Ron Earp
Administrator
Based on who asked it looked like the SM guys want to race elsewhere. None of those cars belongs in ITS.
February Fastrack
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
Based on who asked it looked like the SM guys want to race elsewhere. None of those cars belongs in ITS.
gran racing
Super Moderator
LOL If the MR2 ever got to 2260, I'd dump my car in a heartbeat and would begin an MR2 build.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Untrue Ron. To me, it looks like guys with actual knowledge of MX-5 Cup and GAC cars have written in and asked that the MX-5 be put in a class that it can actually make weight. That IS the classing philosophy and it applies to the MX-5. It will be a pig, but it will be a pig that can make weight.
The Boxster was just Ben having a brain-fart.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
If you worked backward 110whp you would get 2250. 115whp you would get 2350.
but you can find 15x6 wheels more readily than you can 16x6, and tires are cheaper there too. VW also runs a slightly less common lug pattern so the wheel options are further reduced for THAT car.
point is, allow whatever diameter wheel a competitor wants. what's the harm / clash with the philosophy?
You mean like SM5 and/or STL...?
<chuckle> He's trying to get us to allow the 3.2L Boxster S into STU, too..
BEN, GO SEE A PSYCH ABOUT THAT A-ADDS*!
GA
* Automotive Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome. That guy's got more car racing ideas than Roger Penske...
1 - I get the final result, and Greg's pretty amazing to watch IRL too. I just thought the wording of the resonse was humourus.
re MR2 - my point exactly. it's a shame, because you basically wind up with a car that's ~280# overweight based on ACTUAL whp to weight vs other cars in class (car is known to make ~110whp on an optimistic dyno - or ~15%). does it "make it up" elsewhere? possibly, depending on the track and circumstances. this is why I think 2350# (20% gain) is resonable, and likely the best we could hope for, and why I'm upset the change was done to 2430 rather than 2350, as I know it's more or less a done deal now.
and I feel for the 1 or 2 FX16 guys out there who will theoretically get moved down to 2330# now with the same actual whp as the MR2 in a less "advantageous" car.
None, really, other than a somewhat-reasonable attempt to limit costs*. But if the real demand is to allow smaller-than-stock wheels, I'd suggest simply removing the line that states "Cars may not fit wheel diameters smaller than those listed on their spec line."
In the end, if someone wants to add 5-15 pounds of unsprung weight per corner (for both tire and wheel) to be able to run 17" wheels on a Rabbit...hell, let 'em self-cull the competitive herd.
GA
* I hear ya, Prof. I know, I know...
JeffYoung
New member
GUys with actual knowledge of the 1st gen RX7 also said it could never make its new ITA weight. Until Dick proved them wrong with an actual build.
The race weight in R is close enough to the curb weight that it looks possible.
The race weight in R is close enough to the curb weight that it looks possible.
"warts and all"
yeah yeah, i get it. but if it were ME running that car (and i had nothing to do with this decision btw..) i'd rather stretch to get to min weight and be a couple hundred pounds lighter than i would run heavy, slow, and paranoid about front hubs blowing up at Road Atlanta at the apex of T12.
Aren't the MX-5's 2200 lbs in GAC? Sure the MX-5 Cup cars are 2600 lbs, but they already turn times not that far off ITR with a good bit more to gain under the IT rules.
benspeed
New member
You mean like SM5 and/or STL...?
<chuckle> He's trying to get us to allow the 3.2L Boxster S into STU, too..
BEN, GO SEE A PSYCH ABOUT THAT A-ADDS*!
GA
* Automotive Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome. That guy's got more car racing ideas than Roger Penske...
Ahhhh - you guys know I've got a '98 Boxster all tuned up and ready to go - just add cage and go! Always seek to optimize the rules for your car if you can - part of the racing game...
But seriously - I'd take my 968 over the '98 Boxster in ITR - no chance of the Box beating it. The AADD (automotive attention deficit disorder) that I have been diagnosed with will stay in check for this season.
The 2.7 motor in STU - that's a big money motor to run up front with pretty limited R&D done to date. The Boxster will struggle on the big tracks but could be a front runner at the twisties...
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
GAC MX-5 cars are 2400 min without driver and no fuel. MX-5 Cup cars are 2600 without hardtops but with driver. Why would MX-5 Cup cars (as series of one model) make the cars any heavier than they have to be? And remember from a prep standpoint, they have good suspensions, intake, exhaust and an ECU.
ITR weight should be: 170*1.25*11.25=2390.
That means the car is 2110 in IT trim sitting with enough fuel to finish the race give or take driver weight of +/- 180lbs. I don't understand why the PTB aren't listening to the people who have these cars and have built them. ITS weight would be 2740lbs. I think it's a tweener and for SURE belongs in ITS. Knowing what Sunbelt has to do to make the power, I doubt they will scare anyone in ITS. Ours rolled brand new onto the dyno and made 140whp.
And Dick P. will fully admit he went 'overboard' in his effort to reduce the weight. Search button is your friend.
Last edited:
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Not entirely true, Jeff, I have actual knowledge, and I was on the ITAC calls. I said, when the subject came up:
1- There seems to be some significant discrepancies about what 'equivalent' cars can weigh. Some guys say it can't be done, but they are wrong.
2- Dicks build was 'aggressive'
3- I think you CAN get an RX-7 to weight, BUT, it will take a comprehensive effort, and some higher expenses. I've gotten mine to 2100 empty. I can go 20...maybe 30 more, but that will cost me a super $$ seat to lose 8 pounds, and hollow sway bars to lose another 8, and a 6 hours easy of scraping and painting to lose the rear noise insulation worth 6 pounds. I could also lose about 6 pounds from switching from steel tailpipes to lighter alloys. So, maybe 28 total, but all but the seat is weight where I want it. (low, or to the rear, or to the right, or all three) And money out of my pocket, where I want IT!.
Which is exactly where I said we could be: At weight or slightly below, but with lots of effort and money.(Don't ask me about the %$&# hoops and $ I've spent on stupid light wheels. Grrrrr)
To me, the last 60 or 70 pounds is the hard part. Full body scrape, super light wheels, fastidious removal of all allowable components, expensive exhaust, expensive wheels, expensive seat, and on and on.
full body scrape? are we talking liposuction now to get to the 180 # driver?
Looks right to me, so why the extra 50 lbs? Double wishbone front adder? I was told no suspension adders were used in ITR. We really need to put the math on the spec line so these errors are more obvious.
dickita15
New member
Aggressive is kind. The car was a rotisserie build that took maybe 1000 hours. I was actually tying to prove it could not be done. I exploited every gray area I could do in order to drop weight. For instance the rules say you can remove the e brake so I ground every bracket off the frame that the e brake system used. I spent over 20 hours with the wiring harness on the bench to remove every wire that I thought the rules could interpret could go away. I used the lightest year body (early) but updated the front fenders and bumpers to late because they were lighter. I used an 8 gallon fuel cell that meant I ran out of fuel in the 45 minute race at Mid Ohio.
Jeff is right I proved it could be done if you accept all the judgments I made during the build. But even so should someone have to spend that kind of effort to get a car to weight? I really do not think it should be necessary in a class that has IT’s philosophy. It really is not something a sane person would do.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Aggressive is kind. .....
Jeff is right I proved it could be done if you accept all the judgments I made during the build. But even so should someone have to spend that kind of effort to get a car to weight? I really do not think it should be necessary in a class that has IT’s philosophy. It really is not something a sane person would do.
Yes, the RX-7 is a unique problem. It's a tweener of sorts. It got squeezed out of ITA in the mid to late 90s when the PTB added cars and blew the weights/performance. When we did the Great Reorg, there was only so much jamming the Genie back in the bottle that we could do. Weight got added to the cars that were misclassed too light, (who still cry 'foul, we should not be punished because we did a better job prepping")*, and removed from the cars that were classed to heavy. The RX-7 really can't get to the weight it needs to be to truly be competitive in A.
(If it wasn't for the existence of, and the popularity of IT-7, and the need to switch wheels to a smaller width, it would be an ITB car.)
*I'm STILL hearing that, LOL