Correction to 5/09 Fastrack

[JoshS]

As you all probably noticed, the 305ci Camaro/Firebird and the 5.0L Mustangs were added to ITR in the latest Fastrack. However, they were published with incorrect weight listings.

Please refer to this post on the SCCA.com forums for the correction:

http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8033&PN=1

[xr4racer]

The news gets better and better. I think these weights will make sure that there will not be many of these hitting the track. I would need to put approximately 400 pounds of ballast on a Fox body that has the same engine as the SN95. I would imagine the crappy brakes may just catch on fire at faster tracks with hard braking with all of the help that the rear drums will provide. At least the Camaro is already a heavy car.

matt

[CRallo]

You cannot be serious!! Would someone care to explain the math?

this is for real right?

[JoshS]

You cannot be serious!! Would someone care to explain the math?

this is for real right?

It's for real.

All the research that was submitted (which was plentiful), and then our due-diligence research following, agrees that 30% power gains are possible. Then, the cars get a +150 lb torque adder, far and away the largest torque in the class (for reference, these cars have 300 ft-lbs, the next highest cars have 225 ft-lbs).

However, they get some breaks too ... -50 for the live axle, the Mustangs get -50 for brakes too.

[Knestis]

What Josh said.

This decision took a long time partly because we spent a lot of time digging around, to try to get the best evidence available. This was a potentially controversial move and we needed to be as confident as possible that we got it right the first time.

K

[mustanghammer]

What is the logic behind the weight differences between the 94-95 Mustang (SN95) and the 89-93 Mustang (FOX)? The FOX has a disk/drum brake settup, is narrower (harder to fit wide tires), and has less aero that the SN95. I would think that at a minimum the FOX should get a more of a break based on these items. In my opinion It should be the lighter of the two - this is how the cars are handled in AS.

Either way, it will be interesting to see these cars on track.

[JoshS]

What is the logic behind the weight differences between the 94-95 Mustang (SN95) and the 89-93 Mustang (FOX)? The FOX has a disk/drum brake settup, is narrower (harder to fit wide tires), and has less aero that the SN95. I would think that at a minimum the FOX should get a more of a break based on these items. In my opinion It should be the lighter of the two - this is how the cars are handled in AS.

Either way, it will be interesting to see these cars on track.

Simple -- our process is based on stock horsepower. The SN95 had 215 vs. the latest Fox cars at 225.

Our process isn't precise enough to take into account drum brakes, fender clearance, or aero.

If you feel that the SN95 has an advantage, we'd suggest that that's what you should build!

[mustanghammer]

Simple -- our process is based on stock horsepower. The SN95 had 215 vs. the latest Fox cars at 225.

Our process isn't precise enough to take into account drum brakes, fender clearance, or aero.

If you feel that the SN95 has an advantage, we'd suggest that that's what you should build!

Disclaimer....I'm not sure I would consider building a V8 ITR car but I asked the question because I am curious about how weight was determined. Not sure I appreciate you cheeky answer...but it is late and my sense of humor is already in bed.

I frankly find it amazing that 10HP is worth that much and that the magical process doesn't factor BRAKES. Also think it is interesting that no one apparently bothered to look at the data that has been gleaned through years of racing these same cars in AS. After all the AS rules allow for both the SN95 and the FOX to be built with the same parts and yet the FOX is still lighter....interesting.

[JoshS]

Disclaimer....I'm not sure I would consider building a V8 ITR car but I asked the question because I am curious about how weight was determined. Not sure I appreciate you cheeky answer...but it is late and my sense of humor is already in bed.

I frankly find it amazing that 10HP is worth that much and that the magical process doesn't factor BRAKES. Also think it is interesting that no one apparently bothered to look at the data that has been gleaned through years of racing these same cars in AS. After all the AS rules allow for both the SN95 and the FOX to be built with the same parts and yet the FOX is still lighter....interesting.

Apologize Scott, it wasn't meant to be cheeky or humorous, it was meant to be honest. Everything in IT has its strengths and weaknesses, and you are wisely pointing out some of them here. I'm hardly the first to say that one picks his/her car and lives with its strengths and weaknesses, so pick wisely.

[CRallo]

woof!

[Ron Earp]

Regarding the 89-93s, I didn't even want to write them in the proposal. TNot much of a way to correct for drums in IT, the stock hp is higher than the SN95 but we've got to stick with stock hp (yes I know about the derating too and potential, but we have to stick with what is published), and the chassis could be considered by many as inferior.

But we put them in the proposal because we knew that people would be asking about them more or less instantly. The process isn't kind to the car but the process has been followed in a repeatable and documented way. At least folks can now run V8 Pony cars in ITR if they wish.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I do not know much about the AS rules...and really don't care - but aren't the Fox and SN cars allowed to run the same HP levels? Add that to the culture of constant diddling on weights to TRY and make things perfect...and you get the differences.

10 stock hp on these cars in process is equal to almost 150 base pounds.

What makes the IT ruleset SEEM strange when compared to other classes is also it's strongest virtue. It is what it is, choose your weapon.

[Doc Bro]

You cannot be serious!! Would someone care to explain the math?

this is for real right?

Let's look at it this way. This is somewhat of a controversial move to introduce a V-8 into ITR, especially given the fact that this is an IT growth class. The cars that are classed have the potential to be very expensive builds (ask Phillips what he could POTENTIALLY spend on that 968). If you're going to class a V-8 Camaro (that is the width of a tank) the weight better be set at a level that makes it a little challenging in peoples minds. Otherwise it will be unstoppable and ruin a fledgling class. The formula for making power in these american v-8's is very known....you can get the recipe in the magazine section of Stop & Shop. I think the cars need to be heavy at least initailly to see how it shakes out. I think cars like this will be very tough to beat at tracks like Road Atlanta.

R

[xr4racer]

Make all the Mustangs the same weight at least , they are the same engine specs.

matt

[Doc Bro]

Make all the Mustangs the same weight at least , they are the same engine specs.

matt

If they are the same engine specs why does one have 10+ HP? Headers, ECU?

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let's look at it this way. This is somewhat of a controversial move to introduce a V-8 into ITR, especially given the fact that this is an IT growth class. The cars that are classed have the potential to be very expensive builds (ask Phillips what he could POTENTIALLY spend on that 968). If you're going to class a V-8 Camaro (that is the width of a tank) the weight better be set at a level that makes it a little challenging in peoples minds. Otherwise it will be unstoppable and ruin a fledgling class. The formula for making power in these american v-8's is very known....you can get the recipe in the magazine section of Stop & Shop. I think the cars need to be heavy at least initailly to see how it shakes out. I think cars like this will be very tough to beat at tracks like Road Atlanta.

R

Couple of points: The 'recipe' for power in these cars ALWAYS includes a high-performance intake manifold, a new cam and uprated air-metering device - all of which must remain stock in IT. In doing our research, when these engine builders heard those limitations, they hope for huge power gains. Torque will be the factor on how they perform IMHO because handling and braking will be way below class averages me thinks...

[lateapex911]

I frankly find it amazing that 10HP is worth that much and that the magical process doesn't factor BRAKES. Also think it is interesting that no one apparently bothered to look at the data that has been gleaned through years of racing these same cars in AS. After all the AS rules allow for both the SN95 and the FOX to be built with the same parts and yet the FOX is still lighter....interesting.

1: IT has 300 plus cars listed. It's a multi marque category.
2: AS rules are VASTLY different than IT. IT rules require stock everything in the engine except the exhaust and part of the intake tract. AS rules allow MUCH greater mods. Change one thing and the data gleaned goes out the window. Change a dozen, and you really have to be extremely careful when drawing meaningful conclusions. The AS ad hoc was consulted on this project. As were builders who have built literally thousands of engines.
3: IT is a "Warts and all" category. in other words, the classification strives to treat each car consistently. Items that are impossible to either know or pin down aren't considered. Aero? Even IF we had numbers on the cars we were classing, we can't use them for two reasons. A- we don't have numbers for every OTHER car in the class, and B- the number is meaningless once IT mods such as wheels/tires and airdams are made. Wheel fitment? That's a buyer beware item. Do you think every ITR car can fit the max wheel? I dount it. Choose wisely.

The V8s offer a combination of qualities that will be attractive to some. Simple builds, cheap parts, cheap buy in, and fun racing. Will they be the best in the land? Dunno. Will their qualities make them good choices at certain tracks? Sure! Are they heavy? yes. But remember, many cars are running in Touring at those kinds of weights.

[Doc Bro]

Couple of points: The 'recipe' for power in these cars ALWAYS includes a high-performance intake manifold, a new cam and uprated air-metering device - all of which must remain stock in IT. Torque will be the factor on how they perform IMHO because handling and braking will be way below class averages me thinks...

No Andy, that's the formula for making CRAZY power from these engines!!

I can just picture getting held up in all the corners by an ITR Camaro then getting blown away on the straights in a drag race.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

No Andy, that's the formula for making CRAZY power from these engines!!

Trust me when I tell you that anyone who builds these engines thinks you are crazy that the stock cam and intake/FI have to stay put.

I can just picture getting held up in all the corners by an ITR Camaro then getting blown away on the straights in a drag race.

R

Welcome to the world of mixed-marque racing. Isn't unique to ITR by any stretch.

[lateapex911]

No Andy, that's the formula for making CRAZY power from these engines!!

I can just picture getting held up in all the corners by an ITR Camaro then getting blown away on the straights in a drag race.

R

Just like racing me and my RX-7!

(And don't worry, just wait a few laps, They be sayin' that the weights so high that the brakes are going to assplode and catch the brush on fire... )