My first, and admittedly cynical, thought was, "note the lack of required SFI rating..."
June fastrack is up
- Thread starter dickita15
- Start date
So you don't think FWD cars have an advantage in the wet?
I suspect he's alluding to his awesome ITA win in the pouring rain at NHIS a few years ago. Impressive, to say the least...
lateapex911
Super Moderator
David, no, I don't..not necessarily. And Greg, (thanks) and that's but one data point among many.
To me, the bottom line is the car setup and the other variable factors. I certainly do NOT go into a wet race fearing the FWD reaper.
gran racing
Super Moderator
And you wouldn't an AWD? 
I know the difference between a FWD and RWD isn't as much as some think (damn Alpha taking my rain win away!! lol ) - it's much more about confidence. AWD is a HUGE confidence adder.
I know the difference between a FWD and RWD isn't as much as some think (damn Alpha taking my rain win away!! lol ) - it's much more about confidence. AWD is a HUGE confidence adder.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
And you wouldn't an AWD?
Got you so mad you can't even spell!
So I got moved to ITS and missed the memo 
WOW this is quite a novel (will re-read all of it later). As far as turbo's go, it IS inevitable. Plus the turbo crowd is running being catered by NASA. The turbo cars are getting quite cheap, plus lets just throw superchargers in there as well.
Both of these devices need to be validated off of real data, no guessing. And in most cases that data is available as the most common applications are well tuned with all, or at least most (Port matching and balancing are the only two that are done one extreme builds, CAT removal is quite common), of the Improved Touring mods.
One concern is that changes to the internals of a induction device are available and hard to measure. I believe a restrictor plate would solve this, but this will again need to be done with real data.
Back to Hockey....
WOW this is quite a novel (will re-read all of it later). As far as turbo's go, it IS inevitable. Plus the turbo crowd is running being catered by NASA. The turbo cars are getting quite cheap, plus lets just throw superchargers in there as well.
Both of these devices need to be validated off of real data, no guessing. And in most cases that data is available as the most common applications are well tuned with all, or at least most (Port matching and balancing are the only two that are done one extreme builds, CAT removal is quite common), of the Improved Touring mods.
One concern is that changes to the internals of a induction device are available and hard to measure. I believe a restrictor plate would solve this, but this will again need to be done with real data.
Back to Hockey....
Of course! SCCA can only keep their head in the sand for so long. Just no new classes please, and of course, it will probably take some fiddling as I doubt the current classing/weight methods would work as is.
ericblois
New member
i do think awd and forced induction is not far away. i know ive had some good track day runs with stock powered wrx wagon that had R compunds and coil overs we were pretty even down the straights he had me by a little and though the corners i had him a little with my ITA car. i could think of at least one class for above ITR, one that might include 95-99 bmw M3's or some NA 911's from mid 90s mustang cobras 93-02 yes that 3 different body stlye mustangs
I beat a Mitsu Evo (whatthehell) in the rain soaked VIR NASA enduro a couple years ago. What-evah.
I'll start the argument again that we should create ITX - above ITR, catering to AWD turbocars and whatever other gnarly stuff we want to put in there. Just to be different, make the ENTIRE CLASS breath through the same size hole. Or use a spec muffler to restrict flow on that end.
K
I'll start the argument again that we should create ITX - above ITR, catering to AWD turbocars and whatever other gnarly stuff we want to put in there. Just to be different, make the ENTIRE CLASS breath through the same size hole. Or use a spec muffler to restrict flow on that end.
K
lawtonglenn
New member
Dave Gomberg
New member
In the Touring classes where Turbos are allowed (T2, T3), that's almost what we do. A TIR (turbo inlet restrictor) of a given size is specified to balance their performance against the non-turbo cars. (A TIR is similar to an SIR, but it installed in the turbo intake.)
Dave
JoshS
New member
isn't that exactly what ITE should be?
Out here in SFR, our very popular ITE class has wide-open rules. Basically, you start with a street car, and stay on DOT tires, and otherwise, ANYTHING GOES.
I think the proposal here would be to keep modifications within IT limits. I don't think most ITE rulesets have such a limitation. (Yes, it's a pet peeve of mind that ITE starts wtih "IT").
Z3_GoCar
New member
Have you ever seen Joe Hall's 300zx? That's like a tub-chassis GT car on DOT tires. The unibody's been swiss cheesed and reinforced with a full tube chassis. Flat bottom aero with a huge wing out back. I think he's pulling 500hp out of the 3.0 liter turbo. I believe he was profiled in Sport car a couple of years ago or so.
I think the acronym for the next faster IT class beyond ITR should be ITF, for ITFuckthisisgoingtobeexpensive.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
57
I T $
I T $
Last edited: