Correction to 5/09 Fastrack

[lateapex911]

From reading through the thread I take it that the Mustang is being classed at 3250lbs? WOW, so V8 power, more torque, and at the same weight of my 300zx? hmmmmmmmmm. I think the Ford guys have nothing to complain about.

I love it. There's always two sides to the story.
(I always chuckle when I'm at a race and a guy comes up and says "XYZ is WAY too light, are you guys nuts!?". (he often owns a competitor to XYZ. Then the very NEXT guy who comes up tells me it's too heavy. LOL)

Now, in actually, the 3250 number applies to neither Mustang. The early cars are listed at 3340 and the later at 3195.

Tristian, your car (as you know) has 200 ft lbs of torque at 4800rpm, and 222 hp at 6400rpm. What it doesn't have is a big old clunky 200+ pound axle banging around in the back, a .63 ratio 5th gear, and some sketchy brakes.

Of course most assume a Mustang build will be less $$ than a 300Zx build.

I bet I know which car you'd choose today!

 

[Knestis]

...I implore the powers that be to look at these items again.

Matt

This is one of those issues that bumps up against philosophies, about which reasonable people may disagree (and it's been said before) but I feel like it needs to be repeated anyway: Over time and a lot of cases, you would probably discover that you don't really want the decision-makers to try to understand as much about each car that gets listed, as you describe.

That leads to a situation where the system is allowed to consider all kinds of factors, and encourages subjectivity. In many places (art criticism, writing editorials for the Post, etc.), subjectivity is wonderful but in this business, it has historically led to outcomes that are ultimately unhealthy for a racing category...

I won't dive into "rules creep" or "performance adjustments" (bleah!). The problem that grows from well-intentioned efforts to "do a really good job" of spec'ing IT cars is inconsistency - where over time we end up with a bunch of listings that don't all apply the same assumptions, math, and policies.

That's where we are now, and fixing that is a huge priority for the ITAC.

People will tell us - heck, we say it ourselves - that "the system fails Car X." Yeah - that's absolutely true in some examples. But that's the way we have to play the calculus for the benefit of the entire category. If we fiddled and fudged to get the numbers right to make Fox Mustang owners feel positive about the outcome, we'd have a system that allowed - demanded, actually - that we do the same for everyone else. Chaos ensues, ITAC members can tweak the rules to further individual agenda, lobbying becomes a fulltime business, a few members make out like bandits, and the membership at large loses faith in the club.

There was a time in the '80s when any serious Showroom Stock competitor assumed he/she would sell the car right after the RubOffs, and started calling contacts at SCCA global HQ with a vengence, before making ANY decision about what to buy for the following year. I don't *think* that is how you want IT to be.

By limiting the factors we can consider, reducing the opportunities for subjectivity to the bare minimum necessary to address major misses (that's going to be ONE when we're done, right?), and by prescribing what we do with the numbers, we get consistency.

K

 

[Doc Bro]

I agree all ITR cars have plusses and minuses, but unfortunately the FOX has all minuses at this point.

matt

Huh??? Matt with all due respect you haven't built one or raced one in ITR trim. Your stance is purely conjecture. How about Ben Phillips's 968 ...no minuses there?? How about 8K for a Sunbelt BMW engine....no minuses there? You can run to an Advanced Auto or Boneyard close to any racetrack anywhere in the country and get Mustang parts for a song to save your race weekend.....try doing that with a BMW or Porsche.....still all minuses huh??

R

 

[Tristan Smith]

I love it. There's always two sides to the story.
(I always chuckle when I'm at a race and a guy comes up and says "XYZ is WAY too light, are you guys nuts!?". (he often owns a competitor to XYZ. Then the very NEXT guy who comes up tells me it's too heavy. LOL)

Now, in actually, the 3250 number applies to neither Mustang. The early cars are listed at 3340 and the later at 3195.

Tristian, your car (as you know) has 200 ft lbs of torque at 4800rpm, and 222 hp at 6400rpm. What it doesn't have is a big old clunky 200+ pound axle banging around in the back, a .63 ratio 5th gear, and some sketchy brakes.

Of course most assume a Mustang build will be less $$ than a 300Zx build.

I bet I know which car you'd choose today!

It was said a bit tongue in cheek. Quite frankly I don't see a whole lot of difference in the cars. They are all pigs, and the brakes are all going to be smoking by the end of the race, ha.

After looking at the Roebling Road videos on another thread here, I wonder if all of these ITR cars are going to be big heavy lumps that do fine on the straights and wallow through the corners. Only time will tell. It's a moot point, I am committed to the ZX now anyway. Now If I just get some time to go work on it. I have been camped at the CDC all week waiting for the great pandemic of 2009 to happen.

 

[JeffYoung]

Tristan's concern about racing a pig worries me too. The only solace I take from Roebling (I have a potential ITR 300zx in a storage shed) is that Mike Flynn's 323 used to do really well there at 3000 lbs. AS cars do not by the way, they are only a second or two faster than a good S car.

Right now, the R cars that are showing up -- BMW's, Acuras and Porsches -- all have great brakes. It will be interesting when brake challenged, high hp cars get thrown into the mix.

Tristan, I hope the pandemic coverage is at least better than the runaway bride....

 

[Tristan Smith]

Anything is better than that story!!!!!!!!!!

I think we should just take off a couple of hundred pounds off all the ITR cars, across the board. Seriously. Everyone complains that their "insert their car choice here" is way too heavy. It might make the cars faster, but it is the fastest class in IT anyway.

 

[roadracer12578]

Tristan's concern about racing a pig worries me too. The only solace I take from Roebling (I have a potential ITR 300zx in a storage shed) is that Mike Flynn's 323 used to do really well there at 3000 lbs. AS cars do not by the way, they are only a second or two faster than a good S car.

Right now, the R cars that are showing up -- BMW's, Acuras and Porsches -- all have great brakes. It will be interesting when brake challenged, high hp cars get thrown into the mix.

Tristan, I hope the pandemic coverage is at least better than the runaway bride....

I can deal with the weight issues. However, leaving the majority of the stock trim insdie of the car will keep in closer to the listed weight. Who the hell wants a race car with interior panels?

This is the point that I an getting at ... brakes and lack thereof.

I am probably one of the last "Fox" guys to have raced (correct me if I am inaccurate) on the stock V8 front discs and rear drums. Total junk even when they prepped to the hilt (stainless 73mm pistons, stainless bushings, hi-temp seals, braided lines, etc.). Blackhawk was not kind to those brakes and other tracks with the potential for speed will punish them even more. Lets not talk about the puny drums.

This conjures the image of 2 ITR cars involved in a shunt at Super Duper Track. For this example lets say a Fox-body Mustang GT and a 325

- 325 Driver "You hit my car goin into Turn 123 at! Don't you know how to use the brakes."

- Fox Driver "I used up my brakes because I built the car to the rules that you helped write for my car in this class."

To all the folks saying then use a Fox3 chassis, I purchased a Fox body from this website, it was prepped about 50/50 ... my plan was and still may be ITR, however, my situation does not allow for the selling and purchasing of another car.

I think you will find this situation more and more with the economic climate.

 

[lateapex911]

I can deal with the weight issues. However, leaving the majority of the stock trim insdie of the car will keep in closer to the listed weight. Who the hell wants a race car with interior panels?

The rules allow most of the panels to be removed. I think I must be missing your point here.

This is the point that I an getting at ... brakes and lack thereof.

I am probably one of the last "Fox" guys to have raced (correct me if I am inaccurate) on the stock V8 front discs and rear drums. Total junk even when they prepped to the hilt (stainless 73mm pistons, stainless bushings, hi-temp seals, braided lines, etc.). Blackhawk was not kind to those brakes and other tracks with the potential for speed will punish them even more. Lets not talk about the puny drums.

This conjures the image of 2 ITR cars involved in a shunt at Super Duper Track. For this example lets say a Fox-body Mustang GT and a 325

- 325 Driver "You hit my car goin into Turn 123 at! Don't you know how to use the brakes."

- Fox Driver "I used up my brakes because I built the car to the rules that you helped write for my car in this class."

Again, I don't really know where you are going with this. What is it that you want? A line item exception allowing better brakes? A 200 pound break because of bad brakes? Or???

And to your story, how is a 323 driver responsible A) the Fox driver choosing to use up his brakes and not compensate for that, and how is he responsible for "your car's" rules? All the rules apply to everybody. IT is not a "me-centric" category.

To all the folks saying then use a Fox3 chassis, I purchased a Fox body from somebody who advertised on this website, it was prepped about 50/50 ... my plan was and still may be ITR, however, my situation does not allow for the selling and purchasing of another car.

I think you will find this situation more and more with the economic climate.

Just needed to clarify the quote a bit. Also, what can be done? Are you suggesting certain solutions? Keep in mind the rules can't be modified because of people's purchasing moves, or their personal financial situation.

 

[erlrich]

Wow, the more I read the more I'm thinking the V6 pony cars really may be the way to go; don't know about the 'stangs, but I do know the 4th gens easily have the best brakes ever put on a Camaro, the best front suspension, and I'm guessing the best weight distribution - the engine sits behind the front axle. The live axle is still an issue, but there are a plethora of aftermarket parts designed to help keep it planted. And you should still be getting close to 250hp and 290tq out of the 3.8 in IT trim.

 

[Doc Bro]

I just cannot get my arms around this debate.....NO ONE has built one of these to the ITR rulebook, and yet there are complaints that it isn't fairly classed. How is that logical? This talk of melting brakes and hitting cars due to brake performance is all CONJECTURE and spin doctoring!!!! There are PLENTY of IT cars with poor brakes....plenty with drums....yeah I'm sure all of those guys are not having fun...and I'm sure they all wished they didn't race and sat home on the weekends because their brake performance is that aweful. The GCR states clearly "the competetiveness of a car is not guaranteed". If you don't like it on paper don't build it.....unless there's a guy with a gun to your head.

R

 

[JeffYoung]

As the driver of a car with maybe the worst brakes in IT racing (I'm serious), all I can say is, you can manage. You will never have the same braking capacity as the cars wtih big vented rotors on all four corners, but that is the yin and yang of IT racing.

Plus, I totally agree with the Doc. No one has built an ITR Mustang yet; let's see one done with a max brake setup and see what happens....

 

[Tristan Smith]

Wow, the more I read the more I'm thinking the V6 pony cars really may be the way to go; don't know about the 'stangs, but I do know the 4th gens easily have the best brakes ever put on a Camaro, the best front suspension, and I'm guessing the best weight distribution - the engine sits behind the front axle. The live axle is still an issue, but there are a plethora of aftermarket parts designed to help keep it planted. And you should still be getting close to 250hp and 290tq out of the 3.8 in IT trim.

I have always thought that was the way to go. What's the weight on the V6 Camaro?

 

[JeffYoung]

No GCR handy but I think the Mustang and Camaro are in the 2600/2700 lb range (the V6s).

Ron and I both thought, when writing the V8 proposal, that those 3.8 V6s would make good power and that they were a better choice than the V8s.

 

[Tristan Smith]

What handicaps do these cars have that give them a 500 - 600lb break on weight on the ZX, if they have a more displacement and and make more hp and torque?

I am beginning to get a complex here. While the ZX is a good car, I keep seeing other cars that, at least on outward appearance, make bigger hp/torque numbers and have lower weight. I have no idea what a ZX will make when fully built, I will be running the "old worn" motor currently in it. But if the Camaro numbers above are correct, I think I choose the wrong horse.

 

[Ron Earp]

2670 and 2850, Mustang Camaro respectively. And before someone says "why" the motors are rated 190hp and 200hp respectively. We use stock hp when classing the cars. I think they'd make great race cars, either one, with the nod IMHO going to the Camaro for the chassis and layout plus brakes. The GM 3.8L motor is fantastic. Ford copied it for their 3.8L V6 but the GM motor is still better, much as it hurts me to say that being a Ford guy.

These cars have been classed in ITR since inception.

R

 

[Tristan Smith]

So either Erlrich's number are extremely optimistic or the gains made on these engines are HUGE. Again if the Camaro's chassis is good, motor makes big gains, what handicaps it to get a 400 lb weight break on the ZX?

Again, I realize that neither car has been built and run yet, but just crunching basic numbers there seems to be a big gap there.

 

[erlrich]

What handicaps do these cars have that give them a 500 - 600lb break on weight on the ZX, if they have a more displacement and and make more hp and torque?

I am beginning to get a complex here. While the ZX is a good car, I keep seeing other cars that, at least on outward appearance, make bigger hp/torque numbers and have lower weight. I have no idea what a ZX will make when fully built, I will be running the "old worn" motor currently in it. But if the Camaro numbers above are correct, I think I choose the wrong horse.

Tristan - isn't the ZX rated at something like 222hp stock? If that's correct, unless a different power multiplier was used, it should be making around 275-280hp in IT trim. I think that, plus the live axle v. IRS is a big part of the difference - but that's just my guess.

Plus, the ZX is a REAL sports car, not some muscle car trying to go around turns

 

[JeffYoung]

There are two "key" factors (and remember this is coming from a Z32 owner) in the weight equation:

1. Stock hp (both Camaro and Mustang are lower the than the Z, by 20 and 30 hp respectively)

2. Expected gain. I believe the Camaro and Mustang got 25%, while the 300ZX got 30% (maybe more) due to a dyno sheet floating around for an SSA car with just an exhaust.

If the 300ZX can't make the expected gain, then you (we actually) can write and explain your evidence on it and the ITAC will consider it (I willhave to abstain).

I'm not sure about "actual gain" on the GM and Ferd V6s in IT trim. No one has built one. 25% gain on the 'Maro motor would be 250 crank hp, so I don't think Earl's numbers are way off.

So either Erlrich's number are extremely optimistic or the gains made on these engines are HUGE. Again if the Camaro's chassis is good, motor makes big gains, what handicaps it to get a 400 lb weight break on the ZX?

Again, I realize that neither car has been built and run yet, but just crunching basic numbers there seems to be a big gap there.

 

[ekim952522000]

Anything is better than that story!!!!!!!!!!

I think we should just take off a couple of hundred pounds off all the ITR cars, across the board. Seriously. Everyone complains that their "insert their car choice here" is way too heavy. It might make the cars faster, but it is the fastest class in IT anyway.

I have to disagree since many of the lower HP FWD cars are at very light weights now Integra Type R, Celica, Prelude.

 

[tnord]

i used to own a NA Z32. everything i've heard suggests those things have massive power potential, i would fully expect that thing to outrun a V6 F-Body down the straight, and at least keep up with the V8 stuff.