I like the changes to the Mustang in ITS and the RX-8 in ITR!
Printable View
I like the changes to the Mustang in ITS and the RX-8 in ITR!
So now we can run whatever sensors or air metereing devices we want, and chuck the stuff that came with the car?
"Item 1. Effective 1/1/10: Change section 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 as follows:
The engine management computer may be altered or replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may be added or replaced. A
MAP or MAF sensor and its wiring may be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted
for equivalent units."
This is a clarification that appears in this fastrack:
1. Clarify section 9.1.3.D.1.a.4 by adding a sentence after the first sentence: “All air must also pass through the stock air metering
device, eg MAF, or AFM, etc if so equipped.”
Amusing note: talking about members/competitors unhappy with the shorter life of some safety harnesses. I'm glad that they do appear to be paying attention to us. I'm not so happy to hear that the information currently available is insufficient to make a decision one way or the other. Yet it was judged sufficient to change the rule a couple years ago.
At least they are taking the step to retain a professional auto safety expert to help resolve the issue.
Hope he/she's not an SFI member!?!
Don't forget also, in case anyone missed it - no more emails to the CRB for input, now there's a website form with tracking capabilities:
http://www.crbscca.com/
How the heck did the RX8 score that weight reduction???? Not loving that one bit :-(
Or more specifically - what was the criteria used that established this car should be at a lower weight than originally classed? That was over 100 pounds dropped...
Incorrect stock hp used initially. Lower than expected gain in IT trim, based on various dyno sheets received by the ITAC.
The RX-8 is now classed as it should have been, hopefully people will bring them out and boost ITR's numbers. The weight is as low as you could possibly attain in IT trim with a 200lb driver. Next should be the Fox body Mustangs in ITR.
matt
I thought it was against the rules to change a cars weight?
Man, I don't know how many times I've typed this......
No changes to cars classified for 5 yrs or more. Adjustments ok for cars less than 5. It's in the ITCS.
Ben, relax. Think about it this way:
E36: known hp to the wheels, 217. weight 2760. tq? stout. brakes, vry good, handling, vry good.
RX-8: known power to wheels. 210-212. (215 was used), weight 2850. tq? tq? tq? Bueller? Bueller?. brakes and handling very good.
Further, word is it they go through transmissions like Dunkin Donuts goes thru coffee at 7AM on Monday mornings.
Still worried?
You coooould build that mill or yours, instead of carting around the 'club'. ;)
I have heard the grumbling about the Fox Mustang v. the SN94, and have to remind you guys that the "perception" the Fox is at a disadvantage to the SN94 doesn't mean it gets a weight change.
We still do use the process on new cars, and the classed Fox and SN94 cars have essentially the same specs......and the differences aren't things we account for in the process.
So, barring some evidence that the IT gain in hp is different between the two, they will stay at the weights at which they are set.
Did you see the RX8 results in the latest issue of Sportcar? Fairly impressive and through a catalytic converter, 221 wheel hp. I don't know anything else than what was in the article and wouldn't think it'd amount to anything for the IT weight anyhow due to dyno differences and all that good stuff.
Man, I knew that putting those Fox chassis cars in that proposal was trouble. We were damned if we did, and damned if we didn't. I didn't want to put them in because of:
a) this hp/weight problem
b) people would be asking for brake allowances on the cars
Want to race a V8 Mustang? Race the SN95 chassis and like it, they are damn cheap to purchase. Just impossible to please all the people all the time.
How did the ITS Mustang weight get so messed up that it needed a 400 lbs break?
Because it was originally classed using the old "curb weight" formula, and not based on stock hp.
It was probably more "off" than any other car in the ITCS.
I wrote the letter that ended up in that car's reclassification. The car has 140hp stock and there is no evidence to suggest that it'll gain any more in IT trim than any other car in ITS. It appears that it was classed as Jeff says using the old "rule of thumb" method that incorporated curb weight, and, then it was missed in the Great Realignment.
With the new weight I think the car could be a contender in ITS. Anybody wants to buy my Z I'll build one a ITS Mustang and let you know. :)
Ron
You may have a hard time getting the SN 95 car to 2470? I worked like crazy to get an fox body ITB car to 2600!
With the RX8 "fixed", all that needs is a drop for the S2000 and ITR is going to take off. :D
I think the RX8 will now be much more of a threat at that weight of 2850 - Yep - time to get the 968 motor done over the winter. It'll be about 9/10s this spring. Right now its 8/10s at best - I think Kip has his S2 pretty close to 10/10ths.
Jake - just had the kart redone - bigger carb, better header :-) Now to find snow tires for it....my 12 year old son is almost faster than me - he can do a mean Joey Chitwood for about 20 feet
How about taking a 100lbs off the 300zx........the RX8 I saw at Barber Motorpsorts Park this year looked pretty quick to me.
Tristan - you are likely more ticked about that weight reduction than I am. You pork out at 3250 or so for the 300ZX?
You both should definitely know better. Read it again.
The ITCS allows for weight changes based on on track performance after the second, third, and fourth year of classification. Not after the first.
Or is the CRB trying to call this an error? Maybe this is why we can't have a published process? Back to the old cloak and dagger system then?
Tristan,
Your weight is based on 235ish whp in IT trim for a full build. If you think it can make that number, it's weighted correctly for ITR.
S2000 needs to make 225ish, RX-8 = 215ish, 968 = 223ish.
Andy what is the target HP for the 944?
205whp
Not true completely. The 2005 RX8 is now able to be classed with proper data so they were free to look at the numbers. It still makes 215 at best and is well within the process weight compared to the cars it will race against. I do think the S2000 and 300Z need to be looked at. No possible way the 300 can run with the ITR cars at over 3200 pounds. It may go down the straights but is will never corner or race well. I will write a letter supporting Tristan when you get that car on track. I don't think we need to get too upset until we see how they match up. Keep in mind the fastest ITR car at the ARRC still ran a slower lap than an ITS car.
PS. I sent cheesecake to all the CRB members in exchange for the weight break. Especially after all the nice things I said about them in the last year.:rolleyes: Yes, I am kidding.
Hmmm. Just noticed they've changed the GCR 8.1.4 (compliance pre-review) process, and more than tripled the cost. Methinks the prior drop from $250 to a two-step review/appeal process (for $125/$175 respectively) probably garnered them a lot of customers...
Well, all that's gonna do is force it through the cheaper at-track protest/appeal process instead. :shrug:
Ron, I saw the article in Sportscar. I do not know the difference in HP between the Dynojet and the DynaPack that they used. Maybe RX-8's with a good tune can make 218 or so but I do not think they will last. I also do not know how lean that car was tuned, I would imagine you could go leaner on an autocross car than a roadracer.
matt
If you ever get a free moment and think about it, would you mind sending me that info? I would like a look at it.
I think the ZX is going to be a pig regardless of the hp ratings. I think a lot the ITR cars are under "tired" for their weight. I never understood why the BMW's 8.5 wide rims were arbitrarily choosen for the class size. They may be common for that car but 9" rims would have been cheaper and more widely available. But, heck I have two sets now, so i don't want to change that rule! ha.
Tristan, pm me about that dyno sheet, it was for the car I own. Or better yet, shoot me an e-mail at [email protected].
Thanks.
Jeff
Leaving aside your questionable arithmetic, the reason for the change is that almost everyone who has availed themselves of the 8.1.4 process has gone on to the second stage because if the first court found against them, they pursued the second stage in the hope (sometimes realized) that the CoA would overturn the first court, or if the first court found in their favor, they realized that without the CoA confirmation, they didn't have a bullet-proof approval. Because the second stage was not automatic, the total time to process a compliance review was increased while the person filing the request was contacted. The process had always been bundled until the last couple of years. The separation was put in place with the expectation that some would not use the second stage, but that didn't happen. So this is simply a reversion to prior practice.
Dave
...but not "all"? So, why not make it optional? Leaving aside your questionable arithmetic (the "prior practice" was actually $250, not $300) that cost is most assuredly a distinct disincentive.
What would I know, though: the last one we submitted wasn't even heard by the committee, sent back with a note that it should not have been submitted in the first place, implying that we were abusing the process (we now use the much lesser-expensive protest and appeal process).
Oh, you mean that "bullet-proof approval that reverts back to the GCR after the current calendar year...? I guess $300 just doesn't get you near as far as it used to...:shrug:Quote:
...without the CoA confirmation, they didn't have a bullet-proof approval.
GA
P.s. Yep, you're right: $300 is only 2.4 times the cost of submitting the original $125 request, not 3x. My bad!