May 2009 Fastrack - It's the end of the world as we know it

[RacerBowie]

And I feel fine!

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/09/05/09-fastrack-may-club.pdf

Glad to see the Pony cars in the category!

[Rabbit07]

I know what I am building!


3. Classify the Ford Mustang GT (94-95) in ITR, p. 344, as follows:

[Knestis]

Re: the Golf II "weight is correct," Chris S. has been patient enough with the ITAC, he deserves to hear that he should interpret that as meaning we generally perceive inconsistencies in ITB to be AROUND that car - not WITH that car.

Look for future news for details...

K

[Jeremy Billiel]

OMG! OMG! Pony cars are coming....

Did you guys read about Charles Espenlaub doing donuts after the enduro? What an idiot... This is not Pro racing.

[erlrich]

And I feel fine!

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/09/05/09-fastrack-may-club.pdf

Glad to see the Pony cars in the category!

mmmmmm.... sub-$1k donor cars :happy204:

this could be just what ITR needs to get going - or just what it will take to kill it...either way it's going to be interesting to watch.

[CRallo]

3330?! ouch! damn...

a random and completely subjective 100 lbs adder for a car that already can't handle, can't stop and can't breath past 5000 RPM!?

that's just great! So much for that idea...

[Jeremy Billiel]

3330?! ouch! damn...

a random and completely subjective 100 lbs adder for a car that already can't handle, can't stop and can't breath past 5000 RPM!?

that's just great! So much for that idea...

I don't know 3330 lbs seems like a fair number to me. :shrug:

Look how many other ITR cars are north of 3000 lbs and the power, brakes, etc... These feel about right, but only time will tell. Remember just how easy it is to make a lot of power out of the 5.0L's.

[quadzjr]

Why did they classify the 94-95 mustang with better brakes amoung other improvements lighter then than the 89-93? I mean it only has an inch longer wheel base. I think it is a good addition to the class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why did they classify the 94-95 mustang with better brakes amoung other improvements lighter then than the 89-93? I mean it only has an inch longer wheel base. I think it is a good addition to the class.

225hp for the early car vs. 215hp for the later version.

[Ron Earp]

The cars were run through the process with their stock hp ratings and standard IT gains. Some have more power stock, they get more weight in IT. It might not be "right" to everyone but at least it is using a process. I think when the final discussion was had a torque addition was given to all of them as well.

I think it is a good thing for ITR. While the cars might not be the best choices for the class at least people now have that choice.

And I can change my avatar...

[chuck baader]

OUCH!!! No one notice the fuel cell requirement? No more non FIA cells. Here comes a 1k expenditure before the ARRC!! Chuck

[JeffYoung]

Chuck, look at page 6 -- I think IT, SS and SM are still excluded from complying with the FIA fuel cell rules.

[joeg]

Victory donuts....what's next? Champaign spraying in impound?

[RedMisted]

I welcome the competition from the older V-8 pony cars. My V6 is in their stock HP range plus I have a lower weight. Should be good competition and add an American flavor to a class that in my opinion is too German, and needs desperately to grow. ITR could be A Sedan Lite...

Please don't whine about any sacred IT philosophies/tenets/traditions/etc. being compromised by the inclusion of V8s. Times and circumstances change, which necessitates that people change their ways of thinking. Let's wait and see how it all shakes out before we start any bitching...

[chuck baader]

Thanks, Jeff....what I get for not reading everything. Chuck

[madrabbit15]

With all of the cheap go fast goodies so readily available for these cars, my guess is there is going to be a need to police them, and it will be quite difficult task at that. Other than that, they should be a great addition to ITR.

[Butch Kummer]

Victory donuts....what's next? Champaign spraying in impound?

Hey! You could put somebody's eye out with that cork! :eek:

As much as I'm tired of the smokey burnouts that have become standard after every NASCAR race, I fought it (and lost) when the stewards wanted me to put prohibitions against "burnouts, victory donuts or other celebrations" in our Supps. I don't know if they really thought he was being unsafe or they just were tired at the end of long day, but IMO the DQ was WAY too over the top in this case.

That said, I'm more impressed when Emmitt would just hand the ball to the ref after a touchdown - act like you've been there before.

[joeg]

Butch--I wonder if he went underweight because he burned off some rubber and fuel during his Donut session.

[xr4racer]

Andy, does 10hp really equal 140 lbs? The early car does still have rear drums, what would the weight difference be if both cars had the same brakes front and rear.

Thanks,
matt

[JeffYoung]

Drums didn't change teh weight, they are not part of the process weight on this car. The difference is entirely due to stock hp, although Ron is pretty convinced the early car will make more power in IT trim as well.

[JeffYoung]

No different from Mazdas, or Porsches, or VWs or Hondas or any other car with lots of aftermarket/tuner support.


With all of the cheap go fast goodies so readily available for these cars, my guess is there is going to be a need to police them, and it will be quite difficult task at that. Other than that, they should be a great addition to ITR.

[lateapex911]

3330?! ouch! damn...

a random and completely subjective 100 lbs adder for a car that already can't handle, can't stop and can't breath past 5000 RPM!?

that's just great! So much for that idea...

No offense Chris, but that comment is more random and subjective than the classification. There was nothing random nor subjective...all the numbers were voted on by a large committee, and each one was considered carefully. Also, some of the cars got breaks for their hardware, or configuration.

In the end, truly subjective qualities, like "handling" get nothing. Handling doesn't make a fast racecar, it makes an easy to drive racecar. Many evil handling racecars have won many events in the hands of skilled drivers.

For many drivers, these cars will allow admittance to a fast class for lesser class budgets, and I'm sure we'll see some V8s winning races.

And V8s, American cars, etc, have been in IT for a long time. Nothing new here........

[xr4racer]

Thanks for the response, the early car should have been rated at 205, Ford admitted that it was overrated at 225 and they upped it by 10 from 205 in '93 to 215 for '94 via the EECIV to EECV switch. I uderstand that this is immaterial due to the ECU rule. The fact is the car to have if it can make weight is the 94-95 with its more aerodynamic, stiffer chassis and rear discs.

matt

[JeffYoung]

Ron will need to respond, but I thought the early car had a much different (and better) intake manifold than the SN95, leading to the higher horsepower rating.

[shwah]

Re: the Golf II "weight is correct," Chris S. has been patient enough with the ITAC, he deserves to hear that he should interpret that as meaning we generally perceive inconsistencies in ITB to be AROUND that car - not WITH that car.

Look for future news for details...

K

Thanks Kirk. I really appreciate the commentary beyond what is contained within the Fast Track. Should have read this board first I guess.

[Ron Earp]

Thanks for the response, the early car should have been rated at 205, Ford admitted that it was overrated at 225 and they upped it by 10 from 205 in '93 to 215 for '94 via the EECIV to EECV switch.
matt

Yep, this is true but one of those things that was hard to quantify or do anything with in an official capacity. The 94-95 cars had a poorer intake that comes from the T-brid and eventually got used on the low line 94/95 cars.

In the end, the power potential for these motors is probably somewhat even in IT trim. But instead of using anecdotal evidence and so forth I'm glad the ITAC simply used the published specs. It might not be 100% exactly correct but it is a step in the right direction.

In the first draft of the proposal I only had 94-95 Mustangs in there along with the F bodies. Everything had disc brakes all around and that sort of made the playing field more even. Added the others to try and broaden the proposal a bit.

In the future we may need to tackle the modular SOHC 96-98 4.6L 2V 215hp cars with the non-performance improved heads. Not sure what to do with the 350 4th gen F bodies, they just make a lot of hp stock and be hard to put in ITR.

[xr4racer]

Ron, thanks for the clarification, the Fox body in IT trim with a driver and no ballast will probably be under 3050. It is going to need a lot of ballast to race at 3260.

matt

[jimmyc]

In the end, truly subjective qualities, like "handling" get nothing. Handling doesn't make a fast racecar, it makes an easy to drive racecar. Many evil handling racecars have won many events in the hands of skilled drivers.


Then why do strut cars get a weight deduct?

[jimmyc]

Ron, thanks for the clarification, the Fox body in IT trim with a driver and no ballast will probably be under 3050. It is going to need a lot of ballast to race at 3260.

matt

no difference from say a ITB 914 with about 230lbs a ballast..

[Parrish57]

Chuck, look at page 6 -- I think IT, SS and SM are still excluded from complying with the FIA fuel cell rules.

I hope I'm reading this wrong but it appears to me that while IT cars are exempt from having to have a fuel cell those of us who do install one will have to comply with the FIA standard. Thoughts?

[JeffYoung]

I puzzled over that for a while, but it looks like to me the intent was to require cars that HAD to have fuel cells use FIA; without affecting those that are not required. I think that is the better interpretation, but I agree it is not 100% clear.

[Greg Amy]

...while IT cars are exempt from having to have a fuel cell those of us who do install one will have to comply with the FIA standard. Thoughts?

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23937

(I'm gonna sticky it in the Rules section...we get this question every once in a while... - GA)

[JeffYoung]

Thanks Greg, I didn't realize this had come up before. I don't think the change has any impact on the debate, and I do agree with Dick...but see the other side (and have an FIA cell in my car).

[Griff944T]

Hi guys,
This is great news. Time to start looking for an F-Body w/o T-roofs. I recall reading the initial proposal some time ago. Are the Camaros/Firebirds classified the TPI 305 or the carbed version or both? I recall them both having 9.3:1 compression.
Thanks.
Joel

[lateapex911]

Then why do strut cars get a weight deduct?

"Handling" is subjective, and often includes "telepathic response" "Great steering feedback", "Naturally balanced", etc. Struts are physical properties that don't operate as effectively as control arms. There is empirical evidence that tradeoffs need to be made to get the best from them, but those come at the expense of other factors.

The main attraction in the rulesmakers eyes is, I think, the black and white nature. yes/no. Feel good stuff is way more subjective, and not always consistent with faster lap times. Ultimately, we could run every car thorough a much more complete formula/process or LapSim, or both, but, unless we really nail that down, it won't get us anywhere better than where we are now. Our main goals are consistency, repeatability and transparency.

[tderonne]

I too am surprised by the weight difference of the '89-'93 and '94-'95 Mustang classification. Track width on the later cars is about 2" wider. (Fenders are wider too - the 2" holds true in IT trim). They have longer control arms up front, and a wider axle out back. Older cars get a weight break in AS for this and other factors. Seems odd it's backwards in IT.

Couple other things I noticed for the Mustangs. No '87 or '88 cars? No 16" wheels for the early cars (they came with them)? And convertibles are allowed (not that you'd WANT a convertible, but you know someone would just because they could)?

[Ron Earp]

Couple other things I noticed for the Mustangs. No '87 or '88 cars? No 16" wheels for the early cars (they came with them)? And convertibles are allowed (not that you'd WANT a convertible, but you know someone would just because they could)?

See post #26 for a brief explanation of the proposal and why it had a limited scope. The proposal needed to be direct and simplistic for the best chance of getting through. Now that it is approved I'm sure you can petition to class earlier Foxs, later Foxs, or other F Bodies.

[lateapex911]

I too am surprised by the weight difference of the '89-'93 and '94-'95 Mustang classification. Track width on the later cars is about 2" wider. (Fenders are wider too - the 2" holds true in IT trim). They have longer control arms up front, and a wider axle out back. Older cars get a weight break in AS for this and other factors. Seems odd it's backwards in IT.

Couple other things I noticed for the Mustangs. No '87 or '88 cars? No 16" wheels for the early cars (they came with them)? And convertibles are allowed (not that you'd WANT a convertible, but you know someone would just because they could)?

The process isn't going to parse out track differences. In mixed marque racing.... it's just not going to get that fine. Same for longer control arms. The cars with greater hp get more weight, and adders can subtract or add to that.

[CRallo]

Hi guys,
This is great news. Time to start looking for an F-Body w/o T-roofs. I recall reading the initial proposal some time ago. Are the Camaros/Firebirds classified the TPI 305 or the carbed version or both? I recall them both having 9.3:1 compression.
Thanks.
Joel



the TPI 305 (LB9) is the engine being called for here. I am pretty sure the HO carbed 305 (L69) was gone by that point although it may have still been available in '87. Or were you refering to the TBI 305 (LO3) engine?

[CRallo]

So what are the odds of getting the TPI 350 approved? its only 10 or 15 more horse...

[Knestis]

>> So what are the odds of getting the TPI 350 approved? its only 10 or 15 more horse...

I don't speak for the ITAC in this regard but the chance right now would be something approaching zero. Someone had to burn up a lot of political capital to get the options you saw listed through the system.

And there's a law of diminishing returns that kicks in pretty hard for every addition stock HP that gets added, to what is already perceived as a pretty heavy car. At some point, it's just not practical or attractive to put lead in a more powerful car to compete in any given class.

K

[CRallo]

No offense Chris, but that comment is more random and subjective than the classification. There was nothing random nor subjective...all the numbers were voted on by a large committee, and each one was considered carefully. Also, some of the cars got breaks for their hardware, or configuration.

In the end, truly subjective qualities, like "handling" get nothing. Handling doesn't make a fast racecar, it makes an easy to drive racecar. Many evil handling racecars have won many events in the hands of skilled drivers.

For many drivers, these cars will allow admittance to a fast class for lesser class budgets, and I'm sure we'll see some V8s winning races.

And V8s, American cars, etc, have been in IT for a long time. Nothing new here........


No offense ment here either, Jake. I should have waited to post and mulled it over a bit more... That said, the fact remains, I don't understand where this new torque adder comes from or how/when it is applied. I thought the classification of these cars was waiting on the "torque adder" being sorted out and clarified...

Is anyone willing to take a minute or two and explain this to me? Pardon any ignorance on my part, I am very new to this.

thanks!

[Ron Earp]

the TPI 305 (LB9) is the engine being called for here. I am pretty sure the HO carbed 305 (L69) was gone by that point although it may have still been available in '87. Or were you refering to the TBI 305 (LO3) engine?

I didn't deal with the VTS sheets on the GM cars but I'm certain we're only speaking about the 305 tuned port engine. If various engines were available with various transmissions this engine (excepting the 5.7/350 automatic) was the best one and the one with which the classification made.

Was the 350 even available with a manual transmission for the 3rd Gen F body? Torque would put it outside the envelope. The cars classed are just inside the envelope.

Ron

[JeffYoung]

The intent on the Camaros/Firebirds was LB9 only. The 350 not only made hp near the top of ITR's stock range, but it made beaucoups torques -- too much actually to account for with a weight adder. It won't fit in ITR. Honestly, the 305 just barely does.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The 350 was only available with an auto.

[CRallo]

The 350 was only available with an auto.

officially...

[Knestis]

officially...

But we can only use "officially" in our ITCS listings. It's a first principle that is pretty sacred - no homologation special options, no back-door motorsports specials, etc.


Is anyone willing to take a minute or two and explain this to me? Pardon any ignorance on my part, I am very new to this. ...

Torque (all of the "adder" factors, really) is always considered relative to other cars in a given class, since the classes as groups of cars tend to be different from one-another. For example, we can consider "brakes" as a factor but only to the degree that they are substantially bigger than other cars in the class of interest. Torque in ITR was a pretty short conversation because we basically had very low (the S2000 and RX8), very high (with the addition of the V8s) and "everything else." I'm overstating the simplicity of this but that's sufficient for this conversation, probably.

Assumptions, practices, procedures, and "the Process" that works for ITR make a dog's breakfast of classifications/specifications for ITC.

On the other hand, the torque question is very much more subtle and complex for ITA. We think it still makes a difference, particularly with some wingers like the e30 325e, but we haven't committed to paper precisely HOW or HOW MUCH difference. Ditto - albeit to a lesser degree - in ITB. Torque in ITC kind of peters out to a non issue, just because of the nature of the cars listed.

Ultimately, we have to prescribe how much, when, based on what triggers, etc. we apply these considerations; document them so we do it the same over and over again; and add it to the list of stuff we are now archiving for future ITACs. We are TRYING to build a system that will help IT continue to be the good things it is, without getting sucked into traps that have befallen other categories.

Oh, yeah - and we need to come to some kind of consensus on each of these steps. I was told today that the Declaration of Independence went from the first draft ready to congress, through ratification, printing, and distribution in less than a week...

:happy204:

Hope that answers more questions than it creates.

K

[lateapex911]

I was told today that the Declaration of Independence went from the first draft ready to congress, through ratification, printing, and distribution in less than a week...

:happy204:

Hope that answers more questions than it creates.

K

yea, but they weren't discussing anything that carries the weight of car racing...and they were in the same room.

Good answer regarding the adders. Chris, the V8s have monster torque compared to others in the class, so an adder was pretty straightforward there. They also have other drawbacks that can't be mitigated with IT prep, so they got some breaks as well. (These are applied to other cars as well, if they share teh same architecture)

Will they be the perfect all around decathlon car that has the best chance on any track?? Probably not, but certain tracks will suit their strengths.

Like any car in IT, choose carefully and accept the advantages and warts.

[benspeed]

Looking forward to racing those pony cars - it'll be great to have more competition in ITR - bravo ITAC! Well done getting the pony cars classed right - I think they will struggle on the short tracks but will be solid on the fast tracks.

Hopefully we see more gals and guys getting into the club and racing these cheaper platforms.

[Rabbit07]

I can't speak for the F-bodies, but the Mustangs can actually be quite nimble. They require scraping the rear suspension for a 5-link or Torque arm, but they work after that. Once I corrected this issue with my ITB Mustang the car was completely different. Gear ratio choices make it easy to get them to come off the corners at the slower tracks aswell. I am excited about this and hope some body wants my old races cars so I can get started on this soon...........:happy204:

[PSherm]

Figures this goes thru after I already acquired the AS Camaro..... :rolleyes:

[lateapex911]

Figures this goes thru after I already acquired the AS Camaro..... :rolleyes:

With all the ITAC guys posting here, why didn't you ask us about the status? We would have been as truthful as possible.

[PSherm]

With all the ITAC guys posting here, why didn't you ask us about the status? We would have been as truthful as possible.

Sorry, Jake, just kinda venting. Bought the AS several months ago and really put the ITR V8 thing outta my head, since I thought it was a dead issue. My racing partner was the real impetus for the Camaro; he's a V8 RWD kinda guy. Just woulda been nice (read cheaper) to do it under the IT ruleset ...

[lateapex911]

Put the sucker on pole, set a lap record and sell it!

[Steam Corners]

I can't speak for the F-bodies, but the Mustangs can actually be quite nimble. They require scraping the rear suspension for a 5-link or Torque arm, but they work after that. Once I corrected this issue with my ITB Mustang the car was completely different. Gear ratio choices make it easy to get them to come off the corners at the slower tracks aswell. I am excited about this and hope some body wants my old races cars so I can get started on this soon...........:happy204:

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but can the suspension be re-worked this extensively in IT? I know you can go to the 5-link or torque arm in AS and that other club, but I thought you had to run with what FoMoCo gave you. I could be way off base, however. . :shrug:

[Knestis]

There's a couple of clauses in the ITCS about Panhard rods and other axle locating devices, so there's actually quite a lot that can be done.

K

[Marcus Miller]

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but can the suspension be re-worked this extensively in IT? I know you can go to the 5-link or torque arm in AS and that other club, but I thought you had to run with what FoMoCo gave you. I could be way off base, however. . :shrug:

As I said on the other forum; the rear of the mustang is akin to a first gen Rx-7; with the Rx7, and there is enough latitufde to run a 3rd link and panhard rod there, so it should be straight forward enough on a Mustang to do legally.
:eclipsee_steering:
Marcus