And I feel fine!
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...k-may-club.pdf
Glad to see the Pony cars in the category!
Printable View
And I feel fine!
http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...k-may-club.pdf
Glad to see the Pony cars in the category!
I know what I am building!
3. Classify the Ford Mustang GT (94-95) in ITR, p. 344, as follows:
Re: the Golf II "weight is correct," Chris S. has been patient enough with the ITAC, he deserves to hear that he should interpret that as meaning we generally perceive inconsistencies in ITB to be AROUND that car - not WITH that car.
Look for future news for details...
K
OMG! OMG! Pony cars are coming....
Did you guys read about Charles Espenlaub doing donuts after the enduro? What an idiot... This is not Pro racing.
3330?! ouch! damn...
a random and completely subjective 100 lbs adder for a car that already can't handle, can't stop and can't breath past 5000 RPM!?
that's just great! So much for that idea...
Why did they classify the 94-95 mustang with better brakes amoung other improvements lighter then than the 89-93? I mean it only has an inch longer wheel base. I think it is a good addition to the class.
The cars were run through the process with their stock hp ratings and standard IT gains. Some have more power stock, they get more weight in IT. It might not be "right" to everyone but at least it is using a process. I think when the final discussion was had a torque addition was given to all of them as well.
I think it is a good thing for ITR. While the cars might not be the best choices for the class at least people now have that choice.
And I can change my avatar...
OUCH!!! No one notice the fuel cell requirement? No more non FIA cells. Here comes a 1k expenditure before the ARRC!! Chuck
Chuck, look at page 6 -- I think IT, SS and SM are still excluded from complying with the FIA fuel cell rules.
Victory donuts....what's next? Champaign spraying in impound?
I welcome the competition from the older V-8 pony cars. My V6 is in their stock HP range plus I have a lower weight. Should be good competition and add an American flavor to a class that in my opinion is too German, and needs desperately to grow. ITR could be A Sedan Lite...
Please don't whine about any sacred IT philosophies/tenets/traditions/etc. being compromised by the inclusion of V8s. Times and circumstances change, which necessitates that people change their ways of thinking. Let's wait and see how it all shakes out before we start any bitching...
Thanks, Jeff....what I get for not reading everything. Chuck
With all of the cheap go fast goodies so readily available for these cars, my guess is there is going to be a need to police them, and it will be quite difficult task at that. Other than that, they should be a great addition to ITR.
Hey! You could put somebody's eye out with that cork! :eek:
As much as I'm tired of the smokey burnouts that have become standard after every NASCAR race, I fought it (and lost) when the stewards wanted me to put prohibitions against "burnouts, victory donuts or other celebrations" in our Supps. I don't know if they really thought he was being unsafe or they just were tired at the end of long day, but IMO the DQ was WAY too over the top in this case.
That said, I'm more impressed when Emmitt would just hand the ball to the ref after a touchdown - act like you've been there before.
Butch--I wonder if he went underweight because he burned off some rubber and fuel during his Donut session.
Andy, does 10hp really equal 140 lbs? The early car does still have rear drums, what would the weight difference be if both cars had the same brakes front and rear.
Thanks,
matt
Drums didn't change teh weight, they are not part of the process weight on this car. The difference is entirely due to stock hp, although Ron is pretty convinced the early car will make more power in IT trim as well.
No offense Chris, but that comment is more random and subjective than the classification. There was nothing random nor subjective...all the numbers were voted on by a large committee, and each one was considered carefully. Also, some of the cars got breaks for their hardware, or configuration.
In the end, truly subjective qualities, like "handling" get nothing. Handling doesn't make a fast racecar, it makes an easy to drive racecar. Many evil handling racecars have won many events in the hands of skilled drivers.
For many drivers, these cars will allow admittance to a fast class for lesser class budgets, and I'm sure we'll see some V8s winning races.
And V8s, American cars, etc, have been in IT for a long time. Nothing new here........
Thanks for the response, the early car should have been rated at 205, Ford admitted that it was overrated at 225 and they upped it by 10 from 205 in '93 to 215 for '94 via the EECIV to EECV switch. I uderstand that this is immaterial due to the ECU rule. The fact is the car to have if it can make weight is the 94-95 with its more aerodynamic, stiffer chassis and rear discs.
matt
Ron will need to respond, but I thought the early car had a much different (and better) intake manifold than the SN95, leading to the higher horsepower rating.
Yep, this is true but one of those things that was hard to quantify or do anything with in an official capacity. The 94-95 cars had a poorer intake that comes from the T-brid and eventually got used on the low line 94/95 cars.
In the end, the power potential for these motors is probably somewhat even in IT trim. But instead of using anecdotal evidence and so forth I'm glad the ITAC simply used the published specs. It might not be 100% exactly correct but it is a step in the right direction.
In the first draft of the proposal I only had 94-95 Mustangs in there along with the F bodies. Everything had disc brakes all around and that sort of made the playing field more even. Added the others to try and broaden the proposal a bit.
In the future we may need to tackle the modular SOHC 96-98 4.6L 2V 215hp cars with the non-performance improved heads. Not sure what to do with the 350 4th gen F bodies, they just make a lot of hp stock and be hard to put in ITR.
Ron, thanks for the clarification, the Fox body in IT trim with a driver and no ballast will probably be under 3050. It is going to need a lot of ballast to race at 3260.
matt
I puzzled over that for a while, but it looks like to me the intent was to require cars that HAD to have fuel cells use FIA; without affecting those that are not required. I think that is the better interpretation, but I agree it is not 100% clear.
https://improvedtouring.com...ad.php?t=23937
(I'm gonna sticky it in the Rules section...we get this question every once in a while... - GA)
Thanks Greg, I didn't realize this had come up before. I don't think the change has any impact on the debate, and I do agree with Dick...but see the other side (and have an FIA cell in my car).
Hi guys,
This is great news. Time to start looking for an F-Body w/o T-roofs. I recall reading the initial proposal some time ago. Are the Camaros/Firebirds classified the TPI 305 or the carbed version or both? I recall them both having 9.3:1 compression.
Thanks.
Joel
"Handling" is subjective, and often includes "telepathic response" "Great steering feedback", "Naturally balanced", etc. Struts are physical properties that don't operate as effectively as control arms. There is empirical evidence that tradeoffs need to be made to get the best from them, but those come at the expense of other factors.
The main attraction in the rulesmakers eyes is, I think, the black and white nature. yes/no. Feel good stuff is way more subjective, and not always consistent with faster lap times. Ultimately, we could run every car thorough a much more complete formula/process or LapSim, or both, but, unless we really nail that down, it won't get us anywhere better than where we are now. Our main goals are consistency, repeatability and transparency.
I too am surprised by the weight difference of the '89-'93 and '94-'95 Mustang classification. Track width on the later cars is about 2" wider. (Fenders are wider too - the 2" holds true in IT trim). They have longer control arms up front, and a wider axle out back. Older cars get a weight break in AS for this and other factors. Seems odd it's backwards in IT.
Couple other things I noticed for the Mustangs. No '87 or '88 cars? No 16" wheels for the early cars (they came with them)? And convertibles are allowed (not that you'd WANT a convertible, but you know someone would just because they could)?
See post #26 for a brief explanation of the proposal and why it had a limited scope. The proposal needed to be direct and simplistic for the best chance of getting through. Now that it is approved I'm sure you can petition to class earlier Foxs, later Foxs, or other F Bodies.
So what are the odds of getting the TPI 350 approved? its only 10 or 15 more horse...