May 2011 Fastrack

[erlrich]

if the process is working, we should all have one of the cars to have...

Tom - this is a common misconception, and unfortunately isn't even close to reality. If you go back through some of the numerous discussion about the process you'll find that the last thing it is concerned with is making all the cars equal. The process is all about having a consistent, repeatable, and documented procedure for classifying cars. The process could care less about the outcomes. So yeah, there will still be the "cars to have" in IT, but at least we'll know that they were classed fairly...

[tnord]

Tom - this is a common misconception, and unfortunately isn't even close to reality. If you go back through some of the numerous discussion about the process you'll find that the last thing it is concerned with is making all the cars equal. The process is all about having a consistent, repeatable, and documented procedure for classifying cars. The process could care less about the outcomes. So yeah, there will still be the "cars to have" in IT, but at least we'll know that they were classed fairly...

i have yet to see anything processed that hasn't come out the other side with a fighting chance.

[erlrich]

i have yet to see anything processed that hasn't come out the other side with a fighting chance.

When I see a Neon, GTI, and RX7 running for the ITA win in Atlanta I'll agree with you...

[Russ Myers]

Or a Pinto that isn't 6 seconds off of the pace.

Russ

[JeffYoung]

Do you have....data acquisition? spring testing? what rates are you running? shocks? welded rear end or a good clutch pack set up? lightened the car to the max and then ballasted it? crank scraper in the motor? .040 over? nice 1" gasket match port job? .5 compression bump? Lightweight low drag piston rings? Lightweight oils in the tranny and diff? Brake ducting? Experimented with different pad compounds? hours on the dyno to tune carbs and timing?

2.3 liters in ITB (or 2.0, or whatever it is) is a lot of displacement. That car will have some handling issues but it seems to me with the displacement, ok aero, and RWD it could be made competitive with a lot of work.

I've been there. I had a dead slow ITS car that no one thought could run up front and with a ton of work I got there. But it was a TON of work.

Or a Pinto that isn't 6 seconds off of the pace.

Russ

[Spinnetti]

Do you have....data acquisition? spring testing? what rates are you running? shocks? welded rear end or a good clutch pack set up? lightened the car to the max and then ballasted it? crank scraper in the motor? .040 over? nice 1" gasket match port job? .5 compression bump? Lightweight low drag piston rings? Lightweight oils in the tranny and diff? Brake ducting? Experimented with different pad compounds? hours on the dyno to tune carbs and timing?

2.3 liters in ITB (or 2.0, or whatever it is) is a lot of displacement. That car will have some handling issues but it seems to me with the displacement, ok aero, and RWD it could be made competitive with a lot of work.

I've been there. I had a dead slow ITS car that no one thought could run up front and with a ton of work I got there. But it was a TON of work.

lol... I did each and every one of the tuning things you mentioned and then some. Then they added over 200lb of ballast to it because its screaming 1.6l 112hp engine was too much of a threat I guess.... I think the system is retarded. Objective or not, if you want real racing, make restrictor adjustments annually based on the last years race results. IT has always been lopsided. Drive the "It" car or watch from the back. First Rx7s, then the damn Hondas, then whatever...

[Andy Bettencourt]

lo I think the system is retarded. Objective or not, if you want real racing, make restrictor adjustments annually based on the last years race results. IT has always been lopsided. Drive the "It" car or watch from the back. First Rx7s, then the damn Hondas, then whatever...

No way in heck. THAT is the worst possible thing to do. You want weight added to your mid-packer based on a dominant car posting track records in the Northeast (or wherever)?

Look at the class, see the weights, estimate your potential and choose a car. Have fun.

[JeffYoung]

"It" car? I think IT has been really good about avoiding that. Right now, you have many chassis to chose from to run up front, if you have the talent and prep skills:

ITS: 944S, E30, 240/260z, 240sx, 280zx, 300zx, RX7, Miata, TR8, Integra, Corrado, Prelude.
ITA: Integra, 240sx, Miata, CRX, SE-R/NX2000.
ITB: 924, 2002, Volvo 142, A3 Golf, Civic, CRX, Accord.

"200 lbs of ballast were added" to what, when? The 4AGE cars were moved to be because of repeated requests/information that they couldn't make power/weight in ITA.

I'd like to see these cars be competitive, so help me out with your build, and your real beef with things.

lol... I did each and every one of the tuning things you mentioned and then some. Then they added over 200lb of ballast to it because its screaming 1.6l 112hp engine was too much of a threat I guess.... I think the system is retarded. Objective or not, if you want real racing, make restrictor adjustments annually based on the last years race results. IT has always been lopsided. Drive the "It" car or watch from the back. First Rx7s, then the damn Hondas, then whatever...

[tnord]

When I see a Neon, GTI, and RX7 running for the ITA win in Atlanta I'll agree with you...

give me a break earl. you know the history on the RX7 as well if not better than I do, and that's not a valid example in the least.

the neon seems to do just fine as far as i can tell. Childs was gridded right next to me at the ARRC last year in his neon....i haven't seen anything showing it can't be competitive. on track or on paper.

the VW? i don't know anything about it, i hate those damn things.

[erlrich]

give me a break earl. you know the history on the RX7 as well if not better than I do, and that's not a valid example in the least.

the neon seems to do just fine as far as i can tell. Childs was gridded right next to me at the ARRC last year in his neon....i haven't seen anything showing it can't be competitive. on track or on paper.

Travis - really? You're going to hold up a car that was a full 6 seconds off the leader's time as an example of a car that can be competitive? And as to the RX7, why isn't that a valid example? You guys are saying that every car in IT has a fighting chance at being a front-runner. I'm saying that's not the case. There have been many discussion about the cars at the front of the fields, so I'm not going to touch those, but what about the cars at the other end? What does the process do for them?

And I'll be the first to agree (and this has been stated by many more knowledgeable guys here), in most classes we have seen improvement in the number of cars that can compete at the front; but to say that every car in IT, or even every car that has been through the process, has a fighting chance is just wrong IMO. There are still the cars to have in each class, and there are still the perpetual back markers. I realize that in a class like IT, where there are relatively few cars that are developed to the limit of the rules it is hard to draw conclusions. I also know there are a lot of guys who know a helluva lot more than I do about building winning race cars who would be building some of these other cars if they had any potential at all.

All I'm saying, and it has been stated in numerous discussions before, is that the process does not focus on outcomes, it does not care about results, and it could not and does not attempt to take into consideration every factor that makes one car better than another. And as such it can never be expected to produce results that are equal; and IMO we've already seen examples of that. But, that's another discussion.

[JeffYoung]

I do agree with Travis that any car that has gone through the Process has a fighting chance.

After that, while certainly some cars have inherent advantages and disadvantages, for the most part with enough time and money and development and driver skill I think most cars in the ITCS could run up front.

It's just way smarter to push the easy button and get a proven winner.

People told Greg the NX couldn't win. Told Ron the 260 couldn't win. Told me the TR8 couldn't win. I remember when people said the ITA Miata couldn't win on power tracks. People said the 325e couldn't win. People said Corrado and GSR couldn't win in ITS since they were FWD.

Lots of "people saids" that got proven wrong by hard work and development.

[924Guy]

Lots of "people saids" that got proven wrong by hard work and development.

+1 to that - I think my car's another good example.

You can't get to the front, at least on a scene as big as the ARRC, without effort and development on the same level as the other front runners. Just because it seems like a lot to you (addressed generally, not at Jeff) doesn't mean it's on-par with the pointy end of the grid. It takes resources - time and money - knowledge, and talent.

That's why we like it.

(well, OK, so not the money part, but otherwise...)

[CRallo]

The process didn't fail the Rx7, people did... simply put

Travis - really? You're going to hold up a car that was a full 6 seconds off the leader's time as an example of a car that can be competitive? And as to the RX7, why isn't that a valid example? You guys are saying that every car in IT has a fighting chance at being a front-runner. I'm saying that's not the case. There have been many discussion about the cars at the front of the fields, so I'm not going to touch those, but what about the cars at the other end? What does the process do for them?

And I'll be the first to agree (and this has been stated by many more knowledgeable guys here), in most classes we have seen improvement in the number of cars that can compete at the front; but to say that every car in IT, or even every car that has been through the process, has a fighting chance is just wrong IMO. There are still the cars to have in each class, and there are still the perpetual back markers. I realize that in a class like IT, where there are relatively few cars that are developed to the limit of the rules it is hard to draw conclusions. I also know there are a lot of guys who know a helluva lot more than I do about building winning race cars who would be building some of these other cars if they had any potential at all.

All I'm saying, and it has been stated in numerous discussions before, is that the process does not focus on outcomes, it does not care about results, and it could not and does not attempt to take into consideration every factor that makes one car better than another. And as such it can never be expected to produce results that are equal; and IMO we've already seen examples of that. But, that's another discussion.

[JeffYoung]

Using the Process, it's really a B car. Where it would probably thrive.

[JeffYoung]

When have we seen an uber-developed version of one along the lines of the Stretch 240, the Serra/Muresan/Hoppe Integras or the Moser CRXs?

I do think the process gets things "roughly" close. That is certianly one of the goals. Come up with a rough power to weight formula and apply it consistently and as objectively as possible.

I would also point out that Ricky Thompson's maxxed out ITA RX7 gave Mark Carpenter a run for his money that one year Ricky went all out in ITA.

When I see a Neon, GTI, and RX7 running for the ITA win in Atlanta I'll agree with you...

[JeffYoung]

Ditto.

i have yet to see anything processed that hasn't come out the other side with a fighting chance.