March 09 Fast Track

[GKR_17]

Just to validate your assertion...can you provide track records for a few tracks on that? Please also provide the ITS records so we can see if the ITR record is soft. We don't have maybe more than one ITR record up here that is faster than the ITS record - yet. Still a young class here.

The S2000 seems to have most of the T3 lap records. You are correct, in many cases, the ITR record is currently slower than the ITS record. Here are a few good examples to show my point, I've included the ITA time as well, which should show that the ITR time is not likely to be significantly better than the ITS time:

Mid-Ohio
ITA: 1'42.9
ITS: 1'42.6
ITR: 1'43.4
T3: 1'42.2 (S2000)
T3: 1'42.7 (Rx-8)

Grattan
ITA: 1'29.5
ITS: 1'29.0
ITR: no record posted
T3: 1'28.5 (Rx-8)

[Andy Bettencourt]

An IT Haiku by Kirk

Lap times mean bupkes
Lack of speed can't be proven
A fruitless pursuit

K

Just want to see the support. T3 National track records aren't as fast as ITS out here.

[seckerich]

The original Rx-8 proposal included a dyno sheet that you said was from a full prep Grand-Am car. That sheet showed under 197 hp max. Now you say it's 'slightly' more than 199. I've heard there's a lot to gain in the computer, what exactly is 'slightly'? This is precisely why we shouldn't be using competitor supplied dyno data.

Regardless, there is absolutely no evidence that this car isn't competitve as is. The T3 Rx-8's (at the same spec weight) seem to run good ITR times, and they should be significantly faster with the increased mods allowed in IT.

At the time of the original proposal the sheets were correct. 2 years later and a ton of dyno time have the car up above 200 rear wheel. As I said, most guys have found a way to get the stock computers up close to 200 and the Motec cars make a couple more. All numbers I am quoting are for a Dynojet with SAE correction. Certified sheets have been provided to the ITAC with those gains and as I asked in an earlier post, please send in any you might have to prove more or less and be ready to back yours up. Read a few unbiased magazine articles that all lost HP when they tried to add exhaust,intake, etc to these cars. When ITR can out qualify ITS at the ARRC, then we can talk track data. Right now most of those times are pretty soft.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The S2000 seems to have most of the T3 lap records. You are correct, in many cases, the ITR record is currently slower than the ITS record. Here are a few good examples to show my point, I've included the ITA time as well, which should show that the ITR time is not likely to be significantly better than the ITS time:

Mid-Ohio
ITA: 1'42.9
ITS: 1'42.6
ITR: 1'43.4
T3: 1'42.2 (S2000)
T3: 1'42.7 (Rx-8)

Grattan
ITA: 1'29.5
ITS: 1'29.0
ITR: no record posted
T3: 1'28.5 (Rx-8)

I was hoping for some tracks that actually have some size. RA, RAmer, Watkins Glen (which I know), Sebring, Daytona, etc.

I do not buy into the fact that T3 should be running with ITR. It doesn't even really run with ITS.

[seckerich]

Like VIR


ITS: 2:14.247
ITR: 2:15.593
T3: 2:16.567

Roebling:
ITS: 1:20.744
ITR: 1:21.147
T3: 1:22.275

As I said, ITR is still pretty soft. We can play this silly game all day and choose data to support our side. Still meaningless for car classing. Real numbers matter.

[JoshS]

Just want to see the support. T3 National track records aren't as fast as ITS out here.

T3 records are slower than ITA out here!

But that's because we run almost no nationals in SFR. We're down to one annual double event in the region, so our three tracks see very little high-effort drives from those national classes.

[JoshS]

Specifically, in San Francisco Region (race times only, there are definitely faster qualifying times):

Thunderhill:
ITR: 2:05.555 (Z3)
ITS: 2:05.682 (325i E36)
ITA: 2:06.350 (RX-7)
T3: 2:06.479 (S2000)

Infineon:
ITR: 1:52.705 (325i E36)
ITS: 1:51.796 (RX-7)
ITA: 1:54.039 (Integra)
T3: 1:54.784 (S2000)

Laguna Seca:
ITR: 1:43.359 (Z3)
ITS: 1:43.224 (325i E30)
ITA: 1:43.750 (RX-7)
T3: 1:45.420 (S2000)

[GKR_17]

Real numbers matter.

That would be 238.

[GKR_17]

When ITR can out qualify ITS at the ARRC, then we can talk track data.

ITS has not yet outqualified ITR at the ARRC.

2007:
ITR (Robertson) qualified at 1'39.8, raced at 1'39.1
ITS (Huffmaster) qualified at 1'39.9, raced at 1'39.6

2008:
ITR (Robertson) qualified at 1'40.3, raced at 1'41.0
ITS (Reppert) qualified at 1'40.7, raced at 1'41.0
Spillman, and Vansteemburg both turned 1'40.9's in the race.

As for the 2007 ARRC, that same weekend, the T3 Huffmaster Rx-8 was entered in the enduro as an ITU car, and qualified at 1'39.1 and raced at 1'39.6
Similarly, the McMasters Rx-8 was entered in ITU and qualified at 1'43.1, but raced at 1'40.1.

[GKR_17]

Like VIR
ITS: 2:14.247
ITR: 2:15.593
T3: 2:16.567

Again, Huffmaster appears to have entered his T3 Rx-8 as an ITE car at the October 2006 SARRC, and turned a 2'14.6.

[ddewhurst]

I have absolutely no dog in this hunt........ Those ITS/ITR Mid Ohio times are ridiculously funny. For those times to merit any attention/value some drivers names would be required attached to each time. Also with names attached the times may merit no attention for the current conversation.

I accecpt the ITA time of Joe Moser at 1.42:939.
I accecpt the G Prod time of Steve Sargis 1.42.019.

Now compare the ITS & ITR times from Mid Ohio to the G Production of 1.42:019 time.

[GKR_17]

For those times to merit any attention/value some drivers names would be required attached to each time.

Mid-Ohio
ITA: 1'42.9 Moser
ITS: 1'42.6 Ehmer
ITR: 1'43.4 Jones
T3: 1'42.2 (S2000) Gilsinger
T3: 1'42.7 (Rx-8) Huffmaster

[ddewhurst]

Mid-Ohio
ITA: 1'42.9 Moser
ITS: 1'42.6 Ehmer
ITR: 1'43.4 Jones
T3: 1'42.2 (S2000) Gilsinger
T3: 1'42.7 (Rx-8) Huffmaster

Please don't add more classes in an attempt to validate your position. ITS/ITR times that are similar at Mid Ohio to ITA/G Prod times are pathetic. By the way, I knew the ITA, ITS, ITR names before you posted the names.

[seckerich]

Be sure you know what RX8 Huffmaster was driving before you post numbers. One was the GA car and the other was the T3. I know because I was crew chief on their GA car. Also factor in that he was the fastest driver in ST at the VIR GA weekend in ST. He can flat wheel a car. Either way the ITR times are still soft in many places (including the ARRC) if you are only .8 faster than ITS. If not then I think Buzz had a pretty good case for moving the RX8 to ITS. Yes, I am just kidding, but these BS lap time comparisons back up that every ITR car so far could just as well be in ITS. In most cases they would get their butt kicked. Now you see why Kirk has such a dislike for on track data.

[Knestis]

Yeah. What he said.

K

[JoshS]

At least out here, with only a couple of exceptions, every ITR car that has run was built since the class was created, meaning, they are still on the uphill part of the curve. These cars/drivers often set personal records every single weekend they show up, because they get faster every race. Meanwhile, the ITS records have stood for a decent amount of time and only get broken when the stars align (great weather, great track grip, great car, and great driver). Here anyway, even though the ITR track record is slower than the ITS record at 2 out of 3 tracks, it's not like the ITR cars are usually losing to the ITS cars. ITR actually is a faster class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If you read between the lines, the excersize was to point out that lap times don't mean much. Heck, we are getting letters on this very car using lap times as the data.

Ain't gonna fly.

[Duc]

So is it real achievable HP in IT trim that we need to look at? Again I think this car (RX-8) is much like the S2000 where the HP potential gain is not there (handling and chassis aside). How much data do we need and what kind? Dyno plots with each mod before and after?

FWIW Any system that uses a stick style airflow meter like the RX8:

will not compensate correctly for intakes if the intake was not designed correctly (MANY of them are not). When the diameter of the intake tube changes, that changes the airflow seen by the meter. That is why the RX8 will not see the full gains of a AirBox change. Oh and the RX8 acting different on the dyno is true, at least with a stock ECU.

[GKR_17]

Be sure you know what RX8 Huffmaster was driving before you post numbers. One was the GA car and the other was the T3. I know because I was crew chief on their GA car. Also factor in that he was the fastest driver in ST at the VIR GA weekend in ST. He can flat wheel a car. Either way the ITR times are still soft in many places (including the ARRC) if you are only .8 faster than ITS. If not then I think Buzz had a pretty good case for moving the RX8 to ITS. Yes, I am just kidding, but these BS lap time comparisons back up that every ITR car so far could just as well be in ITS. In most cases they would get their butt kicked. Now you see why Kirk has such a dislike for on track data.

You'd clearly say so if it was the GA car. Plus, I know the one at the ARRC was the T3 car.

Yes, most ITR times are soft, no argument there. The point is there are T3 Rx-8's out there now that are turning competitve ITR times right now. Sure ITR will get faster, but a T3 Rx-8 will too once you build it to IT specs.

The car was classed as light as possible per the process (and didn't get the double wishbone adder, none in ITR did). There just isn't any evidence to support the need to change the weight. Either way, it's not even allowed for a few years if you read the rules, and even then only after it's shown to upset the equity of the class.

[JeffYoung]

Actually, the RX8 was classed on the very high end of the "matrix" the proposal laid out, with varying values for actual stock hp (unknown at the time) and actual gain in IT trim.

To further muddy the on track data debate, an ITR 325 went 2:10/11 at VIR this weekend, with Ricky T. running a 2:14.9 in a Z3 2.8 to use as a benchmark against the 325.

The above data means nothing from a classing perspective, other than to validate my viewpoint that R cars have a LOT of time/speed left in them in development and that comparing their present lap times to T3 RX8s doesn't really get us anywhere.

You'd clearly say so if it was the GA car. Plus, I know the one at the ARRC was the T3 car.

Yes, most ITR times are soft, no argument there. The point is there are T3 Rx-8's out there now that are turning competitve ITR times right now. Sure ITR will get faster, but a T3 Rx-8 will too once you build it to IT specs.

The car was classed as light as possible per the process (and didn't get the double wishbone adder, none in ITR did). There just isn't any evidence to support the need to change the weight. Either way, it's not even allowed for a few years if you read the rules, and even then only after it's shown to upset the equity of the class.