Pony Car Proposal for ITR

[Ron Earp]

Any more news on the Pony Car proposal for ITR? I read in the last FastTrack that the proposal was still under discussion. I'm assuming it is dead or rejected, but thought I'd ask around before pronouncing time of death.

Thanks!
Ron

[lateapex911]

Who was the famous guy who said, "Rumours or reports of my death are greatly exaggerated"???

relax..the fat lady aint singing yet.

[Knestis]

It's not dead. It's not even on life support.

The best analogy is that it's sitting in an overcrowded waiting room, reading old issues of Road & Track, with the subscriber's address blacked out in marker. Sicker patients or those with easy diagnoses keep getting put in front of it in the queue but its number WILL come up.

K

[lateapex911]

It's not dead. It's not even on life support.

The best analogy is that it's sitting in an overcrowded waiting room, reading old issues of Road & Track, with the subscriber's address blacked out in marker. Sicker patients or those with easy diagnoses keep getting put in front of it in the queue but its number WILL come up.

K

.......And it's already seen the docs, once for Xrays, and then again for an MRI, the docs are discussing things as the R&T pages get flipped........

[Butch Kummer]

It was Mark Twain:

"The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

[lateapex911]

Ahhh, yes, of course. I was close...got the jist at least. Thanks..I should have remembered that.

[Ron Earp]

.......And it's already seen the docs, once for Xrays, and then again for an MRI, the docs are discussing things as the R&T pages get flipped........

I think the docs have moved on to other things, like National IT.

Where do things stand on the RX8?

[JoshS]

Where do things stand on the RX8?

Watch Fastrack for that one.

[JeffYoung]

Cool. So it is in. What weight?

[Ron Earp]

Watch Fastrack for that one.

Ok. What about the Pony cars?

[JoshS]

Ok. What about the Pony cars?Doctors are still discussing approaches ... not dead.

[Knestis]

I think the docs have moved on to other things, like National IT. ...

...and while it might be a little counterintuitive for folks, the IT Goes National discussion isn't even really an ITAC agenda item. Frankly, the only committee discussions we're having are of the nature of "what is our role?"

Obviously, as individual members some of us are more involved than that...

K

[JeffYoung]

At what weight is the RX8 classed?

[Knestis]

That will be in the FasTrack, Jeff. Since the ITAC sends a recommendation to the board; and they can take it, adapt it, or act contrary to it; even we won't know for sure until it's published.

K

[seckerich]

That will be in the FasTrack, Jeff. Since the ITAC sends a recommendation to the board; and they can take it, adapt it, or act contrary to it; even we won't know for sure until it's published.

K
So what weight did you send them?? :D

[JoshS]

This is one of those times when you're all going to need to be a little patient.

Besides, the car isn't even eligible until next season (5-year rule). Don't worry about it!

[JeffYoung]

Hmmmm..if the ITAC has made a recommendation on weight, I'd publish it for comment. There is going to be controversy about this one one way or the other and the more transparent you are, the less flack you will receive. I think.....

[tnord]

Hmmmm..if the ITAC has made a recommendation on weight, I'd publish it for comment. There is going to be controversy about this one one way or the other and the more transparent you are, the more biased, personal agenda driven input you will receive.

fixed.

[JoshS]

Hmmmm..if the ITAC has made a recommendation on weight, I'd publish it for comment. There is going to be controversy about this one one way or the other and the more transparent you are, the less flack you will receive. I think.....
Based on the letters we got, which DEMANDED weights between 2700 and 3400 lbs, I'm pretty sure that no matter what, we'll get flack.

Everyone's letter was very clear that there was only one right answer, yet the right answer apparently had a huge range. Fun.

[JeffYoung]

I've got no dog in the fight guys. I did write the proposal because I thought the car should be in the class, but I honestly don't care where the weight comes out and I have 0 intent to build one. It will also be a long time before I build a R car, if at all.

That said my research on the numbers was in the 2800 lb range, but I could be wrong and I through that out simply as a full disclosure.

You guys are right, you are not going to avoid flak altogether over this. But I'm telling you, you need to make the process as transparent as possible because this is one that has potential for disaster both ways.

[JoshS]

Jeff,

I'm sure we'll discuss it in detail after the results are published. I promise. Let's be patient until then.

[JeffYoung]

I'm not impatient. I'm just concerned about the shitstorm we are going to see on this car.

What's the policy reason for not disclosing the ITAC recommendation now?

[JoshS]

I'm not impatient. I'm just concerned about the shitstorm we are going to see on this car.

What's the policy reason for not disclosing the ITAC recommendation now?
Let me be clear, there's been no special "policy decision" about this issue. There is a standing policy of not publishing the minutes of the meetings. The standard way of answering member input is through Fastrack. That's the only policy.

My PERSONAL OPINION is that if we publish this now, it'll just flood the CRB and BOD with letters that are no more compelling than the ones they already have ... except that they will be prefaced with "The ITAC messed up! Don't listen to them!" and they will be from the same people, for the most part, who already wrote letters.

I say to let the process take its course.

[Knestis]

Because if we recommend 2100 pounds and the board decides 3100 pounds, there are two weights for people with different agendas to be PO'd about.

This is a bit of a special case because as "types" go, this one has a population of one - there's no other car "like it" in IT. It's best that we just have ONE number for people to have opinions on. As Josh points out, "opinions will vary" so the conversations will be heated enough without complicating them more than necessary.

More broadly, as a matter of policy, it doesn't do anyone any good to for us to get out ahead of the board on announcements. The ITAC has what I consider to be a VERY good relationship with that body right now, and it would be poor form to compromise that. We get a lot done that's good for IT by maintaining that relationship.

If it were as simple as saying, "the process weight for the MkII Golf is XXXX," we could do that. This isn't one of those situations.

K

[JeffYoung]

Fair enough, although I disagree.

I would publish the ITAC recommended weight now, and let folks comment on it BEFORE a decision is made. At least that way, unlike with the E36 weight for example, people can't say they were sandbagged.

But either way is fine by me.

[seckerich]

First off guys, thanks for taking the time to look at this car and treat it as the special case it is. Time will tell if you got it right. I figure I better post this in case I am one of the pissed off crowd.:) If it is too heavy it is DOA and it will be like a lot of the other cars in the ITR listing that will never get built. I hope you took this chance to class the car fair because it has the potential to really help grow ITR. Now off to Laguna Seca to play with its big brother in GT this weekend!!

[dickita15]

I think the ITAC members are right here. The ITAC is an extension of the CRB. I hate when people who have minority opinions on boards undercut a board’s decision.
I am sure that when it is published we could hear something like “some on the ITAC wanted to me more/less aggressive on the weight but all and all we are glad it is classified”
That is fair.
Besides no matter what the number is there will be nasty letters and that kind of shit storm keeps anything from getting done.

[erlrich]

I think it would be a bad idea to publish the weight ahead of the Fastrack announcement. First, the ITAC has obviously done their research and made a recommendation. The point where the IT.com peanut gallery gets to add their collective two cents to that process has passed. Second, as noted, the board may not agree with the recommended weight; and then all that bitching and moaning about the ITAC recommended weight would be for naught :lol:

[Knestis]

... If it is too heavy it is DOA and it will be like a lot of the other cars in the ITR listing that will never get built. I hope you took this chance to class the car fair because it has the potential to really help grow ITR. ...

It's probably no surprise that positions fell out into two camps:

** If you list it too heavy, nobody will build one and it will ruin ITR

** If you list it too light, everyone will build one and it will ruin ITR

Of course, I'm overstating just a LITTLE bit but you get the idea. I'll be most pleased if EVERYONE complains. That's my operational definition of consensus - everybody is pissed off.

:)

K

[JeffYoung]

But why shouldn't the membership have just an active a role in the weight making decision at the ITAC level as the "do" at the CRB level?

I guess I mean, why not have the ITAC recommend a weight and open that weight up for comment before it goes to the CRB?

The more open the process is and the more opportunity to "test" the number yes, the more people can bitch in the short turn but the LESS they can scream in two years about the "Secret Car Club" nonsense.


I think the ITAC members are right here. The ITAC is an extension of the CRB. I hate when people who have minority opinions on boards undercut a board’s decision.
I am sure that when it is published we could hear something like “some on the ITAC wanted to me more/less aggressive on the weight but all and all we are glad it is classified”
That is fair.
Besides no matter what the number is there will be nasty letters and that kind of shit storm keeps anything from getting done.

[seckerich]

It's probably no surprise that positions fell out into two camps:

** If you list it too heavy, nobody will build one and it will ruin ITR

** If you list it too light, everyone will build one and it will ruin ITR

Of course, I'm overstating just a LITTLE bit but you get the idea. I'll be most pleased if EVERYONE complains. That's my operational definition of consensus - everybody is pissed off.

:)

K
You are half right as well Kirk. The consensus from the outside looking in is that right now ITR is "displaced BMW" with a few others mainly the Porsche that got a sweetheart weight in the process. Many of the other options are pig heavy and a waste of time to build. The S2000 builds will pick up as they drop in the used car market. These cars are too expensive to build on a whim that it might be competitive or it might get fixed if the weight is proven too high. The 300z is very popular but will not be built for that reason. I expect the RX8 will have the same fate. Shame.

[Knestis]

But why shouldn't the membership have just an active a role in the weight making decision at the ITAC level as the "do" at the CRB level?

I guess I mean, why not have the ITAC recommend a weight and open that weight up for comment before it goes to the CRB?

The more open the process is and the more opportunity to "test" the number yes, the more people can bitch in the short turn but the LESS they can scream in two years about the "Secret Car Club" nonsense.

Some of us ITAC'ers have talked (half seriously) about how nice it would be if members' requests were printed verbatim in FasTrack, along with the board responses. One didn't need to have any technical understanding of the RX8 to have predicted that, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow...

** All of the letters we received on the subject came from people either currently running ITR or planning on building an RX8

** All of the letters from current entrants were pretty sure that the RX8 needs to be really heavy, to avoid upsetting the applecart

** All of the letters from future (or current) RX8 builders were equally sure that it must NOT be heavy, to avoid the fate that Steve describes

Take a look again at the range Josh mentions. Every one of those values were from people who were POSITIVE that they had it right, and every one had a vested interest in the outcome.

Opening the weight to comment would only result in more of the same. And given that we continue to try VERY hard to use a repeatable system based on the best information available, lobbying really doesn't play a role in the decision.

I am PERSONALLY pretty confident that we got it right with our recommendation, after MUCH deliberation. We've documented where the math came from, so our assumptions are on record. I'm reasonably sure that the board will follow the ITAC suggestion. I'm HOPING that the current ITR entrants will feel a little threatened, and RX8 builders will be a little bummed. If either group is TOO happy, then something isn't quite the way we'd like.

K

EDIT


...I expect the RX8 will have the same fate. Shame.

I'd be curious to know why you have this expectation, Steve...

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, I generally agree with you on this one, and believe your analysis to be true on most cars. The process is what the process is.

The RX8 is different though, and that is because of the uncertainity as to stock hp and the "unknown" of what kind of gains the Renesis will make.

That's why I think you guys should have been more public about the assumptions you are using in setting the process weight. On this particular car there is extreme disagreement over those factors.

But I will stop on this. I trust you guys and the process and I hear where you are coming from. I would have done it differently, but it certainly could have turned out worse as a result.......

[RedMisted]

I thought I'd add my 2 cents about ITR car weights.
Yeah, it seems that the BMWs are ruling the ITR roost right now. They indeed are fast, esp. at the "handling" tracks.
But I just started racing a 1999 V6 Mustang in ITE. I'm in ITE because the car is still unfinished as far as ITR classification goes.
But knowing my car as I do now, and its future potential, I am reasonably certain that there's no way I could compete against the BMWs in ITR. It's just too heavy. Although the GCR specifies a minimum weight of only 2670 for my car, there's really no way in hades I could get to that weight as my 2912-pound car is virtually gutted. :shrug:

[Ron Earp]

After reading through this thread and flip flopping one way or the other I now agree that it'd be a bad idea to publish the recommendations before the Fastrack. The proposal was written and submitted and subsequently discussed. I think the ITAC and the CRB will do the right thing and get the RX8s in at a proper weight for ITR. If Kirk's scenario plays out as he wrote then it'll probably be correct.

Now if we can get CRB to consider those V8 Pony cars, you know, the ones that this thread is about, we'd be making some progress!!!

Be interesting to see where both proposals go.

I'm not sure how we could have addressed the situation with some of the ITR cars not being built due to weight. The 300z is a great example at 222hp stock. It is a perfect car for ITR, certainly one of the bogeys that the class was benchmarked in although the 325i was the "must fit" car to be placed in R. However when other cars were put into ITR that were not wanted in ITS - Celica GTS, Type Arrghh Integra, and so on, then there wasn't much to be done with the 300z except for it to have a high weight as it is know that car is going to have class leading horsepower.

I suppose if a narrower subset of ITR cars were considered for the class and we eliminated the torqueless cars (Celica, Type R) and tweeners (the 325i could be one of those as would be the RX8) then the cars like the 300z would have lower weights and be more attractive.

Have to agree with you, ITR almost looks like Spec BMW on tracks around here.

R

[Knestis]

We made substantial progress on the V8 ITR conversation in our last two conference calls. It's a similar, although slightly more complex (read, "contentious") issue than was the RX8, but the fact that we were able to work through that leaves us with just the one complicated case to chug through.

Note that we actually resolved the MR2 to ITB on the last call, so ANYTHING seems to be possible...!

:026:

K

[GKR_17]

...and tweeners (the 325i could be one of those as would be the RX8)

Have to agree with you, ITR almost looks like Spec BMW on tracks around here.



You've got to be kidding. The original (overstated) hp, the Rx-8 was over the max hp for ITR.

As for ITR as spec BMW, that's because the cars were already here, and no one wants to race them in ITS anymore. I'm confident the E36 325's will be underdogs once the fields start to fill up. Especially if the Rx-8 comes in too light.

[JeffYoung]

ITR is also just going to be a "heavier" class than S or A. Bigger cars, more hp, newer cars and more weight.

I think this (along with cost) will be a reason why S and A stay healthy even with R present.


You are half right as well Kirk. The consensus from the outside looking in is that right now ITR is "displaced BMW" with a few others mainly the Porsche that got a sweetheart weight in the process. Many of the other options are pig heavy and a waste of time to build. The S2000 builds will pick up as they drop in the used car market. These cars are too expensive to build on a whim that it might be competitive or it might get fixed if the weight is proven too high. The 300z is very popular but will not be built for that reason. I expect the RX8 will have the same fate. Shame.

[Ron Earp]

You've got to be kidding. The original (overstated) hp, the Rx-8 was over the max hp for ITR.

As for ITR as spec BMW, that's because the cars were already here, and no one wants to race them in ITS anymore. I'm confident the E36 325's will be underdogs once the fields start to fill up. Especially if the Rx-8 comes in too light.

You are taking what I said out of context and maybe I wasn't clear.

If said IF one were to focus only on a subset of cars that could be put in ITR - the heavy hitters - 300z, 300i, Supra, V8 Pony cars, and so, on THEN cars like the 325i and RX8 would be tweeners.

As it is clearly the 325i and RX7s belong in ITR. And thanks for running the S2 so ITR isn't 100% spec BMW, hope you kick some ass with it.

R

[lateapex911]

Jeff, I bet you could predict the weight, knowing what you know on how the system works.

I fully expect equal amounts of grumbling from all sides on this.

[seckerich]

[EDIT



I'd be curious to know why you have this expectation, Steve...[/quote]

Simple Kirk. I know that some that are fully aware of the actual numbers a RX8 makes in IT trim think it is cute to stick to the process and screw the car. I know the numbers of HP and torque both the E36 and the 944 make and their weight. Find anyone who can make more than 200-205 whp in a RX8. Now I will show you 10 that can make 210 plus out of the E36 and 25% more torque. You guys have a tough job but I can back up my numbers with real world data. I am biased and have a vested interest in seeing the car classed. I want to race one. I have a RX7 that was classed by "known data" instead of the process or it would be 150 lbs lighter. That would be wrong and so would classing the RX8 by unobtainable numbers. The CRB has full access to the numbers for this motor--they do put these in pro formula Mazda. Did you even bother to ask?? I'm good either way, I have other cars to race. I will understand if you guys played conservative. You will not see me post either way after it is published. Just judge your work by how many get built.:023:

[Knestis]

>> I know that some that are fully aware of the actual numbers a RX8 makes in IT trim think it is cute to stick to the process and screw the car....

If there are ITAC members with that motivation, they sure didn't make themselves known in our conversations. I'm still new enough, with enough naiveté, that I'd call them on that kind of crap and I'm confident that I wouldn't have been alone. If those "some" are members who are writing letters, that's a separate issue and we just have to continue working to sort the signal from the noise of member input.

I share your concerns with "known data." The problem is that we can have four people who are all equally sure that they "know" something tell us four different things. The MR2 question got terribly mired down when we tried to do the right thing and started actively looking for "real-world data." We were sure it could make ITA weight, sure it couldn't make ITA weight, sure it would respond to IT engine improvements comparable to other cars, and sure there was no way it could. Heck, we were sure that people wanted it moved and sure that people didn't.

Thanks for sharing your perspective on this and one way or another, I for one would respect and like to hear your thoughts re: the final outcome.

K

[dj10]

[EDIT



I'd be curious to know why you have this expectation, Steve...

Simple Kirk. I know that some that are fully aware of the actual numbers a RX8 makes in IT trim think it is cute to stick to the process and screw the car. I know the numbers of HP and torque both the E36 and the 944 make and their weight. Find anyone who can make more than 200-205 whp in a RX8. Now I will show you 10 that can make 210 plus out of the E36 and 25% more torque. You guys have a tough job but I can back up my numbers with real world data. I am biased and have a vested interest in seeing the car classed. I want to race one. I have a RX7 that was classed by "known data" instead of the process or it would be 150 lbs lighter. That would be wrong and so would classing the RX8 by unobtainable numbers. The CRB has full access to the numbers for this motor--they do put these in pro formula Mazda. Did you even bother to ask?? I'm good either way, I have other cars to race. I will understand if you guys played conservative. You will not see me post either way after it is published. Just judge your work by how many get built.:023:[/quote]

Steve, like you I'd love to see the RX8 get into ITR, it would be great for the class, SCCA and I'm sick of racing against all BMW's right now (although I've had some good races). If I wanted to join & race the BMW club I would have done so a long time ago. :) You mentioned 205 hp, is the crank or rear wheel? Jeff sent me a dyno chart and if I remember correctly it showed 160 rwhp. Which is correct? I do believe the ITAC and CRB have to verify the potential of any car just to make sure it will fit, don't you think? Aren't the other factors like areodynamics, brakes and suspension also evaluated? If you haven't, I would suggest you submit the weight you think the car should race at and the dyno sheets and get the ball rolling.
Let me know if I can help.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Steve, like you I'd love to see the RX8 get into ITR, it would be great for the class, SCCA and I'm sick of racing against all BMW's right now (although I've had some good races). If I wanted to join & race the BMW club I would have done so a long time ago. :) You mentioned 205 hp, is the crank or rear wheel? Jeff sent me a dyno chart and if I remember correctly it showed 160 rwhp. Which is correct? I do believe the ITAC and CRB have to verify the potential of any car just to make sure it will fit, don't you think? Aren't the other factors like areodynamics, brakes and suspension also evaluated? If you haven't, I would suggest you submit the weight you think the car should race at and the dyno sheets and get the ball rolling.
Let me know if I can help.

Steve provided a ton of info already. 205hp at the wheels is what his documentation said is absolute max. Years of GAC (with MoTec) and Formula Mazda (with MoTec) was the foundation for his information.

[Ron Earp]

I am pretty sure that 205hp is crank - unless he means race trim rear wheel hp.

The dyno shop we frequent here in Durham had an RX7/RX8 club by last year. When Jeff and I were there with the Z and TR8 last week I asked to look at a few of the old plots showing RX8s. Sure, these cars were in street trim with expensive bolt ons but the results were disappointing - around 130-140 tq or so, about 155-165 rwhp. I only saw two plots but they were both about the same. I suppose more can be had in race trim, but Steve E would be the best source for that knowledge.

The dyno guy had a chuckle (they are a huge GM LS/LT shop) about the results as well. They did show us a 2nd Gen with a LS1 motor installed, now that is the way to go!

[dj10]

Steve provided a ton of info already. 205hp at the wheels is what his documentation said is absolute max. Years of GAC (with MoTec) and Formula Mazda (with MoTec) was the foundation for his information.

Andy, what's the hold up with the RX8 then? Is it just the weight issue? I apologize if you have to be redundent.

[JeffYoung]

To be clear, the numbers I have seen are:

205 whp for a fully developed Grand Am cup car motor.

anywhere from 155 to 190 whp for street motors.

Take the two together and you have a mess. There are some who swear the 230ish crank number from Mazda is total BS and they have 155 to 160 whp stock dyno plots to back that up. There are some who say that this was an easily correctable ECU fix, and that after the fix, you saw 180 to 190 easy.

Then, there are Steve's full build numbers which suggest you get next to nothing out of the motor by doing "IT things" to it.

Again, this is why I'd like to know what the ITAC looked (and in particular if they looked at the Pro Mazda motors), what stock dyno sheets, what information on the ECU, etc. Because it is critical to resolve this controversy to get the actual hp right.




I am pretty sure that 205hp is crank - unless he means race trim rear wheel hp.

The dyno shop we frequent here in Durham had an RX7/RX8 club by last year. When Jeff and I were there with the Z and TR8 last week I asked to look at a few of the old plots showing RX8s. Sure, these cars were in street trim with expensive bolt ons but the results were disappointing - around 130-140 tq or so, about 155-165 rwhp. I only saw two plots but they were both about the same. I suppose more can be had in race trim, but Steve E would be the best source for that knowledge.

The dyno guy had a chuckle (they are a huge GM LS/LT shop) about the results as well. They did show us a 2nd Gen with a LS1 motor installed, now that is the way to go!

[Andy Bettencourt]

The recommendation has been made and those who were on the call can weigh in when we see what the CRB has approved / decided.

[JeffYoung]

Is that a "Thank you for your input."?

I'm kidding Andy. It's all good. But you and both know this one could be a damn time bomb either way.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am 100% sure that the RX-8 guys won't be happy and the non-RX-8 guys won't be happy. Like Kirk said, the range of weights this car 'needed' to be to be correct was around 400lbs based on member input... :0

[tnord]

Is that a "Thank you for your input."?

I'm kidding Andy. It's all good. But you and both know this one could be a damn time bomb either way.


you're right, it could be. but can we at least hold off on the bitching until AFTER the spec line is released? :blink:

[dj10]

you're right, it could be. but can we at least hold off on the bitching until AFTER the spec line is released? :blink:

Travis, I agree with you at this point. I'm confident that if the CRB & ITAC has all the correct info it will be classed correctly.

[JeffYoung]

Guys, not trying to stir up trouble, but that is the point. I just want to know what info was used to set the weight. On this car, stuff is all over the board.

[Knestis]

Jeff's done a good job of illustrating why we struggle with "what we know." We looked at all that stuff and more but the big challenge becomes how much weight to give often conflicting evidence. Everyone is absolutely POSITIVE of their numbers and rationale, so they all speak the Truth, right? :)

AND remember that more than a few of us see a primary part of our ITAC mission as preventing the entire operation from getting sucked into the dynamic that many (most?) of the folks around here think poisoned the Production/GT well. By even ENGAGING in discussions about dyno sheets, the effect of different chips, aero drag and other minutiae, the category gets pulled that leeettle bit closer to trying to balance performance on the head of pin, and to competition adjustments (bleah!).

K

[Knestis]

The recommendation has been made and those who were on the call can weigh in when we see what the CRB has approved / decided.

Can we tell them about the dart board then?

K

[JeffYoung]

I knew it! LOL...

I thought it was the Wheel of Weight? Light as Feather...Death by Lead....Two Cars Enter One Car Leaves....


Can we tell them about the dart board then?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can we tell them about the dart board then?

K
As long as you don't tell them it spins like at the carnival!

[JeffYoung]

True dat. I'm hoping this one car is a total exception and on others we just use the process. Cause on this car, I just don't know what to believe. I see the case for 3000 lbs. I see the case for 2700 lbs. The stuff over 3000 lbs is crap though and just designed to torpedo it.


AND remember that more than a few of us see a primary part of our ITAC mission as preventing the entire operation from getting sucked into the dynamic that many (most?) of the folks around here think poisoned the Production/GT well. By even ENGAGING in discussions about dyno sheets, the effect of different chips, aero drag and other minutiae, the category gets pulled that leeettle bit closer to trying to balance performance on the head of pin, and to competition adjustments (bleah!).

K

[erlrich]

Can we tell them about the dart board then?

K
Damn, I though all you high-tech types would at least be making use of computer technology for this stuff...you know, random number generators, internet polls, that kind of thing...

[dj10]

True dat. I'm hoping this one car is a total exception and on others we just use the process. Cause on this car, I just don't know what to believe. I see the case for 3000 lbs. I see the case for 2700 lbs. The stuff over 3000 lbs is crap though and just designed to torpedo it.

5700/2= 2850 :shrug: how hard is that?:cool:

[JeffYoung]

LOL...now I like that one....the Equation of Dan!



5700/2= 2850 :shrug: how hard is that?:cool:

[dickita15]

To quote former CRB chair Frank Eubel “That’s a mighty big spin of the wire wheel of fortune”.

[Knestis]

>> I see the case for 3000 lbs. I see the case for 2700 lbs. ...

http://www.williamnoel.com/Thumbs%20Up.jpg

Oh, yeah - that's a LOT of help. Thanks!

K

[seckerich]

Sorry to make that post and leave it hanging all day. Spent the whole day at Laguna Seca under the car prepping. 70 RX8 on the GT pole!!! P 7 for the 69.

I in no way meant to insinuate the ITAC has a bias on this car. I know the letters that do however. You will never find a more special, devisive car to class. Everyone is convinced it is like every other rotary that makes huge gains compared to a piston motor. Do you realize the numbers some are feeding you are more than a full prep EP build? I knew how hard it would be to get this car classed so I got the most accurate full prep info possible and openly shared it with the ITAC. I extended the invitation to attend a dyno session with full access to the ECU tune so there was no funny business. I spoke with the people with Star Mazda this weekend and confirmed my numbers were dead on for full tune renesis in their cars. I am sure they did the best they could given information gained from alternate sources. I will expect to see the numbers you actually used once it comes out. Regardless of the outcome for this car I remain impressed with the job done by the ITAC to bring even competition back to IT and make it the most desirable rule set in racing. I just hope you missed it by 100 pounds so I can prove you wrong and get it adjusted later.:D

[GKR_17]

Rx-8 2980 lbs

[JeffYoung]

Ok guys, time to open the black box.

Let's hear how you got to 2980 (or whatever was recommended to the CRB).

[Ron Earp]

Rx-8 2980 lbs

Where from, FastTrack?

Hmmmmmm

[lateapex911]

Not to be difficult, but it would be interesting to see the thoughts on how it got there...

And...a hint..there's already a very similar car in ITR already...

[JeffYoung]

Except that car's stock factory hp number is correct.


Not to be difficult, but it would be interesting to see the thoughts on how it got there...

And...a hint..there's already a very similar car in ITR already...

[lateapex911]

lets move the RX-8 discussion to the June Fastrack thread, which is now in Rules and Regs..

[rcc85]

It's probably on one of the other threads here, but what year Mustangs and Camaros/Firebirds were included in the original proposal?

I want to keep my eyes open for possible donor cars :D

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[erlrich]

It's probably on one of the other threads here, but what year Mustangs and Camaros/Firebirds were included in the original proposal?

I want to keep my eyes open for possible donor cars :D

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

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

Here's the thread that came from: http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23153