OH MY GOD, V8's in ITR

[Bob Roth]

Below is a string starting under "specific car models" where there is a request to CRB and ITAC to add '90s V8 mustang and Cameros to ITR. I hope nobody is seriously as though I don't mind sharing the track with them, I sure don't want to trade paint with them for trophies.

Is this mixing apples and oranges. As an owner of a type r integra, I gotta believe that the on track performance will in now way similar to the mix of the vast majority of ITR high rpm 3 liter range engines.

If we need another V8 class besides American Sedan, then create it. I suspect the whole of ITR would be outraged if 300 hp V8 iron is lumped into the class. Read below, let the CRB let you know what you think.



From Specific Car models http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23153


Jeff Young and I recently submitted a proposal to the ITAC to class Pony Cars, V8 Camaros, Firebirds, and Mustangs, in ITR. Clearly the years classed are somewhat limited due to horsepower concerns for ITR. The year breakdown is roughly:

89-93 Mustang GT/LX 5.0L
87-92 F-Body
94-95 Mustang GT

I feel the cars will certainly increase the ranks in ITR and give enthusiasts of these cars a place to race in IT. If you are interested in racing one of these cars in the future please write a letter to the Board of Directors ([email protected]) indicating your position.

Thanks,
Ron
__________________
Ron Earp
NC Region
#38 ITS 260Z
www.gt40s.com (http://www.gt40s.com/)

I must add that I have received the proposal, and Mr. Earp and Mr. Young have done an excellent job. Now it's up to the ITAC and the CRB, and that means YOU! If you have issues with the idea, hit "compose" and send an email to "[email protected]'.......... likewise, if you support the idea, we need to hear from you!

This is a club about the members...the ITAC tries to do right by you, and we don't always agree, but, without input, we don't even know if we do..or don't.
__________________
Jake Gulick

[JeffYoung]

Bob, welcome all comments and thoughts on it.

But, they certainly seem to fit "by the numbers" of the ITAC's weighting process. They will make speed differently than your car (worse brakes, better off corner, not as good at top end, perhaps not as good handling) but I don't see how they don't fit?

We are NOT talking about 300 hp V8s. We carefully parsed the various models of Camaro and Mustang to ensure that we picked up the stock 200 to 220 hp cars only.

Again though, open to discussion. Let me know more about any specific concerns you might have. most of the other ITR guys we talked to were fine with this, so long as the weight was ok, and it was discussed by the original ITR committee when the class was created.

Thanks.

jeff

[Ron Earp]

Is this mixing apples and oranges. As an owner of a type r integra, I gotta believe that the on track performance will in now way similar to the mix of the vast majority of ITR high rpm 3 liter range engines.


As one involved with the initial ITR class and an authoer of that proposal as well, in fact, your own car was one that was on the threshold in a way for racing in ITR. Your spec weight is far under the class norm and your engine displacement is far below average for the class. It was accepted in classing the Type R that it may "race differently" from a 3L BMW, 3.8L Camaro, 300zx, 944 S2, and so on.

I fully expect you to outbrake a 300zx and handle better, while he out-torques you off the corners.

But, the Type R fit into the class via the stock numbers, the process was run, and the car is in the class. The same process was applied to the V8 Pony cars.

The ITR drivers I've communicated with, BMW and Porsche drivers, have indicated they'd welcome the Pony cars to the class as long as they are properly classes according to the process.

As an author of the proposal I certainly think they fit - I wouldn't have written it otherwise. But as a race car driver and as one considering a choice for ITR, they are not my first choice - but neither is an Type R Integra. I think the standard "bogeys" for the class - BMW 3 series, 944S2, etc. - are more solid choices and the mainstay for the ITR class.

If they fit the process there is no logical reason why they should not be included in the class. RX7s "race differently" in ITS than me, but it works out just fine.

Ron

[JLawton]

Bob,
Have you actually READ the original thread on the ITR Pony cars? It really does go into detail on how these cars fit into the process and the discussion around it.

<edit>
Found the thread:

http://72.167.111.130/forums/showthread.php?t=23023

[dj10]

We carefully parsed the various models of Camaro and Mustang to ensure that we picked up the stock 200 to 220 hp cars only.

Again though, open to discussion. Let me know more about any specific concerns you might have. most of the other ITR guys we talked to were fine with this, so long as the weight was ok, and it was discussed by the original ITR committee when the class was created.

Thanks.

jeff
Jeff, what is the torque ratings of these 200 to 220 hp pony cars after being built? I thought that's why we had AS?
Dan

[JeffYoung]

260-280 at the wheels, we think. Torque is the advantage for these cars, in the proposal they cary a weight penalty over process weight as a result. Still probably not much more torque than a Nissan 3.0, Toyota 3.0 or BMW 3.0 inline/V6.

AS has morphed into an entirely new ruleset. It's not "IT" for Mustangs and Camaros, which is what we are trying to do here.

I see only upside for ITR with this. Lots of guys want to race Mustangs/Camaros and at the proposed weights, they will not be front runners. Just a good, cheap, fun race car. But when fully developed 3.0 BMWs and Supras etc. arrive on the scene....

[Ron Earp]

Hi Dan,

I think you'll find the cars will put down around 250-270 ft-lbs at the wheel on a Dynojet. This isn't that far off the latest 300zx ITR build that made 252 ft-lbs at the wheel on a Dynojet. The Pony cars weigh more than the 300zx in the proposal, have much smaller brakes, a less sophisicated suspension (a solid rear axle), and some of the cars have rear drum brakes.

Of course, dyno results are hard to compare, but you've got 2 valve pushrod OHV motors motors with low compression and high torque competeting against 4 valve DOHC motors that make a bit less torque, but similar or more, power.

Fortunately when the cars are classed more than just one outstanding feature of the car is considered. Power, torque, suspension, brakes, etc. are under review. While the Pony cars have great torque, they are not ITR class leaders in the other areas.

As far as the comparison to AS - for those guys that think IT prep is anything like AS, please read the AS rules set. There is no comparison between the two - non stock cylinder heads, any cam to .500" lift, tubular arms, Ford 9" rears for everyone, Holley carbs for everyone, port all you like, high hp intakes, and so on. Two different worlds. There are many GM/Ford faithful that would like the chance to run a V8 Pony car with a cheap, inexpensive, non-national, and competitive IT ruleset.

Ron

[dj10]

Hi Dan,

I think you'll find the cars will put down around 250-270 ft-lbs at the wheel on a Dynojet. This isn't that far off the latest 300zx ITR build that made 252 ft-lbs at the wheel on a Dynojet. The Pony cars weigh more than the 300zx in the proposal, have much smaller brakes, a less sophisicated suspension (a solid rear axle), and some of the cars have rear drum brakes.

Of course, dyno results are hard to compare, but you've got 2 valve pushrod OHV motors motors with low compression and high torque competeting against 4 valve DOHC motors that make a bit less torque, but similar or more, power.

Fortunately when the cars are classed more than just one outstanding feature of the car is considered. Power, torque, suspension, brakes, etc. are under review. While the Pony cars have great torque, they are not ITR class leaders in the other areas.

As far as the comparison to AS - for those guys that think IT prep is anything like AS, please read the AS rules set. There is no comparison between the two - non stock cylinder heads, any cam to .500" lift, tubular arms, Ford 9" rears for everyone, Holley carbs for everyone, port all you like, high hp intakes, and so on. Two different worlds. There are many GM/Ford faithful that would like the chance to run a V8 Pony car with a cheap, inexpensive, non-national, and competitive IT ruleset.

Ron
Understood Ron. Keep the class competitive and I'll race anything in it.:eclipsee_steering:

[lateapex911]

That's a good Attiude Dan, but my avatar is much nicer....

Folks, please read up on the conce=t...it's been gone over. We're not adding Chevy ZR6 engines to the mix here.

[Z3_GoCar]

Below is a string starting under "specific car models" where there is a request to CRB and ITAC to add '90s V8 mustang and Cameros to ITR. I hope nobody is seriously as though I don't mind sharing the track with them, I sure don't want to trade paint with them for trophies.

Is this mixing apples and oranges. As an owner of a type r integra, I gotta believe that the on track performance will in now way similar to the mix of the vast majority of ITR high rpm 3 liter range engines.

If we need another V8 class besides American Sedan, then create it. I suspect the whole of ITR would be outraged if 300 hp V8 iron is lumped into the class. Read below, let the CRB let you know what you think.



From Specific Car models http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23153





Bob,

I take it you havn't seen this thread either:

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23259

I understand your concern, if these cars far exceed their expected potential, it would drastically undermine ITR. I think it's unlikely that they will exceed the predicted power gains. Still it wouldn't hurnt to be cautious....

James

[Bob Roth]

No, though I am on the site about every day, I did not see that post. I am pleased that others are concerned too. Having raced in ITS and have run dozens of times with pony cars, I just think those cars brake, accelerate, and turn totally differently than the rest of the class which makes it very hard to compete for position with them.

Every straight, I gotta outbreak them, every turn, I am concerned about getting clobbered by one who just braked a bit too late. I don't mind sharing the track with them, I just don't want to be competing with them and trading paint for trophies. I think the typical 944, 328, 911, and S2000 driver would agree.

[JeffYoung]

Bob, with all due respect, that is racing. Cars make speed in different ways. My car (TR8, kind of Mustang like actually) is very different in how it goes fast than say a torqueless ITS RX7.

Most of the ITR drivers we have talked to (Grafton Robertson, 944S2; Dan Jones, 325i, etc.) agree, and want the competition in the class.

You'll have to come up with a numbers based argument as to why the cars shouldn't be in to ocnvince me, and I think to convince the ITAC, that they should be excluded when the numbers otherwise suggest they fit.

So, looking at their hp, their weight, and their other quantifiable attributes, why should they not be in other than you prefer to compete against them?

[Bob Roth]

Maybe because solid axle cars with undersize brakes whose rotors tend to crack every other session, with oversize engines and too much weight make poor racing when run against independently suspended cars with little dispacement but lots of handling and brakes..... It seems like a bad idea to me which is why I am posting it to the forum.

I am co-building a Teg R for ITR and think its a bad idea that will lead to a demolition derby and unhappiness for no good reason. Its up to other ITR members to speak up. If you want to trade paint with American Iron, don't say anything, apparently there are 2 votes for, one against.

[JeffYoung]

Actually, I think that those differences make for great racing. REally the whole spirit of IT right? Different cars, different attributes.

Too much subjectivity in your analysis. Define underbraked? Some think the 300ZX has too much power for its brakes. You agree? Should we exclude it? Too much weight? There are several cars in that weight range in ITR, including a couple of class "bogeys" that the class was created for -- 300ZX, Supra, 3.0 BMWs.

All I am saying is comment is of course welcomed, but comment based on "I don't want to race against them" rather than a numbers analysis is not going to get you anywhere.

[Team SSR]

With CCPS we race against Spec Racer Fords. With our 944 we run similar lap times at most tracks, but very different speeds on parts of the track. The SF are hard to shake. We have more torque, but they brake well, roll thru the corner then draft us down the straights. CCPS races are 45 min. races and I've never seen any carnage or even a full course caution for any incidents.

[Ron Earp]

The CCPS is very similar as is Jeff's TR8 analogy. Sure, the cars they are different. But IT isn't a spec class and unless there is some factual data and not lines like "OH MY GOD V8s in ITR" (the title of the thread), then I can't see how anyone is going to take the objections seriously.

Some of the aspects of the car that some folks don't think of as "good" as the other ITR cars - the live axle, low-revving engine - other folks think are extremely positive in the sense that it is low-maintenance and low stress. Also, they may be known quantities to those racers and they'd rather work with those parts than a DOHC FWD car.

The other areas, such as the brakes, put them at the bottom of the class in swept area per ton, but they are no worse than the worst in ITR. Racers have a way of making things work and I imagine triple ducting to each caliper will keep them in the game with brake management. I have to manage my Z brakes as is in ITS since they tend to go away in long sessions, although many of the newer ITS cars this isn't a concern at all. Doesn't mean I should be allowed to race my Z.

Ron

[Bob Roth]

However extreme the300 ZX is, the V8's are worse. Plus there are practical matters limiting how many Z cars will ever get out there. Few race parts available, comparatively few street cars built, no base of enthusiasts, no support base to maintain engines and drivetrains. There are 100 times all of these for pony cars, all the race parts you can want and any stock car shop will work on them. so I believe its a real possibility that there might be two or three at a race.

Per the previous post, its one thing to share the track when the Spec Racer Fords who are doing their thing and he is doing his ITS thing. He's right, here probably isn't that much carnage. What I am suggesting it it could be another deal when those two or three mustangs show up at the end of a straight and the 944 is the meat in the sandwitch when a trophy is now on the line.

I am for racing pony cars, just give them their own trophy in ITGT or whatever class you want. I believe that the best racing, and also the most legal racing occurs when similar cars are grouped by class. There is better give and take on the track, and also if a car is cheated up, its noticeable. Also, because the cars are similar, nobody is too far out in the extreme, especially when one week you are at a handling and brake track like Gingerman and next week its a power track like Road America.

If there is enough interest in pony cars, (which I expect there to be) create a class for them.

[JeffYoung]

Understood. I think we just have to agree to disagree on what makes good "IT" racing, and that is fair. I will say that in ITS, I really like the car differences. If I wanted to run a spec class, I would.

Here's one thing though. You say the 300ZX is extreme; I'd say that the 300ZX out of all cars is probably THE reason we have ITR. Several attempts were made to class it in ITS and it was barred due to performance potential. SO, it was one of the "bogeys" set in creating ITR.

ITR is not, in my view, about small displacement, high revving cars. We have some in there, at very low weights, but they were not the class "bogeys" and there was some debate as to whether they (your car included) actually fit. I was in favor of being inclusive as possible, as was I believe most of the ITR group, so they are in. But if there are extreme cars in ITR, I'd say it's the under 2.0 liter cars that came in and very low weights.

Again, Bob, comment is welcomed. I know the ITAC received your letter -- it is a club, and if you can drum up enough opposition you might get somewhere. I do hope, though, that it is based on numbers and not the fact that the Mustangs/Camaros will "race differently." Again, in my view, that is what IT is about.

[Ron Earp]

ITR is not, in my view, about small displacement, high revving cars. We have some in there, at very low weights, but they were not the class "bogeys" and there was some debate as to whether they (your car included) actually fit. I was in favor of being inclusive as possible, as was I believe most of the ITR group, so they are in. But if there are extreme cars in ITR, I'd say it's the under 2.0 liter cars that came in and very low weights.
.

This is very true and I mentioned it in another post. As ITR was being put together some of the first questionable cars that came up were the small displacement cars. The Type R, the Celica, and some others. The Celica and Type R were allowed in at low weights because it was known they would not be allowed in S. We wanted a place to race them, so they were processed in ITR.

However, they are far below the average ITR target car. The target ITR cars were cars that had more than 200hp stock, less than 240hp stock, and in general weighed more than 2800 lbs. In this sense Pony cars perfectly fit that description while Type R Integras and Celica GTS do not.

Again, different strokes for different folks. I like the diversity in IT and welcome cars that fit the process. You want a high revving lightweight, he wants a rotary motored car, I prefer a middle of the road car, some other guy he wants a high torque low-revving car. Makes for good and varied racing, in my humble opinion.

Regardless of my opinion the facts seem to support the cars being included.

[lateapex911]

Bob, I must say i disagree with your subjective concerns, but that's cool, opinions are good!.
First, your assumptions lead me to think that it's not the cars you have issues with, it's the drivers...as you repeatedly state you don't want to be at the end of the straight when the Mustang brakes to late. Well, EVERY car out there is brake limited. some more than others. It's up to the driver to operate his car withing, and at the edge of, it's limits. You know the dumbest incident wth the huge damage I've been the lucky recipient of? Getting T-boned (albeit at a 45 degree angle) going into Lime Rocks Big bend in the passenger door by a guy who fancied his car to have F1 cabable brakes...in qualifying! He was a guy who had incorrect perveptions of performance and i paid the price. He drove.....drum roll please...an Acura Integra, in ITA with "R" stickers all over it.

Should I now try to keep Integras, or "R" type cars out of my class?

Secondly, I am not a fan of "Give them their own class". SCCA has used that solution to the detriment of the whole too many times in my opinion.

I say there is a large pool of cars and enthusiasts out there who think AS is way "too much", track days are "too little", but IT might be "just right". Bring them on! Class them fairly, and demand high quality driving.

[JLawton]

Bob, I must say i disagree with your subjective concerns, but that's cool, opinions are good!.
First, your assumptions lead me to think that it's not the cars you have issues with, it's the drivers...as you repeatedly state you don't want to be at the end of the straight when the Mustang brakes to late. Well, EVERY car out there is brake limited. some more than others. It's up to the driver to operate his car withing, and at the edge of, it's limits. .




Ding, ding, ding. Right on the nose.

it's not the cars that are the problem, it's the attitudes. I've driven with every class of closed wheels in SCCA. The only problems are with people's attitudes. Remember when SM first came out?? NOBODY wanted to run with them. Some STILL don't.

Don't shun a car becaue of your lack of displacement!! :D

[Bob Roth]

I am not asking you to change your minds, just to see where I am coming from. Back in 1990, I built a Chevy Citation X-11 and was on the other end of the equation. I had the heavy, not great handling car with a rocket engine. Racing the RX-2 and 2002 tii was an exercise of trying to get it into the turn, and rocketing by them to the next one. Being the only one among them was manageable and we played well together. I don't think it would have been so much that way had there been another 2 or three X-11's in the race.

To suggest I think its about the driver is wrong. Its about the problem of having cars with inherent performance metrics differences but the same lap times compete in the same class. I think the V8 cars will run completely different than the 944's, BMW's, Porsches and Tegs that will make up the bulk of ITR.

What's relevent here is that there are a ton of old stangs and F cars out there. If so there could be a lot of people who given the chance to race a pony car in IT for the same cost that they could build a miata will give it a go. If so, we shall see what the result is. I encourage any ITR owners to speak their opinion on this change. My position is, give them their own ITGT class.

[rcc85]

Every class in IT has cars that race differently. That's part of what makes it an interesting category. An ITB Volvo races differently than an ITB VW. There are big differences in weight and power between those cars but they manage to race together pretty well.

I would hate to see ITR turn into Spec BMW.

I don't see that the V8 pony cars will race much differently than the (already classed in ITR) V6 pony cars.

If it seems that the performance of the V8 pony cars exceeds the parameters of ITR, then they won't get classed. If they fall within the ITR parameters, they should get classed. If they fall below the ITR parameters, let's put them in ITS :D!!

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[dj10]

Every straight, I gotta outbreak them, every turn, I am concerned about getting clobbered by one who just braked a bit too late. I don't mind sharing the track with them, I just don't want to be competing with them and trading paint for trophies. I think the typical 944, 328, 911, and S2000 driver would agree.

Bob, this is a main concern of mine also. I've had to deal with AS drivers using me for a brake and a tun in point @ Summit Point when I was running ITS. It is unfortunate that we cannot control the mind set of these racers or any racer for that matter. Is it not a fact that we have to watch out for unsportsman like drivers where ever we go & what ever class we run in now?

[JeffYoung]

A good discussion. I do agree with Bob that when I race CCPS against SRFs and SMs it can be frustrating but interesting in its own way because the cars make speed differently.

Bob, again, we can agree to disagree. Do round up some other ITR drivers and see what they think, and submit your comments to the ITAC.

Thanks for the thoughts on this. It is appreciated.

[shwah]

You guys might want to take a look at an ITB race with VWs and Volvos (or the odd Fiero) in it. These cars make lap times in very different ways and we have lots of fun racing together.

From an outsider's prospective (in terms of ITR) this seems to be a disagreement about what IT racing is (competitive racing with many different cars vs. competitive racing with similar cars) at best, or elitism at worst. Neither justify keeping these cars out of ITR.

[Super Swift]

I have built a 944 S2 which raced in ITR this past season. From my perspective I welcome the V8’s. V8’s would add interest to the class. I would love to race against a 68 Camaro in Penske livery w/ ITR on the side. That would be awesome. Although I am NOT interested in building a Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Capri, or whatever, I feel that they need to be given the chance to run in ITR.

I do have a big concern for RX-8’s being classified at a weight that would create an overdog in ITR. There is a concerted effort by the RX-8 proponents to have this car classed at an outlandishly low weight. At the ARRC enduro an RX-8 which competed as a T3 at the runoffs (well below IT prep) was turning times that were exceptionally competitive for ITR.

Fear the Rotary not the V8’s.

[Knestis]

Please don't mistake your frustration with struggling to compete against some type of car for evidence that said car should not be listed. Different horses for different courses and variety is an important aspect of IT, that is rapidly being lost in our sport to the "Spec-ification" movement.

K

[Rabbit07]

Fear the Rotary not the V8’s.

Indeed. However, that particlular Rx-8 did have springs on it that were not on it at the Run-offs. The car is well driven to boot.

As far as cars racing differently, I see that in every class. I run a Neon for gods sake! I blow off everyone down the striaghts and then hold them up in the corners. You just learn to drive with the people you race with.

Let the V8s play, its good for the growth of ITR.:eclipsee_steering:

[Ron]

I agree with Knestis, and I drive a "heavy" mustang in ITB with poor brakes and a solid axle. I don't feel that we screw up an ITB race. It soulds like those in ITR who fear the V-8 have failed to look at other classes in IT. I might just have to build a V-8 car to make a mess and screw everyone up. I just watched the T-2 runoff race and you want to talk about a collection of cars! They looked like they were having fun.
And just for the record, I hate rumming with SM! :)

[RacerBill]

I do not race in ITR, so I know my thoughts should not count as much as those who do race in that class. That said, my only concern is that once in the class, the owners of the V8's will start asking for mods to make them 'safer'. As I recall, American Sedan started out as an IT class. I don't recall which came first, the request for mods (bigger brakes....) or the move out of IT so it could become a National class. But in any event, my only concern would be to head off any potential rules creep.

Other than that...bring 'em on! The more cars the better.....

[Ron Earp]

I do not race in ITR, so I know my thoughts should not count as much as those who do race in that class. That said, my only concern is that once in the class, the owners of the V8's will start asking for mods to make them 'safer'.

Other than that...bring 'em on! The more cars the better.....

I don't think that is going to happen in today's IT. ITR is under the IT rules set with a strong ITAC that is now forewarned. Also, bear in mind the IT trim Pony cars will be making less power and torque than an IT build so maybe stresses will be less. If something like that does happen it won't be because of the cars, it'll be because of a failure in the ITAC/BoD.

Besides, the cars are in the same weight range as the 300zx and the 330is. I think the assumption that domestics can't handle abuse (racing) might be a bit presumptuous in this day and age. In the SE there are many examples of the mid-90s Mustangs as track cars on stock suspension bits and brakes doing just fine.

Be that as it may, no car is guaranteed to be competitive in IT, Pony cars included. I think those that want to race them will be racing them based on personal interest in the marquee. While they might be after wins if they come, I think the prudent racer will be selecting other cars if they are after consistent wins.

[dickita15]

my only concern would be to head off any potential rules creep.

That is best ensured by a vigilant and vocal constituency. We have that and it is us.

[Knestis]

That is best ensured by a vigilant and vocal constituency. We have that and it is us.

AMEN.

They may ask but the real issue is the ITAC not folding on the safety card bluff.

K

[Bob Roth]

Look, I raced against one those stang's and used to race him all the time. Cracked brake rotors per race were common, I think he even blew up a new one in one race. Granted it was Blackhawk which is about the hardest track on brakes I know but don't be surprised to see somebody requesting brake upgrades. Same thing true with rear ends. My opinion is Ford put in all the power but none of the goodness. Heck, I suspect a 928 might be a better car.......

[Ron Earp]

The beauty if IT.....

Did the Mustang racer have three ducts to each front wheel - one feeding the caliper, one the inside of the rotor, and one feeding a wrap around hat for the outside of the rotor?

One has to work hard to make a IT racer out of some of the cars. I know my Z has these allowed IT-legal improvements and it could stand to use some more.

You don't make much of a case of prohibiting a car because you feel the racer might not put in the effort to properly prep the car. This is the risk for ANY IT car out on the track at any time. You never know what your competitors have done for prep, but that has nothing to do with classing a car or preventing a car from being classed.

As far as a rear end, well, a Ford 8.8" is a far sight stronger than any other rear end I know of in ITS or ITR. If built correctly these won't break and are extremely under-stressed. If you are concerned about a Ford 8.8" rear, or a 7.5" rear for that matter, then I suggest you'll need to do more research to find a weakness in the car to prevent classification.

[pimpm3]

I am in the process of building a 2000 Celica GTS for ITR and I say bring on the V8's. I am used to sharing the track with all manner of cars when I raced my ITA MR2, and I look forward to being on track with an interesting variety of cars with my Celica.

I am not worried about a performance advantage from the Mustangs and Camaros per say. Yes they will generate twice as much torque but the Celica and the Type-R car will handle better and have better brakes then the pony cars. On top of that you would be surprised how well 180 WHP will move a 2380 lb car.

[Knestis]

... don't be surprised to see somebody requesting brake upgrades. Same thing true with rear ends. ...

Denied.

Denied.

(Insert canned response and smarty-pants postscript here) :p

K

[Ron Earp]

On top of that you would be surprised how well 180 WHP will move a 2380 lb car.


Good to hear someone feels that way. I don't think I'll be too surprised on that at all - I see how fast these 175 rwhp 240Z move and they do quite well indeed. Light makes right everywhere!

[Andy Bettencourt]

(Insert canned response and smarty-pants postscript here) :p

K

Letter forthcoming:

"Please allow the Mustang the brake package from the 19xx to avoid dangerous situations caused by brake fade due to undersized factory units. Many of my friends would be racing these cars if we could get them to stop consistantly all race long. If you don't allow something like this we will be forced to jump to NASA."

Answer:

"Not consistant with class philosophy"

Maybe we can improve that...

[erlrich]

"Not consistant with class philosophy"

Maybe we can improve that...
Yeah, but can we really publish "Well then, take your whiny little punk ass over to NASA then, we really don't need you anyway" in FasTrack?

[Ron Earp]

If they know what the answer is going to be then they won't have to write!

Also, much of this discussion is making the assumption that the brakes will not work. That might not be the case at all. Sure, they won't work as well as a Celica GTS or Type Arrrrrggghhh Integra. But with a lot of duct work, careful attention to maintenance, fluids, pads, etc. I bet they can be made to work adequately. There are lots of ITS cars that require brake maintenance, and, heaven forbid in the modern age, brake management DURING THE RACE.

Nobody ever said your IT car would be racable with no maintenance issues or even competitive. About the best we can do is class a car and the racer makes a decision. We can't second guess what people are going to do or bring up as red herrings such as:

1) aftermarket is too big, people will cheat - not ITAC's problem
2) parts are weak, the cars will break - hearsay, rumor
3) the cars are too heavy, they'll eat tires - you makes your choices and takes your pick

And so on. All we can do is class it if it fits the process and monitor the classes. I've not seen factual data on why the cars should not be classed.

One could basically start something similar against the high revving cars in ITR.

"Dear CRB,

I feel the Type Arrgggh Integra and Celica GTS should be removed from ITR. These cars have no torque compared to the average ITR car. They also don't weigh much and when a 3300 lb BMW 330i plows into one then death and destruction will ensue. And I know that will happen because these tiny 1.8L motors rev to 8000RPM!!!!!! Can you believe that, 8000 RPM???!!!! I can't imagine revving my 3.8L motor that high, the horror. Surely these grenades are going to explode in race conditions making a huge oil slick which will cause me to wreck my mulletmobile.

I'm sure you'll find my argument compelling.

Thank you,
SCCA Number #1, Thinking Only of Me
"

R

[lateapex911]

Like, should we allow EVERY other car in the class to go to oversize brakes? If so, all that achieves is EVERYone spending more, but the relative performance stays the same. Net net, lots of spending for nothing.

or, why not try ITE?

[Ron Earp]

Sure, if people decide to race the car in ITR and don't like it then they can go ITE or ITO depending on where they are. Heck, they can run it in both groups if they like.

R

[JLawton]

Sure, if people decide to race the car in ITR and don't like it then they can go ITE or ITO depending on where they are. Heck, they can run it in both groups if they like.

R


Or, if they really don't like having cars with different abilities in the same class, there's always Spec Miata...:023:








:rolleyes:

[fiat124girl]

It seems to me that some folks just don't want to be on track with the American cars out of some level of prejudice.

By the way, there are no similarities between IT rules and AS rules, we built an AS Camaro last year and it is an entirely different beast (lots more money involved).

I can't wait to see the ITR races, there should be some outstanding competition because of the differences in the cars. I can see it now, a S2000 running head to head with a 300ZX and a Camaro, what could be more fun.

[lateapex911]

^ X eleventy billion..

[dj10]

It seems to me that some folks just don't want to be on track with the American cars out of some level of prejudice.

By the way, there are no similarities between IT rules and AS rules, we built an AS Camaro last year and it is an entirely different beast (lots more money involved).

I can't wait to see the ITR races, there should be some outstanding competition because of the differences in the cars. I can see it now, a S2000 running head to head with a 300ZX and a Camaro, what could be more fun.

I don't think this is quite true. I race ITR and as long as it's classed correctly and meet the rules, bring it on. I hate running against all BMW's like I did "mostly" last year. I'm looking for fresh meat! Don't get me wrong, a race is a race and I had a blast last year even when I was the only ITR/DP because I race everything out on the track. Hell at Watkins Glen last year I raced in the Big Bore group and was 5th overall beating all the AS cars, ITE, etc. cars and being beaten by 3 GT1 & a SPU. So bring on the American Iron and let them prove they belong in the ITR class.

[kgobey]

Oh to age myself or not to age myself, that is the question.

I used to run an ITGT Mustang GT - an 87 - in the 90's... The car was a rocket, then somewhere around 1/2 way down the straight I'd start braking for the turn... But I loved it.

And this news is going to make me search the Ads for an 87 Mustang GT.

[77ITA]

I don't see any issues with V8 cars racing in ITR, so long as proper attention is paid to certain details. Specifically, the high-rev 4 cylinder cars (Celica, S2000, Integra) already have a very high specific output and will not see the same gains from IT modifications as the lower tech / higher displacement cars. This includes V6 cars as well, IMHO.

On a side note, I love the elitist attitude about the Integra Type R. They only thing 'fancy' about your car is the engine. If you're going to complain about running on track with a bunch of big dumb American demo-derby cars, you better at least have some expensive body parts, ala rear quarter panel on a boxter.

:p

[Ron Earp]

I think this thread overwhelmingly shows support for V8 Pony cars at the proper weight in ITR. Now it is up to the ITAC and CRB to do their job and get the cars correctly speced for ITR.

[Xian]

I don't see any issues with V8 cars racing in ITR, so long as proper attention is paid to certain details. Specifically, the high-rev 4 cylinder cars (Celica, S2000, Integra) already have a very high specific output and will not see the same gains from IT modifications as the lower tech / higher displacement cars. This includes V6 cars as well, IMHO.

If they can run thru the "formula" then they should be able to run in IT :happy204:


On a side note, I love the elitist attitude about the Integra Type R. They only thing 'fancy' about your car is the engine. If you're going to complain about running on track with a bunch of big dumb American demo-derby cars, you better at least have some expensive body parts, ala rear quarter panel on a boxter.

:p

Having owned a Type R for several years, I find the somewhat elitist attitude amusing too. In IT trim level it's really that much more than a GSR with a "cooler" engine, bigger brakes, and a slightly sitffer chassis. Even with that being said, if I had deeeeep pockets, I'd love to build an ITR Type R. :cool:

Christian

[lateapex911]

The elitist thing strikes me odd as well. it's not like we're talking about a Ferrari Stradale running against a circle track Pinto! It's a Ford vs a Honda..when you get down to it!

[Xian]

The elitist thing strikes me add as well. it's not like we're talking about a Ferrari Stradale running against a circle track Pinto! It's a Ford vs a Honda..when you get down to it!

Obviously you haven't heard the JDM Honda fanboi mantra: "It's not a tite[sic] car if it's not a Type R!" :p

[Bob Roth]

I repeat my original note; "Having raced in ITS and have run dozens of times with pony cars, I just think those cars brake, accelerate, and turn totally differently than the rest of the class which makes it very hard to compete for position with them. Every straight, I gotta outbreak them, every turn, I am concerned about getting clobbered by one who just braked a bit too late. I don't mind sharing the track with them, I just don't want to be competing with them and trading paint for trophies. I think the typical 944, 328, 911, and S2000 driver would agree." I am being honest and explaining my concerns, not being prejudiced or elitist.

I believe its too early to add different V8 cars to a new class like ITR. My vote is to wait a couple of years and see. If there are huge fields of 300 ZX's as some predict. Then go ahead and add them. On the other hand we get good fields that's 80% BMW's, Porsches, Honda's, and Acura's. Leave the class the alone because its working.

If the SCCA has to decide this this today, don't mess with ITR, create a separate "ITGT class forthe V8s.

[ed325its]

Agree, all good points.

[Knestis]

Having raced in ITB and have run dozens of times with all kinds of cars from Mustangs, to Toyotas, to Volvos, I just think those cars brake, accelerate, and turn totally differently than the rest of the class which makes it very hard to compete for position with them.

Every straight, I gotta outbreak them, every turn, I am concerned about getting clobbered by one who just braked a bit too late.

In an enduro, it's compounded because we have to contend with cars NOT in our class that behave precisely the same way - most notoriously, it seems, a couple of 944s and (quite freakishly) more than a few Miatae.

It's called multi-marque racing.

FWIW.

K

[JeffYoung]

Bob, fair points.

I would ask you to do this. Take the "stock" specs for a 330i, or a 328 for that matter -- hp/tq/curb weight and compare them to the same specs for the Mustangs and Camaros we are trying to class.

I suspect these cars will race a lot more alike than you suspect.

[Bob Roth]

That's an intersting topic. Is a 135 hp 2.8 liter ITA citation X-11 really the same car as a 125 hp ITA 2002 tii? Especially after tuning?

Here is what I think a dyno would tell us.The V6 block chevy pulls maybe 120 hp at the wheels before IT build. maybe 150 after. It gets a lot of help from headers and tuning. The 2002 might be 120 befire IT build and 135 after cause the BMW built it as a performance car.

Because of its displacement, the not great breathing the citation make 130 hp at 4500 rpm after shifting, peaks at 150 at 5500 and is back at 140 Hp at 6000.

The BMW, starts at 107 hp at 4500 RPM after shift making and makes 135 hp at 5500 and maybe 130 at 6000.

Race em together, its the X-11 down the straight, the 2002 in the turns and braking.

Now to your point. even if a 5 liter mustang on the street has the same HP and weight as a 2.8 liter 328 is, I think the same story will unfold. It certainly has for me racing a 160 hp Del Sol against a TR-8. Can hang with them through the corner, eat him through braking, and hang till we both shift. Then he goes from maybe 140 whp at 5500 rpm to 140 whp at 4300 rpm. I meanwhile go from 156 whp at 8200 RPM to 120 hp at 6500 RPM. He's gone.

If somebody has good dyno numbers, cool. I think they would show that the 5 liter cars HP curves are pretty flat across the shift points compared to a 2.8 BMW which I expect is flat tourque and peaks HP at rev limit. Therfore 25% rpm loss at shift is 25% hp loss. I don't have the data at hand, but this is an educated idea of the differences that exist.

How could such cars have the same lap time? I think it comes down to strut suspensions, solid axles and relatively small brakes on the V8 cars just like my X-11 vs a 2002tii.

The one point that gets lost here is that I think diversity like this doesn't make better racing. With their cheap costs, we could get a lot of V8 cars. When there is such a big differences, if the V8 cars are wrong for the class, there will be a lot of pressure to fix the class. If one shows up with a rocket, is it great prep or great cams, nobody knows. A lot of problems are solved when similar cars are classed together. There is no diversity in spec miata and SRF, they are our largest classes.

By my estimation, ITR will be about BMW's, Porsche's, Acura's and Honda's with remarkably close racing. This is what shows up in lower classes. Although they are classed, I will be surprised to see many 300 zx's as these are complex and expensive cars to develop and race. Especially if you have to build them from scratch. I think it would be better for SCCA turnouts and the participants to run the V8 cars in their own class. Based on the enthusiastic response, we might be surprised how many show up.

Just another enjoyable hour on the IT forum.

bob

[JeffYoung]

Well, at least I understand our fundamental difference now. I enjoy (I race a TR8 by the way) diversity in ways of going fast, you see it as a problem.

Again, I think you are using an outlier to make your case, this time the Del Sol. In the SEDiv anyway, most of the cars I run against are Z cars, RX7s or 944s. Believe me, while I have more whp than you indicate (about 160 at 5000 rpm) I'm not leaving anyone at the end of the straights.

I just see nothing in your post that leads me to believe that the 328 or 330s advantage in braking and handling will be so disparate with the Mustang and Camaro's advantage in midrange as to make them "unraceable" against each other.

You won't convince me with the above, but I'm not the guy you need to convince. I do think it will be sad though if the V8s are excluded on that basis, because it is based on a fear of diversity in racing when in fact that is one of the fundamental principles of IT racing. IT racing is NOT SM or SRF and in the SEDiv, IT fields are nearly as large as those two classes.

I do appreciate your opinion though and it has made me think. We just have to agree to disagree.

[Knestis]

>> The one point that gets lost here is that I think diversity like this doesn't make better racing.

I'm with Jeff on this. Diversity is a hallmark of the kind of racing we do. People have bought into Spec Miata for lots of different reasons but I believe that we're going to see an increasing number of those drivers realize that their decisions were based on misconceptions. Watch for a increase in the number of IT Miatae in the next couple years. I'm also struggling to understand your definition of "better racing," perhaps - to be fair - because a big part of MY personal definition is cars with different relative advantages competing in the same class, dealing with the same circumstances. I think a lot of our competitors feel the same way, as evidenced by the fact that they seem to choose a variety of cars.

>> With their cheap costs, we could get a lot of V8 cars.

And this is a problem how? A cynic would suggest that you might be objecting because it will be possible to achieve competitive times while spending less dough. I confess that a little part of my primitive skeptic brain is waiting for someone to say, "I spent $70K making my 300zx go fast and I just don't want to be on the same track with those cheap POS American cars." I'm not sure yet exactly what my response might be but I'm leaning toward "Bummer."

>> When there is such a big differences, if the V8 cars are wrong for the class, there will be a lot of pressure to fix the class.

It might just be that I'm not following here. There is SOME possibility I suppose that, as the ITAC gains experience and data for the proposed V8 cars, it becomes necessary to invoke the Performance Compensation Adjustment clause. But that's "fixing the car" not "fixing the class." If there's something I'm missing on this, help me understand it.

>> If one shows up with a rocket, is it great prep or great cams, nobody knows. A lot of problems are solved when similar cars are classed together.

That's enforcement and NO make/model eligibility, preparation rule, or policy enforce rules in Club Racing. We're all responsible for understanding and protesting anything that we have a problem with. And I don't see that there's ANY correlation between diversity and noncompliance. If anything, we tend to see more cheats - or maybe chase more into the light - in spec classes than in multi-marque classes. If you are suggesting that this is the case because it is in fact harder to know what to protest on a car with which you aren't familiar, I'll grant you that. However, the problem is the same for all of us.

Sorry. With respect, Bob - you make a great case for why YOU don't want to race against these cars but no case that excluding them is good for the class or Club Racing.

We've got a collective obligation to make sure that we get the cars matched reasonably well in terms of their potential. There's NO assurance - nor SHOULD there be on - that some models won't develop an advantage through development of a knowledge base, affordable aftermarket parts, or even sheer numbers. There is a very good possibility that the Camaro might be the right horse for some course but that in and of itself isn't a problem.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Jeff,

What Bob is saying is it's easier to make a car wide in a corner than on the straight. When your advantage is in the corner you have to get to the corner first, and you can't get to the corner first because they just step harder on the loud pedal. Like Bob, I would argue that there'll be a greater gain in both torque and horsepower in a pair of headers and loosing the Cats with these cars, making these cars the instant over-dogs of ITR. Besides these cars are the staple of AS, and I know of one local '88 Camero that does well in the Runoffs and runs with Super Production, both litterally and time wise.

So; these cars already have a place to play, the gains will most likely be larger than anticipated, and they don't play well with others. This sounds like the starting of a class bully/problem child.

James

[JeffYoung]

James, I fully understand what Bob is saying.

Myself and Ron Earp wrote the V8 proposal. We did a LOT of research on what you can expect to gain from an IT build of a 305/302 Chevy/Ford motor. You are looking at 240-250 whp and 250-270 wtq. That's about teh same as what you can expect from a 330i or a 300zx (the car that is basically teh reason ITR exists).

These V8s have cams and intakes designed for street torque. They will have very good midranges, ok handling and ok brakes. They will not have the top end or peak power of the 968, the 330i, the Supra or the 300zx.

So, other than innuendo and speculation, please give me numbers to back up your belief that an ITR mid 80s Mustang will be an overdog.

Last time on teh AS deal. AS is completely different level of prep than IT.

The easy solution to the concerns (unfounded and unsupported by any hard numbers in my view) of "overdoggedness" is two fold. I've offered to the ITAC to have a quality engine shop build a Ford 302 to IT specs on my nickel, and then dyno it. But let's put that aside for the moment. The second, and easiest solution is to allow the cars in at their process weight. I haven't seen you guys make any arguments regarding process, which is how the classification system works. If the cars fit via the process -- and they do -- then they should be in.

But let's assume that you guys are right and these cars are overdogs. "Race different" doesn't count; sorry guys, as Kirk eloquently explained, this is not SM. But if they prove to be overdogs, the rules allow a onetime PCA to fix that.

What I continue to see in the "anti" posts is "oh my God there are going to be a bunch of fast in a straight line buckets of bolts running my class." I just don't get that, it goes against the very basic principles of IT philosophy and it frankly makes no sense to me. In 3-4 years, I will build an ITR car, and it will probably be of the inline or V6 variety. I woudl WELCOME 4-5 Mustangs or Camaros in the mix with racing.

In fact, I would say that right now, ITS, ITA and ITB are THE best classes for club racing right now. Why? DIVERSITY.

My TR8 (high torque, ok handling, no brakes) races great against 240zs (more top end, better brakes, better handling), rX7s (top end, brakes, handling, no torque), 944 (handling and brakes), Integra (high rpm hp, handling brakes). All of those cars are very different and the racing is great.

An ITR Mustang is NO DIFFERENT FROM AN ITR INTEGRA OR AN S2000 AS MY TR8 IS FROM AN RX7 OR AN INTEGRA GSR.

The sky is not falling guys. If it shows, show me NUMBERS using the ITAC process to prove these cars don't fit in ITR. They do.

And yes, I am frustrated by this mantra of "they don't race the same" as opposed to focusing on the numbers the rules require to be used to class cars.

Signing off. I am starting to agitted and I don't like that. Indications are you guys have won anyway, so enjoy the victory.

[Ron Earp]

Hey Jeff, the proposal has the cars at about 240-250 rear wheel hp for good builds. I accidentally edited the wrong value there, but that is what is shown in the proposal sent to the ITAC. In the end it is sad to see the process for the class put aside with prejudice and misconception taking its place. If your car was being classed today it'd likely not make it in ITS for the reasons you site. And that would be a grave mistake.

[JeffYoung]

Interestingly enough, if you talk to Ted Schumacher and Morey Doyle who got the car classed in ITS in the first place in the late 80s, there was the same reaction -- and I quote -- "Oh My God, V8s in ITS!"

Same prejudices. It will have too much of a power gain. My god, look at the wheel it can lay. It just won't race well with the 240Z/1st Gen RX7 (which was in S at the time!)/etc.

While the car has had successes in S, it certainly is no overdog.

[Rabbit05]

I am a die hard VW fan , but a running a Ford in IT trim would certainly interest me ! A.S. rules are out of control and I could never afford to build one. Why not let them into ITR ? I have had to run against high power ITA cars against my ITC car. They would blow by me in the straights and I would catch them in the corners... I have run in SM , and I have run against SM in my Rabbit (r.i.p).:( Spec classes are fun to race in....IMO..

BUT that is why I am drawn to IT , The diversity in cars , makes , models...difference in perforemance capabilities...I mean V8's , I-6's , those rotory do-hickys, high power I-4's , thats a cool looking class if you ask me, and as a spectator I would love to watch that race.....Look at Grand Am's GS/St classes...great competition !:023:

I say bring on the Pony cars...



I am off to the dirt track to go find me a 'tang !:eclipsee_steering:


-John

[JeffYoung]

And as I read it, posts like the above are running about 10 to 2 in favor of the V8s in ITR.

[Rabbit07]

According to the fastrack I was the only one who wrote an email supporting the idea. Can we get some more emails going in support of the V8s?

[JLawton]

According to the fastrack I was the only one who wrote an email supporting the idea. Can we get some more emails going in support of the V8s?


Guilty as charged. I just shot one out in support.

[GKR_17]

I'm all for letting the V8's in R, as long as they go through the process. The same should be true for every car. Don't forget the Rx-8, there's a contingent at work trying to get it classed for next season at around 2700 lbs - a car with 238 hp stock. There won't be any diversity in R if that happens.

Grafton

[JeffYoung]

Teh request to class them was at process weight.....I can't remember the specific numbers, but around 3200/3300 I think.

On the RX8, I wrote the proposal for that and gave it to anyone who wanted to see it, including you Grafton. No secret contingent involved.

I have no interest in racing an RX8. None. Zip. Hate rotaries. But to me, it is one of the quintessential cars that must be in the class, along with the 944S2, the 328/330i and the 330ZX.

The issue on the RX8 and weight is really very simple. There is a lot of verifiable data out there to prove that (a) 238 stock hp is WAY optimistic on those cars, adn that most stock RX8s dyno in the 170-175 whp range and (b) the Renesis doesn't benefit from IT prep gains like other motors.

Grafton, if you and Ben or others have real data to rebut that evidence, I'd love to see it and would adjust my views on the car's proposed weight accordingly. More importantly, submit it to the ITAC for consideration.

[lateapex911]

Sorry if the following sounds harsh, or confrontational, it's not supposed to be, but many of these arguments against inclusion are based on what I see as failed logic and red herrings. understandable, I've initially thought in similar terms but rejected my thinking after digesting the bigger picture...


Jeff,

What Bob is saying is it's easier to make a car wide in a corner than on the straight. When your advantage is in the corner you have to get to the corner first, and you can't get to the corner first because they just step harder on the loud pedal.


Racecraft. Yes, that's what happens in mixed marque racing. You need to solve different problems, and different solutions come into play. Some people say that "rain drivers" are better, but really, it's often the case that they are more creative, and adapt better. As Kirk and Jeff, and others have pointed out, we are already in mixed marque racing....and if the cars are classed well, some WILL win at certain tracks, while OTHERS will win at other tracks. And THAT's the joy of it.


Like Bob, I would argue that there'll be a greater gain in both torque and horsepower in a pair of headers and loosing the Cats with these cars, making these cars the instant over-dogs of ITR.
Stop right there. THAT argument is NOT about Fords and Chevys, it's either about EVERY car or No car, because you are assuming that the classification is somehow *right* for everything but will be *wrong* for these cars. On what do you base that claim? Show me evidence that supports the claim that the ITAC will screw up *this * classification, but hasn't others. Basing an objection on a mis classification is really rather illogical, and rather self serving. Not buying it.



Besides these cars are the staple of AS, and I know of one local '88 Camero that does well in the Runoffs and runs with Super Production, both litterally and time wise. As has been pointed out, IT and As are very different rulesets. Following your logic, I suppose we should NOT class BWMs in IT if they are already classed in Prod, right? I mean, they have a place to play already, let's just tell them to go Prod racing.
This is a central argument from those against the inclusion, and it is a total red herring.


So; these cars already have a place to play,....No, they don't

the gains will most likely be larger than anticipated, ...who says?

and they don't play well with others....sounding elitist...

This sounds like the starting of a class bully/problem child.based on the backing info, I disagree with the conclusion.

[lateapex911]

OK, I'm trying to think about this and play devils advocate a bit....

Suppose the critics are right...the ITAC has it's head shoved so far where the sun don't shine that it can't see the potential overdogs that lurk beneath the oh- so- thick sheetmetal of American iron.

So, the process pegs them at 250-ish rwhp, and sets the weight (with other factors considered of course) at 3XXX pounds.

But, reality is that the cars make more (much more actually, if the claims of greater gains in tq and power resulting in instant overdogs are accepted)...what to do? What IF they REALLY DO make 275?

Why not set a fail safe? Like say 260? Through the use of an SIR. It's all fine and dandy if you don't have a great build, and if you have a good build that is at the process level, you'll be unaware of any SIR...but, if you are the guy who discovers the loophole the ITAC missed then hey, nice try, but you run into the SIR roadblock to world domination.

Would such a strategy ease the concerns?

(Don't flame me, I'm throwing this out for critical comment, and already know what certain responses will be, but i think it will be illuminating overall.)

[vr6guy]

I think I may throw up from reading all of this thread in its entirety. With that out of the way, in my opinion I think it would be to let them run in ITR. I really think that more peole would build an IT prepped pony car compared to a supra, or 300zx, which would help the class in its progression. On top of that it would bump up the car counts. just my opinion

Marc rider
NER
ITB VW

[GKR_17]

On the RX8, I wrote the proposal for that and gave it to anyone who wanted to see it, including you Grafton. No secret contingent involved.

I have no interest in racing an RX8. None. Zip. Hate rotaries. But to me, it is one of the quintessential cars that must be in the class, along with the 944S2, the 328/330i and the 330ZX.

The issue on the RX8 and weight is really very simple. There is a lot of verifiable data out there to prove that (a) 238 stock hp is WAY optimistic on those cars, adn that most stock RX8s dyno in the 170-175 whp range and (b) the Renesis doesn't benefit from IT prep gains like other motors.

Grafton, if you and Ben or others have real data to rebut that evidence, I'd love to see it and would adjust my views on the car's proposed weight accordingly. More importantly, submit it to the ITAC for consideration.

Jeff,

I must say I'm surprised that you'd be so quick to spec a car outside of the process since you've been touting the great changes since its implementation. Up to now, every car in ITR has been through it, I see no reason to change that (for V-8's or rotaries).

On paper the Rx-8 is very similar to the S2000. Both have high power, high rpm, low torque motors. Actual published performance numbers slightly favor the Honda, but don't forget that it's over 200 lbs lighter from the factory. When it was classed the S2000 received the lowest expected hp gain at 15%. The Renesis may be highly tweaked already, but there are clearly still improvements to be made. I seem to recall an ITAC member stating that 15% gain was as low as they were willing to go, I hope this holds true.

As for the mass of verifiable data, I will concede that it can be useful to show that this engine won't see the improvements previously found in the 12a and 13b versions. However, no matter how honorable the intentions, this data is highly suspect. All of the numbers I've seen were either from disgruntled performance types (trying to show a car didn't meet spec) or a potential racer/builder with an obvious bias to have the car classed as light as possible. In either case, the data supplier's case is better stated if the numbers are lower. I will be glad to put a stock Rx-8 on a Dynapak and show it can make well over 200 at the wheels. That data may not be believable either, but that's my point.

Let's not forget that the same car whose dyno sheet is in question here was said to be competitive with E46 330 BMW's. The Rx-8 at 2650lbs, and the 330 at 2875 lbs. As you know, the 330 is speced at 3290 in ITR. Granted that was another series with different prep rules, but the same could be said of the dyno data.

Here's another question: what are the best ITS Rx-7 putting down? Better than 180whp I believe(starting stock at 160 hp at the crank). The claim seems to be that a full prep Rx-8 only makes 197whp. I don't buy it.

The process has shown to be a good thing so far, let's not jump ship so soon.

Grafton

[Andy Bettencourt]

Grafton, enable your PM's.

[JeffYoung]

I absolutely am not jumping ship on the process.

What I am telling you is that the data I see more than suggests, but proves (to me), that that the stock number of 238 crank hp is wrong. The car makes about 170-175 whp. It appears to have about 200 to 210 crank hp, corrected. This is the number that should be used, in my view, in teh process.

If you have Dynapack data showing the RX8 at 200 whp stock, I'm all ears. Data like that WILL change my mind. But DATA though. Not just well, the car is classed at X in Y race series under Z rules.

I understand your concern over misclassing this car. It is valid. If you have hard data to support to those concerns, mean dyno numbers on a stock car, I'm all ears.

I just went and did some net searching. See a lot of RX8 dyno plots like this:

http://www.dragtimes.com/2004-Mazda-RX-8-Dyno-Results-Graphs-8792.html

BUT, I do see that some computer work gets some cars up to 200 whp. Maybe you are on to something, I need to do some reading.

[Ron Earp]

If you fellows want to discuss RX8s in ITR make a new thread. The RX8 info is too valuable to lie buried in six pages of Oh My God V8s in ITR.

I'd suggest a new thread entitled Oh my God RX8s in ITR.

[Z3_GoCar]

.....Stop right there. THAT argument is NOT about Fords and Chevys, it's either about EVERY car or No car, because you are assuming that the classification is somehow *right* for everything but will be *wrong* for these cars. On what do you base that claim? Show me evidence that supports the claim that the ITAC will screw up *this * classification, but hasn't others. Basing an objection on a mis classification is really rather illogical, and rather self serving. Not buying it.



Jake,

I didn't mean to come off sounding elietist, and I was on the fence initally, maybe skeptical, but on the fence none the less. I've also have experience with spec racing and also multi-class racing. I've run against these cars as American Sedan is in my run group.

I also don't feel that the process is perfect, maybe close enough for a 90% solution, but that leaves mabe 5% over predicted and 5% under. The reason I pointed out this one allowed mod is because of the cast-iron logs that GM and Ford call exhaust manifolds on these cars. Performane is probably at the bottom of the list when the molds were made for these. So will the weight be based on a 15% gain, a 25% gain or a 35% gain. If it's 30% or higher then you're talking about classing a 3500lb car and it needs to wait.


James

[JeffYoung]

Your numbers are wrong. With I think a 25% gain on a 205-215 hp motor and a 100 lb adder for torque, you get a race weight very similar to the 330i, the Supra and the 300zx.

[Ron Earp]

Jake,

I didn't mean to come off sounding elietist, and I was on the fence initally, maybe skeptical, but on the fence none the less. I've also have experience with spec racing and also multi-class racing. I've run against these cars as American Sedan is in my run group.


James, this is part of the problem - you have NOT run against these ITR Pony cars - V8 Camaros and Mustangs.

You have run against AS cars - a VERY different animal. Have a look at the rules sometime.

Your mistake is a common mistake that people make when considering these cars. AS rules set is far and away from IT - manditory use of 4bbl carbs (awesome potential here), Victor intakes (awesome performance), unlimited valvetrain and cams to 0.500", after market heads that far outflow the stockers in IT prep trim, aftermarket valves, springs, transmissions, high compression not allowed in IT, and so on.

About the only thing the ITR Pony cars share with AS is the names of the cars.

[Ron Earp]

the cast-iron logs that GM and Ford call exhaust manifolds on these cars. Performane is probably at the bottom of the list when the molds were made for these. So will the weight be based on a 15% gain, a 25% gain or a 35% gain. If it's 30% or higher then you're talking about classing a 3500lb car and it needs to wait.


James

Actually James, starting with 1985 5L HO Ford motors the engines came with stainless steel tubular exhaust manifolds. This continued to 1995 on the 5L motors before the motor was discontinued in the Mustang. While certainly not a header, they were a unequal length 4 into 1 design that was far better than the cast iron logs you found on the pedestrian Ford 5L motors. I've owned many of these cars and know first hand was used in their production.

Here is a picture of the 1995 engine in question (no exhaust manifold log as you claim):

http://www.wrljet.com/fordv8/images/5.0-efi.jpg

The 1995 motor is characterized by the much lower intake manifold with a radius curve in the intake. This low performance piece seriously impedes maximum airflow into the motor along with the undersized MAF and throttle body.

If the sorts of misconceptions that you bring up are in the minds of the CRB and ITAC members then it is no wonder that ITR Pony cars won't make it...

Ron

[JeffYoung]

Day-um! I bet that thang could lay a wheel 100 feets long!

[Knestis]

>> If the sorts of misconceptions that you bring up are in the minds of the CRB and ITAC members then it is no wonder that ITR Pony cars won't make it...

Remember that the ITAC and CRB are made up of SCCA members with all different kinds of experiences and preconceptions, but that means that pretty much ALL of the perspectives have SOME representation.

I'll leave it by saying that, from my point of view, the rationale for inclusion of this limited number of makes/models in ITR are well researched and presented. The decision making process moves on...

K

[Ron Earp]

Remember that the ITAC and CRB are made up of SCCA members with all different kinds of experiences and preconceptions, but that means that pretty much ALL of the perspectives have SOME representation.

I'll leave it by saying that, from my point of view, the rationale for inclusion of this limited number of makes/models in ITR are well researched and presented. The decision making process moves on...

K


Agreed, and I should not be so narrow minded to assume these perspectives should, or will, be the same. I think by nature the SCCA attracts folks that are "non domestic V8 minded" and to some extent might have a phobia of these cars.

[JeffYoung]

And that is all we can ask for.

I do think the ITAC will give this a fair shake. If they don't come in, I'll be ticked, but it will pass.

Thanks for the time on it guys. Much appreciated.


>> If the sorts of misconceptions that you bring up are in the minds of the CRB and ITAC members then it is no wonder that ITR Pony cars won't make it...

Remember that the ITAC and CRB are made up of SCCA members with all different kinds of experiences and preconceptions, but that means that pretty much ALL of the perspectives have SOME representation.

I'll leave it by saying that, from my point of view, the rationale for inclusion of this limited number of makes/models in ITR are well researched and presented. The decision making process moves on...

K

[lateapex911]

It's kinda funny. When this was first brought up, in my mind, i thought "Uh oh...those things are going to KILL down the straights..."

I kept my mouth shut, and looked at the numbers.

It's funny because I am often one of the first guys to poke fun at the crap that comes from Detroit, and my biggest pet peeve is their lazy engineering philosophy that relies on the "bigger is better" theory.....yet my first reacton was one of fear. Fear born of years of reading about how fast these big old muricun V8s are....

We've all been browbeaten by the automotive press from the muscle car days into thinking that Detroit builds ground pounding fast cars. But a critical look at the numbers shows thats often not the case. Lots of those muscle cars of legend struggled to break 6 or 7 second 0 -6- times.....times that tons of cars do today. Like BMW 3 series. I'm a little chagrined that my just purchased 2003 M3 barely outruns a garden variety 3 series of today. Ack, the cars are quick!

I think this preconception is clouding our judgements. This proposal is about specific cars, and is well researched. The limitations of the motors are well documented, and IT prep won't result in releasing fire breathing dragons.

That said, the ITAC is, of course, doing it's due diligence.

[dj10]

It's kinda funny. When this was first brought up, in my mind, i thought "Uh oh...those things are going to KILL down the straights..."

I kept my mouth shut, and looked at the numbers.

It's funny because I am often one of the first guys to poke fun at the crap that comes from Detroit, and my biggest pet peeve is their lazy engineering philosophy that relies on the "bigger is better" theory.....yet my first reacton was one of fear. Fear born of years of reading about how fast these big old muricun V8s are....

We've all been browbeaten by the automotive press from the muscle car days into thinking that Detroit builds ground pounding fast cars. But a critical look at the numbers shows thats often not the case. Lots of those muscle cars of legend struggled to break 6 or 7 second 0 -6- times.....times that tons of cars do today. Like BMW 3 series. I'm a little chagrined that my just purchased 2003 M3 barely outruns a garden variety 3 series of today. Ack, the cars are quick!

I think this preconception is clouding our judgements. This proposal is about specific cars, and is well researched. The limitations of the motors are well documented, and IT prep won't result in releasing fire breathing dragons.

That said, the ITAC is, of course, doing it's due diligence.

What I worry about is using me for a damn brake. :cool:

Congrats Jake on your E46 M3, hope you have as much fun with your as i do with mine. Had mine up to 155 (no speed limiter) and it was still pulling stong. The 2 cars I did pass looked like they were chained to a pole.

[Ron]

Stop with the using me as a brake and they can't turn. As I have said in the past I run a 87 mustang in ITB that many would feel is "heavy and under braked" and I have never used other cars as brakes. I run the car because it is inexpensive to run, can be made to handle o.k., and makes tons of power. The car is easy to work on and simple to run. I am far from the redneck Detroit car owner that most of you fear. I have a classic 1974 3.0 cs in the driveway, and my co-driver dad, drives a 2005 Porsche GT-3 every day. My crew chief and engine builder owns a 1957 Porsche speedster and an E-46 BMW. Is that enough proof that we do know what a "real" car should be?
I just get the sense that those that fear the V-8 hate the fact that it will be cheap to build and run compared to the import stuff they run, and that it might be competitive. Yes you all sound like snobs.

[dj10]

Stop with the using me as a brake and they can't turn. As I have said in the past I run a 87 mustang in ITB that many would feel is "heavy and under braked" and I have never used other cars as brakes. I run the car because it is inexpensive to run, can be made to handle o.k., and makes tons of power. The car is easy to work on and simple to run. I am far from the redneck Detroit car owner that most of you fear. I have a classic 1974 3.0 cs in the driveway, and my co-driver dad, drives a 2005 Porsche GT-3 every day. My crew chief and engine builder owns a 1957 Porsche speedster and an E-46 BMW. Is that enough proof that we do know what a "real" car should be?
I just get the sense that those that fear the V-8 hate the fact that it will be cheap to build and run compared to the import stuff they run, and that it might be competitive. Yes you all sound like snobs.

Ron,
Unless you have a ITR prepared American car, keep your snob comments to yourself please. Your running around in a ITB car and your going to lecture us, the people that have been hit by big AS cars because they can't stop or brake properly! I'm so happy for you that your dad and crew chief have cars with good brakes. I'll sleep better knowing that.

[Ron Earp]

Ron, I’ve basically come to the conclusion that there are those that don’t want domestics in the class, regardless if they fit the process or not. The red herrings trotted out boil down to these:
The cars have too much torque – Refuted. It has more torque than the others, but about the same as a recent ITR 300zx at 252 rwtq on a dynojet. Besides, the Pony cars get a weight modifier for high torque.
The cars have a place to race now – Refuted. There is no comparison between IT and AS prep. There are many folks that would build ITR Pony cars but want nothing to do with AS prep levels or national racing.
The cars will make too much power – Refuted. Fits process and linear regression analysis for ITR perfectly. The motors are low-revving air pumps, rather crude ones at that, and if one cared to look they have inherit characteristics that prevent them from making huge horsepower numbers.
The cars race differently from my Borgwald Mobile – Sure they do, this is IT, a mixture of cars racing on the same track, with similar prep levels, and classed accordingly. There are lots of spec classes in the SCCA and NASA if that is what you are after.
The cars can’t brake – Refuted. There are plenty car cars racing now with less swept area per ton and inferior equipment, like my solid disc rear drum 1969 technology 260Z for example. Brakes fine. Not like a Miata, but it brakes fine.
The cars will break – Refuted. All cars break. Mustangs and Camaros are raced all over the country with stock suspension pieces and do just fine. One thing is for certain, they be less expensive to fix than most IT cars.
There are many misconceptions around the cars. Such as the “log exhaust manifold”, the “seat of pants feel” of a motor designed to produce maximum torque from 1500-3500 RPM, and similar items. These cars do not exceed the performance of other cars in ITR and is most cases fall short of them.I’m not sure why some “hate” the idea of including the cars in IT. Are we attracting “undesirables” to IT if we include Pony cars in IT? Are domestic lovers to be shunned?

If the IT classification process is correct, and all indicates point to it being pretty good, and the cars fit well with the model, and it seems they do, then class the Pony cars.

[dj10]

Ron, I’ve basically come to the conclusion that there are those that don’t want domestics in the class, regardless if they fit the process or not. The red herrings trotted out boil down to these:
If the IT classification process is correct, and all indicates point to it being pretty good, and the cars fit well with the model, and it seems they do, then class the Pony cars.

Ron Earp,
If the cars fit the class, lets do it. I can make my BMW as wide as any chevy or ford.:)

[JLawton]

Ron,
Unless you have a ITR prepared American car, keep your snob comments to yourself please. Your running around in a ITB car and your going to lecture us, the people that have been hit by big AS cars because they can't stop or brake properly! I'm so happy for you that your dad and crew chief have cars with good brakes. I'll sleep better knowing that.


Maybe ITB isn't ITR......But AS is NOT ITR.

The car I've been hit the most by?........Miata's!! In fact, I've had them use me as brakes. Maybe we shouldn't allow them to run with IT cars??

It has nothing to do with the car and EVERYTHING to do with the driver. There are people in every class that drive with their head up their ass. That's the problem. I understand that I have to drive my ITA Saturn differently than I did my old ITB Rabbit and different than my old ITS 944. People need to understand how to drive the car they're in. Plain and simple.

I just don't get why some people have a problem with it............. Is it ignorance? Snobbery? Jealousy??

Here are some options for people who are afraid to run with Pony cars:

- Run with PCA
- Run with BMWCCA
- stamp collecting
- Time trials
- Track days
- Dress making





Maybe I don't understand because I drive one of those POS American made cars.....:rolleyes:

[lateapex911]

A plastic fantastic one at that Jeff!

I've said this before, but if I classed cars based on hits gotten, we'd have HALF the Hondas in the ITCS as we do know.

And we'd have twice the number of American cars listed, since I've never once gotten as much as a scratch from anything American.

(OK, I am smart enough to give Lawton a wide berth, but, I digress... ;) )

Here's another fact. I BOUGHT a car to run ITR....a Porsche 944S2. I sold it because I didn't want that much cash tied up in an asset that can disappear in an instant. I have the cash...could have done the build, but decided against it. But, I am watching this with interest...I might just go the pony car route if these are listed. Why? because I can stomach throwing away the investment much easier at that level.

I'd also consider an RX-8, because Mazda is such a great firm to race with.

Now, am I a driver you fear? Am i going to hit you? Am I a different person if I drive a Mustang than I am if i drive a 944? You all know me....

No, I'm the same guy. And I'm just as likely to hit you in a 944S2 as I am in a Mustang.

Fear the driver, not the car.

(In Dan's defense, he HAS said, "Class them properly, and I'll race 'em")

[Rabbit07]

The car I've been hit the most by?........Miata's!! In fact, I've had them use me as brakes. Maybe we shouldn't allow them to run with IT cars??

:rolleyes:

Amen Brother!

What is wrong with classing them and then adjusting them if there is an issue. If the car is too fast put a restrictor on it! Although I think Ford already did that with the intake manifold.:(

[JeffYoung]

Dan's been one of the reasonable ones in discussing this -- much appreciated.

Can anyone on the "negative" side give us hard data to suggest that the numbers Ron used as the basis for his proposal are wrong? Are we just off on the expected hp/tq gains?

[Ron Earp]

Ron Earp,
If the cars fit the class, lets do it. I can make my BMW as wide as any chevy or ford.:)

Hey Dan,

I'm glad to hear some ITR folks have that attitude. I mistook your earlier writing for being against the cars. Sorry about that.

If classed I don't think they'll be the cars to have for ITR. Not that my choice means anything, I've got my eye on another car in ITR to build despite my support for the Pony cars in the proposal. But I think a lot of folks would build the V8s and make them somewhat competitive. That'd be great for ITR, and it'd be great to have some domestic cars racing in a growing class. I feel the ITR ranks would be bolstered for sure.

I think smart money would ride on the BMWs and the Porsches in ITR, as well as one of those Nissan 300zxs. But, you never know, a Pony car might sneak a win off now and again at the right track. And that'd be good racing and would mean we've got the classed balanced right.

[dj10]

Hey Dan,

I'm glad to hear some ITR folks have that attitude. I mistook your earlier writing for being against the cars. Sorry about that.

If classed I don't think they'll be the cars to have for ITR. Not that my choice means anything, I've got my eye on another car in ITR to build despite my support for the Pony cars in the proposal. But I think a lot of folks would build the V8s and make them somewhat competitive. That'd be great for ITR, and it'd be great to have some domestic cars racing in a growing class. I feel the ITR ranks would be bolstered for sure.

I think smart money would ride on the BMWs and the Porsches in ITR, as well as one of those Nissan 300zxs. But, you never know, a Pony car might sneak a win off now and again at the right track. And that'd be good racing and would mean we've got the classed balanced right.

No problem Ron, I've been mis-understood all my life.:(:) Anyone that know's me will tell you, if you have 4 wheels and are on the track with me your going to get a race if me and the car can keep up. I believe in the ITAC & CRB to class cars correctly and the people who will race them to make and keep them legal as I do.

[pimpm3]

... I stop paying attention to the forum for a week and this thread goes crazy.

Bring on the V8's, I look forward to pitting my torque-less high revving 4 cylinder against them. Light makes right!

[lateapex911]

Folk, this is a controversial one. let the CRB know your thoughts, pro or con now. Tell 'em who you are, what you race, and why, or why not the idea is good. And be honest. don't cloak your comments in false logic.

[titanium]

I thought the V8 Mustang in ITR would be a fine addition.
If anything, I figured that they would be significantly SLOWER than the top ITS cars, much less the ITR.
The lap times from this last weekend at Sebring would seem to bear that out.
My '94 Cobra Mustang that I race in BP is built well beyond ITR specifications.
(It has the larger Cobra 13in brakes and dyno'ed at over 300 RWH, 3195 lbs. w/driver)
My best lap time in Sunday's race was a 2:36.155
30 minutes earlier, Mike Flynn in a ITS BMW ran a 2:35.0
Tim Potter in a ITS RX7 ran a 2:35.7

[Ron Earp]

Seems to be an overwhelming support of the cars in ITR if classed correctly. I think the CRB will need to have an extremely solid footing to refuse the request that isn't based on "we feel", "we think", or "we're told". Regardless if yes or no, I'm extremely interested in their decision logic, and even more interested in the factual data that supports that decision.

[Team SSR]

Any guesses when that decision may come about?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Officially, the proposal is still with the ITAC. Internally, we are split and we know that the CRB has it's reservations.

Write your letters for or against.

[JeffYoung]

Could someone give me the mathematical case against?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I can't speak for anyone else.

[JeffYoung]

Understood. Is it appropriate/inappropriate to ask who is in favor and who is against? I would like to ask some questions of the cons.

[Andy Bettencourt]

After the official vote, I would hope anyone who still watches this BB would say how they voted if asked, but I won't put anyone out there who doesn't frequent here who can't defend their position on any issue.

[JeffYoung]

Fair enough. Thanks Andy.

[Knestis]

I'm not afraid to admit that I support the limited inclusion of V8-powered cars that fit the ITR parameters, regardless of make or model - as a member and in my role on the ITAC.

If one were to go back through this (and related) threads, a bundle of cons have been surfaced. However, Jake's point about cloaking concerns in arguments that might not reflect motivations is a great reminder that the issues run deep on this, at all levels.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm not afraid to admit that I support the limited inclusion of V8-powered cars that fit the ITR parameters, regardless of make or model - as a member and in my role on the ITAC.
As am I....

[shwah]

I can theorize that a case against might go something like this...

Hey we had IT for V8 pony cars (which is essentially what AS used to be, and what it decidedly is not any more), and the members that raced in that class wanted to change it into what AS is today. Why would this go around be any different? If folks wanted to run IT style V8 pony cars AS would still be that class. The fact that it evovled into something different suggests that folks do not in fact want to run IT style V8 pony cars.

I can't really come up with any other ideas on how it could be argued.

[spnkzss]

I can theorize that a case against might go something like this...

Hey we had IT for V8 pony cars (which is essentially what AS used to be, and what it decidedly is not any more), and the members that raced in that class wanted to change it into what AS is today. Why would this go around be any different? If folks wanted to run IT style V8 pony cars AS would still be that class. The fact that it evovled into something different suggests that folks do not in fact want to run IT style V8 pony cars.

I can't really come up with any other ideas on how it could be argued.

The difference now is all those people that would race IT and want to turn it into what AS is today would then go race AS. All of those that want to race IT with their "muscle car" (cause it really should count) can stay IT.

[Ron Earp]

. The fact that it evovled into something different suggests that folks do not in fact want to run IT style V8 pony cars.
.

Except for the fact that impromptu voting here shows people do indeed want to run V8 Pony cars in IT....

[Knestis]

The AS history clouds conversation around this issue but is one that we should ALL understand, as a cautionary tale. THAT is creep in action.

"Members wanted" lots of incremental allowances (ditching washer bottles were probably first on the list) and the folks making the decisions gave it to them. It was probably aggravated by the fact that there were basically two camps, separated by an ancient hatred - Fords and Chevys - motivating perceptions of performance differences along manufacturer lines, and corresponding lobbying efforts to make things "fair."

We do NOT want to become that, but if we really fear that can happen in IT, we should have far greater worries and be far more diligent than we sometimes are, regarding new allowances.

K

[lateapex911]

As mentioned, AS used to be ITGT. That was before the inception of the Ad hoc committees. Unlike ITA or ITS, ITGT was essentially a two model class. And those models were rather alike. Nearly a spec class. Thus, it was far easier to allow incremental change (the same carb for everybody, to allow more years in more easily, the same intake manifold, etc etc.)

Each change seemed to make sense at the time.

The CRB didn't attach the IT principals to the class either, it was renamed and made National sometime in the early/mid 90s, IIRC.

As we all know, it morphed into a much different animal, one that lots of people steer clear of.

This current concept is far removed form the first go-round. There are several key differences. First, and most important is the fact that these cars are one of many in the proposed class. That fact alone provides protection in terms of changes. Secondly, IT principals are better defined I think, and better defended by the ad hoc.

The way I look at the big picture is that we have categories, and they are divided by rulesets, or "work levels". ....the amount of work and changes it takes to go racing. In each category, I feel there should be freedom to class all different cars. You want a Camaro but want it stock? SS is for you. Moderately tweaked? IT is the choice. More of a heavily modded car? AS is your hone. Full on tube frame? GT is the place.

In my eyes, IT is the missing stepping stone.

[lateapex911]

I can't really come up with any other ideas on how it could be argued.

That's a good theory, but you're clearly a supporter of the idea if that's the only arguement you can come up with ;)

[shwah]

You are correct sir.

I guess I should have stated that is the only argument I could come up with that had a thread of logic to it. To be totally clear to the group - that's not my argument, just the one that imagine could be made.