February Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

Dar she blows....

http://cms.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/11/11-fastrack-feb.pdf

[lateapex911]

Wow! Hall must've frozen over!

Adjust ITB MR2 from 2525 to 2430

I need to do my math, but assuming it's right, that's a major change.
Thankyou ITAC and CRB.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I read that math as this:

112*1.25*17+50 for mid-engine.

[Andy Bettencourt]

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
IMPROVED TOURING
Should the current Improved Touring wheel diameter restrictions be removed or otherwise adjusted? Please let us know your preferences. (Current restrictions on wheel widths would not change.)

[Greg Amy]

I'd be interested in hearing the basis/reason for that request. 15" wheels are probably the most-common, and thus relatively-least-expensive, size in aftermarket racing wheels one can find. You start going to something bigger and you're talking significantly less-available, significantly heavier, and significantly more expensive.

If anything, I'd say dump the width restrictions. But diameter? :blink:

[GKR_17]

Some cars may see benefit from smaller than stock wheels - ITB Suzuki Swift for example.

[Greg Amy]

Some cars may see benefit from smaller than stock wheels - ITB Suzuki Swift for example.
Is that the true underlying reason/basis here? To go smaller than stock? I'd find it hard to believe there's enough demand for that to rationalize changing these rules...

Just wonderin'.

[GKR_17]

Interesting requests to move down to ITS from ITR (MX-5 and Boxter). I think the Mazda is right in ITR, but can see why the question was asked, but the Porsche? Come on, no question that one belongs in ITR.

[JeffYoung]

It came about this way. Someone with a car (I can't remember make but it is not in ITR) claims that only 16X7s came on the car. So technically he can't run his stock wheel size (I believe only ITR has the allowance for max 17" diamater OR stock, whichever is larger).

That prompted a discussion about wheel size and one of the points made is exactly what Grafton said -- diameter on a wheel is basically cheap gearing.

I'm presonally opposed to the change but willing to listen. Opening up width is where the dollars are in my view. Diameter might have some impact on handling due to sidewall size and strength of various profile tires, but overall, not a lot of change (in my opinion) to performance other than, again, cheap gearing.

I don't see a need, but let's hear what others have to say.

[GKR_17]

Is that the true underlying reason/basis here? To go smaller than stock? I'd find it hard to believe there's enough demand for that to rationalize changing these rules...

I bet a lot of folks would like to run really large wheels, if only for appearances. On first thought, I don't have a problem with the idea since I don't think there is much to gain down that route (other than improved gearing options).

[JeffYoung]

Think about it practically as well.

It's probably not easy to find a 18X7 wheel for example.

Kind of "meh" on this one, but let's hear what people think.

[Z3_GoCar]

The ITA four cylinder Z3 only came with 16x7 rims in this country, and it's been allowed to run that size in ITA. The problem is that 16" tire choices are limited when compared to 17" tire choices...

Was probably one of the newer ITB chassis. If it's just one more example, I say add a spec line exception.

[GTIspirit]

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
IMPROVED TOURING
Should the current Improved Touring wheel diameter restrictions be removed or otherwise adjusted? Please let us know your preferences. (Current restrictions on wheel widths would not change.)


What was the website again to give member feedback?

Personally I see no performance impact from removing the restriction on wheel diameters. Different overall diameters to adjust gearing are already allowed, if the desired aspect ratio is available for that particular width. Bigger rims are heavier and slower, by all means allow them. Allow them for the same reason that big brake kits were allowed for solo/autocross competition. No performance advantage, potentially a performance disadvantage. But it increases the appeal to the tuner crowd who struggles to understand the arcane SCCA rules.

[Lael Cleland]

I would love to run a 13 on my 84 GTI.... Cheep, I have wheels, and I might be able to use 5th.....

[Matt93SE]

http://crbscca.com

[mossaidis]

for those running stiff rear springs, the added rim diameter would EDIT: RAISE the spring rate of the tire by reducing sidewall.

[Chip42]

ITx comments only - I'll go vent in the ST areas as needed.

1. - the MR2 weight change. great to see motion on this. unfortunately, while a 95# drop is good, by "process" it's still very heavy. I'm affraid that some motion in the right direction might end up keeping it from getting all the way to where it "belongs" in terms of hp/weight as it will be seen as "fixed." the car "should" be 2260# - i think we would all be happy at 2350, or 5hp optimistic.

2. - wheel sizes: the ITC VW beetle is the most discussed of the new breed of small cars with big wheels. find a >15" diameter x6" wheel. currently, going smaller is not allowed, so such cars would be stuck with rare/custom ($$$$) or stock (###) and also have to run larger ($$$) tires than much of their competition. obviously, this is more true for ITB/C. in all classes, the ability to pick wheel sizes is "cheap gearing". again - it can go sideways here, like anywhere else, if someone is willing to throw down the moolah. so it goes in racing. I say open it up.

and on EP - Greg Ira wrote in requesting a re-weigh and the response is "no, but we'll adjust this stuff instead..." I laughed for about 5 minutes before I could get to reading the list. -50# to a bunch of stuff.

[lateapex911]

ITx comments only - I'll go vent in the ST areas as needed.

1. - the MR2 weight change. great to see motion on this. unfortunately, while a 95# drop is good, by "process" it's still very heavy. I'm affraid that some motion in the right direction might end up keeping it from getting all the way to where it "belongs" in terms of hp/weight as it will be seen as "fixed." the car "should" be 2260# - i think we would all be happy at 2350, or 5hp optimistic.

2. - wheel sizes: the ITC VW beetle is the most discussed of the new breed of small cars with big wheels. find a >15" diameter x6" wheel. currently, going smaller is not allowed, so such cars would be stuck with rare/custom ($$$$) or stock (###) and also have to run larger ($$$) tires than much of their competition. obviously, this is more true for ITB/C. in all classes, the ability to pick wheel sizes is "cheap gearing". again - it can go sideways here, like anywhere else, if someone is willing to throw down the moolah. so it goes in racing. I say open it up.

and on EP - Greg Ira wrote in requesting a re-weigh and the response is "no, but we'll adjust this stuff instead..." I laughed for about 5 minutes before I could get to reading the list. -50# to a bunch of stuff.

Greg asked that the Miata have 113 pounds ADDED. Instead, he got 50 pounds REMOVED from 4 cars, and 100 pounds removed from the 260Z. I THINK Greg's a Datsun guy, and it's a memory stretch, but I think he's a 260 guy, so if my very hazy memory is correct, he kinda sorta got what he wanted, well, within 13 pounds, LOL

Regarding the MR2-. Andy's math is no doubt correct, and well, I think there is no way, nada, zilch, zeeeero, zed chance that the 25% factor will get lowered for that car, even if god himself presents dyno sheets from 5 engines and all ITAC guys witness the builds and dyno runs.

[JeffYoung]

Ira runs a nationally competitve (he's finished second at the Boreoffs a number of times) 240z (not 260).

[shwah]

2. - wheel sizes: the ITC VW beetle is the most discussed of the new breed of small cars with big wheels. find a >15" diameter x6" wheel. currently, going smaller is not allowed, so such cars would be stuck with rare/custom ($$$$) or stock (###) and also have to run larger ($$$) tires than much of their competition. obviously, this is more true for ITB/C. in all classes, the ability to pick wheel sizes is "cheap gearing". again - it can go sideways here, like anywhere else, if someone is willing to throw down the moolah. so it goes in racing. I say open it up.

and on EP - Greg Ira wrote in requesting a re-weigh and the response is "no, but we'll adjust this stuff instead..." I laughed for about 5 minutes before I could get to reading the list. -50# to a bunch of stuff.

Funny, because you can't fit a smaller than 15 on a New Beetle.

[Ron Earp]

Interesting requests to move down to ITS from ITR (MX-5 and Boxter). I think the Mazda is right in ITR, but can see why the question was asked, but the Porsche? Come on, no question that one belongs in ITR.

Based on who asked it looked like the SM guys want to race elsewhere. None of those cars belongs in ITS.

[gran racing]

1. - the MR2 weight change. great to see motion on this. unfortunately, while a 95# drop is good, by "process" it's still very heavy. I'm affraid that some motion in the right direction might end up keeping it from getting all the way to where it "belongs" in terms of hp/weight as it will be seen as "fixed." the car "should" be 2260# - i think we would all be happy at 2350, or 5hp optimistic.

LOL If the MR2 ever got to 2260, I'd dump my car in a heartbeat and would begin an MR2 build.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Based on who asked it looked like the SM guys want to race elsewhere. None of those cars belongs in ITS.

Untrue Ron. To me, it looks like guys with actual knowledge of MX-5 Cup and GAC cars have written in and asked that the MX-5 be put in a class that it can actually make weight. That IS the classing philosophy and it applies to the MX-5. It will be a pig, but it will be a pig that can make weight.

The Boxster was just Ben having a brain-fart.

[Andy Bettencourt]

LOL If the MR2 ever got to 2260, I'd dump my car in a heartbeat and would begin an MR2 build.

If you worked backward 110whp you would get 2250. 115whp you would get 2350.

[Chip42]

Funny, because you can't fit a smaller than 15 on a New Beetle.

but you can find 15x6 wheels more readily than you can 16x6, and tires are cheaper there too. VW also runs a slightly less common lug pattern so the wheel options are further reduced for THAT car.

point is, allow whatever diameter wheel a competitor wants. what's the harm / clash with the philosophy?

[Greg Amy]

Untrue Ron. To me, it looks like guys with actual knowledge of MX-5 Cup and GAC cars have written in and asked that the MX-5 be put in a class that it can actually make weight.
You mean like SM5 and/or STL...? ;)


The Boxster was just Ben having a brain-fart.<chuckle> He's trying to get us to allow the 3.2L Boxster S into STU, too..

BEN, GO SEE A PSYCH ABOUT THAT A-ADDS*! :happy204:

GA

* Automotive Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome. That guy's got more car racing ideas than Roger Penske... ;)

[Chip42]

Greg asked that the Miata have 113 pounds ADDED. Instead, he got 50 pounds REMOVED from 4 cars, and 100 pounds removed from the 260Z. I THINK Greg's a Datsun guy, and it's a memory stretch, but I think he's a 260 guy, so if my very hazy memory is correct, he kinda sorta got what he wanted, well, within 13 pounds, LOL

Regarding the MR2-. Andy's math is no doubt correct, and well, I think there is no way, nada, zilch, zeeeero, zed chance that the 25% factor will get lowered for that car, even if god himself presents dyno sheets from 5 engines and all ITAC guys witness the builds and dyno runs.

1 - I get the final result, and Greg's pretty amazing to watch IRL too. I just thought the wording of the resonse was humourus.

re MR2 - my point exactly. it's a shame, because you basically wind up with a car that's ~280# overweight based on ACTUAL whp to weight vs other cars in class (car is known to make ~110whp on an optimistic dyno - or ~15%). does it "make it up" elsewhere? possibly, depending on the track and circumstances. this is why I think 2350# (20% gain) is resonable, and likely the best we could hope for, and why I'm upset the change was done to 2430 rather than 2350, as I know it's more or less a done deal now.

and I feel for the 1 or 2 FX16 guys out there who will theoretically get moved down to 2330# now with the same actual whp as the MR2 in a less "advantageous" car.

[Greg Amy]

point is, allow whatever diameter wheel a competitor wants. what's the harm / clash with the philosophy?
None, really, other than a somewhat-reasonable attempt to limit costs*. But if the real demand is to allow smaller-than-stock wheels, I'd suggest simply removing the line that states "Cars may not fit wheel diameters smaller than those listed on their spec line."

In the end, if someone wants to add 5-15 pounds of unsprung weight per corner (for both tire and wheel) to be able to run 17" wheels on a Rabbit...hell, let 'em self-cull the competitive herd.

GA

* I hear ya, Prof. I know, I know...

[JeffYoung]

GUys with actual knowledge of the 1st gen RX7 also said it could never make its new ITA weight. Until Dick proved them wrong with an actual build.

The race weight in R is close enough to the curb weight that it looks possible.


Untrue Ron. To me, it looks like guys with actual knowledge of MX-5 Cup and GAC cars have written in and asked that the MX-5 be put in a class that it can actually make weight. That IS the classing philosophy and it applies to the MX-5. It will be a pig, but it will be a pig that can make weight.

The Boxster was just Ben having a brain-fart.

[tnord]

MX-5 has front hub issues that the lighter race weight should help with as well.

[Chip42]

MX-5 has front hub issues that the lighter race weight should help with as well.

"warts and all"

[tnord]

yeah yeah, i get it. but if it were ME running that car (and i had nothing to do with this decision btw..) i'd rather stretch to get to min weight and be a couple hundred pounds lighter than i would run heavy, slow, and paranoid about front hubs blowing up at Road Atlanta at the apex of T12.

[GKR_17]

Untrue Ron. To me, it looks like guys with actual knowledge of MX-5 Cup and GAC cars have written in and asked that the MX-5 be put in a class that it can actually make weight. That IS the classing philosophy and it applies to the MX-5. It will be a pig, but it will be a pig that can make weight.

Aren't the MX-5's 2200 lbs in GAC? Sure the MX-5 Cup cars are 2600 lbs, but they already turn times not that far off ITR with a good bit more to gain under the IT rules.

[benspeed]

You mean like SM5 and/or STL...? ;)

<chuckle> He's trying to get us to allow the 3.2L Boxster S into STU, too..

BEN, GO SEE A PSYCH ABOUT THAT A-ADDS*! :happy204:

GA

* Automotive Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome. That guy's got more car racing ideas than Roger Penske... ;)


Ahhhh - you guys know I've got a '98 Boxster all tuned up and ready to go - just add cage and go! Always seek to optimize the rules for your car if you can - part of the racing game...

But seriously - I'd take my 968 over the '98 Boxster in ITR - no chance of the Box beating it. The AADD (automotive attention deficit disorder) that I have been diagnosed with will stay in check for this season.

The 2.7 motor in STU - that's a big money motor to run up front with pretty limited R&D done to date. The Boxster will struggle on the big tracks but could be a front runner at the twisties...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Aren't the MX-5's 2200 lbs in GAC? Sure the MX-5 Cup cars are 2600 lbs, but they already turn times not that far off ITR with a good bit more to gain under the IT rules.

GAC MX-5 cars are 2400 min without driver and no fuel. MX-5 Cup cars are 2600 without hardtops but with driver. Why would MX-5 Cup cars (as series of one model) make the cars any heavier than they have to be? And remember from a prep standpoint, they have good suspensions, intake, exhaust and an ECU.

ITR weight should be: 170*1.25*11.25=2390.

That means the car is 2110 in IT trim sitting with enough fuel to finish the race give or take driver weight of +/- 180lbs. I don't understand why the PTB aren't listening to the people who have these cars and have built them. ITS weight would be 2740lbs. I think it's a tweener and for SURE belongs in ITS. Knowing what Sunbelt has to do to make the power, I doubt they will scare anyone in ITS. Ours rolled brand new onto the dyno and made 140whp.

And Dick P. will fully admit he went 'overboard' in his effort to reduce the weight. Search button is your friend.

[lateapex911]

GUys with actual knowledge of the 1st gen RX7 also said it could never make its new ITA weight. Until Dick proved them wrong with an actual build.

The race weight in R is close enough to the curb weight that it looks possible.

Not entirely true, Jeff, I have actual knowledge, and I was on the ITAC calls. I said, when the subject came up:
1- There seems to be some significant discrepancies about what 'equivalent' cars can weigh. Some guys say it can't be done, but they are wrong.
2- Dicks build was 'aggressive'
3- I think you CAN get an RX-7 to weight, BUT, it will take a comprehensive effort, and some higher expenses. I've gotten mine to 2100 empty. I can go 20...maybe 30 more, but that will cost me a super $$ seat to lose 8 pounds, and hollow sway bars to lose another 8, and a 6 hours easy of scraping and painting to lose the rear noise insulation worth 6 pounds. I could also lose about 6 pounds from switching from steel tailpipes to lighter alloys. So, maybe 28 total, but all but the seat is weight where I want it. (low, or to the rear, or to the right, or all three) And money out of my pocket, where I want IT!.

Which is exactly where I said we could be: At weight or slightly below, but with lots of effort and money.(Don't ask me about the %$&# hoops and $ I've spent on stupid light wheels. Grrrrr)

To me, the last 60 or 70 pounds is the hard part. Full body scrape, super light wheels, fastidious removal of all allowable components, expensive exhaust, expensive wheels, expensive seat, and on and on.

[tom91ita]

....To me, the last 60 or 70 pounds is the hard part. Full body scrape, super light wheels, fastidious removal of all allowable components, expensive exhaust, expensive wheels, expensive seat, and on and on.

full body scrape? are we talking liposuction now to get to the 180 # driver?

[GKR_17]

[MX-5] ITR weight should be: 170*1.25*11.25=2390

Looks right to me, so why the extra 50 lbs? Double wishbone front adder? I was told no suspension adders were used in ITR. We really need to put the math on the spec line so these errors are more obvious.

[dickita15]

Dicks build was 'aggressive'


Aggressive is kind. The car was a rotisserie build that took maybe 1000 hours. I was actually tying to prove it could not be done. I exploited every gray area I could do in order to drop weight. For instance the rules say you can remove the e brake so I ground every bracket off the frame that the e brake system used. I spent over 20 hours with the wiring harness on the bench to remove every wire that I thought the rules could interpret could go away. I used the lightest year body (early) but updated the front fenders and bumpers to late because they were lighter. I used an 8 gallon fuel cell that meant I ran out of fuel in the 45 minute race at Mid Ohio.

Jeff is right I proved it could be done if you accept all the judgments I made during the build. But even so should someone have to spend that kind of effort to get a car to weight? I really do not think it should be necessary in a class that has IT’s philosophy. It really is not something a sane person would do. :blink:

[lateapex911]

Aggressive is kind. .....
Jeff is right I proved it could be done if you accept all the judgments I made during the build. But even so should someone have to spend that kind of effort to get a car to weight? I really do not think it should be necessary in a class that has IT’s philosophy. It really is not something a sane person would do. :blink:

Yes, the RX-7 is a unique problem. It's a tweener of sorts. It got squeezed out of ITA in the mid to late 90s when the PTB added cars and blew the weights/performance. When we did the Great Reorg, there was only so much jamming the Genie back in the bottle that we could do. Weight got added to the cars that were misclassed too light, (who still cry 'foul, we should not be punished because we did a better job prepping")*, and removed from the cars that were classed to heavy. The RX-7 really can't get to the weight it needs to be to truly be competitive in A.
(If it wasn't for the existence of, and the popularity of IT-7, and the need to switch wheels to a smaller width, it would be an ITB car.)

*I'm STILL hearing that, LOL

[billf]

It came about this way. Someone with a car (I can't remember make but it is not in ITR) claims that only 16X7s came on the car. So technically he can't run his stock wheel size (I believe only ITR has the allowance for max 17" diamater OR stock, whichever is larger).

That prompted a discussion about wheel size and one of the points made is exactly what Grafton said -- diameter on a wheel is basically cheap gearing.

I'm presonally opposed to the change but willing to listen. Opening up width is where the dollars are in my view. Diameter might have some impact on handling due to sidewall size and strength of various profile tires, but overall, not a lot of change (in my opinion) to performance other than, again, cheap gearing.

I don't see a need, but let's hear what others have to say.

Jeff,

I believe that is incorrect. In Errors and Omissions of FastTrack of October 2010: "Improved Turing ITR #2477 (David Karably) wheel size. The wheel diameter rules have not changed. ITR is allowed any wheel up to 17inch."

GCR IT rules: D 7 Wheels and Tires, a.1 states in the last sentence, "Cars classified in ITR may utilize any wheel diameter up to 17" or retain their stock diameter wheels if larger."

The wording I see allows any size up to 17", including those smaller than stock.

I could be wrong.

Bill:024:

[JeffYoung]

Bill, thanks -- but I think that was my point.

Only an ITR car can run larger than the mandated diameter size wheels if they came stock. For S/A/B, that's 15, and R 17. An R car that came with 18" diameter wheels can run them, but an S car that came with 17" wheels cannot.

There used to be a prohibition on running smaller than stock but I don't think that is there anymore. I'll look -- I think I drafted the first take on it a while back.


Jeff,

I believe that is incorrect. In Errors and Omissions of FastTrack of October 2010: "Improved Turing ITR #2477 (David Karably) wheel size. The wheel diameter rules have not changed. ITR is allowed any wheel up to 17inch."

GCR IT rules: D 7 Wheels and Tires, a.1 states in the last sentence, "Cars classified in ITR may utilize any wheel diameter up to 17" or retain their stock diameter wheels if larger."

The wording I see allows any size up to 17", including those smaller than stock.

I could be wrong.

Bill:024:

[bamfp]

Ahhhh - you guys know I've got a '98 Boxster all tuned up and ready to go - just add cage and go! Always seek to optimize the rules for your car if you can - part of the racing game...

But seriously - I'd take my 968 over the '98 Boxster in ITR - no chance of the Box beating it. The AADD (automotive attention deficit disorder) that I have been diagnosed with will stay in check for this season.

The 2.7 motor in STU - that's a big money motor to run up front with pretty limited R&D done to date. The Boxster will struggle on the big tracks but could be a front runner at the twisties...


If my boss would get off his a$$ and get the suspension ordered for the Boxster, I could get it done. I have driven the car at Road A on 88k mile stock suspension and street tires. I was very impressed with it. I was doing 100mph down the esses and did 130mph going into 10a. I had to lift early because the car was unstable because of the blown struts. I never got out of 4th gear. This was with 16in rims. I would love to put 15x8.5 on it and run the 275/35/15 Hoosier. I think the Boxster will be a fine ITR car.

[benspeed]

That is great to hear. I'm a huge fan of the Box and bought one new in 97. I bought the 98 and tested it for ITR but thought it was not there on power for the class - research showed little motor development has been done under IT rules so I decided to look at the 968. So far I'm very pleased with the 968 and look forward to seeing who puts the first Box in ITR.

[rpiekarczyk]

I'm new to IT, but for what its worth, I support allowing alternative wheel diameter options in IT. Having just bought an SSC Protege MP3 which is in process of turning into an ITA car. Who knows how competitive it will be, but the car certainly in theory has potential.

It seems silly to run a 17 inch wheel (only size available for the MP3) on a car where it really isn't necessary. Similar to some of the newer cars in Touring which is where I have most of my experience, the larger wheels are mostly cosmetic, add a significant amount of weight and add expense to tires.

[Z3_GoCar]

Bill, thanks -- but I think that was my point.

Only an ITR car can run larger than the mandated diameter size wheels if they came stock. For S/A/B, that's 15, and R 17. An R car that came with 18" diameter wheels can run them, but an S car that came Iwith 17" wheels cannot.

There used to be a prohibition on running smaller than stock but I don't think that is there anymore. I'll look -- I think I drafted the first take on it a while back.

As I said in my prior post, the ITA Z3 with the four cylinder motor only came with 16x7 rims. It's probably one of the few in ITA with this allowance.

[GKR_17]

That is great to hear. I'm a huge fan of the Box and bought one new in 97. I bought the 98 and tested it for ITR but thought it was not there on power for the class - research showed little motor development has been done under IT rules...

Speedsource ran them in GAC a while back, I bet they have the scoop, though they'll surely prefer the Rx-8.

[benspeed]

Scoop was 20K motor

[RedMisted]

Jeff is right I proved it could be done if you accept all the judgments I made during the build. But even so should someone have to spend that kind of effort to get a car to weight? I really do not think it should be necessary in a class that has IT’s philosophy. It really is not something a sane person would do. :blink:

Exactly. I've got a Mustang that will never make its 2670 minimum weight.

I'm at the point where sanity and insanity begin to blur.

I'm qualifying at only 104-105% (ave.) of the fastest ITR cars.

I'm currently at 2935, should be able to get another 70 pounds out of the car. That's if I desire to spend several thousand dollars replacing the cage with lighter chrome moly, getting an ultra-light seat, replacing the panhard bar with some other rear axle locating device, and scraping/pulling what VERY little is left to remove.

I'm not in this sport to screw around, drink beer and dilly-dally in the paddock. I want to raise hell at the front.

But it sure won't be in my car...

No tears for me, please. I'm the guinea pig in the Great 3.8 Mustang ITR Experiment. :D

[JoshS]

On the wheels thing -- sorry Jeff, but you've got some things wrong.

The request that was the genesis of the Fastrack question was to allow smaller wheels than stock on the Protege MP3 (which is not an ITR car). Stock was 17". The easy answer is "no" since as a general practice we are not wild about line-item exceptions ... but it got to a pretty involved conversation about the current rule and its seemingly arcane complexity which probably doesn't accomplish much. If anything was to change, the idea was that simplifying the rule would probably be the best approach. Eventually we got ourselves all twisted around in circles and it was suggested by a CRB member that we ask all of you for input.

The current rules state, basically (the wording is more complex than this in the book):

In ITR: you can use ANY SIZE up to 17". If your car came with larger than 17", you can use that.

In ITS/ITA/ITB/ITC: You cannot use smaller than stock, and stock is the size listed on the spec line. You can use a larger size up to 15" if stock was less than 15". If stock was more than 15", then you are limited to that size.

[dickita15]

You know on the wheel thing I am not sure why we need to restrict diameter at all. In some categories they are use wheel size to control brakes but that is not a factor for us. As has been said gearing is open anyway, ride height is already limited. I suppose you could argue whenever we add options we add to the testing cost of the full out efforts but I think we are more likely to see some people who can save by using more easily available or cheaper wheels and tires.

[JeffYoung]

I'm pretty sure that is exactly what I said -- request came in because a non-ITR car had stock wheels larger than 15".

I do agree the choice is between a blanket change to the rule, or line item exceptions.

We did briefly talk about gearing, and need to discuss that here, because it is one of the consequences of the rule change.

Andy/Jake/Dick -- my point was not t focus on the ITA RX7 specifically, but to use it as an example. Lots of people said it couldn't get to min weight and it did. The ITR MX-5 is close enough to curb weight that we think it possible it can do so in ITR.

Chris, no offense, but I've seen your car and there is a LOT of weight that can come out of that sucker! Talk to Ron. He seemed to think the 3.8 could get close to 2700ish.


On the wheels thing -- sorry Jeff, but you've got some things wrong.

The request that was the genesis of the Fastrack question was to allow smaller wheels than stock on the Protege MP3 (which is not an ITR car). Stock was 17". The easy answer is "no" since as a general practice we are not wild about line-item exceptions ... but it got to a pretty involved conversation about the current rule and its seemingly arcane complexity which probably doesn't accomplish much. If anything was to change, the idea was that simplifying the rule would probably be the best approach. Eventually we got ourselves all twisted around in circles and it was suggested by a CRB member that we ask all of you for input.

The current rules state, basically (the wording is more complex than this in the book):

In ITR: you can use ANY SIZE up to 17". If your car came with larger than 17", you can use that.

In ITS/ITA/ITB/ITC: You cannot use smaller than stock, and stock is the size listed on the spec line. You can use a larger size up to 15" if stock was less than 15". If stock was more than 15", then you are limited to that size.

[gran racing]

Is there any realistic way to calculate how much of a performance gain their is between using a 6" and 7" wide rim?

Too bad the RX7s aren't in B.

[dickita15]

Dave we are retilling old ground but the process does not serve the 12a rotary well in B or A. I think the difference between 6’s and 7’s would be more on tight tracks like we run on here. One of the problems with moving the RX to B is that at the B weight about half the cars built would not pass the cage rules. The only way it could have been done is with Dual Classification. I do not have a problem with DP for tweeners but many disagree.

The time top do anything about the RX7 is long since past. We as a club blew it and the invention of IT7 is proof that the system failed the car.

Call it a lesson learned and move on

[Andy Bettencourt]

Looks right to me, so why the extra 50 lbs? Double wishbone front adder? I was told no suspension adders were used in ITR. We really need to put the math on the spec line so these errors are more obvious.

No idea. Nobody posted the math when I asked.

[RedMisted]

Chris, no offense, but I've seen your car and there is a LOT of weight that can come out of that sucker! Talk to Ron. He seemed to think the 3.8 could get close to 2700ish.

Well, much of what you saw is now gone. Also, I spent an entire day at a race prep shop creating a laundry list of things to do to reduce weight and the end result wasn't encouraging. Plus, I've had people with some SERIOUS racing and car building cred practically beg me not to throw any more money at the car, and one of them is a trusted friend who doubles as a valued sponsor.

Look, I'm not being negative, just realistic. I still get sporadic email inquiries from individuals interested in building one of these cars. I tell them to think carefully if they want to go the SN-95 Mustang route in ITR. But I also tell them that if they're looking to race a car in IT's fastest class that will be relatively dirt cheap to build and maintain, while putting down respectable, if not fast lap times, then look no further...

[GKR_17]

...replacing the cage with lighter chrome moly...

Chromoly is no lighter than mild steel. It's stronger so you can use less of it, but the GCR minimum tubing sizes are the same for all alloys - don't waste your money there.

[GKR_17]

Scoop was 20K motor

I've heard as high as 25k for a 968 motor, what's your point?

[Chip42]

One of the problems with moving the RX to B is that at the B weight about half the cars built would not pass the cage rules.
what would the ITB weight be, theoretically? I figure it would be in the 2600-2650 range, which under the current cage rules is still 1.50/0.095" - it used to be that you'd go to 0.120" wall at (I think) 2500#.

I'd bet wheel sizes and the lack of a need to change classes due to IT7 is the best reason to not reclass the RX7, and the disappearance of 12A parts I keep hearing about mean its days are likely numbered anyhow.

[shwah]

but you can find 15x6 wheels more readily than you can 16x6, and tires are cheaper there too. VW also runs a slightly less common lug pattern so the wheel options are further reduced for THAT car.

point is, allow whatever diameter wheel a competitor wants. what's the harm / clash with the philosophy?
Whoops. I thought the NB had the same 15x6 minimum stock size as the Golf and Jetta share it's chassis. My mistake.

[lateapex911]

what would the ITB weight be, theoretically? I figure it would be in the 2600-2650 range, which under the current cage rules is still 1.50/0.095" - it used to be that you'd go to 0.120" wall at (I think) 2500#.

I'd bet wheel sizes and the lack of a need to change classes due to IT7 is the best reason to not reclass the RX7, and the disappearance of 12A parts I keep hearing about mean its days are likely numbered anyhow.
Yea, the number of cars that have cage issues is unknown.
What IS known is that no RX-7 (legal) has ever run at the top of the ITA world. (And I aint talking local, I'm talking the Rucks and Mosers and the Bettencourts of the ITA world). Actually, MOST guys in their RX-7s wouldn't finish ahead of a decent ITB field AS iS. So adding 300 won'y make it better, LOL

[Ron Earp]

Well, much of what you saw is now gone. Also, I spent an entire day at a race prep shop creating a laundry list of things to do to reduce weight and the end result wasn't encouraging. Plus, I've had people with some SERIOUS racing and car building cred practically beg me not to throw any more money at the car, and one of them is a trusted friend who doubles as a valued sponsor..

Hey Chris,

I feel your pain with your trials and tribulations but, you're also a relatively new racer. The yard stick you're comparing to is KVS who's IT cars are some of the best prepped in the country, plus, the man has been driving IT cars for a long time and is consistently a fast driver in any car.

If I recall correctly you're using a take out motor that isn't prepped to maximum IT rules but is still making pretty good power. So, you're going to be down on power for sure compared to a KVS IT team effort. The Canadian builder who specializes in 3.8L V6s is a good guy to talk to but ultimately there are many domestic Ford builders who can make the motor work well. Ignore the folks on the bolt on 3.8L V6 boards, they don't get IT-prep an never will. They'll feel an off-the-shelf header is fabulous but when looked at from an IT perspective with the goal of maximizing area under the curve, port velocity, and scavenging then it isn't a good choice.

Until your Mustang has gone on a rotisserie, been stripped, and put back together with attention paid to everything with respect to weight and choosing the lightest components available then it is hard to know what weight they will get to. And as Dick mentioned on his IT7 build, you'll need to look at every rule and approach it from many angles to take full advantage of what limited prep we have in IT.

Back when I had my Mustang I planned to disassemble the car to the tub, take it locally to have it dipped and stripped to bare metal, and then put it back together. I do agree that a full prep Mustang probably won't make weight with a 175 lbs driver, but I believe that it'll get close enough that it won't matter if one is willing to put in the time and/or money depending on how they approach it. For me that means a lot of work as I don't have the cash to farm the build out.

But, you've got to decide how you want to go with the project. It could be very expensive to say re-design the cage to take advantage of the 2699 lb bar rule in order to save 18 lbs. And buy wheels that weigh 13 lbs each to save 20 lbs. But in the end that is how a top prepped IT car is built.

I still want to build one of these things. Anyone want to buy a Z ITS car?

[dickita15]

what would the ITB weight be, theoretically? I figure it would be in the 2600-2650 range, which under the current cage rules is still 1.50/0.095" - it used to be that you'd go to 0.120" wall at (I think) 2500#.

I'd bet wheel sizes and the lack of a need to change classes due to IT7 is the best reason to not reclass the RX7, and the disappearance of 12A parts I keep hearing about mean its days are likely numbered anyhow.

For cars built under the 2007 roll cage rules if the cars spec weight is less that 2380 (2200 + 180) then you can have 1.500 X .095. at the time I poll about 50 cars and just about half were built with .095, the other half had heavier tubes.

I see under the current rules you could weigh as much as 2699 with .095.

But like you said the time has passed

[lateapex911]

I see under the current rules you could weigh as much as 2699 with .095.

But like you said the time has passed

yea, the decision on what to do with the RX-7 was made before the new cage rules came to be. So the call was to lower the weight, citing the cage issue, the wheel issue, the IT7 issue, and the Process issue, which, if it fails the car in one class, will fail it in another. The weight wasn't set because the ITAC thought that is the lowest weight the car could achieve, it was set because that's the number the Process spits out.

[Chip42]

Yea, the number of cars that have cage issues is unknown.
What IS known is that no RX-7 (legal) has ever run at the top of the ITA world. (And I aint talking local, I'm talking the Rucks and Mosers and the Bettencourts of the ITA world). Actually, MOST guys in their RX-7s wouldn't finish ahead of a decent ITB field AS iS. So adding 300 won'y make it better, LOL

I didn't say it'd be FAIR at that weight. just working backwards from ITA weight. I do MR2s, I get it.

[RedMisted]

If I recall correctly you're using a take out motor that isn't prepped to maximum IT rules but is still making pretty good power.

Until your Mustang has gone on a rotisserie, been stripped, and put back together with attention paid to everything with respect to weight and choosing the lightest components available then it is hard to know what weight they will get to.

Back when I had my Mustang I planned to disassemble the car to the tub, take it locally to have it dipped and stripped to bare metal, and then put it back together. I do agree that a full prep Mustang probably won't make weight with a 175 lbs driver, but I believe that it'll get close enough that it won't matter if one is willing to put in the time and/or money.


Three things here to think about:

A. The theoretical IT-optimized HP rating at the front of one of these things is approx. 238. If that is true, given that I have all the peripheral stuff done, then I only have another 8 ponies to gain. Not enough to get me excited for the car's prospects.

B. Granted, the weight thing can't be known until it is done. But you keep talking about stripping the entire car down to bare metal. It has been suggested that, in respect to my car, some of the return on performance is going to be negated because the stripping is going to compromise an already flimsy chassis. Whether that is true or not, I do not know, but it does make some sense.

C. And don't forget that the antiquated Ford sedan platform the car sits on basically limits what you can do with it. Other cars such as the 944s and the 325is were designed more as performance cars using newer and better platform technologies and components.

Even if I'm wrong about the car's potential, and I hope I am, it's still gonna take a killing to make it competitive. That is for sure. This brings up what Dick said before about the sanity/insanity issue. And my philosophy has always been: If I'm going to go completely mad building a car, it's certainly going to be in a category that might earn me a higher return, whatever that return may be.

Not dissing IT as a category, but I agree with Dick that something seems incongruent when you're talking about IT and big dollahs in the same sentence. Just sayin'

[JeffYoung]

I am pretty convinced the 3.8 Mustang can be one of the front runners in ITR.

We used 25% gain on that motor because we didn't/don't know much about it. No one has built one to the max in IT trim. My guess is you are leaving a lot more than 8 hp on the table. Do you have a custom header design? Port matching? .5 over compression? Looked at options on rings? Crank scraper? Aftermarket ECU? Tuning? Exhaust tuning?

Stripping the car of sound deadening and undercoating won't affect stiffness. Most of the stiffness in the central area of your chassis comes from the cage, and you can stifen the front if you want with a strut brace. You want to see flimsy, take a look at the frame rails on a Z car.

The only real fundamental design issue with your car is the live rear, and there are things you can do to fix that -- some of them off the shelf. Are you running the stock setup or have you gone to a tri-link and watts or panhard? Have you looked at what you can do with your front struts to eliminate bump steer?

IT has become a place where you can RACE cheaply. But to run up front? It takes dollars and time, and that is true of any class really.

Just a bit of history. I had many of the same feelings you have now when I started with the TR8. After a year or so of racing, I was reasonably fast but still getting killed by top prep/top driven Z cars, 325s (they used to be in ITS) and RX7s. Some of these were turn key cars from Bimmerworld or Speedsource, that guys had stroked $50k checks for.

I too thought even though I Loved the TR (why? why? why?), it had no chance.

But after talking to Ron and others and looking at what I had, I started to spend time on reliability to get seat time and on development.

One thing you say is true. It's not cheap to develop the first of a breed, and you are doing that. I feel your pain on it. You could have bought a 325 ready to go if you wanted (still can....).

But all I can tell you is that, at least from where I'm sitting, that car looks like it can be very competitive, and your driving/prep lvel seems to be improving EVERY time out. You've picked up what, 3-4 seconds at VIR alone in the two visits there?

Hang in there. The work to get near the front is overwhelming, but it's worth it when you do.

[Ron Earp]

A. The theoretical IT-optimized HP rating at the front of one of these things is approx. 238. If that is true, given that I have all the peripheral stuff done, then I only have another 8 ponies to gain. Not enough to get me excited for the car's prospects.

Well regardless of the max gain you know that you aren't there yet as there is a lot you can still do and it is going to account for much more than 8 ponies.



0.040" over
Bore the block with a torque plate. It WILL produce more power
0.5 compression hike
Investigate that valve job
Absolutely perfect valve geometry
Stock cam that is perfectly matched to the specs. You might have to have this ground depending on how stockers check out
Perfect port matching
Properly tuned header. Anything off the shelf will have primaries that are too large in ID. Merge collectors. Proper length from collector to merge, then proper length/diameter of pipe to blend 2 into 1. Side exist or dump at axle, but dyno time will tell which one is best. Lot of power in the exhaust, and, a lot of time / money. Jeff has about $2.5k in his exhaust, and that is doing a lot of it himself. It has paid off.
Open ECU - use a standalone ECU as there is area under the curve to be had. The car has all the good signal inputs needed for this.
Windage control and crank scraper. Power to be had here. Probably have to design an oil pan since I doubt there are any off the shelf units
Light pressure plate. Probably have to have it made with a ally pressure plate with steel insert.
Pulleys are free, make sure you're under driving everything and pay
Parts bin blueprint/balance that engine. Send the pistons/rods you don't use back and return them.
Watch your intake. There is one year that is preferable.
Pay attention to your air intake and pickup in the engine compartment

I understand where you're coming from with respect to the time and money with development. But, until all that development is done you'll never know the potential of the car.

With respect to (b), that isn't going to harm the chassis at all. What it will do is lose a bit of paint/deadening weight off the car, but more importantly it forces you to pull the car apart, and put it back together, installing only the legal parts needed for IT.

And with (c), suspension development - there is a LOT that can be done here. Live axle cars get such breaks in the rules that I think it can be an advantage. You can do tri links or panhard bars, and a sedan can race very well with these. Our tracks are pretty smooth.

It takes time / money to develop an IT car to the max. This is true for ANY IT car, not just your Mustang, and it has been true for many many years. And, I will say your work won't ever be "finished". I'm still developing my Z. This year is exhaust system number three or four, plus springs, and other tuning. Got to keep up with the Jonses'!

[Bill Miller]

yea, the decision on what to do with the RX-7 was made before the new cage rules came to be. So the call was to lower the weight, citing the cage issue, the wheel issue, the IT7 issue, and the Process issue, which, if it fails the car in one class, will fail it in another. The weight wasn't set because the ITAC thought that is the lowest weight the car could achieve, it was set because that's the number the Process spits out.


Jake,

With all due respect, the wheel 'issue' is a red herring. Plenty of cars have gone from A to B, and all of those folks had to get new wheels. And IIRC, you were one of the ones that felt that people would happily buy new wheels if it meant that they could be in a class where they felt like they stood a chance of being competitive.

Dick,

While IT7 may be a good indicator that the system failed the first generation RX7, I think there was actually a positive side to it. Kirk's probably better w/ the dates / timeline than I am, but I know that the whole IT7 issue was what got me thinking about developing an objective way to class cars, and was the genesis of what Kirk later dubbed the 'Miller Ratio'. The discussions that followed on this board were what eventually lead us to The Process. I don't think that there's anyone that would disagree that that was one of the biggest steps forward IT has ever seen.

Chris,

That was my issue when the NB was initially classed, that you couldn't run the stock (16x6.5) wheels because ITC had a max wheel width of 6".

Cool deal for the AW11 MR2 folks. Maybe that's an indication that 1.3 power factor for the DOHC 16v cars in B & C 'deal' is over. Maybe it's also an indication that they'll fix other inconsistencies like:

Rabbit GTI: 90*1.25*17+50(close-ratio gearbox) = 1962.5, not 2080.
Scirocco II 8v: 90*1.25*17+50(ditto) = 1962.5, not 2130
Golf (Mk II): 103*1.25*17+50(ditto) = 2239, not 2280
Suzuki Swift GTi: 100*1.25*17 = 2125, not 1895

[RedMisted]

I am pretty convinced the 3.8 Mustang can be one of the front runners in ITR.

Much of what you and Ron mentioned has already been done, things like an UD pulley, ECU, panhard, etc.

As for the expected engine gain, it would seem true that there's more on tap than a mere 8 hp. But I'm no engine expert, so I take a conservative tack and follow what the theories speculate. After all, they're in place for a good reason, were arrived at by people with more knowledge than I, and represent a good place to begin with power performance assessments.

I guess what everything comes down to remains to be seen. Everybody has an opinion, and while I appreciate all the encouragement, I'm waiting to see what the engine build is going to do for my car. Yes, I already have an engine waiting in reserve, to be built sometime later in the year. (I decided some time ago to do the engine regardless of the car's other issues.)

Depending on what the ensuing on-track gains show, I'll ultimately decide then and there what the next step should be, and to what extent. It's the most sensible thing for me to do.

[JLawton]

Three things here to think about:

A. The theoretical IT-optimized HP rating at the front of one of these things is approx. 238. If that is true, given that I have all the peripheral stuff done, then I only have another 8 ponies to gain. Not enough to get me excited for the car's prospects.

B. Granted, the weight thing can't be known until it is done. But you keep talking about stripping the entire car down to bare metal. It has been suggested that, in respect to my car, some of the return on performance is going to be negated because the stripping is going to compromise an already flimsy chassis. Whether that is true or not, I do not know, but it does make some sense.

C. And don't forget that the antiquated Ford sedan platform the car sits on basically limits what you can do with it. Other cars such as the 944s and the 325is were designed more as performance cars using newer and better platform technologies and components.

Even if I'm wrong about the car's potential, and I hope I am, it's still gonna take a killing to make it competitive. That is for sure. This brings up what Dick said before about the sanity/insanity issue. And my philosophy has always been: If I'm going to go completely mad building a car, it's certainly going to be in a category that might earn me a higher return, whatever that return may be.

Not dissing IT as a category, but I agree with Dick that something seems incongruent when you're talking about IT and big dollahs in the same sentence. Just sayin'


No car is going to be competitive without tons of money and effort. There really isn't any car out there that you can throw on some bolt-ons and expect to win. I took a already built 10/10ths car and over the past four years have put about $12K more in developement.

Again, warts and all..........

[Andy Bettencourt]

No car is going to be competitive without tons of money and effort. There really isn't any car out there that you can throw on some bolt-ons and expect to win. I took a already built 10/10ths car and over the past four years have put about $12K more in developement.

Again, warts and all..........

And I used Jeff as an example with a customer the other day that it' soooo much more than car development. He can speak to this better but he REALLY focused on a few tracks and the data from some quick cars and made a really nice jump in laptimes. All from a driver who has been racing for over a decade, lots of cars, lots of diciplines.

It never ends...and that is what can be fun with it.

[RedMisted]

And I used Jeff as an example with a customer the other day that it' soooo much more than car development. He can speak to this better but he REALLY focused on a few tracks and the data from some quick cars and made a really nice jump in laptimes. All from a driver who has been racing for over a decade, lots of cars, lots of diciplines.

It never ends...and that is what can be fun with it.

And that may be one of my problems. Anyone who knows me knows that I like to race all over the place. I'll go all the way from VIR to WGI to Gingerman, plus the places in between. I've basically abandoned my home tracks of Nelson and Mid-Ohio because the familiarity was killing me. (Same turns, same competition, same weekends, same beer, etc. etc.) And now plans to possibly hit Road America and Road Atlanta in '11.

Good at everything, but a master of nothing... :blink:

Maybe I should stop with the wanderlust and instead take the time/money saved and put it into car development. But... the driving and racing is what it's all about for most of us. I guess the car development thing will have to just creep along as time/cash allow...

[Rabbit07]

I like to say, "Spend your money on tires and seat time. In that order."

Good luck getting an SN95 Mustang to 2700 though, not likely going to happen.

[gran racing]

And that may be one of my problems.

Absolutely not. I think that will help you in the long run and not just be a one or two track wonder as some term it. Once a driver becomes good, they should be able to go to a new track and be pretty much at the top of their game within a test day or really less. Really good drivers only take a few laps. Unfortunately I'm not there...yet.

[tnord]

Absolutely not. I think that will help you in the long run and not just be a one or two track wonder as some term it. Once a driver becomes good, they should be able to go to a new track and be pretty much at the top of their game within a test day or really less. Really good drivers only take a few laps. Unfortunately I'm not there...yet.

i totally agree with this.

the only way you might suffer that i can think of traveling around to different tracks is not having your gearing right depending on where you're at.

[JeffYoung]

Drive a car with torque and don't worry about it.

Seriously, at least around here, I only have one or two places where I'm maxed out in 3rd and don't want to shift -- one at Roebling and one at CMP. If I play with tire sizes I can work around it.

[Rabbit07]

With a Mustang final drives are abundant. If you are handy and do the home work with shims you can change them at the track in about an hour if you are off. I used to do that with my ITB Mustang all the time. It's one of the advantages to the Mustang.

[GKR_17]

Drive a car with torque and don't worry about it.

Seriously, at least around here, I only have one or two places where I'm maxed out in 3rd and don't want to shift -- one at Roebling and one at CMP. If I play with tire sizes I can work around it.

No kidding - out of curiosity, I ran your TR8 data through my gear program, and it made virtually no difference to change the final drive at any of the SE tracks.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Absolutely not. I think that will help you in the long run and not just be a one or two track wonder as some term it. Once a driver becomes good, they should be able to go to a new track and be pretty much at the top of their game within a test day or really less. Really good drivers only take a few laps. Unfortunately I'm not there...yet.

But you are missing the point. Unless you have a GREAT development program, travelling to many different tracks that you haven't run before will probably maximize FUN at the expense of DEVELOPMENT. You need to be at a track that you can run consistantly before you can even think about finding the last X% (you determine your goals) of your driving and/or finding the last X% of your suspension program.

Development is what we are talking about here.

[gran racing]

I just don't agree from the driver perspective.

[Chip42]

But you are missing the point. Unless you have a GREAT development program, travelling to many different tracks that you haven't run before will probably maximize FUN at the expense of DEVELOPMENT. You need to be at a track that you can run consistantly before you can even think about finding the last X% (you determine your goals) of your driving and/or finding the last X% of your suspension program.

Development is what we are talking about here.

the dowenside to the 1-track developement program is when you box yoursefl into a one track suspension. down here in the SE, if you tuned at sebring, you might find the car misbehaves at roebling. vice versa, and the car would be a nighmare over the bumps at sebring.

there's a happy 95% point somehwere in there that works well for most places that you'll never find if you tune everything to the best advantage at one track.

aside from that, different tracks force the driver to think differently, see the line differently, and often this can be backwards applied to places you already "know". so a driver that is at least competent should be able to learn a lot from traveling.

this doesn't mean that staying "at home" and refining your skills is wrong, only that it isn't the only "right" answer.

[benspeed]

I think its so much about the driver. I know when I've trained and prepared the DRIVER (me) in the off season I will be so much faster. Physical conditionining and lots of time on the go-kart makes for a much better start to the season. Last year I didn't focus on the driver prep and was slow to get up on the wheel in most of my races until the end of the season. This year I'm doing a lot of conditioning, indoor kart practice and plan on lots of outdoor kart practice when it warms up. Plus I spent a fortune on the dyno getting the last out of the motor and got damn near to the IT power estimates for the car. But the cost.....brutal. Now it's all driver...

[JLawton]

the dowenside to the 1-track developement program is when you box yoursefl into a one track suspension. down here in the SE, if you tuned at sebring, you might find the car misbehaves at roebling. vice versa, and the car would be a nighmare over the bumps at sebring.

there's a happy 95% point somehwere in there that works well for most places that you'll never find if you tune everything to the best advantage at one track.

aside from that, different tracks force the driver to think differently, see the line differently, and often this can be backwards applied to places you already "know". so a driver that is at least competent should be able to learn a lot from traveling.

this doesn't mean that staying "at home" and refining your skills is wrong, only that it isn't the only "right" answer.


What Andy meant when he used me as an example is that I did a concentrated effort on one track, my weakest, and made huge gains. I went to four tracks and podiumed at every one. What he is saying is that our level it's not all about having THE car in the class. It's about taking a good hard look at your abilities as a driver and about your program. Have you REALLY done everything to your car to make it the fastest it can be? Is it REALLY 10/10ths? Are you REALLY fully developed as a driver? If you're going to different tracks with the same set-up, you'r not getting the most out of your car. Do you do multiple test days in a season, is being off a 1/2 psi in tire pressure "good enough", do you do a complete nut and bolt after every weekend, do you replace parts before they break, do you have a data aquisition system, do you spend hours going over the data, do you review hours of video, are you continuously make small tweaks to the set-up, have you spent hours on a dyno tuning?

If you say "no" to any of these then you really shouldn't be expecting to run at the pointy end of the field. It's all about taking a hard look at yourself and your program.....


.

[Chip42]

If you say "no" to any of these then you really shouldn't be expecting to run at the pointy end of the field. It's all about taking a hard look at yourself and your program.....

no disagreement. I was just pointing out that a developement program on a single track isn't always the best method, particularly for the car. your nearby tracks may be more/less varied and thus this may be more/less true.

Andy knows what he's doing. I'm not trying to say otherwise.

[gran racing]

I said no to multiple of those Jeff. LOL Then again, I guess Summit, LRP, and the Glen are all close enough for set-ups. Hopefully this year I'll finally learn how to use my data acq system.

[lateapex911]

I said no to multiple of those Jeff. LOL Then again, I guess Summit, LRP, and the Glen are all close enough for set-ups. Hopefully this year I'll finally learn how to use Hook up my data acq system and get the pretty lights to flash!.

Says the guy who...shifts by ear.

So, Dave, just out of curiosity..... (And I say this knowing that I am far from a chassis guru, and that I'd kill for an engineer guy to hang with me at the track to provide car tweaking input)....when was the last time you changed a damper setting? (non rain day)
;)

Point being, that at our level, most of us have vast areas of gains to be made, BOTH in the car and the driver. Often, working on one results in improvements in the other.
The key is identifying where the greatest gains to be made are, then working on those. Usually, the cheapest and most effective way is to fix the driver. But, once the driver is very far along, the car can be holding him back. I try to be pretty self critical. But I know the car could be faster, even with me at the level I'm at. It's a balancing game, none of us has penske level budgets.

[gran racing]

when was the last time you changed a damper setting?Actually at the Glen, Summit, and LRP - for dry settings. I only adjusted the rear and they were not major changes, but I could feel the difference.

Oh, for the record, I shift by feel and not so much by ear. ;) I absolutely know there could be tons of improvements on both the driver and car for me, and that excites me. For example, I know that I should be in the 1:02s at LRP. Then again, ITR cars should be well under a min. Guess it'll take two ITB guys to show them how it's really done. <stirring the pot> :)

[RedMisted]

I absolutely know there could be tons of improvements on both the driver and car for me, and that excites me. For example, I know that I should be in the 1:02s at LRP...

I feel that I am Jim Clark reincarnate and only need a faster car... :D

[Andy Bettencourt]

no disagreement. I was just pointing out that a developement program on a single track isn't always the best method, particularly for the car. your nearby tracks may be more/less varied and thus this may be more/less true.

Andy knows what he's doing. I'm not trying to say otherwise.

Yes, if I made it seem like a one-track thing, then that is my bad. What I meant is 'tracks you are intimately familiar with' where you can run consistantly. Adding a track learning curve to a 'development program' - either driver or car, nets you little IMHO.

And Jeff's post is spot on what my thoughts are. He was the driver in 2010 up here I was most impressed with by far.

[gran racing]

Jeff's recent thing has been about confidence, not talent. Which again is a major part of racing results.
Btw, Kai and I want the royalty rights for each time his pic there is posted Andy.

[JLawton]

Jeff's recent thing has been about confidence, not talent. Which again is a major part of racing results.
Btw, Kai and I want the royalty rights for each time his pic there is posted Andy.


Uh, are you saying I have no talent?? :p


Yes, confidence was a big piece but you have to have confidence in the car before you have confidence in yourself........

And Dave, it is scary how good you would be if you could put it all together.....


The bottom line is it's not JUST about talent, it's not JUST about having the right car. it's the whole package. And don't sell "luck" short either. That's a big part...... But as they say, the harder you work, the luckier you get..........

And yes, Dave needs to get credit for the checkered flag pic!! :023: