help me out..define the "look and feel" of IT.

[dj10]

I will agree on the ABS technology. The RR shock myth has been proven false in Touring. PS. I have gone National racing in EP and I have RR shocks. Life is good!!!

I must have missed that myth, what's the myth on the RR shocks?

If I have the $5K and want to spend it to go faster, not being able to buy RR shocks is NOT going to keep me from buying more tenths.

What double adj shocks can you spend an addition 5k on that will pickup that kind of time? A few tenths is a matter of squeezing your butt together tighter in a couple of turns.

It's not possible to control spending with rules. Never has been, never will be. We might make the gains per dollar smaller but that just makes them more valuable.

Your right but that's no reason to leave the barn door wide open either.

K

 

[Knestis]

>> Your right but that's no reason to leave the barn door wide open either.

Okay, then. Let's just not use "decreased cost" as a rationale for limiting technology or maintaining some restriction. There's no need to quote any more shock prices...

And for the record, I can't figure out why anyone would want to spend MORE money to run a national class, than it takes to run even a basic IT car. All you have to do to win in many National classes in many divisions is show up.

K

 

[seckerich]

The myth Dan is that the banning of them saves money. It was proven cost effective to allow them in Touring as opposed to high end custom valving like we use in our current IT shocks. 10 years ago it was a valid reason to ban them. It is not the case now that the cost has come down so much compared to the legal alternatives. Motec and other engine management started at $5000 then as well. Times change and you have to look at what fits today--not 10 years ago. Jake asked for opinions--you got mine. It is worth what you paid for it.

 

[RSTPerformance]

ALL US cars should be eligible if they fit into one of the 5 current IT classes, unless proven to be a safety hazard (weight and/or speed - we don't need anything above ITR at the moment). And yes, I do think that station waggons, AWD, and even the small pickups (ITT) should be classed.

All classes should be equal in terms of one set of rules.

JMO

Raymond

 

[rcc85]

I like IT because I like cars!! I like the diversity, the variety. The idea that people can race Dodges, Volvos, Pintos, Renaults, Alfas and yes even BMWs, VWs, Mazdas and Hondas. I understand the appeal of the spec classes from a driver's standpoint and even from a builder's standpoint but there is something about building and driving something different that appeals to me. I always root for the underdog.

The ITR V8 pony car discussion has caused me to keep an eye out for both V8 and V6 pony cars (a V6 ITS Mustang is an interesting idea as an alternative to the ITR cars). Man, if I could make one of those competitive some people would cry. If I had more hair, I would even grow a mullet.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

 

[GKR_17]

Bring on the Ferrari. Though I find 240hp not 214. Right on the line officially. Stock weight is somewhere around 2300 lbs though, it'd be sad to have to bolt in well over 500 lbs of lead.

 

[Greg Amy]

Bring on the Ferrari. Though I find 240hp not 214.

The 1980-82 (81?) K-Jetronic model (GTBi and GTSi) was 214 ponies. The prior carb'd one (GTB; four Webers?) was 240, and the subsequent four-valve (QV) got it back to 240 (K-Jet was added to the '80 to meet emissions). Yes, I'm a big closet fan of the Ferrari 3.0L V8s...always had a thing for that car, especially the QV...

Bring on the 308s! Just don't ask me to build or campaign one...I'll drive yours, though...