IT-level cars coming to a National near you? B Spec Race Cars

I am an SSC guy - expiring car in a seemingly expiring class. When I heard about B-spec, I had first posted some disappointment over at rrax that there is talk about a new SS-like class instead of putting up support for the current SS classes that are not faring well. After some thought, I agree that B-spec may just be a good chance to revive the SS concept, *if* it is done right - with good political, PR and manufacturer support.

Will watch how it goes - I like the SS idea a lot, would like to
continue driving an almost-stock car to the track and back, and
compared to SSC cars, the buy-in for Bspec may not be that bad if one chooses either a pre-owned donor car or if there is a market for used Bspec cars. All spec and sealed would be awesome to keep costs down.

Fingers crossed. In what other class can you flip your car and
literally throw a Fit? :) :eclipsee_steering:
 
KAI, Please make your thoughts known to the CRB; RE sealed and tight specs.
The Fiesta is the ringer and will neeed about 200# spread from the Mazda and maybe 100# from the Honda. The Nissan is a sleeper and the Hyundai looks good, at least on paper. The little Chev Eco tech will be cheat up real fast also.
If this is kept close on track, the class will be very strong. If SCCA lets them all bring the cars , as is , It will never get a start.
Please push for seals . Lets not make this into a 6000$ engine rebuild class. MM
 
I doubt that this will be/stay like an SS class. Look at IT, it went from SS cars to IT low prep and then now, where the rules have grown a lot farther than they were first intended. It would be cool to put B-SPec prepped cars into an IT class. The last thing SCCA needs is more classes.

Steven
 
Steven McWilliams Jr said:
I doubt that this will be/stay like an SS class. Look at IT, it went from SS cars to IT low prep and then now, where the rules have grown a lot farther than they were first intended. It would be cool to put B-SPec prepped cars into an IT class. The last thing SCCA needs is more classes.

Steven
Click to expand...

it HAS been 25 plus years......
...and technology has changed.
 
I submitted a letter requesting seal engines and DOT 140 or higher tires, balanced by weight.
This is about the same as the VW CUp Goals, still in process.
 
Flyinglizard said:
Run them on DOT 180 tires. Anything but 0 dot Hoosiers.
Click to expand...

Serious question, are they any series that are actually running with a tire wear limit? I know there are semi pros and for that matter some SCCA classes that run on a spec tire but is there anyone who has made a treadwear limit work?
 
Lemons [edit] uses a treadwear rating spec on tires. It seems to work for them.
 
Last edited:
Chumpcar runs @ 190 and up. I was pushing for 180, so that we could use Kumho XS. WE are on the Falken 615 tires. The class gets cheaty as the tires get stickier. That holds for most racing,IMHO. Slower is a lot better racing.
It is a good balance in reality. The lighter cars turn better, and the heavy cars go faster , giving up some turn.
OUR car is an 1800# VW GOLF. It works well.
 
Last edited:
Flyinglizard said:
KAI, Please make your thoughts known to the CRB; RE sealed and tight specs.
The Fiesta is the ringer and will neeed about 200# spread from the Mazda and maybe 100# from the Honda. The Nissan is a sleeper and the Hyundai looks good, at least on paper. The little Chev Eco tech will be cheat up real fast also.
If this is kept close on track, the class will be very strong. If SCCA lets them all bring the cars , as is , It will never get a start.
Please push for seals . Lets not make this into a 6000$ engine rebuild class. MM
Click to expand...

Actually they should also add the Fiat 500 and base Mini to the mix also. The 500 shares chassis with both the Mazda 2 and Festiva, too. So even thought the Festiva has 20 more hp than the "2" it's slower because it weighs 23x lbs more.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews..._2010_honda_fit_2011_mazda_2-comparison_tests
 
I foreget that this is the same SCCA that put the base Mini in H stock for solo. And the boosted Minis more or less had it's own class. Total BS.
I like the Mini as a driver, but it does not belong in this mix of cheapass ,low end cars.
The right way might be to have a price cap ,like the English race groups had. Maybe $15K retail
The Mini is not a B spec car in any sense other than it is small.. It is not cheap nor built cheaply. No Mini, IMHO.
Either way the "SCCA rules wont be out or classed until 2012", and I'm sure that NASA will get them out before SCCA does.
" They may run STU or prod before then". Per SCCA techGuy Ryan.
Iwould hope that the cars are using a stock power train and stock tanks ,which would not be allowed into the Prod rules. Except maybe along the lines of the plastic tank Golfs.
MM
 
None of those cars are considered "B" cars.
The VW Polo is the best B car worldwide but we may never get it. It won the Chinese Touring car last year.
 
Flyinglizard said:
None of those cars are considered "B" cars.
The VW Polo is the best B car worldwide but we may never get it. It won the Chinese Touring car last year.
Click to expand...

????

I picked, the Honda Fit, Base Mini, Mazda 2, and Ford Fiesta, then Edmunds threw in the Cruse. So the base Mini is $2.5-3K more than the Fit or Fiesta. Hp/Torque wise the Mini and the Fiesta are a toss up.

As for the Polo:
http://www.edmunds.com/volkswagen/polo/2012/
 
Z3_GoCar said:
As for the Polo:
Click to expand...
Sweet! I fell in love with the Polo when we visited Germany last year, and said I'd buy one if it ever came here (esp that 1.4L turbo one).

I've been half-looking at the "B Spec" market for a couple years; a Polo would get me off my butt to buy one...
 
So lets talk about these cars big-picture. They don't fit into SSC right now because they would be too slow. Those that don't want another class may have to suck it up if they like the concept because the only way these get off the ground is if there is a psudo-spec class for them.

Pick 6 of them, write the rules wo that they can cross over into ITB or ITC (however they fit) to make double-dipping attractive. They don't have to have EVERYTHING IT has, just don't allow something IT doesn't.

Maybe the target for this class could be ITB/ITC guys who want newer stuff and the close competitiveness of an almost-spec class. I could see it being successful, but not without giving them their own class.
 
Except IT does not give them the National racing platform that the manufacturers probably want for them. SS does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top