Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 73

Thread: June fastrack is up

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,083

    Default June fastrack is up

    http://www.scca.org/documents/Fastrack/09/06/09-fastrack-june.pdf

    WHAT DO YOU THINK?
    The CRB welcomes comments from the IT community about whether to allow AWD cars in the IT classes.
    dick patullo
    ner scca IT7 Rx7

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    743

    Default

    NO!!

    Just more BS for the ITAC to think about. How can they be classed fairly? Or will we have more classes (just what we need!---more effin' classes!, ITB 4x4 anyone?)

    Just so there's no confusion, I'm against it!
    Ed Funk
    NER ITA CRX, ITB Civic, ITC CRX (wanna buy a Honda?)
    Smart as a horse, hung like Einstein!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    2,942

    Default

    Probably not going to be much choice down the road, given the Subaru's and Evo's Touring inclusion.

    They do not dominate there, so some kind of equivalency is possible...

    Not enthused about this, but I can see it coming.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by dickita15 View Post
    WHAT DO YOU THINK?
    The CRB welcomes comments from the IT community about whether to allow AWD cars in the IT classes.
    Sooner or later IT will have to include forced induction and AWD. The percentage of these cars in the enthusiast market has continued to grow over the years. With new fuel economy mandates coming down the pipe you can bet that manufactures will turn to small displacement supercharged and turbocharged engines. We can't race 35 year old cars for the next 30 years can we? Or maybe we can, we are the SCCA.

    In any event, I hope I live to see the SCCA adopt newer (not really newer, but new to the SCCA) technology in the IT classes.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    I am (personally) in favor of allowing AWD cars, but not turbo cars in IT. The recurring issue with AWD cars is their "dominance" in the wet. My view is this is just another positive/negative attribute for a particular model. All IT cars have pluses and minuses, the very few AWD N/A cars that will be eligible will be the same.

    Interested in thoughts from membership.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    newington, ct
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    forced induction and AWD.
    But there's a difference between these two. I'd sure want it to get approved if I lived in Seattle.
    Dave Gran
    Real Roads, Real Car Guys – Real World Road Tests
    Go Ahead - Take the Wheel's Free Guide to Racing

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    With the open ECU and exhuast rules, turbo cars become monsters. Welcome to the world of SIR's.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Grove City, OH, USA
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    I have to go along with Ron. I believe that at some time, we will have to consider AWD and forced induction. Both have pros and cons. I believe that forced induction is allowed in other SCCA classes, so how is that managed today?
    Bill Stevens - Mbr # 103106
    BnS Racing www.bnsracing.net
    92 ITA Saturn
    83 ITB Shelby Dodge Charger
    Sponsors - Race-Keeper Data/Video Aquisition Systems www.race-keeper.com
    Simpson Performance Products - simpsonraceproducts.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
    All IT cars have pluses and minuses, the very few AWD N/A cars that will be eligible will be the same.

    Interested in thoughts from membership.
    There are relatively few AWD/non-turbo cars. Therefore I think the impact on IT would be minimal at best. But it'd be a good place to start and try the cars out.

    As I recall someone recently asked the ITAC to class a NA AWD car. I think the response was "No."

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    With the open ECU and exhuast rules, turbo cars become monsters. Welcome to the world of SIR's.
    Welcome. If the turbo AWD need SIRs then so be it. Since these cars are fitting into an existing framework of cars they can be used to try out SIRs.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    But I don't think turbo cars would fit into existing framework. Remember, it ain't stock hp that is the number that is multiplied by the target pw/weight of each class, it's the estimated power in IT trim. With the legal IT mods, these numbers skyrocket - leading to weights that are redonkulously heavy.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RacerBill View Post
    I have to go along with Ron. I believe that at some time, we will have to consider AWD and forced induction. Both have pros and cons. I believe that forced induction is allowed in other SCCA classes, so how is that managed today?
    No open ECU's and stock exhausts.

    Take a look at ANY series that allows them. They win right away and have to be brought back via comp adjustment. We don't do that. The STi's won T2 in there first year at the Runoffs...in the dry. Add the wet and it (as someone who drove one once said) 'was so easy, it was like I was cheating'.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    616

    Default

    Finally I have another option besides GT2. The Supra goes to EP!

    I doubt I will have it ready for this weekend though.
    Jerry

    Lone Star Regional Executive
    Lone Star Tech Chief.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ligonier, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,676

    Default

    donn't allow awd when track is wet or raining. :~)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post
    But I don't think turbo cars would fit into existing framework. Remember, it ain't stock hp that is the number that is multiplied by the target pw/weight of each class, it's the estimated power in IT trim. With the legal IT mods, these numbers skyrocket - leading to weights that are redonkulously heavy.
    Which pretty much solves the problem, doesn't it? If the car is classified correctly, then it's classified correctly. It's no different than classifying the new beetle at Abrahms M1 weight. Heavy, competitive and go through consumables like Patton across N. France.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Weare, NH
    Posts
    483

    Default

    .



    I think the main problem will be that the GCR 9.1.3.D.9.L will have to be changed from:


    "...All ballast shall be located in the front passenger footwell..."

    to

    "...All ballast shall be located wherever the hell you can fit all of it...."



    Attached Images Attached Images

    Glenn Lawton
    GSMmotorsports
    #14 ITS RX7
    NARRC ITS Champion 2012
    NERRC ITS Champion 2013 12 11 10 09 08
    NERRC STU Champion 2010

    __________________

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    1,893

    Default

    The comment that they are researching the belt life issue made on page 9 caught my eye.
    Chris Schaafsma
    Golf 2 HProd

    AMT Racing Engines - DIYAutoTune.com

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjjanos View Post
    Which pretty much solves the problem, doesn't it? If the car is classified correctly, then it's classified correctly. It's no different than classifying the new beetle at Abrahms M1 weight. Heavy, competitive and go through consumables like Patton across N. France.
    awesome line, that.

    I have no issue with AWD - assuming all NA - loose the toyota wagons, a few civic wagons, and other cars exluded from IT by virtue of a 5th door (how about fixing THAT??) and all you have left are base subies and what, AMC eagles? run the process, let them race.

    forced induction requires a much larger discussion and review and has nothing to do with AWD other than the combo being common offerings today.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    721

    Default

    How about a "SHOWROOMSTUCK" class for AWD Hummers?...ar...ar

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    It's really easy to point out why "we can't do xyz". It takes skill, thought, and intelligence to to figure out a solution to a problem.

    Time is moving on. Cars are making more horsepower every year. Unless we want to be saddled with racing cars with an average age somewhere around 1989, IT is going to have to evolve. That evolution will, sooner or later, need to encompass forced induction cars and AWD cars. No two ways about it.

    Or we can just stick our head in the sand. Been working fine for the SCCA for quite awhile, I'm sure it'll continue to work.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •