January 2014 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

If someone is asking for a dual classification, in my opinion, at least in some cases they know something the ITAC doesn't and are seeking an advantage.

Whaaa...? Using that logic, any member requests for reclassification should also be viewed in the same cynical light and should be immediately rejected.

In almost all cases, there generally IS a "right" class for the car that comes from acheivable weight and achievable HP.

I don't advocate wholesale dual-classification. But I do advocate making it a viable tool for the ITAC to give consideration to dual-classing where appropriate.

You can always say "no". I'm just requesting to give you the ability to say "yes" once in a while.

- GA

[jjjanos]

What three IT classes is it in?

Didn't say IT.

[Chip42]

Didn't say IT.

1st gen CRX is in ITC and B (Si) 2nd gen CRX IS in 3 classes IIRC, C (lowly cars), B (DX/Std), and A (Si). as is the civic of the era (EF chassis).

Other notable "multiple IT class" models (by body and model, separated by trim)
Del Sol is in S A and B
96-00 civic in A and S (could add B for the Y7 if requested)
RSX is in 2 (-s in R, regular in A or S)
DC Integra in 3 (LS/RS A, GS-R S, Type-R R)
2000 era celica is in 2 (GTS in ITR, GT in ITA)
ZZE corollas are in 2 (XRS in S, rest in A)
1st gen RX7 (GSL and under in A/7, GSL-SE in S)
SN95 mustang (V6 S, V8 R)
many BMWs
...

and we do have dual classification on some BMW(s?) and a prelude, both into S and R.

[ShelbyRacer]

Right, but IIRC, the BMW is one of only 2 "true" duals, with both the same body AND powerplant in two classes. Even then, the S car has a SIR... I guess the Prelude needs attention.

Heck, even my lowly Shelby Charger is in 4 classes that I can recall (ITB, EP, FP, GT3). Theoretically, I could get it classified in SPU as well...

[Chip42]

My point was only that on track confusion already exists inside IT.. when one body can be a B A or S car, you can't rely on "knowing the model in your mirror", you need to know the livery, class, driver, etc... or just know when you are getting passed, man up, and deal with it.

[JeffYoung]

Prelude was is like an appendix. I think it and the 4th gen Supra were classed in ITS and then when we did R, we mistakenly put them there as well. Not done intentionally.

Only one done intentionally was the BMW, and the members have spoken. I don't remember the last time I saw an ITS E36 when at one time (sans SIR of course) it was one of the three most popular cars in the class.

[Greg Amy]

Only one done intentionally was the BMW, and the members have spoken. I don't remember the last time I saw an ITS E36 when at one time (sans SIR of course) it was one of the three most popular cars in the class.

Exactly. Who made that choice, the ITAC/CRB or the membership...?

Why shouldn't those persons be allowed to do so in other cases as well? Or does the current ITAC/CRB have some glorious insight as to which way future choices would go...?

The members speak...but only if you let them.

- GA

[Knestis]

One of the sticky points on some of these cars is that they also have stock HP numbers outside the typical envelope for the class (Civic Si is certainly one in ITA, but there are others to be looked at). ...

It may be the case that, more than we really understand, the differences between classes are about total power, rather than power-to-weight ratios. I'm basing that thinking on some of what we've seen in STL recently. If it's the case, it is of course going to be track-specific to some degree.

I personally think dual classing is a little silly, not believing that - ASSUMING the car is run to the same, correct process in both classes - the difference between being in A or being in S is the real decision-maker on whether to go racing, or what car to run.

As Jake G has so accurately explained, if the process lets the 1st gen RX7 down in A, it will do the same in B.

I suppose that different priorities (ease of construction vs. ease on parts) would potentially motivate two entrants to choose different options but at the end of the day, it's just a complication without much payoff, I don't think.

K

[lateapex911]

Exactly. Who made that choice, the ITAC/CRB or the membership...?

Why shouldn't those persons be allowed to do so in other cases as well? Or does the current ITAC/CRB have some glorious insight as to which way future choices would go...?

The members speak...but only if you let them.

- GA

Well, Bob Dowie, technically, made the decision. After testing the SIR, he made the call on the SIR size, and the CRB endorsed not just the SIR concept, but the sizing.

I was, at best, skeptical about the future of the ITS cars. The good news was that the cars/owners didn't just say "FU", and go away entirely, some remained and forged their way into ITR.

I wouldn't say that, in that case, the members had two equal choices given to them to choose from. Even though they HAD ITS cars, the ones that stayed, got the heck out of ITS.

Dual classing is, in theory, more of an 'equal choice". But, is it??

In the ITA RX-7s case, it kinda is. The car fails in A because it doesn't make the predicted power. Assuming the power assumptions are left as is (a safe assumption based on my experience with the ITAC), the car will be a dog in ITB as well. As is, it's running ITB times. Processed to ITB weight will add hundreds of pounds AND remove wheel width. So, the RX-7 WOULD, indeed, be given an "equal chance' in B or A. That is to say, equally crappy. Choose your poison, boys.

But other cars, well there may be differences that result in changes in class competitiveness. Or, ITS sent straight to ITA at ITA weight could be big dogs.

HOW the car races will certainly change. A car with ITS winning power will be overweight vis a vis ITA cars. And will be a dog in the corners. But, given a long straight, while it will be slow off the corner, it will be fast (er) than the rest of the class down the straight.
So, where it could race well at light weight in S, fighting for wins, in A, where it's heavy, it could dominate at long tracks. (hold them up in the corners, blow them away on the straights).

All of that assumes cars driven and prepped to the nth degree. Which we don't normally see in huge numbers at every race. So, it's a bit of a theoretical issue.

[webhound]

1st gen CRX is in ITC and B (Si) 2nd gen CRX IS in 3 classes IIRC, C (lowly cars), B (DX/Std), and A (Si). as is the civic of the era (EF chassis).

Other notable "multiple IT class" models (by body and model, separated by trim)
Del Sol is in S A and B
96-00 civic in A and S (could add B for the Y7 if requested)
RSX is in 2 (-s in R, regular in A or S)
DC Integra in 3 (LS/RS A, GS-R S, Type-R R)
2000 era celica is in 2 (GTS in ITR, GT in ITA)
ZZE corollas are in 2 (XRS in S, rest in A)
1st gen RX7 (GSL and under in A/7, GSL-SE in S)
SN95 mustang (V6 S, V8 R)
many BMWs
...

and we do have dual classification on some BMW(s?) and a prelude, both into S and R.

This isn't the dual classification we are talking here, is it? Just chassis classification? Because the EF is technically in 3 IT classes, but all are totally different trim levels. No double dipping opportunities exist there, there are all sorts of motor and trans swaps needed.

Will

[ShelbyRacer]

My point was only that on track confusion already exists inside IT.. when one body can be a B A or S car, you can't rely on "knowing the model in your mirror", you need to know the livery, class, driver, etc... or just know when you are getting passed, man up, and deal with it.

Understood, but I believe JeffJ's original point was that there are cars that can pick a class while only changing perhaps ballast or wheels, and I only see the Prelude as being able to do that.

Will, I believe the dual classification to which most of us are referrring is allowing the exact same chassis/engine combo on track, at a different weight (and then possibly small things like wheel size and such that are class specific).

[mossaidis]

The 4 spd tranny I believe is in ITC, same motor with 5 spd is in ITB.

[Chip42]

The 4 spd tranny I believe is in ITC, same motor with 5 spd is in ITB.

different motor.

to will - yes, I was listing only "bodies" that are seen in multiple classes. each class has a specific motor

[joeg]

Not really a different motor; just an intake gasket.

[Chip42]

... which must be there in ITC, thus it meets the D15B1 not D15B2 specs. same mechanicals? I'm not sure, but I know there are enough B2s in the world that I wouldn't sweat it.

[preparedcivic]

A TSX at 3175 in ITS??????? Wut? An E46 325 is at 3000, with a rear-drive chassis, more displacement, and equally variable valve timing with the ECU cracked.

The process came up with this weight how? 500+lbs more than the ITR listing?

[lateapex911]

A TSX at 3175 in ITS??????? Wut? An E46 325 is at 3000, with a rear-drive chassis, more displacement, and equally variable valve timing with the ECU cracked.

The process came up with this weight how? 500+lbs more than the ITR listing?

I'm going with "More stock Horsepower" for $1000, Rob....


Quick search shows 205 for the tsx, and the ITS E46 has 181 hp. Can't remember the ITS factor off the top of my head, but I THINK it's like 12 or so, so 12 x 25 is...a lot. 300 actually. Fold in other adders (FWD, possibly struts? ) though and the weights get closer.

[preparedcivic]

I'm going with "More stock Horsepower" for $1000, Rob....


Quick search shows 205 for the tsx, and the ITS E46 has 181 hp. Can't remember the ITS factor off the top of my head, but I THINK it's like 12 or so, so 12 x 25 is...a lot. 300 actually. Fold in other adders (FWD, possibly struts? ) though and the weights get closer.

My frame of reference comes from the AutoTechnic E46's, and the whp of those cars at 3000. The chassis probably come out even, with double wishbones but with front drive on the Acura and struts and rear drive for the BMW.

A 535lb delta between ITR and ITS seems strong, especially since S is limited to 7" wide wheels.

[Chip42]

The BMW also has a restrictor...

[Andy Bettencourt]

The BMW also has a restrictor...

Not the E46 323...

Stock HP is the answer.