Correction to 5/09 Fastrack

[JoshS]

As you all probably noticed, the 305ci Camaro/Firebird and the 5.0L Mustangs were added to ITR in the latest Fastrack. However, they were published with incorrect weight listings.

Please refer to this post on the SCCA.com forums for the correction:

http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8033&PN=1

[xr4racer]

The news gets better and better. I think these weights will make sure that there will not be many of these hitting the track. I would need to put approximately 400 pounds of ballast on a Fox body that has the same engine as the SN95. I would imagine the crappy brakes may just catch on fire at faster tracks with hard braking with all of the help that the rear drums will provide. At least the Camaro is already a heavy car.

matt

[CRallo]

You cannot be serious!! Would someone care to explain the math?

this is for real right?

[JoshS]

You cannot be serious!! Would someone care to explain the math?

this is for real right?

It's for real.

All the research that was submitted (which was plentiful), and then our due-diligence research following, agrees that 30% power gains are possible. Then, the cars get a +150 lb torque adder, far and away the largest torque in the class (for reference, these cars have 300 ft-lbs, the next highest cars have 225 ft-lbs).

However, they get some breaks too ... -50 for the live axle, the Mustangs get -50 for brakes too.

[Knestis]

What Josh said.

This decision took a long time partly because we spent a lot of time digging around, to try to get the best evidence available. This was a potentially controversial move and we needed to be as confident as possible that we got it right the first time.

K

[mustanghammer]

What is the logic behind the weight differences between the 94-95 Mustang (SN95) and the 89-93 Mustang (FOX)? The FOX has a disk/drum brake settup, is narrower (harder to fit wide tires), and has less aero that the SN95. I would think that at a minimum the FOX should get a more of a break based on these items. In my opinion It should be the lighter of the two - this is how the cars are handled in AS.

Either way, it will be interesting to see these cars on track.

[JoshS]

What is the logic behind the weight differences between the 94-95 Mustang (SN95) and the 89-93 Mustang (FOX)? The FOX has a disk/drum brake settup, is narrower (harder to fit wide tires), and has less aero that the SN95. I would think that at a minimum the FOX should get a more of a break based on these items. In my opinion It should be the lighter of the two - this is how the cars are handled in AS.

Either way, it will be interesting to see these cars on track.
Simple -- our process is based on stock horsepower. The SN95 had 215 vs. the latest Fox cars at 225.

Our process isn't precise enough to take into account drum brakes, fender clearance, or aero.

If you feel that the SN95 has an advantage, we'd suggest that that's what you should build!

[mustanghammer]

Simple -- our process is based on stock horsepower. The SN95 had 215 vs. the latest Fox cars at 225.

Our process isn't precise enough to take into account drum brakes, fender clearance, or aero.

If you feel that the SN95 has an advantage, we'd suggest that that's what you should build!

Disclaimer....I'm not sure I would consider building a V8 ITR car but I asked the question because I am curious about how weight was determined. Not sure I appreciate you cheeky answer...but it is late and my sense of humor is already in bed.

I frankly find it amazing that 10HP is worth that much and that the magical process doesn't factor BRAKES. Also think it is interesting that no one apparently bothered to look at the data that has been gleaned through years of racing these same cars in AS. After all the AS rules allow for both the SN95 and the FOX to be built with the same parts and yet the FOX is still lighter....interesting.

[JoshS]

Disclaimer....I'm not sure I would consider building a V8 ITR car but I asked the question because I am curious about how weight was determined. Not sure I appreciate you cheeky answer...but it is late and my sense of humor is already in bed.

I frankly find it amazing that 10HP is worth that much and that the magical process doesn't factor BRAKES. Also think it is interesting that no one apparently bothered to look at the data that has been gleaned through years of racing these same cars in AS. After all the AS rules allow for both the SN95 and the FOX to be built with the same parts and yet the FOX is still lighter....interesting.
Apologize Scott, it wasn't meant to be cheeky or humorous, it was meant to be honest. Everything in IT has its strengths and weaknesses, and you are wisely pointing out some of them here. I'm hardly the first to say that one picks his/her car and lives with its strengths and weaknesses, so pick wisely.

[CRallo]

woof!

[Ron Earp]

Regarding the 89-93s, I didn't even want to write them in the proposal. TNot much of a way to correct for drums in IT, the stock hp is higher than the SN95 but we've got to stick with stock hp (yes I know about the derating too and potential, but we have to stick with what is published), and the chassis could be considered by many as inferior.

But we put them in the proposal because we knew that people would be asking about them more or less instantly. The process isn't kind to the car but the process has been followed in a repeatable and documented way. At least folks can now run V8 Pony cars in ITR if they wish.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I do not know much about the AS rules...and really don't care - but aren't the Fox and SN cars allowed to run the same HP levels? Add that to the culture of constant diddling on weights to TRY and make things perfect...and you get the differences.

10 stock hp on these cars in process is equal to almost 150 base pounds.

What makes the IT ruleset SEEM strange when compared to other classes is also it's strongest virtue. It is what it is, choose your weapon.

[Doc Bro]

You cannot be serious!! Would someone care to explain the math?

this is for real right?


Let's look at it this way. This is somewhat of a controversial move to introduce a V-8 into ITR, especially given the fact that this is an IT growth class. The cars that are classed have the potential to be very expensive builds (ask Phillips what he could POTENTIALLY spend on that 968). If you're going to class a V-8 Camaro (that is the width of a tank) the weight better be set at a level that makes it a little challenging in peoples minds. Otherwise it will be unstoppable and ruin a fledgling class. The formula for making power in these american v-8's is very known....you can get the recipe in the magazine section of Stop & Shop. I think the cars need to be heavy at least initailly to see how it shakes out. I think cars like this will be very tough to beat at tracks like Road Atlanta.

R

[xr4racer]

Make all the Mustangs the same weight at least , they are the same engine specs.

matt

[Doc Bro]

Make all the Mustangs the same weight at least , they are the same engine specs.

matt


If they are the same engine specs why does one have 10+ HP? Headers, ECU?

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let's look at it this way. This is somewhat of a controversial move to introduce a V-8 into ITR, especially given the fact that this is an IT growth class. The cars that are classed have the potential to be very expensive builds (ask Phillips what he could POTENTIALLY spend on that 968). If you're going to class a V-8 Camaro (that is the width of a tank) the weight better be set at a level that makes it a little challenging in peoples minds. Otherwise it will be unstoppable and ruin a fledgling class. The formula for making power in these american v-8's is very known....you can get the recipe in the magazine section of Stop & Shop. I think the cars need to be heavy at least initailly to see how it shakes out. I think cars like this will be very tough to beat at tracks like Road Atlanta.

R

Couple of points: The 'recipe' for power in these cars ALWAYS includes a high-performance intake manifold, a new cam and uprated air-metering device - all of which must remain stock in IT. In doing our research, when these engine builders heard those limitations, they hope for huge power gains. Torque will be the factor on how they perform IMHO because handling and braking will be way below class averages me thinks...

[lateapex911]

I frankly find it amazing that 10HP is worth that much and that the magical process doesn't factor BRAKES. Also think it is interesting that no one apparently bothered to look at the data that has been gleaned through years of racing these same cars in AS. After all the AS rules allow for both the SN95 and the FOX to be built with the same parts and yet the FOX is still lighter....interesting.

1: IT has 300 plus cars listed. It's a multi marque category.
2: AS rules are VASTLY different than IT. IT rules require stock everything in the engine except the exhaust and part of the intake tract. AS rules allow MUCH greater mods. Change one thing and the data gleaned goes out the window. Change a dozen, and you really have to be extremely careful when drawing meaningful conclusions. The AS ad hoc was consulted on this project. As were builders who have built literally thousands of engines.
3: IT is a "Warts and all" category. in other words, the classification strives to treat each car consistently. Items that are impossible to either know or pin down aren't considered. Aero? Even IF we had numbers on the cars we were classing, we can't use them for two reasons. A- we don't have numbers for every OTHER car in the class, and B- the number is meaningless once IT mods such as wheels/tires and airdams are made. Wheel fitment? That's a buyer beware item. Do you think every ITR car can fit the max wheel? I dount it. Choose wisely.

The V8s offer a combination of qualities that will be attractive to some. Simple builds, cheap parts, cheap buy in, and fun racing. Will they be the best in the land? Dunno. Will their qualities make them good choices at certain tracks? Sure! Are they heavy? yes. But remember, many cars are running in Touring at those kinds of weights.

[Doc Bro]

Couple of points: The 'recipe' for power in these cars ALWAYS includes a high-performance intake manifold, a new cam and uprated air-metering device - all of which must remain stock in IT. Torque will be the factor on how they perform IMHO because handling and braking will be way below class averages me thinks...


No Andy, that's the formula for making CRAZY power from these engines!!

I can just picture getting held up in all the corners by an ITR Camaro then getting blown away on the straights in a drag race.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

No Andy, that's the formula for making CRAZY power from these engines!!

Trust me when I tell you that anyone who builds these engines thinks you are crazy that the stock cam and intake/FI have to stay put.


I can just picture getting held up in all the corners by an ITR Camaro then getting blown away on the straights in a drag race.

R

Welcome to the world of mixed-marque racing. Isn't unique to ITR by any stretch.

[lateapex911]

No Andy, that's the formula for making CRAZY power from these engines!!

I can just picture getting held up in all the corners by an ITR Camaro then getting blown away on the straights in a drag race.

R

Just like racing me and my RX-7! ;) :D

(And don't worry, just wait a few laps, They be sayin' that the weights so high that the brakes are going to assplode and catch the brush on fire... ;))

[Doc Bro]

Welcome to the world of mixed-marque racing. Isn't unique to ITR by any stretch.


No truer words are spoken.

[Knestis]

Huzzah! (That's olde school for "I am in concordance with your statement, fine sir.")

K

[xr4racer]

The latest Fox ('93) had 205 hp and had no changes from the '89. It stands to reason that they had 205 from 1989-1993. The SN95 were 215 hp.

matt

[frnkhous]

Matt come on now, that would bring logic and reason into this process, oh wait thats what they are trying to do. I think you should be willing to look at the power rating/hp adder. Personally if you actually dynoed an ITA crx si completely stock and after prep you'd find the multiplier is way to high and the car should be lighter, but the truth is it simply was underated at the factory. You've penalized that car unfairly and it should be even lighter(Which would upset alot of people) or else your not being as subjective as you claim.

Disclaimer: I don't have an ita crx nor do I really think it should be lighter, I'm simply using it as an obvious example of doing things you claim not too as a group.

I'm sure people are still upset about its bmw classing as well for similar reasons.

Sorry, you guys actually do a pretty good job with this stuff but as matt pointed out you really dropped the ball with the mustang, and personally given the fact that mazda admits and bought back/gave money back to people with rx-8's I dunno why you'd believe the original 240hp rating in those either.

I really don't mean this as an end of the world, or a personal attack, more a way the board may not have looked at the classing complaints, look to see if you've punished cars outside the realm of expected performance in the past. The answer is yes, unless you can tell me most of you weren't there yet when the crx was last adjusted, or the e36 bmw's were moved around/adjusted

[JoshS]

and personally given the fact that mazda admits and bought back/gave money back to people with rx-8's I dunno why you'd believe the original 240hp rating in those either.

The original rating was 250. It was revised down to 238 when they bought back the cars. In our initial classification, we used 238. Not sure what you're accusing us of.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The latest Fox ('93) had 205 hp and had no changes from the '89. It stands to reason that they had 205 from 1989-1993. The SN95 were 215 hp.

matt

1990-1992 Mustang GT and LX 5.0: 225hp and 300ft/lbs.
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1990/ford/mustang/5378/specs.html

I have no idea what you are saying about the CRX.

[frnkhous]

Edit for simplicity

Why bother classing the fox body when you know it has worse brakes and your gonna class it heavier without more potential power?

Andy can you honestly say that you think the 90-92 cars were different than the 93 as that is what pertains to this discussion?

Also can you say that E36 BMW's and Crx si's weren't "adjusted" using the power adding % after people had shown what they were really capable of, because as I understand your "system" there isn't room for that kind of monkeying if you won't fix overated cars as well.

That is my only real point. I think the line was crossed already.

Brian

I think the fact that you can only look at a handfull of cars and even question whats done means the ITAC does an excellent job. Invisible just like the ITAC should be, I'm really only bringing this up because we don't need extra cars classed that have no reason to be built, fix the foxbody to the same as the sn95 or get rid of it.

Hopefully i've been clearer

[Andy Bettencourt]

Brian,

I guess you don't understand the system. I think all the information is on the forums. We continue to try and improve.

[frnkhous]

the 15% is the number you guys said was used, I'd have no problem with a 25% number, so long as the rating was somewhere in the ballpark of correct to begin with.... otherwise we should have a 319 crank hp rx-8 or as it stands now 278 crank hp car which simply isn't the case. My numbers and math aren't off... 170whp is a strong stock car, 210 is going to be the it number to match. 24% as you pointed out. I'm fine with that, but I think you guys knew it wasn't a 238hp car.

Whats this have to do with the mustang? Well if the head castings are the same, and the camshafts are the same, and the intakes's don't flow drastically different then just lump all the mustangs together, if anything only the foxbody should get the 50lbs brake adder and should be 50lbs lighter than the sn95... I just want some common sense applied to the formula. Nobody should build a fox body if the weight isn't brought in line with the other mustang. so it is a waste of time to class it.

I actually like the fwd % adder even though if itc cars are realigned and I understand correctly my car will gain 50lbs, thats ok with me as it is consistent and not the end of the world.

[Ron Earp]

I'm really only bringing this up because we don't need extra cars classed that have no reason to be built, fix the foxbody to the same as the sn95 or get rid of it.
Hopefully i've been clearer

Brian,

as one of the two authors of the V8 Pony car proposal let me say don't direct your ire at that ITAC. Direct it at me or Jeff Young if you like. Your point is noted and logged. I've owned many iterations of Fox Mustangs so I've got a fairly good handle on how they work out.

I didn't want to class the earlier Fox body cars because I knew precisely how the process would treat them - not kindly. The same way it treats my 260Z, 240Zs, TR8s, and many other drum brake wearing ITS cars. We don't have correction factors for drum brakes. We need to use the best factory data available when we class cars. And it might not work out that well, but you know what? You can build a 94/95 if you think that car has an advantage.

It should never be the case that you look at the IT sheets and think "whoa, that car has a huge advantage". But it might be the case, especially when we're treading lightly with all new V8 Pony classifications or RX8s, that you might look at a car and say "wow, that is classed poorly". And you might be correct, but the ITAC is doing the right thing, the process at work.

[frnkhous]

Brian,

as one of the two authors of the V8 Pony car proposal let me say don't direct your ire at that ITAC. Direct it at me or Jeff Young if you like. Your point is noted and logged. I've owned many iterations of Fox Mustangs so I've got a fairly good handle on how they work out.

I didn't want to class the earlier Fox body cars because I knew precisely how the process would treat them - not kindly. The same way it treats my 260Z, 240Zs, TR8s, and many other drum brake wearing ITS cars. We don't have correction factors for drum brakes. We need to use the best factory data available when we class cars. And it might not work out that well, but you know what? You can build a 94/95 if you think that car has an advantage.

It should never be the case that you look at the IT sheets and think "whoa, that car has a huge advantage". But it might be the case, especially when we're treading lightly with all new V8 Pony classifications or RX8s, that you might look at a car and say "wow, that is classed poorly". And you might be correct, but the ITAC is doing the right thing, the process at work.

This pretty much addresses it, I thank you, the cars are being brought it at a "safe" place with the possiblility of checking later to make sure they are correct. I'm pretty sure that the fwd adder will hurt me if all cars are run again and yet I agree with it. I would likely build a bmw or rsx way before considering any other itr cars, so I can't even really say i'm angry, more left wondering why an equally powered car could go through the system 150lbs heavier... especially over 10hp that may or may not exist. but it sounds like if fox bodies are built that would likely be addressed in the future, just not so fast as to upset the balance.

[frnkhous]

Brian,

I guess you don't understand the system. I think all the information is on the forums. We continue to try and improve.

I did, but as I understand it the crx's and bmw's were "power % adjusted" by builds that showed full potential so I wondered why the rx-8 and the fox body to a lesser extent were being hurt by an unwillingness to look at what was actually there and not at supposed "factory ratings" I think the issue with factory ratings will continue to get worse as 5% off at 100hp is 5 hp but at 200 and in itr it is now changing weight by 145lbs it will have to be addressed. The fox body is harder to acutally verify, the rx-8 numbers exist and that was my problem. I feel it has been answered though, rx-8 is being looked at, and the fox body has issues not looked at in the system.

[JLawton]

You nay sayers crack me up. If you think the Mustangs are going to be so horrible....... DON'T BUILD ONE!! Just like any other IT car, they have their pluses and minuses...

I think this is going to be a good thing for IT. It WILL bring in more drivers. I think the ITAC did a great job on accomplishing this.

Shut up and drive!!!


:rolleyes:

[xr4racer]

I do not consider myself a naysayer, I just would like to see ITR grow and this was one of my hopes for an extremely common cheaper car that could grow the class. I just do not think the weight of the FOX is going to encourage anyone to build one. I do think the SN95 will appear at racetracks though. I agree all ITR cars have plusses and minuses, but unfortunately the FOX has all minuses at this point.

matt

[roadracer12578]

You nay sayers crack me up. If you think the Mustangs are going to be so horrible....... DON'T BUILD ONE!! Just like any other IT car, they have their pluses and minuses...

I think this is going to be a good thing for IT. It WILL bring in more drivers. I think the ITAC did a great job on accomplishing this.

Shut up and drive!!!


:rolleyes:

With that attitude, my future racecar (1989 Mustang LX coupe with a V8) will not be racing in ITR.

With that attitude, you will never grow this class.

With that attitude, you will continue to get the exodus to NASA.

If you read through some other forums (which I am sure some of you do), then you know that this has generated some interest in the V8 crowd. The talk is that CMC cars or even CMC2 cars could cross easily.

As a future returning racer, the attitiude exhibited by Mr. Lawton is one reason why I was never interested in the SCCA in the first place.

The "don't piss in my sandbox" mentality really does surface from time to time.

A naysayer? No.

A realist about a Fox bodied Mustang? Yes. The Official Ford Mustang 5.0 Technical Reference & Performance Handbook by Al Kirschenbaum should have been required reading when classifying the Fox Mustang.

FWIW, a 1993 Mustang GT is listed as weighing 3250 lbs.

I implore the powers that be to look at these items again.

Matt

[JeffYoung]

No need to implore -- if you think Ron and proposed, and the ITAC adopted, the wrong process weight for these cars, write a letter.

The difference in weight is based on stock hp. That's how the process works. If we have the stock hp wrong, or expected gain wrong, write in with evidence, although I challenge anyone here to claim they have more Ford/Mustang knowledge than Ron. Ron's the most whacked out pro Ford guy I know; this was not a screw job on the Fox.

Note also that many of the "Fox handicaps" raised here are either not factored into the process, or present on the SN95 as well.

We just, on the ITAC, can't account on a single pound basis for every handicap or advantage any particular has. Is it "perfectly fair" that the Fox weighs more than an SN95? Maybe not. Is it "IT process fair?" Absolutely.

I would also suggest that the Fox does have one advantage over the 94/95 Mustang -- there are MILLIONS of them out there.

But again, if you think:

a. Stock hp used in classing was wrong; or

b. Expected power gain was wrong...

Then write in with your evidence.

Thanks.

Jeff

[JLawton]

With that attitude, my future racecar (1989 Mustang LX coupe with a V8) will not be racing in ITR.

With that attitude, you will never grow this class.

With that attitude, you will continue to get the exodus to NASA.

If you read through some other forums (which I am sure some of you do), then you know that this has generated some interest in the V8 crowd. The talk is that CMC cars or even CMC2 cars could cross easily.

As a future returning racer, the attitiude exhibited by Mr. Lawton is one reason why I was never interested in the SCCA in the first place.

The "don't piss in my sandbox" mentality really does surface from time to time.

A naysayer? No.

A realist about a Fox bodied Mustang? Yes. The Official Ford Mustang 5.0 Technical Reference & Performance Handbook by Al Kirschenbaum should have been required reading when classifying the Fox Mustang.

FWIW, a 1993 Mustang GT is listed as weighing 3250 lbs.

I implore the powers that be to look at these items again.

Matt



I really, REALLY don't think the Mustangs being classed heavy is the end to IT as we know it..

How I SHOULD have stated my comments is that it is easy to complain but if you truely feel passionate about, get involved in the process. Help these guys out, do some research for them, whatever. These guys worked very hard to put this together. They volunteer to do this.

But don't just complain................

[Ron Earp]

Hey Matt,

I understand what you are saying and I do agree with you. This is exactly what I was trying to avoid and could have done so by simply leaving the 89-93 cars out of the proposal. I knew the cars would fit oddly.

I know a little bit about Mustangs but not nearly as much as some Ford guys. But Jeff is right about one aspect of my involvement, I am pro-Ford (and GM too) regarding the Pony cars and as one proposers wasn't out to screw Fox chassis cars.

It is a large step for the ITAC/BoD to class these cars, it really is. Big step. The proposal was drafted up in late 2007 and submitted in Jan 2008. The debating and so on took over a year. The SCCA moves slowly and that is just how it is. The simplier the proposal was the better the chance of it being accepted.

At least there are some V8 Pony cars in IT. Maybe they are not all classed perfectly. But there is a base to work from and the possibility of future adjustments.

I've been thinking about the Fox chassis too and doing some additional research. Write a letter to the BoD and explain your points. Write an email to me, maybe we can work together to draft up an amendment for minor corrections. I'd be happy to work with you on it.

Ron

[Tristan Smith]

From reading through the thread I take it that the Mustang is being classed at 3250lbs? WOW, so V8 power, more torque, and at the same weight of my 300zx? hmmmmmmmmm. I think the Ford guys have nothing to complain about.

[Ron Earp]

From reading through the thread I take it that the Mustang is being classed at 3250lbs? WOW, so V8 power, more torque, and at the same weight of my 300zx? hmmmmmmmmm. I think the Ford guys have nothing to complain about.

And neither do the GM guys. Bit more weight, but a bit more power, good chassis. Be interesting in ITR should all these various cars come out to play.

[lateapex911]

From reading through the thread I take it that the Mustang is being classed at 3250lbs? WOW, so V8 power, more torque, and at the same weight of my 300zx? hmmmmmmmmm. I think the Ford guys have nothing to complain about.

I love it. There's always two sides to the story.
(I always chuckle when I'm at a race and a guy comes up and says "XYZ is WAY too light, are you guys nuts!?". (he often owns a competitor to XYZ. Then the very NEXT guy who comes up tells me it's too heavy. LOL)

Now, in actually, the 3250 number applies to neither Mustang. The early cars are listed at 3340 and the later at 3195.

Tristian, your car (as you know) has 200 ft lbs of torque at 4800rpm, and 222 hp at 6400rpm. What it doesn't have is a big old clunky 200+ pound axle banging around in the back, a .63 ratio 5th gear, and some sketchy brakes. :)

Of course most assume a Mustang build will be less $$ than a 300Zx build.

I bet I know which car you'd choose today!

[Knestis]

...I implore the powers that be to look at these items again.

Matt

This is one of those issues that bumps up against philosophies, about which reasonable people may disagree (and it's been said before) but I feel like it needs to be repeated anyway: Over time and a lot of cases, you would probably discover that you don't really want the decision-makers to try to understand as much about each car that gets listed, as you describe.

That leads to a situation where the system is allowed to consider all kinds of factors, and encourages subjectivity. In many places (art criticism, writing editorials for the Post, etc.), subjectivity is wonderful but in this business, it has historically led to outcomes that are ultimately unhealthy for a racing category...

I won't dive into "rules creep" or "performance adjustments" (bleah!). The problem that grows from well-intentioned efforts to "do a really good job" of spec'ing IT cars is inconsistency - where over time we end up with a bunch of listings that don't all apply the same assumptions, math, and policies.

That's where we are now, and fixing that is a huge priority for the ITAC.

People will tell us - heck, we say it ourselves - that "the system fails Car X." Yeah - that's absolutely true in some examples. But that's the way we have to play the calculus for the benefit of the entire category. If we fiddled and fudged to get the numbers right to make Fox Mustang owners feel positive about the outcome, we'd have a system that allowed - demanded, actually - that we do the same for everyone else. Chaos ensues, ITAC members can tweak the rules to further individual agenda, lobbying becomes a fulltime business, a few members make out like bandits, and the membership at large loses faith in the club.

There was a time in the '80s when any serious Showroom Stock competitor assumed he/she would sell the car right after the RubOffs, and started calling contacts at SCCA global HQ with a vengence, before making ANY decision about what to buy for the following year. I don't *think* that is how you want IT to be.

By limiting the factors we can consider, reducing the opportunities for subjectivity to the bare minimum necessary to address major misses (that's going to be ONE when we're done, right?), and by prescribing what we do with the numbers, we get consistency.

K

[Doc Bro]

I agree all ITR cars have plusses and minuses, but unfortunately the FOX has all minuses at this point.

matt

Huh??? Matt with all due respect you haven't built one or raced one in ITR trim. Your stance is purely conjecture. How about Ben Phillips's 968 ...no minuses there?? How about 8K for a Sunbelt BMW engine....no minuses there? You can run to an Advanced Auto or Boneyard close to any racetrack anywhere in the country and get Mustang parts for a song to save your race weekend.....try doing that with a BMW or Porsche.....still all minuses huh??

R

[Tristan Smith]

I love it. There's always two sides to the story.
(I always chuckle when I'm at a race and a guy comes up and says "XYZ is WAY too light, are you guys nuts!?". (he often owns a competitor to XYZ. Then the very NEXT guy who comes up tells me it's too heavy. LOL)

Now, in actually, the 3250 number applies to neither Mustang. The early cars are listed at 3340 and the later at 3195.

Tristian, your car (as you know) has 200 ft lbs of torque at 4800rpm, and 222 hp at 6400rpm. What it doesn't have is a big old clunky 200+ pound axle banging around in the back, a .63 ratio 5th gear, and some sketchy brakes. :)

Of course most assume a Mustang build will be less $$ than a 300Zx build.

I bet I know which car you'd choose today!

It was said a bit tongue in cheek. Quite frankly I don't see a whole lot of difference in the cars. They are all pigs, and the brakes are all going to be smoking by the end of the race, ha.

After looking at the Roebling Road videos on another thread here, I wonder if all of these ITR cars are going to be big heavy lumps that do fine on the straights and wallow through the corners. Only time will tell. It's a moot point, I am committed to the ZX now anyway. Now If I just get some time to go work on it. I have been camped at the CDC all week waiting for the great pandemic of 2009 to happen.

[JeffYoung]

Tristan's concern about racing a pig worries me too. The only solace I take from Roebling (I have a potential ITR 300zx in a storage shed) is that Mike Flynn's 323 used to do really well there at 3000 lbs. AS cars do not by the way, they are only a second or two faster than a good S car.

Right now, the R cars that are showing up -- BMW's, Acuras and Porsches -- all have great brakes. It will be interesting when brake challenged, high hp cars get thrown into the mix.

Tristan, I hope the pandemic coverage is at least better than the runaway bride....

[Tristan Smith]

[QUOTE=JTristan, I hope the pandemic coverage is at least better than the runaway bride....[/QUOTE]

Anything is better than that story!!!!!!!!!!

I think we should just take off a couple of hundred pounds off all the ITR cars, across the board. Seriously. Everyone complains that their "insert their car choice here" is way too heavy. It might make the cars faster, but it is the fastest class in IT anyway.

[roadracer12578]

Tristan's concern about racing a pig worries me too. The only solace I take from Roebling (I have a potential ITR 300zx in a storage shed) is that Mike Flynn's 323 used to do really well there at 3000 lbs. AS cars do not by the way, they are only a second or two faster than a good S car.

Right now, the R cars that are showing up -- BMW's, Acuras and Porsches -- all have great brakes. It will be interesting when brake challenged, high hp cars get thrown into the mix.

Tristan, I hope the pandemic coverage is at least better than the runaway bride....

I can deal with the weight issues. However, leaving the majority of the stock trim insdie of the car will keep in closer to the listed weight. Who the hell wants a race car with interior panels?

This is the point that I an getting at ... brakes and lack thereof.

I am probably one of the last "Fox" guys to have raced (correct me if I am inaccurate) on the stock V8 front discs and rear drums. Total junk even when they prepped to the hilt (stainless 73mm pistons, stainless bushings, hi-temp seals, braided lines, etc.). Blackhawk was not kind to those brakes and other tracks with the potential for speed will punish them even more. Lets not talk about the puny drums.

This conjures the image of 2 ITR cars involved in a shunt at Super Duper Track. For this example lets say a Fox-body Mustang GT and a 325

- 325 Driver "You hit my car goin into Turn 123 at! Don't you know how to use the brakes."

- Fox Driver "I used up my brakes because I built the car to the rules that you helped write for my car in this class."

To all the folks saying then use a Fox3 chassis, I purchased a Fox body from this website, it was prepped about 50/50 ... my plan was and still may be ITR, however, my situation does not allow for the selling and purchasing of another car.

I think you will find this situation more and more with the economic climate.

[lateapex911]

I can deal with the weight issues. However, leaving the majority of the stock trim insdie of the car will keep in closer to the listed weight. Who the hell wants a race car with interior panels?

The rules allow most of the panels to be removed. I think I must be missing your point here.


This is the point that I an getting at ... brakes and lack thereof.

I am probably one of the last "Fox" guys to have raced (correct me if I am inaccurate) on the stock V8 front discs and rear drums. Total junk even when they prepped to the hilt (stainless 73mm pistons, stainless bushings, hi-temp seals, braided lines, etc.). Blackhawk was not kind to those brakes and other tracks with the potential for speed will punish them even more. Lets not talk about the puny drums.

This conjures the image of 2 ITR cars involved in a shunt at Super Duper Track. For this example lets say a Fox-body Mustang GT and a 325

- 325 Driver "You hit my car goin into Turn 123 at! Don't you know how to use the brakes."

- Fox Driver "I used up my brakes because I built the car to the rules that you helped write for my car in this class."
Again, I don't really know where you are going with this. What is it that you want? A line item exception allowing better brakes? A 200 pound break because of bad brakes? Or???

And to your story, how is a 323 driver responsible A) the Fox driver choosing to use up his brakes and not compensate for that, and how is he responsible for "your car's" rules? All the rules apply to everybody. IT is not a "me-centric" category.


To all the folks saying then use a Fox3 chassis, I purchased a Fox body from somebody who advertised on this website, it was prepped about 50/50 ... my plan was and still may be ITR, however, my situation does not allow for the selling and purchasing of another car.

I think you will find this situation more and more with the economic climate.
Just needed to clarify the quote a bit. Also, what can be done? Are you suggesting certain solutions? Keep in mind the rules can't be modified because of people's purchasing moves, or their personal financial situation.

[erlrich]

Wow, the more I read the more I'm thinking the V6 pony cars really may be the way to go; don't know about the 'stangs, but I do know the 4th gens easily have the best brakes ever put on a Camaro, the best front suspension, and I'm guessing the best weight distribution - the engine sits behind the front axle. The live axle is still an issue, but there are a plethora of aftermarket parts designed to help keep it planted. And you should still be getting close to 250hp and 290tq out of the 3.8 in IT trim.

[Doc Bro]

I just cannot get my arms around this debate.....NO ONE has built one of these to the ITR rulebook, and yet there are complaints that it isn't fairly classed. How is that logical? This talk of melting brakes and hitting cars due to brake performance is all CONJECTURE and spin doctoring!!!! There are PLENTY of IT cars with poor brakes....plenty with drums....yeah I'm sure all of those guys are not having fun...and I'm sure they all wished they didn't race and sat home on the weekends because their brake performance is that aweful. The GCR states clearly "the competetiveness of a car is not guaranteed". If you don't like it on paper don't build it.....unless there's a guy with a gun to your head.

R

[JeffYoung]

As the driver of a car with maybe the worst brakes in IT racing (I'm serious), all I can say is, you can manage. You will never have the same braking capacity as the cars wtih big vented rotors on all four corners, but that is the yin and yang of IT racing.

Plus, I totally agree with the Doc. No one has built an ITR Mustang yet; let's see one done with a max brake setup and see what happens....

[Tristan Smith]

Wow, the more I read the more I'm thinking the V6 pony cars really may be the way to go; don't know about the 'stangs, but I do know the 4th gens easily have the best brakes ever put on a Camaro, the best front suspension, and I'm guessing the best weight distribution - the engine sits behind the front axle. The live axle is still an issue, but there are a plethora of aftermarket parts designed to help keep it planted. And you should still be getting close to 250hp and 290tq out of the 3.8 in IT trim.

I have always thought that was the way to go. What's the weight on the V6 Camaro?

[JeffYoung]

No GCR handy but I think the Mustang and Camaro are in the 2600/2700 lb range (the V6s).

Ron and I both thought, when writing the V8 proposal, that those 3.8 V6s would make good power and that they were a better choice than the V8s.

[Tristan Smith]

What handicaps do these cars have that give them a 500 - 600lb break on weight on the ZX, if they have a more displacement and and make more hp and torque?

I am beginning to get a complex here. While the ZX is a good car, I keep seeing other cars that, at least on outward appearance, make bigger hp/torque numbers and have lower weight. I have no idea what a ZX will make when fully built, I will be running the "old worn" motor currently in it. But if the Camaro numbers above are correct, I think I choose the wrong horse.

[Ron Earp]

2670 and 2850, Mustang Camaro respectively. And before someone says "why" the motors are rated 190hp and 200hp respectively. We use stock hp when classing the cars. I think they'd make great race cars, either one, with the nod IMHO going to the Camaro for the chassis and layout plus brakes. The GM 3.8L motor is fantastic. Ford copied it for their 3.8L V6 but the GM motor is still better, much as it hurts me to say that being a Ford guy.

These cars have been classed in ITR since inception.

R

[Tristan Smith]

So either Erlrich's number are extremely optimistic or the gains made on these engines are HUGE. Again if the Camaro's chassis is good, motor makes big gains, what handicaps it to get a 400 lb weight break on the ZX?

Again, I realize that neither car has been built and run yet, but just crunching basic numbers there seems to be a big gap there.

[erlrich]

What handicaps do these cars have that give them a 500 - 600lb break on weight on the ZX, if they have a more displacement and and make more hp and torque?

I am beginning to get a complex here. While the ZX is a good car, I keep seeing other cars that, at least on outward appearance, make bigger hp/torque numbers and have lower weight. I have no idea what a ZX will make when fully built, I will be running the "old worn" motor currently in it. But if the Camaro numbers above are correct, I think I choose the wrong horse.

Tristan - isn't the ZX rated at something like 222hp stock? If that's correct, unless a different power multiplier was used, it should be making around 275-280hp in IT trim. I think that, plus the live axle v. IRS is a big part of the difference - but that's just my guess.

Plus, the ZX is a REAL sports car, not some muscle car trying to go around turns :D

[JeffYoung]

There are two "key" factors (and remember this is coming from a Z32 owner) in the weight equation:

1. Stock hp (both Camaro and Mustang are lower the than the Z, by 20 and 30 hp respectively)

2. Expected gain. I believe the Camaro and Mustang got 25%, while the 300ZX got 30% (maybe more) due to a dyno sheet floating around for an SSA car with just an exhaust.

If the 300ZX can't make the expected gain, then you (we actually) can write and explain your evidence on it and the ITAC will consider it (I willhave to abstain).

I'm not sure about "actual gain" on the GM and Ferd V6s in IT trim. No one has built one. 25% gain on the 'Maro motor would be 250 crank hp, so I don't think Earl's numbers are way off.


So either Erlrich's number are extremely optimistic or the gains made on these engines are HUGE. Again if the Camaro's chassis is good, motor makes big gains, what handicaps it to get a 400 lb weight break on the ZX?

Again, I realize that neither car has been built and run yet, but just crunching basic numbers there seems to be a big gap there.

[ekim952522000]

Anything is better than that story!!!!!!!!!!

I think we should just take off a couple of hundred pounds off all the ITR cars, across the board. Seriously. Everyone complains that their "insert their car choice here" is way too heavy. It might make the cars faster, but it is the fastest class in IT anyway.

I have to disagree since many of the lower HP FWD cars are at very light weights now Integra Type R, Celica, Prelude.

[tnord]

i used to own a NA Z32. everything i've heard suggests those things have massive power potential, i would fully expect that thing to outrun a V6 F-Body down the straight, and at least keep up with the V8 stuff.

[Ron Earp]

i used to own a NA Z32. everything i've heard suggests those things have massive power potential, i would fully expect that thing to outrun a V6 F-Body down the straight, and at least keep up with the V8 stuff.

Anecdotal observation. Reminds me a little of the V8 Pony car discussion some years ago when someone objected to their classification by saying "Those things make too much power, I saw one on the street lay a wheel over a 100 yards long". No kidding, true statement that was made against Pony car inclusion.

[Tristan Smith]

Plus, the ZX is a REAL sports car, not some muscle car trying to go around turns :D

Uh, I keep thinking of the ZX as a Japanese muscle car trying to go around corners! ha


i used to own a NA Z32. everything i've heard suggests those things have massive power potential, i would fully expect that thing to outrun a V6 F-Body down the straight, and at least keep up with the V8 stuff.

You could all be right. I choose it not because I thought it was going to be a overdog, but because it's a Nissan, and familiar. I don't mind close competition, but I don't want to be a midpacker before I get the car out either (as with everyone). Only time will tell!

[Tristan Smith]

I have to disagree since many of the lower HP FWD cars are at very light weights now Integra Type R, Celica, Prelude.

Oh we could keep those guys at their current weight then:D

Just joking

[tnord]

Anecdotal observation. Reminds me a little of the V8 Pony car discussion some years ago when someone objected to their classification by saying "Those things make too much power, I saw one on the street lay a wheel over a 100 yards long". No kidding, true statement that was made against Pony car inclusion.

agreed. it was a mostly worthless comment on my part.

to me it's a "balance" between the lightweight stuff without power, and the V8 options that rocket out of the corner but might as well use jumbo marshmallows for brake pads.

[Ron Earp]

to me it's a "balance" between the lightweight stuff without power, and the V8 options that rocket out of the corner but might as well use jumbo marshmallows for brake pads.

Look at it this way, we'll get toasted marshmallows out of the deal.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[lateapex911]

One of the things about ITR is that for every person that says "This IS the car for the class", or "this ISN"T the car for the class", you have another person who says the opposite. In the end, it's tough to tell ...and that means it's a good situation.

Some say the ZX is THE car for the class. Lots of people think that motor will be a winner, the suspension is a good IRS unit in the rear, and the brakes are big. The rub on it is that it is reported to be an expensive build.

By the way, when I did a quick crunch of the process power differences trying to account for the "almost 400 lbs" of weight difference, i got a number of nearly 400, without adders. Remember, take stock power, multiply by the IT gain percentage, then multiply it by the class factor. Just 5 hp in ITS for example results in 81 pounds, all else equal. It adds up quickly.

And regarding the "make everything light" idea, I know you're joking, but we have cars that can barely make weight in the class ...some can only come close..any change would punish them.

[JeffYoung]

When life gives you shit brakes, make toasted marshmellows.

[benspeed]

I took a hard look at the V6 Camaro - that car is still in my top 5 ITR cars:

Porsche 968
Boxster
S2000
300ZX
Camaro V6

Folks who like the Pony cars should quit the bitchin and build one. I think the 968 is a tad heavy but I can't bitch until I've raced it.

[ekim952522000]

My top 5 ITR car list I would like to build goes like this. I chose the Prelude because it was the cheapest off that list. But someday I will have a S2000 even if the weight does not get changed.

Prelude
RSX
Integra Type R
TSX
S2000

Can you tell I am a little Honda biased:)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Tristan, I hope you have figured out that Earl is quoting crank hp numbers. 200 x 1.25 is 250.

I love the power of some of these cars but the real issue for me is the weight. Yes, the 8.5" wheels are gonna allow some nice big tires but weight IS the enemy. I would still rather have the E46 325 @ 2800. Chassis, brakes, power...in my mind you take the best balanced car WRT the aspects you are looking for.

The Porsche chassis intrigue me but power is hard to come by and very expensive. 325's and 328's are proven - the 330's weight to much for me. The 944S2 is a tweener...could be real hot.

[Tristan Smith]

Tristan, I hope you have figured out that Earl is quoting crank hp numbers. 200 x 1.25 is 250.

I love the power of some of these cars but the real issue for me is the weight. Yes, the 8.5" wheels are gonna allow some nice big tires but weight IS the enemy. I would still rather have the E46 325 @ 2800. Chassis, brakes, power...in my mind you take the best balanced car WRT the aspects you are looking for.

The Porsche chassis intrigue me but power is hard to come by and very expensive. 325's and 328's are proven - the 330's weight to much for me. The 944S2 is a tweener...could be real hot.

Yep. Weight kills. I am kinda use to driving a heavy car. The 240sxs are essentially pigs in ITA.

I'll start buying marshmallows now, so I have plenty for the first race weekend.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The 240sxs are essentially pigs in ITA.



I still contend this car is the best all-around car in ITA. Great power - great torque and one of the best chassis' in ITA. I think it is better on paper than an Integra.

[Tristan Smith]

I still contend this car is the best all-around car in ITA. Great power - great torque and one of the best chassis' in ITA. I think it is better on paper than an Integra.

I would agree that on paper they look great. But they get spanked by the Integra's and CRX's in the real world. Granted I am only an OK driver, and that didn't help my cause, but I watched a lot of Honda products drive by me on the straights.

[erlrich]

I still contend this car is the best all-around car in ITA. Great power - great torque and one of the best chassis' in ITA. I think it is better on paper than an Integra.

IMO there are just a few weak spots on these cars; their good-but-not-great (for a 2650 lb car) brakes and their gawd awful 55/45 weight distribution come to mind. I also think the 100 lbs they gained from the great realignment moved them from a top tier car to a "pretty good" car for ITA. I would love to see another 10/10ths built 240SX come on the scene - with an AJ Nealey behind the wheel, and see what it could do against the current kings. Too bad Bob decided to go over to the M cars.

[JeffYoung]

Ha! Wrong. TR6.


I still contend this car is the best all-around car in ITA. Great power - great torque and one of the best chassis' in ITA. I think it is better on paper than an Integra.

[lateapex911]

Too bad Bob decided to go over to the M cars.

Yea...after he got beaten by Serra at the ARRCs, he said something along the lines of "I expected the big battle was waiting for me in SM, not in ITA. I guess I should have tuned the Nissan and gotten it ready".

Perhaps it was sour grapes but later he told me he was on old brakes and the engine had many seasons on it...I got the impression he felt he let that race slip through his hands because of prep.

What was the timing of the weight addition ...before or after that race?

[tnord]

Yea...after he got beaten by Serra at the ARRCs, he said something along the lines of "I expected the big battle was waiting for me in SM, not in ITA. I guess I should have tuned the Nissan and gotten it ready".

Perhaps it was sour grapes but later he told me he was on old brakes and the engine had many seasons on it...I got the impression he felt he let that race slip through his hands because of prep.

What was the timing of the weight addition ...before or after that race?


IT is better off without him.

[erlrich]

What was the timing of the weight addition ...before or after that race?

It was back whenever all the other cars got the weight adjustments - wasn't that in '07? Pretty sure that was after Bob had given up on it.

[Marcus Miller]

IT is better off without him.

Now Trav, that's not nice.... :026:


Marcus

[Spinnetti]

Here's a dumb question... I've been out for a number of years... What happened to the A sedan class? Still around? if so, classing v8s in IT doesn't make sense

[JeffYoung]

Still around, but that ruleset is ENTIRELY different, and much more open.

We've heard the "we don't need ponies in ITR because of AS" argument and, without trying to sound argumentative, I think that makes as much sense as saying we don't need IT because many of the same cars are classed in prod. There is that much difference in the rulesets.

[Ron Earp]

We've heard the "we don't need ponies in ITR because of AS" argument and, without trying to sound argumentative, I think that makes as much sense as saying we don't need IT because many of the same cars are classed in prod. There is that much difference in the rulesets.

Exactly. I'll I'll bet inside of four years there will be more Pony cars running in ITR than in AS, at least in the SE.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here's a dumb question... I've been out for a number of years... What happened to the A sedan class? Still around? if so, classing v8s in IT doesn't make sense

It is around. Why would these cars in IT not make sense? Different prep levels. MANY cars are classed in IT and Prod, GT, etc.

[Tristan Smith]

Exactly. I'll I'll bet inside of four years there will be more Pony cars running in ITR than in AS, at least in the SE.

R

Maybe, but I bet the v6 cars end up being more abundant and attractive candidates.

[lateapex911]

Maybe, but I bet the v6 cars end up being more abundant and attractive candidates.

Be that as ir may, as long as people are running them it's all good. The way i see it, it really doesn't hurt to have any car classed as long as its empirical properties fit the structure of the category and the class.

I submit as an example of such thinking: The Triumph TR8. I think we all agree we're glad that car got classed, even though it's rather atypical.

[JeffYoung]

My wallet disagrees with that statement.

[lateapex911]

You're wallet is teaching others...keep up the good work!

[Tristan Smith]

Be that as ir may, as long as people are running them it's all good. The way i see it, it really doesn't hurt to have any car classed as long as its empirical properties fit the structure of the category and the class.

I submit as an example of such thinking: The Triumph TR8. I think we all agree we're glad that car got classed, even though it's rather atypical.

Dear God!!!!! WHO would be foolish enough to race one of those!!?????????

[mustanghammer]

When V8 cars in ITR was originally proposed the subject came up at our region's race group meeting. The AS drivers were really against the idea. They saw this as cutting into their numbers....and numbers are very important to National Class drivers. They really couldn't see the value in a second pony car class.

I see it differently. What has been created is an AS farm system that will benefit AS and ITR car builders equally. AS will benefit because some ITR drivers may eventually want to go faster and they can in AS.

For example, an ITR driver with an eye on eventually running in AS can get started on track for a lower cost. While they learn race craft in IT they can also be make strategic build decisions like choosing 16x8 wheels instead of 17X8.5 wheels. Plus alot of the IT allowed parts translate to AS such as headers, oil pans, accu-sumps, fuel cells, suspension bushings, shocks, springs, etc. So there is no real loss of investment.

ITR car owners will benefit because the market for their cars is bigger than just the IT crowd when they want to sell.

Despite my misgivings regarding the weights that were determined I think there are allot of positives here for IT and the club as a whole. Good job to all involved.

[ericblois]

did you know that the 89-92 5.0 had forged pistons wear the 93 had hypertenic. i have a 88 5.0 which is not classed mine has an older FI system that does not use a maf. mine has 244whp and 291 wtq and everything ive done is all IT legal. ive stoped tracking it because of cost i would replace the brakes durring lunch every time. have blown up 3 oil pumps becauce i used the trans to help slow the car down. only way to keep the brakes for 20mins on track. on street tires i was only about 1 second off the lead of ITS here in portland (PIR). there are next to none ITR cars here so i could make it and race it but any advantage i would have down the straights would be gone when i have to brake 500-700 feet sooner then my compeditors. i was just going to put cobra brakes on it then it would brake about the same as my bmw 328 hey isnt that an ITR car too. the 328 brakes about the 400ft mark where my mustang brakes at start finish with is about 1400 ft from the cornner

[Knestis]

Sounds like we probably got the balance pretty close, with the various strengths and weaknesses you describe. Thanks!

K