December Fastrack is out!

[spnkzss]

With the RX8 "fixed", all that needs is a drop for the S2000 and ITR is going to take off.

[Ron Earp]

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!

Yep, I have a feeling it'd be impossible. But, the process doesn't worry too much about that and at least the car has a chance at something lower than 2850 lbs.

[benspeed]

I think the RX8 will now be much more of a threat at that weight of 2850 - Yep - time to get the 968 motor done over the winter. It'll be about 9/10s this spring. Right now its 8/10s at best - I think Kip has his S2 pretty close to 10/10ths.

Jake - just had the kart redone - bigger carb, better header :-) Now to find snow tires for it....my 12 year old son is almost faster than me - he can do a mean Joey Chitwood for about 20 feet

[Tristan Smith]

How about taking a 100lbs off the 300zx........the RX8 I saw at Barber Motorpsorts Park this year looked pretty quick to me.

[benspeed]

Tristan - you are likely more ticked about that weight reduction than I am. You pork out at 3250 or so for the 300ZX?

[GKR_17]

It's all spelled out in the beginning of the ITCS.

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

You both should definitely know better. Read it again.

The ITCS allows for weight changes based on on track performance after the second, third, and fourth year of classification. Not after the first.

Or is the CRB trying to call this an error? Maybe this is why we can't have a published process? Back to the old cloak and dagger system then?

[Tristan Smith]

Tristan - you are likely more ticked about that weight reduction than I am. You pork out at 3250 or so for the 300ZX?

Yep, 3250lbs. I am sure when my car is "proven" not to be competitive they will adjust it, like they seem to have no problem doing, with the other cars.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Tristan,

Your weight is based on 235ish whp in IT trim for a full build. If you think it can make that number, it's weighted correctly for ITR.

S2000 needs to make 225ish, RX-8 = 215ish, 968 = 223ish.

[seckerich]

Andy what is the target HP for the 944?

[Tristan Smith]

Tristan,

Your weight is based on 235ish whp in IT trim for a full build. If you think it can make that number, it's weighted correctly for ITR.

S2000 needs to make 225ish, RX-8 = 215ish, 968 = 223ish.

Andy, what is that based on? Just stock horsepower with the usual 15 percent improvement?

[Andy Bettencourt]

205whp

[seckerich]

You both should definitely know better. Read it again.

The ITCS allows for weight changes based on on track performance after the second, third, and fourth year of classification. Not after the first.

Or is the CRB trying to call this an error? Maybe this is why we can't have a published process? Back to the old cload and dagger system then?

Not true completely. The 2005 RX8 is now able to be classed with proper data so they were free to look at the numbers. It still makes 215 at best and is well within the process weight compared to the cars it will race against. I do think the S2000 and 300Z need to be looked at. No possible way the 300 can run with the ITR cars at over 3200 pounds. It may go down the straights but is will never corner or race well. I will write a letter supporting Tristan when you get that car on track. I don't think we need to get too upset until we see how they match up. Keep in mind the fastest ITR car at the ARRC still ran a slower lap than an ITS car.

PS. I sent cheesecake to all the CRB members in exchange for the weight break. Especially after all the nice things I said about them in the last year. Yes, I am kidding.

[seckerich]

205whp

Thanks Andy, I knew the spec 944 was making an honest 200+ and figured more from the 944 in IT build.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, what is that based on? Just stock horsepower with the usual 15 percent improvement?

IT-prep improvements range from 15% to 50%. Standard number is 25% when there is no data to estimate with. The 300Z uses 30%, as do the 6cyl BMW's. Given the SSA 300XZ data we had to work with, those power levels should be very attainable.

[Greg Amy]

Hmmm. Just noticed they've changed the GCR 8.1.4 (compliance pre-review) process, and more than tripled the cost. Methinks the prior drop from $250 to a two-step review/appeal process (for $125/$175 respectively) probably garnered them a lot of customers...

Well, all that's gonna do is force it through the cheaper at-track protest/appeal process instead.

[xr4racer]

Ron, I saw the article in Sportscar. I do not know the difference in HP between the Dynojet and the DynaPack that they used. Maybe RX-8's with a good tune can make 218 or so but I do not think they will last. I also do not know how lean that car was tuned, I would imagine you could go leaner on an autocross car than a roadracer.

matt

[Tristan Smith]

IT-prep improvements range from 15% to 50%. Standard number is 25% when there is no data to estimate with. The 300Z uses 30%, as do the 6cyl BMW's. Given the SSA 300XZ data we had to work with, those power levels should be very attainable.

If you ever get a free moment and think about it, would you mind sending me that info? I would like a look at it.

I think the ZX is going to be a pig regardless of the hp ratings. I think a lot the ITR cars are under "tired" for their weight. I never understood why the BMW's 8.5 wide rims were arbitrarily choosen for the class size. They may be common for that car but 9" rims would have been cheaper and more widely available. But, heck I have two sets now, so i don't want to change that rule! ha.

[JeffYoung]

Tristan, pm me about that dyno sheet, it was for the car I own. Or better yet, shoot me an e-mail at [email protected].

Thanks.

Jeff

[Dave Gomberg]

Hmmm. Just noticed they've changed the GCR 8.1.4 (compliance pre-review) process, and more than tripled the cost. Methinks the prior drop from $250 to a two-step review/appeal process (for $125/$175 respectively) probably garnered them a lot of customers...

Well, all that's gonna do is force it through the cheaper at-track protest/appeal process instead.

Leaving aside your questionable arithmetic, the reason for the change is that almost everyone who has availed themselves of the 8.1.4 process has gone on to the second stage because if the first court found against them, they pursued the second stage in the hope (sometimes realized) that the CoA would overturn the first court, or if the first court found in their favor, they realized that without the CoA confirmation, they didn't have a bullet-proof approval. Because the second stage was not automatic, the total time to process a compliance review was increased while the person filing the request was contacted. The process had always been bundled until the last couple of years. The separation was put in place with the expectation that some would not use the second stage, but that didn't happen. So this is simply a reversion to prior practice.

Dave

[Greg Amy]

...almost everyone who has availed themselves of the 8.1.4 process has gone on to the second stage...

...but not "all"? So, why not make it optional? Leaving aside your questionable arithmetic (the "prior practice" was actually $250, not $300) that cost is most assuredly a distinct disincentive.

What would I know, though: the last one we submitted wasn't even heard by the committee, sent back with a note that it should not have been submitted in the first place, implying that we were abusing the process (we now use the much lesser-expensive protest and appeal process).

...without the CoA confirmation, they didn't have a bullet-proof approval.

Oh, you mean that "bullet-proof approval that reverts back to the GCR after the current calendar year...? I guess $300 just doesn't get you near as far as it used to...

GA

P.s. Yep, you're right: $300 is only 2.4 times the cost of submitting the original $125 request, not 3x. My bad!