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

[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.

[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

[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.

[dj10]

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.

Bob, this is a main concern of mine also. I've had to deal with AS drivers using me for a brake and a tun in point @ Summit Point when I was running ITS. It is unfortunate that we cannot control the mind set of these racers or any racer for that matter. Is it not a fact that we have to watch out for unsportsman like drivers where ever we go & what ever class we run in now?

[JeffYoung]

A good discussion. I do agree with Bob that when I race CCPS against SRFs and SMs it can be frustrating but interesting in its own way because the cars make speed differently.

Bob, again, we can agree to disagree. Do round up some other ITR drivers and see what they think, and submit your comments to the ITAC.

Thanks for the thoughts on this. It is appreciated.

[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