OH MY GOD, V8's in ITR

[Bob Roth]

Below is a string starting under "specific car models" where there is a request to CRB and ITAC to add '90s V8 mustang and Cameros to ITR. I hope nobody is seriously as though I don't mind sharing the track with them, I sure don't want to trade paint with them for trophies.

[FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']Is this mixing apples and oranges. As an owner of a type r integra, I gotta believe that the on track performance will in now way similar to the mix of the vast majority of ITR high rpm 3 liter range engines.

If we need another V8 class besides American Sedan, then create it. I suspect the whole of ITR would be outraged if 300 hp V8 iron is lumped into the class. [/FONT]Read below, let the CRB let you know what you think.



From Specific Car models https://improvedtouring.com...ad.php?t=23153


[FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']Jeff Young and I recently submitted a proposal to the ITAC to class Pony Cars, V8 Camaros, Firebirds, and Mustangs, in ITR. Clearly the years classed are somewhat limited due to horsepower concerns for ITR. The year breakdown is roughly:

89-93 Mustang GT/LX 5.0L
87-92 F-Body
94-95 Mustang GT

I feel the cars will certainly increase the ranks in ITR and give enthusiasts of these cars a place to race in IT. If you are interested in racing one of these cars in the future please write a letter to the Board of Directors ([email protected]) indicating your position.

Thanks,
Ron[/FONT]
[FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']__________________
Ron Earp
NC Region
#38 ITS 260Z
www.gt40s.com [/FONT]

[FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']I must add that I have received the proposal, and Mr. Earp and Mr. Young have done an excellent job. Now it's up to the ITAC and the CRB, and that means YOU! If you have issues with the idea, hit "compose" and send an email to "[email protected]'.......... likewise, if you support the idea, we need to hear from you!

This is a club about the members...the ITAC tries to do right by you, and we don't always agree, but, without input, we don't even know if we do..or don't.[/FONT]
[FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']__________________
[/FONT][FONT='Palatino Linotype','serif']Jake Gulick[/FONT]

[JeffYoung]

Bob, welcome all comments and thoughts on it.

But, they certainly seem to fit "by the numbers" of the ITAC's weighting process. They will make speed differently than your car (worse brakes, better off corner, not as good at top end, perhaps not as good handling) but I don't see how they don't fit?

We are NOT talking about 300 hp V8s. We carefully parsed the various models of Camaro and Mustang to ensure that we picked up the stock 200 to 220 hp cars only.

Again though, open to discussion. Let me know more about any specific concerns you might have. most of the other ITR guys we talked to were fine with this, so long as the weight was ok, and it was discussed by the original ITR committee when the class was created.

Thanks.

jeff

[Ron Earp]

Is this mixing apples and oranges. As an owner of a type r integra, I gotta believe that the on track performance will in now way similar to the mix of the vast majority of ITR high rpm 3 liter range engines.

As one involved with the initial ITR class and an authoer of that proposal as well, in fact, your own car was one that was on the threshold in a way for racing in ITR. Your spec weight is far under the class norm and your engine displacement is far below average for the class. It was accepted in classing the Type R that it may "race differently" from a 3L BMW, 3.8L Camaro, 300zx, 944 S2, and so on.

I fully expect you to outbrake a 300zx and handle better, while he out-torques you off the corners.

But, the Type R fit into the class via the stock numbers, the process was run, and the car is in the class. The same process was applied to the V8 Pony cars.

The ITR drivers I've communicated with, BMW and Porsche drivers, have indicated they'd welcome the Pony cars to the class as long as they are properly classes according to the process.

As an author of the proposal I certainly think they fit - I wouldn't have written it otherwise. But as a race car driver and as one considering a choice for ITR, they are not my first choice - but neither is an Type R Integra. I think the standard "bogeys" for the class - BMW 3 series, 944S2, etc. - are more solid choices and the mainstay for the ITR class.

If they fit the process there is no logical reason why they should not be included in the class. RX7s "race differently" in ITS than me, but it works out just fine.

Ron

[JLawton]

Bob,
Have you actually READ the original thread on the ITR Pony cars? It really does go into detail on how these cars fit into the process and the discussion around it.

<edit>
Found the thread:

http://72.167.111.130/forums/showthread.php?t=23023

[dj10]

We carefully parsed the various models of Camaro and Mustang to ensure that we picked up the stock 200 to 220 hp cars only.

Again though, open to discussion. Let me know more about any specific concerns you might have. most of the other ITR guys we talked to were fine with this, so long as the weight was ok, and it was discussed by the original ITR committee when the class was created.

Thanks.

jeff

Jeff, what is the torque ratings of these 200 to 220 hp pony cars after being built? I thought that's why we had AS?
Dan

[JeffYoung]

260-280 at the wheels, we think. Torque is the advantage for these cars, in the proposal they cary a weight penalty over process weight as a result. Still probably not much more torque than a Nissan 3.0, Toyota 3.0 or BMW 3.0 inline/V6.

AS has morphed into an entirely new ruleset. It's not "IT" for Mustangs and Camaros, which is what we are trying to do here.

I see only upside for ITR with this. Lots of guys want to race Mustangs/Camaros and at the proposed weights, they will not be front runners. Just a good, cheap, fun race car. But when fully developed 3.0 BMWs and Supras etc. arrive on the scene....

[Ron Earp]

Hi Dan,

I think you'll find the cars will put down around 250-270 ft-lbs at the wheel on a Dynojet. This isn't that far off the latest 300zx ITR build that made 252 ft-lbs at the wheel on a Dynojet. The Pony cars weigh more than the 300zx in the proposal, have much smaller brakes, a less sophisicated suspension (a solid rear axle), and some of the cars have rear drum brakes.

Of course, dyno results are hard to compare, but you've got 2 valve pushrod OHV motors motors with low compression and high torque competeting against 4 valve DOHC motors that make a bit less torque, but similar or more, power.

Fortunately when the cars are classed more than just one outstanding feature of the car is considered. Power, torque, suspension, brakes, etc. are under review. While the Pony cars have great torque, they are not ITR class leaders in the other areas.

As far as the comparison to AS - for those guys that think IT prep is anything like AS, please read the AS rules set. There is no comparison between the two - non stock cylinder heads, any cam to .500" lift, tubular arms, Ford 9" rears for everyone, Holley carbs for everyone, port all you like, high hp intakes, and so on. Two different worlds. There are many GM/Ford faithful that would like the chance to run a V8 Pony car with a cheap, inexpensive, non-national, and competitive IT ruleset.

Ron

[dj10]

Hi Dan,

I think you'll find the cars will put down around 250-270 ft-lbs at the wheel on a Dynojet. This isn't that far off the latest 300zx ITR build that made 252 ft-lbs at the wheel on a Dynojet. The Pony cars weigh more than the 300zx in the proposal, have much smaller brakes, a less sophisicated suspension (a solid rear axle), and some of the cars have rear drum brakes.

Of course, dyno results are hard to compare, but you've got 2 valve pushrod OHV motors motors with low compression and high torque competeting against 4 valve DOHC motors that make a bit less torque, but similar or more, power.

Fortunately when the cars are classed more than just one outstanding feature of the car is considered. Power, torque, suspension, brakes, etc. are under review. While the Pony cars have great torque, they are not ITR class leaders in the other areas.

As far as the comparison to AS - for those guys that think IT prep is anything like AS, please read the AS rules set. There is no comparison between the two - non stock cylinder heads, any cam to .500" lift, tubular arms, Ford 9" rears for everyone, Holley carbs for everyone, port all you like, high hp intakes, and so on. Two different worlds. There are many GM/Ford faithful that would like the chance to run a V8 Pony car with a cheap, inexpensive, non-national, and competitive IT ruleset.

Ron

Understood Ron. Keep the class competitive and I'll race anything in it.

[lateapex911]

That's a good Attiude Dan, but my avatar is much nicer....

Folks, please read up on the conce=t...it's been gone over. We're not adding Chevy ZR6 engines to the mix here.

[Z3_GoCar]

Below is a string starting under "specific car models" where there is a request to CRB and ITAC to add '90s V8 mustang and Cameros to ITR. I hope nobody is seriously as though I don't mind sharing the track with them, I sure don't want to trade paint with them for trophies.

[FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']Is this mixing apples and oranges. As an owner of a type r integra, I gotta believe that the on track performance will in now way similar to the mix of the vast majority of ITR high rpm 3 liter range engines. [/font]

[FONT='Tahoma','sans-serif']If we need another V8 class besides American Sedan, then create it. I suspect the whole of ITR would be outraged if 300 hp V8 iron is lumped into the class. [/font]Read below, let the CRB let you know what you think.



From Specific Car models https://improvedtouring.com...ad.php?t=23153

Bob,

I take it you havn't seen this thread either:

https://improvedtouring.com...ad.php?t=23259

I understand your concern, if these cars far exceed their expected potential, it would drastically undermine ITR. I think it's unlikely that they will exceed the predicted power gains. Still it wouldn't hurnt to be cautious....

James

[Bob Roth]

No, though I am on the site about every day, I did not see that post. I am pleased that others are concerned too. Having raced in ITS and have run dozens of times with pony cars, I just think those cars brake, accelerate, and turn totally differently than the rest of the class which makes it very hard to compete for position with them.

Every straight, I gotta outbreak them, every turn, I am concerned about getting clobbered by one who just braked a bit too late. I don't mind sharing the track with them, I just don't want to be competing with them and trading paint for trophies. I think the typical 944, 328, 911, and S2000 driver would agree.

[JeffYoung]

Bob, with all due respect, that is racing. Cars make speed in different ways. My car (TR8, kind of Mustang like actually) is very different in how it goes fast than say a torqueless ITS RX7.

Most of the ITR drivers we have talked to (Grafton Robertson, 944S2; Dan Jones, 325i, etc.) agree, and want the competition in the class.

You'll have to come up with a numbers based argument as to why the cars shouldn't be in to ocnvince me, and I think to convince the ITAC, that they should be excluded when the numbers otherwise suggest they fit.

So, looking at their hp, their weight, and their other quantifiable attributes, why should they not be in other than you prefer to compete against them?

[Bob Roth]

Maybe because solid axle cars with undersize brakes whose rotors tend to crack every other session, with oversize engines and too much weight make poor racing when run against independently suspended cars with little dispacement but lots of handling and brakes..... It seems like a bad idea to me which is why I am posting it to the forum.

I am co-building a Teg R for ITR and think its a bad idea that will lead to a demolition derby and unhappiness for no good reason. Its up to other ITR members to speak up. If you want to trade paint with American Iron, don't say anything, apparently there are 2 votes for, one against.

[JeffYoung]

Actually, I think that those differences make for great racing. REally the whole spirit of IT right? Different cars, different attributes.

Too much subjectivity in your analysis. Define underbraked? Some think the 300ZX has too much power for its brakes. You agree? Should we exclude it? Too much weight? There are several cars in that weight range in ITR, including a couple of class "bogeys" that the class was created for -- 300ZX, Supra, 3.0 BMWs.

All I am saying is comment is of course welcomed, but comment based on "I don't want to race against them" rather than a numbers analysis is not going to get you anywhere.

[Team SSR]

With CCPS we race against Spec Racer Fords. With our 944 we run similar lap times at most tracks, but very different speeds on parts of the track. The SF are hard to shake. We have more torque, but they brake well, roll thru the corner then draft us down the straights. CCPS races are 45 min. races and I've never seen any carnage or even a full course caution for any incidents.

[Ron Earp]

The CCPS is very similar as is Jeff's TR8 analogy. Sure, the cars they are different. But IT isn't a spec class and unless there is some factual data and not lines like "OH MY GOD V8s in ITR" (the title of the thread), then I can't see how anyone is going to take the objections seriously.

Some of the aspects of the car that some folks don't think of as "good" as the other ITR cars - the live axle, low-revving engine - other folks think are extremely positive in the sense that it is low-maintenance and low stress. Also, they may be known quantities to those racers and they'd rather work with those parts than a DOHC FWD car.

The other areas, such as the brakes, put them at the bottom of the class in swept area per ton, but they are no worse than the worst in ITR. Racers have a way of making things work and I imagine triple ducting to each caliper will keep them in the game with brake management. I have to manage my Z brakes as is in ITS since they tend to go away in long sessions, although many of the newer ITS cars this isn't a concern at all. Doesn't mean I should be allowed to race my Z.

Ron

[Bob Roth]

However extreme the300 ZX is, the V8's are worse. Plus there are practical matters limiting how many Z cars will ever get out there. Few race parts available, comparatively few street cars built, no base of enthusiasts, no support base to maintain engines and drivetrains. There are 100 times all of these for pony cars, all the race parts you can want and any stock car shop will work on them. so I believe its a real possibility that there might be two or three at a race.

Per the previous post, its one thing to share the track when the Spec Racer Fords who are doing their thing and he is doing his ITS thing. He's right, here probably isn't that much carnage. What I am suggesting it it could be another deal when those two or three mustangs show up at the end of a straight and the 944 is the meat in the sandwitch when a trophy is now on the line.

I am for racing pony cars, just give them their own trophy in ITGT or whatever class you want. I believe that the best racing, and also the most legal racing occurs when similar cars are grouped by class. There is better give and take on the track, and also if a car is cheated up, its noticeable. Also, because the cars are similar, nobody is too far out in the extreme, especially when one week you are at a handling and brake track like Gingerman and next week its a power track like Road America.

If there is enough interest in pony cars, (which I expect there to be) create a class for them.

[JeffYoung]

Understood. I think we just have to agree to disagree on what makes good "IT" racing, and that is fair. I will say that in ITS, I really like the car differences. If I wanted to run a spec class, I would.

Here's one thing though. You say the 300ZX is extreme; I'd say that the 300ZX out of all cars is probably THE reason we have ITR. Several attempts were made to class it in ITS and it was barred due to performance potential. SO, it was one of the "bogeys" set in creating ITR.

ITR is not, in my view, about small displacement, high revving cars. We have some in there, at very low weights, but they were not the class "bogeys" and there was some debate as to whether they (your car included) actually fit. I was in favor of being inclusive as possible, as was I believe most of the ITR group, so they are in. But if there are extreme cars in ITR, I'd say it's the under 2.0 liter cars that came in and very low weights.

Again, Bob, comment is welcomed. I know the ITAC received your letter -- it is a club, and if you can drum up enough opposition you might get somewhere. I do hope, though, that it is based on numbers and not the fact that the Mustangs/Camaros will "race differently." Again, in my view, that is what IT is about.

[Ron Earp]

ITR is not, in my view, about small displacement, high revving cars. We have some in there, at very low weights, but they were not the class "bogeys" and there was some debate as to whether they (your car included) actually fit. I was in favor of being inclusive as possible, as was I believe most of the ITR group, so they are in. But if there are extreme cars in ITR, I'd say it's the under 2.0 liter cars that came in and very low weights.
.

This is very true and I mentioned it in another post. As ITR was being put together some of the first questionable cars that came up were the small displacement cars. The Type R, the Celica, and some others. The Celica and Type R were allowed in at low weights because it was known they would not be allowed in S. We wanted a place to race them, so they were processed in ITR.

However, they are far below the average ITR target car. The target ITR cars were cars that had more than 200hp stock, less than 240hp stock, and in general weighed more than 2800 lbs. In this sense Pony cars perfectly fit that description while Type R Integras and Celica GTS do not.

Again, different strokes for different folks. I like the diversity in IT and welcome cars that fit the process. You want a high revving lightweight, he wants a rotary motored car, I prefer a middle of the road car, some other guy he wants a high torque low-revving car. Makes for good and varied racing, in my humble opinion.

Regardless of my opinion the facts seem to support the cars being included.

[lateapex911]

Bob, I must say i disagree with your subjective concerns, but that's cool, opinions are good!.
First, your assumptions lead me to think that it's not the cars you have issues with, it's the drivers...as you repeatedly state you don't want to be at the end of the straight when the Mustang brakes to late. Well, EVERY car out there is brake limited. some more than others. It's up to the driver to operate his car withing, and at the edge of, it's limits. You know the dumbest incident wth the huge damage I've been the lucky recipient of? Getting T-boned (albeit at a 45 degree angle) going into Lime Rocks Big bend in the passenger door by a guy who fancied his car to have F1 cabable brakes...in qualifying! He was a guy who had incorrect perveptions of performance and i paid the price. He drove.....drum roll please...an Acura Integra, in ITA with "R" stickers all over it.

Should I now try to keep Integras, or "R" type cars out of my class?

Secondly, I am not a fan of "Give them their own class". SCCA has used that solution to the detriment of the whole too many times in my opinion.

I say there is a large pool of cars and enthusiasts out there who think AS is way "too much", track days are "too little", but IT might be "just right". Bring them on! Class them fairly, and demand high quality driving.