Correction to 5/09 Fastrack

[Doc Bro]

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

No truer words are spoken.

[Knestis]

Huzzah! (That's olde school for "I am in concordance with your statement, fine sir.")

K

[xr4racer]

The latest Fox ('93) had 205 hp and had no changes from the '89. It stands to reason that they had 205 from 1989-1993. The SN95 were 215 hp.

matt

[frnkhous]

Matt come on now, that would bring logic and reason into this process, oh wait thats what they are trying to do. I think you should be willing to look at the power rating/hp adder. Personally if you actually dynoed an ITA crx si completely stock and after prep you'd find the multiplier is way to high and the car should be lighter, but the truth is it simply was underated at the factory. You've penalized that car unfairly and it should be even lighter(Which would upset alot of people) or else your not being as subjective as you claim.

Disclaimer: I don't have an ita crx nor do I really think it should be lighter, I'm simply using it as an obvious example of doing things you claim not too as a group.

I'm sure people are still upset about its bmw classing as well for similar reasons.

Sorry, you guys actually do a pretty good job with this stuff but as matt pointed out you really dropped the ball with the mustang, and personally given the fact that mazda admits and bought back/gave money back to people with rx-8's I dunno why you'd believe the original 240hp rating in those either.

I really don't mean this as an end of the world, or a personal attack, more a way the board may not have looked at the classing complaints, look to see if you've punished cars outside the realm of expected performance in the past. The answer is yes, unless you can tell me most of you weren't there yet when the crx was last adjusted, or the e36 bmw's were moved around/adjusted

[JoshS]

and personally given the fact that mazda admits and bought back/gave money back to people with rx-8's I dunno why you'd believe the original 240hp rating in those either.

The original rating was 250. It was revised down to 238 when they bought back the cars. In our initial classification, we used 238. Not sure what you're accusing us of.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The latest Fox ('93) had 205 hp and had no changes from the '89. It stands to reason that they had 205 from 1989-1993. The SN95 were 215 hp.

matt

1990-1992 Mustang GT and LX 5.0: 225hp and 300ft/lbs.
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1990/for...378/specs.html

I have no idea what you are saying about the CRX.

[frnkhous]

Edit for simplicity

Why bother classing the fox body when you know it has worse brakes and your gonna class it heavier without more potential power?

Andy can you honestly say that you think the 90-92 cars were different than the 93 as that is what pertains to this discussion?

Also can you say that E36 BMW's and Crx si's weren't "adjusted" using the power adding % after people had shown what they were really capable of, because as I understand your "system" there isn't room for that kind of monkeying if you won't fix overated cars as well.

That is my only real point. I think the line was crossed already.

Brian

I think the fact that you can only look at a handfull of cars and even question whats done means the ITAC does an excellent job. Invisible just like the ITAC should be, I'm really only bringing this up because we don't need extra cars classed that have no reason to be built, fix the foxbody to the same as the sn95 or get rid of it.

Hopefully i've been clearer

[Andy Bettencourt]

Brian,

I guess you don't understand the system. I think all the information is on the forums. We continue to try and improve.

[frnkhous]

the 15% is the number you guys said was used, I'd have no problem with a 25% number, so long as the rating was somewhere in the ballpark of correct to begin with.... otherwise we should have a 319 crank hp rx-8 or as it stands now 278 crank hp car which simply isn't the case. My numbers and math aren't off... 170whp is a strong stock car, 210 is going to be the it number to match. 24% as you pointed out. I'm fine with that, but I think you guys knew it wasn't a 238hp car.

Whats this have to do with the mustang? Well if the head castings are the same, and the camshafts are the same, and the intakes's don't flow drastically different then just lump all the mustangs together, if anything only the foxbody should get the 50lbs brake adder and should be 50lbs lighter than the sn95... I just want some common sense applied to the formula. Nobody should build a fox body if the weight isn't brought in line with the other mustang. so it is a waste of time to class it.

I actually like the fwd % adder even though if itc cars are realigned and I understand correctly my car will gain 50lbs, thats ok with me as it is consistent and not the end of the world.

[Ron Earp]

I'm really only bringing this up because we don't need extra cars classed that have no reason to be built, fix the foxbody to the same as the sn95 or get rid of it.
Hopefully i've been clearer

Brian,

as one of the two authors of the V8 Pony car proposal let me say don't direct your ire at that ITAC. Direct it at me or Jeff Young if you like. Your point is noted and logged. I've owned many iterations of Fox Mustangs so I've got a fairly good handle on how they work out.

I didn't want to class the earlier Fox body cars because I knew precisely how the process would treat them - not kindly. The same way it treats my 260Z, 240Zs, TR8s, and many other drum brake wearing ITS cars. We don't have correction factors for drum brakes. We need to use the best factory data available when we class cars. And it might not work out that well, but you know what? You can build a 94/95 if you think that car has an advantage.

It should never be the case that you look at the IT sheets and think "whoa, that car has a huge advantage". But it might be the case, especially when we're treading lightly with all new V8 Pony classifications or RX8s, that you might look at a car and say "wow, that is classed poorly". And you might be correct, but the ITAC is doing the right thing, the process at work.

[frnkhous]

Brian,

as one of the two authors of the V8 Pony car proposal let me say don't direct your ire at that ITAC. Direct it at me or Jeff Young if you like. Your point is noted and logged. I've owned many iterations of Fox Mustangs so I've got a fairly good handle on how they work out.

I didn't want to class the earlier Fox body cars because I knew precisely how the process would treat them - not kindly. The same way it treats my 260Z, 240Zs, TR8s, and many other drum brake wearing ITS cars. We don't have correction factors for drum brakes. We need to use the best factory data available when we class cars. And it might not work out that well, but you know what? You can build a 94/95 if you think that car has an advantage.

It should never be the case that you look at the IT sheets and think "whoa, that car has a huge advantage". But it might be the case, especially when we're treading lightly with all new V8 Pony classifications or RX8s, that you might look at a car and say "wow, that is classed poorly". And you might be correct, but the ITAC is doing the right thing, the process at work.

This pretty much addresses it, I thank you, the cars are being brought it at a "safe" place with the possiblility of checking later to make sure they are correct. I'm pretty sure that the fwd adder will hurt me if all cars are run again and yet I agree with it. I would likely build a bmw or rsx way before considering any other itr cars, so I can't even really say i'm angry, more left wondering why an equally powered car could go through the system 150lbs heavier... especially over 10hp that may or may not exist. but it sounds like if fox bodies are built that would likely be addressed in the future, just not so fast as to upset the balance.

[frnkhous]

Brian,

I guess you don't understand the system. I think all the information is on the forums. We continue to try and improve.

I did, but as I understand it the crx's and bmw's were "power % adjusted" by builds that showed full potential so I wondered why the rx-8 and the fox body to a lesser extent were being hurt by an unwillingness to look at what was actually there and not at supposed "factory ratings" I think the issue with factory ratings will continue to get worse as 5% off at 100hp is 5 hp but at 200 and in itr it is now changing weight by 145lbs it will have to be addressed. The fox body is harder to acutally verify, the rx-8 numbers exist and that was my problem. I feel it has been answered though, rx-8 is being looked at, and the fox body has issues not looked at in the system.

[JLawton]

You nay sayers crack me up. If you think the Mustangs are going to be so horrible....... DON'T BUILD ONE!! Just like any other IT car, they have their pluses and minuses...

I think this is going to be a good thing for IT. It WILL bring in more drivers. I think the ITAC did a great job on accomplishing this.

Shut up and drive!!!

[xr4racer]

I do not consider myself a naysayer, I just would like to see ITR grow and this was one of my hopes for an extremely common cheaper car that could grow the class. I just do not think the weight of the FOX is going to encourage anyone to build one. I do think the SN95 will appear at racetracks though. I agree all ITR cars have plusses and minuses, but unfortunately the FOX has all minuses at this point.

matt

[roadracer12578]

You nay sayers crack me up. If you think the Mustangs are going to be so horrible....... DON'T BUILD ONE!! Just like any other IT car, they have their pluses and minuses...

I think this is going to be a good thing for IT. It WILL bring in more drivers. I think the ITAC did a great job on accomplishing this.

Shut up and drive!!!

With that attitude, my future racecar (1989 Mustang LX coupe with a V8) will not be racing in ITR.

With that attitude, you will never grow this class.

With that attitude, you will continue to get the exodus to NASA.

If you read through some other forums (which I am sure some of you do), then you know that this has generated some interest in the V8 crowd. The talk is that CMC cars or even CMC2 cars could cross easily.

As a future returning racer, the attitiude exhibited by Mr. Lawton is one reason why I was never interested in the SCCA in the first place.

The "don't piss in my sandbox" mentality really does surface from time to time.

A naysayer? No.

A realist about a Fox bodied Mustang? Yes. The Official Ford Mustang 5.0 Technical Reference & Performance Handbook by Al Kirschenbaum should have been required reading when classifying the Fox Mustang.

FWIW, a 1993 Mustang GT is listed as weighing 3250 lbs.

I implore the powers that be to look at these items again.

Matt

[JeffYoung]

No need to implore -- if you think Ron and proposed, and the ITAC adopted, the wrong process weight for these cars, write a letter.

The difference in weight is based on stock hp. That's how the process works. If we have the stock hp wrong, or expected gain wrong, write in with evidence, although I challenge anyone here to claim they have more Ford/Mustang knowledge than Ron. Ron's the most whacked out pro Ford guy I know; this was not a screw job on the Fox.

Note also that many of the "Fox handicaps" raised here are either not factored into the process, or present on the SN95 as well.

We just, on the ITAC, can't account on a single pound basis for every handicap or advantage any particular has. Is it "perfectly fair" that the Fox weighs more than an SN95? Maybe not. Is it "IT process fair?" Absolutely.

I would also suggest that the Fox does have one advantage over the 94/95 Mustang -- there are MILLIONS of them out there.

But again, if you think:

a. Stock hp used in classing was wrong; or

b. Expected power gain was wrong...

Then write in with your evidence.

Thanks.

Jeff

[JLawton]

With that attitude, my future racecar (1989 Mustang LX coupe with a V8) will not be racing in ITR.

With that attitude, you will never grow this class.

With that attitude, you will continue to get the exodus to NASA.

If you read through some other forums (which I am sure some of you do), then you know that this has generated some interest in the V8 crowd. The talk is that CMC cars or even CMC2 cars could cross easily.

As a future returning racer, the attitiude exhibited by Mr. Lawton is one reason why I was never interested in the SCCA in the first place.

The "don't piss in my sandbox" mentality really does surface from time to time.

A naysayer? No.

A realist about a Fox bodied Mustang? Yes. The Official Ford Mustang 5.0 Technical Reference & Performance Handbook by Al Kirschenbaum should have been required reading when classifying the Fox Mustang.

FWIW, a 1993 Mustang GT is listed as weighing 3250 lbs.

I implore the powers that be to look at these items again.

Matt

I really, REALLY don't think the Mustangs being classed heavy is the end to IT as we know it..

How I SHOULD have stated my comments is that it is easy to complain but if you truely feel passionate about, get involved in the process. Help these guys out, do some research for them, whatever. These guys worked very hard to put this together. They volunteer to do this.

But don't just complain................

[Ron Earp]

Hey Matt,

I understand what you are saying and I do agree with you. This is exactly what I was trying to avoid and could have done so by simply leaving the 89-93 cars out of the proposal. I knew the cars would fit oddly.

I know a little bit about Mustangs but not nearly as much as some Ford guys. But Jeff is right about one aspect of my involvement, I am pro-Ford (and GM too) regarding the Pony cars and as one proposers wasn't out to screw Fox chassis cars.

It is a large step for the ITAC/BoD to class these cars, it really is. Big step. The proposal was drafted up in late 2007 and submitted in Jan 2008. The debating and so on took over a year. The SCCA moves slowly and that is just how it is. The simplier the proposal was the better the chance of it being accepted.

At least there are some V8 Pony cars in IT. Maybe they are not all classed perfectly. But there is a base to work from and the possibility of future adjustments.

I've been thinking about the Fox chassis too and doing some additional research. Write a letter to the BoD and explain your points. Write an email to me, maybe we can work together to draft up an amendment for minor corrections. I'd be happy to work with you on it.

Ron

[Tristan Smith]

From reading through the thread I take it that the Mustang is being classed at 3250lbs? WOW, so V8 power, more torque, and at the same weight of my 300zx? hmmmmmmmmm. I think the Ford guys have nothing to complain about.

[Ron Earp]

From reading through the thread I take it that the Mustang is being classed at 3250lbs? WOW, so V8 power, more torque, and at the same weight of my 300zx? hmmmmmmmmm. I think the Ford guys have nothing to complain about.

And neither do the GM guys. Bit more weight, but a bit more power, good chassis. Be interesting in ITR should all these various cars come out to play.