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

>> So what are the odds of getting the TPI 350 approved? its only 10 or 15 more horse...

I don't speak for the ITAC in this regard but the chance right now would be something approaching zero. Someone had to burn up a lot of political capital to get the options you saw listed through the system.

And there's a law of diminishing returns that kicks in pretty hard for every addition stock HP that gets added, to what is already perceived as a pretty heavy car. At some point, it's just not practical or attractive to put lead in a more powerful car to compete in any given class.

K
 
lateapex911 said:
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........
Click to expand...


No offense ment here either, Jake. I should have waited to post and mulled it over a bit more... That said, the fact remains, I don't understand where this new torque adder comes from or how/when it is applied. I thought the classification of these cars was waiting on the "torque adder" being sorted out and clarified...

Is anyone willing to take a minute or two and explain this to me? Pardon any ignorance on my part, I am very new to this.

thanks!
 
CRallo said:
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?
Click to expand...

I didn't deal with the VTS sheets on the GM cars but I'm certain we're only speaking about the 305 tuned port engine. If various engines were available with various transmissions this engine (excepting the 5.7/350 automatic) was the best one and the one with which the classification made.

Was the 350 even available with a manual transmission for the 3rd Gen F body? Torque would put it outside the envelope. The cars classed are just inside the envelope.

Ron
 
The intent on the Camaros/Firebirds was LB9 only. The 350 not only made hp near the top of ITR's stock range, but it made beaucoups torques -- too much actually to account for with a weight adder. It won't fit in ITR. Honestly, the 305 just barely does.
 
CRallo said:
officially...
Click to expand...

But we can only use "officially" in our ITCS listings. It's a first principle that is pretty sacred - no homologation special options, no back-door motorsports specials, etc.

Is anyone willing to take a minute or two and explain this to me? Pardon any ignorance on my part, I am very new to this. ...
Click to expand...

Torque (all of the "adder" factors, really) is always considered relative to other cars in a given class, since the classes as groups of cars tend to be different from one-another. For example, we can consider "brakes" as a factor but only to the degree that they are substantially bigger than other cars in the class of interest. Torque in ITR was a pretty short conversation because we basically had very low (the S2000 and RX8), very high (with the addition of the V8s) and "everything else." I'm overstating the simplicity of this but that's sufficient for this conversation, probably.

Assumptions, practices, procedures, and "the Process" that works for ITR make a dog's breakfast of classifications/specifications for ITC.

On the other hand, the torque question is very much more subtle and complex for ITA. We think it still makes a difference, particularly with some wingers like the e30 325e, but we haven't committed to paper precisely HOW or HOW MUCH difference. Ditto - albeit to a lesser degree - in ITB. Torque in ITC kind of peters out to a non issue, just because of the nature of the cars listed.

Ultimately, we have to prescribe how much, when, based on what triggers, etc. we apply these considerations; document them so we do it the same over and over again; and add it to the list of stuff we are now archiving for future ITACs. We are TRYING to build a system that will help IT continue to be the good things it is, without getting sucked into traps that have befallen other categories.

Oh, yeah - and we need to come to some kind of consensus on each of these steps. I was told today that the Declaration of Independence went from the first draft ready to congress, through ratification, printing, and distribution in less than a week...

:happy204:

Hope that answers more questions than it creates.

K
 
Knestis said:
I was told today that the Declaration of Independence went from the first draft ready to congress, through ratification, printing, and distribution in less than a week...

:happy204:

Hope that answers more questions than it creates.

K
Click to expand...

yea, but they weren't discussing anything that carries the weight of car racing...and they were in the same room.

Good answer regarding the adders. Chris, the V8s have monster torque compared to others in the class, so an adder was pretty straightforward there. They also have other drawbacks that can't be mitigated with IT prep, so they got some breaks as well. (These are applied to other cars as well, if they share teh same architecture)

Will they be the perfect all around decathlon car that has the best chance on any track?? Probably not, but certain tracks will suit their strengths.

Like any car in IT, choose carefully and accept the advantages and warts.
 
Looking forward to racing those pony cars - it'll be great to have more competition in ITR - bravo ITAC! Well done getting the pony cars classed right - I think they will struggle on the short tracks but will be solid on the fast tracks.

Hopefully we see more gals and guys getting into the club and racing these cheaper platforms.
 
I can't speak for the F-bodies, but the Mustangs can actually be quite nimble. They require scraping the rear suspension for a 5-link or Torque arm, but they work after that. Once I corrected this issue with my ITB Mustang the car was completely different. Gear ratio choices make it easy to get them to come off the corners at the slower tracks aswell. I am excited about this and hope some body wants my old races cars so I can get started on this soon...........:happy204:
 
lateapex911 said:
With all the ITAC guys posting here, why didn't you ask us about the status? We would have been as truthful as possible.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Jake, just kinda venting. Bought the AS several months ago and really put the ITR V8 thing outta my head, since I thought it was a dead issue. My racing partner was the real impetus for the Camaro; he's a V8 RWD kinda guy. Just woulda been nice (read cheaper) to do it under the IT ruleset ...
 
Rabbit07 said:
I can't speak for the F-bodies, but the Mustangs can actually be quite nimble. They require scraping the rear suspension for a 5-link or Torque arm, but they work after that. Once I corrected this issue with my ITB Mustang the car was completely different. Gear ratio choices make it easy to get them to come off the corners at the slower tracks aswell. I am excited about this and hope some body wants my old races cars so I can get started on this soon...........:happy204:
Click to expand...

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but can the suspension be re-worked this extensively in IT? I know you can go to the 5-link or torque arm in AS and that other club, but I thought you had to run with what FoMoCo gave you. I could be way off base, however. . :shrug:
 
There's a couple of clauses in the ITCS about Panhard rods and other axle locating devices, so there's actually quite a lot that can be done.

K
 
Steam Corners said:
Not that I have a dog in this fight, but can the suspension be re-worked this extensively in IT? I know you can go to the 5-link or torque arm in AS and that other club, but I thought you had to run with what FoMoCo gave you. I could be way off base, however. . :shrug:
Click to expand...

As I said on the other forum; the rear of the mustang is akin to a first gen Rx-7; with the Rx7, and there is enough latitufde to run a 3rd link and panhard rod there, so it should be straight forward enough on a Mustang to do legally.
:eclipsee_steering:
Marcus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top