94-95 Mustang Gt in ITR?

[Ron Earp]

Actually, it's apples to oranges.

ITA - 1:43.388, 7/31/2005. Joe Moser, CRX Si

Lap record, itA, CLUB course, (correct?) Set last year.

The Mustang time of 1:45 is the "pro" course, which is shorter/faster.

So the time should be significantly faster than ITA.

Again, it's not apples to apples though.
[/b]

I don't think it is a matter of comparing on track times to justify the car. The car fits the process, that is known, and could be in ITR now if not for "V8 Stigma" that lurks within some within the SCCA. Anyhow, mote point now. Most important is to get ITR going. The V8 is out for 2007 and maybe can be added in for 2008 if voted in.

[lateapex911]

Most important is to get ITR going. The V8 is out for 2007 and maybe can be added in for 2008 if voted in.
[/b]

Exactomuundo! And hey, maybe we shoulf create a precedence by moving the TR8 up, eh?? That would open the door...

yeah...note to self,,,write a letter to the ITAC..

kidding, Jeff!

[Ron Earp]

Exactomuundo! And hey, maybe we shoulf create a precedence by moving the TR8 up, eh?? That would open the door...

[/b]

Orrrrrrrr, if some of the naysayers are right and the Mustang can't race in ITR competitively, we can move it to S!

R

[Knestis]

I don't think it is a matter of comparing on track times to justify the car. The car fits the process, that is known, and could be in ITR now if not for "V8 Stigma" that lurks within some within the SCCA. Anyhow, mote point now. Most important is to get ITR going. The V8 is out for 2007 and maybe can be added in for 2008 if voted in.
[/b]

As a naysayer (NAY, I tell you!) there's no stigma on my part. I was opposed to the inclusiom of the pony cars in ITR for more complex reasons:

1. Concern that their presence would put initial approval at risk - That has been completely obliterated. In fact, to my personal surprise, it sounds like the inclusion of the 'merican iron has increased enthusiasm among the decision makers, if reports are accurate.

2. Concern that application of the same formulaic approach to weight specification would be thrown out of whack by a very different set of basic parameters - Rememember that we were just coming to understand how the higher-powered FWD cars were responding fundamentally differently to the specification process. This leads me to...

3. HUGE concern that injection of a whole 'nother set of parameters would result in additional diddling with the formula - Any time this happens, we run the risk of screwing up. Misses are not easily undone, so finally...

4. Increasing temptation to cross the line and Productionize the category, one little creep at a time. Specific make/model allowances are just a small step away if there are only TWO significant models (Mustang, Camaro for example) that are out of line. YES - I know I'm paranoid but the fact that fear of something borders on the irrational is not enough to keep that which is feared from coming to pass.

Kirk (who is going to keep beating this drum, just in case someone somewhere is listening)

[Ron Earp]

As a naysayer (NAY, I tell you!) there's no stigma on my part. I was opposed to the inclusiom of the pony cars in ITR for more complex reasons:

1. Concern that their presence would put initial approval at risk - That has been completely obliterated. In fact, to my personal surprise, it sounds like the inclusion of the 'merican iron has increased enthusiasm among the decision makers, if reports are accurate.
[/b]

That has been taken care of as you mention - they are out of the proposal so not worth discussing right now I suppose. But they should increase enthusiasm - it'll bring a lot of people into IT that would not normally be there. Those " 'merican iron" folks as you say.

2. Concern that application of the same formulaic approach to weight specification would be thrown out of whack by a very different set of basic parameters - Rememember that we were just coming to understand how the higher-powered FWD cars were responding fundamentally differently to the specification process. This leads me to...
[/b]

They fit in fine, there is no voodoo here. They were looked at extensively and very realisticaly. If there are still real concerns about them, then class them 100 lbs heavier than process weight. Or 150lbs heavier. You'll still have people wanting to build them - there are more "Ford Freaks" than single mark import groupies. But that might be a problem for the demographics of IT racing, I don't know. You know those Blue Oval types are not as sophisticated as the BMW, VW, Honda, etc crowds. :P

3. HUGE concern that injection of a whole 'nother set of parameters would result in additional diddling with the formula - Any time this happens, we run the risk of screwing up. Misses are not easily undone, so finally...
[/b]

We've got performance adjustments, and, with the attention that ITR is getting I don't think you'll see any gross mis-classifications. Lots of folks watching ITR. Look at the discussion of 25lbs on the BMWs. See 2) above - class them heavy if there is fear. Folks will still come.

4. Increasing temptation to cross the line and Productionize the category, one little creep at a time. Specific make/model allowances are just a small step away if there are only TWO significant models (Mustang, Camaro for example) that are out of line. YES - I know I'm paranoid but the fact that fear of something borders on the irrational is not enough to keep that which is feared from coming to pass.
[/b]

Heard that and I am with you. I don't agree with the crew that wants to mix and match from Fox body cars all across the Ford line. It is not needed. And, not talking about those GM F Bodies, this IS a Ford thread in the Ford forum.

Ron