ITR Class Poll

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 8 2005, 04:20 PM
Again. If I understood the how to poll on this page I would ask the question.

Would you actually build a race car for a class above ITS?

[snapback]67594[/snapback]​

.... Yes ...... Plus keep this in mind. When I built my RX7 it took me several seasons to get the car developed, spending a little as I went along.

... So remember, just to do the "basics" to a car so it will qualify for a class and pass tech should only costs about 7K or less (if you do some of the work yourself). Then you can improve on the car from there.

... Looking at the brighter side,

....Rick Thompson

 

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 8 2005, 04:20 PM
Would you actually build a race car for a class above ITS?

[snapback]67594[/snapback]​

First off this "ITR" could have a full grid tomorrow with just e36 M3's from BMWCCA and 3.0 and 3.2 911's from PCA. I have raced both PCA and BMWCCA and there are plenty ( atleaset in the SE ) of these up and running that would like to participate in SCCA. Before you flame on about the 13/13 stuff I have seen as much contact in either BMW or PCA as I have Nationals, some guys won't come but plenty will.

People will build new cars for this class as well, these cars are fast and most racers like that idea of going faster.

 

[cherokee]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 8 2005, 04:20 PM


Would you actually build a race car for a class above ITS?

[snapback]67594[/snapback]​

It would depend on if the car that I wanted to drive was in there. I pick my car for what it means to me, not for any other reason.

 

[Bill Miller]

We may not need the class TODAY, but we will need something in the near future.

I don't know how much plainer and simpler it could be stated.

I hear some clammoring for an IT Vision statement, yet people are afraid of this idea. Seems like some people want more of an 'operational' statement than something that may plan for the future.

Andy,

I don't know if it's so much an 'IT Vision statement', but where IT fits in the overall Club Racing Strategic Plan that we've been hearing about for the last few years. People are asking about it, because we were told that it was comming.



I really don't see the point of creating a new class, that's outside the framework of IT, just to provide a place for these cars to race. If that's what your're looking to do, just extend the T2/T3 lifespan for another 10-20 years, at the Regional level. The other crazy stuff can run ITE/SPO/ASR.

I'm also not convinced that AWD and FI can't be made to fit w/in the IT framework. The whole "hey, the really rich guys will build a 'wet' car and a 'dry' car" is such a red herring. Sure, you may get a couple of guys that do this, but so what? As has been said many times, you can't stop people from spending money. And some guys love to be the big fish in the little pond. The SIR thing would seem to be the answer for the turbo cars.

Darin,

Why in the world would someone want to run their 250 hp car if it was choked down to 175hp? Sure, you can _make_ the cars fit in ITS. Hell, you can probably _make_ them fit in ITA. If you don't think so, I think the ITC NB is a good example of just how you can _make_ a car fit into a class it doesn't belong in. Point is, the cars will be neutered to the point that people won't be interested in running them. Be like running around w/ 1 or 2 of the plug wires pulled off, what the hell fun is that?


And here's a side thought about T2/T3. As the popularity grows, and more people build these cars, expect to see people asking for changes in the rules that will let them move the cars back and forth between Club Racing and World Challenge. The whole 'name association' thing is already there (Touring 2 / Touring 3, and World Challenge Touring). Think about it, as much as the cars cost to buy and prep, and w/ mfg. interest/support, it would be a natural evolution. Just remember, you heard it hear first!

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 06:32 AM
However...  Doesn't the Z3 make about 225hp stock??  If that's the case, then with the appropriate SIR, it could EASILY, and I might add PERFECTLY, fit right into the framework of ITS today...

[snapback]67570[/snapback]​

Nope 189hp in the 97-98 single vanos, 193hp in the special double vanos 99-00 2.8l. 225hp sounds like the 3.0l. The real problem is weight, a racing Z3 should weight less than 2900 lbs, way out of the ITS envelope if everyone's complaing about a 2.5l weighing 2850lbs being an over dog.

James

 

[Bill Miller]

James,

Are those 97-98 single vanos cars 2.5s or 2.8s? IIRC, the E36 325is makes 189hp, stock. If the zingle vanos cars are 2.5s, it would seem logical that they be classed in ITS near (at?) the same weight (new weight, not the current 2850#) as the current E36 325. Am I missing something here?

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 8 2005, 06:14 PM
Darin,

Why in the world would someone want to run their 250 hp car if it was choked down to 175hp? 

[snapback]67609[/snapback]​

That's NOT what I said... I said your 225hp could be made to fit into ITS at 225hp... the restrictor would limit you to that hp...

250hp to 175 is not realistic... and is obviously not something we would consider...

Think about it for a moment... how much simpler could building an IT car be than to NOT have to do ANYTHING to the motor short of installing an SIR...

I'd take that over custom pistons, grey areas, etc... that it takes to make a front runner today...

"You're just not thinking fourth dimensionally..."

 

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

So what you're saying, is that there would be no hp gain from an 'IT tune', due to the SIR, so there would be no motivation to build the motor? Tell me how that doesn't aid the car in question ? Gee, spend $20k+ building a cage/suspension/motor, plus all that dyno time, etc. or just throw a cage and a suspension (and an SIR) into a car? Seems like an obvious choice.

Admittedly, I'm not up much on SIR technology. Just how proven is it, and how tight is the power band for a given SIR?

 

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 8 2005, 06:36 PM
James,

(new weight, not the current 2850#)

[snapback]67613[/snapback]​

Am I right in assuming the e36's are getting ready ( weight gain ) to get screwed again???

Know something Bill ??

 

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 8 2005, 06:14 PM

I really don't see the point of creating a new class, that's outside the framework of IT, just to provide a place for these cars to race.  If that's what your're looking to do, just extend the T2/T3 lifespan for another 10-20 years, at the Regional level. 

[snapback]67609[/snapback]​

... Have you driven a T2 car? Its not much better than stock. Not very safe either. At least if it got classed in Improved Touring it could get some safety upgrades, especially a fuel cell.

... In the SE we had one T2 car eligible for a year end award out of the four that ran a race in 2005. So by those numbers, it doesn't look like to many drivers are interested in Touring. Going by what you said about crossing over to World Challenge Touring: An Improved Touring Car is a lot closer to their specs than a Stock/Touring2 car.

... Rick

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 8 2005, 01:53 PM
Am I right in assuming the e36's are getting ready ( weight gain ) to get screwed again???

Know something Bill ??

[snapback]67622[/snapback]​

How were they screwed the first time? I guess the hundreds of words and explanations typed here are falling on deaf ears.

Wonderful. It makes it all worth it.

AB

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 8 2005, 07:04 PM
Admittedly, I'm not up much on SIR technology.  Just how proven is it, and how tight is the power band for a given SIR?

[snapback]67618[/snapback]​

From what we are being told... the engine does not even "see" the restrictor, until it hits the "stall" speed... the point at which it will simply not flow any more air...

Look at F3000, LMP cars, etc... These are used all over the place...

To give you an example... (this was an example given to me...)... A 750hp Corvette (not sure what class or organization....) breaths through a pair of 32mm SIR restrictors...

So, from the data we are being told, it's basically invisible until you hit the HP figure it's tuned for... Then... THAT'S it.... One of our CRB Liasons races his GT car with one and has spent much time on the dyno with them, as have others, and they are convinced that this is a good technology... Not suppose to affect drivability up to the top of the specified range, so you'll still have the torque, throttle-response, etc., that you had before...

As another example... If a car can make 200hp with a modified or stock ECU, but 215 or 225 is possible with a MOTEC, all in IT trim... and you specify an SIR to limit to 200hp... How much desire would you have to go spend the $$ on the MOTEC??? How much REQUIREMENT to do this to be competitive would there be???

This would be one way to classify cars in a fasion so as to keep their weights reasonable, yet keep them from being instant overdogs...

And... If an adjustment needs to be made to get the competitiveness correct... it's a simple, and inexpensive change to make...

There may be some cons... likely mostly philisophical, but overall, it's a good option, and perhaps better than strictly using weight as a balancing tool, at least at the upper end of the performance envelope...

Just an option...

Hope this explanation helps...

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 8 2005, 08:21 PM
... Have you driven a T2 car? Its not much better than stock. Not very safe either. At least if it got classed in Improved Touring it could get some safety upgrades, especially a fuel cell.

... In the SE we had one T2 car eligible for a year end award out of the four that ran a race in 2005. ... Rick

[snapback]67623[/snapback]​

With all due respect... the Touring cage rules are the most recent, and have more stringent requirments that IT currently does... and they are allowed suspension mods in the form of a "trunk kit", etc... I doesn't sound here like you know what you are talking about concerning this class... especially if you've only see ONE T2 car...

Further, a T2 car of today already has a better suspension system than most IT cars, and with the trunk-kits, they are practically IT prepped already...

The biggest difference between the two classes is the fact that the Touring cars must remain street legal, emission-compliant, etc... They are every bit the race car that an IT car is...

 

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 08:30 PM
With all due respect... the Touring cage rules are the most recent, and have more stringent requirments that IT currently does...  and they are allowed suspension mods in the form of a "trunk kit", etc...  I doesn't sound here like you know what you are talking about concerning this class... especially if you've only see ONE T2 car...

Further, a T2 car of today already has a better suspension system than most IT cars, and with the trunk-kits, they are practically IT prepped already...

The biggest difference between the two classes is the fact that the Touring cars must remain street legal, emission-compliant, etc...  They are every bit the race car that an IT car is...

[snapback]67627[/snapback]​

....Do you own one? Well, I do own a T2 car. And the suspension isn't much more than stock on my spec line. And running a catalytic converter isn't my idea of smart especially if I need to pull off track in the grass in case of a red flag. No fuel cell, no adjustable spring height. I also have to run carpet (To help catch on fire). So don't blow hot air up my skirt, I've been working on my car hoping that maybe something like this will happen. I may not know everything about T2 but I think I'm more involved than you.

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 8 2005, 08:50 PM
....Do you own one? Well, I do own a T2 car. And the suspension isn't much more than stock on my spec line. And running a catalytic converter isn't my idea of smart especially if I need to pull off track in the grass in case of a red flag. No fuel cell, no adjustable spring height. I also have to run carpet (To help catch on fire). So don't blow hot air up my skirt, I've been working on my car hoping that maybe something like this will happen. I may not know everything about T2 but I think I'm more involved than you.

[snapback]67629[/snapback]​

Exactly HOW many incidents are you aware of that have occured based on the items that you are concerned with???

 

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 09:37 PM
Exactly HOW many incidents are you aware of that have occured based on the items that you are concerned with???

[snapback]67635[/snapback]​

Darin,

....It is so dry around here that a lot of times during the drivers meeting we are warned about where we pull off track.

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 8 2005, 03:44 PM
If you want to gauge a new class your poll should ask the question.

Would you really build a car for a class above ITS.

[snapback]67586[/snapback]​

How would that tell us anything? Sort of like asking "Would you build an ITC car?" Well, people that are racing in other classes would say no, a few would say yes, and then someone would look at the poll results and say "LOOK! Not many would build one! See how many said they would not do it!"

Sort of like looking at the poll results now, which by the way indicate the majority is in favor of ITR, and saying "Look, everyone says it is great, we gotta have it!". And that isn't true either, even if the poll is favorable is just an indicator, nothing more.

R

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 8 2005, 01:21 PM
... Have you driven a T2 car? Its not much better than stock. Not very safe either. At least if it got classed in Improved Touring it could get some safety upgrades, especially a fuel cell.

... In the SE we had one T2 car eligible for a year end award out of the four that ran a race in 2005. So by those numbers, it doesn't look like to many drivers are interested in Touring.  Going by what you said about crossing over to World Challenge Touring: An Improved Touring Car is a lot closer to their specs than a Stock/Touring2 car.

... Rick

[snapback]67623[/snapback]​

Dude your making yourself look foolish. You have not got a clue about touring. T2 Biggest class at the runoffs. Cage requirements are higher than IT. Fuel cells optional like IT if I remember. YOu obviously have not even looked at the rules for touring. As I have said Touring is not going to be a big regional class because of cost ......Guess what that's the same reason that many people won't get up for the next level of IT. The only Big bore class in SCCA that is doing OK is GT1 and those numbers will head south when Trans-am croaks. You need to look at the broader part of the club not just the little market you belong to.

BTW, qualifications are 2 of the fastest 350z's built in the last 2 years at Mid-O this year and 300+ hours of testing in said cars. I am currently working with fuel safe to design a cell for these cars that works with all the factory OBDII stuff and have spent 25 hours on the dyno with these engines. If that's not enough just let me know I will send resume with references.

Ron, defining how many people would actually build a car is what needs to happen to even get started. Hell I am interested in blondes but if my wife catches me with one I am dead. Now if you asked me would I take a blonde over my with I would have to so no.
So the real question is would the cars actually be built.

Jake tried to use the number of cars turned down and that looks like not as many as it was supposed to sound like. Ask good questions of you want real answers and general questions if youwant to try to support a case.

Have a good day.

 

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 03:24 PM
So, from the data we are being told, it's basically invisible until you hit the HP figure it's tuned for...  Then...  THAT'S it....  One of our CRB Liasons races his GT car with one and has spent much time on the dyno with them, as have others, and they are convinced that this is a good technology...  Not suppose to affect drivability up to the top of the specified range, so you'll still have the torque, throttle-response, etc., that you had before...

[snapback]67625[/snapback]​

Darin, the concept is interesting, but every application I have seen these used on has wide open engine prep rules. With our restrictive head, intake and cam rules I'm not sure we would end up with the parity you would expect. For example if torque is not effected up to the stall point of the SIR then a rotary will still be at a disadvantage to a inline 6 with the SIR to weight ratio. And because area under the curve is more important that peak power I think you will still see people spending money to get everything out of the motor they can at engine speeds below the effect of the SIR.

SIR's are worth looking into but no work has been done to determine if production level rules, much less IT rules will affect how well a SIR will work. It's a little premature to think there isn't some quirk out there that we have to plan for. Now, who wants to do some testing?

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 8 2005, 09:41 PM
Darin,

....It is so dry around here that a lot of times during the drivers meeting we are warned about where we pull off track.

[snapback]67637[/snapback]​

OK... but how many times does it actually HAPPEN? We have grass fires here as well, but there is no correlation between them occurring, and the car having a cat...

Headers, overheated brakes (causing the car to drive off the corner and into the grass...), backfires, etc... ALL cause grass fires... And if your carpet catches fire, you likely have a problem sufficient that even without the carpet, you may be in trouble...

The point is that, while we do need to theorize to a point, we have to write rules to reality... Based on reality, I don't see any data that suggests that a T2 car is any less safe than an IT car, especially considering that MOST IT cars don't run fuel cells either... and, up until this season, haven't been required to run passenger side door protection, etc...


NOW, back to the topic at hand... If the cars fit the current IT structure, but need room at the top (i.e.: an ITR class), then that's fine... If you guys are thinking that IT is suddenly going to become an AWD and Turbo place to play, perhaps we're getting a little bit out of the scope of the class...