May 2009 Fastrack - It's the end of the world as we know it

[RacerBowie]

And I feel fine!

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...k-may-club.pdf

Glad to see the Pony cars in the category!

[Rabbit07]

I know what I am building!

3. Classify the Ford Mustang GT (94-95) in ITR, p. 344, as follows:

[Knestis]

Re: the Golf II "weight is correct," Chris S. has been patient enough with the ITAC, he deserves to hear that he should interpret that as meaning we generally perceive inconsistencies in ITB to be AROUND that car - not WITH that car.

Look for future news for details...

K

[Jeremy Billiel]

OMG! OMG! Pony cars are coming....

Did you guys read about Charles Espenlaub doing donuts after the enduro? What an idiot... This is not Pro racing.

[shwah]

Re: the Golf II "weight is correct," Chris S. has been patient enough with the ITAC, he deserves to hear that he should interpret that as meaning we generally perceive inconsistencies in ITB to be AROUND that car - not WITH that car.

Look for future news for details...

K

Thanks Kirk. I really appreciate the commentary beyond what is contained within the Fast Track. Should have read this board first I guess.

[erlrich]

And I feel fine!

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...k-may-club.pdf

Glad to see the Pony cars in the category!

mmmmmm.... sub-$1k donor cars

this could be just what ITR needs to get going - or just what it will take to kill it...either way it's going to be interesting to watch.

[CRallo]

3330?! ouch! damn...

a random and completely subjective 100 lbs adder for a car that already can't handle, can't stop and can't breath past 5000 RPM!?

that's just great! So much for that idea...

[Jeremy Billiel]

3330?! ouch! damn...

a random and completely subjective 100 lbs adder for a car that already can't handle, can't stop and can't breath past 5000 RPM!?

that's just great! So much for that idea...

I don't know 3330 lbs seems like a fair number to me.

Look how many other ITR cars are north of 3000 lbs and the power, brakes, etc... These feel about right, but only time will tell. Remember just how easy it is to make a lot of power out of the 5.0L's.

[quadzjr]

Why did they classify the 94-95 mustang with better brakes amoung other improvements lighter then than the 89-93? I mean it only has an inch longer wheel base. I think it is a good addition to the class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why did they classify the 94-95 mustang with better brakes amoung other improvements lighter then than the 89-93? I mean it only has an inch longer wheel base. I think it is a good addition to the class.

225hp for the early car vs. 215hp for the later version.

[Ron Earp]

The cars were run through the process with their stock hp ratings and standard IT gains. Some have more power stock, they get more weight in IT. It might not be "right" to everyone but at least it is using a process. I think when the final discussion was had a torque addition was given to all of them as well.

I think it is a good thing for ITR. While the cars might not be the best choices for the class at least people now have that choice.

And I can change my avatar...

[lateapex911]

3330?! ouch! damn...

a random and completely subjective 100 lbs adder for a car that already can't handle, can't stop and can't breath past 5000 RPM!?

that's just great! So much for that idea...

No offense Chris, but that comment is more random and subjective than the classification. There was nothing random nor subjective...all the numbers were voted on by a large committee, and each one was considered carefully. Also, some of the cars got breaks for their hardware, or configuration.

In the end, truly subjective qualities, like "handling" get nothing. Handling doesn't make a fast racecar, it makes an easy to drive racecar. Many evil handling racecars have won many events in the hands of skilled drivers.

For many drivers, these cars will allow admittance to a fast class for lesser class budgets, and I'm sure we'll see some V8s winning races.

And V8s, American cars, etc, have been in IT for a long time. Nothing new here........

[jimmyc]

In the end, truly subjective qualities, like "handling" get nothing. Handling doesn't make a fast racecar, it makes an easy to drive racecar. Many evil handling racecars have won many events in the hands of skilled drivers.

Then why do strut cars get a weight deduct?

[lateapex911]

Then why do strut cars get a weight deduct?

"Handling" is subjective, and often includes "telepathic response" "Great steering feedback", "Naturally balanced", etc. Struts are physical properties that don't operate as effectively as control arms. There is empirical evidence that tradeoffs need to be made to get the best from them, but those come at the expense of other factors.

The main attraction in the rulesmakers eyes is, I think, the black and white nature. yes/no. Feel good stuff is way more subjective, and not always consistent with faster lap times. Ultimately, we could run every car thorough a much more complete formula/process or LapSim, or both, but, unless we really nail that down, it won't get us anywhere better than where we are now. Our main goals are consistency, repeatability and transparency.

[CRallo]

No offense Chris, but that comment is more random and subjective than the classification. There was nothing random nor subjective...all the numbers were voted on by a large committee, and each one was considered carefully. Also, some of the cars got breaks for their hardware, or configuration.

In the end, truly subjective qualities, like "handling" get nothing. Handling doesn't make a fast racecar, it makes an easy to drive racecar. Many evil handling racecars have won many events in the hands of skilled drivers.

For many drivers, these cars will allow admittance to a fast class for lesser class budgets, and I'm sure we'll see some V8s winning races.

And V8s, American cars, etc, have been in IT for a long time. Nothing new here........

No offense ment here either, Jake. I should have waited to post and mulled it over a bit more... That said, the fact remains, I don't understand where this new torque adder comes from or how/when it is applied. I thought the classification of these cars was waiting on the "torque adder" being sorted out and clarified...

Is anyone willing to take a minute or two and explain this to me? Pardon any ignorance on my part, I am very new to this.

thanks!