December 2011 Fastrack

Actually, it's very smart.

Quantify the difference for me in a repeatable objective way across 300 chassis of drum brakes v. disc brakes. Then get back to me.

jjjanos said:
So, Nash and Packard build cars on the same platform except the Nash has drums and the Packard has discs... you would classify the cars exactly the same?

With all due respect, that's just stupid.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I might be willing to hear an argument for a weight brake on FRONT drums, but anyone requesting such a car for IT in this age really isn't looking to race, they're looking to parade around in their pet car.
 
preparedcivic said:
I drive a 24 year old car with very tough to find plastic body panels. It is what I chose, warts and all. When they are no more, I have the choice to convert to a worse aero steel tub 3g Civic, or go with aftermarket fiberglass and switch classes.
Click to expand...

Which, to maintain you current level of competitivness involves another load of cubic money.

The SCCA cannot be in the business of guaranteeing competitiveness to a 1966 Superzoomy GT that was the shiznit back in the day, that now wouldn't even run with a B-spec car before modifications.
Click to expand...

Ummmm... allowing fiberglass fenders for cars that no longer can find the plastic ones isn't guaranteeing competitiveness... it's allowing the car to run.

JeffYoung said:
Actually, it's very smart.

Quantify the difference for me in a repeatable objective way across 300 chassis of drum brakes v. disc brakes. Then get back to me.
Click to expand...

Easy... cars with rear drum brakes reduce their weight by X lbs or y%. OR cars with front brakes increase their weight by X lbs or y%.

Repeatable? Yep. Objective? As objective as these...

FWD cars get a percentage-based subtractor: 6% for ITR, 5.5% for ITS, 2% for ITA and ITB, and 0% for ITC. Note that AWD cars should not get this adjustment.

Cars with double-wishbone suspension get a 50 lb. adder.
ITR cars with both FWD and front struts get -50 lb.
Live axle RWD cars in ITR get -50 lb.
Mid-engined (engine between driver and rear axle) cars get +50 lb.
Cars with abnormally small or large brakes for their class get -50 lb. or +50 lb.
​
 
You crack me up Pants. You forgot the quantify part. The devil is in what to put in that "x."

Also, I didn't like ANY of those you list above in the first place. Like a "brake deduct" far less.

You set drums up right and they are not a disadvantage on the rear. Maybe even an advantage. For a while.

Quantify that. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
JeffYoung said:
You set drums up right and they are not a disadvantage on the rear. Maybe even an advantage. For a while.
Click to expand...

Until you can't buy them anymore.
Just for grins, find a reasonable source for replacement drums for a 240Z...
The guys that have them know what they're worth, and it's like finding a Nolan Ryan rookie card.
 
I am well aware of the situation with Z car drums. My racing buddy Ron Earp ran one (and I drove it and helped maintain it) for many years, and my good friends Ed Palombo and STeve Parrish also still do.

You can find the aluminum ones on occasion, and the steel ones you can still get at parts stores.

But that's really not the point. The point is it is not possible to quantify the performance advantage or disadvantage of drums v. discs, particularly on the rears.

Parts availability is a whole different issue and we have steadfastly refused to grant allowances for disc brake replacements or fiberglass panel replacements due to a lack of parts. It's not class philosophy to allow that, and I completely and fully agree with it.

Does it mean that things like the extinction of the RX3 from ITA happen? Yes, it does. But I think it would be far more damaging to start allowing these things and having to sort through what should be allowed and what should not, and what performance differences they may.

We remain a basically "improved" showroom stock class.
 
found another drum brake car!!!!

JeffYoung said:
Not aware of a single front drum braked car in the ITCS. Corvair maybe?
Click to expand...


Although I was sure the 71-73 Pinto had drums, I was wrong. It is only listed with Disc/Drum.

HOWEVER, In ITC is the lowely VW Super Beetle with....Drum/Drum.

Aside from the Corvair, the VW is the only other car I found.

Bill:024:
 
jjjanos said:
Which, to maintain you current level of competitivness involves another load of cubic money.



Ummmm... allowing fiberglass fenders for cars that no longer can find the plastic ones isn't guaranteeing competitiveness... it's allowing the car to run.



Easy... cars with rear drum brakes reduce their weight by X lbs or y%. OR cars with front brakes increase their weight by X lbs or y%.

Repeatable? Yep. Objective? As objective as these...

FWD cars get a percentage-based subtractor: 6% for ITR, 5.5% for ITS, 2% for ITA and ITB, and 0% for ITC. Note that AWD cars should not get this adjustment.

Cars with double-wishbone suspension get a 50 lb. adder.
ITR cars with both FWD and front struts get -50 lb.
Live axle RWD cars in ITR get -50 lb.
Mid-engined (engine between driver and rear axle) cars get +50 lb.
Cars with abnormally small or large brakes for their class get -50 lb. or +50 lb.
​
Click to expand...

So, really, how much of a weight deduct should rear drums carry, pants?
If you're going to point to the answer, show us your math.
And don't get all lawyer-y and start trying to move the spotlight and demand answers on other things.

Just answer the question.
Can you do that?
Do THAT, and we will explain the other things.
 
Matt93SE said:
What is the meaning of life? :026:
Click to expand...

arrc3.jpg


K
 
lateapex911 said:
So, really, how much of a weight deduct should rear drums carry, pants?
Click to expand...

If I was one of you supersmart kids, I'd be pulling adders and ITB/ITC HP ratio targets out of my ass too.

Since the manual seems to like complicated shit like special ITB multi-valve multipliers and different adders based on class..

12.25 kilos for ITR
9.53 kilos for ITS
1.14258 stones for ITB
0.535714 stones for ITC

Do these make sense? Doesn't matter... it's repeatable and totally objective because I have no idea of the impact on the classes.

If you're going to point to the answer, show us your math.
Click to expand...


Same place the adders double-wishbones, ITR FWD/struts, live axles RWD ITR cars and mid-engine cars came from... thin air.

The only adder that has any basis as being objective is the FWD multiplier.

You want a HP-ratio classification system. Great. Let's go for it. Leave the power-train modification rules in place and open everything else up... according to you, they don't matter. The only thing that matters is hitting that HP ratio.

The purpose of the OEM replacement on body panels, glass, etc was to limit cost. The purpose of the OEM replacement on body panels, glass, etc wasn't to limit cars to OEM replacement body panels, glass, etc. Once the supply of parts is gone, the rule no longer achieves its purpose for that car. It is, in fact, counter-productive as drivers either must pay high prices for the few remaining parts or spend boat-loads of cash to move to another class.
 
jjjanos said:
The purpose of the OEM replacement on body panels, glass, etc was to limit cost. The purpose of the OEM replacement on body panels, glass, etc wasn't to limit cars to OEM replacement body panels, glass, etc. Once the supply of parts is gone, the rule no longer achieves its purpose for that car. It is, in fact, counter-productive as drivers either must pay high prices for the few remaining parts or spend boat-loads of cash to move to another class.
Click to expand...
I'm glad someone else sees it the way I do..

So how about you let Joe Blow use fiberglass fenders on his 1978 Whatzit, but he bolts a hunk of steel behind the fender that makes the car weigh the same... there's no performance advantage, fiberglass fenders, and chunks of scrap steel are both cheap. :023:
 
Matt93SE said:
I was trying to brainstorm ways to help the older cars stay around and be competitive- whether it's with each other or vs. the new stuff.
Click to expand...

Those older cars can still easily compete in time trials events or with some of the Historic/Vintage groups.
 
jjjanos said:
... The purpose of the OEM replacement on body panels, glass, etc was to limit cost. The purpose of the OEM replacement on body panels, glass, etc wasn't to limit cars to OEM replacement body panels, glass, etc. Once the supply of parts is gone, the rule no longer achieves its purpose for that car. It is, in fact, counter-productive as drivers either must pay high prices for the few remaining parts or spend boat-loads of cash to move to another class.
Click to expand...

The purpose of that allowance was to provide SOME relief, in terms of availability, ease, and cost, while constraining the parts to the "equivalent" of OEM parts - to take advantage of the aftermarket parts stream that follows cars around the marketplace.

What you're missing - or more likely don't agree with - is that while that logic could be extended to include plastic windows (etc.), the perceived risk to the stability and consistency of the category is judged to be too high relative to the benefits to individuals likely to result.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top