Street tires in IT? My Review

[Xian]

Please post the independently tested technical data showing the gain and durability.

I would but...

Hope in one hand and crap in the other. I know which one will fill first.

I'm too busy filling up one of my hands...

[StephenB]

Street tires are still slower then 10+ heat cycled Hoosiers.

Please don't push for a change over to street tires in IT. To much on the line to lose for IT... like participation!

Thanks,
Stephen

[jjjanos]

Ron-one of my points was that IT HAS become a destination class, partly because of the failure of ALL the national sedan classes (GT, Production, SS) as well as the failure of national racing in general. And that's a problem!
IT was envisioned as a cheap, fun, low rent entry level class and it WAS.
I have hung around here and occasionally put my 2 cents in because I still care about the class, and I have argued for rules stasis. The realignment was OK and the ITAC operations manual a good thing. The rules creep, even due to seemingly benign changes, not good!! People argue that if everyone ran street tires, the serious guys would still, by driving skill and/or car development, prevail, and of course, they would.
But the also rans would be a lot closer to the point of the spear when a tire budget was no longer such an effective band-aid to well heeled contestants! I like that idea a lot! I've raced on REALLY slick street tires and am here to tell ya', it's just as exciting and challenging at 11/10s when you are restrained by traction as it is on purple crack, maybe even more so. I'm thinking B and C should go for it and see how it fleshes out.



And while on my soapbox, Another pet idea: start classifying newer cars into B&C with stock engines and manifolds (no headers) and stock ECUs*. IT B&C are suffering because newer cars are becoming more powerful and sophisticated and thus, little suited for B and C. Requiring stock engines would realign the power to weight calculus and make many econoboxes (CHEAP!!) available and eligible! A huge amount of development is required to be highly competitive (header design, +.040 overbore, blueprinting, raising compression to spec+.49!) which requires unnecessary $$$. This might bring an astonishing rebirth of the real IT entry level classes. A junkyard engine @$400 could become a pretty attractive deal.

*old rules-rewrite chips if you want; don't allow other changes inside the box but don't worry about how thou police it because with stock motors a/ there's not much to gain and b/how seriously are we supposed to take this shit? A lot of what is wrong IMO (free ECU/management stuff) was because we were too intellectual and not practical about enforcement issues. And the old "but look what happened to showroom stock" argument. Again, if someone is SO serious about winning that they cheat, which would entail blueprinting, etc, what else is new?
we have the same problem now, and enforcement/detection is perhaps even more difficult with the existing IT rules. Who has an Opel GT cam profile? B20E Volvo? There may be a template for a 2002 cam, but who is going to risk paying for a teardown, or for that matter, how to practically teardown and check an E46 cam?
Reality! What a concept. We must be practical unless we're all millionaires, but then we should race Porsche Cup and get the fuck out of IT and return it to the young dreamers that started it so long ago.

rant mode off

I have a hard time reconciling the "I just want to put a cage in my car" mantra in the above post with those who say that we are losing #s to other groups because "I want to do an engine swap" or "what do you mean I can't run my pimpy carbon-fiber hood?"

[mossaidis]

extremist!!

[StephenB]

I feel like we are losing to both, but then I look at NASA PT that allows for both to play together and that isn't any stronger in regards to participation... I think what we have is pretty awesome and some of us should embrace it rather than want to change it.

Stephen

[Knestis]

And while on my soapbox, Another pet idea: start classifying newer cars into B&C with stock engines and manifolds (no headers) and stock ECUs*. IT B&C are suffering because newer cars are becoming more powerful and sophisticated and thus, little suited for B and C. Requiring stock engines would realign the power to weight calculus and make many econoboxes (CHEAP!!) available and eligible! A huge amount of development is required to be highly competitive (header design, +.040 overbore, blueprinting, raising compression to spec+.49!) which requires unnecessary $$$. This might bring an astonishing rebirth of the real IT entry level classes. A junkyard engine @$400 could become a pretty attractive deal. ...

It was a formative moment for me when (admittedly years ago) I learned that a Showroom Stock spec Pontiac/Chevrolet V8 race engine cost more than a GT version of the same powerplant - from the same builder.

There's a whole raft of cars out there that fit the stock power parameters for ITB. We just have to list them.

The big answer re: engines is the same as for street tires: It is simply not possible to contain costs through rules. If someone really wanted to just "cage it and go," they could do exactly that. Run a "junkyard motor" in any IT car. No problem. But folks want to be able to do that AND be competitive... Which is fine until someone pushes the envelope a little (balance and blueprint to "stock") because they want to be competitive, too. And we all go...

:026:

K

[pfcs]

It was a formative moment for me when (admittedly years ago) I learned that a Showroom Stock spec Pontiac/Chevrolet V8 race engine cost more than a GT version of the same powerplant - from the same builder.

There's a whole raft of cars out there that fit the stock power parameters for ITB. We just have to list them.

The big answer re: engines is the same as for street tires: It is simply not possible to contain costs through rules. If someone really wanted to just "cage it and go," they could do exactly that. Run a "junkyard motor" in any IT car. No problem. But folks want to be able to do that AND be competitive... Which is fine until someone pushes the envelope a little (balance and blueprint to "stock") because they want to be competitive, too. And we all go...

:026:

K

All true-no argument here. My SS thought flowed from early IT experience when I realized that if I wanted a 10/10ths build, the motor necessarily had to come out and apart to get the compression to within +.5 of the spec which in reality, after measurement, was closer to +.7 higher than spec due to actual chamber volume +some more from valve recession due to (legal) optimization of Volvo seats. Then there was the pretty obligatory +.030 or .040" overbore and pistons-all this because the rules demand it if one wants to be competitive. Doing these mods to our "stock" motors is expensive, and unnecessary, especially the overbore. Contemporary blocks hardly ever need it! It's from 1963 prod rules when British motors wore out in 75000 miles for chrissake. Just ditching the overbore allowance would be a quantum improvement. It would make it practical to only pull the head to prep/spec it, and go. If you want to go for that last bit and REALLY blueprint the motor, go right ahead, but I promise you, I wouldn't and I would be competitive!


Kirk-you know what the reality is here! There can be cheating done in IT that is every bit as difficult to police practically speaking as SS was. (I would say that some of the cams I mentioned are impossible to spec). If someone wants to cheat with SS motors or current IT builds, they will and in most cases, unless it is blatant, it will go unfound and unproven. We don't need to nitpick rules and throw out common sense. SS took the legality/blueprinting issues to an extreme case given the manufacturers support and advertising associated with the then high visibility national championships (ask me about Griff and the race-truck engines). We are throwing out the baby with the bathwater if we take the old SS argument.
ITB and ITC seem like a perfect place to look at re-creating an economical sandbox to play in. Allow baffled pans and instruments, but stock engine from throttle-body to exhaust manifold flange. Blue-print away if you want, but just like getting off purple crack, this PROFOUNDLY reduces the cost to compete with newer econoboxes and removes much granularity in the field. (the midfield will be much closer to the front row in performance/it will make it more of a driver's class)
You will still be able to do ALL the chassis stuff that made IT so much better than SS and the new B & C cars will be closer to the intent of the class than the current trailer queens.

Build it and they will come-and my hunch is there will be a lot of them. And when they get tired, they can always move to the next levels (A, S, & R) But if it was anything like my experiences in B, if we keep it simple and keep it economical, I'd never leave!

EDIT-and one final thought-you might include some language specific to the newly-classed stock motored cars added to B & C: "they are to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications. This class is intended to allow a variety of popular inexpensive cars to be eligible; those outside those parameters will not be classified"

[Knestis]

So, I'll bite. Write the rule to accomplish what you envision...

I'll save you the trouble of relying on the word "stock" because Showroom Stock was "stock" and cost IT-quality dough (or more) on the open market.

K

EDIT - It would be interesting to look at the Touring engine rules. Maybe what you are really proposing is T5 and t6.

[jjjanos]

You want to make it cheaper to run? Great proposes some rules. You want to make it cheaper to run in the top of the field? No. No. No. No.

Your proposal is a lube less pranging of every owner of a current ITB driver. Their cars instantly become worthless. Hey! You can run this ITA car (with which it is easy to cheat) and spend nada on engine prep and development or you can run this real ITB car that you'll have to spend more money on when it's time to rebuild the engine.

Thank you no. That can of worms was opened long ago and you can't put the worms back. If it had been in place from day 1, yes.

You want to run your stock engine car and have fun? Great! You already can do that.! STFU and race. That isn't your request. You're demanding being able to run up front too. Nope.

[pfcs]

So, I'll bite. Write the rule to accomplish what you envision...
I'll save you the trouble of relying on the word "stock" because Showroom Stock was "stock" and cost IT-quality dough (or more) on the open market.
K
EDIT - It would be interesting to look at the Touring engine rules. Maybe what you are really proposing is T5 and t6.

Yes, SS engine prep coast IT quality dough, but the return was much less (% power increase of legal prep). And there's less motivation when the return ratio is less favorable, especially in a regional class full of econo-boxes running street tires vs manufacturer supported televised National Championship Races.
A central point of my idea is that practically speaking, we're already there (the legality issue). There is a whole lot of areas to cheat in IT already that, in actual practice, are almost impossible to nail. It's just a reality. I think a major reason for keeping it regional is that policing it is near impossible, especially some cams, castings, etc.

I'm out of the loop these days-membership expired 2 years ago. I don't even know what T5/T6 ARE. I'm just throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks. This will need to be a torch carried by the next generation. I hope it happens. Those that were around in 84-~90 must remember. Like the time at the Glenn ITB was it's own race-group-we had 50 cars! Those days were really something. Everybody had someone to race with and it was cheap and reliable sport.
I've always thought outside the box and I was real serious about maximizing the package. People will go there-I did and it worked-but if we do this, money won't carry near as much weight. Building a competitive car will look much more do-able to any number of just-plain-folks now sitting on the sidelines dreaming.
No shit!

[Ron Earp]

Build it and they will come-and my hunch is there will be a lot of them. if we keep it simple and keep it economical, I'd never leave!

Your baseball field is calling - LeChump.

[pfcs]

Your baseball field is calling - LeChump.

Your cynicism isn't helpful.
Why don't you go polish your GT-40 or do I have you confused with somebody?

[Ron Earp]

Actually, it is somewhat constructive for a matter of perspective.

IT has been "the IT you don't like" for longer than it was the "IT you liked". The late 90s saw competitors becoming serious about IT builds, people farming parts of their build out to professional shops, and the overall bar of the class creeping upwards. By the 2000 that was in full swing with professional shops building cars and drivers with pro aspirations running in IT.

Be careful or you'll get the class with want is often mentioned on IT.com, but it is entirely true. The then-majority of IT racers created the IT that we have now.

IT has many challenges ahead of it and I'm concerned about its future. But, I'm also certain that creating new rules to try and reset the class back to 1984 won't be successful and will not breathe new life in IT. As others have mentioned, there are some fundamental problems with that approach that have been proven to not work in racing classes. The proverbial cat is out of the bag.

Lemons and Chump have extremely successful programs where racers are competing in economical cars, with minimal modifications, on street tires. I don't know if the SCCA will be able to create a new class to steal their thunder, but it would take the creation of a new class to have a chance of accomplishing that goal. Trying to morph a 30 year old class back into what it was in the first third of its existence, or to change it into competition for a fundamentally different class, is only going to diminish the ranks of current IT drivers and irrevocably damage a successful revenue generating category.

I do not have a GT40, and if you know me then you'd know I'm not a polisher, therefore I must conclude that you've confused me with someone else.

[dickita15]

I can see Phil’s point that IT has evolved into something beyond where it was 30 years ago, a class for guys to race aged out Showroom Stock cars cheap. Over that 30 years IT has evolved to serious credible competition. I think SCCA should be better at offering ways to race for those that want to race with as little expense and hassle as possible but IT is not that place. Adding a “limited Prep” subcategory within IT is just has too high a risk of screwing up a very successful set of classes.
Again we need to find a way to embrace easy racing, and we are working on it, but IT is not that place.

[jjjanos]

Lemons and Chump have a extremely successful programs where racers and competing in economical cars, with minimal modifications, on street tires. I don't know if the SCCA will be able to create a new class to steal their thunder, but it would take the creation of a new class to have a chance of accomplishing that goal.

Whoa... way too many differences between le Chump and us.

1. It isn't a program where racers are competing. It's a program where anybody who wants to drive on a track can compete. It's a giant game of who gets nailed by the retard this week.
2. It isn't a place where people compete in economical cars with minimal modifications on street tires. It's a place where people compete on street tires with illegal cars that, as long as the cheating isn't to egregious or blatant, you are legal.
3. And nobody was all that illegal because it wasn't srz bzns, but as people become more hard core, the cost of running up front will too and the only check on that creep is a dictator who gets to make arbitrary and capricious decrees.

[Flyinglizard]

Put it out for member input, along with wheel size option to 7in for B and C. Pretty sure that the results will surprise.
Every 20 yrs or so, SCCA should look back and see what went wrong and adjust to modern parts availability. The IT tires have changed the feel of the class and the wheels have moved up in size, simple .

When a set of wheels and tires can cost less that 1 set of sticker Hoes, and last allyear maybe that should get thought about . .

Some body said that 180 tires had issues with the heavier FWD cars. Proper set up and pressure overcome/trim to these tires. You may need 41ish front pressure and 50 ish rear to get the same balance. The side walls are softer adn the tire rolls over a bit more.
The harder tires dont need as much spring but seem to tolerate a fairly hard setup also. Soft springs make more grip with any tire until you lose dynamic camber control.
There are plenty of front running heavy FWD cars on these tires. Mistu 3000GT, Ford Probe V6, Prelude,Ford SHO, all have multi CC race wins. ( yes, all have my book).
Off to test the new crap can , Nissan 300ZX.

[Ron Earp]

Whoa... way too many differences between le Chump and us.

No arguments from me on your points. I well understand them too.

But IT can't be made into what he wants and LeChump is the closest thing out there to his ideal racing class.

[pfcs]

My vision is of full current allowed IT chassis prep. Except for running 180 tires, nothing too look at here folks, move along.
And stock motors for newly classed contemporary cars (with much lower prep gains since they will have stock exhaust manifolds, no overbore, no half point compression increase)
The engine prep will be negligible expense and going full bore will cost a lot less; a well prepared car with a good valve job will be competitive and winning become a possibility for the budget minded with a good shoe.
It will allow many cars to become SENSIBLE additions to B & C-New Beetle?-at realistic weights that don't require drastic diets.
What has always been the critical aspect of IT was that the sensible chassis improvements provided the maximum bang for the buck while keeping costs low-Brilliant! The motors? A lot of money for nowhere near as much improvement, kind of like getting banged for bucks.
And certainly NOT LeChump!!

EDIT "But IT can't be made into what he wants and LeChump is the closest thing out there to his ideal racing class."

You don't know ME pal! The last time I raced was 2004 NARRC runoff at Limerock. I drove my 88 Golf to the track with my wheelchair on the passenger's floor. I was on pole after the first greasy session. Second session I was stymied by SM traffic and didn't improve, but morning time was till good for 2nd in ITB. I finished 2nd. I won the NYSRRC championship in B that year. The only race I didn't dive the car to was the ARRC where I wrote it of and my wife retired me. The car was 10//10ths IT prep + hand controls. I loved the car and I (still) love the class.
It is definitely MY class. The question might be appropriate-is it your's too? Can we agree to disagree? Can you consider that unless we do something different C is dead and B's prospects not so great long term as newer cars get faster every year? The is NO argument that car counts have declined precipitously since ~95-2000. Classifying exotic/expensive stuff in the upper classes isn't ideal, but OK I guess, especially for the upper class. But the feedstock of IT was always the Joe every-mans econobox, the car everyone had at one time or other, and the credible dream that they could build one and go racing on a middle class budget and that winning could be more than just a dream. That's MY class.

[dickita15]

And stock motors for newly classed contemporary cars (with much lower prep gains since they will have stock exhaust manifolds, no overbore, no half point compression increase)

well when you say it that way maybe it does make some sense

[jjjanos]

Why don't you just impose a $1000 tax on every owner of a current car that could run B or C and give the money to someone who wants to build a car? That is the functional equivalent of what you suggest. Your screwing everyone in the class that already did the build.

Or outlaw the current motors entirely so we can share the pain with ITA and ITS and ITR?