Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
The same as an ITS E36 325is plus the $5K premium you describe above....right?
AB
ITR, When???
- Thread starter Z3_GoCar
- Start date
The same as an ITS E36 325is plus the $5K premium you describe above....right?
AB
lateapex911
Super Moderator
An ITS E36 motor??? I seem to recall 12K as the price advertised here on a banner ad.
I would love to do a 911 for ITS...except it would be a dog because we classed it without a chance, LOL, and it would cost buuuuucks...911 motors are pricey, no matter how you cut it. So build costs are not totally class dependent...they can very from model to model.
Sunbelt will be happy to build whatever you want...and of course, if 40 over pistons are on your wish list...and they aren't made by your manufacturer, they will "come up" with something....as long as you "come up" with the $!$$$!!
On the Mustang, there are options to spend money....but it might not be required to get a 99% build.
I think that, from certain angles, a Mustang could be an inexpensive build...but the power must be managed right from the start. It is a car that would require more than the usual amount of research. Ron, you seem to have this great IT think/build tank going on down there....maybe you could build one to IT specs, then do some dyno work, let us know the ins and outs so we can class it at the right weight?? Or with the right SIR???
I would love to do a 911 for ITS...except it would be a dog because we classed it without a chance, LOL, and it would cost buuuuucks...911 motors are pricey, no matter how you cut it. So build costs are not totally class dependent...they can very from model to model.
Sunbelt will be happy to build whatever you want...and of course, if 40 over pistons are on your wish list...and they aren't made by your manufacturer, they will "come up" with something....as long as you "come up" with the $!$$$!!
On the Mustang, there are options to spend money....but it might not be required to get a 99% build.
I think that, from certain angles, a Mustang could be an inexpensive build...but the power must be managed right from the start. It is a car that would require more than the usual amount of research. Ron, you seem to have this great IT think/build tank going on down there....maybe you could build one to IT specs, then do some dyno work, let us know the ins and outs so we can class it at the right weight?? Or with the right SIR???
Bill Miller
New member
Marcus,
Are you saying $60,000 for an AS motor??? Also, I'd be willing to bet that a top BimmerWorld or Turner E36 ITS motor is more than $6k. Hell, you'll spend that on a Sunbelt SM motor.
Bill Miller
New member
I think that may be a bit of a stretch. The big assumption there, is that nothing would cost more to build on that M3. I don't know if that's valid.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I thought about it a little more last night.
- Wheels would be more (probably 17's allowed)
But I would think most stuff like motor work and suspension pieces etc would be the same seeing as how its the same platform with the same rules.
Your point is well taken however. I wouldn't want to write a check for a IT-prep Boxer - although I know of one in Grand Am cup prep for a song...
AB
Ron Earp
Administrator
An ITR BMW is going to cost more than an ITR Mustang, for sure. Ford parts/rebuilds vs. BMW parts rebuild - I've owned both and BMW parts cost a ton more. Ditto some of these other "exotics" that fit in ITR such as 928s, 911s, Supras, etc. They aren't going to be cheap to build, no way, no how.
But, you know what? If you don't want to play in ITR you don't have to. The point is that it will be out there for those that wish to jump in and give it a go.
These T cars that come into R are not cheap cars. Z3s are not cheap shells, and neither are E36 M3s, Supras, Boxers, 911s, and the rest. They aren't horribly expensive in my opinion, but they aren't $2k shell cheap like SM.
As far as debating Mustangs for ITR and expense/running costs, if it doesn't look right to you let the other guy build one. If the car is a dog and catches on fire, eats brakes, can't handle, and can't race well then so be it - the ITAC doesnt guarantee that the car you pick will be competitive. And nobody forces you to build it.
I'd love to build an ITR Mustang for some data, but Jeff has me committed to a 928 if that works out. Maybe he can be persuaded.....The stable down here is full with lots of projects sitting around, that is certain!!! And this "off-season" seems really short now!!!!
Ron
But, you know what? If you don't want to play in ITR you don't have to. The point is that it will be out there for those that wish to jump in and give it a go.
These T cars that come into R are not cheap cars. Z3s are not cheap shells, and neither are E36 M3s, Supras, Boxers, 911s, and the rest. They aren't horribly expensive in my opinion, but they aren't $2k shell cheap like SM.
As far as debating Mustangs for ITR and expense/running costs, if it doesn't look right to you let the other guy build one. If the car is a dog and catches on fire, eats brakes, can't handle, and can't race well then so be it - the ITAC doesnt guarantee that the car you pick will be competitive. And nobody forces you to build it.
I'd love to build an ITR Mustang for some data, but Jeff has me committed to a 928 if that works out. Maybe he can be persuaded.....The stable down here is full with lots of projects sitting around, that is certain!!! And this "off-season" seems really short now!!!!
Ron
Joe Harlan
New member
Ron, I admire the selfishness of that thought. Fact is some cars are not sports cars and sticking a pig with lipstick in the middle of a group can actually screw up more good racing than the car count will help. At 200 bucks an entry I am getting more picky about guys blowing motors and loosing brakes and generally being in the way than I used to be. It looks like you have several nice handling cars in your stable. How would you feel about the driver that slams in to the side of the Jenson cause the brakes were gone and the car wouldn't turn?
Thank you, Joe. I was going to bring up this example, but you beat me to it. In the early '90s, when AS was created, it was in response to the impending death of SSGT. The cars were prepared to IT specs, complete with stock glass, passenger seat, and limited engine mods. They even ran in the, now defunct, IT Festival in Topeka. After a couple of years of building and crashing, the drivers of said Mustangs, Camaros, etc. went complaining to the Comp Board that they needed some help getting these behemoths to whoa up and corner. Under the IT prep rules, they were plane unsafe. The board took and look, scratched their communal head and chewed on their giant cigar and gave them what they wanted...plus made them a national class. Because what they wanted was beyond the scope of IT preparation.
If we fail to learn from the past, then we are doomed to repeat it.
zracre
New member
We already have ITGT down here in the SEDIV, and no one wants to run it...2 to 3 car fields...been that way for years...the amount of money it takes to run an ITGT car would be similar with as because of all the brakes you would go thru...and the ensuing bodywork when they fail. I really dislike running with them as they are rockets down the straights, then park for the corners...frustrating enough with ITS cars in the mix too...
We REALLY need to remember that there is NO upper limit on spending, imposed by rules, classifications, or detail specs. The trick is to look at the point where diminishing returns kicks in, line-item by line-item, to make sensible comparisons.
At some point for example, throwing new tires at a car stops realizing a proportional return in lap times. For an ITC car, that threshold is reached WAY earlier than it is for an ITS car, or would be for an ITR car. This makes them "cheaper" to run but does NOT keep someone from spending a bazillion dollars on detail preparation, entry fees, engineering support, dyno time, on-track coaching, springs/bars/dampers, and goodies like Stack dashboards.
K
At some point for example, throwing new tires at a car stops realizing a proportional return in lap times. For an ITC car, that threshold is reached WAY earlier than it is for an ITS car, or would be for an ITR car. This makes them "cheaper" to run but does NOT keep someone from spending a bazillion dollars on detail preparation, entry fees, engineering support, dyno time, on-track coaching, springs/bars/dampers, and goodies like Stack dashboards.
K
Ron Earp
Administrator
Joe, I am not selfish and generally am referred to by others as open minded and fairly level headed. You are absolutely convinced that a Mustang can't race, period. You have much more experience than I do on a race track, that is for certain, and I respect that experience. But, I still disagree with you and it'll probably remain just that, a disagreement, because neither of us can produce data that will 100% validate our stances.
I suggest that a 94-95 Mustang, which I've repeatedly mentioned should be classed, can race in ITR. I don't know at what weight because a lb/hp target has not been nailed down. But the car has 11" vented rotors in the front and 10" rotors in the rear. I would imagine, with careful IT prep and attention to detail, that the car could successfully race at some weight around 3000lbs. I don't see that this is incredibly different from a BMW at 2850lbs, soon to be 3000 lbs, with slightly larger rotors. Yes, the calipers are different but the 94-95 Ford calipers are very good when you compare them to a Z car, TR8, JH, or many other solid disc 70s/80s cars.
There are other ITS cars that get by with the same swept area per ton braking capacity as a Mustang. Jeff's TR8 is one such example, that when compared via weight vs. swept area it is the same as a Mustang (Mustang at 3000 lbs, TR8 at 2610 lbs: TR8 is 52 lbs per swept square inch, Mustang is 53 lbs per swept square inch - front comparison only, Mustang has far superior rears).
But, the TR8 races pretty well, brakes when it should, and doesn't slam into cars on the track, knock on wood. Power to weight of a TR8 vs. a Mustang is yet to be determined, but if Jeff and I have done our work the TR8 will be pushing impressive numbers next dyno trip. Clearly, I cannot 100% state that an ITR Mustang will not experience brake fade and I would not suggest it will race or brake like a BMW. But, I think it has a chance to race decently with the other ITR iron proposed. Besides, ITR could end up a class that, due to reasons you are concerned about, runs with its' own on track so that 2240 lbs JHs and other light cars don't get punted. Remember, this is ITR and we're comparing these cars to other potential ITR cars, not the lightest car in ITS.
In any event, the class is over one year away and I'd prefer to concentrate discussion on other ITR cars. A pony car is just one of many that need to be there to make a viable class. Incidentally, since you definitely don't like the idea of a Mustang in ITR, what are your feelings on a Porsche 928?
Ron
JeffYoung
Active member
I actually find the point on this thread that V8 race cars with marginal to ok brakes are dangerous to be somewhat funny, as I race one. I've managed to make it nearly 2 and 1/2 seasons without hitting anyone, and in fact have finished races with faded/nearly gone brakes (as have a lot of Z drivers). After a lot of hard work on the brakes, which are tiny, I think I've got the problems with them mostly licked.
Here's the deal -- YOU ADJUST and you improve the car. If you don't adjust and you hit someone, it is the driver's fault, not the car. Case in point: Spec Miata (or Spank My Rodders as I like to call them, and I own half of two of the little toy cars). Great brakes. Great handling. Lotsa banging. Why? DRIVERS.
If we create an ITR class and DO NOT allow in Stanks and Fireheroes and Bitchin' Marrows, then we are making a huge, huge mistake. That is the one area of Cardom that the SCCA should mine vociferously and has not. AS ain't it. It's a nice class, strong in some areas, but the prep level is in my view way above IT. Most guys with Stanks and Chickenhawks aren't going to spend money on Jericho transmissions and such.
Here's the deal -- YOU ADJUST and you improve the car. If you don't adjust and you hit someone, it is the driver's fault, not the car. Case in point: Spec Miata (or Spank My Rodders as I like to call them, and I own half of two of the little toy cars). Great brakes. Great handling. Lotsa banging. Why? DRIVERS.
If we create an ITR class and DO NOT allow in Stanks and Fireheroes and Bitchin' Marrows, then we are making a huge, huge mistake. That is the one area of Cardom that the SCCA should mine vociferously and has not. AS ain't it. It's a nice class, strong in some areas, but the prep level is in my view way above IT. Most guys with Stanks and Chickenhawks aren't going to spend money on Jericho transmissions and such.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I am inclined to agree...a good driver either deals with his cars weaknesses, by adjusting for them in either a mechanical way or with a different technique, ie: braking earlier, or...
Chooses another weapon as he feels the car isn't going to get the job done.
Going in, the specs will be there...if a driver makes the choice to outdrive the capabilities of his car, then he will be spending time with the principal.
This is car racing...real man stuff...we should NOT "dumb it down" by not allowing (by refusing to class) people to race interesting, character filled,....although imperfect cars. And we SHOULD hold them to high driving standards...but that's fodder for another thread...
Chooses another weapon as he feels the car isn't going to get the job done.
Going in, the specs will be there...if a driver makes the choice to outdrive the capabilities of his car, then he will be spending time with the principal.
This is car racing...real man stuff...we should NOT "dumb it down" by not allowing (by refusing to class) people to race interesting, character filled,....although imperfect cars. And we SHOULD hold them to high driving standards...but that's fodder for another thread...
Ron Earp
Administrator
100% agree with that. I've driven Jeff's car on track on a couple of occasions. A SM, or any other good braking car, it ain't. It goes like stink in a straight line, corners pretty well, but braking, well, the technique for braking is, shall we say, a lot different than any other race car I've driven. One thinks ahead about braking, brakes, and then the car thinks about braking, and then brakes a little bit. Planning ahead is important and I daresay the car requires a higher level of skill to drive rapidly, which I don't yet possess but Jeff does. It is still great racing and the car is still competitive, just a vastly different experience to drive than most.
R
please please please please please get off of this hangup of V8 screaming chickens and rustangs as the dealbreaker of ITR.
there are sooooo many potential good cars that could be built for the class RIGHT NOW (well, for 2007 at least) that it really doesn't matter if the 8pot stuff is allowed in, the T2/T3 cars needs a place to go.
the 97-98 and 00-01 integra type r come to mind. as i know official requests for classifications have been filed, but the car has yet to be classed. reason being is that to fit it in ITS it has to run at a weight that requires many hundreds of lbs to be added. run it in ITR, and now you'll get crossover entries from cars already built for NASA's sucessful Honda Challenge series.
the E36 BMW could even be bumped up to ITR at a lighter weight (opening a window for other cars to be competitive in that group), the E46 could be run as well, with cars already built in BMWCCA. even more exciting to me would be the possibility of an E30 M3.
the S2000 is just dying for a place to race, what a sweet race car that would be.
i'm sure there are some aircooled porsche 911's that could be in here, and are already built in PCA.
take a gander at what the grid could look like, V8 american grunt (if allowed) vs German precision vs japanese technological wizardry. sounds like a dang neat class to me.
there are sooooo many potential good cars that could be built for the class RIGHT NOW (well, for 2007 at least) that it really doesn't matter if the 8pot stuff is allowed in, the T2/T3 cars needs a place to go.
the 97-98 and 00-01 integra type r come to mind. as i know official requests for classifications have been filed, but the car has yet to be classed. reason being is that to fit it in ITS it has to run at a weight that requires many hundreds of lbs to be added. run it in ITR, and now you'll get crossover entries from cars already built for NASA's sucessful Honda Challenge series.
the E36 BMW could even be bumped up to ITR at a lighter weight (opening a window for other cars to be competitive in that group), the E46 could be run as well, with cars already built in BMWCCA. even more exciting to me would be the possibility of an E30 M3.
the S2000 is just dying for a place to race, what a sweet race car that would be.
i'm sure there are some aircooled porsche 911's that could be in here, and are already built in PCA.
take a gander at what the grid could look like, V8 american grunt (if allowed) vs German precision vs japanese technological wizardry. sounds like a dang neat class to me.
Ron Earp
Administrator
I agree with you. The class is a long way off and there are some good cars to be classed. I'd like to see the V8 cars classed because I know it'd bring some new SCCA blood into the fold and I think that needs to happen. But it should not and will not be a deal breaker. I can see getting a lot of new people through "Type R" (you know, I make a funny noise and laugh everytime I say that. Just kills me, need to put it on my Lightning with a big 6" coffee can muffler) cars etc. Having PCA, BMW, and NASA people back (or maybe for the first time) in the SCCA would be great for the club.
Ron
Bill Miller
New member
Ron,
Don't resign yourself to it being 'a long way off'. I believe Andy said he would put a formal request in, to have it added for the '07 season. That's only a year away, and a lot of work will need to be done to make it happen. We all know how quickly the SCCA reacts to anything (unless of course, you have a 40+ y/o British Prod car
)
Don't resign yourself to it being 'a long way off'. I believe Andy said he would put a formal request in, to have it added for the '07 season. That's only a year away, and a lot of work will need to be done to make it happen. We all know how quickly the SCCA reacts to anything (unless of course, you have a 40+ y/o British Prod car
)