ITR, When???

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 27 2005, 07:58 PM
Much appreciated Rick.  Now I just need to endear myself to you enough to get the formula for that RED paint you have...

[snapback]66751[/snapback]​

Andy,

... 1998 Dodge Viper Red. PPG: B/C-C/C

... I plan on using the same color on my 98 BMW Z3. It is already red but it has to much orange in it. The Viper red is the brightest true red color I have found. Porsche red is close but it still shows up orange under florescent light.

... Just as a joke.... IT....Red ? .... LOL

... Like I read a few posts back .... Cars classed by color.... Interesting

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by charrbq@Nov 27 2005, 04:22 PM
After extensive research, it has been determined that the combination of ITB/ITC classes could be achieved favorably provided the current B cars ran 5" rims, 100lbs. ballast, and a mother-in-law in the rear seat.

[snapback]66752[/snapback]​

Well, at least the Volvos, Golfs and yes, even the Accord/Preludes have room for the standard all knowing Mother In Law in the back.

Seriously, the ITAC DOES discuss ITC, and IS aware that there are some strong but albeit small pockets of activity, but that they are not as common as we would like.

It is VERY hard to populate the class...cars are just hard to come across that share the combination needed to actually show up. We can class a Kia Rio, but how many will actually show up?? (And the Rio might be too fast, LOL)

ITR is to ITC like ITS was to ITD a few years ago. It isn't going to hasten the end of the class, but it does provide an option. I seriously doubt that there are guys who are in ITC, and will jump if ITR is offered...but will stay in C if it is not. They are too far apart. It's regional racing, and ITC will be on the list and will have races if there are cars that show up.

 

[Bill Miller]

I think that adding an ITR class will further reduce interest in C, but maybe that is the way it should be?

Ron,

I'm not sure how you get from A to B (no pun intended) on that one. I honestly don't think it will have much impact, if any at all. I certainly don't see guys that are running ITC cars, going out and building ITR cars.

 

[Knestis]

I was going to build a New Beetle for ITC but since the class is slated for death, I'm going to start searching for mid-80s Mustang donor cars. I'll be driving around the NC countryside if anyone needs me.

K

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 27 2005, 09:32 PM
Ron,

I'm not sure how you get from A to B (no pun intended) on that one.  I honestly don't think it will have much impact, if any at all.  I certainly don't see guys that are running ITC cars, going out and building ITR cars.

[snapback]66760[/snapback]​

Maybe I mis-wrote. What I was trying to say was that IF R came in, then some S drivers would go to R. Some would sell their S cars for not too much cash, thus maybe enticing some A drivers to S. Then, some A drivers might sell their cars thus enticing some B drivers to A - and so forth.

What I was trying to get at, for net result, is that C drivers might move up further reducing the class count.

I agree, I don't think many C drivers will go to R that is for sure! BUT WAIT - look at Kirk's post - he's going R and will set a trend!!!! Kirk, I bet you can't drive one mile and NOT find a good 5.0L donor car - especially in the Gboro/Burlington region where I grew up - every redneck (self included) is issued one at the DMV at age 16.

R

 

[Joe Harlan]

I think any talk of kiling ITC is very premature. ITC could be revived with one good classification. ITC is the lowest cost entry level class is SCCA so lets just can the dying crap. As far as a class for V/8 camaros and mustangs go there is one, Its called AS which started out as a good idea and haded for to much money land in a big hurry. The problem with applying IT specs to V\8 stuff is that everything in the cars your talking about was marginally enough for a spirited street car let alone the stress of a racing car. So in short order the requests for big brakes ect. will be coming down the pipeline. Go easy on the ITR deal think it out completely and look to the past to see the mistakes that were made there so we don't make them all over again.

 

[lateapex911]

Good point Joe...

Let's start with a listing of those mistakes.

Now, I should research AS much more thoroughly, but....

The class is pretty fast, and the motors put out some HP. THe rules seem to have evolved into a " start with a chassis, but everything else is new and trick" state.

THe diffs are racing diffs, the brakes, the transmissions and on and on are racing items...

I assume, it has been allowed, all to be more "economical" as the stock parts just weren't up to the rigors of racing.

So, what mistakes were made, and how can the rules and classifications avoid them?

(Would it be prudent, for example, to set a cap on allowable HP? Such as the use of SIRs? If the cars can't acheive 150MPH, they won't have to brake from that speed, and the stock rotors and calipers should be adequate, and so on...)

Thoughts??

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 27 2005, 10:43 PM
I think any talk of kiling ITC is very premature. ITC could be revived with one good classification. ITC is the lowest cost entry level class is SCCA so lets just can the dying crap. As far as a class for V/8 camaros and mustangs go there is one, Its called AS which started out as a good idea and haded for to much money land in a big hurry. The problem with applying IT specs to V\8 stuff is that everything in the cars your talking about was marginally enough for a spirited street car let alone the stress of a racing car. So in short order the requests for big brakes ect. will be coming down the pipeline. Go easy on the ITR deal think it out completely and look to the past to see the mistakes that were made there so we don't make them all over again.

[snapback]66766[/snapback]​

I'm not talking about C being dead, and won't, if folks will quit talking about AS. AS is not affordable like IT and the biggest problem I see with AS is there just isn't that much competition. IT is affordable as you like (S to C, R maybe) and has a lot of competition for the most part.

Besides, the cars fit into IT just fine based on power, weight, etc. just as the other proposed cars do. Their point of controversy is a V8, which most folks know is no big deal IF they know the V8s in question. If they don't and are used to racing 4 pots then they'll cry foul without understanding the motor and limitations.

I agree to go easy, class once, and class correctly, but they can be fit into the class. I am new so it would be nice to list some past mistakes (not putting you on the spot, just want to learn) so a newbie knows where some things went wrong.

Thanks,
Ron

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 27 2005, 04:11 PM
I'm not talking about C being dead, and won't, if folks will quit talking about AS. AS is not affordable like IT and the biggest problem I see with AS is there just isn't that much competition. IT is affordable as you like (S to C, R maybe) and has a lot of competition for the most part.

Besides, the cars fit into IT just fine based on power, weight, etc. just as the other proposed cars do.  Their point of controversy is a V8, which most folks know is no big deal IF they know the V8s in question. If they don't and are used to racing 4 pots then they'll cry foul without understanding the motor and limitations.

I agree to go easy, class once, and class correctly, but they can be fit into the class. I am new so it would be nice to list some past mistakes (not putting you on the spot, just want to learn) so a newbie knows where some things went wrong.

Thanks,
Ron

[snapback]66770[/snapback]​

Ron as a guy that has more 2nd and 3rd gen F-body experience than I care to talk about. I would suggest that you have not spent any time behind the wheel of a car that in IT trim will make around 300HP weight about 3200lbs and try to stop on 10 inch brakes. I kid you not. The first brake fire I ever had was an F-body on a track day. ITGT was the original place this idea first started then morphed into AS because of all of those other things. Sorry but I would have a hardtime getting all over those old v/8 cars with no brakes.

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 27 2005, 11:24 PM
I would suggest that you have not spent any time behind the wheel of a car that in IT trim will make around 300HP weight about 3200lbs

[snapback]66771[/snapback]​

You are correct, at least not in a race car in race conditions. I've been in plently more powerful at less weight but not racing them, and racing is a whole different ball game.

I disagree with your power figures, at least for the Ford 302 with E7 castings in IT trim unless there is some cheating going on. Don't know much about chevy motors to be honest, but I don't think the 350/5.7L F body should be classed so that would help some on too much power from the "pony" cars.

Weight may or may not be 3200 lbs, but as mentioned numerous times on this forum from the ITAC members - one data point should not be used to de-class, change, alter, or not class a car. Hate you had a brake fire, I've had a car fire too and that ain't no fun!!!!!!

R

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 27 2005, 04:51 PM
You are correct, at least not in a race car in race conditions. I've been in plently more powerful at less weight but not racing them, and racing is a whole different ball game.

I disagree with your power figures, at least for the Ford 302 with E7 castings in IT trim unless there is some cheating going on.  Don't know much about chevy motors to be honest, but I don't think the 350/5.7L F body should be classed so that would help some on too much power from the "pony" cars.

Weight may or may not be 3200 lbs, but as mentioned numerous times on this forum from the ITAC members - one data point should not be used to de-class, change, alter, or not class a car. Hate you had a brake fire, I've had a car fire too and that ain't no fun!!!!!!

R

[snapback]66772[/snapback]​

Ron, you can trust the fact that we could get to 300HP in IT trim and be legal. It would not even be a stretch as far as I am concerned. If we can get to 195HP out of an inline 6 at 2400 CCs I don't think 100 more out of double the displacement is gonna be even a challenge.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ok, let's not turn this into, "ITC is dead, how do we kill it off..."

ITC has little to no participation is most areas. It has pockets of popularity, especially in areas where rust has been kept at bay and the supply of donor cars and parts are at least feasible.

The ITAC DOES NOT want to kill off any class, lets get that straight. We have been, and continue to be, open to any cars or ideas that will get more drivers to ITC. Bring them on. I would write up a whole line of reasons why it is a shrinking class but there are people on this site that will take it personally. Ain't gonna do it.

The thread is about ITR. It is a good concept that I think will be popular and steal drivers from BMWCCA, PCA and NASA when it gets rolling. What cars are viable will be debated and proposed over 2006.

It's all good.

AB

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 27 2005, 11:58 PM
Ron, you can trust the fact that we could get to 300HP in IT trim and be legal. It would not even be a stretch as far as I am concerned. If we can get to 195HP out of an inline 6 at 2400 CCs I don't think 100 more out of double the displacement is gonna be even a challenge.

[snapback]66773[/snapback]​

I can agree to disagree. I'm talking Ford 5.0L motors here using the stock intake manifolds, 50/55mm MAF, 50mm TB, E7TE castings with no themactor/air injection milled out that blocks the exhaust port since it is more than 1" into the head, stock 1.78" and 1.46" valves, no funny business, .445" lift at 1.6 stock rocker ratio, and 9.5:1 compression. Remember, that folded runner design is about 20" long and is all about torque and has a small cross section. We can't change any of that. You'll get torque, for sure, but power ain't gonna be 300 rwhp or close to it. Unfortunately, I can't prove that with dyno results since no Mustanger will build a motor with IT constrictions and none of the several I've owned have I done anything so silly either!

You can get 195rwhp, and more, from an inline 6, but that inline six has a lot more breathing capability than we're ever going to see on a legal 5.0L.

Okay, I won't talk about pony cars anymore, the ITR concept is a lot more important than just a few cars. 2006 will be a good year to firm it up, whilst I race some JH steel in ITS, and see how that turns out.

R

PS-Got a new avatar just on the 300 rwhp in IT trim 5.0L Mustang concept.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 27 2005, 05:13 PM
I can agree to disagree. I'm talking Ford 5.0L motors here using the stock intake manifolds, 50/55mm MAF, 50mm TB, E7TE castings with no themactor/air injection milled out that blocks the exhaust port since it is more than 1" into the head, stock 1.78" and 1.46" valves, no funny business, .445" lift at 1.6 stock rocker ratio, and 9.5:1 compression. Remember, that folded runner design is about 20" long and is all about torque and has a small cross section. We can't change any of that. You'll get torque, for sure, but power ain't gonna be 300 rwhp or close to it. Unfortunately, I can't prove that with dyno results since no Mustanger will build a motor with IT constrictions and none of the several I've owned have I done anything so silly either!

You can get 195rwhp, and more, from an inline 6, but that inline six has a lot more breathing capability than we're ever going to see on a legal 5.0L.

Okay, I won't talk about pony cars anymore, the ITR concept is a lot more important than just a few cars. 2006 will be a good year to firm it up, whilst I race some JH steel in ITS, and see how that turns out.

R

PS-Got a new avatar just on the 300 rwhp in IT trim 5.0L Mustang concept.

[snapback]66775[/snapback]​

Sorry Ron, I don't speak RWHP and if I was using that I would have said so. 300HP at the flywheel is doable even on that engine. I didn't say it would be cheap but under the light of todays rules nothing is. As much as it pains me to say it I ave a bit of experience with that Fod product also. The intake maybe silly but those cars have some very desirable combustion chambers and I believe there is a lot of gain in a proper exhaust system. The crap part again is the poor brakes on those cars. The reason it would make a good ITS car is because it would go like hell down the straight and use 240z's for brakes at the end.

 

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 28 2005, 12:11 AM

The thread is about ITR.  It is a good concept that I think will be popular and steal drivers from BMWCCA, PCA and NASA when it gets rolling.  What cars are viable will be debated and proposed over 2006.

It's all good.

AB

[snapback]66774[/snapback]​

... Ditto ...

 

[Bill Miller]

AS is not affordable like IT

Ron,

That's just not correct. I ran through this analysis before (maybe even in this thread!). You can buy a top AS car for the same, or less, than a top ITS car. Andy, you guys had Nick's RX7 for sale, how much were you asking? There are a couple of E36 cars in the classifieds for $22k+. Look in the new Sports Car, you can buy just about any AS car out there for <$25k, and have a lot to pick from in the $15k - $20k range (and even less, if you want a Regional car). And do you honestly think ITR is going to be even the same as ITS, much less cheaper? Based on the cars we've been talking about, $30k - $40k cars are going to be the norm.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

You can spend $30K on just about anything. It just depends on how you want to build it, what level of parts you want to use, how long you want your motor to last, how many spares you need...etc.

Other than the cost of the donor, I bet prep costs don't have to vary that much across the classes. Heck, you can spend $5K on a Spec Miata motor without blinking an eye.

I wonder how much more an E36 M3 would be than a no-holds-barred 325is? Betting it's just the initial outlay...and high mile M3's abound...

Shoot, here is a perfect donor....



AB

 

[Marcus Miller]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 27 2005, 09:13 PM
Ron,

That's just not correct.  I ran through this analysis before (maybe even in this thread!).  You can buy a top AS car for the same, or less, than a top ITS car.  Andy, you guys had Nick's RX7 for sale, how much were you asking?  There are a couple of E36 cars in the classifieds for $22k+.  Look in the new Sports Car, you can buy just about any AS car out there for <$25k, and have a lot to pick from in the $15k - $20k range (and even less, if you want a Regional car).  And do you honestly think ITR is going to be even the same as ITS, much less cheaper?  Based on the cars we've been talking about, $30k - $40k cars are going to be the norm.

[snapback]66789[/snapback]​

That's just build cost though.. AS cars are stupid money to maintain and eat parts like americans love fast food. to run up front at least...

how much is an ITS bimmer motor? 6K? I had a quote for a topline AS motor and it had another digit in it...

Marcus

 

[Marcus Miller]

As to ITC being dead?
That's big yes on the west coast.

It sucks, since that is a great entry level class, cost and speed wise.
What can we classify that will run with a mid 80's Civic, and early 80's VW's and 70's Datsun's that has appeal to a newbie racer?

Marcus

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 28 2005, 12:27 AM
You can spend $30K on just about anything.  It just depends on how you want to build it, what level of parts you want to use, how long you want your motor to last, how many spares you need...etc.

Other than the cost of the donor, I bet prep costs don't have to vary that much across the classes.  Heck, you can spend $5K on a Spec Miata motor without blinking an eye.

I wonder how much more an E36 M3 would be than a no-holds-barred 325is?  Betting it's just the initial outlay...and high mile M3's abound...

Shoot, here is a perfect donor....
AB

[snapback]66790[/snapback]​

Andy,

I know you can spend $30k on anything, if you want to. Hell, an ITB A2 VW Golf, from a well known VW prep shop, was over $20k, a few years ago. What I said was, was that $30k - $40k cars would be the norm in ITR. And as far as that E36 M3 goes, that's great, $10k for a donor car w/ almost 140k miles on it. That's probably at least twice what you'd pay for a similar vintage E36 325is. But back to the M3, what would it take to build that into a proper IT car?