i need more class

  • Thread starter Thread starter 242volvoITB
  • Start date Start date
David, your letter hit our board, but our Volvo expert missed the con call, so it will be gone over next time, i hope.

I nearly missed your comments regarding the weight. your writing style was a bit vague, and you also had commentary about incorrect valve sizes, and inter Volvo parts changability.

I'll mention that the core of your letter is a request to run the process on the car.
 
Jake,

I basically want to completely re-homologate the 240. There are multiple errors and inconsistencies that do not match Volvo's literature. I'm almost finished filling out the VTS forms. Completed VTS forms with Volvo literature to back it should make the ITCS Board's job much easier.

Personally I would like a lower race weight, but having correct info on the line items is my first priority.
 
To answer the original question, you should be able to run in Radial Sedan as well.

A catch-all class that only has a DOT tire rule as its basis. (No slicks, no formula cars)

It makes a good second class because you don't have to worry about whether or not your car is legal and you can keep it in IT trim.
 
Jake,

Work sent me to South Korea on very short notice last month. With that in mind I won't be able to submit the revised VTS's until @ mid-August. Should I contact the CRB directly about this delay?
 
We have the original request on our list, I'll just "table" it on Mondays con call and we'll readdress it when we get the full info. I think August will be ok..
 
Well I received an email from an ITAC rep (Les Chaney) on July 1st requesting the Volvo info. I just sent him the Volvo info I have on hand. Hopefully this is enough info. My guess is the ITAC wants to close this issue and ship it out with the rest of the upcoming IT changes in the August Fastrack.
 
Last edited:
Last weekend at Summit Point an ITB 242 qualified 2nd in class at 131.3 and won the Saturday race. Performance like that seems to indicate that the car is classified just fine as is.

Charlie
 
...and we are all absolutely sure that it's legal? And that all of the other cars in that race were equally prepared, were on brand new tires, tuned with extensive dyno time, tested to optimize set-up, and steered by equally talented drivers?

There's just no way that we can judge whether cars are classified correctly from the minute sample that we get on any given weekend. And we can't control for the hundreds of other factors OTHER THAN weight, that determine how competitive any given entry is on any given weekend.

K
 
Knestis said:
...and we are all absolutely sure that it's legal? And that all of the other cars in that race were equally prepared, were on brand new tires, tuned with extensive dyno time, tested to optimize set-up, and steered by equally talented drivers?

There's just no way that we can judge whether cars are classified correctly from the minute sample that we get on any given weekend. And we can't control for the hundreds of other factors OTHER THAN weight, that determine how competitive any given entry is on any given weekend.

K
Click to expand...

... at any given track...


this thread won't die!
 
Charlie Broring said:
Last weekend at Summit Point an ITB 242 qualified 2nd in class at 131.3 and won the Saturday race. Performance like that seems to indicate that the car is classified just fine as is.

Charlie
Click to expand...

I dunnoooooo.......sounds like an overdog to me Kirk, we better take a look at it!
 
Charlie Broring said:
Last weekend at Summit Point an ITB 242 qualified 2nd in class at 131.3 and won the Saturday race. Performance like that seems to indicate that the car is classified just fine as is.

Charlie
Click to expand...

Heck if they keep the heat on you may have to upgrade to the metric Volvo's! Sounds like a die-hard 142E pilot is skeered of the newer brick! It's too late as the ITAC is already reviewing the car's line items.

I'm in or have been in contact with almost every ITB 242 racer in the country. When it comes to the regulations the typical response is "what's the ITCS?"

Regardless there are some errors that need to be corrected. The "process" is just that. I just want the errors corrected and if the weight changes in my favor, great.
 
just what us faster bricks (ITA E30) need are more bricks to draft cant wait to see what they come up with for the ITB volvo's. you could also run it in SPU that puts you in group 1 to give time between session RS is in group 4 so not a good choice for a group 5 car.
 
Last edited:
I'm back in the USA now and corresponding with Les Chaney. Les is still compiling and verifying the info. Give him some time as this is volunteer work.
 
Yup. This has turned out to be a case study in why it's a good idea to provide technical documentation with any request to the Board. Cars like this, that span a lot of years that encompass technological changes, are very challenging to get right.

One key issue that is emerging - as we try to be more consistent with our specification processes - is whether we're talking about one car (defined by an ITCS line) or multiple cars.

K
 
One car, two different fuel injectors, two sets of brakes, three sizes of 4 cylinder engines, 4 if you count turbo, 5 if you run the PVR v6, 7 with the diesel.:eek:

Whats the holdup?:blink:
 
I haven't seen any updates in the recent Fastracks and I haven't recieved anymore requests for Factory data. Anything I can do to help?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top