Originally posted by its66@Jan 20 2006, 02:43 PM
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Great job guys, this is the type of thinking that we need.
I know that race results aren't the sole determining factor, but, in CFR, the 325e basically annihilates the rest of the field. IF they find a way to actually pull the weight out of the car legally, the 325e will likely pull even further away from the rest of the field.
What do these cars seem to do elsewhere?
[snapback]71435[/snapback]
Originally posted by tderonne@Jan 20 2006, 01:49 PM
First of all thanks for all the time and hard work.
Second, a small gripe. Missed a car. ITA Ford Escort GT. Currently classed at 2430 pounds. Kind of an also ran in ITA. Not an ITB car by any means. It's twin, with the same powertrain, the Mazda Protege, got a break from 2510 to 2280 pounds.
Guess I need to write a letter. Seems like a simple thing to do.
[snapback]71436[/snapback]
Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 20 2006, 07:02 PM
Isn't this the thing about PCA's we were all worried about? Additional letters to correct specific cars? I'd hate to be the guy sorting the CRB mail.
And Tim, if anything the numbers on the Escort seem to be in line with everything else, the protege seems a bit light now for some reason. I assume that's based on the adders being used.
[snapback]71438[/snapback]
Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 20 2006, 11:56 AM
The puddlebee may not be classed as it is beyond the performance envelope of IT? I don't know just a guess based on my limited understanding.
Knowing what we do today about the performance potential of the E36 would it have been classed in ITS as within the performance potential?
Purely an uneducated guess (but I am trying to learn) but maybe it shouldn't have been classed in IT but now that it is here doing the best possible with it?
[snapback]71423[/snapback]
Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 20 2006, 12:23 PM
Picked up 100 pounds, but until I see otherwise I will say good to the overall process - and I will say great job on the effort put in on the project.
ITA battles should be real interesting in 2006.
[snapback]71415[/snapback]
Andy and all those involved in the process--thanks for all the work. I believe the CRB is still all wet with the BMW and the restrictor, but I will wait to see what effect it has before I make any assumptions. The car will still brake, corner, and accelerate off corners the same as it does now. We just might still be able to see it when the speed tops out!! A prelude weighs more and it was not a problem?? Spec BMW will not end with this. Great to see the help the slower cars in the class got--should be some fun racing.Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 20 2006, 02:19 PM
1. I am looking into the Protege thing.
2. The CRB chose the SIR over the weight. They must have decided that 3100+ lbs was too much and the SIR was the better solution.
3. Individual cars did not get singled out for gains or reductions, the process dictated the results. It is not a penalty for performance. It's just numbers that can be defended and repeated. No dart boards.
PCA's would be used for exactly the Protege issue. If it is a mistake, we can fix it. What we won't use them for is a "Please reduce the weight of my xxx by 30 pounds because it will make it more competitive..."
AB
[snapback]71447[/snapback]
Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 20 2006, 05:33 PM
As someone who just picked up weight I am seeing plenty of downside on additional brake and tire wear, changed dynamics in suspension geometry and handling. I think it can be pretty easy to get into the downside of weight adds doing more than to adjust power to weight potential. At some point it makes more sense to decrease the power than to add weight, IMO. Unless the argument is that they are so advantaged in handling and braking that you want to impact that as well as power to weight.
[snapback]71421[/snapback]
Matt,Originally posted by xr4racer@Jan 20 2006, 10:03 PM
As I stated earlier, I have been waiting for these type of changes for a long time, but many do not make any sense. In my class, ITS, looking into the weight changes they look good on paper until it comes time to try to do it. Many are totally impossible. For instance GSL-SE can lose 180 lbs, 280Z -225 lbs, 280zx -240 lbs. Obviously these are unattainable weights with the current rules. Why not add weight to the faster cars and reduce the slower cars by less? What this encourages is minimal cages and removing items not allowed in the rules.
In addition all of the cars must not have ben put through the "process" because either the ITA Capri I or Capri II is terribly wrong because they are identical cars mechanically with the Capri I at 2390 and the Capri II at 2670. 280 pound difference with the same brakes, engine, trans etc???
Matt
[snapback]71459[/snapback]
Originally posted by stevel@Jan 20 2006, 09:21 PM
We just couldn't get them down to weight with the hatchback version of this car.[snapback]71455[/snapback]
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 20 2006, 05:47 PM
![]()
![]()
![]()
.......
ps: Andy, Darin & George, sorry for the $hit I gave you over the past year (?) about the potential reclassing the 1st gen RX-7 to ITB. In my mind ya did the correct thing. Adding 220# & 6 inch rims made zero safety sense to me.
[snapback]71463[/snapback]