December Fastrack is out!

[Rabbit07]

I like the changes to the Mustang in ITS and the RX-8 in ITR!

[quadzjr]

So now we can run whatever sensors or air metereing devices we want, and chuck the stuff that came with the car?

"Item 1. Effective 1/1/10: Change section 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 as follows:
The engine management computer may be altered or replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may be added or replaced. A
MAP or MAF sensor and its wiring may be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted
for equivalent units."

[Ron Earp]

This is a clarification that appears in this fastrack:

1. Clarify section 9.1.3.D.1.a.4 by adding a sentence after the first sentence: “All air must also pass through the stock air metering
device, eg MAF, or AFM, etc if so equipped.”

[JeffYoung]

No!

We changed that just to allow folks to add a MAF for systems that use a MAF.

You still have to use the stock air intake track, and the stock metering device must be there.

So now we can run whatever sensors or air metereing devices we want, and chuck the stuff that came with the car?

"Item 1. Effective 1/1/10: Change section 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 as follows:
The engine management computer may be altered or replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may be added or replaced. A
MAP or MAF sensor and its wiring may be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted
for equivalent units."

[JoshS]

So now we can run whatever sensors or air metereing devices we want, and chuck the stuff that came with the car?

"Item 1. Effective 1/1/10: Change section 9.1.3.D.1.a.6 as follows:
The engine management computer may be altered or replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may be added or replaced. A
MAP or MAF sensor and its wiring may be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted
for equivalent units."

MAPs or MAF may be **added**. You can't chuck what came with the car. Nothing new here about other sensors. The only change is to this rule is that the two words "or MAF" was added.

[924Guy]

Amusing note: talking about members/competitors unhappy with the shorter life of some safety harnesses. I'm glad that they do appear to be paying attention to us. I'm not so happy to hear that the information currently available is insufficient to make a decision one way or the other. Yet it was judged sufficient to change the rule a couple years ago.

At least they are taking the step to retain a professional auto safety expert to help resolve the issue.

Hope he/she's not an SFI member!?!

[924Guy]

Don't forget also, in case anyone missed it - no more emails to the CRB for input, now there's a website form with tracking capabilities:
http://www.crbscca.com/

[benspeed]

How the heck did the RX8 score that weight reduction???? Not loving that one bit :-(

Or more specifically - what was the criteria used that established this car should be at a lower weight than originally classed? That was over 100 pounds dropped...

[JeffYoung]

Incorrect stock hp used initially. Lower than expected gain in IT trim, based on various dyno sheets received by the ITAC.

[xr4racer]

The RX-8 is now classed as it should have been, hopefully people will bring them out and boost ITR's numbers. The weight is as low as you could possibly attain in IT trim with a 200lb driver. Next should be the Fox body Mustangs in ITR.

matt

[RSTPerformance]

I thought it was against the rules to change a cars weight?

[JoshS]

I thought it was against the rules to change a cars weight?

Not a newly-classified car. It's all spelled out in the beginning of the ITCS.

[lateapex911]

Man, I don't know how many times I've typed this......

No changes to cars classified for 5 yrs or more. Adjustments ok for cars less than 5. It's in the ITCS.

Ben, relax. Think about it this way:
E36: known hp to the wheels, 217. weight 2760. tq? stout. brakes, vry good, handling, vry good.
RX-8: known power to wheels. 210-212. (215 was used), weight 2850. tq? tq? tq? Bueller? Bueller?. brakes and handling very good.

Further, word is it they go through transmissions like Dunkin Donuts goes thru coffee at 7AM on Monday mornings.

Still worried?
You coooould build that mill or yours, instead of carting around the 'club'.

[JeffYoung]

I have heard the grumbling about the Fox Mustang v. the SN94, and have to remind you guys that the "perception" the Fox is at a disadvantage to the SN94 doesn't mean it gets a weight change.

We still do use the process on new cars, and the classed Fox and SN94 cars have essentially the same specs......and the differences aren't things we account for in the process.

So, barring some evidence that the IT gain in hp is different between the two, they will stay at the weights at which they are set.

The RX-8 is now classed as it should have been, hopefully people will bring them out and boost ITR's numbers. The weight is as low as you could possibly attain in IT trim with a 200lb driver. Next should be the Fox body Mustangs in ITR.

matt

[Ron Earp]

RX-8: known power to wheels. 210-212. (215 was used), weight 2850. tq? tq? tq? Bueller? Bueller?. brakes and handling very good.

Did you see the RX8 results in the latest issue of Sportcar? Fairly impressive and through a catalytic converter, 221 wheel hp. I don't know anything else than what was in the article and wouldn't think it'd amount to anything for the IT weight anyhow due to dyno differences and all that good stuff.

I have heard the grumbling about the Fox Mustang v. the SN94, and have to remind you guys that the "perception" the Fox is at a disadvantage to the SN94 doesn't mean it gets a weight change.
.

Man, I knew that putting those Fox chassis cars in that proposal was trouble. We were damned if we did, and damned if we didn't. I didn't want to put them in because of:

a) this hp/weight problem
b) people would be asking for brake allowances on the cars

Want to race a V8 Mustang? Race the SN95 chassis and like it, they are damn cheap to purchase. Just impossible to please all the people all the time.

[Rabbit07]

How did the ITS Mustang weight get so messed up that it needed a 400 lbs break?

[JeffYoung]

Because it was originally classed using the old "curb weight" formula, and not based on stock hp.

It was probably more "off" than any other car in the ITCS.

[Ron Earp]

How did the ITS Mustang weight get so messed up that it needed a 400 lbs break?

I wrote the letter that ended up in that car's reclassification. The car has 140hp stock and there is no evidence to suggest that it'll gain any more in IT trim than any other car in ITS. It appears that it was classed as Jeff says using the old "rule of thumb" method that incorporated curb weight, and, then it was missed in the Great Realignment.

With the new weight I think the car could be a contender in ITS. Anybody wants to buy my Z I'll build one a ITS Mustang and let you know.

Ron

[Rabbit07]

You may have a hard time getting the SN 95 car to 2470? I worked like crazy to get an fox body ITB car to 2600!

[tom91ita]

How did the ITS Mustang weight get so messed up that it needed a 400 lbs break?

the domination of the ITS RX-7 at the ARRC?