May 2009 Fastrack - It's the end of the world as we know it

No different from Mazdas, or Porsches, or VWs or Hondas or any other car with lots of aftermarket/tuner support.

madrabbit15 said:
With all of the cheap go fast goodies so readily available for these cars, my guess is there is going to be a need to police them, and it will be quite difficult task at that. Other than that, they should be a great addition to ITR.
Click to expand...
 
CRallo said:
3330?! ouch! damn...

a random and completely subjective 100 lbs adder for a car that already can't handle, can't stop and can't breath past 5000 RPM!?

that's just great! So much for that idea...
Click to expand...

No offense Chris, but that comment is more random and subjective than the classification. There was nothing random nor subjective...all the numbers were voted on by a large committee, and each one was considered carefully. Also, some of the cars got breaks for their hardware, or configuration.

In the end, truly subjective qualities, like "handling" get nothing. Handling doesn't make a fast racecar, it makes an easy to drive racecar. Many evil handling racecars have won many events in the hands of skilled drivers.

For many drivers, these cars will allow admittance to a fast class for lesser class budgets, and I'm sure we'll see some V8s winning races.

And V8s, American cars, etc, have been in IT for a long time. Nothing new here........
 
Thanks for the response, the early car should have been rated at 205, Ford admitted that it was overrated at 225 and they upped it by 10 from 205 in '93 to 215 for '94 via the EECIV to EECV switch. I uderstand that this is immaterial due to the ECU rule. The fact is the car to have if it can make weight is the 94-95 with its more aerodynamic, stiffer chassis and rear discs.

matt
 
Ron will need to respond, but I thought the early car had a much different (and better) intake manifold than the SN95, leading to the higher horsepower rating.
 
Knestis said:
Re: the Golf II "weight is correct," Chris S. has been patient enough with the ITAC, he deserves to hear that he should interpret that as meaning we generally perceive inconsistencies in ITB to be AROUND that car - not WITH that car.

Look for future news for details...

K
Click to expand...

Thanks Kirk. I really appreciate the commentary beyond what is contained within the Fast Track. Should have read this board first I guess.
 
xr4racer said:
Thanks for the response, the early car should have been rated at 205, Ford admitted that it was overrated at 225 and they upped it by 10 from 205 in '93 to 215 for '94 via the EECIV to EECV switch.
matt
Click to expand...

Yep, this is true but one of those things that was hard to quantify or do anything with in an official capacity. The 94-95 cars had a poorer intake that comes from the T-brid and eventually got used on the low line 94/95 cars.

In the end, the power potential for these motors is probably somewhat even in IT trim. But instead of using anecdotal evidence and so forth I'm glad the ITAC simply used the published specs. It might not be 100% exactly correct but it is a step in the right direction.

In the first draft of the proposal I only had 94-95 Mustangs in there along with the F bodies. Everything had disc brakes all around and that sort of made the playing field more even. Added the others to try and broaden the proposal a bit.

In the future we may need to tackle the modular SOHC 96-98 4.6L 2V 215hp cars with the non-performance improved heads. Not sure what to do with the 350 4th gen F bodies, they just make a lot of hp stock and be hard to put in ITR.
 
Ron, thanks for the clarification, the Fox body in IT trim with a driver and no ballast will probably be under 3050. It is going to need a lot of ballast to race at 3260.

matt
 
lateapex911 said:
In the end, truly subjective qualities, like "handling" get nothing. Handling doesn't make a fast racecar, it makes an easy to drive racecar. Many evil handling racecars have won many events in the hands of skilled drivers.
Click to expand...

Then why do strut cars get a weight deduct?
 
xr4racer said:
Ron, thanks for the clarification, the Fox body in IT trim with a driver and no ballast will probably be under 3050. It is going to need a lot of ballast to race at 3260.

matt
Click to expand...

no difference from say a ITB 914 with about 230lbs a ballast..
 
JeffYoung said:
Chuck, look at page 6 -- I think IT, SS and SM are still excluded from complying with the FIA fuel cell rules.
Click to expand...

I hope I'm reading this wrong but it appears to me that while IT cars are exempt from having to have a fuel cell those of us who do install one will have to comply with the FIA standard. Thoughts?
 
I puzzled over that for a while, but it looks like to me the intent was to require cars that HAD to have fuel cells use FIA; without affecting those that are not required. I think that is the better interpretation, but I agree it is not 100% clear.
 
Thanks Greg, I didn't realize this had come up before. I don't think the change has any impact on the debate, and I do agree with Dick...but see the other side (and have an FIA cell in my car).
 
F Body Engines

Hi guys,
This is great news. Time to start looking for an F-Body w/o T-roofs. I recall reading the initial proposal some time ago. Are the Camaros/Firebirds classified the TPI 305 or the carbed version or both? I recall them both having 9.3:1 compression.
Thanks.
Joel
 
jimmyc said:
Then why do strut cars get a weight deduct?
Click to expand...

"Handling" is subjective, and often includes "telepathic response" "Great steering feedback", "Naturally balanced", etc. Struts are physical properties that don't operate as effectively as control arms. There is empirical evidence that tradeoffs need to be made to get the best from them, but those come at the expense of other factors.

The main attraction in the rulesmakers eyes is, I think, the black and white nature. yes/no. Feel good stuff is way more subjective, and not always consistent with faster lap times. Ultimately, we could run every car thorough a much more complete formula/process or LapSim, or both, but, unless we really nail that down, it won't get us anywhere better than where we are now. Our main goals are consistency, repeatability and transparency.
 
I too am surprised by the weight difference of the '89-'93 and '94-'95 Mustang classification. Track width on the later cars is about 2" wider. (Fenders are wider too - the 2" holds true in IT trim). They have longer control arms up front, and a wider axle out back. Older cars get a weight break in AS for this and other factors. Seems odd it's backwards in IT.

Couple other things I noticed for the Mustangs. No '87 or '88 cars? No 16" wheels for the early cars (they came with them)? And convertibles are allowed (not that you'd WANT a convertible, but you know someone would just because they could)?
 
tderonne said:
Couple other things I noticed for the Mustangs. No '87 or '88 cars? No 16" wheels for the early cars (they came with them)? And convertibles are allowed (not that you'd WANT a convertible, but you know someone would just because they could)?
Click to expand...

See post #26 for a brief explanation of the proposal and why it had a limited scope. The proposal needed to be direct and simplistic for the best chance of getting through. Now that it is approved I'm sure you can petition to class earlier Foxs, later Foxs, or other F Bodies.
 
tderonne said:
I too am surprised by the weight difference of the '89-'93 and '94-'95 Mustang classification. Track width on the later cars is about 2" wider. (Fenders are wider too - the 2" holds true in IT trim). They have longer control arms up front, and a wider axle out back. Older cars get a weight break in AS for this and other factors. Seems odd it's backwards in IT.

Couple other things I noticed for the Mustangs. No '87 or '88 cars? No 16" wheels for the early cars (they came with them)? And convertibles are allowed (not that you'd WANT a convertible, but you know someone would just because they could)?
Click to expand...

The process isn't going to parse out track differences. In mixed marque racing.... it's just not going to get that fine. Same for longer control arms. The cars with greater hp get more weight, and adders can subtract or add to that.
 
Griff944T said:
Hi guys,
This is great news. Time to start looking for an F-Body w/o T-roofs. I recall reading the initial proposal some time ago. Are the Camaros/Firebirds classified the TPI 305 or the carbed version or both? I recall them both having 9.3:1 compression.
Thanks.
Joel
Click to expand...



the TPI 305 (LB9) is the engine being called for here. I am pretty sure the HO carbed 305 (L69) was gone by that point although it may have still been available in '87. Or were you refering to the TBI 305 (LO3) engine?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top