Problem Cars

[Bill Miller]

Interesting that the Volvo 142 is one of the model cars for ITB. I know that the 142 makes a lot less horsepower then many think. I suspect that Volvo may have been a little optimistic with the published specifications, as was common back when the car was built. It does however benefit from a very wide, flat power band which makes it accelerate better then its peak horsepower would suggest it could. It may be a perfect example for the imitations of classifing cars based on published peak horsepower.

Possibly using the 142 as a "bogie" explains why the newly classified ITB cars were a second or so faster then all the older previous front runners at the Labor Day MARRS races. And why the ITB lap record that stood for over 10 years at Summit is suddenly being reset every race by the same newly classified cars. From my limited perspective the "Process" has resulted in a loss the long standing parity in ITB.

Charlie

That speaks volumes. In that time, the track has been repaved, and DOT tires have gotten better.

/edit Last I looked, this is the 6th year that the Mk III Golf has been in ITB. Not exactly what I'd call 'newly classified'.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill highlighted the key points perfectly. A 10 year record can never be broken? The track has been repaved. Geez.

Is it possible that the top drivers have just migrated to newer equipment because its easier to find parts, good donors, ect? Point in fact - take a look in this months Sports Car - the article about Eric Curren. He takes his dads 142 out once or twice a year at LRP during a test day and runs WELL under the ITB track record...times in fact that would make some ITA guys jealous.

The point is that there is SO MUCH in play here that it really is not appropriate to say that the old stuff is being rendered uncompetitive, it just may be that because there are a few more decent choices, the new hotshoes are building different stuff.

[gran racing]

Charlie,

Summit Point could be a good example for us to discuss the impact of using that as a performance indicator / classification tool. If comparing results of cars that attended the event, a few things I’d want to know are - the level of car prep, information about the tires used throughout the event, driver experience and ability, and other information that may have played a role.

Shame about those slow old BMW 2002's.

Using on track performance without knowing more information about the cars or drivers, one might come to a conclusion that weight needs to come off the 2002s after looking at the Summit Point results. However on the flip side, the exact opposite could be concluded after looking at different results – the Mid Ohio IT Fest. I was absolutely amazed with the amount of power the 2002s had there! I was in their draft, had a good run, and they easily pulled away from me on the straights.

Volvos…I keep thinking back to a test day I attended last year at Lime Rock. Paul Curran whose a damn good racer was at the event with his son Eric. Paul was getting the car around pretty quick and running times that would have him near the front. His times were in the low 1:04s. Nothing was changed with the car, same tires, same conditions. His son Eric jumped in the car, did just a few laps and holy shit. Eric was turning 1:02.7s (which is below the track record). Note: just saw Andy post this too. lol

Even with the same exact car, using on track performance could easily produce different results in how the car should be classed.

But Charlie - if some of the "previous top dogs" (like the 142) have NOT been run through the process, shouldn't that take priority over monkeying with the cars that have? You wanna write the letter, or should I? Gary

Bingo! If you’re running a car that hasn’t been through the process, write a letter and ask for your car to be run through it. Having cars be classified by the same process is important.

[tnord]

i'm wondering why everyone thinks that should on track performance be used in any way.....that it would have to be used for every car at every event. don't you think it's more reasonable to think that they'd consider results from IT Fest and ARRC almost exclusively?