ITR Cars

James,

Give me the years that are different and I'll add them to the list, with accurate data for the board to review. BTW if these are IT rules you are allowed to update complete units.

Dan
[/b]

Hey Dan,

There are basically three engine series that are delt with in the 2.8l/3.0l Z3. They go like this:

'97-'98 M52B28 Single Vanos on Intake cam, 189hp at 5300rpm, 203 ft-Lbs at 3950rpm

'99-'00 M52B28TU Double Vanos on both Intake and Exhaust cams, 193hp at 5500rpm, 206 ft-Lbs at 3500rpm

'01-'02 M54B30 3.0l Double Vanos, 228hp at 5900rpm, 221 ft-Lbs at 3500-4750rpm

Then to complicate matters there's the issue of the different rear fender sheet metal from Sept '99 on. Basically, it takes the buldging 930 Turbo looking fender and makes it more classic Cobra with a ridge over the rear tires. Along with the new sheet metal the tail lights changed, so that instead of the classic square shape it's now more like an L shape. I'd recomend that the motor changes need to be dealt with, but the sheet metal can probably be ignored.
 
I know I'm being picky :018: ...just my nature, I guess. But here goes:


From a post by Bill Miller:
"In a T2 configuration a Boxter turned a 1:12.9 @ Nelson Ledges, that's a 2mile track w/ 13 turns. FYI I see cars with really big brakes."


Nelson has numbered corners that don't correspond to a strict number scale, i.e.

1 and 2 are joined and driven as one turn) known as "turn one", turn 1), followed by turn 3, the infamous 4 (also previously known as "Oak Tree"), 5 or 6 (carousel), an unnamed very slight bend on the main straight, then the "kink", or turn 11, followed by 12 (left hand) and turn 13 which leads onto the pit straight. Out of this I count seven turns (not counting the "slight bend" noted above.

Many times the numbers are referencing flag stations.

It is however, a very fast track regarding the average speed per lap.

Bill :024: [/b]



It's the fastest 2 mile track in North America.
 
I know I'm being picky :018: ...just my nature, I guess. But here goes:
From a post by Bill Miller:
"In a T2 configuration a Boxter turned a 1:12.9 @ Nelson Ledges, that's a 2mile track w/ 13 turns. FYI I see cars with really big brakes."
Nelson has numbered corners that don't correspond to a strict number scale, i.e.

1 and 2 are joined and driven as one turn) known as "turn one", turn 1), followed by turn 3, the infamous 4 (also previously known as "Oak Tree"), 5 or 6 (carousel), an unnamed very slight bend on the main straight, then the "kink", or turn 11, followed by 12 (left hand) and turn 13 which leads onto the pit straight. Out of this I count seven turns (not counting the "slight bend" noted above.

Many times the numbers are referencing flag stations.

It is however, a very fast track regarding the average speed per lap.

Bill :024:
[/b]


If you're going to quote me, please do so accurately. That post was originally dj's. I quoted it, pointing out that the T2 Boxster that he referred to, was a Boxster S, and not the model being considered for ITR.
 
i submitted this request to the scca(printed in june fastrack) back in march in order to classify my clubrally spec 1988 celica alltrac turbo in a class of similar cars(evo,sti,eclipse,323 gtx)instead of in ITE. so now looking at the list i dont see my car or any similar cars. can anyone shed some light on this??? please!!!

thanks
 
Unfortunately, turbo cars are verboten in IT club racing. They are not on the proposed list for ITR. Maybe some day....
 
then why would fastrack state that the crb is developing a proposal for new classes?? i submitted the request!!


original email and reply:

HI. MY NAME IS ERIC THOMPSON. I OWN A CLUBRALLY OPENCLASS CELICA ALLTRAC THAT I AM CONVERTING INTO A REGIONAL ITE COMPETITOR. WHY NOT MAKE A CLASS THAT COULD ENCOMPASS ALL 4CYL, AWD CARS, REGARDLESS OF AGE. PERFORMANCE COULD BE GOVERNED WITH INTAKE RESTRICTORS AND MINIMUM WEIGHT REGULATIONS. IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY POPULAR SEGMENT FOR THE YOUNGER CROWD(AWD TURBO CARS). AND WOULD BE CHEAPER THAN RALLY. SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA AND PLENTY OF OTHER MEMBERS HAVE AGREED. AND IT WOULD CERTAINLY ATTRACT NEW, YOUNG MEMBERS.

THANKS, ERIC

Thank you. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. i think a class for these type of cars would be great for the scca. at least on the regional level.

eric
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Ozment
To: Eric Thompsen
Cc: John Bauer
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:11 PM
Subject: RE: AWD 4CYL CARS


Hi Eric.

I am copying John Bauer on your message so he can get your requested logged for attention by the Club Racing Board.

Thanks for your input.



Sincerely,



Terry



Terry Ozment

Director of Club Racing

PO Box 19400

Topeka, KS 66619

[email protected]

800-770-2055 X 304

785-232-7214 fax

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Thompsen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 10:20 AM
To: Terry Ozment
Cc: mailto:[email protected]; mailto:[email protected]; mailto:[email protected]
Subject: AWD 4CYL CARS




" Improved Touring
1. IT - Create an ITR class (Earp/Thompson). Thank you for your input. The CRB is developing a
proposal for new classes."

what new classes then??? ITR seems like only one class. it seems the scca is beyond frustrating :bash_1_:

thanks again
 
Eric,

Here's the proposal to create a new IT class above ITS (called ITR because R is before S as A is before B.) You'll note that this is a "conventional" IT class in that no major parts of the GCR's need to be changed. This class has been in the making for almost a year and a half, and many of the cars on the list currently are about to be aged out of T-2 and SSB, or are only avalible for regionally listed classes like Honda Challenge, ITE, and Radial Sedan. Some of the cars on your list are already doing well in ITE, in the San Fran region ITE was won last year by an Evo. It'll be awful hard to reign in a car making 300hp stock, and an easy 450hp by a change of the boost.

James

With a lot of excitement, and some trepidation, I am posting in its entirety (sans spreadsheet of cars) the proposal for the creation of a class (ITR) above ITS in Improved Touring for everyone's comment. This proposal is now with the ITAC for presentation to the CRB shortly (rough outlines of it have already been sent to the CRB). Initial feedback from the powers that be (we have a CRB member as part of our working group) have been very positive. No promises, no guarantees in SCCA land (and there shouldn't be) but my personal belief is it is likely we will see ITR running next year, 2008 at the latest.

Please give this a look and fire away with comments.

Of course, the "big" debates will come on proposed vehicle weights. We have a spreadsheet developed with those weights and I truly want to relese it but I am very afraid it will turn into the nasty tit for tat fights about car weights, potential and "bias" that I've seen here in the past.

So how to avoid that? Here's my "grand" idea. We "annoint" one board/forum participant to "represent" their manfucturer in the discussions with the spreadsheet. Maybe say, Tristan Smith or KThomas for Nissan, Marshall or DJ for BMW, Steve E. for Mazda, Scott Giles for Honda, etc. I'll send the sheet to them and they can give constructive comments on issues they see with the weighting/classing of their manufacturer's cars.

Make sense? Thoughts?

Here is the written proposal:

Proposal for Restructuring of Improved Touring’s Faster Classes

Submitted to the Improved Touring Advisory Committee for consideration

I. The Past, the Present and the Future

Improved Touring has thrived as a regional class since its inception, and is the “point of entry” for most new SCCA Club racers. It draws large fields in most Regions, and new cars are being built each year. In many ways, it is the bread and butter of SCCA Club Racing and is critical to the survival of most Regions across the country.

While IT is healthy now, it is aging. A class above ITS is needed to fill the pipeline of new cars and drivers for the future. An increasing number of requests have been denied from members asking for higher horsepower cars to be classified. A quick look at old SSA cars, T2 cars and T3 cars shows a plentiful supply of cars in race trim searching for a home. This problem needs to be addressed to keep ITS healthy and vibrant.

II. “ITR”

Several SCCA members, working with some members of the Improved Touring Advisory Committee, would like to propose a solution to the issue of IT aging. This is the creation of an Improved Touring classification “above” ITS in terms of performance potential, to give those cars from 5 to 20 years old with 190 to 230 stock horsepower (there are many, see attached spreadsheet) a place to race (note that some former SSA, existing SSB, T2 and T3 cars will be eligible). These cars are more available, and in our opinion, more exciting to the generation currently deciding on what racing series to build a car for and participate in. Many of them currently appeal to the “tuner” enthusiast who, at this point, has very few real options in Improved Touring.

The list of cars that we believe fit the class is extensive, and could grow over the years. It will open the door to many new cars going SCCA racing. We think we may see new cars running SCCA that currently run with Honda Challenge, BMW CCA and Porsche Club of America and other sanctioning bodies.

We realize there will be resistance. We anticipate those evaluating the merit of this proposal to have the following (legitimate) questions:

• Will it help or hurt ITS?

We believe ITR will, in the long run, result in ITS flourishing. It is our perception that very few new ITS cars are being built, and some chassis retired, due to the belief that the BMW E36 325i/is is the only car to have, and that the only other two cars with any real chance of success are the RX7 and Datsun 240Z. ITS should not be a “three-chassis” class, and in our view, over the last three years, the perception that it is has hurt ITS. The BMW E36 325i/is fits perfectly in ITR without an SIR and will bring back the ITS drivers who have left based on any past engine restrictions. We believe that opening up ITS to many competitive chassis will result in an influx of new cars, and new drivers/members, to the class.

• How will Regions deal with it?

Member retention and development of new membership is always at the top of the lists for Regional goals. This class kills both birds with one stone. It will bring parity back to ITS while drawing entries from Honda Challenge, NASA, Porsche Club and BMW CCA club racing. Since each Region runs their Club Racing program differently, it would be up to them to slot ITR in where appropriate for car counts in that region. For some regions, running ITR with ITS until numbers dictated a split should be easy. For other regions, ITR may more realistically fit with T1/T2/SPO/SPU. In any event, high car counts should not be an unsolvable problem. Anytime a Region has too many entries, it is a good problem to have.

• Safety concerns with higher speeds

Since this will be proposed for 2007, it should fall in line with the re-organization of the cage rules category-wide. We request Touring car-level cages be required.

• Concerns with making “IT” a more expensive class.

While some of the cars in this class are more expensive, this is not a reason to limit the current class structure by eliminating cars that can be or are affordable to many in the racing industry. Affordable “used” cars are available from the T1, T2, T3, SSA, SSB and SSC ranks. Additionally, many of the cars listed on the attached spreadsheet can be had for between $3-6k – the price of a decent Prelude, E36 or Integra GSR ITS shell these days. Additionally, ITR may reduce the cost of racing in ITS as many cheap, presently non-competitive chassis, will now have a chance in ITS and may actually be built by members now that they are potentially competitive.
III. The Ruleset

We propose no changes to the Improved Touring ruleset to accommodate this class, other than the following:

1. ITR maximum wheel width is 8.5 inches.

2. Cage rules should be in line with SCCA Touring classes.

3. AWD and forced induction cars will not presently be classed in ITR.

IV. The Proposed ITR Class

Attached is a spreadsheet with over 30 cars representing our first pass at the cars that should make up in the initial classification for ITR in the ITCS along with anticipated race weights using the ITAC’s classification process. Manufacturers represented include BMW, Porsche, Honda, Acura, Nissan, Audi and others.

We all stand ready to answer any questions you may have about this proposal. The goal would be an approval from the ITAC / CRB / BoD in time for a 2007 implementation.

V. Conclusion

1. ITR will increase the number of cars available to members for building and racing. Furthermore, it will allow Improved Touring to showcase the automotive technology of the last five to 20 years.

2. ITR will bring peace to E36 325 BMW owners and tuners. They will have a place to run unrestricted, and at a reasonable weight. It is also anticipated that many of the “tuner” crowd will build and race Acuras, Hondas and other imports in ITS, as moving the 325 to ITR dispels the notion that you have to have a 325 to win in ITS. ITR will also be a viable venue for BMWCCA and PCA racers to race cars currently under competitive in their clubs and/or allow them to race at a higher level of preparation.

3. ITR will increase membership and participation in IT racing. Many of the competitive cars in ITS are presently older than members (and potential members) in their 20s. We hope to make available to them some of the popular models of the last five to 20 years in the hopes that they will build and race these cars.

4. We do not believe that ITR will unnecessarily “crowd” regional race weekends. ITR appears perfectly suited to run with either Big Bore closed wheel or ITS as it sits. When the class gains momentum, Regions will make space as needed.

5. ITR will provide a venue for several ex-SSB and T2/3 cars to race, once they are no longer eligible to run in SS or T.

This class will freshen Improved Touring, draw new members and retain ones that are seeking other outlets. It’s a win-win!
[/b]


Here is the list of ITR cars at the moment that are in the ITR proposal. Bear in mind the formatting might be a little off, and, some of the years are wrong (we know which ones) but the final draft/edit has not been done. Personally, I think there are a lot of cars to choose from and don't see any that stand out as perfect class winners, but I do know a few I'd be interested in building!

Acura Integra Type R (98-01) DOHC I4
Acura Legend (91-95) SOHC V6
Acura RXS-S (02-04) DOHC I4
Acura TSX (04-06) DOHC I4
BMW 325i/is (92-95) DOHC I6
BMW 328i/328is (96-99) DOHC I6
BMW 330i (00-04) DOHC I6
BMW 635 (83-84) DOHC I6
BMW M3 (88-91) DOHC I4
BMW Z3 (97-00) DOHC I6
Chevy/Pontiac Camaro/Firebird (97-99) OHV V6
Ford Contour SVT (98-00) DOHC V6
Ford Mustang (99-04) SOHC V6
Ford Taurus SHO (89-95) DOHC V6
Honda Prelude (93-96) DOHC I4
Honda Prelude (97-01) DOHC I4
Honda S2000 (00-03) DOHC I4
Lexus IS300 (01-05) DOHC I6
Lexus SC300 (92-00) DOHCI6
Mazda 6 (02-04) DOHC V6
Mercedes SLK (00-03) SOHC V6
Mitsubishi 3000GT (non-turbo FWD) (91-93) DOHC V6
Nissan 300ZX (89-96) DOHC V6
Nissan Maxima (00-01) DOHC V6
Porsche 911SC (78-83) SOHC F6
Porsche 944S2 (89-91) DOHC I4
Porsche 968 (93-97) DOHC I4
Porsche Boxer (97-99) DOHC F6
Toyota Celica GTS (00-02) DOHC I4
Toyota Supra (87.5-92) DOHC I6
Toyota Supra (93-97) DOHC I6

I also think there will be room for a few other cars (notably the 94-95 Mustang GT, others too) in here but we wanted to be conservative on the first round through.

Best,
Ron
[/b]
 
Bill Miller,

Sorry...as you are right. I read your post where you quoted someone else, and just jumped SO fast as to mix up the signatures. My mind was WAY ahead of my fingers.

My only interest was the reference to Nelson and its configuration, as I'm sure you knew.

Sorry for showing my clumsiness.

Good racing.

Bill :024:
 
Bill Miller,

Sorry...as you are right. I read your post where you quoted someone else, and just jumped SO fast as to mix up the signatures. My mind was WAY ahead of my fingers.

My only interest was the reference to Nelson and its configuration, as I'm sure you knew.

Sorry for showing my clumsiness.

Good racing.

Bill :024:
[/b]


No sweat Bill, good racing to you!
 
Has anyone given any thought how to address the cars with BIG 4 PISTON BREMBO BRAKES & ROTORS? Just wondering. :D
 
Has anyone given any thought how to address the cars with BIG 4 PISTON BREMBO BRAKES & ROTORS? Just wondering. :D
[/b]

Use them and enjoy them? The cars in ITR for the most part all have good brakes, no matter if they say Brembo on the side. Brakes were taken into account when classing the cars.

Ron
 
Has anyone given any thought how to address the cars with BIG 4 PISTON BREMBO BRAKES & ROTORS? Just wondering. :D
[/b]
Have you found a favorite???

The process tkes into account outstanding strrengths and weaknesses per car and folds that into the classification procedure, as Ron pointed out.

That said, the IT philosophy isn't going to attempt to balance the entire class on the head of a pin, Prod style.

I am sure some cars will prove stronger in certain areas, and tracks, and have weaknesses in certain areas and tracks. Thats what makes it intersting!
 
Have you found a favorite???

The process tkes into account outstanding strrengths and weaknesses per car and folds that into the classification procedure, as Ron pointed out.

That said, the IT philosophy isn't going to attempt to balance the entire class on the head of a pin, Prod style.

I am sure some cars will prove stronger in certain areas, and tracks, and have weaknesses in certain areas and tracks. Thats what makes it intersting! [/b]



I'm glad to hear that. Now here's another question. We are suppose to get 17" Wheels, Bigger tires are suppose to help but the only advantage is tread width correct? Are we allowed to roll body work to allow for the wider tires?
 
Bigger tires are suppose to help but the only advantage is tread width correct? [/b]

That's up to you to decide... ;)

Are we allowed to roll body work to allow for the wider tires?
[/b]

Standard IT rules... There shouldn't be a need for most cars on the list to make any major modifications to fit the allowed wheels...

Heck... I was able to fit a 16x10" wheel in the STOCK wheel-wells of my 1976 Trans-Am, which was lowered several inches, including moving the body down over the subframe... Just have to get the offsets right and fit the tires correctly for the wheel... :023:
 
I'm glad to hear that. Now here's another question. We are suppose to get 17" Wheels, Bigger tires are suppose to help but the only advantage is tread width correct? Are we allowed to roll body work to allow for the wider tires?
[/b]
Direct answer is Yes, that is allowed in the ITCS. AS Darin points out, it might not be needed...esp in a 70s Trans Am. :D

But....there is NO guarantee that every car will be able to run the limit at both ends..thats also part of the "Do your homework" mantra in choosing an IT car.

As far as advanteges, there are cases where narrower, or smaller diameter setups are better, but again, it's part of the research project.
 
i don't remember the specific weights of the various models, or their respective suspension designs or brake sizes. some of my years could very well be off a bit. given that these are all FWD, i would probably chose the 95-99yrs since they would likely have a lighter weight than the 6sp high hp model.
[/b]
Just wanted to jump in with some stock Maxima trim figures for anybody considering.
95-99 190h/205t ~3000lbs
00-01 222 & 227h/217t ~3200lbs

Engines are strong and reliable; unlike tranny. Both share 11" single piston front brakes. Front geometry, roll centers, etc. is problematic when lowering. Multi-link beam in rear. Limited aftermarket support compared with Sentra and Z families.
 
I'm just glad we are making progress for this class, so I can race this:

04022006_FrontStraight-HPT_small.jpg


In something a little less difficult than this:
DSC_1490_after.jpg


I can't wait to see this class come together. It would also save me from having to build a monster motor to get a podium.

Nice work to everyone involved.
 
The 911 is my sentimental fave, although it's a pricey choice, and the process doesn't account for the air cooled cars properly. Sad....
[/b]
Just curious, what is the "Estimated Flywheel IT HP" based on?

In the case of the 911SC in particular, the engine in my 82 911 SC street car is modded hell and gone beyond what is IT legal (compression/cam/displacement)and I am way below that. Remember, those cars are Bosch K-Jet CIS, there isn't much you can do with the injection system. Porsche didn't leave much power on the table with those engines.

Tom
 
Well, we just roughed it out. Those numbers are guesstimates that are open to revision if good evidence to the contrary is presented.

Roughly speaking, we generally thought that most cars would see +25% gain in IT trim. Some do better (my car for example, with an old Rover 215 V8). Others, like the S2000, seem optimized from the factory and probably do worse.

If you have real world data on the 82 911 SC motor, meaning lists of mods and dynojet dyno sheets, would love to look at them and adjust the numbers if needed. What information do you have?
 
Back
Top