June fastrack is up

[lateapex911]

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.

And that is essentially the same thing as not classing them. Why bother when nobody in his right mind would race one?

I think we need to separate the issues, and deal with each accordingly.

As it stands, when it rains, most IT owners/cars are at a loss as to what to do to optimize for the wet. Sure, we put on rain tires, but very very few of us actually change ride height, springs, damper settings and sway bar rates. Yet, to be quick in the wet, we should. And the result of that is often a complete shake up in the results. Normally dominant FWD cars are ornery beasts in the wet, and usually upper mid pack cars suddenly shine.

And nobody cries that the rules need to be changed to accommodate that. Actually, I think that's neat....that changing conditions need to be dealt with.

So, for me, class AWD just like we do cars now. If it rains, oh well, maybe they'll win. And a normally up front car comes in second or third. Boo Hoo.


Now, on turbos, I would need to see a reliable and predictable method of restriction of power to the appropriate level. That part...(the concept) is easy. The application however, is trickier. It's certainly possible, but we would have some work ahead of us if we chose to go that route.

Down the road, when the current big picture projects the ITAC is working on are done, I can see this being a good move.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

Easy to armchair it Ron. Try it. You are familiar with the classification process. Only one rule though...no special rules for special cars.

Use the turbo Mazdaspeed Protege at 170hp please. A perfect example to start with.

 

[shwah]

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.

Wagons are allowed today.

The question about boost is a much bigger one (and it should be noted has not been asked by the CR. I would want a completely separate level of allowed prep: stock ecu, and some sort of required boost limiting device, maybe even required std data logging system to verify stock boost parameters...

 

[lateapex911]

Wagons are allowed today.

The question about boost is a much bigger one (and it should be noted has not been asked by the CR. I would want a completely separate level of allowed prep: stock ecu, and some sort of required boost limiting device, maybe even required std data logging system to verify stock boost parameters...

At first, many will object and point out that IT is a "one size fits all" category, and that all cars get the same rules. But that's not the actual case. Rotaries aren't given the same engine allowances that piston engines get, so, there is precedent for having unique rules for an engine type.

 

[tnord]

Easy to armchair it Ron. Try it. You are familiar with the classification process. Only one rule though...no special rules for special cars.

Use the turbo Mazdaspeed Protege at 170hp please. A perfect example to start with.

i don't like the idea of turbo cars, and i'm not sure why we have to include them, but i'll take a stab at the approach.

NA power is ultimately limited by three things....the volume of air you can suck into the cylinder, the amount of fuel you can spray, and how much you can compress it before ignition. while we don't process power that way currently, i think this is essentially the approach GT takes. "you can have up to x number of liters, with y diameter throttle body, and z compression ratio. have fun"

is there a similar approach using the specs from the compression side of the turbo, and assuming that thing is going to operate at max output all the time?

 

[Ron Earp]

Easy to armchair it Ron. Try it. You are familiar with the classification process. Only one rule though...no special rules for special cars.

Use the turbo Mazdaspeed Protege at 170hp please. A perfect example to start with.

Andy you know as well as I do that I've been intimately involved with some of the major changes in IT over the last couple of years. I'm willing to do the work as is the ITAC and other helpers.

But to decide or not to decide in a space of two hours on an internet forum that "its too hard" isn't going to cut it for the future of the club. I understand what you're saying and no, I'm not taking the bait and going to try to class a turbo car inside of five minutes here at IT.com. I don't expect you, the ITAC, or anyone else that wishes to help to do so either.

But the first step is to have folks receptive to the idea. You know, "Yes we can!" and all that jive.

Seriously, it is a big problem. No doubt. But it is a problem the SCCA, specifically IT, needs to come to terms with and start experimenting with.

No special rules? We've got special cars, maybe they need special rules. How long will we hold onto the "principles of IT" and so forth? Until the class as a whole as dropped off in attendance and tumbleweeds are in the paddock of IT? Yes, extreme and dramatic but you get the point, which is....

The philosophy of IT might have to evolve too, just a wee little bit....

Can I take my washer bottle out now? I am just kidding.

 

[jjjanos]

And that is essentially the same thing as not classing them. Why bother when nobody in his right mind would race one?

Because there is an ass for every seat? Someone might want to? The specifications are full of cars that nobody in their right mind would race. Two off the top of my head... New Beetle at 2760 and the GV at any weight.

Restrictor plates for the turbos might work instead of weight, but unless you get it correct at first blush, there's no way to correct the problem and you devolve to the same solution as specifing them as fat blobs.

 

[lateapex911]

Can I take my washer bottle out now? I am just kidding.

NO
and stop asking!




Ron, you're right, I think down the road, we will cross the turbo bridge.

At this point, it is a bit premature. Actually, we HAVE discussed it proactively on ITAC con calls. (the crowd gasps!) And currently the board is cautious....but I see the day when it's part of the landscape.

I think we should probably get our current house in order, (Nearly there), then perhaps proactively do some task force research. Define goals, and allowable parameters, and see what options exist for us to attain those goals. I suspect that a "theoretical" method such as Travis described would be an option that would get a serious look. (In our case it might be turbo cars use IT rules, and their weight is the result of the some calcs, maybe the IT build gain factor is different, AND there is a secondary calc, along the lines of cars with X displacement engines are required to run a Y size SIR., which would then be on it's spec line)

 

[ekim952522000]

I am 100% for N/A AWD cars we already have FWD/RWD. So I don't see how this would be any different. I will try to get my letter supporting this in this week.

<---Mike would be be all over building a 2001 Subaru 2.5 RS

 

[Jeremy Billiel]

Easy to armchair it Ron. Try it. You are familiar with the classification process. Only one rule though...no special rules for special cars.

Use the turbo Mazdaspeed Protege at 170hp please. A perfect example to start with.

Ooh ooh oohh... my street car. Now THAT is a perfect ITS FWD that I would drive!!

 

[DavidM]

I got no issues with letting in AWD cars. Run them through the process just like any other car. I'd be curious how a well prepped one would do. Seems like you'd have more driveline loss and they typically push like mofos. Yeah, they'd be good in the wet, but I drive a RWD car so I'm screwed anyways.

I think turbos will have to be tackled at some point. It's going to take a lot of thought on how to handle them, though.

David

 

[Marcus Miller]

Shouldn't you build and finish a car and actually try racing before making changes to a category?
:026:

I am 100% for N/A AWD cars we already have FWD/RWD. So I don't see how this would be any different. I will try to get my letter supporting this in this week.

<---Mike would be be all over building a 2001 Subaru 2.5 RS

 

[Greg Amy]

I found the inclusion into ITS of the 2.0L 170-hp/145 tq, higher-compression, very-large-braked Ford Focus SVT with 6-speed Getrag interesting, especially since it was given the same weight as the Integra GS-R...should be a good runner.

Go ahead and classify non-turbo AWD cvars into IT using the current process. Same as David said: lots more driveline loss, more push, typically not drive-balanced for performance. Even at the same weight as a non-AWD cousin, it still won't be generally competitive. When it rains it'll kick, but we don't classify cars within the process for anything other than fair weather.

GA

 

[lateapex911]

....... but I drive a RWD car so I'm screwed anyways.


David

I would really differ with that...

 

[titanium]

I have been thinking about this very issue.
Around here, you can get a used Jaguar X-type with a 2.5 V6, manual trans and AWD pretty darn cheap.
It's the same Ford engine and platform as a Ford Contour that was just approved for ITS, but with AWD.
If it were classed in ITS, I may just have to build one for running enduros.

 

[JeffYoung]

I actually disagree somewhat with Ron on the turbos.

Our process right now is stock hp x. expected IT gain x. class power to weight.

The problem with turbos is predicting expected IT gain with open ECUs and exhaust. We don't currently have, at least I think, the experience on the ITAC to deal with that. it's fixable, but then, for almost all turbo cars, given what can be achieved with ECU and exhaust, we probably need one if not two classes above R, and I'm just not sure we are ready for that any time soon.

 

[quadzjr]

I found the inclusion into ITS of the 2.0L 170-hp/145 tq, higher-compression, very-large-braked Ford Focus SVT with 6-speed Getrag interesting, especially since it was given the same weight as the Integra GS-R...should be a good runner.

On paper it should.. however you can't get as much power as easy as you can from a GSR.

 

[quadzjr]

I am all for AWD cars


For turboed cars the the process is a multi edged sword.

-How do you determine athat "crazy" amount of power gained with the current ECU and exhasut rule?

-Now that you have inflated (compared to old %gains) how does that translate from one turboed car to another?

-You can classify them heavy to the point that nobody would want to run them.. because for them to get the high potential output that the classed weight is based off of they have to spend gobs of money on the dyno with a stand alone ECU.

-You can add another class? but I personally think with ITR they should be covered.

Y-ou could insert an SIR however then that means that we would be forced to make competition adjustments to get it right after a while.

I agree that we need to figure out how to incoroporate all cars, turboed, AWD, supercharged, wagons, etc.. Love for all. However, there has to be a good method to do it.

 

[shwah]

I think there is plenty of room for a class, or two, above ITR.

 

[erlrich]

In other news, did anyone else find themselves wondering why the reasoning behind "Alternatively, safety fuel cells shall be constructed in accordance with FIA FT-3 or higher specifications and tested to those requirements by an independent facility as witnessed and certified by a Professional Engineer. The results of these tests shall be submitted to the Club Racing department for inclusion on a list of approved suppliers." couldn't be applied to other safety equipment regulations (either existing or in-process)?