February 2012 Fastrack

I'm not about to support inclusion of autos or of allowing manual swaps into cars that never cam with a manual (trim levels ok, but not whole models)

however, dual clutch and otherwise computer controlled "manual" gearboxes, with pairs of gears and selectors, I personally have no issue with, though they may need a weight penalty to account for the reduced off throttle time vs. an H-pattern box.
 
With discussion on classification of the Vette, and the auto/manual debate:

How will the 4+3 be handled? If it is to go to the straight 4 speed, will the + (auto) section be removed?
 
ShelbyRacer said:
With discussion on classification of the Vette, and the auto/manual debate:

How will the 4+3 be handled? If it is to go to the straight 4 speed, will the + (auto) section be removed?
Click to expand...

There is nothing auto about it as far as I know with respect to typical automatic transmissions and torque converters etc. I thought it was just an overdrive gear that could/would be engaged in the top three gears via the ECU. The transmission is still 100% manual. If what I think it correct then a C4 racer can do with it as they please.
 
Yes, there was opposition to cars like the El Mullet from a "they don't belong in IT standpoint." Mostly the thinking was that they were trucks, not cars. I personally pushed the idea that these things are on the same chassis as a Chevelle/Monte Carlo (the El Mullet) and a Torino/LTD (the Ferd Bandelero). I suspect the vote would be not to class them if one with a manual was requested.

Did the 84 Vette only come with the 4+3? Or could you get a "straight" four speed?

As Chip notes, DSG (have one in my cracked Audi) is a different bird from autoboxes and probably something we will have to deal with in the future. Not sure about a weight penalty though.....hard to quantify the advantage and different DSGs are way better than others.
 
While it does not have a torque convertor, it does use a planetary gearset engaged via hydraulic control, governed by electronics. That said, I'm not thinking the unit will be an advantage... On the contrary, I'm wondering if it can be removed. Obviously, unless a specific allowance was made, it could not. I'm just wondering how much thought was put into that particular issue. You could just allow a ZF 6speed swap...:rolleyes:

Edit-

Jeff, only the 4+3 or the 4L60 (auto) were available in the 84 Vette.
 
This kills me. Why not allow cars with open trunks? Are there IT cars currently spec'ed that have leaf spring rears? I believe so, why not allow also 4x2 trucks? If CRB/BOD is so stuck up on this regional/national division crap, what's the fricken hangup? it's IT!?!?!?!?



Have we become such primadonnas?!?!? (me thinks: "Loosen the tie Poindexter"...) Oh, this might spill over to National... oh.. vomit.
 
Last edited:
I dont' see anything wrong with an El Mullet in SCCA. Performance-wise, I've seen a few do quite well in the drift circles with 500hp. However, I think they're too big/heavy/slow for IT.
I do, however see it as something more along the class of AS or something.. Where would you put 80s landbarges like these or a Monte Carlo in club racing? AS? GT1? heh.. that'd be fun, watching a GT1 Viper or Vette get spanked by a mullet.

According to the gospel of Wiki, they had anything from a 3.8L V6 to a 454. Some even came with 3 and 4 spd manuals.. so it's not necessarily out of the realm of "pony car with an open trunk".
 
Last edited:
Easy there Micky. A lot of this stuff is a carry over from yester-year when it may have actually been applicable. The issue is that since there is little-to-no demand for a revision, it has stayed on the books. Rancharos? Who cares as long as they had a manual option.


mossaidis said:
This kills me. Why not allow cars with open trunks? Are there IT cars currently spec'ed that have leaf spring rears? I believe so, why not allow also 4x2 trucks? If CRB/BOD is so stuck up on this regional/national division crap, what's the fricken hangup? it's IT!?!?!?!?



Have we become such premadonas?!?!? (me thinks: "Loosen the tie Poindexter"...) Oh, this might spill over to National... oh.. vomit.
Click to expand...
 
Matt93SE said:
I dont' see anything wrong with an El Mullet in SCCA. I do, however see it as something more along the class of AS or something.. Where would you put 80s landbarges in club racing?
According to the gospel of Wiki, they had anything from a 3.8L V6 to a 454. Some even came with 3 and 4 spd manuals.

Sounds too big for ITS, too heavy/slow for ITR, but maybe AS or (hehehe) GT1. :)
Click to expand...

Class them where they fall. 170hp V8 craptastic with a 4-speed? Put it in ITS with the V8 process numbers and set it free. Who cares? It is what it is.
 
Yep.

I did the research on the car. Last year with a manual (a 3 speed!) was 78 I think in the El Mullett, not sure about the Bandelero.

I'd vote to class one if the right request was made. Last year for 4 speeds was early 70s in both cars I think. Have to watch the power outputs back then, they were hefty.
 
JeffYoung said:
Yep.

I did the research on the car. Last year with a manual (a 3 speed!) was 78 I think in the El Mullett, not sure about the Bandelero.

I'd vote to class one if the right request was made. Last year for 4 speeds was early 70s in both cars I think. Have to watch the power outputs back then, they were hefty.
Click to expand...

If I were still on the ITAC, based on this info, I'd vote against classing them. My objection has nothing to do with the "pickup" or "truck" thing -- I'm all-inclusive on body styles, I'm the one who got station wagons allowed back in -- but it has to do with the transmission and age thing.

1) Don't class any more early-'70s cars. For sure if it wasn't spec'ed with SAE horsepower, it shouldn't be added. They don't fit into the modern process and although there's an method for handling exceptions, the value of this classification isn't high enough to make it worth it.

2) Don't bother classing it if it was only available with a 3-speed transmission. No one is going to build one of those. I'm sure the original requester thought he'd be able to stuff in an updated drivetrain.
 
Our rules say the cutoff is 1968. If someone wants to class one, and requests it, and is willing to build it even though it's doomed to failure, why should we stop them?

The only reason would be that we don't want "old cars" clogging up the class, or ruining its appearance. While I don't favor any rules that attempt to assist "old cars," I also don't favor any rules (or classification philosophies) that banninate them.
 
JeffYoung said:
Our rules say the cutoff is 1968. If someone wants to class one, and requests it, and is willing to build it even though it's doomed to failure, why should we stop them?

The only reason would be that we don't want "old cars" clogging up the class, or ruining its appearance. While I don't favor any rules that attempt to assist "old cars," I also don't favor any rules (or classification philosophies) that banninate them.
Click to expand...

I understand and that's a good point. Although I'd advocate that the rules should be changed such that instead of an arbitrary model-year cutoff, the rules should allow only those spec'ed with SAE horsepower (realisticly, that moves it to about '72-'74), and grandfather in the existing listings that don't comply. And the primary justification is because it's very difficult to assign fair weights to pre-SAE cars under the process.
 
Valid point. The pre-SAE stuff is hard to class, I agree.

JoshS said:
I understand and that's a good point. Although I'd advocate that the rules should be changed such that instead of an arbitrary model-year cutoff, the rules should allow only those spec'ed with SAE horsepower (realisticly, that moves it to about '72-'74), and grandfather in the existing listings that don't comply. And the primary justification is because it's very difficult to assign fair weights to pre-SAE cars under the process.
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
Yep.

I did the research on the car. Last year with a manual (a 3 speed!) was 78 I think in the El Mullett, not sure about the Bandelero.

I'd vote to class one if the right request was made. Last year for 4 speeds was early 70s in both cars I think. Have to watch the power outputs back then, they were hefty.
Click to expand...



My Dad had a 81 GMC Caballero and it had a 305 V8- with a manual trans. I had a 86 El Camino that was by no means a truck. It was a Malibu with a bed attached. Couldn't haul/carry anything. The suspension was too soft but it could smoke a set of tires for miles. These could be classed but probably not raced for better options.
 
Was it a three on the tree?

I couldn't find any indication of the 3 speed being offered after 78 when the cars were downsized.

I wonder if your dad's was a conversion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top