ITR Class Poll
- Thread starter Ron Earp
- Start date
JeffYoung
Active member
Amen. To me, not allowing in a class to account for the 200+ hp cars that have hit the street since 1995 is the death of IT. If we want IT to look like a production (a frigging MGA won a production class this year for chrissakes), then we freeze it, and do nothing. If we want IT to reflect the real world of cars as it existed five years ago, then we must update and allow in cars that don't fit in ITS.
It's that simple. What is there not to get? And why are people arguing against a class that I think most ITS drivers would be interested in? I'll still keep my ITS car (I couldn't sell it anyway), but the thought of running a 5-8 year old sports car with 240 hp stock in IT prep sounds very appealing.
So, like Ron says, we'll put the proposal together and send it to the guys who actually seem interested in the future of IT (the ITAC) and go from the there. While I promised myself that I'd try to more polite on these boards, I will simply say that for the naysayers who think that an ITR that includes 250 hp cars with "bad brakes" -- don't race in the class.
Jeff
It's that simple. What is there not to get? And why are people arguing against a class that I think most ITS drivers would be interested in? I'll still keep my ITS car (I couldn't sell it anyway), but the thought of running a 5-8 year old sports car with 240 hp stock in IT prep sounds very appealing.
So, like Ron says, we'll put the proposal together and send it to the guys who actually seem interested in the future of IT (the ITAC) and go from the there. While I promised myself that I'd try to more polite on these boards, I will simply say that for the naysayers who think that an ITR that includes 250 hp cars with "bad brakes" -- don't race in the class.
Jeff
Banzai240
New member
Originally posted by Bill Miller+Dec 9 2005, 07:19 PM-->
You left off the end of that sentance... Here, I'll fill it in:
...ANY MORE.
If you look at the original LP concept, it involved 240Zs with essentially IT suspensions and LP motors... It's changed a LOT since then... mostly because the classification of the 240Z and cars simliarly classified became too much of a threat...
You were there, Bill, you know all of this...
<!--QuoteBegin-Bill Miller@Dec 9 2005, 07:19 PM
And are the allowances you're talking about the ones that are listed in the TCS? .... are those exceptions pretty much limited to inlet restrictors and trunk kits?[snapback]67743[/snapback]
Bill... all of my statements were not directed at you, but to answer your questions... Look at the shock allowances for some of these... (RR shocks on the Viper, etc...) The wheel size allowances as well... mostly in terms of widths... Look at compression numbers verses stock... I'm sure Joe could fill you in more...
Again, I'm not saying a class above ITS is a bad idea, just that it needs to be kept in the scope of the current IT rules... When you suggest that these cars could prep to a "different level", then you are stepping outside the scope of IT...
Bill Miller
New member
Darin,
I didn't pay much attention to the 1st wave of l-p EP cars, but when the l-p FP-HP cars came in, they already had alternate control arms, reinforced pickup points, modified/substituted knuckles, etc. But, I agree, they're doing their damnedest to dork it all up. That Spridget deal is going to kill HP. They're going to be right back where they were 5 years ago.
As I said, I haven't looked at the trunk kits for all the cars, but we're talking about T2/T3 cars, not T1 Vipers.
I didn't pay much attention to the 1st wave of l-p EP cars, but when the l-p FP-HP cars came in, they already had alternate control arms, reinforced pickup points, modified/substituted knuckles, etc. But, I agree, they're doing their damnedest to dork it all up. That Spridget deal is going to kill HP. They're going to be right back where they were 5 years ago.
As I said, I haven't looked at the trunk kits for all the cars, but we're talking about T2/T3 cars, not T1 Vipers.
Fastfred92
New member
Sounds reasonable to me Darin, I dont think anybody would advocate prep beyond what current IT allows other than restrictions or larger wheels for the ITR cars, heck i am in favor of eliminating the current wheel rule and going to something like open rule or a plus 2 or whatever rule. I have some help from Hankook and they will see a time when even 15" tires are not profitable to make anymore. Your average new grocery getter nowadays has 17x7.5 or 8's. Also a idea of a limited motor ( kinda like prod but not ) might work, the 300z for example might not be allowed any IT engine prep and would confirm to a SS type rule as opposed to a restrictor plate or SIR ??
Joe Harlan
New member
Bill the only thing that is an open rule in Touring is LSD's for all car's and Shocks are open. Wheel widths are speced as are tire sizes. Every alternate part has to be approved and we all know how long that process takes. I have looked hard at theis and I don't see a direct if its classed here it should be classed overthere kind of deal. But hey I have now been branded a naysayer for voicing an alternate oppinion and whacked fer me pur spellin so what would I know...
When the early EP/LP cars were classed the original group were IT cars on steriods.....12:1 engines and basic IT everything else. Because like a lot of things SCCA a plan was rolled out before it was complete we ended up with another failing program and BS set of rules....Wow wonder why I say a class above would be cool but be cautious on how it is started? Those that are unwilling to look at the mistakes of the past...blah,blah The wrong tweek to the balance of the existing stuff with a rule to create new could bleed downward, That's ok if positive and could screw the pooch if done wrong.
Bill Miller
New member
Joe, the way I read it is that you can change the shocks, but you can't use coilovers (even sleeves).
Banzai240
New member
Some on the ITAC tried to make this happen, but we could only get support for the wheel rules we have now... For some reason, there was a lot of resistance to just allowing a "Plus 2" across the board, and don't even start to mention the current 6" minimum in ITB and C...
But think about what you are saying... we would then have MULTIPLE prep levels in the same class... That's the dork job that Production has right now... Only they have more than just two levels!
I can understand the concept of suggesting that some cars not be allowed to make certain mods, etc., but that just confuses the issue in my opinion... AND, the end result is that the overall output is limited... That's NO different than what happens with an SIR, only the SIR is 1) cheaper, 2) MUCH easier to make adjustments too, and 3) MUCH easier to estimate the effect on the motor... AND, it let's ALL cars be built to the same rules. They can optimize to get every bit of the allowed HP, or maybe try to enhance the torque curve, etc., but, due to the limited HP potential, competition should remain balanced...
It's simple math this way... the whole "and engine is just an air-pump" deal...
AND..... you don't really have to alter any IT philosophy to get it done...
As parameters for this mystical class... if it were to happen, the wheel rules would certainly have to be such as to encompass the new breed of cars. Other than that, and the use of SIRs if needed, I don't see the rules needing to be much different inorder to get a viable class, so long as the scope of the class doesn't expand out into cars that have traditionally been difficult to put one's figure on as far as potential goes...
Banzai240
New member
Maybe this would be a start??
Acura RSX Type-S 2002
Acura Integra 97-99 190
Alfa Romeo Milano 3.0L (87-89) 183
BMW 325i/is (2 & 4door) (92-95) 189
BMW M Coupe 98-99
BMW M3 95-99
BMW 328ci/i 1999
BMW Z3 2.8L 97-98
Ford Mustang V6 1999+ 190
Honda Prelude SH & non-SH (97-98) 195
Honda Prelude V-Tech 190
Honda S2000 2000
Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L 16V 185
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 86-88
Nissan Maxima 89-94 175
Nissan Maxima 95-99 (A32
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 225
Porsche Boxter S 2000
Porsche 968 1995
Toyota Supra 1998
Toyota Supra 95-97
Toyota Supra (86 1/2-87) 200
Some are already in ITS, but at pretty heavy weights... Others may be able to fit into ITS with an SIR at a lighter weight, but I'm not sure how widespread I'd suggest the use of these be until there is some water under the bridge and they've been proven to work as expected...
The target numbers would have to be such that it would accomodate a fairly wide range of outputs, because the range seems to be a lot broader once you start getting to this level...
I've asked before for people to put together a list... This was part of my attempt at it...
Joe Harlan
New member
Darin, Nice list now were is the class above ITS?.....Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 9 2005, 03:52 PM
Maybe this would be a start??
Acura RSX Type-S 2002
Acura Integra 97-99 190
Alfa Romeo Milano 3.0L (87-89) 183
BMW 325i/is (2 & 4door) (92-95) 189
BMW M Coupe 98-99
BMW M3 95-99
BMW 328ci/i 1999
BMW Z3 2.8L 97-98
Ford Mustang V6 1999+ 190
Honda Prelude SH & non-SH (97-98) 195
Honda Prelude V-Tech 190
Honda S2000 2000
Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L 16V 185
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 86-88
Nissan Maxima 89-94 175
Nissan Maxima 95-99 (A32
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 225
Porsche Boxter S 2000
Porsche 968 1995
Toyota Supra 1998
Toyota Supra 95-97
Toyota Supra (86 1/2-87) 200
Some are already in ITS, but at pretty heavy weights... Others may be able to fit into ITS with an SIR at a lighter weight, but I'm not sure how widespread I'd suggest the use of these be until there is some water under the bridge and they've been proven to work as expected...
The target numbers would have to be such that it would accomodate a fairly wide range of outputs, because the range seems to be a lot broader once you start getting to this level...
I've asked before for people to put together a list... This was part of my attempt at it...
[snapback]67769[/snapback]
I don't see a single car there that couldn't and shouldn't be considered for ITS with a restrictor Some of them because they can't get down to weight may fit today. Now The Boxter S and the 968 are not likely to get big numbers for an IT class and Maybe the S2000 would have to be restricted more than we would like but who knows?
JeffYoung
Active member
You're kidding right? A simple restrictor is going to make a Boxster S run similar lap times to a Second Gen RX7? What about brakes, aero, wheels, suspension sophistication, 6-speeds, and all the other things that have made cars from the last 10 years that much more competent than cars from the 80s and early 90s?
I don't get it Joe. Why are you so adamant about trying to shoehorn these cars in S?
I don't get it Joe. Why are you so adamant about trying to shoehorn these cars in S?
Ron Earp
Administrator
Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 9 2005, 11:58 PM
Darin, Nice list now were is the class above ITS?.....[snapback]67775[/snapback]
Nine pages to get to this - you want to stuff all those cars in S? Some can go, for sure, but I've got a list of "R" cars that includes a few of the higher performing cars from this list, as well as others.
What would be the point of putting those cars in S? So a car with 240 hp STOCK can run with a 30 year old Z car (which I incidentally own 1/2 of one and like)? Why would you want them in S? And, why would anyone interested in these cars want to retrict their horsepower output, dumb them down, so they'll run as fast as S cars? What would the point be of building one of these cars if they'll simply run as fast as a 30 year old Z car?
These, and a whole lot more than just the cars on this list, cars have more potential than any S cars in S now. They clearly fit into a class above S. So why dumb them down to fit in S?
Joe Harlan
New member
Look Ron, It's not a big deal that you don't agree. The thing that you all are not considering is most of these cars are very heavy from the factory and are not gonna get light enough to take advantage of all that HP. 2845 for the Z3 listed here 189HP 209ftlbs of torque...... even if you ran that car wide open it's still not gonna beat a current E36.....I am doing the research on these cars for P/W
Consider this 2003 350z 287hp stock will make 330HP in IT trim where are you gonna put that car if you fill up your next class with car that index very close to the current S class. You guys are looking at your little corner of the world If I remember correct there are 8 divisions in SCCA with loads of regions. How many cars is it gonna take to fill up 9 divisions for 1 class? 10,20 cars per division just to have any competition? What about the number of folks that get pulled out of S under your plan. Does than not thin the competition in S? I am interested in racing not parading. Oh and BTW note the smiley at the end of the sentence. You need to lighten up dude.
Jeff, To start with the Boxter is not and never will be an IT car it does not even come close to the intent of IT....If you are OK with blowing the intent out or the philosophy then why not use an SIR?
JeffYoung
Active member
And Joe, there you have it. When you say a Boxster never is and never will meet the intent of IT is where you and I just will never agree, and frankly, I'm right. IT's faster classes are NO LONGER (as they may have been in the 80s and even the 90s) a place for $2500 race cars. Any ITS car is going to cost you upwards of $20k to build if you want to run anywhere but the back, and yes I know you can buy a built car for less but that is a different story as you know.
Let me put it this way: Why is a Boxster S not T an IT car when a 944s is? A 944s cost an ungodly amount of money when new, and after 10-15 years, still will cost as much as $10k for a good example. Hell, a 325i probably cost, in 1993 dollars, close to what a base Boxster costs now. In a few years, early Boxsters will be in the teens (if not already) and then they are perfect candidates for IT.
Things change. Cars get faster. The Boxster S is the RX7 or the Supra or the 944 or the 300zx of the 21st Century. Without it, IT of 2015 is just like Production of 2005. Dead and withering.
P.S. -- I have no intent of buying, owning or racing a Boxster.
P.S.S. -- your posts a while back about the TR8 being "expensive" are just flat out wrong, as it is probably one of the cheapest motors to build for IT (Rover V8 parts are everywhere), and you can find $50 body panels off of any of the nearly 100,000 TR7s built.
P.S.S.S. -- if you don't run in IT, and have no interest in ITR, why are you fighting this one so hard?
Let me put it this way: Why is a Boxster S not T an IT car when a 944s is? A 944s cost an ungodly amount of money when new, and after 10-15 years, still will cost as much as $10k for a good example. Hell, a 325i probably cost, in 1993 dollars, close to what a base Boxster costs now. In a few years, early Boxsters will be in the teens (if not already) and then they are perfect candidates for IT.
Things change. Cars get faster. The Boxster S is the RX7 or the Supra or the 944 or the 300zx of the 21st Century. Without it, IT of 2015 is just like Production of 2005. Dead and withering.
P.S. -- I have no intent of buying, owning or racing a Boxster.
P.S.S. -- your posts a while back about the TR8 being "expensive" are just flat out wrong, as it is probably one of the cheapest motors to build for IT (Rover V8 parts are everywhere), and you can find $50 body panels off of any of the nearly 100,000 TR7s built.
P.S.S.S. -- if you don't run in IT, and have no interest in ITR, why are you fighting this one so hard?
Ron Earp
Administrator
Joe, if you are doing research on weights, then you surely know they are not as high as you think they are.
968 with 240 hp stock? Right at 3145lbs stock WITH electric seats and sunroof. Some are lighter without. In race trim it'll make a low weight (it is,after all, a 944 chassis) with 240 stock hp. It'll run rings around S cars.
80s 911s - 2800-3000lbs stock, ~190hp depending. Surely will fit in ITR and performance will exceed ITS.
Boxsters - around 2900lbs stock with 217hp stock on early models. Doesn't fit in ITR? Why not?
Nissan 300zs - these are porky around 3450-3575lbs in stock street trim. But, if you've driven one you know there is a lot to lose in weight here - electronic climate control, full power seats, and lots of luxury. I bet there is 50lbs of carpet and sound deading alone.
I'm interested in racing and not parading too. I'm interested in racing modern automobiles that have performance a notch above what we've got now. And I'm not biased to "just newer cars" - look at the crap I own, drive, and work on - Jensen, Z, TR8, etc. I'm interested in IT not becoming a jalopy race, as some corner workers now refer to it, despite my own cars. And finally, I'm interested in getting people attracted to IT racing with cars they can identify with.
Ron
Joe Harlan
New member
I am sure you are Jeff, Lets see they have been classed in T2 since they were new and there are a total of 4 of them running T2 in the country....Yep thats a barn burner..You guys may as well give up trying to change my mind. Enjoy the day.
As i said before.
As far as my comments on the TR8 When you start finishing races and getting the other 5 secs out of the car the program will be way different.
As far as my racing in IT goes...Um I think building 8 IT cars and at least 20+ engines and maintaining 14 to 15 cars locally allows me the room to talk IT. So that dog don't hunt either bud. I understand things get faster but I also understand we have the ability to race a 6.0 liter Caddy/GTO against a 3.5 liter 350z today and do it well. Your right this aint the 70's were have greater technology to control the things we couldn't before.
Banzai240
New member
Guys... GIVE ME A BREAK! The meladrama is getting a little thick...
The fast 240Zs are of 1970 vintage, and they are still being raced... competitively... IT isn't going anywhere anytime soon... not in 5 years, 10 years, or even 15 years... so let's stop with the chicken little routines...
To answer Joe's question above... Many of those cars are NOT in ITS, and wouldn't be, without a restrictor that actually works... At this point, we don't know if we have access to one that does. Using the current classification structure for ITS, the 300ZX, for example, would need to weight about 3500lbs without adders... As has been discussed with the BMW in ITS, we need to reign IN the performance envelope of ITS some, in order to better equate the whole class... Keep in mind when you guys keep looking at the envelope for this class... the BMW is NOT the target for the class... It's TOO FAST. So you need to look at the 240Z and the RX-7 and equate them to those...
Now, as for whoever mentioned the 944S... again, give me a break... The car is EXACTLY like a 944, with the exception of making 188 stock hp... Before you go running off screaming "That's what the BMW makes..."... sure it does... BUT, the 944S doesn't have the IT prepped output potential that the E36 does... and, incidently, the 944S looks like a decent classification on paper, using real numbers and estimates...
Cars the the Integra Type-R, etc., make a LOT of factory HP... They just don't fit into the ITAC's vision of ITS without some major weight or some restriction... And, based on the number of cars that really have to work to be a competitive package in ITS now, I'm not sure it's wise to keep stacking the top of the deck like this... We don't really need another BMW situation, or too many more cars that are right on the top edge of the class... It would work against what we've already done in the class (or that's coming down the line soon...)
There is a good case for building an ITU class on paper. Through that process, some cars may turn out to look like better S cars... If that's the case, then fine... I'm not sure a class full of restricted cars is the way to go, but I suppose it is an option... I'd like to think that restrictors would only be used as a last resort, especially since they are not part of the classification process, and they were NOT part of the original PCA proposal...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against using them, but I'm not sure I agree that it's a good practice to just use them to compensate for poor classification structure... I think we can group many of these cars based on weight and leave the engines open... Then again, if there was a concrete way to limit the ultimate potential, that has an attractive side... especially in a classification scheme based on wt/hp potential...
Joe Harlan
New member
Again Ron, not everybody has your money, How many people do you really think are gonna show up to race IT in a 968? How many 911's do you really think will go out and bang fenders in an IT class? Not enough to make a class that how many. The reality is most PCA folks race for social purposes and a little spirited fun they do not want to take the chance of actually messing up those cars the cross over will be minimal at best. Hell NASA will run any car any where are they getting the PCA cross over? I doubt it.
I have driven many a 300ZX curb weight is 3086 and that's about as light as your gonna get now add a 200lb driver to it. Did youforget that 1.75 inch cage that has to go in there? The car has 75lbs of brakes on it. They are just heavy period.
Darin, I am nnot looking at the E36 when making these comparisons. One thing to consider is that alot of these new Vtec type engines ect. are not gonna see the gains that the early stuff will.