February 2012 Fastrack

Chip42 said:
gotta treat it seriously even if you think it's ridiculous.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Definitely should if you're going to serve on the ITAC and serve member interests. What difference does it make to any of us racers if someone wants to race an El Mullet? If the process works, and we think it does, and the car fits into an IT class based on power then class it up.

That "spoil the look of the class" thing is a bunch of shit. That almost stopped V8 Pony cars in ITR and would probably stop the C4 Corvette if it'd persisted. Spoil the look to whom? Some white suit in Topeka who hasn't turned a wheel in 25 years?
 
Making the El Camino handle is not that hard. Everyone of them is raced on any given weekend at every circle track in the world. The A body and the G Body chassis was available from 72ish to 88 in everything from the almighty# 3 monte carlo to the Buick Regal GNX Cop Car to the Richard Petty Pontiac Aero Coupe. They are all the same.

Why shouldn't it be classed? Its just a body on a frame.
 
Last edited:
Ron Earp said:
Definitely should if you're going to serve on the ITAC and serve member interests. What difference does it make to any of us racers if someone wants to race an El Mullet? If the process works, and we think it does, and the car fits into an IT class based on power then class it up.

That "spoil the look of the class" thing is a bunch of shit. That almost stopped V8 Pony cars in ITR and would probably stop the C4 Corvette if it'd persisted. Spoil the look to whom? Some white suit in Topeka who hasn't turned a wheel in 25 years?
Click to expand...

ron - I agree completely, and at the same time, this car would not fit "my" view of IT. every one of us drives a car someone else thinks is ridiculous. class it, let him come and play, and maybe we will all be surprised. and maybe not. but it's not up to us to decide if a car is "right" for IT, only if it meets the basic performance envelope (yup) and has the required equipment (manual gearbox, no blower, etc...). straight math, assuming the 210hp number quoted in the add (I'm ignorant about these cars) would be 3105# in ITR: 210*1.25*11.25+150 (torque).

we might have been wrong in our reason to not class the mullet, but that error saved us from the possibility of stating that we will not class it, or others like it, so we can debate that further. there's disagreement over the definition of these vehicles as car or truck (El camino, baja, brat, VW FWD pickup,...), it's a bit less overt than the pony car "look" argument, but I think the opinions are truly intended to the good of the class, even if some of us disagree.
 
We are going to need to re-review this based on the discovery of the unicornish manual El Mullet.

Chip42 said:
ron - I agree completely, and at the same time, this car would not fit "my" view of IT. every one of us drives a car someone else thinks is ridiculous. class it, let him come and play, and maybe we will all be surprised. and maybe not. but it's not up to us to decide if a car is "right" for IT, only if it meets the basic performance envelope (yup) and has the required equipment (manual gearbox, no blower, etc...). straight math, assuming the 210hp number quoted in the add (I'm ignorant about these cars) would be 3105# in ITR: 210*1.25*11.25+150 (torque).

we might have been wrong in our reason to not class the mullet, but that error saved us from the possibility of stating that we will not class it, or others like it, so we can debate that further. there's disagreement over the definition of these vehicles as car or truck (El camino, baja, brat, VW FWD pickup,...), it's a bit less overt than the pony car "look" argument, but I think the opinions are truly intended to the good of the class, even if some of us disagree.
Click to expand...
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
I think the issue WAS that autos weren't up to the rigors of road-racing. Too much heat, too much wear to survive without extra allowances to beef them up.
Click to expand...

What happened to warts and all? If someone really wants to race a "slushbox" why should they be excluded? Cars with small brakes aren't excluded because they are more prone to overheating and fade..... I'm sure an external trans oil cooler would be allowed same as one is allowed for engine oil. So if someone really wants to race an automatic, why should they be excluded because the snooty nose folk think that kind of trans doesn't belong in a proper race car?

Same as if someone wants to race El Mullet, more cars on the track are a good thing, right?

And yes, I agree with the statement that DSG, PDK, whatever it's called should get a weight penalty in the process because shift times are like nil compared to a driver operated manual trans.
 
Conversations when we were writing the NW Region IT rules - before the national set was released - was that "race cars don't have automatic transmissions." We retained in our draft the "no autos" restriction from the CA rules that started it all but decided wagons would be fine - partially because we couldn't reconcile it with the Rabbit GTI that most of us were falling in love with.

K

EDIT - personally, I don't care if someone wants to race an automatic 'box, but it would require some purposeful attention to what would be allowed for them, if anything.

EDIT EDIT - FURTHERMORE (and I got a chuckle out of this) since the rationale printed in Fastrack was "no manual available," by inference the car (truck? whatever) has to be allowed if it's proven that it IS available in that configuration. ITAC red herring fale...! :)
 
Last edited:
JeffYoung said:
Valid point. The pre-SAE stuff is hard to class, I agree.
Click to expand...

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...

I agree with Josh, this is a valid point.
 
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt said:
Still nothing on the Vette and 240SX ITS car?
Click to expand...

JeffYoung said:
We are still doing research on the ITS 240sx.
Click to expand...
Jeff,
The shop I do my tuning at also does ~90% of the prep work on a very nice 240sx. I know the owner of the shop and the car very well, and I bet I could find out about anything I wanted on it. If there's any info you're looking for, I could do some asking. It's a really nice car, but yeah, the feeling I've always got was "too heavy".
 
Classing anything that old just pushes us further towards ancient status. Should not even be considered. Could not wait for that boat to miss a breaking point. I guess they could run tail gate down for better aero.:023:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top