June Fastrack Out

[RSTPerformance]

Anyone notice how the Fuel Cell rule is being relaxed? I am guessing this is in an effort to allow easier integration of your IT car into the Production classes???

IMO this is THE BEST thing that SCCA has aproved since ITR...

Next big moment will be to allow the FIA 8856/1986 driver suites!!! Send your letter of support to [email protected] and get this approved!!!

Thumbs up to the CRB and BOD for making some great improvements!!!

Raymond

[seckerich]

Anyone notice how the Fuel Cell rule is being relaxed? I am guessing this is in an effort to allow easier integration of your IT car into the Production classes???

IMO this is THE BEST thing that SCCA has aproved since ITR...

Next big moment will be to allow the FIA 8856/1986 driver suites!!! Send your letter of support to [email protected] and get this approved!!!

Thumbs up to the CRB and BOD for making some great improvements!!!

Raymond

Look closely Raymond. It is only for cars with the fuel tank inside the axles. Rear mounted still require a cell.

[RSTPerformance]

Look closely Raymond. It is only for cars with the fuel tank inside the axles. Rear mounted still require a cell.

It also requires you keep the bumper I think... Its at least a step in the right direction... A cell is probably more dangerouse than a stock tank in an Audi/VW or MR2...

I am trying to think... Sorry for my lack of knowledge but what popular cars have the fuel tank outside the axles? I really have no idea where they even are in a miata for example...

Raymond

[shwah]

Look closely Raymond. It is only for cars with the fuel tank inside the axles. Rear mounted still require a cell.

Not for me. If i keep the rear bumper, I can run my stock tank out back. At this point I can literally take my ITB car out in HP and lose badly without making any changes. Whoopty doo. I'll still not be interested in not competing.

[924Guy]

Glad to see the MR2 in B - long overdue (not to slag on the ITAC, but it was pushed away for so long)...

[spdmonkey]

I can't count the number of times over the past several years where someone has said something along the lines of Mazda runs the SCCA... Maybe that attitude is changing a bit or maybe its payback time.

[Greg Krom]

I'm glad to see the 2nd Gen Neon has been classified. Is the weight listed for the ACR and R/T a typo thought? 2780 seems way excessive for that car. Its over 100 lbs higher than the SSC weight and 130 lbs heavier than the 1st Gen DOHC Neon which has the same stock HP rating.

[77ITA]

I don't really see a problem with the RX-8 considering all the other ridiculous "calculations" in ITR.

I'm glad to see the 2nd Gen Neon has been classified. Is the weight listed for the ACR and R/T a typo thought? 2780 seems way excessive for that car. Its over 100 lbs higher than the SSC weight and 130 lbs heavier than the 1st Gen DOHC Neon which has the same stock HP rating.

I agree, Greg. It's great to see the cars classified (as they're obviously not going to do anything in SSC any longer), but with personal experience on the subject I can't understand the weight of the R/T and ACR either. If anything but equal in weight, the Magnum engine cars (R/T and ACR) could use to be a bit lighter than the 1st generation DOHC cars due to their poor handling characteristics. At least in IT trim competitors can put some real springs under the car and fix what hindered them so badly in SSC.

[madrabbit15]

Back to the ITR and the V8s vs. the M3.........

I guess I am having a hard time understanding how a M3 is bad for the class but a v8 mustang or camaro is good for the class. Both have insaine Hp potential in IT trim. True, the v8s are the lower HP versions with gobs of torque, but it only takes bolt ons to make them breath. So the weight would still need to be close to 3500# to make them fit. Is this any better other than it might bring some people into the class? If someone can explain this to me I would very much appreciate it, because up to now, I cannot see how in the world it makes sense.

[JeffYoung]

The bolts of which you speak -- carb, cam, intake, better heads -- are illegal.

[tnord]

Back to the ITR and the V8s vs. the M3.........

I guess I am having a hard time understanding how a M3 is bad for the class but a v8 mustang or camaro is good for the class. Both have insaine Hp potential in IT trim. True, the v8s are the lower HP versions with gobs of torque, but it only takes bolt ons to make them breath. So the weight would still need to be close to 3500# to make them fit. Is this any better other than it might bring some people into the class? If someone can explain this to me I would very much appreciate it, because up to now, I cannot see how in the world it makes sense.

i think the M3 makes more power stock than the dumpy V8 iterations that are being considered, AND they gain more from IT builds than their domestic counterparts, AND the M3 has better brakes, etc.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Back to the ITR and the V8s vs. the M3.........

I guess I am having a hard time understanding how a M3 is bad for the class but a v8 mustang or camaro is good for the class. Both have insaine Hp potential in IT trim. True, the v8s are the lower HP versions with gobs of torque, but it only takes bolt ons to make them breath. So the weight would still need to be close to 3500# to make them fit. Is this any better other than it might bring some people into the class? If someone can explain this to me I would very much appreciate it, because up to now, I cannot see how in the world it makes sense.

There has been much concern over the power potential of the V8 cars submitted for ITR. The AS adhoc was polled along with at least 2 prolific small-block Chevy builders - each were given the limits of the rules and each confirmed that 'process power' was all that could be reasonably expected. AS guys have to remember that they get cams, intake manifolds, uprated carbs, different heads in some cases, etc. Without this stuff, it's just another handicapped pump like we all run (stock TB, intake manifold, cams, stock weight pistons...).

A 215hp V8 at 25% increase is about 269 crank hp. A 240hp E36M3 at 30% increase is over 310hp.

The issue at hand is how to account for 300ft/lbs of torque on these V8's. The proposal in hand suggests a +100lb adder. The debate rages on as to that 100lbs in terms of effectiveness as we have nothing with that kind of torque potential on the books now to draw conclusions from IIRC.

[seckerich]

Here is a little comparison to get some perspective on the weight differences.

2765 2980
------ ------
215 X = 231 Rear wheel to be competitive.

[Knestis]

I'm glad to see the 2nd Gen Neon has been classified. Is the weight listed for the ACR and R/T a typo thought? 2780 seems way excessive for that car. Its over 100 lbs higher than the SSC weight and 130 lbs heavier than the 1st Gen DOHC Neon which has the same stock HP rating.

Process weights for both new listings...

The older DOHC car may have gotten some "real world data" help since there's been a lot of "common wisdom" swirling around the difference between it and the SOHC version for ages. If we started from scratch on the one that's 130# lighter, it would end up the same now if in fact the stock power ratings are identical, since the technologies involved ask for he same multiplier.

K

[Rabbit07]

Process weights for both new listings...

The older DOHC car may have gotten some "real world data" help since there's been a lot of "common wisdom" swirling around the difference between it and the SOHC version for ages. If we started from scratch on the one that's 130# lighter, it would end up the same now if in fact the stock power ratings are identical, since the technologies involved ask for he same multiplier.

K

Then maybe some "real world data" needs to be applied to the Gen2! And if all this lip service about process weight is true then some one please explain why the hell the stratus with the same SOHC engine as the ITA Neon is 550 lbs heavier in ITA!!!!??????? Something is very wrong here!!!!!