Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: V6 Mustang Classing?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Important distinction between "give it the opportunity to be competitive" and "put it where people think it will be most competitive." If that makes sense? That's an inherent problem with cars that we called "tweeners" - that didn't fall nicely into the fat part of the curve for a given class, weight-wise. Where (i.e., at what kind of tracks) they will be competitive becomes a big part of the consideration if we start talking about it qualitatively, or based on on-track performance - or anticipations thereof.

    K

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Kirk's right, the car is a tweener and a judgment call had to be made as to where it would best fit. I feel that a) the factory engine rating is correct, but very conservative; b) while the car can't make the 2470 lbs ITS classification, the car will be competitive in ITS at around 26XX to a low 27XX weight range, a weight which is entirely feasible for the car. I actually think that 25XX might be possible to get to with the best of the best light stuff and a 150 lbs driver.

    R
    Last edited by Ron Earp; 09-22-2011 at 03:40 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    Important distinction between "give it the opportunity to be competitive" and "put it where people think it will be most competitive." If that makes sense? That's an inherent problem with cars that we called "tweeners" - that didn't fall nicely into the fat part of the curve for a given class, weight-wise. Where (i.e., at what kind of tracks) they will be competitive becomes a big part of the consideration if we start talking about it qualitatively, or based on on-track performance - or anticipations thereof.

    K
    I get what you're saying, but I think Paul has a valid point; one of the basic tenets of the process is (supposedly) that unless there is solid evidence a car makes more/less than the standard gains it will be processed at the default (25%) gain factor. Now we have folks saying they believe it should make more than the standard gains, and are using that as the basis for leaving it in its current class at a weight that appears to be unobtainable. To me that is a step backwards. If the ITAC all believe the car will make more than the standard gains, it should be classed using the higher factor. If not, then class it using the default factor, and put it in a class where it can make the minimum weight. What's happening now is IMO no better than saying "well, that car did great in XXX, so let's put it in XXX class".

    I understand there are problems classing tweeners; it just really bugs me when we class cars at weights they will never be able to get within 100 lbs of.
    Earl R.
    240SX
    ITA/ST5

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    What I'm saying is that the ITAC made the decision that it should be a featherweight S car rather than a fat A car, by the Process and practices in place.

    That its architecture would make it a massive outlier in A is a post hoc consideration, and NOT a true classification factor, but as a gut check it's at least consistent...

    Ron's point about potentially better-than-standard gains is HIS justification for building something that on paper is going to be very hard - potentially impossible - to get to the minimum weight. His calculus says is not a time-waster at a real-world 2600+ pounds. That's Ron, not the ITAC.

    K

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Andover, KS
    Posts
    121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    What I'm saying is that the ITAC made the decision that it should be a featherweight S car rather than a fat A car, by the Process and practices in place.

    That its architecture would make it a massive outlier in A is a post hoc consideration, and NOT a true classification factor, but as a gut check it's at least consistent...

    Ron's point about potentially better-than-standard gains is HIS justification for building something that on paper is going to be very hard - potentially impossible - to get to the minimum weight. His calculus says is not a time-waster at a real-world 2600+ pounds. That's Ron, not the ITAC.

    K
    Thanks Kirk, as always, great insight. And Earl stated my feelings better than I did. That said, with a classification like this, is it the ITAC's philosophy to be conservative? Is this the CRX and BMW saga casting a long shadow?

    The one thing that really bugs me about it is that, going strictly by the process, it will be a slow S car, with no way to speed it up since it doesn't make spec weight to begin with. If it were in A, it would easily make weight, and if it were overly competitive, it can be slowed down.

    I'm interested to see how Ron's build turns out. I wish him the best, but I will be VERY surprised if his race weight is within 200lbs of spec weight. He's gonna need a lotta ponies...
    Paul Sherman
    Wichita Region
    '96 Neon #19 ITA (finally )
    Formerly known as P Sherm
    Joined 30 Sep 02
    Member No. 1176

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
  •