ITR Growth

[racer50200]

Currently racing in ITS but considering building a car for ITR. Is the class growing overall? At the Sebring race this weekend, there are over 300 cars registered, but only 5 or so ITR cars. Is there a reason it appears to be so slowing taking off? Any guesses as to the future success of ITR? Is it just a Florida phenomenon?

Thanks for any input. Sorry if I am :dead_horse: but given the investment, I want a reasonable amount of competition.....

[CRallo]

I can only speak for the NE, but ITR is growing at an exponential rate and the majority of new builds that I'm aware of are ITR cars... I don't know the actual numbers of the top of my head.

That said, numbers are not huge, it is definitely starting small, but clearly gaining momentum. We are looking forward to a number of new ITR cars this season! :)

As far as reasons for the slow growth go: a slumped economy, the cost of a typical build plus the increased cost over other classes and other people feeling just as you do would seem to do the trick...

[Tristan Smith]

I think there are a few items that are keeping the growth of ITR slow, but steady.
One. the cost of developing one of these cars is a lot more than some of the other classes.
Second, I think that the economy has slowed down car building in general. With some used race cars going as cheaply as some are, it makes no sense to build these days. And since almost all "R" cars (barring BMW's) essentially have to be built. there is a lot of investment to get into the class, and some cheaper options in the other classes if someone is just looking to go racing.

I do think that the class will grow. With most of the newer cars out performing the lower class performance envelopes, I believe it can't help but do so.

Perhaps, I am biased.

[StephenB]

Thanks for any input. Sorry if I am :dead_horse: but given the investment, I want a reasonable amount of competition.....


I think you kinda answered your own question... it took me a while to convince myself that I wanted to build an ITR car. After all, it was going to be very expensive and it is one of the smallest IT classes considering competition numbers. However numbers are not all that matter and the competition is generally very good just not deep. Probably because of the expense and limited number of people that can actually invest in it. The other big issue that I see Is that there is not a lot of used ITR cars available. In fact depending on what you do you maybe "shooting yourself in the foot." What are you going to do with your ITS car? If I was a new driver and I wanted to purchase a car it most likely would not be in ITR just because of availability. I Wanted to build a new car so i looked at all my options and decided if I was going to invest that much money in ANY new build I might as well get the car I really wanted.

In the north east we have about ten with at least two builds being done right now.

Stephen

[racer50200]

I am correct that ITR (well, any IT) cars can be raced in the STU class if desired?

We have knocked around the idea of perhaps a T-3 class car since the mods are fewer (meaning less $$ and quicker to get going) though the initial cost of the car is higher..... And they even have a national runoff. However, the car counts are just above zero at present. :blink:

Not an easy decision. Have to admit, we are currently leaning towards the ITR direction!

[Greg Amy]

I am correct that ITR (well, any IT) cars can be raced in the STU class if desired?
Correct.

[anthony1k]

ITR is going strong in the NE with very good drivers and cars. MARRS on the other hand has effectively killed the class by dumping it with big bore.

[lateapex911]

I am correct that ITR (well, any IT) cars can be raced in the STU class if desired?

We have knocked around the idea of perhaps a T-3 class car since the mods are fewer (meaning less $$ and quicker to get going) though the initial cost of the car is higher..... And they even have a national runoff. However, the car counts are just above zero at present. :blink:

Not an easy decision. Have to admit, we are currently leaning towards the ITR direction!
The issue, in my mind, is that SS/T builds aren't really that cheap. As you point out, the initial buy in is pricy, but you still need all the cage and safety stuff, which is harder due to the interior. And you can't sell that interior to recoup some costs. They still require interiors, right?)Then there's the engine. If you want a front line car, you have to go through the mechanicals with a fine tooth comb, extracting every last bit of HP, and that costs $. And of course the write off factor is huge on a new SS/T car.




ITR is going strong in the NE with very good drivers and cars. MARRS on the other hand has effectively killed the class by dumping it with big bore.
Odd, why not put them with ITS? You'd think the group could take 3 or 4 more cars, and you'd think they'd race well in that group.....

[anthony1k]

Odd, why not put them with ITS? You'd think the group could take 3 or 4 more cars, and you'd think they'd race well in that group.....

Good question. The class has dwindled down to 1-2 cars and even for these there is no room in ITS. I would love someone from the series explain.

[racer50200]

but you still need all the cage and safety stuff, which is harder due to the interior. And you can't sell that interior to recoup some costs. They still require interiors, right?)

Actually they get the interior gutted like an IT car......

I think you could save a bit on suspension parts, no headers, must use standard bore, ECU may be altered but not replaced, etc. Sounds like 'IT lite' to some extent.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The reason I think that ITR is slow to develop is that there is no clear overdog. People aren't looking at one car and saying, "THAT car is the one to have". There are some real interesting choices out there but when you throw in the development costs, people don't want a risk.

Having said that, this year in New England, we will have the following represented: 325, 328, RX-8, 968, S2000, Teg Type R...

Its a cool class.

[GKR_17]

Having said that, this year in New England, we will have the following represented: 325, 328, RX-8, 968, S2000, Teg Type R...

Its a cool class.

Let's see, in the SE we have:

E30 M3, E36 (325 and 328), E46 328, Z3 (roadster and coupe), 911SC, 944 S2, Intetra-R, RSX, Supra, Celica GTS, and soon an Rx-8 and 300Z.

Now if we could just get most of those to show up at the same event...

[lateapex911]

The reason I think that ITR is slow to develop is that there is no clear overdog. People aren't looking at one car and saying, "THAT car is the one to have". There are some real interesting choices out there but when you throw in the development costs, people don't want a risk.

Having said that, this year in New England, we will have the following represented: 325, 328, RX-8, 968, S2000, Teg Type R...

Its a cool class.

Is the E30 M3 not running again this year??

[Andy Bettencourt]

Is the E30 M3 not running again this year??

I forgot Ann! Yes, an E30 M3 too.

Again, not many are willing to take a risk.

[mossaidis]

FYI, I have submitted to the CRB my request to place the Acura TSX 04-06 into ITR.

Letter...

Title: Classify the 2004-06 Acura TSX in IT
Class: ITR
Car: 2004-06 Acura TSX
Request: Seems like a natural fit in ITR considering the RSX and TypeR are already classified in ITR with around 200chp....(blah blah)

17 x 7 in. wheels
Front track: 59.6 in.
Rear track: 59.6 in.
Wheel base: 105.1 in.
Curb weight: 3230 lbs
ref: from WC appendix A 2750 lbs is attainable under GTS rules
Double wishbone front suspension
Multi-link rear suspension
Engine Type - K24a2 USDM
16-valve, DOHC, 2.4-liter, i-VTEC 4-cylinder
Horsepower, SAE Net200 hp @ 6800 rpm
Torque166 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
Redline7100 rpm
Bore and Stroke87 mm x 99 mm
Displacement 143.6 cu. in. (2354 cc)
Compression Ratio 10.5:1
TSX Manual Gear Ratios: 1st: 3.267 2nd: 1.880 3rd: 1.355 4th: 1.028 5th: 0.825 6th: 0.659 Reverse: 3.583 Final Drive: 4.760

Andy, you guess what the ITR weight might be at 15% power adder?

[CRallo]

And that helps fix another "problem" in ITR... Fewer cars classified

, But 15 percent?!

[benspeed]

How about my new MB S55 AMG - let me race this monster!

[mossaidis]

LOL - I did not suggest a weight to CRB! Since I am NOT building a TSX nor do I have dog in the fight, I will not suggest what the power adder ought to be unless the CRB asks. Even if they do, I am far from an expert.

[Ron Earp]

On that TSX I think you're going to need a lot of supporting evidence to back that 15% gain up. Anecdotal information is probably not going to get the job done and real IT build information is non-existent. That means it'll be classed at a 25% gain which should put it at an attractive weight.

[mossaidis]

Correct, no IT builds exist. Mild street builds are plentiful.

[Greg Amy]

how about my new mb s55 amg - let me race this monster!
aadhd...

;)

[bamfp]

Let's see, in the SE we have:

E30 M3, E36 (325 and 328), E46 328, Z3 (roadster and coupe), 911SC, 944 S2, Intetra-R, RSX, Supra, Celica GTS, and soon an Rx-8 and 300Z.

Now if we could just get most of those to show up at the same event...

Hoping to add a Boxster to that list. Should be out for the April 30th Roebling Road. :shrug:

[GKR_17]

...guess what the ITR weight might be at 15% power adder?

I'd assume not 15%...

200 x 11.25 x 1.25 = 2812 -> subtract 100 for FWD to get 2712 lbs.

[CRallo]

Correct, no IT builds exist. Mild street builds are plentiful.

RSX-S is the same engine right? There are a couple floating around... And they rate that car at 200 IIRC. If not, at least for math purposes it should be the same right?

[mossaidis]

RSX-S is the same engine right? There are a couple floating around... And they rate that car at 200 IIRC. For math purposes it should be the same right?

Actually no. The RSX-S has a K20a2, higher revs, lacks torque, different VTEC lobing than the K24a2 and pretty much already tweaked from the factory with a relatively lower IT power adder. Based on what I have READ, to reach higher gains: valve springs, TB/IM and cams are needed to EDIT*get close to* 275chp with the K20a2. Also, the RSX-S has struts (gag!), doesn't turn well and has presented challenges to both WC and IT teams alike.

[CRallo]

Actually no. The RSX-S has a K20a2, higher revs, lacks torque, different VTEC lobing than the K24a2 and pretty much already tweaked from the factory with a relatively lower IT power adder. Based on what I have READ, to reach higher gains: valve springs, TB/IM and cams are needed to get over 275chp with the K20a2. Also, the RSX-S has struts (gag!), doesn't turn well and has presented challenges to both WC and IT teams alike.

Oh yea... And I knew that too! :( sorry, that's what I get for trying to talk about Hondas!

[mossaidis]

I'd assume not 15%...

200 x 12.5 x 1.25 = 3125 -> subtract 100 for FWD to get 3025 lbs.

OMG... my statement was went to be a joke for Andy. The RSX and TSX are well known to the SCCA technical teams and the most of the racing commuity. I don't think anyone is going to pull wool over your eyes guys... certainly not me. :006:

WC teams running in TC say ~235whp with hytech cams, spec IM but no over-bore and stock CR.

http://www.world-challenge.com/competitors/vts.php

So based on that and what I have read ONLINE (vtach yo), 20-25% may be approriate. I have NOTHING solid to dispute anyone or support my comments. :bash_1_:

Now QUICK write to the CRB and say it needs to 38%!!! :024:

[mossaidis]

Oh yea... And I knew that too! :( sorry, that's what I get for trying to talk about Hondas!

pssst no apologizes. I don't know nissan from nismo.

[mossaidis]

ok, I am back... a few asides.

1) We need to place a sticky under the rules section for the *unoffical* process weight calculator, lbs/whp for each IT class and other adders/subtractors. Or we have posted and I missed it? I certainly forget the process every month.

2) GKR_17, I think you forgot to calculate for whp. 200chp * 1.25 IT gain factor * .85 drivetrain loss * 12.5 lb/whp - 100 lbs for FWD = 2560 lbs???? wow... Now, we really need Andy and Jake. It would never make weight, i.e. WC runs almost bare shell at 2750 lbs. For ITS, maybe 2875 lbs but my calcs are suspect since the process equations are not "unofficially" posted on a stinky where I :006: can find it.

3) We should all make it a habit to scan through the Touring 2/3 and SSB/C class lists for potentially eligble IT cars. One that came to me yesterday is the 03-06 Honda Accord with the K24a4 160 chp car running in SSC. Similar suspension as TSX, lighter, but smaller brakes and crappy VTEC K24 (2 lobes only), maybe ITA.

http://www.honda.com/newsandviews/article.aspx?id=2002072936329

4) Sorry for the thread hi-jack.

[lateapex911]

Math would go something like this: (Assuming an ITR placement as this is the ITR thread, and 200 stock ponies is ITR material)

200 x 1.25 =250. 250 x 11.25 =2812 base weight.

2812 - 6% (168.75#) = 2643. (FWD modifier for ITR)
now, adders can be applied.

If none, the Process V2 weight would be 2645.

Now, if it can't make that weight, ITS could be considered, but, that HP level is a bit high for ITS.
but lets run the numbers anyway:
200 x 1.25 =250. 250 x 12.9 = 3225 base weight.

3225 - 5.5% (177#) = 3048
Now the adders. Barring those....3050.

a bit tubby for sure. So, a bit of a tweener I guess.

BTW, for the sharper among you, the Prelude Sh is essentially the same in terms of the Process before adders are considered. And the weights in the GCR support that: 2640

[GKR_17]

ok, I am back... a few asides.

1) We need to place a sticky under the rules section for the *unoffical* process weight calculator, lbs/whp for each IT class and other adders/subtractors. Or we have posted and I missed it? I certainly forget the process every month.



Even better, we need the info put on the spec line for every car. And, my bad on the ITR multiplier, should have used 11.25 as in Jake's math. Now 6% reduction for FWD and other adders in ITR is news to me. This is supposed to be transparent right?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Even better, we need the info put on the spec line for every car. And, my bad on the ITR multiplier, should have used 11.25 as in Jake's math. Now 6% reduction for FWD and other adders in ITR is news to me. This is supposed to be transparent right?

Who knows what they are using now but that is what when into 'production' in V.2. This was one of the very few actual changes during that timeframe other than the 100% documentation of how the process was to work from beginning to end.

It was suggested that the ITS (and subsiquent ITR) subtractors were not significant enough in the higher HP classes and some modeling with Bosch's lap simulator verified that. With THOSE changes, went a change everyone was asking for: a % deductor instead of a straing number since it really wasn't fair that a 2500lb car get 100lbs 'off' and a 3200lb car get the same 100lbs when trying to adjust them both for FWD.

I fully believe that those numbers are as close to 'correct' as they can get given the ITAC's constraints.

I like Jake's numbers in the 'napkin-math' projection. Final numbers from the ITAC or CRB may vary.

[lawtonglenn]

How about my new MB S55 AMG - let me race this monster!



Does it have a "Kenny-G" channel on the stereo?



.

[Tristan Smith]

Let's see, in the SE we have:

E30 M3, E36 (325 and 328), E46 328, Z3 (roadster and coupe), 911SC, 944 S2, Intetra-R, RSX, Supra, Celica GTS, and soon an Rx-8 and 300Z.

Now if we could just get most of those to show up at the same event...


Actually the 300zx raced last year:happy204:in the SE, but only a couple of weekends.

[JeffYoung]

Yes it did! Beautiful car....

Andy, Jake, the mathematical process has not changed since you guys were on the ITAC.

With a 3230 curb weight is this an ITS car??

[Andy Bettencourt]

Good question. Some research needs to be done but it seems like an ITS car at first glance given the curb weight. A call to Real Time might be in order. Will have to be 2450ish without driver.

[lateapex911]

Starting at 3200 plus pounds, I can not imagine how it could lose 800 lbs. AND have a cage added. The car with race wheels and tires, ready to race but without driver and cage needs to be 2360. (100 lbs cage, 180 lbs driver =280.)
Sounds like ITS is really the only option.

Now, new cars are heavier, and that has a lot to do with 'options', or things that were luxuries in the past. So, power windows, and airbags and super structural (and heavy ) seats etc can come out. But the increased structure needed to pass tighter crash regs is not something that can be removed.

[seckerich]

Similar to the MX5 we asked to have placed in ITS. Hard to impossible to make ITR weight.

[JeffYoung]

That one is a much closer call.


Similar to the MX5 we asked to have placed in ITS. Hard to impossible to make ITR weight.

[mossaidis]

If this is true:


WC (teams) run (TSXs in TC) almost bare shell at 2750 lbs.

ITS it is then. I will review the T2/3 lists for more ITR cars.... though I am sure that's already been done.

[seckerich]

That one is a much closer call.

The difference being there were drivers ready to race them in S, No interest in making the R weight. Entrants lost for no good reason.

[lateapex911]

Whats the stock HP and curb weight of the Miata in question?

[JeffYoung]

Which is surprising to me Folks usually prefer to run the car at the lower weight in the lower class if it is acheivable. I agree it is a close call on whether this is acheivable, but the car looked more competitive in R (to me).

I'd love to have these cars and more drivers in S. If there are folks who want to race them in S, tell them to write in with tha tinterest and explain the R weight is not achievable and why.


The difference being there were drivers ready to race them in S, No interest in making the R weight. Entrants lost for no good reason.

[Andy Bettencourt]

1984 C4 Vette. Cross Fire injected 350. 205hp. 4 speed.

205*1.3*11.25+100lbs for torque IIRC from other V8's in ITR (only way CRB would let them in).

3100lbs in ITR. (or 2985lbs at 25%)
****************************

1978-79 Porsche 928

219*1.3*11.25+100

3305lbs. (or 3180lbs at 25%)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Which is surprising to me Folks usually prefer to run the car at the lower weight in the lower class if it is acheivable. I agree it is a close call on whether this is acheivable, but the car looked more competitive in R (to me).

I'd love to have these cars and more drivers in S. If there are folks who want to race them in S, tell them to write in with tha tinterest and explain the R weight is not achievable and why.

Didn't I do that for you already? GAC cars and weights, MX-5 Cup cars and weights...

Not achievable. It's an S car. Has ANYONE said anything but?

170*1.25*12.9=2740.

[JeffYoung]

I've heard people say that yes.

Curb weight is 2410. While it is in the middle, it sure looks like it could make ITR race weight.


Didn't I do that for you already? GAC cars and weights, MX-5 Cup cars and weights...

Not achievable. It's an S car. Has ANYONE said anything but?

170*1.25*12.9=2740.

[GKR_17]

Didn't I do that for you already? GAC cars and weights, MX-5 Cup cars and weights...

Not achievable. It's an S car. Has ANYONE said anything but?

170*1.25*12.9=2740.

Don't forget they mystery 50 pound adder it got in R...

[lateapex911]

2006, 2441lbs, 170 hp. 140ft lbs.
212.5hp x 12.9= 2741.
2741 plus 50 (double wishbones) (Andy, help me out here....the 'base ITS' car is the RX-7, right? if so, does the MX5 get a DW adder?)

Lets assume it does: 2790 race weight, in ITS.

In ITR: 170 x 1.25 =212.5
212.5 x 11.25 =2391
and just to be consistent, 50 for DW.
2440..which is the exact GCR weigh, how about that...

OK, now, subtract a cage and a driver: 280
It needs to weigh 2160 before cage and driver, in race trim. So that's 300 pounds of stuff getting ripped/changed out. In such a small car, and one where the seat isn't structural, the windows are minimal, and even sound deadening is minimal. 300 pounds is ALOT.

[Andy Bettencourt]

No DW adder in ITR.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, now, subtract a cage and a driver: 280
It needs to weigh 2160 before cage and driver, in race trim. So that's 300 pounds of stuff getting ripped/changed out. In such a small car, and one where the seat isn't structural, the windows are minimal, and even sound deadening is minimal. 300 pounds is ALOT.

And add in 40lbs for a hardtop. I know it's not required, but it is 'required'.

[JeffYoung]

The race weight is essentially the curb weight. That's pretty much standard procedure for us.

I do find it hard to believe you couldn't get 300 lbs out of the car with seats, carpet, consoles, sound, lighter wheels, spare tire, etc. That's pretty typical in my book for an IT build.

I'll check on the 50 for DW. I can't remember what the Operations Manual says about that. I do remember us believing a higher percentage of cars have a DW in ITR but I'm not even sure if that is true. BMWs are struts right? 300z. Others? Regardless, the manual says what it says. If we don't do the +50 in ITR I'll write a letter to get it taken off.


2006, 2441lbs, 170 hp. 140ft lbs.
212.5hp x 12.9= 2741.
2741 plus 50 (double wishbones) (Andy, help me out here....the 'base ITS' car is the RX-7, right? if so, does the MX5 get a DW adder?)

Lets assume it does: 2790 race weight, in ITS.

In ITR: 170 x 1.25 =212.5
212.5 x 11.25 =2391
and just to be consistent, 50 for DW.
2440..which is the exact GCR weigh, how about that...

OK, now, subtract a cage and a driver: 280
It needs to weigh 2160 before cage and driver, in race trim. So that's 300 pounds of stuff getting ripped/changed out. In such a small car, and one where the seat isn't structural, the windows are minimal, and even sound deadening is minimal. 300 pounds is ALOT.

[seckerich]

The letters were written for ITS, not ITR and it would be a good fit. It runs well at the S weight and is a reasonable build. Why insist on making it so hard to build one for ITR? Why not list it both ways, there are enough Miatas on the track you never know if they are ITS/ITA/SM anyway. :D Either way my friend just sent me the for sale info on his rather than go ITR. That should tell you something. Please listen to the drivers with skin in the game instead of theoretical builds by non drivers.

[JeffYoung]

We had one, maybe two guys ask to class the car. They didn't express a strong preference for either class. Without that, it almost always makes sense to put the car in the faster class at the lower weight.

If the drivers want the car in S, I'll support that but they need to write in.

Otherwise, normally speaking, forcing a car to run 300, 400 or 500 lbs of ballast is a recipe for no builds. If the group of guys who want to run this car want to do that, fine, but they need to let us know.

[billf]

Since I'm new to this concept, I wonder if anyone would be so kind as to mention what the various numbers in the formula represent?

I have devined the first to be Hp, the second to be an assumed power increase after "ITifying", but the third...11.25, or some other number like that...is not so easy to figure out. Also, what are the adders, or subtractors to the final score? I can't find a list of them by searching. Will we get a sticky for this?

Thanks, Guys.

Bill:024:

[GKR_17]

I'll check on the 50 for DW. I can't remember what the Operations Manual says about that. I do remember us believing a higher percentage of cars have a DW in ITR but I'm not even sure if that is true. BMWs are struts right? 300z. Others? Regardless, the manual says what it says. If we don't do the +50 in ITR I'll write a letter to get it taken off.

This is precisely why we need the classing info put on the spec line. There is supposedly some manual, but even the committee doesn't check it before classing a high profile car?

In the original ITR proposal the only adder used was for FWD. OVER half the field (and most of the current builds) are strut type front suspension, yet it was assumed that DW was the standard for the class - so no adder. Now ONE car gets that penalty?

Let's have some consistency folks - THAT IS THE POINT OF THE PROCESS RIGHT?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Since I'm new to this concept, I wonder if anyone would be so kind as to mention what the various numbers in the formula represent?

I have devined the first to be Hp, the second to be an assumed power increase after "ITifying", but the third...11.25, or some other number like that...is not so easy to figure out. Also, what are the adders, or subtractors to the final score? I can't find a list of them by searching. Will we get a sticky for this?

Thanks, Guys.

Bill:024:

Bill, the "process" is a system used to get cars into a 'pocket' by power to weight. By 'pocket' I mean it's not a straight formula. Adders and subtractors like DW's, FWD, etc are applied at the end of the caclulation to compensate for design differences.

Power to weight targets are:

ITR: 11.25
ITS: 12.9
ITA: 14.5
ITB: 17.0
ITC: 18.84

Now, a big mistake would be to try and back calculate numbers from the ITCS. First, most cars in ITB and ITC have simply never been run through. The ITAC is currently working on this issue. Second, cars with the same motor can - and do - have different power to weights depending on the adders. Let's take an example:

140hp car. Looks and smells like an ITA car. Running the numbers for 2 cars, one with FWD and struts, and one with RWD and Double Wishbones:

Stock HP*estimated power increase in IT trim*ITA target P/W +/-adders = IT weight
140*1.25*14.5-2% for FWD=2486.75 Rounded to 2485.

140*1.25*14.5+50lbs for DW=2587.5 rounded to 2590.

Both cars have the same motor and HP potential remember (actually the FWD car would probably put about 2-3% more to the ground given traditional drivetrain losses but that isn't factored here).

So the long answer is that the "process" is a power to weight calculator with allowances for mechanical differences and tries to put cars into the same 'pocket' performance-wise - ON PAPER.

[JeffYoung]

Grafton, settle down please. We are busy folks trying to get this stuff right. Occasionally, we make mistakes.

1. I'm in favor of putting the classing info on the spec line.

2. There is not "supposedly some manual." There is an Operations Manual laying out all of the inputs into the weighting process. We check it and use it before classing every car. However, we are people -- volunteers -- and on occasion mistakes are made.

Consistency is my number one goal. It's not always achieved, but we are doing our best. Call us out on it when we miss something but do so politely.

Thanks.

Jeff


This is precisely why we need the classing info put on the spec line. There is supposedly some manual, but even the committee doesn't check it before classing a high profile car?

In the original ITR proposal the only adder used was for FWD. Nearly half the field (and most of the current builds) are strut type front suspension, yet it was assumed that DW was the standard for the class - so no adder. Now ONE car gets that penalty?

Let's have some consistency folks - THAT IS THE POINT OF THE PROCESS RIGHT?

[JeffYoung]

The below is all correct and a good explanation of things.


Bill, the "process" is a system used to get cars into a 'pocket' by power to weight. By 'pocket' I mean it's not a straight formula. Adders and subtractors like DW's, FWD, etc are applied at the end of the caclulation to compensate for design differences.

Power to weight targets are:

ITR: 11.25
ITS: 12.9
ITA: 14.5
ITB: 17.0
ITC: 18.84

Now, a big mistake would be to try and back calculate numbers from the ITCS. First, most cars in ITB and ITC have simply never been run through. The ITAC is currently working on this issue. Second, cars with the same motor can - and do - have different power to weights depending on the adders. Let's take an example:

140hp car. Looks and smells like an ITA car. Running the numbers for 2 cars, one with FWD and struts, and one with RWD and Double Wishbones:

Stock HP*estimated power increase in IT trim*ITA target P/W +/-adders = IT weight
140*1.25*14.5-2% for FWD=2486.75 Rounded to 2485.

140*1.25*14.5+50lbs for DW=2587.5 rounded to 2590.

Both cars have the same motor and HP potential remember (actually the FWD car would probably put about 2-3% more to the ground given traditional drivetrain losses but that isn't factored here).

So the long answer is that the "process" is a power to weight calculator with allowances for mechanical differences and tries to put cars into the same 'pocket' performance-wise - ON PAPER.

[GKR_17]

Grafton, settle down please. We are busy folks trying to get this stuff right. Occasionally, we make mistakes...Call us out on it when we miss something but do so politely.

You have to understand my frustration, it is very difficult to find any mistakes when the classing guidelines aren't published and seem subject to change. Then it appears those same guidelines are applied inconsistently.

I understand you're all volunteers - I put my name in that hat also, but never heard back.

[JeffYoung]

It's ok -- I understand the frustration. I am (personally) working as hard as I can to get as much of this stuff published as possible. I think it should be and I think you point out the key reason why members should have it below.

We do make mistakes. 99 times out of 100 though it is simple oversight rather than anything else.

Your resume remains on file, and your willingness to serve on the committee is appreciated. I think right now with Josh as the ITR guy on the committee, the feeling was we needed folks from other classes.

Thanks again for poitning this one out. I missed it myself.


You have to understand my frustration, it is very difficult to find any mistakes when the classing guidelines aren't published and seem subject to change. Then it appears those same guidelines are applied inconsistently.

I understand you're all volunteers - I put my name in that hat also, but never heard back.

[Terry Hanushek]

I hate to wake a thread that has been sleeping peacefully for five months but I have some current insights.

As stated above, ITR appears live and well in NEDiv. For last weekend's TreadZone Pro IT at the Glen, we had twelve ITR entries from BMW, Porsche, Mazda and Honda (three did not race due to test crash / family problem / heat avoidance). There were two or three others including a Toyota entered in the July Sprints but not the Pro IT.

Terry

[bamfp]

I swear the ITR Boxster is coming to the SE. I start work on it again in a week or so.

[jlucas]

If T3 goes away next year, I imagine several of the S2000 running there will go to ITR one way or another like if the current owners sell because they want to only run Nationals. I think they make up about half of the T3 car count. I know I'm considering it but not a whole lot of ITR activity out here yet.

[bamfp]

I got the suspension on the Boxster last week. Staying late every Wednesday to get it done for the ARRC.

[StephenB]

I got the suspension on the Boxster last week. Staying late every Wednesday to get it done for the ARRC.

Congrats! That is an awesome car!

Stephen

[bamfp]

We will see. It is not going to be a 100% ITR car. We are building it as a Spec Boxster suspension wise, minus the none legal IT stuff. No LSD or build engine. I was impressed with how the car handles with blown shocks and a suspension brace left out, don't ask the mechanic no longer works there. I was doing 100mph down the esses at Road Atlanta on street tires.

[benspeed]

Blake - we're very interested in your Boxster build. I have a 1998 Boxster that I was going to build for ITR but after testing it I opted for the 968 and bigger motor/greater power. Still driving that Boxster as a street car but...always nice to have another car ready to build.

I've had three Boxsters and bought one of the very first built back in '97. They are fantastic handlers with tremendous Porsche brakes. The one challenge was motor development and I couldn't find anybody with proven gains on the Boxster engine, short of a $20K pro build. If you're doing the Spec Boxster setup, the motor isn't any issue. The Bilstein setup is pretty good for SB. I think with the price of 97-99 Boxsters now well under $10K we'll start seeing more and more of 'em. Once the motor development for IT builds is sorted out I figure it might have to pop a cage in it :-)

Cheers and great luck with the Porsche!

Ben

[bamfp]

I work for a place that all I do is build the M96 engine. So the engine is the easy part.

[benspeed]

Now you are somebody I need to get some pointers from on getting power out of that motor - what's the secret man?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Need update Blake...

[benspeed]

Yes! Update is due - I was tearing around in the Boxster this weekend and will be putting in a performance clutch over the winter. What's the IT setup for clutch?

[Z3_GoCar]

No ITR at the ARRC:shrug:

[bamfp]

No ITR at the ARRC. I have started on the Boxster again. It is close. I will be working on it during work hours now so it should start moving along quicker. The plan is to run it at an open test weekend at Roebling Road that OPM is doing. Then it will go up for sale. Might do the Pro It at Road A in it in March.