Street tires in IT? My Review

[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"