IS300 in ITS?

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 19 2005, 04:03 PM
As a reminder...
Stock Rated Crank HP...
RX7 - 150
Integra GSR - 172

[snapback]60559[/snapback]

Actually, later RX7 models (last two years IIRC) made 160hp instead of the 146hp (not 150hp) quoted. Using the parts from the 160hp motors is perfectly acceptable, so the starting point it is a little better than you quote.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 19 2005, 11:03 AM
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't. To further complicate things, the GSR is there at a weight it can'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'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'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't stop now.

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

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

[snapback]60559[/snapback]

The list is so rough I wouldn't get your painties ion a bunch about the GSR. I think the Type R is better suited anyway.

The RX-7 made 160 crank in S5 (89-91) form, 146 in S4 (86-88).

AB

[JeffYoung]

Guys, this has been a fantastic discussion. Much appreciated on all sides, and really cool to me that guys who make the rules get on here and discuss how they are made.

I'll kick in my two cents -- after reading all this, I agree with Scott and others. Let's deduct weight from the existing S cars and keep the Bimmer at 325. I think most of the front runners can do it (I'm an oddball, TR8, but at 2560 I run 50 lbs of ballast and a full tank of gas at 185 lb driver to make weight, so I can lose weight). I think the GSR, the 944, the 240z, definitely the 260z, the 280z, and the RX7 can all drop a few as well.

Darin, I liked your spreadsheet on ITR. It is a "different" enough group of cars that I think S remains viable. Also, the price of entry is high enough that I think it will be more like T1 and T2.

In any event, good discussion.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 19 2005, 11:23 AM
Guys, this has been a fantastic discussion. Much appreciated on all sides, and really cool to me that guys who make the rules get on here and discuss how they are made.

[snapback]60564[/snapback]

Remember, the ITAC only recommends. The CRB and the BoD make the rules.

AB

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 19 2005, 04:23 PM
Let's deduct weight from the existing S cars and keep the Bimmer at 325. I think most of the front runners can do it (I'm an oddball, TR8, but at 2560 I run 50 lbs of ballast and a full tank of gas at 185 lb driver to make weight, so I can lose weight). I think the GSR, the 944, the 240z, definitely the 260z, the 280z, and the RX7 can all drop a few as well.

[snapback]60564[/snapback]

Having looked at all the specs in great detail, the idea of leaving top cars alone and just bringing the lower cars up to speed is not a feadible idea... Many... MANY of the cars in the class that are out of whack are NOT able to drop this weight... Many have a hard time getting down to the weight they are at...

For example, the 944 would have to weight 2547lbs or so just to meet the class target... Most of the experts believe that would be an absolute, no-holds-barred, all out effort weight for this car, and even then it might come up a little short... And that's just to meet the class target... which the BMW already greatly exceeds...

Short of moving cars at the top out of the class, the only fair and viable solution is to try to bring the ends of the class more toward the middle by making adjustments on both sides and narrowing down the performance envolope for the class... We've looked at many different angles, and that is the solution that seems most viable and effects the fewest number of cars...

Doing it the way descibed in your post would mean that EVERY car in ITS EXCEPT the BMW and a few others would have to be adjusted... This would open the door for WAY more potential errors... and would likely cause more harm than good... asside from the fact that it couldn't be done in many cases (you can't make a 240Z any lighter than it is in ITS prep, for example... there are many other examples..)

[944-spec#94]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 19 2005, 10:10 AM
For example, the 944 would have to weight 2547lbs or so just to meet the class target... Most of the experts believe that would be an absolute, no-holds-barred, all out effort weight for this car, and even then it might come up a little short... And that's just to meet the class target... which the BMW already greatly exceeds...

I have been lurking here for a while and figured I had some info.

I Run an 84 944 in a spec class. The basic cars are similar to IT prep in many ways, but are not in general IT legal. We all a minium of 2600 with driver. This seems to be reasonable weight for most cars.

I personall run my car about 2615 (little over account for scales). This is with 40lbs of proper ballast and about 30lbs of passengers seat & mountings.

I come in at 155 lbs or so and probably could get my 944 to 2550lbs. Possibly lighter as I still have a power windows and stock battery. One thing to consider is our rules a bit more liberal on stuff that can be removed so while I think I can get to 2550 per my rules and maybe even IT rules I do know others may find it hard. 944 chassis tend to vary quite a bit and somefolks have an easy time making our 2600 lbs min and other have hard time. Even so 2600lbs in 944 in IT trim is probably reasonable. 2550 lbs is pushing it.

PS... there are two reason I don't run IT in my 944.
1) the 944 is too heavy (2715) and not powerfull enough for ITS
2) There is no ITS competition in my area (Phoenix).

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 19 2005, 12:09 PM
Exactly Bill... I have the Supras on the list, but didn'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...
Now-Now Bill... Don't go bringing up facts like that... You'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'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...

[snapback]60560[/snapback]

Yeah Darin, I wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that I have ever supported an objective process that was based on emperical data. :P :P

As far as ITR (or ITGT or whatever it's called), I think it's definately needed. Where will you put all those T3 (and possibly T2) cars when they can't run in T3/T2 anymore? Doing this now is a forward-thinking/proactive step, and might even be viewed by some as, dare I say it, strategic planning

[DoubleD]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 19 2005, 10:10 AM
Dave,

Please provide hard evidence that the numbers are 'hokey'.

[snapback]60548[/snapback]

Bill,

Please don't ask me to disprove dyno numbers that can not be made public because they don't exist. That's like asking me to prove that the government doesn't have black helicopters hovering over ITAC member's homes.

That there are lots of claims but only one person who seems to have a dyno in hand and is willing to share it speaks volumes. If ITAC has dyno's showing over 200rwhp I'd sure like to see them. I'll provide webspace for them to be posted to this forum.

-Dave

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 19 2005, 01:33 PM
Bill,

Please don't ask me to disprove dyno numbers that can not be made public because they don't exist. That's like asking me to prove that the government doesn't have black helicopters hovering over ITAC member's homes.

That there are lots of claims but only one person who seems to have a dyno in hand and is willing to share it speaks volumes. If ITAC has dyno's showing over 200rwhp I'd sure like to see them. I'll provide webspace for them to be posted to this forum.

-Dave

[snapback]60576[/snapback]

So if I can get the permission of these car owners to post the sheets, you won't be then arguing the validity of the dyno, operator, etc? I am on it.

Oh, and BTW, all you are asking for is a dyno sheet that has 5 more WHP than a car without full engine management...you don't think that is possible? :119:

AB

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 19 2005, 06:33 PM
That there are lots of claims but only one person who seems to have a dyno in hand and is willing to share it speaks volumes.

[snapback]60576[/snapback]

195whp ~= 3,100lbs for ITS, before any consideration is made for tranny ratios, brakes, suspension, etc...

That speaks "volumes" as well...



h34r:

[Bill Miller]

Dave,

Bruce Shafer has admitted that his motor is not a to-the-max motor (no MOTEC, etc.), and IIRC, put a 7-10 HP estimate on how much he left on the table. And that's for a 'parts catalog' car. I imagine you can squeak a few more ponies out by going through a header development program, while tunning the MOTEC software as well as optimizing the VVT.

I really don't see how you call numbers on the North side of 200 'hokey' [sic] in light of this.

And why hasn't _anyone_ else submitted dyno numbers? If 195 was really all that and a bag of chips, I think people would be jumping out of the woodwork w/ those dyno numbers that were lower.

[Bill Miller]

ROTFLMAO!!!

I love the new Flatout Motorsports logo!! (hope you don't mind that I 'borrowed' it!) :P :P

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 19 2005, 02:56 PM
So if I can get the permission of these car owners to post the sheets, you won't be then arguing the validity of the dyno, operator, etc? I am on it.

Oh, and BTW, all you are asking for is a dyno sheet that has 5 more WHP than a car without full engine management...you don't think that is possible? :119:

AB

[snapback]60578[/snapback]

I quit holding my breath waiting for somebody around here to provide any verifiable data. I asked for this information over a year ago. It's much easier just to spout off numbers. What's the old saying, throw enough mud on the wall and some is surely to stick,? That's the mentality around here.

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 19 2005, 03:07 PM
195whp ~= 3,100lbs for IT, before any consideration is made for tranny ratios, brakes, suspension, etc...

That speaks "volumes" as well...

h34r:

[snapback]60579[/snapback]

The 195 rwhp number was before the restrictor plate. It's probably more like 185 now. It did make a difference.

[Bruce Shafer]

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

Bruce Shafer has admitted that his motor is not a to-the-max motor (no MOTEC, etc.), and IIRC, put a 7-10 HP estimate on how much he left on the table. And that's for a 'parts catalog' car.

Why do you call my a car a "parts catalog" car? You don't know anything about my car. I'm not surprised, this accuracy I've come to expect around here.

Conversely, are you implying that all the parts on Chet's or Ed Yorks car are custom made by hand in a the back room workshop? No off the shelf components?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 19 2005, 08:24 PM
The 195 rwhp number was before the restrictor plate. It's probably more like 185 now. It did make a difference.

[snapback]60588[/snapback]

Well, let's be careful to be accurate here... "It did make a difference... "... IN YOUR CAR...

Oh, and while we are at it, you just threw out some more "mud"... another "SWAG"... an "unsubstantiated claim"... another chunk of "unverified data"...

Not sure that mud is going to stick, however... BMWs don't seem to have slowed down this season from last...

And, for the record, once again using your own numbers:

185whp ~= 2950lbs before adders for ITS...

And this is on an admitted "over the counter" example of the car...

I know I certainly don't see a problem...

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 19 2005, 04:33 PM
And this is on an admitted "over the counter" example of the car...

When did I ever admit my car was "over the counter"? More of the BS around here. Make up what ever you want to help your argument, the it.com policy.

BTW, I spoke to several of the top teams regarding the 7 hp gains (your unsubstantiated claim), and all said the would be willing to give up the restrictor plate and the HP gains.

[JeffYoung]

The whole dyno sheet thing cracks me up. We are competitive, but shit guys, we are racing for fun. Post your results. I posted mine a few months back and they exposed my for being the no-driving beeyatch I always was afraid I was -- car had more power than I expected (160 rwhp, 180 rwtq basically undeveloped). Car is not the problem, driver is.

If you guys (the BMW guys) don't like the dyno numbers being bandied about here, do something very simple. Go to a dyno. Get results. Post them here.

[Ron Earp]

I think I said it before, pages ago.

What difference does it make how much hp it makes?

Come and SEE top flight BMWs wail around VIR with a huge advantage over top prepped RX7s and 240sxs as well as top flight Zs. WATCH them slow down once a big lead is established to save tires. WATCH them win the race. Then, come back next month and watch it again. And this with restrictors in place.

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Sep 19 2005, 02:08 AM
1. I asked for crank hp, no ideas?
2. What does the BMWCCA weight have to do with anything? Do they race against 20 other brands in the same class?
3. As do I. The technology is excellent.
4. Gotcha.
5. Understood. I use 18% for a RWD car as a general rule. Dynojet is also the standard I use but we can make comparisons to other types based on the info we have available to us. We have dyno and crank numbers for many of the top ITS cars. The CRB leison the ITAC RUNS a dyno. No whining, the info is there.

- and THANK YOU for answering. It's important for everyone to know where we all stand to make credibility judgements.

AB

[snapback]60519[/snapback]

hey andy, love your avatar for this thread!

1. i have no ideas. i have only seen rwhp numbers and am not an expert on driveline loss conversions so it don't want to toss out random numbers.
2. it has to do with the added weight and the shaky suspension components. nothing whatsoever to do with 20 other brands of cars.
3. yeah!
5. can i run my car on the crb/itac dyno? apples to apples!

marshall