Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Andy,
Refer to www.arrc-online.com for each drivers best time for the weekend...
Robert H... 1 39.07
Dan J... 1 40.93
Tha's an ITS RX-7 my friend. Fastest T3 RX-8 in the race was Shannon M.
Andy,
Refer to www.arrc-online.com for each drivers best time for the weekend...
Robert H... 1 39.07
Dan J... 1 40.93
Tha's an ITS RX-7 my friend. Fastest T3 RX-8 in the race was Shannon M.
Andy,
Refer to www.arrc-online.com for each drivers best time for the weekend...
Robert H... 1 39.07
Dan J... 1 40.93
And the best ITS time was 1:39.56, so now we know that ITR is a slower class than ITS. What was your point again?Check the enduro. The McMasters Rx-8 did finish higher, but did not have the best lap. The Huffmaster Rx-8 ran a 1'39.60 in the enduro, and qualified at a 1'39.07. The best ITR E36 lap for that weekend (including qualifying) was 1'40.93.
Dan,
I noticed @ the ARRC, that the RX-8 T-3 @ 2980# was 1.86sec faster than your ITR e36 BMW.
The RX-8 was competing w/o the benefit of IT preparation & you want to lower the weight?
Process weights for both new listings...
The older DOHC car may have gotten some "real world data" help since there's been a lot of "common wisdom" swirling around the difference between it and the SOHC version for ages. If we started from scratch on the one that's 130# lighter, it would end up the same now if in fact the stock power ratings are identical, since the technologies involved ask for he same multiplier.
K
And the best ITS time was 1:39.56, so now we know that ITR is a slower class than ITS. What was your point again?![]()
Guys - do you really, REALLY want to get in the business of comparing single lap times among disparate cars, at one track, on one weekend, with ALL of the other variables not accounted for...???!!
You are our own worst enemies.
And Andy - look up "enabler" in the dictionary. Don't encourage this insanity.
Chris - The recent Neon/Stratus specifications all went through the process. My point was that, if the first generation models did NOT go through the same process - if they got "real worlded" - it would account for the differences.
K
If this is true then "WHY" is the Stratus heavier than the Gen2 ACR Neon that has 20 more HP? I like that there is a formula being used to class cars, but I would like it if it was the same formula for a all the cars in IT!!!!!!!!Chris - The recent Neon/Stratus specifications all went through the process. My point was that, if the first generation models did NOT go through the same process - if they got "real worlded" - it would account for the differences.
K
If it's the same RX-8 that Ray had at MidOhio in August, it's his old Grand-Am car from when they ran with SpeedSource, not a T3 car. I think it was pretty well developed.The best ITR time for the weekend was a 1'39.11, so no ITS wasn't faster. I certainly expect ITR to get faster as the cars get more developed. However, the E36 doesn't have much room left for improvement. An Rx-8 prepped mostly to T3 specs surely does.
Marty I believe you are correct. He had 2 - RX-8's, 1, a T3 and the other the GrandAm rx-8If it's the same RX-8 that Ray had at MidOhio in August, it's his old Grand-Am car from when they ran with SpeedSource, not a T3 car. I think it was pretty well developed.
.
Think VERY carefully about this statement. While it's sensible as far as it goes (in terms of the motivation to build and therefore likelihood of seeing cars on the track) this approach codifies competition adjustments (bleah!) EXACTLY like they are implemented in Production - post hoc changes in specification based on on-track performance. Are you ALL ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that you want to go down that road?
I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that I do NOT and I take it as part of my mission on the ITAC to keep us from going there.
K
I completely agree. This is why we need to be very careful using the torque number to set weights. All that actually matters is the hp of the engine in the usable RPM range. In general a high torque motor will have a 'flatter' power curve and won't lose as much power when shifting to a higher gear. But notice the ratio change in the transmission is highly important also. We clearly have an adder for torque, and I thought we had one for good transmission, but I don't hear much talk of it.
Here are 4 examples:
ITR BMW 325i (E36)
2nd-3rd: 33.7% drop
3rd-4th: 26.9% drop
4th-5th: 18.0% drop
ITR Porsche 944S2
2nd-3rd: 32.0% drop
3rd-4th: 26.1% drop
4th-5th: 19.7% drop
ITR Honda S2000
3rd-4th: 21.6% drop
4th-5th: 16.4% drop
5th-6th: 16.5% drop
ITR Mazda Rx-8
3rd-4th: 27.8% drop
4th-5th: 15.8% drop
5th-6th: 15.7% drop
Both of the low torque cars also have better transmissions, especially when you go down two gears from top. In addition, since the ratios are better, they may actually use 4 gears at some tracks where any 5-speed box will only use 3.
As an added thought - those familiar with the ITS Rx-7 know how much better the GTUs 5th gear is. The 0.71 5th gear in that car is a 29% drop, while the 0.76 5th drops 24%. Without that 5% better gear, that car has little chance in a tough field. Notice how much better than that both the S2000 and Rx-8 are for both 5th and 6th gears.
Your eyes are a lot better than mine - saw the ITU in another pic but couldn't find the T3. OTOH, I don't know why I'm even responding - this whole discussion is totally meaningless.Eagle 7 & DJ10,
Check out this link
http://photos.hydrous.net/photo.php?photo=19832
Be sure to look at the class designations on the side of the car... ITU & T3...