IS300 in ITS?

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 19 2005, 04:16 AM
But this philosophy accepts that you are obsoleting some older cars. Not just obsoleting them, but basically ignoring them. Its the "Look, you guys can run these Jensen Healeys if you want to, but you're on your own. We're moving on."

Some would agree that progress marches on and this isnt such a bad thing. Others would argue that the club needs to continue to make every effort to keep as many cars as possible reasonably within a competitive range. This approach means that newer cars are almost ALWAYS going to be ballasted to high heaven.
For the "current" ITS, the IS300 is too fast.

[snapback]60526[/snapback]

Won't hurt the Jensen Healey at all IMHO. If you're lowering curb weights then it can do down too - at 2240lbs it weighs more than a street trim JH. So, stick it down around 2000lbs and it'll be just fine. And while we're at it, fix another car I own half of that is screwed up in weight - a 260z. It does not deserve a 200lb weight penalty over the 240z when it has to wear those heinous non-power producing carbs for a measley 150ccs of displacement with lower compression.

A runs with S on the track and A has some light cars too, so I wouldn't be so concerned about the heavier and lighter cars issue.

Ron

[zracre]

Originally posted by rlearp@Sep 19 2005, 07:38 AM
Won't hurt the Jensen Healey at all IMHO. If you're lowering curb weights then it can do down too - at 2240lbs it weighs more than a street trim JH. So, stick it down around 2000lbs and it'll be just fine. And while we're at it, fix another car I own half of that is screwed up in weight - a 260z. It does not deserve a 200lb weight penalty over the 240z when it has to wear those heinous non-power producing carbs for a measley 150ccs of displacement with lower compression.

A runs with S on the track and A has some light cars too, so I wouldn't be so concerned about the heavier and lighter cars issue.

Ron

[snapback]60530[/snapback]

I totally agree....this forum is for discussion and throwing ideas around...no matter how minute or drastic...so here is another 2 cents ...
I agree the 260z is too heavy...i tried it and the carbs restrict the power below the 240...weight doesnt seem to be a factor considering the new beetle weight compared to others in its class soo...
put the BMW at 3050, let it run ITS (it will STILL be competitive w/o restrictor) and start ITR (as said above...sorry not good with quotes yet) with the 300zx (heavy anyways) IS300 supra rsx and all the newer cars +200hp and the beemer at its current weight w/o restrictor. Then shift run groups accordingly...maybe ITA ITB ITC SSB SSC , ITS ITR EP and a few GT classes , SM and small bore prod classes etc...just an idea being tossed into the ring!!

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by zracre@Sep 19 2005, 07:51 AM
I totally agree....this forum is for discussion and throwing ideas around...no matter how minute or drastic...so here is another 2 cents ...
I agree the 260z is too heavy........ and start ITR (as said above...sorry not good with quotes yet) with the 300zx (heavy anyways) IS300 supra rsx and all the newer cars +200hp and the beemer at its current weight w/o restrictor. Then shift run groups accordingly...

[snapback]60531[/snapback]

First, for those of you who can read between the lines, hold your breath, the gears are turning. That's not to say any of it will come to pass, but....well, lets' just say this forum might get a lot busier discussing things like the Z cars a bit down the road.

Second, I too like the idea of a class above S, but I don't like the idea of adding yet another class.....if nobody bothers to run it.

On the other hand, history shows that at one time there was an ITD in areas I guess, but time marches on and as far as I know, nobody runs it anymore. While ITC is still very vital in many areas, I wonder about it in ten years time...

Cars ARE getting faster, and we do see eligible candidates popping up. When is the right time to add a class like ITR? What kind of participation levels would we see? Is there pent up demand? If we build it, will you come? What would you build?

For the sake of discusssion, lets just assume it is a full IT class, no special rules allowing World Challenge cars in. They can go to ITE in most places. Just a higher spec.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 19 2005, 11:08 AM
Scott,

I understand your philosophy and agree to a certain extent. If I were king, I would try to keep most cars in the 'middle' and add new class of cars as demand dictated. ITR, if you will.

AB

[snapback]60529[/snapback]

I happen to have a spreadsheet with about 20 cars on it that would be the start of just such a class... About 10 of them currently exist in ITS... With the new target wt/pwr ratio, the BMW would be in "ITU", "ITR", or whatever you want to call it, at about 2600lbs... +/- weight for adders which would depend on what the rest of the class looks like...

Basically, any car in ITS that makes in the 175+ stock range would be targeted for this new class, as would the Z32 300Z, IS300, Supra, etc., etc., etc... You could fit the M3, or any number of other cars...

It would be an EXPENSIVE class to race... But, it would allow the flexibility to put cars that have to weight 2800lbs plus in ITS at a reasonable weight, as can be seen by the BMW weight... (now you'll start complaining that the BMW can't make that weight... WELCOME to the club!)

Here the list of cars from the spreadsheet I put together about 6-months ago:

Acura Integra GS-R (92-93)
Acura Integra GS-R (3 door) (94-95) + 96-99
Acura RSX Type-S 2002
Acura Integra 97-99
Alfa Romeo Milano 3.0L (87-89)
BMW 325i/is (2 & 4door) (92-95)
BMW M Coupe 98-99
BMW M3 95-99
BMW 328ci/i 1999
BMW Z3 2.8L 97-98
Ford Contour V-6 (non-SVT) -1995
Ford Mustang V6 1999+
Honda Prelude SH & non-SH (97-98)
Honda Prelude V-Tech
Honda S2000 2000
Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L 16V
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 86-88
Nissan Maxima 89-94
Nissan Maxima 95-99 (A32
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96
Porsche Boxter S 2000
Porsche 968 1995
Porsche 944S (4V) (87-88)
Toyota Supra 1998
Toyota Supra 95-97
Toyota Supra (86 1/2-87)
Volkswagen Corrado SLC
Volkswagen Golf GTI VR-6 -1995
Volkswagen Jetta VR-6 (94-96)

[DoubleD]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 18 2005, 09:04 PM
I am NOT a proponent of ADDITIONAL changes.

[snapback]60518[/snapback]

So adding weight to the minimum for a car isn't making a change to it?

[Bill Miller]

Interesting list Darin. Sure are a lot of popular cars on it. Be neat to see it fleshed out w/ some target weights for those cars.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 19 2005, 08:24 AM
So adding weight to the minimum for a car isn't making a change to it?

[snapback]60536[/snapback]

Come on Dave, focus!

I don't want to add weight to the car WITH the restrictor in place. Additional in this case meaning not weight + RP - just get it right with the same process we have been using for almost 2 years now. But sinse the CRB went the RP route, we want to wait the year out and the E36 isn't part of the proposal we submitted to the PTB. Remember, this whole debate isn't about what is GOING to happen, but what the people on this BB THINK should happen.

My goal is to have the minimum weights of the cars classes in IT to 'make sense'. I want to be able to look any driver in the eye, run through some loose numbers, compare those to the traditional benchmanrks in their class, and have that person at least agree in philosophy that the cars were classed either: 1. correctly 2. Close to correctly and/or 3. With integrity (and the ability to correct a mistake).

AB

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 19 2005, 09:24 AM
So adding weight to the minimum for a car isn't making a change to it?

[snapback]60536[/snapback]

C'mon, don't edit out of context.....

You, and we know he meant changes just for changes sake..uneeded changes...

The debate here is about the cars position in the clsas, and how to best handle it..

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 19 2005, 01:29 PM
Interesting list Darin. Sure are a lot of popular cars on it. Be neat to see it fleshed out w/ some target weights for those cars.

[snapback]60537[/snapback]

Keep in mind this is VERY rough and VERY preliminary... but it kind of gives you an idea:

Volkswagen Corrado SLC = 2495
Volkswagen Golf GTI VR-6 -1995 =2438
Volkswagen Jetta VR-6 (94-96) = 2438


Acura Integra GS-R (92-93) = 2410
Acura Integra GS-R (3 door) (94-95) + 96-99 = 2410
Acura RSX Type-S 2002 = ???
Acura Integra 97-99 = 2667

Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 = 3218

Toyota Supra (86 1/2-87) = 2860

Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L 16V = 2646

BMW 325i/is (2 & 4door) (92-95) = 2703

Ford Contour V-6 (non-SVT) -1995 = 2381
Ford Mustang V6 1999+ = 2717
Honda Prelude SH & non-SH (97-98) = 2739
Honda Prelude V-Tech = 2667


Again... THESE ARE JUST ROUGH DRAFT, THINKING OUT-LOUD ESTIMATES... The final weights would depend heavily on figuring out a target wt/hp ratio that would fit the entire set of cars most appropriately... For example, I still think that 3200lbs for the 300Z is excessive, but it's capable of nearly 300hp with IT prep so that's the weight this estimate predicts...

However, there does appear to be some pretty strong justification for another class... The questions would be...

1) What would the participation numbers actually be?
2) Would this class simply overlap whatever the "D-Production" crew is coming up with???
3) Is a class with cars of this caliber, which would be SOOOO expensive to run, in the best interests of IT???
4) Do these cars already have a place to race and are we duplicating our efforts (kind of goes with #2...)
5) ?????

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 19 2005, 01:48 PM

1) What would the participation numbers actually be?
2) Would this class simply overlap whatever the "D-Production" crew is coming up with???
3) Is a class with cars of this caliber, which would be SOOOO expensive to run, in the best interests of IT???
4) Do these cars already have a place to race and are we duplicating our efforts (kind of goes with #2...)
5) ?????

[snapback]60540[/snapback]

1) Don't know - but as the man said, build it and they will come. I can promise you that if you class the 300z Jeff and I will build one. So, there is one team in the class right now.

2) Prod is a completely different animal with respect to engine build and cost big $$$. This ITX class, or whatever you call it, might cost more than ITS but it won't cost as much as a Prod class.

3) Yes. People will populate it due to their interest level in the cars classes.

4) Not that I know of in SCCA. Why NASA is popular with the import crowd, gets more of their pocket rockets racing on track.

R

[DoubleD]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt+Sep 19 2005, 08:38 AM-->

Come on Dave, focus!

I don't want to add weight to the car WITH the restrictor in place. Additional in this case meaning not weight + RP - just get it right with the same process we have been using for almost 2 years now. But sinse the CRB went the RP route, we want to wait the year out and the E36 isn't part of the proposal we submitted to the PTB.

[snapback]60538[/snapback]

[/b]

There is definitely a problem here but it is not my focus.

Does the restrictor reduce HP or not? Do you know if it does or do you not know? I am forced to ask that question because you allude that additional weight is in some way offset by eliminating the restrictor. Frankly, if you don't know what the restrictor's true effect is - and based on statements posted in this thread it seems you do not - such allusions are disingenuous at best.

<!--QuoteBegin-Andy Bettencourt@Sep 19 2005, 08:38 AM

Remember, this whole debate isn&#39;t about what is GOING to happen, but what the people on this BB THINK should happen.

[snapback]60538[/snapback]

I am far less concerned by the thoughts of the average racer than I am by the expressed opinions of ITAC members here. This thread specifically has been held out as a psuedo-official means of communication with ITAC. Members of ITAC specifically stated that the BMW drivers need to use this thread as a means of communication with ITAC. Demands been made that people post in this thread with opinions "for the record" by ITAC members. ITAC members have proposed specific weight increases for the 325 in this thread. The sum of all of this is grave concern on my part that ITAC&#39;s intention is to make a major change to the 325 - and make no mistake, the proposed 350 pounds is a major change, with or without the restrictor. Indeed, removing the restrictor may make it worse as the cost of redevelopment will be that much higher.

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 19 2005, 08:38 AM

My goal is to have the minimum weights of the cars classes in IT to &#39;make sense&#39;. I want to be able to look any driver in the eye, run through some loose numbers, compare those to the traditional benchmanrks in their class, and have that person at least agree in philosophy that the cars were classed either: 1. correctly 2. Close to correctly or 3. With integrity (and the ability to correct a mistake).

AB

[snapback]60538[/snapback]

Please add an item 4 to your list: reasonable stability. This thread has literally stopped me in my tracks. I have a &#39;92 325 and &#39;94 motor waiting for me to bring a check by. I have a suspension quote coming and a verbal agreement with a small sponsor. I am literally 1 step away from total financial committment to ITS. If the car&#39;s weight is going to remain close to what it currently is and engine development costs aren&#39;t going to rise I will go forward. If however ITAC insists upon proponing massive changes to the car - and I repeat 3200lbs is a MASSIVE CHANGE - I wil not be racing ITS. At 3200lbs the car will never, ever have a chance at a checker regardless of restrictor plate rules. Not only that, but it will eat tires like my 7 year old eats goldfish crackers and will not be fun to drive at all. While you may turn your nose up to SRF or spec racing, there are good reasons that they are the largest classes by a country mile, chief among them being the stability of expectation inherent in Spec classes. As a newbie, I see no stability and have no idea what to expect for an ITS 325 next year as long as ITAC&#39;s members are publicly throwing around huge numbers in public based on hokey numbers.

[zracre]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 19 2005, 09:48 AM
Keep in mind this is VERY rough and VERY preliminary... but it kind of gives you an idea:

Volkswagen Corrado SLC = 2495
Volkswagen Golf GTI VR-6 -1995 =2438
Volkswagen Jetta VR-6 (94-96) = 2438
Acura Integra GS-R (92-93) = 2410
Acura Integra GS-R (3 door) (94-95) + 96-99 = 2410
Acura RSX Type-S 2002 = ???
Acura Integra 97-99 = 2667

Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 = 3218

Toyota Supra (86 1/2-87) = 2860

Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L 16V = 2646

BMW 325i/is (2 & 4door) (92-95) = 2703

Ford Contour V-6 (non-SVT) -1995 = 2381
Ford Mustang V6 1999+ = 2717
Honda Prelude SH & non-SH (97-98) = 2739
Honda Prelude V-Tech = 2667
Again... THESE ARE JUST ROUGH DRAFT, THINKING OUT-LOUD ESTIMATES... The final weights would depend heavily on figuring out a target wt/hp ratio that would fit the entire set of cars most appropriately... For example, I still think that 3200lbs for the 300Z is excessive, but it&#39;s capable of nearly 300hp with IT prep so that&#39;s the weight this estimate predicts...

However, there does appear to be some pretty strong justification for another class... The questions would be...

1) What would the participation numbers actually be?
2) Would this class simply overlap whatever the "D-Production" crew is coming up with???
3) Is a class with cars of this caliber, which would be SOOOO expensive to run, in the best interests of IT???
4) Do these cars already have a place to race and are we duplicating our efforts (kind of goes with #2...)
5) ?????

[snapback]60540[/snapback]

I would probably leave the current ITS cars where they are now and class the big guns in the faster class so as not to hurt participation numbers ($$$) in ITS (ie. integra prelude etc)...I think ITS has a good formula now maybe needing slight weight adjustments up and down for a few cars...but it works. There will be many new 200hp+ cars coming down the pipeline soon so it is a good place to put them before reclassification becomes neccesary. As for participation goes I think there are enough BMW&#39;s that would love a diet... :119:

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 19 2005, 02:26 PM
As a newbie, I see no stability and have no idea what to expect for an ITS 325 next year as long as ITAC&#39;s members are publicly throwing around huge numbers in public based on hokey numbers.

[snapback]60543[/snapback]

OK, you&#39;ve sucked me in again...

As someone who is NOT a newbie... I can tell you that the 325 has been at issue since it&#39;s initial classification... It&#39;s existance has HURT ITS&#39;s participation numbers... THERE is NO arguement about that...

As for Hokey numbers... The numbers that we are working with are real... The CRB and the ITAC have the Dyno sheets that were sent to us by Bruce Shafer, as an example of what a BMW E36 from Bimmerworld "truely" produces... His attempt was to show that the restrictor plate change should not have happened...

Those numbers are low compared to other HP output figures we&#39;ve been given... BUT, using those numbers, the car is STILL about 200lbs too light... AT LEAST...

If this is a case where YOU are the only one capable of coming up with "real" numbers, then by all means, provide them... Ours are NOT "hokey", as you&#39;d like to put it, they are as real as we have available, and our thoughts on them have been adjusted accordingly to correct for any dyno differences, etc...

So give me a break on all this black helicopter, the ITAC is trying to screw us over BS... If you are truely a newbie as you claim, then you really don&#39;t have the credibility on this issue to make the accusations you are making...

Further, even using the lowest of power estimates from this car, it&#39;s considerably too light for the class... Prove me wrong on that if you can...

As for tires... give it a rest... There are plenty of examples of cars out there that are much heavier than the BMW who don&#39;t fall off the track because of tires...

Finally, if you aren&#39;t willing to build and race a car just because you aren&#39;t going to be guaranteed an instant front-runner for a minor investment in developement and talent (not saying anything about $$$$ here...), then this may not be the class for you...

The ITAC is interested in getting away from the car-of-the-month club that IT has been the past 5+ years, and getting back to a place where racers have a choice... There is NO reason why this can&#39;t be done... However, ITS will NOT work so long as there are a couple of cars whose performance potential has been so underestimated...

[Bill Miller]

Dave,

Please provide hard evidence that the numbers are &#39;hokey&#39;.

Ron,

Don&#39;t fall into the trap that IT doesn&#39;t cost as much (or more) than Prod. We did this analysis a while back (before you joined, IIRC), and there were plenty of ITS cars (mostly E36 BMWs) that were considerably more than several top EP cars.

Darin,

Looks good. Not sure how close you can get w/ some of them though. For example, the VR6 Corrado had a curb weight of over 2800#. I don&#39;t know if you can get 325 - 350 # out of that car, legally.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 19 2005, 03:10 PM

Don&#39;t fall into the trap that IT doesn&#39;t cost as much (or more) than Prod. We did this analysis a while back (before you joined, IIRC), and there were plenty of ITS cars (mostly E36 BMWs) that were considerably more than several top EP cars.

[snapback]60548[/snapback]

You are preaching to the choir on that one, but I think in general IT is less expensive for the average racer not building a E36 or odd car.

Less expensive for me personally? Probably not - I&#39;m building a JH and I can&#39;t simply call up JensenWorld and order a header for my car. I have to have one made or make it myself, ditto every other go fast goodie on my car, so I know expense. And I know BMW&#39;s are expensive too, I&#39;ve seen BimmerWorlds prices for stuff and it ain&#39;t cheap.

But, it is still in some cases less expensive to develop your car with a credit card and order parts compared with doing all the development yourself. Not as fun IMHO, but I&#39;d bet cheaper. If I ever get the JH running well and I pass some folks, or Jeff&#39;s TR8 runs upfront, I&#39;ll take pride in the fact I had a direct hand in making that happen with either car - priceless.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 19 2005, 03:10 PM
Darin,

Looks good. Not sure how close you can get w/ some of them though. For example, the VR6 Corrado had a curb weight of over 2800#. I don&#39;t know if you can get 325 - 350 # out of that car, legally.

[snapback]60548[/snapback]

Yah, I agree and know that some of these weights are not realisitic... this list was just a brainstorming I was doing to see if the idea was viable, and the ITAC and CRB briefly discussed the concept many months ago... I doubt you&#39;ll see any movement on this in the near future. We believe we have a handle on what to do with the existing 4-classes, so if a car exceeds the ITS parameters, we will just have to respectfully decline it&#39;s inclusion for now... We just had to do this with both the 300Z and the Supra... Just simply too much HP for the class and would have to weight entirely too much... even when lowballing the estimated HP...

Might work better to just live with some of the existing ITS cars being heavier in ITS, and save the next class for those putting out maybe 190hp or more in stock trim... that would allow us to lower the target wt/pwr ratio a bit and really fit in some fun cars, as well as give cars like the 944S and BMW a better set of classification specs (in the higher class at a lighter weight...)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dave,

It doesn&#39;t sound to me like you are interested in parity. Sorry to hear that.

Your assertions that I am trying to use peoples opinions as data is wrong. I am trying to get answers to questions that will help us all uderstand why you guys think you are being either persecuted or we are way off base with our process. Every other car has to go through it, why not the E36?

We have data that demonstrates 195whp with stock electronics. We have data that demonstrates the cars are capable of 210whp. We have second-hand info that some cars have made over 220whp. We take it all in. 210 is what *I* go off of because it has been presented and verified in multiple formats.

That kind of power is just not in-line with the current class targets. Sorry.

I am done until somebody brings some new info to the table. I have seen nothing.

AB

And as far as costs for a potential "ITR", don&#39;t worry about them that much. We have over $40K in the 04 RX-7 over 4 years (now for sale) and the SM I built this past winter that is going ITA this upcoming winter already has over $20K in it without labor and just a crate motor.

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

What about the 3rd generation Supra @ 3380#? I&#39;ll have to do some digging on it, but it&#39;s a rather portly car (which is probalby why no one has built one). Point being, there are some pretty heavy cars already classed. Just checked, the 7M-GE (non-turbo) engine was rated at 200HP. It&#39;s a 3.0 24V I-6. That&#39;s only 11 more stock HP than the E36 325. Interesting that it&#39;s over 500# heavier.

[Catch22]

I agree with the idea of an ITR class. Cars are getting more powerful and as time passes they need a place to go.

But (and I say this realizing Darin said the list is "rough") you have to be careful what cars you move.

For example, earlier in this thread we discussed the Integra GSR and Mazda RX7 being nearly identical in whp and torque in ITS trim. The Mazda actually even has better brakes.

Yet somehow the GSR is on the ITR list and the Mazda isn&#39;t. To further complicate things, the GSR is there at a weight it can&#39;t even remotely attain. No way.

Where I grew up thats called robbing Peter to pay Paul.

IMO - The "ITR" cars need to be the ones up around the 200whp IN ITS TRIM mark. The cars, that if classed now in ITS, would need hundreds of pounds of ballast.
Please don&#39;t start looking at things based on manufacturers rated HP at the crank. Thats where much of the BMW problem started in the first place, and the crank rated HP of the 13B RX7 isn&#39;t even in the same zip code as what one can get in ITS trim. You guys are doing a great job looking at things in terms of IT potential so far, don&#39;t stop now.

As a reminder...
Stock Rated Crank HP...
RX7 - 150
Integra GSR - 172

Typical ITS WHEEL Horsepower...
RX7 - 175
GSR - 175

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller+Sep 19 2005, 03:56 PM-->

Darin,

What about the 3rd generation Supra @ 3380#? I&#39;ll have to do some digging on it, but it&#39;s a rather portly car (which is probalby why no one has built one). Point being, there are some pretty heavy cars already classed. [/b]

Exactly Bill... I have the Supras on the list, but didn&#39;t have the stock HP info to work from... The 86 1/2 to 87 car was rated at 200hp and would be about 2750 or so in the new class...

<!--QuoteBegin-Bill Miller@Sep 19 2005, 03:56 PM
Just checked, the 7M-GE (non-turbo) engine was rated at 200HP. It&#39;s a 3.0 24V I-6. That&#39;s only 11 more stock HP than the E36 325. Interesting that it&#39;s over 500# heavier.

[snapback]60556[/snapback]

Now-Now Bill... Don&#39;t go bringing up facts like that... You&#39;ll be lumped into the BMW haters group like most of the rest of us!! Observations like that could mean nothing else...

Incidently... on the Supra you mention... at 3380lbs... It&#39;s classified pretty much just how it should be for this class... based on the process... Another point that illustrates just how improperely some other cars are currently classified...