from me. I have a right of first refusal on one for about $3k sitting at a friend's father's house in Asheville.

I talked to Milledge about the car. He said unraceable. I'm not so sure; I've seen the cars tracked and the do ok. But it would be a stupid build, stupider than the TR8. Trying to get smarter with my racing choices. I may do it (the proposal) if no one else does.

On RX8 v. Porsche v. BMW. Now this is the debate I like to see! Means people are interested.

I think on the RX8 I will submit the proposal and then you guys need to submit dyno data to support whatever weight you think is appropriate. I have no interest in this other than the car needs to be in R, and we need to avoid it being entirely uncompetitive or an overdog. We obviously have an upper and lower parameter for weight now -- 2700 on the low end, 3000 on the high. Somewhere in there is "fair." [/b]



Jeff, good luck with the 928 but you better look good and hard about the costs on building an IT 928! :018: :D

There's no real debate on the cars Jeff, we just need to look at things objectively with the data available. I just want a good race where ever I go and I think these cars classified correctly, will be some of the best racing around with good drivers in them.



Steve, is the Grand AM RX8 w/ motec the same as it would be in ITR?

[seckerich]

Yes Dan, the motor package for the rotary is exactly the same for the Koni Challenge cars. No in the box rule but that is moot point now anyway. I gave the ITAC real sheets with a full M600 Motec tune and optimal exhaust. State of the art Engine dyno as well as dynojet numbers that were backed up by Grand Am at track tests. With 5 cars and 3 years developement do you really believe we left much on the table? Even offered to strap one down and let them watch and see there were no games. Maybe cooler heads and open minds will prevail.

[lateapex911]

I hope so...the RX8 would be a great addition, but, if it's classed heavy, theres no point.
(And yes, i am fully aware of the "process vs the car" debate)...

[GKR_17]

So a totally uncorked E36 makes 200hp min rear wheel and is 2765 and a RX8 with 199hp and low torque would go at 3000. No wonder there is a herd of BMW's, a Porsche, and nothing else. Get real. The Porsche at 2810? Don't expect any new cars with Graftons math. :blink:
[/b]

whp and dyno data aren't part of the classification process, though they surely factor in to the knowledge base used to determine the power multiplier. The point is, the process is what it is, your problem should be with Mazda's published numbers, not my math.

The E36 325 has 189hp stock at the crank, and gets a multiplier of 1.3, so it is assumed to have 246 at the crank in full race prep.

The 2004 Rx8 is published as having 238hp (down from the original 248) stock at the crank. With the lowest increase multiplier of 1.15, that car is assumed to reach 274hp with full prep. That puts the car very close to 3000 lbs.

You have to understand, that no matter how good the intentions, any dyno data is still highly suspect, since your goal is clearly to have the car classed as light as possible. I could get an E46 M3 to show under 200whp if I want, or a stock Rx8 to show 250whp for that matter...

[seckerich]

whp and dyno data aren't part of the classification process, though they surely factor in to the knowledge base used to determine the power multiplier. The point is, the process is what it is, your problem should be with Mazda's published numbers, not my math.

The E36 325 has 189hp stock at the crank, and gets a multiplier of 1.3, so it is assumed to have 246 at the crank in full race prep.

The 2004 Rx8 is published as having 238hp (down from the original 248) stock at the crank. With the lowest increase multiplier of 1.15, that car is assumed to reach 274hp with full prep. That puts the car very close to 3000 lbs.

You have to understand, that no matter how good the intentions, any dyno data is still highly suspect, since your goal is clearly to have the car classed as light as possible. I could get an E46 M3 to show under 200whp if I want, or a stock Rx8 to show 250whp for that matter...
[/b]
Sweeet!! Now I can go back and get my ITS RX7 classed with a 25% adder like all the cars in S based on the advertised HP for the car. Oh wait Grafton--we got treated differently because of "known power gains". I agree with the way we were classed because it was correct. It is also correct with the RX8 because it is not a conventional motor. If it works for one rotary it needs to be the same for all. How do you even type that response without laughing. 246 crank is really cranking something but it's not the dyno. ;) Post some numbers for that Porsche if the process is so dead on. Kirk is right that torque needs to be a bigger factor in at least ITR. Hard to give away 75-100 ft pounds and weigh 200# more.

[dj10]

Sweeet!! Now I can go back and get my ITS RX7 classed with a 25% adder like all the cars in S based on the advertised HP for the car. Oh wait Grafton--we got treated differently because of "known power gains". I agree with the way we were classed because it was correct. It is also correct with the RX8 because it is not a conventional motor. If it works for one rotary it needs to be the same for all. How do you even type that response without laughing. 246 crank is really cranking something but it's not the dyno. ;) Post some numbers for that Porsche if the process is so dead on. Kirk is right that torque needs to be a bigger factor in at least ITR. Hard to give away 75-100 ft pounds and weigh 200# more. [/b]



Steve, who told you that the rx8 would have to run @ 3000#? Isn't the rx8 a pretty new car, is it eligable for IT racing yet? All I know if the Porsche is @ 2810# which is low then the rx8 should be near the E36 325 numbers, give or take a few #'s.

[seckerich]

Steve, who told you that the rx8 would have to run @ 3000#? Isn't the rx8 a pretty new car, is it eligable for IT racing yet? All I know if the Porsche is @ 2810# which is low then the rx8 should be near the E36 325 numbers, give or take a few #'s.
[/b]
Yes Dan a clear thinker without an agenda would come to that logical conclusion. Someone who improperly obtained confidential dyno sheets applies "grafton math". With similar power and less torque it should actually come in a tad lighter. We gear them to climb a tree now and the torque is still very marginal. It will be eligible in 09. They were built in large numbers in 03 but the Vin is 04. They were late on the US release so the rules are the rules. With the data the ITAC has working on the BMW restrictors I trust they have the information to make the right decision. We just want to start getting classing done so we can build and test for 09 and know what to build to. Imagine someone who will actually build new cars for ITR instead of just endlessly talking about it? Look forward to racing with you--maybe. :rolleyes:

[GKR_17]

For comparison the E46 328/330 cars were at 2875# and the RX8 at 2650# in Grand Am. Close racing everywhere. You have enough data with these cars in their same prep to make a good decision.
[/b]

So these cars are all close in Grand-Am?
E46 328 at 2875 lbs
E46 330 at 2875 lbs
Rx8 at 2650 lbs

Now in ITR
E46 328 at 2900 lbs
E46 330 at 3290 lbs
Rx8 at ??

Using 'Steve math' either the 328 should also be 3290 (and the Rx8 ~3050), or the Rx8 should be ~2700 and the 330 down to 2900. I think I'll keep the process, which as far as I know agrees with 'Grafton math'.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Grand Am cars have individual engine and chassis prep allowances. Since you can't 'give' an RX-8 a cam upgrade, all you can do is lighten it to make it more competitive. Tough to make an apples to apples using GAC.

http://www.grand-am.com/CONTENT/Docs/PDF/2007/KONIRules.pdf

Even inside the 330 classification years there are different allowances. One gets aero help, they have different final drives...oye!

[dj10]

So these cars are all close in Grand-Am?
E46 328 at 2875 lbs
E46 330 at 2875 lbs
Rx8 at 2650 lbs

Now in ITR
E46 328 at 2900 lbs
E46 330 at 3290 lbs
Rx8 at ??

Using 'Steve math' either the 328 should also be 3290 (and the Rx8 ~3050), or the Rx8 should be ~2700 and the 330 down to 2900. I think I'll keep the process, which as far as I know agrees with 'Grafton math'.
[/b]



What are you proposing the RX8's weight should be? Why is the 328 & 330 weight the same in Grand AM? I believe there is a difference, althought not a lot, in hp & torque.



Steve, seems like your getting to frustrated over this, calm down pal. :D I think the ITAC has enough time and data to get this right. Didn't they get the restrictor right on the BMW 325 for ITS, in time? :D ;)

[JeffYoung]

Why don't we cut to the chase.

The real issue here is what is a stock RX8's correct hp since that is what the process uses to set weight. Grafton is going with the corrected factory number; stock dyno plots show the number to be even lower.

ITAC how do we resolve this?

Also, Steve E. --- you're a good friend of mine, and I want it to stay that way. But Grafton didn't get the dyno sheets improperly. He asked for them, I gave them to him and I thought it was ok for me to do so. If there is any fault, it's mine. I disagree with his analysis, but he didn't do anything untoward in collecting information.

[seckerich]

This is calm Dan. :D It is not that big a deal. I do get frustrated when someone is twisting the numbers in their favor knowing full well they are bogus. I just consider the source. Brings back memories of the ITS E36 debates. I have 5 different cars to race now Dan so the tub can go on ebay if the ITAC screws the pooch on this one. As I said in a post before, I trust cooler heads to do the right thing. I am selling my ITS car and would like to still have an IT car to race because I like the competition and the people I run with. I have no wish to switch brands so I am working to keep Mazda available for IT. Real simple.

And Jeff Young: If I got mad at my friends every time they did something I didn't agree with I wouldnt have any. :birra:

[JeffYoung]

Thanks, I appreciate that.

[dj10]

This is calm Dan. :D It is not that big a deal. I do get frustrated when someone is twisting the numbers in their favor knowing full well they are bogus. I just consider the source. Brings back memories of the ITS E36 debates. I have 5 different cars to race now Dan so the tub can go on ebay if the ITAC screws the pooch on this one. As I said in a post before, I trust cooler heads to do the right thing. I am selling my ITS car and would like to still have an IT car to race because I like the competition and the people I run with. I have no wish to switch brands so I am working to keep Mazda available for IT. Real simple.

And Jeff Young: If I got mad at my friends every time they did something I didn't agree with I wouldnt have any. :birra: [/b]



Ahhhh great attitude Steve. I have faith in the ITAC too. I hate to say it but if I knew Mazda Motorsports had interest in grassroots racing, I might be racing one myself. The way I see it, BMW could care less what we accomplish at this level and we can't get anything off our parts from a dealer with out them raising the retail price up like some Porsche dealers do!

[GKR_17]

BMW could care less what we accomplish at this level and we can't get anything off our parts from a dealer with out them raising the retail price up like some Porsche dealers do!
[/b]

A BMWCCA membership ($40 a year) is worth 15% off at the parts counter. And unlike the SCCA, their magazine is worth the paper it's printed on...

[mlytle]

A BMWCCA membership ($40 a year) is worth 15% off at the parts counter. And unlike the SCCA, their magazine is worth the paper it's printed on...
[/b]
unfortunately, that discount varies and is usually off the dealers list price, which is unfortunately above bmw list by 10-15% already. dj is correct, bmwna could care less about racing.

but bmwcca membership is worth it for a bunch of other reasons....particulary racing in bmwcca club racing series!

[robits325is]

unfortunately, that discount varies and is usually off the dealers list price, which is unfortunately above bmw list by 10-15% already.
[/b]

Really? I buy parts from a variety of dealers on a daily basis and have never noticed inconsistent list prices.

[dj10]

Really? I buy parts from a variety of dealers on a daily basis and have never noticed inconsistent list prices. [/b]



Guys, BMW parts are marked up 40% to 60%. Madza motorsports are discounted 40%, what's this tell you. Just because you haven't seen this in your area doesn't doesn't mean it's not happening else where on a regular basis. Isn't Autotech a business?

[Andy Bettencourt]

The standard increase estimate is 25%. There are cars out there as high as 50% (12A RX-7) and cars out there as low as 15% (S2000).

The ITAC will recommend based on what we know as fact or the standard amount, not what 'looks right'.

[JeffYoung]

And how about the real issue here -- where the stock hp no. may be wrong?

[lateapex911]

Just a side note. The process uses the multiplier in a categorical fashion whenever possible. ie. a rotary is a different multiplier than an old 2 valve or a new 4 valve....

Where it is well documented, there can be adjustments for issues like incorrect stock hp ratings, but those are rare.

[mlytle]

Really? I buy parts from a variety of dealers on a daily basis and have never noticed inconsistent list prices.
[/b]
washington dc area has about a dozen bmw dealers. all mark up significantly at varying rates. not all offer any bmwcca discounts. i rarely buy from dealers unless it is an odd part i can't get elsewhere.

[robits325is]

washington dc area has about a dozen bmw dealers. all mark up significantly at varying rates. not all offer any bmwcca discounts. i rarely buy from dealers unless it is an odd part i can't get elsewhere.
[/b]

Right, but list price is fixed nationwide. What dealers charge above or below list is up to them.

Thats all I was trying to say.

[imported_Lucca_Sport]

I know there has been some discussion regarding the Z4 being classed in ITR. I was wondering which model would have the potential for being classified, 2.5 or 3.0? or perhaps both like the 3 series?

Thanks,
Nathan

[Ron Earp]

Both would have the capability to be in ITR as they fit the hp specs the class was designed to capture. The 2.5L at 192hp would be a good fit and the 3L at 230hp would also be a good fit.

Ron

[JoshS]

The 3.0 may have to carry too much ballast to make it a good fit. We'll have to run the numbers.

Here's a nice Runoffs-winning 2.5 that could be a good ITR car when it gets added.

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=876556

[Ron Earp]

3L Curb Weight was listed by BMW at 3108 lbs. Probably is going to have to carry a bit of weight for sure, but, you won't have to worry so much about making weight. Build a fantastic cage, nice seat, Cool Suit, blowers, the whole 9 yards of driver comfort stuff to keep the weight in there.

Ron

[JoshS]

3L Curb Weight was listed by BMW at 3108 lbs. Probably is going to have to carry a bit of weight for sure, but, you won't have to worry so much about making weight. Build a fantastic cage, nice seat, Cool Suit, blowers, the whole 9 yards of driver comfort stuff to keep the weight in there.
[/b]

I look at it a little differently.

Does it make any sense to class two versions of exactly the same chassis at weights that differ by as much as 400+ lbs? That is, if the lighter one is classed right and can make its weight, then the heavier one would have to carry 400 lbs of ballast?

We've already done this in ITR (Z3 2.8 and 3.0, 440 lbs for 36 hp) and I think it's crazy. We're talking a 38hp difference for the Z4s.

[Ron Earp]

Isn't any different than the 325i, 328i, and 330i. All are on different spec lines and they share the same chassis. Different size engines, different horsepower and torque ratings, and different classifications in ITR.

If you only class the lighter car then for sure someone will have a 3L that they will wish to race. We did it with the 3 series, might as well with the Z4. The spec sheet for ITR already looks like "IT BMW" though with six lines of BMWs. I know more BMWs than just the Z4 is coming too.

But, I'm all for classing anything people wish to race. If it fits the process/class then put it in! Someone somewhere will want to race it someday.

Ron

[JoshS]

I am all for being inclusive, but not when the weight is stupid heavy for the chassis. We should wait for the next faster class. It will happen.

And yes, I think that some of the classifications in ITR right now are a mistake for this reason.

[JLawton]

Just opened the latest issue or GRM. Guess what made it into the top 20 editers choice for 2007 - ITR

Niiiiice!! Well done!! :023: