January 2014 Fastrack

Plus the E46 323 has never been processed with "what we know." My guess is it makes significantly more than 25%, based on my experience with Irish Mike's car.

As it sits, it may be the only remaining true overdog in ITS.
 
JeffYoung said:
Plus the E46 323 has never been processed with "what we know." My guess is it makes significantly more than 25%, based on my experience with Irish Mike's car.

As it sits, it may be the only remaining true overdog in ITS.
Click to expand...

It is one of those "we'll never know for sure" deals, but I've been told anecdotally that once the Vanos code is cracked with a good build they are at close to 220 at the wheels.
 
Interesting notes:
BF Goodrich will continue to sponsor a Super Tour with a subset of Majors events designated as a Super Tour events. Saferacer will continue sponsorship. Of interest to drivers and Region merchandise and Tech and Stewards, there will be new Saferacer Club racing sticker replacing the old SafeRacer national racing stickers and the “plain Jane” SCCA Club Racing” stickers.
​
When we went to Saferacer support a few years ago, we had to replace the stickers for the Nationals, but they gave them away for free. Wonder with this change if we'll charge "Regional" racers for the replacements...?

I've got a short stack of "Classic" SCCA stickers - both Regional and National - that may go for millions on eBay in a few years...
Region website landed with KS region live and other regions are evaluating. There are some improvements and updates scheduled for SCCA.com.
​
They're planning on consolidating all Region websites? That's actually a preyty good idea from a marketing perspective. Each time I got to a new website I'm confused by differences in style, location of information, results, schedules, etc. We really do need to make our message(s) consistent.
Rules Season Discussion
​
A good read for all members. This will give you a rough idea of the guidelines we' follow as rulesmakers throughout the year.
 
preparedcivic said:
It is one of those "we'll never know for sure" deals, but I've been told anecdotally that once the Vanos code is cracked with a good build they are at close to 220 at the wheels.
Click to expand...
I've felt that that car was worth a strong consideration were I to go ITS. I can't confirm, or deny 220 at the wheels, but, thats what, about 260 crank?? Somebody correct me if my backwards math sucks, I'm out of practice). An 80 hp bump seems reaaalllllly strong.
 
lateapex911 said:
I've felt that that car was worth a strong consideration were I to go ITS. I can't confirm, or deny 220 at the wheels, but, thats what, about 260 crank?? Somebody correct me if my backwards math sucks, I'm out of practice). An 80 hp bump seems reaaalllllly strong.
Click to expand...

The motor's a M52tub25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M52

Stock it's rated at 168hp/181ft-lbs, mathwise you're a little conservative more like a 98hp gain (266hp/219whp).
 
preparedcivic said:
A TSX at 3175 in ITS??????? Wut? An E46 325 is at 3000, with a rear-drive chassis, more displacement, and equally variable valve timing with the ECU cracked.

The process came up with this weight how? 500+lbs more than the ITR listing?
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. I'd gotten my BMW Hps crossed up. The 323 has a stock rating of 168/181t as James points out. It's weighted at 3000 in ITS, unrestricted.

it's actually 2.5L, so it gives up a little to it's big brother, displacement wise. I'm unsure as to the casting differences, the intake and similar differences, but the big brother put 217 to the wheels (as near as we can ascertain without the guys with the info crying "No way!") and was rated stock at 179.
That engine was known to be underrated from the factory. It wouldn't surprise me that the 323 (mis- labeled as it was actually a 2.5) was wink wink, nudge nudge, a tad conservatively rated as well. But, all things being roughly equal, 22o wheel would be pretty strong.
 
I'm a fan of the 323 having spent a great many races watching the rear bumper of the auto tech its cars from my 968 ITR car. Rob and Jeff are both excellent drivers. Pretty close power to my car.
 
According to autotech it is all about cracking the ecu. They have a fortune invested in that. Until they got that done they had no luck with the 323.
 
I don't doubt a 100% IT-built 2.5L BMW could hit 200+ rwhp hp. With a stand-alone or cracked BMW ECU, full control of the valve timing is a tremendous advantage.

For a reality check IT-built 240Z/260Z engines, wearing carbs, SOHC 2 valves per chamber, a non-cross flow head, and less legal compression than the BMW engine can make 175+ rwhp.

But try and explain these numbers to a Z enthusiast, or a BMW enthusiast, and you'll be met with disbelief. The worlds of "bolt-on-off-the-shelf output" and "IT output" have little in common.
 
Last edited:
Knestis said:
As Jake G has so accurately explained, if the process lets the 1st gen RX7 down in A, it will do the same in B.
Click to expand...

I never looked at it like that. Jake makes an excellent point. :happy204:All else being equal, and the car being processed fairly, I would think that people would want to run at the lower weight in the higher class. If nothing else, for the better brake and tire wear.

One advantage I can see for dual-classification is the ability for some to double-dip. That means more money for the regions, and potentially can expose someone new to club racing ("Hey, you can run my car in ITx while I run it in ITy"). This may or may not work, depending on how the race groups are set up.
 
Unless the car can't make weight. Would you rather have a car that is never going to make process weight in A or a heavier car with you adding weight where you want (somewhat) in B? I would think the answer would be "it depends on the car", hence another argument for dual classification.
 
Knestis said:
As Jake G has so accurately explained, if the process lets the 1st gen RX7 down in A, it will do the same in B.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's worse. The higher lb/hp ratio means greater weight differential on any "error" (read: shortcoming) in the process. 10hp off in ITA=145lb., whereas 10hp in ITB=170lb. Again, that difference is only proportional to the disparity between ideal and actual, but it can be significant.

This is one of the reasons why ITB (and even moreso ITC) are so sensitive to changes, and why we are trying our hardest to quantify, qualify, and document everything we do that departs from the standard process.

The previous ITACs gave us this great tool in The Process. But often, the better the tool, the easier it is to make something into scrap of you're not careful.
 
Thats a good point, Matt. When I ran the numbers based on the ITACs accepted HP for the RX-7 to see how it would sit in B, I thought, "Holy lead, Batman!".
EASY decision that B was a BAD idea.

An easy way to visualize how much the weight added to a car is is to imagine the number of cinder blocks you'd have to load into it. IIRC, moving the RX-7 to ITB meant that I'd have to load over EIGHT blocks into my car AND ditch the 9 lb wheels I'd worked years on to get to seal and balance, and dump 3 other sets of wheels and tires....
...and find all NEW sets of wheels and tires....in an inch narrower size. AND re-set the car up for the increased weight, and the reduced rim width. Yea, it was going to do GREAT in iTB! :blink::shrug:

That really didn't hold much appeal......

Too little, too late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top