Missing Horsepower...

Banzai240

Banzai240

New member
I just read this in Grassroots Motorsports (Vol. 22, Number 8, December 2005) page 23:

"The Society of Automotive Engineers has revised their methods used to measure the net horsepower and torque numbers for new cars. As a result, these new J1349 (Rev 8/04) net calculations may cause 2006 models to appear to show a decrease in power output, even though the engine specifications have not changed. Honda, for example, has already adopted these new specifications; as a result, their new Ridgeline is now rated at 247 horsepower, even though the initial specification stated 255."


Obviously, we need to keep this kind of thing in mind in the future when it comes to classifying cars in IT...
 
Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 28 2005, 03:18 PM
Obviously, we need to keep this kind of thing in mind in the future when it comes to classifying cars in IT...
[snapback]63897[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

It won't matter, ant least not for a long while. IT hasn't adopted anything newer than about 2000 right? It'll be a long time before IT adopts any of these cars affected by the hp correction.

And if recent discussions on this board are any indication the newer cars will not be adopted because they make too much power. :( Maybe in the future the powers that be will realize hp is cheap and to breathe life into IT we'll need to class the pocket rockets the younger generations drive. The ITAC is doing a good job but this is the only area where I don't see a lot of movement - newer higher hp cars, ITT, etc.

R
 
Originally posted by rlearp@Oct 28 2005, 12:34 PM
It won't matter, ant least not for a long while.  IT hasn't adopted anything newer than about 2000 right? It'll be a long time before IT adopts any of these cars affected by the hp correction.

And if recent discussions on this board are any indication the newer cars will not be adopted because they make too much power.  :(  Maybe in the future the powers that be will realize hp is cheap and to breathe life into IT we'll need to class the pocket rockets the younger generations drive. The ITAC is doing a good job but this is the only area where I don't see a lot of movement - newer higher hp cars, ITT, etc.

R
[snapback]63899[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

So write in and ask the CRB to create a class above ITS! We have talked about it here in generalities - Darin has the groundwork laid...

We are trying to right this ship - and when we do, we can start to think a little more PROactively...proactive member input would be great!!!
 
Originally posted by benspeed@Oct 28 2005, 06:47 PM
I say the new class should be ITGT - Let me run a Boxster. That would rock!
[snapback]63912[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

How about ITU and ITO... Kind of like the old IMSA classes GTU and GTO...

Andy is right... I've already laid some groundwork for such a class... I think there is another thread here somewhere where I actually posted some ideas about this with a list of potential cars to consider...

Wouldn't be cheap, however...
 
Some regions have already had - or still have, maybe? - ITGT. It was populated with ex-SSGT Camaros, Firebirds, and Mustangs.

I still like ITR, or ITX - Improved Touring Xtreme. :)

K
 
ITCVPI, you have to run a retired police Crown Vic with at least 100K miles while holding a cup of coffee in one hand, balancing a doughnut on your knee, and talking on the radio with a hand mic and have a cell phone perched on your shoulder.


But on a more serious note, What does happen to T1/2 cars when they exceed the maximun age? ITP/Q/R?
 
Over beers one day a LONG time ago, we conceptualized ITTV - IT Tow Vehicle. The general guidelines were that you had to race your tow vehicle in the same condition in which you use it to actually drag a race car around the country. It's blurry for a lot of reasons but specifics included...

** Mandatory Big Gulp cups and fast food wrappers on the floor

** Large boxes of tools and other pointy, heavy, hard, or flammable stuff in the back

** Prohibition against actually bleeding brakes - you don't do it to tow, it would be wrong to do so to race

** A format that ran the track the conventional way for 10 minutes, then switched direction for 10, then split the field and ran half of the remaining entries clockwise while the other half raced counter-clockwise - until there was only one entrant still running...

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 29 2005, 04:31 AM
Over beers one day a LONG time ago, we conceptualized ITTV - IT Tow Vehicle. The general guidelines were that you had to race your tow vehicle in the same condition in which you use it to actually drag a race car around the country. It's blurry for a lot of reasons but specifics included...


[snapback]63957[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Damn, now that might be a class I can actually win in! Unless you guys have a tow truck that runs in 12s, and then I can always do better with more pulley!

R
 
Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 29 2005, 12:31 AM
Over beers one day a LONG time ago, we conceptualized ITTV - IT Tow Vehicle. The general guidelines were that you had to race your tow vehicle in the same condition in which you use it to actually drag a race car around the country. It's blurry for a lot of reasons but specifics included...

** Mandatory Big Gulp cups and fast food wrappers on the floor

** Large boxes of tools and other pointy, heavy, hard, or flammable stuff in the back

** Prohibition against actually bleeding brakes - you don't do it to tow, it would be wrong to do so to race

** A format that ran the track the conventional way for 10 minutes, then switched direction for 10, then split the field and ran half of the remaining entries clockwise while the other half raced counter-clockwise - until there was only one entrant still running...

K
[snapback]63957[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

You know Kirk, I knew there was a reason I liked you!!! :P
 
Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 28 2005, 01:55 PM
How about ITU and ITO...  Kind of like the old IMSA classes GTU and GTO...

Andy is right... I've already laid some groundwork for such a class...  I think there is another thread here somewhere where I actually posted some ideas about this with a list of potential cars to consider...

Wouldn't be cheap, however...
[snapback]63913[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Sounds, looks and smells alot like "ITE"? :blink:
 
Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 29 2005, 12:31 AM
Over beers one day a LONG time ago, we conceptualized ITTV - IT Tow Vehicle. The general guidelines were that you had to race your tow vehicle in the same condition in which you use it to actually drag a race car around the country. It's blurry for a lot of reasons but specifics included...

** Mandatory Big Gulp cups and fast food wrappers on the floor

** Large boxes of tools and other pointy, heavy, hard, or flammable stuff in the back

** Prohibition against actually bleeding brakes - you don't do it to tow, it would be wrong to do so to race

** A format that ran the track the conventional way for 10 minutes, then switched direction for 10, then split the field and ran half of the remaining entries clockwise while the other half raced counter-clockwise - until there was only one entrant still running...

K
[snapback]63957[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Reminds me...

A few years back we went to Gateway for the October race. We'd won the spring race and I had talked a bunch of crap to my guys about how we were going to kick tail that weekend. Well, we had car troubles and never turned a lap. We worked on the car all day Saturday in a cold drizzle to no avail. So to throw a bone to the guys I paid the $10 or whatever it was for the fund raiser the club was having to drive the track in your street car and took the guys for a lap in the big Dodge. I hammered it down the short back straight into the esses and WHOA!!! this thing is going way to fast! :bash_1_: Sqaulling tires on a 7000lb 4x4 isn't a whole lot of fun. The guys enjoyed it though. :D
 
Originally posted by dj10@Oct 29 2005, 03:44 PM
Sounds, looks and smells alot like "ITE"? :blink:
[snapback]63967[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Not really... No turbo Mustangs, BIG wings, or anything like that...

More like Boxters, M3 BMWs, 300Z Nissans, etc...

2.5-3.5 Litre engines, etc...

Maybe even the E36 at 2650lbs with no restrictor... ;)
 
Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 29 2005, 11:02 AM
Not really...  No turbo Mustangs, BIG wings, or anything like that...

More like Boxters, M3 BMWs, 300Z Nissans, etc...

2.5-3.5 Litre engines, etc...

Maybe even the E36 at 2650lbs with no restrictor...  ;)
[snapback]63969[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

With the cars mentiones the class should be called IT2. :D
You or I couldn't get a e36 to 2650# with out lots of $$. Fot that kind of money just go buy a M3.
You would have to allow the e36 to have a .040 bore also. ;)
 
Originally posted by dj10@Oct 29 2005, 12:53 PM
With the cars mentiones the class should be called IT2. :D
You or I couldn't get a e36 to 2650# with out lots of $$. Fot that kind of money just go buy a M3.
You would have to allow the e36 to have a .040 bore also. ;)
[snapback]63973[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

IT2 is taken, right Kirk? :)

Isn't the E36 already allowed a .040 overbore? :)

ITR
ITS
ITA
ITB
ITC

I like it.
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 29 2005, 11:16 PM
IT2 is taken, right Kirk?  ...
Click to expand...

IT2 is dead - long live ITA.

A has ended up being pretty much what we proposed - defined around the Integra and 240sx - but without leaving the 'tweeners a place to be competitive.

K
 
Originally posted by lateapex911@Oct 28 2005, 09:59 PM
ITR works for me...

Better leave ITX for the AWD class...

hee hee
[snapback]63948[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Being an Acura guy ...ITR refers to the Type R Integra...... How about..ITP...as in GTP??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top