OH MY GOD, V8's in ITR

[Knestis]

>> The one point that gets lost here is that I think diversity like this doesn't make better racing.

I'm with Jeff on this. Diversity is a hallmark of the kind of racing we do. People have bought into Spec Miata for lots of different reasons but I believe that we're going to see an increasing number of those drivers realize that their decisions were based on misconceptions. Watch for a increase in the number of IT Miatae in the next couple years. I'm also struggling to understand your definition of "better racing," perhaps - to be fair - because a big part of MY personal definition is cars with different relative advantages competing in the same class, dealing with the same circumstances. I think a lot of our competitors feel the same way, as evidenced by the fact that they seem to choose a variety of cars.

>> With their cheap costs, we could get a lot of V8 cars.

And this is a problem how? A cynic would suggest that you might be objecting because it will be possible to achieve competitive times while spending less dough. I confess that a little part of my primitive skeptic brain is waiting for someone to say, "I spent $70K making my 300zx go fast and I just don't want to be on the same track with those cheap POS American cars." I'm not sure yet exactly what my response might be but I'm leaning toward "Bummer."

>> When there is such a big differences, if the V8 cars are wrong for the class, there will be a lot of pressure to fix the class.

It might just be that I'm not following here. There is SOME possibility I suppose that, as the ITAC gains experience and data for the proposed V8 cars, it becomes necessary to invoke the Performance Compensation Adjustment clause. But that's "fixing the car" not "fixing the class." If there's something I'm missing on this, help me understand it.

>> If one shows up with a rocket, is it great prep or great cams, nobody knows. A lot of problems are solved when similar cars are classed together.

That's enforcement and NO make/model eligibility, preparation rule, or policy enforce rules in Club Racing. We're all responsible for understanding and protesting anything that we have a problem with. And I don't see that there's ANY correlation between diversity and noncompliance. If anything, we tend to see more cheats - or maybe chase more into the light - in spec classes than in multi-marque classes. If you are suggesting that this is the case because it is in fact harder to know what to protest on a car with which you aren't familiar, I'll grant you that. However, the problem is the same for all of us.

Sorry. With respect, Bob - you make a great case for why YOU don't want to race against these cars but no case that excluding them is good for the class or Club Racing.

We've got a collective obligation to make sure that we get the cars matched reasonably well in terms of their potential. There's NO assurance - nor SHOULD there be on - that some models won't develop an advantage through development of a knowledge base, affordable aftermarket parts, or even sheer numbers. There is a very good possibility that the Camaro might be the right horse for some course but that in and of itself isn't a problem.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Jeff,

What Bob is saying is it's easier to make a car wide in a corner than on the straight. When your advantage is in the corner you have to get to the corner first, and you can't get to the corner first because they just step harder on the loud pedal. Like Bob, I would argue that there'll be a greater gain in both torque and horsepower in a pair of headers and loosing the Cats with these cars, making these cars the instant over-dogs of ITR. Besides these cars are the staple of AS, and I know of one local '88 Camero that does well in the Runoffs and runs with Super Production, both litterally and time wise.

So; these cars already have a place to play, the gains will most likely be larger than anticipated, and they don't play well with others. This sounds like the starting of a class bully/problem child.

James

[JeffYoung]

James, I fully understand what Bob is saying.

Myself and Ron Earp wrote the V8 proposal. We did a LOT of research on what you can expect to gain from an IT build of a 305/302 Chevy/Ford motor. You are looking at 240-250 whp and 250-270 wtq. That's about teh same as what you can expect from a 330i or a 300zx (the car that is basically teh reason ITR exists).

These V8s have cams and intakes designed for street torque. They will have very good midranges, ok handling and ok brakes. They will not have the top end or peak power of the 968, the 330i, the Supra or the 300zx.

So, other than innuendo and speculation, please give me numbers to back up your belief that an ITR mid 80s Mustang will be an overdog.

Last time on teh AS deal. AS is completely different level of prep than IT.

The easy solution to the concerns (unfounded and unsupported by any hard numbers in my view) of "overdoggedness" is two fold. I've offered to the ITAC to have a quality engine shop build a Ford 302 to IT specs on my nickel, and then dyno it. But let's put that aside for the moment. The second, and easiest solution is to allow the cars in at their process weight. I haven't seen you guys make any arguments regarding process, which is how the classification system works. If the cars fit via the process -- and they do -- then they should be in.

But let's assume that you guys are right and these cars are overdogs. "Race different" doesn't count; sorry guys, as Kirk eloquently explained, this is not SM. But if they prove to be overdogs, the rules allow a onetime PCA to fix that.

What I continue to see in the "anti" posts is "oh my God there are going to be a bunch of fast in a straight line buckets of bolts running my class." I just don't get that, it goes against the very basic principles of IT philosophy and it frankly makes no sense to me. In 3-4 years, I will build an ITR car, and it will probably be of the inline or V6 variety. I woudl WELCOME 4-5 Mustangs or Camaros in the mix with racing.

In fact, I would say that right now, ITS, ITA and ITB are THE best classes for club racing right now. Why? DIVERSITY.

My TR8 (high torque, ok handling, no brakes) races great against 240zs (more top end, better brakes, better handling), rX7s (top end, brakes, handling, no torque), 944 (handling and brakes), Integra (high rpm hp, handling brakes). All of those cars are very different and the racing is great.

An ITR Mustang is NO DIFFERENT FROM AN ITR INTEGRA OR AN S2000 AS MY TR8 IS FROM AN RX7 OR AN INTEGRA GSR.

The sky is not falling guys. If it shows, show me NUMBERS using the ITAC process to prove these cars don't fit in ITR. They do.

And yes, I am frustrated by this mantra of "they don't race the same" as opposed to focusing on the numbers the rules require to be used to class cars.

Signing off. I am starting to agitted and I don't like that. Indications are you guys have won anyway, so enjoy the victory.

[Ron Earp]

Hey Jeff, the proposal has the cars at about 240-250 rear wheel hp for good builds. I accidentally edited the wrong value there, but that is what is shown in the proposal sent to the ITAC. In the end it is sad to see the process for the class put aside with prejudice and misconception taking its place. If your car was being classed today it'd likely not make it in ITS for the reasons you site. And that would be a grave mistake.

[JeffYoung]

Interestingly enough, if you talk to Ted Schumacher and Morey Doyle who got the car classed in ITS in the first place in the late 80s, there was the same reaction -- and I quote -- "Oh My God, V8s in ITS!"

Same prejudices. It will have too much of a power gain. My god, look at the wheel it can lay. It just won't race well with the 240Z/1st Gen RX7 (which was in S at the time!)/etc.

While the car has had successes in S, it certainly is no overdog.

[Rabbit05]

I am a die hard VW fan , but a running a Ford in IT trim would certainly interest me ! A.S. rules are out of control and I could never afford to build one. Why not let them into ITR ? I have had to run against high power ITA cars against my ITC car. They would blow by me in the straights and I would catch them in the corners... I have run in SM , and I have run against SM in my Rabbit (r.i.p). Spec classes are fun to race in....IMO..

BUT that is why I am drawn to IT , The diversity in cars , makes , models...difference in perforemance capabilities...I mean V8's , I-6's , those rotory do-hickys, high power I-4's , thats a cool looking class if you ask me, and as a spectator I would love to watch that race.....Look at Grand Am's GS/St classes...great competition !

I say bring on the Pony cars...



I am off to the dirt track to go find me a 'tang !


-John

[JeffYoung]

And as I read it, posts like the above are running about 10 to 2 in favor of the V8s in ITR.

[Rabbit07]

According to the fastrack I was the only one who wrote an email supporting the idea. Can we get some more emails going in support of the V8s?

[JLawton]

According to the fastrack I was the only one who wrote an email supporting the idea. Can we get some more emails going in support of the V8s?

Guilty as charged. I just shot one out in support.

[GKR_17]

I'm all for letting the V8's in R, as long as they go through the process. The same should be true for every car. Don't forget the Rx-8, there's a contingent at work trying to get it classed for next season at around 2700 lbs - a car with 238 hp stock. There won't be any diversity in R if that happens.

Grafton

[JeffYoung]

Teh request to class them was at process weight.....I can't remember the specific numbers, but around 3200/3300 I think.

On the RX8, I wrote the proposal for that and gave it to anyone who wanted to see it, including you Grafton. No secret contingent involved.

I have no interest in racing an RX8. None. Zip. Hate rotaries. But to me, it is one of the quintessential cars that must be in the class, along with the 944S2, the 328/330i and the 330ZX.

The issue on the RX8 and weight is really very simple. There is a lot of verifiable data out there to prove that (a) 238 stock hp is WAY optimistic on those cars, adn that most stock RX8s dyno in the 170-175 whp range and (b) the Renesis doesn't benefit from IT prep gains like other motors.

Grafton, if you and Ben or others have real data to rebut that evidence, I'd love to see it and would adjust my views on the car's proposed weight accordingly. More importantly, submit it to the ITAC for consideration.

[lateapex911]

Sorry if the following sounds harsh, or confrontational, it's not supposed to be, but many of these arguments against inclusion are based on what I see as failed logic and red herrings. understandable, I've initially thought in similar terms but rejected my thinking after digesting the bigger picture...

Jeff,

What Bob is saying is it's easier to make a car wide in a corner than on the straight. When your advantage is in the corner you have to get to the corner first, and you can't get to the corner first because they just step harder on the loud pedal.

Racecraft. Yes, that's what happens in mixed marque racing. You need to solve different problems, and different solutions come into play. Some people say that "rain drivers" are better, but really, it's often the case that they are more creative, and adapt better. As Kirk and Jeff, and others have pointed out, we are already in mixed marque racing....and if the cars are classed well, some WILL win at certain tracks, while OTHERS will win at other tracks. And THAT's the joy of it.

Like Bob, I would argue that there'll be a greater gain in both torque and horsepower in a pair of headers and loosing the Cats with these cars, making these cars the instant over-dogs of ITR.

Stop right there. THAT argument is NOT about Fords and Chevys, it's either about EVERY car or No car, because you are assuming that the classification is somehow *right* for everything but will be *wrong* for these cars. On what do you base that claim? Show me evidence that supports the claim that the ITAC will screw up *this * classification, but hasn't others. Basing an objection on a mis classification is really rather illogical, and rather self serving. Not buying it.

Besides these cars are the staple of AS, and I know of one local '88 Camero that does well in the Runoffs and runs with Super Production, both litterally and time wise.

As has been pointed out, IT and As are very different rulesets. Following your logic, I suppose we should NOT class BWMs in IT if they are already classed in Prod, right? I mean, they have a place to play already, let's just tell them to go Prod racing.
This is a central argument from those against the inclusion, and it is a total red herring.

So; these cars already have a place to play,

....No, they don't

the gains will most likely be larger than anticipated,

...who says?

and they don't play well with others.

...sounding elitist...

This sounds like the starting of a class bully/problem child.

based on the backing info, I disagree with the conclusion.

[lateapex911]

OK, I'm trying to think about this and play devils advocate a bit....

Suppose the critics are right...the ITAC has it's head shoved so far where the sun don't shine that it can't see the potential overdogs that lurk beneath the oh- so- thick sheetmetal of American iron.

So, the process pegs them at 250-ish rwhp, and sets the weight (with other factors considered of course) at 3XXX pounds.

But, reality is that the cars make more (much more actually, if the claims of greater gains in tq and power resulting in instant overdogs are accepted)...what to do? What IF they REALLY DO make 275?

Why not set a fail safe? Like say 260? Through the use of an SIR. It's all fine and dandy if you don't have a great build, and if you have a good build that is at the process level, you'll be unaware of any SIR...but, if you are the guy who discovers the loophole the ITAC missed then hey, nice try, but you run into the SIR roadblock to world domination.

Would such a strategy ease the concerns?

(Don't flame me, I'm throwing this out for critical comment, and already know what certain responses will be, but i think it will be illuminating overall.)

[vr6guy]

I think I may throw up from reading all of this thread in its entirety. With that out of the way, in my opinion I think it would be to let them run in ITR. I really think that more peole would build an IT prepped pony car compared to a supra, or 300zx, which would help the class in its progression. On top of that it would bump up the car counts. just my opinion

Marc rider
NER
ITB VW

[GKR_17]

On the RX8, I wrote the proposal for that and gave it to anyone who wanted to see it, including you Grafton. No secret contingent involved.

I have no interest in racing an RX8. None. Zip. Hate rotaries. But to me, it is one of the quintessential cars that must be in the class, along with the 944S2, the 328/330i and the 330ZX.

The issue on the RX8 and weight is really very simple. There is a lot of verifiable data out there to prove that (a) 238 stock hp is WAY optimistic on those cars, adn that most stock RX8s dyno in the 170-175 whp range and (b) the Renesis doesn't benefit from IT prep gains like other motors.

Grafton, if you and Ben or others have real data to rebut that evidence, I'd love to see it and would adjust my views on the car's proposed weight accordingly. More importantly, submit it to the ITAC for consideration.

Jeff,

I must say I'm surprised that you'd be so quick to spec a car outside of the process since you've been touting the great changes since its implementation. Up to now, every car in ITR has been through it, I see no reason to change that (for V-8's or rotaries).

On paper the Rx-8 is very similar to the S2000. Both have high power, high rpm, low torque motors. Actual published performance numbers slightly favor the Honda, but don't forget that it's over 200 lbs lighter from the factory. When it was classed the S2000 received the lowest expected hp gain at 15%. The Renesis may be highly tweaked already, but there are clearly still improvements to be made. I seem to recall an ITAC member stating that 15% gain was as low as they were willing to go, I hope this holds true.

As for the mass of verifiable data, I will concede that it can be useful to show that this engine won't see the improvements previously found in the 12a and 13b versions. However, no matter how honorable the intentions, this data is highly suspect. All of the numbers I've seen were either from disgruntled performance types (trying to show a car didn't meet spec) or a potential racer/builder with an obvious bias to have the car classed as light as possible. In either case, the data supplier's case is better stated if the numbers are lower. I will be glad to put a stock Rx-8 on a Dynapak and show it can make well over 200 at the wheels. That data may not be believable either, but that's my point.

Let's not forget that the same car whose dyno sheet is in question here was said to be competitive with E46 330 BMW's. The Rx-8 at 2650lbs, and the 330 at 2875 lbs. As you know, the 330 is speced at 3290 in ITR. Granted that was another series with different prep rules, but the same could be said of the dyno data.

Here's another question: what are the best ITS Rx-7 putting down? Better than 180whp I believe(starting stock at 160 hp at the crank). The claim seems to be that a full prep Rx-8 only makes 197whp. I don't buy it.

The process has shown to be a good thing so far, let's not jump ship so soon.

Grafton

[Andy Bettencourt]

Grafton, enable your PM's.

[JeffYoung]

I absolutely am not jumping ship on the process.

What I am telling you is that the data I see more than suggests, but proves (to me), that that the stock number of 238 crank hp is wrong. The car makes about 170-175 whp. It appears to have about 200 to 210 crank hp, corrected. This is the number that should be used, in my view, in teh process.

If you have Dynapack data showing the RX8 at 200 whp stock, I'm all ears. Data like that WILL change my mind. But DATA though. Not just well, the car is classed at X in Y race series under Z rules.

I understand your concern over misclassing this car. It is valid. If you have hard data to support to those concerns, mean dyno numbers on a stock car, I'm all ears.

I just went and did some net searching. See a lot of RX8 dyno plots like this:

http://www.dragtimes.com/2004-Mazda-...aphs-8792.html

BUT, I do see that some computer work gets some cars up to 200 whp. Maybe you are on to something, I need to do some reading.

[Ron Earp]

If you fellows want to discuss RX8s in ITR make a new thread. The RX8 info is too valuable to lie buried in six pages of Oh My God V8s in ITR.

I'd suggest a new thread entitled Oh my God RX8s in ITR.

[Z3_GoCar]

.....Stop right there. THAT argument is NOT about Fords and Chevys, it's either about EVERY car or No car, because you are assuming that the classification is somehow *right* for everything but will be *wrong* for these cars. On what do you base that claim? Show me evidence that supports the claim that the ITAC will screw up *this * classification, but hasn't others. Basing an objection on a mis classification is really rather illogical, and rather self serving. Not buying it.

Jake,

I didn't mean to come off sounding elietist, and I was on the fence initally, maybe skeptical, but on the fence none the less. I've also have experience with spec racing and also multi-class racing. I've run against these cars as American Sedan is in my run group.

I also don't feel that the process is perfect, maybe close enough for a 90% solution, but that leaves mabe 5% over predicted and 5% under. The reason I pointed out this one allowed mod is because of the cast-iron logs that GM and Ford call exhaust manifolds on these cars. Performane is probably at the bottom of the list when the molds were made for these. So will the weight be based on a 15% gain, a 25% gain or a 35% gain. If it's 30% or higher then you're talking about classing a 3500lb car and it needs to wait.


James

[JeffYoung]

Your numbers are wrong. With I think a 25% gain on a 205-215 hp motor and a 100 lb adder for torque, you get a race weight very similar to the 330i, the Supra and the 300zx.