June fastrack is up

dickita15

dickita15

New member
http://www.scca.org/documents/Fastrack/09/06/09-fastrack-june.pdf

WHAT DO YOU THINK?
The CRB welcomes comments from the IT community about whether to allow AWD cars in the IT classes.
 
NO!!

Just more BS for the ITAC to think about. How can they be classed fairly? Or will we have more classes (just what we need!---more effin' classes!, ITB 4x4 anyone?)

Just so there's no confusion, I'm against it!
 
Probably not going to be much choice down the road, given the Subaru's and Evo's Touring inclusion.

They do not dominate there, so some kind of equivalency is possible...

Not enthused about this, but I can see it coming.
 
dickita15 said:
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
The CRB welcomes comments from the IT community about whether to allow AWD cars in the IT classes.
Click to expand...

Sooner or later IT will have to include forced induction and AWD. The percentage of these cars in the enthusiast market has continued to grow over the years. With new fuel economy mandates coming down the pipe you can bet that manufactures will turn to small displacement supercharged and turbocharged engines. We can't race 35 year old cars for the next 30 years can we? Or maybe we can, we are the SCCA.

In any event, I hope I live to see the SCCA adopt newer (not really newer, but new to the SCCA) technology in the IT classes.
 
I am (personally) in favor of allowing AWD cars, but not turbo cars in IT. The recurring issue with AWD cars is their "dominance" in the wet. My view is this is just another positive/negative attribute for a particular model. All IT cars have pluses and minuses, the very few AWD N/A cars that will be eligible will be the same.

Interested in thoughts from membership.
 
I have to go along with Ron. I believe that at some time, we will have to consider AWD and forced induction. Both have pros and cons. I believe that forced induction is allowed in other SCCA classes, so how is that managed today?
 
JeffYoung said:
All IT cars have pluses and minuses, the very few AWD N/A cars that will be eligible will be the same.

Interested in thoughts from membership.
Click to expand...

There are relatively few AWD/non-turbo cars. Therefore I think the impact on IT would be minimal at best. But it'd be a good place to start and try the cars out.

As I recall someone recently asked the ITAC to class a NA AWD car. I think the response was "No."
 
But I don't think turbo cars would fit into existing framework. Remember, it ain't stock hp that is the number that is multiplied by the target pw/weight of each class, it's the estimated power in IT trim. With the legal IT mods, these numbers skyrocket - leading to weights that are redonkulously heavy.
 
RacerBill said:
I have to go along with Ron. I believe that at some time, we will have to consider AWD and forced induction. Both have pros and cons. I believe that forced induction is allowed in other SCCA classes, so how is that managed today?
Click to expand...

No open ECU's and stock exhausts.

Take a look at ANY series that allows them. They win right away and have to be brought back via comp adjustment. We don't do that. The STi's won T2 in there first year at the Runoffs...in the dry. Add the wet and it (as someone who drove one once said) 'was so easy, it was like I was cheating'.
 
Finally I have another option besides GT2. The Supra goes to EP!

I doubt I will have it ready for this weekend though.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
But I don't think turbo cars would fit into existing framework. Remember, it ain't stock hp that is the number that is multiplied by the target pw/weight of each class, it's the estimated power in IT trim. With the legal IT mods, these numbers skyrocket - leading to weights that are redonkulously heavy.
Click to expand...

Which pretty much solves the problem, doesn't it? If the car is classified correctly, then it's classified correctly. It's no different than classifying the new beetle at Abrahms M1 weight. Heavy, competitive and go through consumables like Patton across N. France.
 
.



I think the main problem will be that the GCR 9.1.3.D.9.L will have to be changed from:


"...All ballast shall be located in the front passenger footwell..."

to

"...All ballast shall be located wherever the hell you can fit all of it...."



:)
 

Attachments

  • wrx.jpg
    wrx.jpg
    64.8 KB · Views: 21
jjjanos said:
Which pretty much solves the problem, doesn't it? If the car is classified correctly, then it's classified correctly. It's no different than classifying the new beetle at Abrahms M1 weight. Heavy, competitive and go through consumables like Patton across N. France.
Click to expand...

awesome line, that.

I have no issue with AWD - assuming all NA - loose the toyota wagons, a few civic wagons, and other cars exluded from IT by virtue of a 5th door (how about fixing THAT??) and all you have left are base subies and what, AMC eagles? run the process, let them race.

forced induction requires a much larger discussion and review and has nothing to do with AWD other than the combo being common offerings today.
 
It's really easy to point out why "we can't do xyz". It takes skill, thought, and intelligence to to figure out a solution to a problem.

Time is moving on. Cars are making more horsepower every year. Unless we want to be saddled with racing cars with an average age somewhere around 1989, IT is going to have to evolve. That evolution will, sooner or later, need to encompass forced induction cars and AWD cars. No two ways about it.

Or we can just stick our head in the sand. Been working fine for the SCCA for quite awhile, I'm sure it'll continue to work. :blink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top